HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-21
FIN A L
7:00 P.M.
September 21, 1994
Room 7, County Office Building
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet) .
Public Hearing to receive views of citizens within the school district
(Albemarle County) on the appointment of a member to represent the
Charlottesville Magisterial District on the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD.
SP-94-22. Charles W. Hurt. Public Hearing on a request to establish
modular and mobile home sales on portion of TM45,P109 [30.6.3.2(b)].
Property zoned HC in EC District, located in NW corner of inters of
Rt 29N & Kegler's access rd. Site recommended for Regional Service
in Comprehensive Plan. Charlottesville Dist. (Property is located
in a designated growth area.)
SP-94-24. Free Union Country School. Public Hearing on a request to
amend SP-90-82 to permit expansion of existing building for an
office and art room. Property consists of 426 ac zoned RA is
located on W side of Rt 601 approx 300 ft E of Rt 601/Rt 665 inters.
TM29,P15D. White Hall Dist. (Property is not located in a
designated growth area.)
ZMA-94-10. Broomley Farm, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to amend
ZMA-80-16 to permit modification of access. TM59A1,PB. Property is
portion of open space for Ivy Creek P.R.D. Located on S side of Ivy
Creek Dr approx 200 ft E of Broomley Rd. Samuel Miller Dist. (This
site is not located in a designated growth area.)
ZMA-94-04. Forest Lakes Associates. Public Hearing on a request to
rezone 12.08 ac from R-1 & R-4 to R-10 (9.73 ac) & C-1 (2.35 ac),
proffered. Located on S sd of Rt 649 at N end of Timberwood Pkwy.
Site recommended for low density residential (1-4 du/ac), high
density residential (10.01-34 du/ac) & neighborhood service in the
Comprehensive Plan. TM32,P29F & TM46B3,P1. Rivanna Dist.
ZTA-94-5. Fees. Public Hearing to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in Section 35.0, Fees, to allow fee reduction for uses
that may be subject to multiple fees, minor expansions to
non-conforming uses and the like, and family divisions that
necessitate a special use permit.
Request to set public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority to extend water service only to
existing structures for Lewis A. Martin, Jr., (Tax Map 59, Parcel
12F1) in Oak Knoll Subdivision.
Resolution to authorize eminent domain action for Berkmar Drive project.
Approval of Minutes: December 16, 1992; March 10, October 20, and
December 15, 1993; August 24, 1994.
Executive Session: Property and legal matters.
Certify Executive Session.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
12a)
13)
13a)
13b)
14)
15)
The Board will hold an executive session under Va. Code Sections
2.1-344.A.1 (property) to discuss acquisition of property and
2.1-344.A.7 (legal) to discuss pending litigation.
CONSENT
AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Resolution to accept Cling Lane in Crozet Crossing Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
5.2 Appoint Director of Finance and Housing Coordinator as trustees of the Crozet
Crossing Housing Trust Fund.
FOR INFORMATION:
5.3 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for August 9, August 16 and August 30, 1994.
5.4 Notice of application filed by Traveling Eagle, Ltd., t/a Blue Ridge Sedan Service,
with the State Corporation Commission for a certificate as an executive sedan
carrier.
5.5 Notice of application filed by Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., with the State
Corporation Commission for approval of pilot programs to promote the installation of
certain high efficiency gas appliances.
5.6 Copy of Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and
Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies (on file in Clerk's office).
5.7 Memorandum dated September 8, 1994, from James D. Campbell, Executive Director,
Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), re: proposed changes to VACo by-laws.
5.8 Copy of VACo's Board of Directors minutes for August 14, 1994.
5.9 Copy of Public Involvement Process for the Virginia Department of Transportation and
the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, dated October, 1994.
5.10 Memorandum dated September 7, 1994, from V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning &
Community Development, to Robert w. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: review of
Crozet-Brownsville transmission water main installation for compliance with
Comprehensive Plan.
5.11 Statements Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the Beginning of the First Day
of January, 1994, of the Following Properties in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
State Taxes Extended for the Year 1994, made by the State Corporation Commission of
Virginia (on file in the Clerk's office):
a) Electric Light and Power Corporations;
b) Water Corporations;
c) Gas and Pipeline Distribution Corporations;
d) Telecommunications Companies (local exchange telephone services, interexchange
services, radio common carrier systems, cellular mobile radio communications
systems and telegraph services) .
5.12 1993 Development Activity Report prepared by the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
5.13 Letter dated September 6, 1994, from the Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres, Housing of
Delegates, to the Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman, re: "linked deposit"
affordable housing initiative.
5.14 Copy of letter dated September 14, 1994, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, addressed to The Daily Progress, Letters to the Editor, re: review of
Comprehensive Plan.
5.15 Memorandum dated September 19, 1994, from Ellen Davenport, VACo, to County Board
Chairs. re: attached letter to Governor on unfunded mandates.
5.16 Memorandum dated September 20, 1994, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive,
re: update on the Gainsharing Program.
5.17 Copy of memorandum dated September 16, 1994, from Carole A. Hastings, Acting
Superintendent, to Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive. re: presentation on
site-based management.
5.18 Letter dated September 15, 1994, from H. Alexander Wise. Jr., Director. Department of
Historic Resources, re: workshops for Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks.
5.19 Letter dated September 19, 1994, from David R. Gehr, Commissioner, Department of
Transportation, re: approval of roads in Mill Creek, Section 6, into the Secondary
System, effective September 19, 1994.
5.20 Memorandum dated September 21, 1994. from Robert W. Tucker. Jr., County Executive,
re: VACo concerns on sentencing and parole reform.
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsvil1e
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
FROM:
v. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk Ð.A.J G--
September 22, 1994
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board Actions of September 21, 1994
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on September 21, 1994, the
following actions were taken:
Agenda Item NO.1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:00
p.m., by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Ms. Daria Brezinski, a resident of Crozet, asked the Board to designate a
task force to consider the construction of a skating park within one year.
She asked the Board to immediately designate a location for skating in the
Crozet area. Mr. Tucker indicated that Amy Smith is looking at this issue
and will make a recommendation on how to proceed. That information will be
forwarded to the Board when it is received.
Mr. Jeffrey A. Leach, President of Foreign Language Services, presented a
statement requesting the Board to amend Section 5.2.2.1.c. of the Zoning Ordi-
nance in connection with the definition of "home occupation". Mr. Martin
asked staff to take a look at this section and bring back a proposed revision
to the language for the Board to consider.
Ms. Betty Hutchinson, operator of the Hydraulic Market/Rock Store at the
intersection of Hydraulic and Rio Roads, asked the Board to do whatever it
could to help her with VDoT. The construction plans for the improvements to
Hydraulic Road would take the entrance and parking area of her property. Mr.
Bowerman commented that he has scheduled a meeting with Angela Tucker, Dan
Roosevelt and Ms. Hutchinson for next Thursday to discuss alternatives. He
will make a report to the Board at the October 5 meeting.
*
Printed on recycled paper
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
September 22, 1994
Date:
Page 2
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Resolution to accept Cling Lane in Crozet Crossing
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached
resolution.
Agenda Item No. 5.2. Appoint Director of Finance and Housing Coordinator
as trustees of the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund. APPROVED the appoint-
ments.
Agenda Item No. 5.13. Letter dated September 6, 1994, from the Honorable
Mitchell Van Yahres, Housing of Delegates, to the Honorable Walter F. Perkins,
Chairman, re: "linked deposit" affordable housing initiative.
Mr. Martin asked for more information on linked deposit. It sounds like
a good idea and he thinks it is something the Board should discuss. Mr.
Tucker said the Housing Coordinator is already looking into this. Staff will
provide some additional information to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 5.20. Memorandum dated September 21, 1994, from Robert
W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: VACo concerns on sentencing and parole
reform.
Mr. Perkins said he would present a statement on behalf of the Board at
the meeting to be held on Monday, September 26, at Albemarle High School.
Mrs. Thomas suggested the statement include the fact that income is
derived from housing federal prisoners. This is an income source for many
local facilities and if state prisoners are overcrowding the jails, that would
decrease the number of federal prisoners and cut down on the income source.
Mrs. Humphris said the statement should also address the problems jails
are faced with due to overcrowding and that localities have no way to deal
with the expanded number of prisoners.
Agenda Item No.6. Public Hearing to receive views of citizens within
the school district (Albemarle County) on the appointment of a member to
represent the Charlottesville Magisterial District on the ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD.
Held, no action. Appointment to be made on October 5.
Agenda Item No.7. SP-94-22. Charles W. Hurt. Public Hearing on a
request to establish modular and mobile home sales on portion of TM45,P109
[30.6.3.2(b)]. Property zoned HC in EC District, located in NW corner of
inters of Rt 29N & Kegler's access rd. Site recommended for Regional Service
in Comprehensive Plan. Charlottesville Dist. APPROVED SP-94-22 subject to
the following conditions:
1. No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsel or other attention
getting devices shall be allowed;
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
September 22, 1994
Date:
Page 3
2. Use is limited to a maximum of eight (8) units at anyone time, including
the office.
(6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No.8. SP-94-24. Free Union Country School. Public Hearing
on a request to amend SP-90-82 to permit expansion of existing building for an
office and art room. Property consists of 426 ac zoned RA is located on W
side of Rt 601 approx 300 ft E of Rt 601/Rt 665 inters. TM29,P15D. White Hall
Dist. APPROVED SP-94-24 subject to the following conditions:
1. If licensure is not required by the State Welfare Department, this
approval shall be construed to include waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of the
Zoning Ordinance. All other requirements of Section 5.1.6 shall be met;
2. Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated, and is non-
transferable;
3. Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendation of the Site
Review Committee, provided that enrollment shall in no case, exceed
fifty-five (55) students;
4. Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Standards
for Licensed Child Care centers;
5. Expansion shall be limited to 300 square feet.
(6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No.9. ZMA-94-10. Broomley Farm, Inc. Public Hearing on a
request to amend ZMA-80-16 to permit modification of access. TM59A1,PB.
Property is portion of open space for Ivy Creek P.R.D. Located on S side of
Ivy Creek Dr approx 200 ft E of Broomley Rd. Samuel Miller Dist. APPROVED
ZMA-94-10 subject to the following condition:
1. Access limited to Broomley Road only and no access onto Brook Road. This
condition shall not prohibit the connection of a private driveway from
the Broomley Farm property to the roads serving the subdivision.
(6/0)
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-94-04. Forest Lakes Associates. Public Hearing
on a request to rezone 12.08 ac from R-1 & R-4 to R-10 (9.73 ac) & C-1 (2.35
ac), proffered. Located on S sd of Rt 649 at N end of Timberwood Pkwy. Site
recommended for low density residential (1-4 du/ac), high density residential
(10.01-34 du/ac) & neighborhood service in the Comprehensive Plan. TM32,P29F
& TM46B3,P1. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED ZMA-94-04 subject to the following
proffers as set out in letter dated August 24, 1994, from Stephen N. Runkle,
The Kessler Group, to Wayne Cilimberg, Albemarle County Department of Planning
and Community Development:
1. Provide access from Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-01, to the west to align with
access as shown on the rezoning for Tax Map 32, Parcel 29 North
(ZMA-91-08) .
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
September 22, 1994
Date:
Page 4
2. Dedicate, at the time of subdivision plat approval, a thirty (30) foot
strip across the State Route 649 frontage for future road improvements by
the County of Albemarle or the Virginia Department of Transportation.
3. Reserve for dedication up to nine (9) feet beyond the thirty foot
dedication aforementioned for construction of a bike path. The applicant
will not be responsible for the construction of the bike path.
4. Install a chain link fence approximately four (4) feet in height along
the applicants' western boundary, or the eastern boundary of Tax Map 32,
Parcel 29N2.
Mr. Martin and a representative from the Engineering Department to meet
with Mr. Frank Jones, an adjacent property owner to the west, to discuss his
complaint that he is being flooded on the lower end of his property which is
adjacent to the townhouses in Forest Lakes.
(5/0/1 vote¡ Bowerman abstained)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-94-5. Fees. Public Hearing to amend the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0, Fees, to allow fee reduc-
tion for uses that may be subject to multiple fees, minor expansions to
non-conforming uses and the like, and family divisions that necessitate a
special use permit. ADOPTED the attached ordinance retroactive to January 1,
1994. Amended Zoning Ordinance sheets to follow under separate cover.
Mrs. Thomas asked staff to keep track of the fees collected for a year to
determine the impact of this fee reduction.
Staff is to bring back ZTA-94-04 on October 5 on the consent agenda for
the Board's withdrawal.
(6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No. 12. Request to set public hearing to amend the service
area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to extend water
service only to existing structures for Lewis A. Martin, Jr., (Tax Map 59,
Parcel 12F1) in Oak Knoll Subdivision.
SET public hearing for October 12, 1994 to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to extend water service
only to existing structures in Oak Knoll Subdivision.
(6/0 vote)
Agenda Item No. 12a. Resolution to authorize eminent domain action for
Berkmar Drive project.
ADOPTED the attached resolution.
(6/0 vote)
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
September 22, 1994
Date:
Page 5
Agenda Item No. 13a. Executive Session: Property and legal matters.
Agenda Item No. 13b. Certify Executive Session.
Both items DELETED from the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Martin requested that the Board meet with City Council periodically
even if there are no agenda items to discuss. The Board requested that
potential agenda items for discussion with City Council be added to the
October 5 agenda. Mrs. Thomas asked that the Board be provided a copy of PACC
minutes to see what has been discussed between City, County and University of
Virginia.
Mrs. Thomas said there is a natural history museum located in Martins-
ville with a branch in Charlottesville. A strike force is suggesting some
major changes in the museum in Martinsville. Other localities around the
state are interested in relocating the museum to their area. She thinks the
Charlottesville-Albemarle area should pursue this. Board members concurred
with Mrs. Thomas' suggestion that Mr. Tucker contact the City Manager and
draft a resolution to be forwarded to the state, museum board and strike force
requesting that this area be considered as the location for the museum.
Mr. Davis announced that a declaratory judgement has been filed challeng-
ing the Board's denial the of Todd Shields petition.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
EWC:mms
Attachments
cc: Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Bruce Woodzell
Larry W. Davis
File
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, finds that two
temporary construction easements, a permanent guardrail easement and right-of-way over a certain
portion of a parcel of real estate located on an extension of Berkmar Drive in the Charlottesville
Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia, are needed by the County for public purposes, said
parcel designated as Parcel 68c on Albemarle County Assessor's Tax Map 45 and more fully
described below; and
WHEREAS, such easements and right-of-way are necessary in order to layout, construct,
operate, and maintain the road known as Berkmar Extended over the affected portion of this parcel;
and
WHEREAS, bona fide offers have been made to the property owner to purchase such
easements and right-of-way, however, such negotiations indicate an impossibility of an agreement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia hereby authorizes the acquisition of two temporary construction easements, a
permanent guardrail easement and right-of-way across a portion of this parcel of real estate as more
fully described below, and further authorizes the filing of a Certificate of Take, the entry upon and
taking possession of the property for public purposes and the initiation of condemnation proceedings
pursuant to Sections 15.1-238(B) and (C) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and Section
25-232.01 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, against the following described property
located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia:
That portion of a certain parcel ofland containing 42,602.23 square feet, shown and
designated as "Right-Of-Way 18,945.79 sq. ft.," "Temporary Construction Easement
10,042.11 sq. ft.," "Temporary Construction Easement 13,554.33 sq. ft.," and
"Guardrail Easement 60.00 sq. ft." on plat of Wiley and Wilson, dated April 15, 1994,
a copy of which is attached hereto. This is a portion of the property belonging to
Charlottesville Realty Corp., by deèd recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of the County of Albemarle, Vrrginia, in Deed Book 815, page 79. By deed of
trust dated July 6, 1988, of record in Deed Book 1002, page 451, the subject property
was conveyed to Jerry H. Mathews and Harold D. Morris, Trustees, to secure an
obligation payable to Sovran Bank. The property is further identified as Tax Map 45,
parcel 68c, and is located on an extension of Berkmar Drive, Charlottesville
Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby
authorized to sign the Certificate of Take on behalf of the Board of Supervisors; the County Attorney
is directed to prepare and send a notice to the property owner by certified mail on September 22,
1994, setting forth the compensation and damages to be offered by the County to the property owner
for the value of the land taken pursuant to this Resolution; and the County Attorney is further
directed to prepare and file the Certificate of Take and a Notice and Memorandum of Lis Pendens
with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County.
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
September 21, 1994.
Resolution # 9 4 . 0921 (1 7 )
92194.RES
2
ORDINANCE NO. 94-20(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 20, ZONING, SECTION 35.0, FEES,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 35:0, Fees, is hereby amended and reordained
effective January 1, 1994, by amending section 35.0 as follows:
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning
administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be
accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing
such application.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all
original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under
"family division" as defined under section 18-56 of the
subdivision ordinance - $175.00. (Amended 1-1-94)
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use
permit to allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use -
$85.00. (Amended 1-1-94)
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00.
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $390.00.
(Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00.
(Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres -
$1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00.
(Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including
appeals of zoning administrator's decision) -$95.00, to be
refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is
overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $10.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.0011000 square feet.
f. Final site develoPII1ent plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary
site development plan - $900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary
site development plan - $630.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size,
location - $75.00.
b) Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review
board - $160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of supervisors -
$190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of
supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not
be refunded. $50.00 fee shall be required to reinstate
project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape
waiver by agent - $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site develop-
ment plan:
1. Road - $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
1. Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
J. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use
permit or zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the
first bond estimate - $45.00.
1. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00
o. Sign Permits
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by
the architectural review board - $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board -
$60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under
Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the
extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section.
Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any
application. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given,
no part of the fee will be refunded.
35.1
FEE ADJUSTMENT (Added 1-1-94)
The provisions of 35.0 notwithstanding, fees shall be adjusted under the
following circumstances: ,
a. In such case in which a preliminary site development plan and/or
preliminary subdivision plat is filed as supportive of and to be reviewed
simultaneously with an application for zoning map amendment and/or
special use permit, no fee shall be applied for review of such
preliminary site development plan and/or preliminary subdivision plat.
b. In such case in which multiple special use permits are required by
operation of this ordinance to establish an individual use, the largest
single fee shall be applied to the review of all such special use permit
applications.
·
c. In such case in which determination is made subsequent to filing any
application under 35.0, that such application is not required to allow
establishment of the use, such application fee shall be refunded in full.
(Added 1-1-94)
This ordinance shall be effective retroactively to January 1, 1994.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of
an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors at a regular meeting
held on September 21, 1994.
ld- {0
· .
\,-~ ,
_2' /0 194 "''''.---
September 15, 1994
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
When growing numbers of diverse people begin to live in close proximity to one
another, the increasing possibility of conflicts of interest makes it both reasonable and
necessary that a way should be found to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals and
groups from infringement, thus creating a state of justice and peace. To this end
governments have been invested by the people with power to enforce certain actions and to
prohibit others, preserving everyone's rights by limiting everyone's freedoms to some
degree.
Zoning is one expression of this legitimate exercise of governmental power in a
community. By zoning, the County government dictates the purpose(s) for which all land
and buildings in the County may be used, thus limiting the free exercise of property rights
by County citizens. This is done, we take it, in order to preserve for ourselves and our
posterity a community which embodies a balance between our values of order and freedom,
between group well-being and individual well-being. This is a noble goal, and, when
achieved, saves us from the chaos of anarchy.
There is another danger, however, which consists in upsetting the balance in the
direction of unnecessary government infringement of individual rights and freedoms,
resulting in injustice. Zoning is such a vital point for the preservation of these freedoms
due to the simple fact that having a right necessitates having a place in which to exercise
that right; religious people in the former Soviet Union had freedom of religion according to
the paper Constitution--only there was no place on the map zoned for the exercise of that
freedom. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, the power to control what happens
where is a good place to begin our vigil.
In light of the recent zoning and freedom issues raised by the Tom and Kathy
Kuhlmann case, which received a hearing here on August 10th of this year, I would like to
examine a County ordinance which I believe upsets the abovementioned balance in the
overcontrolling direction, point out its inadequacies, and offer revisions which are both
workable and fair. Section 5. 2. 2. 1. c. of the Albemarle County Code states: "There
shall be no sales on the premises, other than items handcrafted on the premises, in
connection with home occupation."
Lest anyone accuse me of trying to fix something that ain't broke, let me point out,
as Mr. Martin so astutely observed, that this home-based business issue could very well set
precedents for similar cases in the future, and hence must not be treated as an issue isolated
to the Kuhlmanns but as an issue which touches and will touch each and every resident of
the County. Furthermore, as Mr. Martin correctly speculated, this issue affects far more
people than I think you may realize, people who not only can and will make this an issue in
the next election but who are not adverse to taking it before a court of law.
Home-Based Businesses
For some time now, the land of U.S. counties has been segregated into various
zones according to use. The two that concern us here are commercial and residential.
Commercial zones are necessary for many types of businesses; residential zones are
desirable by many citizens. Let them continue to flourish. In their flourishing, however,
let us have fair and equitable ordinances which protect the property rights of all citizens,
including the right to dispose of property as we see fit--even within residential zones--when
the salient effects of such activity are not noticeably different from the salient effects of
other, less regulated activities. This means revising the ordinance in question for the
following reasons:
2
First, living as we do in the American tradition of limited government defended by
the likes of John Locke and our own Thomas Jefferson, we believe that life, liberty,
property, and the pursuit of happiness are sacred rights held by each citizen, and,
moreover, that those rights end, and our responsibilities to our neighbor begin, where our
actions impede our neighbor's free exercise of those same rights. But does the sale of
items not hand-crafted on the premises constitute such an impediment to the free exercise of
our neighbor's rights? It seems, rather, that the ordinance constitutes such an impediment
by needlessly restricting the free exercise of those rights enumerated in the very first article
of the Constitution of Virginia--"namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means
of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and liberty. II
Such a strict zoning ordinance prevents the acquiring and possessing of property by means
of certain home businesses which are not only harmless but even helpful to the community,
thus limiting the liberty and happiness of the citizenry.
Granted, the building a brick factory in my back yard or a smithy in my front yard
would adversely affect the community. But the home-based businesses of today--even
those dealing in products--are not those of yesteryear. Profoundly different business
structures (multi-level marketing businesses, for example), new methods of operation
(decentralized distribution, for example), and new tools and technology (computers, fax
machines, and modems, for example) make many of the laws and ordinances which sought
to protect neighborhoods from smokestacks and sizable staff more and more archaic.
But if not by smokestacks and large numbers of personnel, then how, exactly, is
my neighbor affected--Iet alone violated--if I transact business in my home (whether
involving a service or a product)? Regular traffic, we are told, is the problem; it is of such
a volume as to constitute a violation of our neighbors' rights. But this is not so. If the
traffic were limited to one person per lifetime (certainly presenting no congestion
problems), this would still be in violation of the strict County ordinance. Moreover, when
we look to other activities in the community whose effects (including traffic) evidence no
discernible differences from the effects of business transactions, we find an inequity. If
my in-home business transactions bring forth no discernibly different effects in the
community than do weekly Bible studies next door or a weekly fraternity party two doors
down, what reason or justice can there be in placing a restriction on the first activity but not
on the latter two?
If you answer that some activities are given--and should be given--privileged status,
and that religious activity is one of those, I heartily concur with you. Far be it from me to
encourage bureaucratic regulation of religious activity, the freedom of which is dear to
Americans and protected by the U.S. Constitution above either business or social
gatherings. Nor am I asking that the County regulate social gatherings which do not violate
the rights and freedoms of others. But is it reasonable or fair to regulate one activity more
strictly than another when there is no salient, observable difference between the effects of
those various activities on the community?
Certainly we may give special protection to certain kinds of activities, but giving
privilege to one activity does notjustify taking away all privilege from another activity.
Moreover, if we are to rank. the three kinds of activities mentioned above, how can small
business come below parties, which are at times not only riotous scenes of unlawful
activity and burdensome traffic, but which bring little to no profit to the County? Are we
really to believe that Dr. and Mrs. Kuhlmann's commercial activity (so lately rendered more
difficult by the County), while involving less than ten people a week was nevertheless
more disruptive than a weekly frat party? I think not. If such events as religious and social
gatherings are allowed, and if there is no reasonable distinction between their effects and
those of commercial activity, then my second point is that no distinction between them in
zoning ordinances can be either reasonable or just.
Thirdly, even within the realm of business the ordinance is inequitable. It is
inequitable in the first place by drawing an arbitrary distinction between businesses which
deal in goods and businesses which deal in services, prohibiting the sale of certain material
3
goods, while allowing services such as one-chair beauty shops. But what difference can
really be made between selling such a service and selling a product? Certainly one's
neighbors outside wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Perhaps you might say the
inventory is a problem. But how does having inventory in one's house violate the
freedoms of one's neighbors? Answer: it doesn't. Traffic? It need not generate any more
traffic than a service, and perhaps even less.
In the second place, the ordinance is inequitable in that it draws an even more
arbitrary distinction between hand-crafted and manufactured goods. What salient
difference can there be between selling a string of beads or a pot one handcrafted at home
and one which was manufactured in California? Inventory again? But the jeweler and the
potter have inventory. Perhaps traffic in the fonn of too many UPS deliveries? But don't
many people have regular non-commercial UPS deliveries? Will you limit or prohibit them
also? Moreover, don't the jeweler and the potter have deliveries to their homes for
commercial purposes even? What's the salient difference then between selling hand-crafted
items (whether haircutting or jewelry or pottery) and selling manufactured items in the
home insofar as it affects anyone at all in the community in any conceivable manner? There
is no material difference; therefore, there should be no distinction between them in the
code.
Fourthly, business at home is good for the family, not only in that it is, by and
large, a more economical way to create wealth than traditional businesses, thus helping
families financially, but it also provides a unique opportunity in our atomizing society for
parents and children to interact with one another on a more regular basis than is otherwise
possible. Such a situation is a boon for the psychological and emotional well-being of
both--especially the children. Kathleen Christensen, director of the National Project on
Home-Based Work in New York City says, "'The home is viewed as the perfect place for
entrepreneurship. There are tax advantages, minimal capital needs and low overhead. And
it seems ideal for mothers of young children,"'l who are thereby able to care for their own
children on a more regular basis. And not just mothers: fathers, who are at last returning
home to work in significant numbers for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, can
now take on a more active role in raising the children. Unfortunately, governments do not
always encourage such welcome and progressive changes: a Maryland woodworker and
father "who worked at home to care for his three children, moved his business to West
Virginia to avoid prosecution" such as that leveled against nearby communications
consultants who ran a business out of their home.2 May we always protect and aid the
family, the primary social unit of any civilization.
Fifthly, is it reasonable to squelch activities which not only do not hurt the County
but which actively help it? The free enterprise of home-based businesses not only
stimulates economic growth, keeping more people off the public dole and increasing the
overall wealth through economic interchange, but it also provides another source of tax
revenue for the County. The ordinance is, pragmatically speaking, a foolish rejection of
possible tax revenue, something I would never heretofore have suspected that the County
would refuse.
Sixthly, the ordinance is so vague as to render it either useless or dangerous. It is
useless if we are looking for a clearly defined thing which is actually being prohibited.
.What is "hand-crafted"? Are legal services hand-crafted? How about television repair? I
have been told by Zoning that to have more than three people in my home per week for
tutoring would be in violation of the code; I have been told by the Board of Supervisors
that it would not be in violation of the code, since services are included under "hand-
1 "Mulling a Home Business? Tips to Help Plan the Leap," Chicago Tribune:
May 10, 1992,6,9:3.
2 "Work and Family," Wall Street journal: July 13,1994, B11.
· ,
4
crafted," and thus protected from the ordinance. An ordinance should be clear enough so
that the right hand and the left hand can have an easier time agreeing with one another.
Furthennore, it must be clear enough so that the freedom of a citizen (to provide a service
in-home, for example) is not dangerously contingent on the good graces of the present
Board of Supervisors in their loose interpretation of "hand-crafted It ; for then the freedom
might easily be taken away by the next Board, who can interpret it as differently as the
Zoning office has in fact done.
Seventhly, the cost of enforcing such an ordinance makes it prohibitively
expensive, while the possibility of enforcing it makes it both haphazard and inimical to civil
rights. First of all, how exactly would one enforce such an ordinance? Does the County
intend to hire Anti-Residential Business Investigators to visit every home in the County to
ascertain compliance? Could it even do so without unwarranted searches and seizures?
Furthennore, when enforcement can only be haphazard, what will prevent some neighbors
from reporting on people not because they are entrepreneurs in violation of the code, but
because they are not of the "right" color, politics, religion, (fill in the blank)? How can
civil rights be protected in such a situation? Lastly, as is the case in other issues, it is the
law-abiding citizens who suffer from such an ordinance, not the outlaws; the outlaws will
carry on the same as always, so if we can't or won't seek out and punish everyone engaged
in such activity, how can it be morally defensible to punish only the honest?
Eighthly, as mentioned earlier, there is a growing trend of people coming home to
work. According to a recent survey by Link Resources, a New York market research finn,
between 1989 and 1993 the number of Americans working at home jumped from 26.8
million to 41.1 million.3 This same finn "predicts that by the year 2000, people who own
home-based businesses will represent one-third of the work force, working out of
kitchens, attics, dens, garages and basements. "4 The times, they are a-changin', and
retaining the present ordinance will not stop this movement toward home-based wealth-
creation; it will only make the lives of more and more people (including County
Supervisors) more and more difficult, and who needs that? New situations, including new
business ideas and paradigms, call for new legislation. Let's join the 21st century
commerciall y here in Albemarle County.
Nineth and lastly, other local governments both in Virginia and in other parts of the
country have no such restrictive legislation, but even encourage free enterprise. The village
of Lynwood, Illinois; the city of Las Vegas, Nevada; Green County, Virginia; the cities of
Santa Monica and Davis, California. Even previously tight-reined areas are loosening up;
"as technology is allowing a greater number of people to work out of their dwellings,
municipalities across the nation are reconsidering their restrictions on home businesses. "5
Compared with such progressive communities, Albemarle County is unduly strict in
prohibiting free enterprise--indeed, the free enterprise of the small business person, the
ordinary citizen. Surely the home of Thomas Jefferson can do better.
In short, if the nature of the activity has no salient and discernible differences in
effect from other activities which do not violate the freedoms of other citizens, and if the
number of people coming to the home is not considered to be problematic in other, similar
cases, then what, exactly, is the problem? Answer: the ordinance is the problem. It is
unjust, unreasonable, economically disadvantageous to both entrepreneurs and the County,
inimical the family, inequitable in its distinction between kinds of business, too vague,
unenforceable, and out of sync with current economic trends and the corresponding laws of
other local governments; consequently, it must be revised.
3 "There's No Place like Home," Los Angeles Times: August 26, 1993, E3.
4 "Mulling."
5 "Towns Trying to Cope with Home-business Boom," Chicago Tribune:
September 7, 1993: 1,1:1.
· .
5
I would suggest the following revision: that business transactions in residential
zones be as allowable as any other kind of free activity which does not violate the rights of
others. Regarding the issue of regular traffic, if this is to be regulated at all, let it be a
reasonable limit. Three per week (the number that Zoning reported to me as the limit) is
unreasonable; it is so low below the point of noticeability that the total harm it incurs is far
greater for the entrepreneur than the total peace it engenders for others. A reasonable traffic
limitation, along with the present ordinances about no external noticeability of the business,
no undue noise, etc. would accomplish all the good goals at which the ordinance aims
without infringing on the liberty and property rights of small businesspersons.
The Integrated Community
There is, additionally, a more long-term solution which we must consider,
however, and that is the integrated community of what is known as an "overlay district."
Even a cursory tour of our downtown area of Charlottesville will reveal an earlier period in
which business and home-life lived comfortably side by side. Nor is the wide-spread
segregation of these activities the case any longer in several progressive communities.
Renowned architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk have designed several
functional and attractive communities in which both commercial and residential areas are
integrated. Seaside, North Carolina is one such community.6 At present the planning
commission in Crozet is discussing a plan for a similar community with Dr. Clemente
Dithiene, a period lecturer at the University of Virginia. 7 In such a community, for
example, the ground floor of a building might contain shops, the second floor offices, and
the third floor apartments, while large and small houses, as well as businesses, houses of
worship, schools, etc., might be situated among one another within an area a mile or less in
radius.
Such a community has several advantages over the recent business sector vs.
residential pod design. First and foremost, the new design lends itself to the reintegration
of American communities, which, by and large, have been in steady disintegration since the
end of the Second World War; they create again the neighborhood feel characteristic of
small-town America and certain sections of such cities as Philadelphia. Diversity is,
happily, one of the characteristics that keeps our American society vibrant as well as an
example of peaceful and ordered justice to the rest of the world; it can, nevertheless, be a
source of social unrest. The interspersion of people who are different ethnically,
economically, religiously, and politically lends itself structurally to the knitting together of
the diverse American fabric; what has worked in the public school system and the military
can work in the Integrated Zone. Familiarity breeds fondness at least as often as it breeds
contempt.
Secondly, they provide a support for the family, allowing care of the children to be
more easily combined with earning a living; a man and woman whose home sits next to or
above their business can nurture their own children much more easily, a noted benefit for
the healthy development of the children if recent studies and most of human history are to
be believed, as well as a personal and economic benefit for the parents, who form closer
ties with their children and no longer need pay for extended hours of child-care.
6 See Seaside: Making a Town in America. Ed. by David Mohney and Keller
Easterling. New York: Princeton Architectural Press: 1991.
7 Incidentally, see the piece on Crozet, "Program in American Urbanism,
School of Architecture, University of Virginia," in Future Directions in
American Urbanism: An Academic Perspective. Selected by Dripps, Planus,
and Westfall. Charlottesville, VA: Second Street Gallery, 1991.
· .
6
Thirdly, they allow the flourishing of small businesses, the traditional backbone of
the American economy, the right of all free-born people, and a significant contributor to
County tax revenue. Economic freedom and political freedom cannot long survive without
one another; nor can a government forever support programs to "help" people who, if
allowed and encouraged by incentives to do so, could take far better care of themselves.
Let it be noted again that regardless of what we do as regards zoning, the burgeoning
numbers of Americans coming home to work will continue to increase; better to work with
history than against it in this case.
Fourthly, as Mr. Perkins pointed out to me, some have argued that integrated
communities cut down on crime. In traditionally segregated communities, houses are often
left unattended all day, while businesses are left unattended all night. This escalates the
risk of break-in and theft, which in turn escalates costs for owners, insurance companies,
and courts and prisons. Integrated communities, on the other hand, have a much more
constant exposure to the watchful eye of the citizenry, reducing the risk of crime and its
personal and economic costs.
Fifthly, the interspersion of the economically challenged among the wealthier
members of society limits the formation of ghettoes. This not only hampers drug deals and
violent behavior, but also makes us more aware of human need and puts us in more of a
position to fill that need on a person-ta-person basis, surely the best way to do so from
both a sociological as well as an economic point of view.
Sixth and lastly, such neighborhoods allow easy and convenient transportation,
allowing many to go to work, to the store, to school, to worship on foot or by bicycle, not
only better preserving the environment and County roads, decreasing the risk of car
accidents, and making daily access to public places easier for the elderly, the young, and
the disabled, but also saving gas, as well as wear and tear on vehicles.
For these reasons and others which cannot be analyzed in the brief time we have
here, I ask that the Board of Supervisors carefully and advisedly consider adopting a third
kind of zoning in the Comprehensive Plan on which it is presently working--the Integrated
Zone, in which enterprise and home life might flourish more easily and productively in an
emerging economic environment whose new and progressive nature calls for new and
progressive planning. Old paradigms are not always the best paradigms. Albemarle
County can be an example for the rest of the Commonwealth in riding the tide of change in
a way which still retains cherished values while using new methods to productive ends.
Summary
In conclusion, I have proposed two complimentary courses of action for the Board,
one short-term, one long-term:
(1) that it revise the present restrictions on business transactions in Residential
Zones to allow free enterprise under certain just and reasonable traffic limits; and
(2) that it thoroughly investigate the option of an Integrated Zone in the
Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County.
I thank the Board most sincerely for your thoughtful and open-minded
consideration of these items. I believe their adoption can do nothing but enhance the
quality of life here in Albemarle County and provide an example of good planning and
development to the Commonwealth as a whole.
Sincerely yours, {/ /
~a.~
JE~Y ~EACH
President
Foreign Language Services
4
,
t
David P. Bowerman
O1arlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivaon.a
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouetl
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Peter Parsons, civil Engineer II
Department of Engineering
FROM:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~ c....
September 22, 1994
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Resolutions to accept roads into the State Secondary
System of Highways
At its meeting on September 21, 1994, the Board of
Supervisors adopted the following resolution:
Resolution to accept Cling Lane in Crozet Crossing
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of High-
ways.
Attached are the original and four copies of the resolution.
EWC:mms
Attachments
*
Printed on recycled paper
4
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle county, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 21st day of September, 1994, adopted the
following resolution:
RES 0 L UTI 0 N
WHEREAS, the street in Crozet crossing Subdivision described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 21, 1994,
fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the road in Crozet crossing Subdivision as described
on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 21, 1994 to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reauirements;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unre-
stricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements
for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby guarantees the
performance of Cling Lane, for a period of one year from the date
of acceptance into the Secondary System of Highways, against
defective materials and/or workmanship up to a maximum of $7500;
and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a èertified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
* * * * *
Recorded vote:
Moved by: Mrs. Humphris
Seconded by: Mrs. Thomas
Yeas: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr.
Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
Nays: None
Absent: None
A Copy Teste:
Resolution #94.0921(16)
. ,
~
¡::
;:I
0
~ ..... U
tI.l 0-.
i I ....
........ 0
t!J ~
H ~
II: .....
(
fiI r-I
~ ~
'tt .. Cd
E-t GJ ¡:: a
GJ
tI.l .. ~ (
., .Q
.... Q U r-I
0 ., 0:(
..
:e: .. ..
¡:: 0<
fiI GJ
E-t §
tI.l
:>4 1-1
..
tI.l III
¡::
:>4 H
~ >.
..
~ GJ
1-1
0 ::t
U tII
fiI 0
tI.l
fiI ¡::
II: 0
E-t .....
..
0 ::t
.....
E-t 0
III
tI.l GJ
Z P:
0 III
H 1-1
E-t 0
III
H .....
Q t
~ ID ¡::
Po
::t .,..¡
Q tII IQ
fiI .... IQ
tI.l 0
0 0 ~
ø. 'tt u
0 1-1
ø: ., ~
0
ø. ØI (
N
!iii 0
..... ~
¡:: u
0:( 0
10 ID ¡::
¡::
I 0 0
ø: .,..¡
tI.l .I( IQ
U -,..¡
§ GJ >
.<:
2 .,..¡
0 "C
.... 0 '§
..
tI.l tI.l
Z ..
0 ¡:: I .
GJ
H ~ 0
E-t
H u GJ
Q ., ~
..
~ ..
0< Z
1-
M - >=
is
~ - tn
'- - 0
-c(
~ - 0
a::
3,'
~ ~ ~
'fJ ð
~I ¡;¡
III
.<: ID
.......
m..... N
¡::x ~ ~
GJ .
..:I ID
¡:: 0 0
¡::.....
0.....
.....1-1
.. ID
.........
'tt ¡::
'tt GJ
o<u
...
....
.....
...
"'0 GJ
III ..
ID .. tn
.. ß: Cd
0 u.... (
z .. r-I
..
III ... .,..¡
::t · :e:
.'"
0 ..
GJ .0
¡:: ~.... r-I
.... Cd
., ....
..... .:I... ~
..... 0 0
ID "'0 E-t
u 3'"
III 0'"
..... ....
x ...
...'"
'"
::i;!
~
..
:c....
1- 0
0.<: ..
I ..
P:'tt
.....
:c
..
.. ...
.. ·
....
.... ;
·
~
~ ·
.. ..
u ·
· '"
..... ·
"
¡:: · · · · ·
.. ..
..... ~ .. .. .. .. ..
e :::! .. · · · ·
... '" '" '" '"
ID ...
Œ-< .. ...
..
¡:: ... 0
0
0 .. ... ... ... ...
..... ..
.. '" g g g g
.. ·
..... · .. .. .. ..
'tt g " '" '" '" '"
~ ... · · · ·
.. · · · ·
· :;:: " " " "
.. u
... ,
ID '" ..
GJ · ..
1-1 '"
.. · u '"
tII ~ ·
0 ·
... , · · · · ·
þ · .. .. .. .. ..
· '? · · · · ·
" " " " " "
"'... ... '" '" '" '"
· ~ '"
.. u · ~ · · .:J
0.. '" '" '"
· .. " .. .. .. ..
'" 0 0 0 0 0 0
¿ o u u u u u
'" · · · · ·
. ¿ .. .. .. .. ..
ft~ .. ft .. ~ .. ft .. ft ..
· · · · ·
.... 0 .... .. 0 .... .. f, .... " 0 .... .. f, ...
...... .. '" ... .. '" ... '" ... .. '" ... '"
..
ID
GJ GJ
1-1 ¡::
.. Cd
tII ..:I
....
0 tn
ID ¡::
m .,..¡
r-I
Z U
....0 ....
GJz '" .... . ..
IU I I I I
GJ
m
.,
¡::
.....
.,
1-1
'tt
'tt
¡::
.,
III
.....
.....
.....
....
III
..
::t
U
1-1
0
....
III
..
¡::
ID
EI
GJ
III
.,
ID
i7
.,
III
III
ID
U
ID
¡::
~
.,
....
0
ID
>
.....
III GJ
::t >
..... 0
u .Q
I< .,
GJ
>. 'tt
GJ
., ..
) .,
I t u
.... .....
0 'tt
I ~ ¡::
.. .....
.<:
m U ..
..... ~ ¡::
1-1 GJ
.... E-t §
0 0:( u
0
.<: 'tt
.. ....
'tt 0 ID
..... .<:
) Z ..
'tt 0 ....
ID H 0
GJ E-t
.. ..
¡:: ð 1-1
., .,
1-1 H Po
., ....
::t .,
U H
E-t III
ø: .,
III fiI 'tt
ID U GJ
.. .....
0 ....
z .....
..
1-1
GJ
U
III
.....
..
¡::
GJ
~
U
.,
....
..
.,
III
.....
IU .<:
Œ-<
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Cling Lane, showing a 50 foot right-of-way, from the end of
previous dedication state Route 1226 (intersection with state
Route 1207), 0.42 mi to the end of cUl-de-sac, as shown on
plat recorded on 9/25/92 in Deed Book 1255 on pages 413 to 415
in the office of the Clerk to the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County. Additional drainage easement plat in deed book 1430,
pages 348 to 351. Total length 0.42 mi.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ella Carey, Board of Supervisors Clerk
FROM: Peter Parsons, Civil Engineer II ~rfJ
DATE: September 13, 1994
RE: Crozet Crossing
The road serving the above referenced subdivision is
substantially complete and ready for a VDOT acceptance
inspection. Attached is the completed SR-5(A) form for a
resolution, which I request be taken to the Board for adoption at
your next opportunity. The following section should be added to
the resolution:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby
guarantees the performance of Cling Lane, for a
period of one year from the date of acceptance
into the Secondary System of Highways, against
defective materials and/or workmanship up to a
maximum of $7,500.
Once the resolution has been adopted, date and sign the SR-5(A)
and please provide me with the original and four copies.
Thanks for your assistance. Please call me if you have any
questions.
PJp/
Attachment
" , . .
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesvi!le
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972·4060
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miner
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
Lynne Carruth, Housing Coordinator
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~
September 26, 1994
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund
At the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 21, 1994,
you were appointed as the County trustees for the Crozet Crossing
Housing Trust Fund.
EWC:mms
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Theresa Tapscott
George E. Loper
*
Printed on recycled paper
.J .
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~,:._-~".(ì..-!ff·:,?Ÿ__.._"_~:.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLEs Crozet Crossing Housing
Housing Trust Fund
AGENDA DATE s
September 21, 1994
ACTIONs
~TEM HUMBERs
Itf,()QZ((S- <?)
INFORMATIONs
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUESTs
Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund -
Appointment of County Trustees
CONSENT AGENDAs
ACTIONs X
INFORMATIONs
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF COHTACTIS)s
Messrs. Tucker, Carruth
REVIEWED BYs
BACKGROUND:
As previously presented to the Board of Supervisors, a certain portion of the funds invested
in the Crozet Crossing project has been recaptured and placed in a trust fund for future
affordable housing activities. The fund has been established and will be administered by the
Albemarle County Department of Finance. Recommendations for funding will be made by a five
member board of trustees. Two of the trustees will be appointed by the County, two by the
Charlottesville Housing Foundation and one by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program.
DISCUSSIONs
All of the documents and actions necessary to activate the trust fund have been completed
with the exception of the appointment of the trustees. As the County's trustees, it is
recommended that Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance and Lynne Carruth, Housing Coordinator
be appointed.
RECOMMENDATIONs
Appoint Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance and Lynne Carruth, Housing Coordinator as
trustees of the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund.
,..
. ~
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 94 0 8 2 . br'(:~, '1-~ . ~ í
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION Q. ¡J-cl~YI. j
DGCU('ìE;:¡ u)¡; ¡íWL.
AT RICHMOND, AUGUST 18, 1994
F~" 'w· 18
APPLICATIÖ~-ÖF
O!I 'J. I.~
'Ì", v' Y L
TRAVELING EAGLE, LTD.,
t/a BLUE RIDGE SEDAN SERVICE
CASE NO. MCS940104
For a certificate as an
executive sedan carrier
INITIAL ORDER
IT APPEARING to the State corporation Commission
("Commission") that an application has been filed, pursuant to
Title 56 Chapter 12.8 of the Code of Virginia (1950), by
Traveling Eagle, Ltd., t/a Blue Ridge Sedan Service, for a
certificate as an executive sedan carrier to transport passengers
between all points within the Commonwealth of Virginia;
IT FURTHER APPEARING to the commission that the Applicant
should be directed to give public notice of its application, and
interested members of the public should be given the opportunity
to file written comments concerning the application, as well as
the opportunity to object to and/or request a formal hearing
thereon; accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) That on or before September 13, 1994, the Applicant
shall serve a true copy of this Order on the mayor or principal
officer of each city or town and/or the chairman of the board of
supervisors of every county in which the Applicant maintains
offices. Service shall be made by receipted registered mail, or
~
. \
by first-class mail, to the last known address of the person to
be served. If service is effected by first-class mail, proof of
service shall be verified by an affidavit submitted by the
Applicant certifying compliance with this paragraph;
(2) That any person who desires to file a written comment
on, object to, or request a formal hearing on the application,
shall file on or before October 4, 1994, an original and fifteen
(15) copies of said comments, objections, or requests with the
Clerk, state Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center,
P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216, and simultaneously send
a copy thereof to Traveling Eagle, Ltd., d/b/a Blue Ridge Sedan
Service, Thomas J. Heilmann, 145 Ednam Drive, Charlottesville,
Virginia 22903;
(3) That the Applicant shall, on or before September 13,
1994, publish the following notice in a newspaper having general
circulation in the area or areas where the Applicant maintains
offices:
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that Traveling
Eagle, Ltd., t/a Blue Ridge Sedan Service,
has filed an application for a certificate as
an executive sedan carrier pursuant to
Title 56 Chapter 12.8 of the Code of Virginia
(1950). A description of the authority
applied for may be obtained by writing Judy
Petersen, Deputy Director, Motor Carrier
Division (Rates and Tariffs), P.O. Box 1158,
Richmond, Virginia 23219 or by telephoning
(804) 371- 9683.
Any person who desires to file a written
comment on, object to, or request a formal
hearing on the application, shall file on or
before October 4, 1994, an original and
fifteen (15) copies of said comments,
2
,
. ~
objections, or requests with the Clerk of the
state corporation commission, c/o Document
Control Center, P.o. Box 2118, Richmond,
Virginia 23216, and simultaneously send a
copy to Traveling Eagle, Ltd., d/b/a Blue
Ridge Sedan Service, Thomas J. Heilmann, 145
Ednam Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903.
(4) That an attested copy of this Order shall be mailed by
the Clerk of the Commission to Traveling Eagle, Ltd., d/b/a Blue
Ridge Sedan Service, Thomas J. Heilmann, 145 Ednam Drive,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903; and to Judy Petersen, Deputy
Director, Motor Carrier Division (Rates and Tariffs) .
A 1 rue COpy ~ ~. ~'i...
Teste: Clerk of the
State Corporation Commission
3
COMMONWEALTH - '~, ' ... 'J J
GAS / , .I> "
~ - . , ; '1_''"~
Gas Services
September 1, 1994
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Application of Commonwealth Gas Services. Inc. for Approval of Pilot Proarams to Promote the
Installation of Certain Hioh Efficiencv Gas Aopliances. Vscc Case No. PUE940042
To whom it may concern:
An Order issued on August 22, 1994 by the Virginia State Corporation Commission in the above-captioned
proceeding requires that Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc. <-Commonwealth") serve a copy kf the
Commission's Order For Notice on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of each affected county and
on the Mayor or manager of each affected city and town (or equivalent official) in which Commonwealth
provides service.
Enclosed is a copy of the Commission's Order for Notice in the above-captioned proceeding.
Very truly yours,
Iiwf¡Lj¡3rA;Ut~Úv--
I
Kristen J. Brown
Attorney
KJB/dee
Enclosure
14
Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., 200 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 117, Columbus, Ohio 43216-0117
¿
\.. see OFF I. 0 f GEN. eo UN TEL: 804-371-9240
\.
Aug 22'94
13:27 No.OOS P.02
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
AT RICHMOND, AUGUST 22, 1994
APPLICATION OF
COMMONWEALTH GAS SERVICES, INC.
CASE NO. PUE940042
For approval of pilot programs to
promote the installation of certain
hiqh efficiency gas appliances
ORDER FOR NOTICE
On June 15, 1994, Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc. C"CGSII or
IICompanyll) filed an application requesting approval of three
pilot programs to promote the installation of certain high
efficiency gas appliances and new gas technologies in its
Virginia service territory. Under the proposed program, CGS will
provide funding to pay partially the incremental capital CO&t ot
certain high efficiency natural gas appliances and will
accumulate gas consumption data at the installation sites. The
data will be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness for the
proposed pilot programs under tests mandated in Case No.
PUE900070 to determine whether such programs should ultimately be
made permanent. CGS's proposal to implement the pilot proqrams,
however, i. conditioned upon Commission approval of the Company's
request to defer the direct costs associated with the pilot
programs.
In support o~ its application, ccs state. that it has
identified three conservation and load management programs for
r..idential and small commercial markets. The three pilot
programs will ba conducted to encourage the installation of high
e~ticlency natural gas space heatinq and water heatinq equipment.
¡
~SCC OFF I. of GEN. CO UN TEL:804-371-9240
Rug 22'94
13:28 No.OOS P.03
\ .
CGS estimates that 1,000 natural qas high e~flciency units will
be ina~alled during an approxi~ate two year period. The three
propoaa4 pilot programs include:
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS
1. High Efficiency Natural Gas Furnace Program Equipment:
92t AFUE (Annual Fuel Utilization Effioiency) High
Efficient Natural Gas Furnaces with Optional set-back
Thermostats
Egtimated Annual Participation: 375 Units the first
year and 350 Units the second year
Incremental Cost: $7S0/unit
Proposed Incentives: $300/unit
Projected savings: 17 MMBtu/year (residential measure)
49 MMBtu/year (commercial measure)
York Triathlon System Program
Equipment: York Triathlon Natural Gas Heating and
Cooling Systems
Estimated Annual Participation: 25 Units the tirst year
and 50 Units the second year
Incremental Equipment Cost: $3,200/unit
Proposed Incentives: $l,OOO/unit
Projected savings: 39 MMBtu/year (residential measure)
168 MMBtu/year (commercial meaaure)
3. Hiqh Efficiency Water Heater Program
.
2.
,
~
!:
~
. .'
Equipment: 0.62 EP (Energy Factor) Water Heater.
Estimated Annual Participation: 100 Units the first year
and 100 Units the second year
2
I see DFFI. of GEN. eDUN TEL:804-371-9240
~
Rug 22'94
13:28 No.OOS P.04
\
Zncramental Equipment Cost: $112/unit
Proposed Incentives: $100/unit
Projected savings: 3 MMBtu/year (residential measure)
31 MMBtu/year (commercial measure)
CGS anticipates that 1,000 hiqh efficiency units will be
installed in both residential and commercial sectors, exclusively
in the Northern and Southern CGS regions, specifically served by
the Culpeper, Fredericksburg, Manassas, Petersburg, and Portsmouth
local area offices. For pilot program purposes, CGS will limit
annual participation to 500 unit installations (with a cumulative
participation goal of 1,000 units). The 500 annual installations
are proposed to be targeted to both existing and new customers.
CCS states that each of the proposed three programs will be
offered for a period of two years from the date of commencement.
The programs will provide one-time rebates as an incentive to
encourage residential and small commercial customers to purchase
high efficiency natural gas equipment instead of less efficient
models.
CGS asserts that the proposed pilot programs will allow the
Company to obtain more accurate cost and performance data in
oonductinq a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to determine
.
whether to seek permanent program approval in Virginia. Further,
the proqrams will reduce emissions and total resource anergy
consumption by encouraging and assisting consumers to purchase
high efficiency natural gas equipment rather than less efticient
equipment. The program will also decrease natural gas demand
during peak periods and increase natural gas demand during off-
3
see OFFI. of GEN. eOUN TEL:804-371-9240
,
Rug 22'94
13:29 No.OOS P.OS
\ .
peak periods to improve CGS's load factor. Finally, the programs
will stimulate the economy through increased employment by usin9
I CGS's application should be docketed and assigned Case No.
\./
PUE940042; that the Company should provide notice ot its proposed
,~
demand side resource as an alternative to supply resources. ,~.~
Under the Commission's Rules Governing Utility Promotional ~~ ~~V
P->f'~~ I
Allowances, the Commission may grant approval of pro1rams offering
promotional allowances if the Commission finds ~e -pr;c¡;am t:be -;. ~
~_.__. .---- ---... - -- ~
in the public interest. \\l~ \I. ?
NOW THE COMHXSSION, havinq considered this mattar~. finds that öí~~
~~~0F
tl
~(~~\
'<V
programs; that the Commission Staff should investigate the
reasonableness of the proposed programs, and that a periOd of time
wherein interested person might comment upon the application or
request a hearing should be established. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) That CGS's application shall be docketed and assigned
Case No. PUE940042¡
(2) That on or betore August 26, 1994, CGS shall make copies
of its application and supporting inrormation available tor pUblic
inspection durinq regular business hours a~ all of its oftic___
where customer bills may be paid¡
~ -------
(3) That within rive (5) business days or receipt of a
writ~.n request tor a copy of the application, CGS ahall serve
upon any person making such request a copy or the application and
all relevant materials now or hereafter filed with the Commission
in aupport thereot. Request tor copi.. ot the application .hall be
served upon CGS through its coun.el, Kri.ten Brown, Commonwe.lth
4
. '
see DFFI. of GEN. eDUN TEL:804-371-9240
Rug 22'94
13: 29 No. OO_~.._P., .O?" _
\
Gas Services, Inc., 200 Civic Center Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43216.
(4) That on or before September 5, 1994, CGS shall complete,
by publi5hin~ as display advertising once in newspapers of general
circulation throughout ita .ervice territory, the following
notice:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY
COMMONWEALTH GAS SERVICES, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF
PILOT PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN
HIGH EFFICIENCY NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES
CASE NO. PUE940042
On June 15, 1994, Commonwealth Gas
Service, Inc. ("CGS", or "Company") filed an
application requestinq approval of pilot
programs to promote the installation of
certain high efficiency gas appliances.
Under its proposal, CGS will provide one-time
rebates as incentive to encourage residential
and small commercial customers to purchase
high efficiency natural qas equipment instead
ot less efficient models.
CGS has identified three conservation
and load management programs for residential
and commercial customers. The programs
include: (1) High Efficiency Natural Gas
Furnace Program (with optional 8et-back
thermostats); (2) York Triathlon Heating and
Cooling system Proqram¡ and (3) High
Etficiency Water Heater Program. Incentives
will range from $100 to $1,000 depending on
the installed equipment. For more
information, pleas. consult the Company's
application. Copies ot the application may
be requested from the Company's counsel,
Kristen Brown, Commonwealth Gas Services,
Inc., 200 Civic Center Drive, Columbus, Ohio
43216. The Company will serve a copy of the
application and all supportinq information
filed with the Commission within fivQ (5)
business days of receipt ot a written request
tor aame.
i~
,
Ij
;1
~i
fJ
..
A copy of the Company's application is
al.o available for inspection durinq regular
business hours at all of its offices where
customer bills may be paid, and trom 8:15
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at
",
5
see OFFI. of GEN. eOUN TEL:804-3?1-9240
Rug 22'94
13:30 No.OOS P.O?
\ .
the State Corporation Commission's Document
Control Centar located on the first floor of
the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virqinia.
Any interested person who wishes to
comment upon or request a hearing on the
proposed programs shall tila such comments or
request with William J. Bridge, Clerk of the
state Corporation Commission, Docu~ent
Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond,
Virqinia 23216, on or bet ore October 11,
1994, and shall serve one copy on the
Company. Requests tor hearing should state
specific grounds upon which the Commission
should grant a hearing. The Commission may
act on the papers tiled in this case without
conveninq a hearing.
All written co~munications to the
Commission regarding this proceeding shall
refer to Case No. PUE940042 and shall be
directed to the Clerk of tha Commission.
COMMONWEALTH GAS SERVICES, INC.
~
~
I,
,
(5) That on or before september 6, 1994, CGS shall serve a
copy of this Order on the chairman of the board of supervisors of
each affected county and on the mayor or manager of each aftected
city and town (or equivalent official) in which the Company
provides service. Service on the officials shall be made by first
class mail to the customary place of business or residence of the
~
Þ.
r:~
~
person ..rved¡
.~:
(6) That on or before October 11, 1994, any person desirinq
to comment on the Company's application or to request a haar1nq
shall file with the Commission such comments or request a8
provided in Rule 5:12(a) ot the Commission's Rules ot Practice and
'. i
\.'
:.
. '
, i
. I
Procedure and shall ..rve a copy on CGS throuqh ita counael,
Kristen Brown, Commonwealth Gas Services, 200 civic Center Drive,
Columbu8, Ohio 43216¡ Requests tor hearing should state specific
,.
6
see OFFI. of GEN. eOUN TEL:804-371-9240
Rug 22'94
13:30 No.OOS P.08
\. . "
grounds upon which the commission should grant a hearing;
(7) That the Commission staff should investigate the
reasonableness ot the proposed programs and tile a report on or
bafore October 25, 1994; and
-----~ --------
(8) That discovery in thia ~att.r shall be governed by Part
VI of the RUles, except that the Company shall make response to
interrogatories within ten (10) days of receipt ot same.
----
AN ATTESTED COpy hereof shall be sent by the Clark ot the
Commission; Kristen Brown, Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc.,
.'
200 civic Center Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43216; Edward L. Petrini,
Office of the Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel,
101 North 8th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, and the
Commission's Divisions of Economic and Finance and Energy
Regulation.
7
President
Peggy R.. Wiley
Greensvill~ County
President-Elect
William H.H. BJevins
Smyth Count;'
First Vice President
Harper R. Wagner
Bath County
Second Vice President
Katherine K. Hanley
Fairfax County
Secretan¡~ Treasllrer
E. VirgiI" Sampson Jr.
Scott County
Immediate Past President
Harry G. Daniel
Chesterfield County
Region 1
Gregory L. Duncan
Accomack County
Region 2
Marion B. Williams
Prince George County
Region 3
Rudolph V. Jones
Charles City County
John A. Waldrop Jr.
Henrico County
Arthur S. Warren
Chesterfield County
Region 4
John J. Purcell Jr.
Louisa County
Region 5
Charles W. Curry
Augusta County
Region 6
John M. Nolan
Orange County
Region 7
Ferris M. Belman Sr.
Stafford County
Hubert S. Gilkev III
Rappahannock Co~nty
Region 8
William J. Becker
Prince William County
Thomas M. Davis III
Fairfax County
Robert B. Oix Jr.
Fairfax County
Michael R. Frey
Fairfax County
Gerald W. Hyland
Fairfax County
John O. Jenkins
Prince William County
Mary Margaret Whipple
Arlington County
Regioll 9
Wanda C. Wingo
Botetourt County
Regioll 10
J. Michael Davidson
Campbell County
Mason A. Vaughan Sf.
Pulaski County
Region 11
M. Jav Hubble
Smyth County
Regioll 12
James H. Gibson
Lee County
Past Preside1lts
Kathleen K. Seefeldt
Prince William County
W.o. Gray
Richmond County
Jack D. Edwards
James City County'
Executive Director
James O. Campbell, CAE
IJ:\ Gelleral COli IlSe/
\CtI C. Flippo Hicks
~,
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
1001 East Broad Street
· Suite LL 20 · Richmond, Virginia 23219-1901 . (804) 788-6652 . fax (804) 788-0083
M· E· M·a· R. A· N· D. U· M ~Dlo...t.-..~--,.~...~.~.:L~.'.';.'- !~:~~~~~~TI..
n \ { SEP 12 1994 '¡ i¡!
All County Administrators ¡ I '1 },._~._. . ; ¡
(to be shared with Boards of Supervisotls).,\ L':::J ¡"d )
James D. Campbell, Executive Director ~ 'i:. ..
Proposed Changes to V ACo By-Laws
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
September 8, 1994
Pursuant to Article XVII, Section 2 of V ACo's By-Laws, this constitutes
notice to the V ACo membership that the V ACo Board of Directors recommends
proposed changes to the V ACo By-Laws.
The following proposed changes will be considered (and voted upon) by the
Regular Members at the Annual Business Meeting on November 15, 1994 at The
Homestead:
1.) Article IV. Section 2-Insert the word "steering" before "committee."
2.) Article VI. Sections 4 and 5-Interchange these sections.
3.) Article VI. (new) Section 5-After the tenn "board of supervisors" insert "or a
valid proxy."
4.) Article IX. Section 2-After "representation" insert "such regional directors
shall be selected at the annual meeting by the member counties located
within the region which the director will represent."
5.) Article IX. Section 2-After "designate" insert "at least."
6.) Article IX. Section 2-After "one member of the Board" delete "who is not an
officer."
7.) Article XI. Section 2-After "a candidate for" delete "positions" and insert
"President-Elect, First Vice-President, Second Vice-President and
Secretary- Treasurer."
8.) Article XIV. Section 3-Strike "Operations Committee" and insert "Budget and
Finance Committee" twice.
(Enclosed for your infonnation is a copy of the by-laws as they would read if all
changes are approved.)
[IDœffi~V
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
BYLAWS
ARTICLE I
NAME AND LOCATION
Section 1. Name. The name of the organization shall be the Virginia Association of
Counties, an instrumentality of Virginia political subdivisions authorized by the Code of Virginia.
Section 2. Location. Offices of the Association shall be located as may be detennined by
the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE II
OBJECTIVES
Section 1. The objectives of this organization shall be to (a) foster cooperation and unity of
purpose on the part of the counties of the Commonwealth; (b) facilitate an exchange of views,
experience, policies and practices between the officials of these counties and county officials
serving in other states; (c) encourage the counties to operate on a more efficient and businesslike
basis; (d) cooperate with the officers of the State and Federal government to improve the general
conditions of the government and people of the counties; (e) advocate legislation in the interests of
the counties; (f) engage in activities designed to strengthen, preserve and promote local self-
government in the counties; and (g) disseminate infonnation and provide good will and public
relations on behalf of the counties.
ARTICLE III
REGULAR MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. County Membership. Every county of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall be
eligible for regular voting membership in the Virginia Association of Counties.
Section 2. Former county membership. Former counties which have become a part of a
municipality through consolidation or merger with an adjacent municipality shall also be eligible for
regular voting membership in the Association. The term "county" as it appears in these Bylaws
shall be construed to include such merged or consolidated jurisdictions; and the term "board of
supervisors" shall be construed to include the governing body of such jurisdictions.
ARTICLE IV
ASSOCIA TE MEMBERSHIP
Section 1. Qualification. Associate membership may be available to any organization or
individual interested in the objectives of the Association.
Section 2. Participation. Policies governing the participation of associate members,
including the establishment of dues for such members, shall be determined by the Board of
Directors; provided, however, that associate members shall not have voting privileges within the
Association, nor shall such members be eligible to serve in any Association office or on any
Association board or steerinR committee.
œœffi~TI'
ARTICLE V
MEMBERSHIP DUES
Section 1. Establishment. Counties shall be assessed for membership dues annually on a
per capita basis. The per capita dues rate shall be established by the Board of Directors at such
time as it adopts the Association's annual budget. In assessing the annual dues of a county, the
Association shall use the most recent estimated population for that county as deternùned by a
competent research agency selected by the Board of Directors such as the Center for Public Service
of the University of Virginia.
Section 2. Delinquency. No county whose membership dues are not fully paid at least
prior to the date of the Annual Business Meeting shall be considered in good standing or entitled to
vote at such meeting.
ARTICLE VI
MEETINGS OF MEMBERS AND VOTING
Section 1. Annual Business Meeting. At least one Annual Business Meeting of the
members of the Association shall be held each year at such place and on such dates as may be
determined by the Board of Directors.
Section 2. Special Meetings. Special or extra meetings of the Association may be called by
the President or Board of Directors at any time. The business to be transacted at any special
meeting shall be stated in the notice thereof, and no other business may be considered at that time.
Section 3. Voting. Each member county shall be represented by its board of supervisors
and each shall be entitled to at least one vote in all proceedings. Any county with a population of
more than 50,000 shall be entitled to an additional vote for each additional 50,000 or fraction
thereof. Each county shall designate one person to cast its votes. That person shall present
credentials according to policies approved by the Board of Directors.
Section. 4. Proxies. A member county not represented in person by a member of its
board of supervisors at meetings of the Association may be represented by a proxy. No proxy
shall be valid unless submitted in accordance with policies approved by the Board of Directors.
Section S. Quorum. Two-fifths of the member counties in good standing and entitled to
vote shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of the full membership. A county shall be
represented for the purpose of constituting a quorum if at least one member of the board of
supervisors or a vaJlid proxy is in attendance.
ARTICLE VII
OFFICERS
Section 1. Elected Officers. The elected officers of the Virginia Association of Counties
shall be a President, a President-Elect, a First Vice-President, a Second Vice-President, a
Secretary-Treasurer, and the Immediate Past-President.
Section 2. Qualification. Only elected county supervisors representing Virginia counties in
good standing shall be eligible to stand for election as an officer.
Section 3. Term. The officers of the Association shall be elected and installed at each
Annual Business Meeting for one year terms by a majority of the votes cast by the member
counties present in person or by proxy. Such officers shall assume office immediately after the
close of the Annual Business Meeting at which they are elected and installed, and shall hold office
until their successors are elected and installed. No officer shall continue to hold an Association
office after formally leaving office as an elected Virginia county supervisor.
[IDOO&~V
Section 4. Re-election. Excepting the office of Secretary-Treasurer, no elected officer who
has seIVed one full tenn shall be eligible for re-election to the same office.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the offices of the Association between
Annual Business Meetings shall be filled by the Board of Directors. An officer so elected to fill a
vacancy shall seIVe the unexpired tenn of the predecessor.
ARTICLE VIII
DUTIES OF OFFICERS
Section 1. Presirknt. The President shall be the chief elected officer of the Association and
shall seIVe as Chainnan of both the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee. The
President shall make all required appointments to standing and special committees and trustees;
provided, however, that reasonable consideration shall be given to achieving broad regional
representation on such committees.
Section 2. President-Elect. The President-Elect shall succeed to the Presidency. Upon the
death, resignation or incapacitation of the President, the President-Elect shall fill the unexpired term
of the President and shall then succeed to an additional full tenn of office. The President-Elect
shall perfonn such duties as are delegated or assigned by the President or the Board of Directors.
Section 3. Vice-Presidents. There shall be a First Vice-President and a Second Vice-
President, who shall be responsible for such duties as are individually assigned to them by the
President.
Section 4. Secretary-Treasurer. The SecretaIy- Treasurer shall chair a three member
committee appointed by the President to oversee the financial operations and official records of the
Association.
ARTICLE IX
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 1. Authority and Responsibility. The governing body of this Association shall be
the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall have supervision, control, and direction of
the affairs of the Association, its committees, and its publications; shall detennine its policies or
changes therein; and shall actively prosecute its objectives.
Section 2. Composition and Election. The Board of Directors shall consist of the
President, The President-Elect, the First Vice-President, the Second Vice-President, the SecretaIy-
Treasurer, the Immediate Past-President, the three next most recent Virginia Association of
Counties past-presidents who currently hold office as elected Virginia county supervisors, and
twenty-two members elected on a "one person - one vote" basis from compact and contiguous.
Regions into which the State shall be divided for purposes of representation. SlUIch reeionaB.
directors sh.aB.I be selected at dne annual meeûlUl bv dne member counties located
widnin dne Reion which dne d.ñrector will J!'Clpresent. The Board of Directors shall
designate at least one member of the Board \vho is not an officer to represent the Association on
the Board of Directors of the National Association of Counties.
Section 3. Qualification. Only elected county supervisors representing Virginia counties in
good standing shall be eligible to stand for election to the Board of Directors.
Section 4. Term. Regional Directors shall be elected for two-year staggered tenns with
approximately fifty percent of its members elected and installed at each Annual Business Meeting.
No Regional Directors shall serve more than four full consecutive tenns. Any tenure as an officer
of the Association shall not be included as any part of the tenure of the aforementioned four
consecutive tenns. The Regional Directors elected and installed at the Annual Business Meeting
shall assume office immediately after the close of such meeting. Such Directors shall hold office
until their successors are elected and installed. No Director shall continue to hold office after
œœ&~lr
formally leaving office as an elected Virginia county supervisor. Past presidents may serve in that
capacity for only three more years after their service as Immediate Past President.
Section 5. Reapportionment. Beginning in 1991, and every ten years thereafter, regional
representation on the Board of Directors shall be reapportioned.
Section 6. Meetings. The Board of Directors shall hold quarterly regular meetings at such
time and such place as the Board may prescribe. Notice of all such meetings shall be given to the
members not less than thirty days before the meeting is held. Special meetings of the Board may
be called by the President or at the request of any three Directors elected from separate Regions of
the Association.
Section 7. Quorum. At any meeting of the Board of Directors, the members present and
voting shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business of the Association. Any such
business thus transacted shall be valid providing it is affinnatively passed by upon by a majority of
those members present and voting.
Section 8. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring on the Board of Directors between Annual
Business Meetings shall be filled by the Board until the next Annual Business Meeting. A Director
so elected to fill a vacancy shall serve the unexpired term of the predecessor.
--
ARTICLE X
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Section 1. Authority and Responsibility. The Executive Committee shall act on behalf of
the Board of Directors between Board meetings in accordance with the policies approved by the
Board of Directors.
Section 2. Composition and Election. The Executive Committee shall consist of the
President, the President-Elect, the First Vice-President, the Second Vice President, the Secretary-
Treasurer, and the Immediate Past-President.
Section 3. Meetings. The President shall call such meetings of the Executive Committee as
the Association may require, or a meeting shall be called by the President on request of three
members of the Executive Committee.
Section 4. Quorum. A majority of the Executive Committee shall constitute a quorum at
any duly called meeting of the Committee.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring on the Executive Committee shall be filled
in the manner as provided in Article VII, Section 5.
ARTICLE XI
NOMINATING COMMITTEE
Section 1. Composition. The President shall appoint a Nominating Committee which shall
consist of one member from each Association Region.
Section 2. Responsibility. The Nominating Committee shall nominate a candidate for
pesitiøns IPresidcnt-Blect. First Vice-Presidcnt. Second Vice-IPresident. mnd
Sccretuy- Treasurer to be elected at the Annual Business Meeting.
ARTICLE XII
ST ANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Section 1. Standing Committees. The Board of Directors shall establish a Resolutions
Committee and such steering or standing committees as it deems necessary. Steering committees
shall be constituted of at least one representative from each Association Region.
wœ~~u
Section 2. Special Committees. The President may establish such special committees as
are deemed necessary.
ARTICLE XIII
EXECUTIVE AND STAFF
Section 1. Appointment. The Board of Directors shall employ a salaried chief executive
officer who shall have the title of Executive Director and whose conditions of employment shall be
specified by the Board.
Section 2. Authority and Responsibility. The Executive Director, as chief executive
officer, shall manage and direct all activities of the Association subject to the policies of the Board
of Directors and through the office of President. The Board may also delegate to the Executive
Director the authority to employ and to define the duties of the staff, supervise their perfonnance,
establish their titles, and assign those responsibilities of management as may be in the best interest
of the Association.
Section 3. Counsel. The Board of Directors shall designate an appointed official of the
Association as the Association's chief legal adviser. This official need not be a county official and
shall have the title of General Counsel.
ARTICLE XIV
FINANCE
Section 1. Fiscal Period. The fiscal period of the Association shall be from July I through
June 30 of the succeeding calendar year.
Section 2. Audit. The accounts of the Association shall be audited not less than annually
by a Certified Public Accountant who shall be approved by the Board of Directors and who shall
provide a report to the Board and the membership.
Section 3. Opcrati(),"lS C(}mmittcc.BIUl~~t (JJJ}(l Fillllmflc~ COM.Mitt~~. An Operations
Committee A J8UdRCt ud IFJÌnu~c Ccmmittœ as provided in Article VIIT, Section 4 shall
generally oversee the fmancial operations of the Association.
ARTICLE XV
DISSOLUTION
Section 1. The Association shall use its funds only to accomplish the objectives and
purposes specified in these Bylaws and no part of said funds shall inure, or be distributed, to the
members of the Association until such time that the Association may be dissolved. In the event of
dissolution, the funds shall be distributed as detennined by the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE XVI
RULES OF ORDER
Section 1. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Revised
shall govern the conduct of meetings of the Association in all cases to which they are applicable
and in which they are not inconsistent with the Bylaws and any special rules the Association may
[ill œ ffi' ~ TI
adopt. Nothing herein shall prevent the Board of Directors from adopting modified rules of order
to govern its own meetings.
ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS
Section 1. Proposing. Amendments to or a repeal of these Bylaws may be proposed by a)
a majority of the Board of Directors on its own initiative; or b) an official resolution of three or
more county boards of supervisors of member counties located in separate Regions, provided any
such resolution proposing amendments or repeal of the Bylaws must be fonnally submitted to the
President or Executive Director prior to August 1 for consideration by the membership at the
Annual Business Meeting of that year.
Section 2. Approval. Amendments to or a repeal of these Bylaws shall be approved by
and become immediately effective upon a majority vote of the Regular Members present and voting
at any Annual Business Meeting or special meeting of the Association, duly called, provided
written notice of proposed changes have been sent to the Regular Members at least forty-five days
before such meeting.
A Certified Copy:
Readopted: November 14, 1989
Amended and Readopted November 10, 1992
Kathleen Seefeldt, President
James D. Campbell, Executive Director
president
Harry ~. Daniel
Chesterfield County
President-Elect
Peggy R. Wiley
Greensville County
First Vice President
William H.H. Blevins
Smyth County
Second Vice President
Harper R. Wagner
Bath County
Secretary-Treasurer
E. Virgil Sampson Jr.
Scott County
Immediate Past President
Kathleen K. Seefeldt
Prince William County
Region 1
William E. Belvin
Gloucester County
Region 2
Marion B. Williams
Prince George County
Region 3
James H. Bowles Sr.
Goochland County
John A. Waldrop Jr.
Henrico County
Arthur S. Warren
Chesterfield County
Region 4
John J. Purcell Jr.
Louisa County
Region 5
Charles W. Curry
Augusta County
Region 6
John M. Nolan
Orange County
Region 7
Ferris M. Belman Sr.
Stafford County
Hubert S. Gilkey III
Rappahannock County
Region 8
William J. Becker
Prince William County
Thomas M. Davis III
Fairfax County
Robert B. Dix Jr.
Fairfax County
Katherine K. Hanley
Fairfax County
Gerald W. Hyland
Fairfax County
John D. Jenkins
Prince William County
William T. Newman
Arlington Coun ty
Region 9
Wanda C. Wingo
Botetourt County
Region 10
Girardus G. Forry
Franklin County
Mason A. Vaughan Sr.
Pulaski County
Region 11
Marvin J. Hubble
Smyth County
Region 12
Kenneth G. Ma thews
Washington County
Past Presidents
W.D. Gray
Richmond County
Jack D. Edwards
James City County
Executive Director
James D. Campbell, CAE
General Counsel
C. Flippo Hicks
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
1001 East Broad Street · Suite LL 20 · Richmond, Virginia 23219-1901 . (804) 788-6652 . fax (804) 788-0083
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
~['J. (J~ r&Jr?JJIl.J1P. ,"" ,',r., _..1,-0
. .. . -' '""-'·-'~·1 ¡ ~ ~ 1
, I , ; : : 1
//1 h0".~;~~1 2 1994 'u j Ii
'"' ¡,.:, ¡,.v'! "n. '''' ¡ ¡ 11j
'~""'.~...J "Io~,~..1 .".,--..' '~_....¡' C!:::J
[)(ECU"f'i\/E Ür:;'F-¡'(::E
.
.
TO:
County Administrators
FROM:
James D. Campbell, Executive Director
'-.::;/
RE:
Minutes - August 14, 1994
DATE:
September 9, 1994
Attached are V ACo's Board of Directors minutes for August 14,
1994. The minutes are marked "draft" since they have not been approved
by the Board of Directors. Please share the minutes with those you deem
necessary .
Thank you.
Attachment
*
Virginia Association of Counties
v ACo Board of Directors
Omni Hotel - Charlottesville, VA
Sunday, August 14, 1994
9:00 A.M.
[ñJœffi~ìf
Minutes
Present:
Peggy R. Wiley, President, Greensville
William H. H. Blevins, President-Elect, Smyth
Harper R. Wagner, First Vice-President, Bath
Katherine K. Hanley, Second Vice-President, Fairfax
E. Virgil Sampson, Jr., SecretaryITreasurer, Scott
Harry G. Daniel, Immediate Past-Pres., Chesterfield
Gregory L. Duncan, Accomack
Marion B. Williams, Prince George
Rudolph V. Jones, Charles City
Arthur "Art" S. Warren, Chesterfield
John A. Waldrop, Jr., Henrico
John J. Purcell, Jr., Louisa
Charles W. Curry, Augusta
John M. Nolan, Orange
Ferris M. Belman, Sr., Stafford
William J. Becker, Prince William
Robert B. Dix, Jr., Fairfax
Gerry W. Hyland, Fairfax
John D. Jenkins, Prince William
Wanda C. "Wendy" Wingo, Botetourt
Mason A. Vaughan, Sr., Pulaski
M. Jay Hubble, Smyth
James H. Gibson, Lee
Absent:
Hubert S. Gilkey, III, Rappahannock
Thomas M. Davis, III, Fairfax
Michael R. Frey, Fairfax
Mary Margaret Whipple, Arlington
J. Michael Davidson, Campbell
Jack D. Edwards, James City
Kathleen K. Seefeldt, Prince William
Mr. W. D. "Berry" Gray, Richmond
Others Present:
James Campbell; C. Flippo Hicks; Larry Land; Ellen Davenport; Billie Lynch; Barbara Paige;
Charles Potter; Bruce Smythe; AI Jones; Sue Mittererder; R. B. Clark
1 . Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in Salon C of the Omni Hotel by President
Wiley.
2. Invocation and introduction of members
Invocation was offered by Secretary-Treasurer Sampson, followed by introduction of
board members.
3. Minutes
The minutes of the April 30, 1994 meeting were accepted as presented. A motion was
offered by Mr. Hyland to accept the minutes as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Duncan and carried unanimously.
ill] 00 lÄ\ ~ U
Board of Directors Minutes - Aug. 14, 1994
Page 2
4. Financial Reoorts
a) 4th Quarter year-ending June 1994-Secretary-Treasurer Sampson gave a status
report of the Association's finances at the end of the fiscal year. A financial budget report was
also shared as information. A motion was offered by Mrs. Williams that the financial
report be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dix. The motion was
carried unanimously.
b) Report on 1994-95 Dues Received-Mr. Campbell gave an up-to-date report on dues
received as of 8/12/94. Approximately 95% of total dues have already been paid.
5. President's Reoort
President Wiley reported on the recent NACo Conference in Clark County--more than
5000 county officials attended. She also updated the Board on County Legislative Liaisons who
have been appointed by the Boards of Supervisors. Approximately 50% of the counties have not
responded. There was a consensus to send a follow-up letter to those counties who have not
responded to appoint a contact person. The V ACo Board of Directors should also receive copies of
the letters.
6. Executive Director's ReDort
Mr. Campbell reported on various staff activities since April 30. Staff visited
approximately 25% of the counties across the state Mr. Campbell reported that VACo's
publications continue to receive recognition by peers across the country. It was noted that the
Governor's Commission on Champion Schools totals 52 members and no elected officials were
appointed to the Commission.
7. General Counsel's Report
Mr. Hicks reported on various activities involving his participation. -He reported
serving on various committees and rendering legal opinions to county officials. -Mr. Hicks has
continued to provide legal services and opinions for VACoRP Insurance. -He reported that a
10% rate reduction (retroactive to 7/1/94) is expected from the negotiations with Virginia
Power. Mr. Campbell asked each Board representative to remind those counties who have not
contributed their fair share to the APCO and VEPCO program to please do so. -Other discussions
centered around the Right to Farm bills. Mr. Hicks had a model ordinance drafted in response to
the bill which will be discussed at the Planning and Natural Resources Steering Committee
meeting. It was suggested that the committee make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.
It is important that staff get as much information as possible on the issue to all counties.
Another packet. including the draft ordinance, should be circulated to the chairmen of the Boards
of Supervisors. Another suggestion was to review the vote tallies prepared recently and
determine legislators' positions on the bills. It would help if implementation of the ordinance
could be delayed until 1996. Copies are being made available to individuals at their request.
Staff will communicate with key legislators to encourage them to attend VACo's Annual
Meeting in November-to make them more aware of local government concerns including the
right to farm issues.
8. NACo Representative's Reoort
Mr. Hyland gave an update on some activities he participated in during NACo Conference
in Clark County. He reported on the financial affairs of the association as well as issues arising
in the NACo Audit Committee. A copy of the NACo Finance Committee report was shared as
information. He gave an update on issues being monitored by NACo's Legislative Committee
(issues such as Health Care Reform, Unfunded Mandates, Flow Control and Farm Policy
legislation).
rmoo&~u
Board of Directors Minutes - Aug. 14, 1994
Page 3
The new NACo President, Larry Franke, has asked Mr. Hyland to serve as Vice Chairman
of the Steering Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs on the Sustainable Development Task
Force. Mr. Hyland accepted.
9. Committee Reports
a) Evaluation of Strategic Plan Task Force-Mr. Land shared with the Board a summary
of the Task Force meeting on 6/9/94. There was agreement among the Task Force members to
focus On Plan objectives and expectations as reflected in the Strategic Plan Statements. The Task
Force will meet again during LGOC.
b) By-Laws Committee-The committee met on 5/23/94 and reviewed the Association's
By-Laws and recommends that the VACo Board of Directors place the following proposed changes
to the VACo By-Laws before the membership for consideration at the Annual Business Meeting in
November:
Article IV. Section 2- Mr. Hyland moved that the word "steering" be inserted before
"committee:' The motion was seconded by Mr. Duncan and carried unanimously.
Article VI. Sections 4 and 5-lnterchange these sections. Changes accepted.
Article VI. (new) Section 5-After the term "board of supervisors" insert "or a valid proxy."
Change accepted.
Article IX. Section 2-After "representation" insert "such regional directors shall be selected at
the annual meeting by the member counties located within the region which the director will
represent." Mr. Jenkins moved that the change be accepted. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Curry and carried unanimously.
Article IX. Section 2-After "designate" insert "at least." Change accepted.
Article IX. Section 2-After "one member of the Board" delete "who is not an officer." Change
accepted.
Article IX. Section 4 Dr. Curry moved that no change be made. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Jenkins and passed unanimously.
Article IX. Section· 8- Mr. Purcell moved that no change be made. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Belman. There was a hand vote. Motion was carried by a
majority vote.
Article XI. Section 2-After "a candidate for" delete "positions" and insert "President-Elect,
First Vice-President, Second Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer." Change accepted.
Article XIV. Section 3-Strike "Operations Committee" and insert "Budget and Finance
Committee" twice. Change accepted.
A motion was made by Mr. Wagner that the above changes be placed on the agenda
for November and put before the general membership. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Purcell and carried unanimously.
lIDœ&~1J
Board of Directors Minutes - Aug. 14, 1994
Page 4
c) Lobbying/Legislative Day-Mr. Hyland also discussed recommendations from VACo's
Lobbying/Legislative Day Task Force. The 11 recommendations were discussed at length. There
was general consensus that most of the suggestions in the committee's report can be done. The
recommendation to change the Legislative Day to 1 week before crossover and relocate to the Old
City Hall was discussed. VACo staff will communicate with VML about the change. The
Legislative Day is scheduled for February 9, 1995. After further discussion, Mr. Daniel
moved that the matter be resolved by the Executive Committee. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Belman. The motion was carried.
1 o. Leoislative Report
a) Cancer Presumption BiII-A paper on workers' compensation/cancer presumption
was shared with the Board for their information. They will review the paper and respond as
needed.
b) Endorsement of Constitution Amendment-The General Government Steering
Committee submitted a recommendation for endorsement by the Board. The committee
recommended that the Board endorse the constitutional amendment which will be on the ballot
for the general election in November which will abolish the mandatory requirement that voter
lists be purged every four years of any person who has not voted in the previous four years.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the VACo Board support the amendment. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wagner and carried unanimously.
1 1 . V ACo Office Space
Mr. Campbell presented two proposals for the Association's office lease to the Board for
approval. Citing the attractiveness of a 5% per year escalation clause for a commercial lease
over ten years, Mr. Campbell suggested that Option B could be more favorable to VACo. After
some discussion of the options, a motion was made by Ms. Hanley that the Board
accept Option A which allows for a 5-year contract with an annual escalation of
4% each January. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner. After more discussion,
the motion was changed to: the Board accepts Option A which allows for a 5-year
contract with an annual escalation of 4% each January and includes in the lease
a clause stating that V ACo may be released from the lease should a suitable
building be found for purchase. The motion was carried unanimously.
12. Jefferson CUD Award
There was some discussion on the nominations for the V ACo Jefferson Cup Award. A
motion was made by Mr. Daniel that the matter be referred to the Executive
Committee. No second. Mr. Jenkins moved that the matter be tabled. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Daniel. The motion was carried unanimously.
1 3. Partnership for Urban VirÇ1inia
Background information was shared with the Board on the newly created Partnership for
Urban Virginia.
14. VACoRP Report
Mr. Campbell shared as information recent activities of the VACoRP Insurance Program.
The program now has 29 members in the Pool and has collected $1.6 million in premiums.
15. PEBSCO Deferred Compensation Marketina Plan
Mr. Campbell shared a report which shows recent PEBSCO activities. He requested that
the Board appoint a small committee to work with him in developing a plan for strategies to
improve the counties' participation in the Deferred Compensation Program. President Wiley
appointed John Purcell to the committee.
· .
~ œ ffi ~ uJ
Board of Directors Minutes - Aug. 14, 1994
Page 5
1 6. Acardia Health Insurance MarketinQ Aareement
Acordia has notified VACo of its intent to terminate the contractual marketing
relationship with V ACo.
17. VACa Health Insurance Allianc(t
Mr. Albert Jones, Senior Vice President for Sedgwick James was present to discuss the
possibility of VACo forming a health care pool. Documentation was shared about the similar
programs as information to the Board. A motion was made by Mr. Hyland that a
feasibility study be done to explore the possibilities of forming a VACo-
sponsored Health Care purchasing alliance. Costs of the study should be taken into
consideration. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wagner. The motion was carried.
1 8. Unfunded Mandates Task Force
A report outlining background activities, actions taken, accomplishments and future
directions was presented to the Board as information. A drafted letter to the Governor was also
shared by Chairman R. B. Clark for consideration by the Board. There was some discussion on
the cost of certain mandates. There was general consensus that some other example be used
instead of "recycling." After discussing the letter at length, Mr. Dix offered a motion that
the Board accept the principals of the Task Force and that other suggestions
from the Board be shared with staff by August 25th. After which, staff will
submit a recommendation to the Executive Committee. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Daniel. The motion was carried.
1 9. Staff ReDort$.
a) Right to Farm-The seminar on 6/30/94 brought out approximately 140 local
governments and other organizations. The seminar was one step in the process of determining
the most appropriate direction for counties to take as they attempt to revamp zoning ordinances
to comply with the new state laws scheduled to go into effect on 4/1/95.
b) VRS 3% Increase-The Finance Steering Committee will be considering this matter at
its August 14th meeting. A written report was shared as information to the Board.
c) Human Services Issues-A written report giving an update on long-term care
restructuring, welfare reform and comprehensive services act was shared as information to the
Board. A report on long-term care will be available sometime in November. A possible meeting
is expected sometime early Fall with Secretary James, VACo and VML. The steering committee
members would like for some of the Board members be present for the meeting. A survey was
sent to each county in July regarding the Comprehensive Services Act and the tabulated
responses were shared with the Board as information.
20 . Other Business
A motion was made by Mr. Hyland that President Wiley address a letter to
the Governor volunteering V ACo representatives as partiCipants on various
committees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Belman. One letter has already been
sent to the Governor requesting this consideration and a second letter will be also be sent.
21 . Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at approximately 1 :15 p.m.
Respectfully,
James D. Campbell
Executive Director
"
t
.-'
. / - / (- - / 'I
, I
tí c:¡' (.'~ c"' I (Os" ') )
DRAFT - 9/8/94
COLI!\!T\'M.P E~,{.~ RLE
..,1";0:: r¡::LIlIi:','1¡fr,-1
~>t~ ~ I
SEP 1~19~~)liu'l
~J u a,~:::J
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
FOR THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL
AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
OCTOBER 1994
4
B;:u~kgrnllnn
The· Commonwealth of Virginia has for many years considered public
involvement an integral part of transportation planning, programming, and project
implementation. Citizens' comments are openly sought and carefully considered.
The October 28, 1993, edition of the FAnAr;:¡1 RAgi~tAr published the Final Rule
for Statewide Planning and Metropolitan Planning. Section 450.212, p. 58067, and
Section 450.316, p. 58073, include requirements for public involvement processes
to address planning and programming development for the Statewide and
Metropolitan elements. respectively. This document represents the Commonwealth' s
response to these requirements.
Prnr.A~~ DAvAlnrmAnt
Public involvement processes are required in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (lSTEA) for the development of the:
1 . Statewide Transportation Plan
2. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
3. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Plan
4. Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
The process discussed in this document will be used for the two statewide
efforts. Each MPO is responsible for developing its own public involvement process,
and submitting a copy with a resolution of adoption to the Virginia Department of
Transportation's (VDOT) Transportation Planning Division and the Virginia Department
of Rail and Public Transportation.
RAqllirAn EIAmAnt~ for thA StMA Prnr.A~~A~
While each public involvement process at the state level has its unique actions.
certain elements are common to both. These include:
A. Notification for Public Involvement
1 . Notices will be published in newspapers of local and regional
significance and minority publicatiqns of significance. The notices will
be published twice in advance of the meeting.
2. Press releases will be provided to radio/television stations of local and
regional significance and minority-targeted stations of significance.
1
3. Mass Mailings
Send notices at least 30 days prior to a meeting. Update mailing lists
on a continuing basis. Those receiving notification will include:
a. Local units of government
b. Metropolitan Planning Organizations
c. Planning District Commissions
d. Appropriate state and federal agencies
e. Special interest groups, e.g. bike clubs, trucking associations, etc.
f. Other affected transportation agencies and private providers.
g. Citizen groups.
h. Citizens with an expressed interest.
i. Representatives of minority and low-income groups.
j. Recognized Indian tribal governments.
k. Representatives of organizations for the elderly and disabled.
4. Notices will include:
a. Date, time, and location of the meeting.
b. Special accessibility instructions for disabled persons.
c. Purpose of the meeting.
d. Instructions on how to request pertinent materials or documents
prior to the meeting, including technical and policy information
used in development of the statewide transportation plan and
STIP.
e. Instructions for commenting if attendance at the meeting is not
possible.
2
B. Location
The following factors, among others, will be considered in the selection
process:
1 . Space adequate in size to accommodate the meeting format and
anticipated audience.
2. Must meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
C. Public Involvement Meeting Format
1. Presentations may be formal, informal, or a combination of both. If
suitable for the occasion, an informal format is preferred. Public
comment will always be allowed on an informal basis.
2. Information will be provided to advise meeting participants how they
may make follow-up comments. Written and telephoned comments are
accepted at any time. If comments are received too late for
consideration in current document development, they will be considered
in the subsequent update of the Statewide Transportation Plan or
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
3. The dates for follow-up meetings will be announced to those in
attendance if the information is known.
D. Information Feedback
1 . A summary of substantive comments with state responses will be made
available to interested parties on request.
2. Copies of draft documents will be made available to the VDOT district
offices, public and private transit operators, members of the Virginia
General Assembly and Congressional delegation, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, units of local government, Planning District Commissions,
recognized Indian tribal governments, appropriate federal and state
agencies, and citizen groups/citizens with an expressed interest. After
consideration of all issues in the decision-making process, a public
notice will be issued to advise how copies of any resulting final
document may be obtained.
3. Those included on current mailing lists will be advised when the next
cycle begins.
3
E. The Public Involvement Process will be reviewed periodically to evaluate its
effectiveness.
Prnr.AdIlrA~ UniqllA to E;:¡r.h PI;:¡nning ;:¡nd Prngr;:¡mming EIAmAnt
Each planning/programming element of ISTEA covered by the Public
Involvement Process has unique requirements. They include:
A. Statewide Transportation Plan
1. Public meetings will be held initially in each VDOT district to provide
information and receive comments. It is envisioned the Statewide
Transportation Plan initially will be policy-oriented. Agency
representatives for all modes of transportation will attend this and all
other meetings.
2. A second round of multi-modal meetings will be held at the district level
to provide information and receive comment relative to the proposed
study outline to be used in developing the plan.
3. A third round of district-level, multi-modal meetings will be held to
present a draft of the proposed plan, and to seek public comment.
4. Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees will be established to assist
in the plan development process.
5. Similar procedures are expected to be used in future plan reVISions,
assuming it will continue to be a policy-oriented document instead of a
project specific report.
B. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The Commonwealth Transportation Board's current pre-allocation and
allocation hearing process will serve as the basis for a multi-modal public
involvement process. Included in this process are:
1 . Expanded pre-allocation hearings in each VDOT District. Comments will
be actively solicited for the following transportation elements:
a. Roadway Needs - Interstate, Primary, Urban Systems
b. Rail Needs
c. Public Transportation Needs
4
· .
d. Enhancement Program (STP Funds) Needs
e. Safety Program (STP Funds) Needs
f. Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs
g. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Needs
2. After all Public Involvement Process comments are received and
reviewed, the Commonwealth Transportation Board will prepare a draft
Six-Year Improvement Program (one year for Rail and three years for
Public Transportation). A separate list will be prepared for State
Secondary road improvement projects that are anticipated to be
accomplished through the use of federal-aid funds. This will constitute
the Commonwealth's draft STIP.
3. The draft Six-Year Improvement Program and the State Secondary
Project Listing will be circulated for public involvement in the manner
previously described. A minimum of two weeks will be made available.
Public comments can be provided verbally or in writing at two allocation
hearings held in the eastern and western parts of the Commonwealth.
Written and telephoned comments can also be provided to the Virginia
Department of Transportation Assistant Commissioner for Planning &
Programming or to the Director of the Virginia Department of Rail and
Public Transportation.
4. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will formally adopt the
Six-Year Improvement Program and STIP.
5. Revisions to the Six-Year Improvement Program and STIP will be
circulated for local review and comment. A minimum of 30 days will be
allowed, unless state and local officials jointly determine a need on an
individual case basis to modify the time allowed for comment.
MPO Pllhlic Involvement Prnce~~
Each MPO is required to adopt a public involvement process to meet the unique
needs of the area, and to serve as the cornerstone for public involvement within each
urbanized area. The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIPs) must
be incorporated in the State TIP (STIP), thus making it desirable for all Public
Involvement Processes to serve a common purpose.
5
Adoption Prncp.durp.
All proposed public involvement processes, both statewide and metropolitan,
must be open for a minimal public comment period of 45 days before they are
adopted or revised. Comments for the statewide process will be solicited from local
governments, MPO's, state agencies, transit providers (public and private), interested
professional and citizen groups, Planning District Commissions, and federal agencies.
6
() -; c: <;. y'
( ,
)<=;. L 72/ /)" I ()
"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development U().} J
September 7, 1994
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Crozet -Brownsville Transmission Water Main Installation - 456 Review
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 6, 1994, unanimously
found the above-noted item to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Attached please
find a staff report which outlines this water main installation.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcw
ATTACHMENT
COUNTY OF Al.BEMt\RLE
~ .;"). ......r.·.·.·... r-. ", 1--'! ¡¡n r"i '.. :.....;-1.\..
ín ~J:.::J C::,L.r.:o:. ',:L' . : : '01
!.i..;.i. 5EP 8 1994..Lill·'. ':'.'
1", ~ '; ¡ i: ;'
Ü" i\'; i ¡ j.
I' .." , ". L
t" ':, I " ,'~' ;, ,.". '"'''''!:
"w ":......:.....'.. ......: ~".; ~-"
EXECÚ;nVE OFFiCE
<;
Staff Person:
Planning Commission:
Ken Baker
September 6, 1994
Review For Compliance With The Comprehensive Plan (15.1-456 Review):
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Crozet-Brownsville Transmission
Water Main Installation
As per Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia the ACSA has requested the Planning
Commission to review the installation of a water transmission-main to' connect and reinforce the
Crozet system between Route 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) and Brownsville/Henley schools (See
Attachments A & B). This 12" waterline will significantly improve fire protection to the schools
and existing customers by improving fire flows. Also, this project will allow undeveloped
properties in the western portion of the Community to be served. Portions of the existing water
main in Jarmans Gap Road will also be replaced as part of this project.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the following for utility improvements:
*
Evaluate water distribution line improvements in the utilities master plan development,
including replacement of the Route 240 line to Route 250 West, looping this line back to
Jarmans Gap Estates, and increasing line size down Jarmans Gap Road (p. 180).
This project is consistent with this recommendation. The project has been identified in the
utilities master plan research and the ACSA Capital Improvement Program.
*
Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Area and Communities (Objective
p. 146).
This water transmission main will serve properties within the Crozet Community Growth Area
boundary.
*
Build all public water and sewer facilities to an ultimate design capacity consistent with
the recommended land use densities in the Comprehensive Plan '(p, 152).
The project meets the intent of this strategy and will serve properties in the western portion of the
Growth Area.
Staff believes this project complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and recommends
favorable action by the Planning Commission.
ALBÉMÁRLE COUNTY SERVICE RITY
P.O. Box 1009 168 SPOTNAP RD CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22902 . (804) 977-4511 FAX (804) 979-0698
RIECE~IV[=I)
August 3, 1994
l\UG 8 1994
~:)!anning Dept
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning and
Community Development
County Office Building
Charlottesville, VA
Dear Wayne:
The Service Authority is preparing to construct a new
water main between Jarman's Gap Road and Brownsville to
improve fire flows to existing customers and to accommodate
future development in the western end of the Crozet growth
area. Portions of the existing water main in Jarman's Gap
Road will also be replaced. This project will satisfy one of
the recommendations for the Crozet community in the current
Comprehensive Plan.
We ask for a determination from your office that this
project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan so that
we can proceed to bid the proj ect. The enclosed drawing
shows the location of the lines. Please let me or Paul Shoop
know if you need additional information.
Very truly yours,
bd/
J.W. Brent
Executive Director
JWB/lbt
.
.
ATTACHMENT 81
ORCHARD ACRES
JARMAN GAP ESTATES
,
," ...
RTE.240
~...~...
~~,..
~... - ./..,
:\ '--...~". 'ð
f"
'l:, VIR GINIA AVE
.þ
PROPOSED
WATERLINE
...~
,
.~ .,e'"
f\"f" .'
'.. 10~,tt~'
..,~"e /"
5 ..'
1.50
'..-/'" f\1£.·
I
- RTE. 240
BROWNSVILL E
II
seA L E: I = 2, 00
LOCATION· MAP
· .
_:J' / :-;
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
MITCHELL VAN YAHRES
408 AL TAMONT CIRCLE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
FIFTY-SEVENTH DISTRICT
September 6, 1994
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS,
A.GRICUL TURE (CHAIRMAN)
EDUCA TION
FINANCE
HEALTH. WELFARE AND INSTiTUTIONS
The Honorable Walter F. Perkins, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Walter:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter, with enclosures, from Delegate Bill Mims describing
the "linked deposit" affordable housing initiative that he sponsored in the 1993
session of the General Assembly. This law permits a public-private partnership
between local government and lending institutions to create affordable housing.
Delegate Mims relates how Loudon County has implemented this method of facing
some of its housing needs.
I know that affordable housing is one of Albemarle County's concerns and I am
sending you this information in the hopes that "linked deposit" is a program that
the County can consider in meeting the challenge of providing the opportunity for
all citizens to obtain adequate housing. I have also forwarded this information to
David Toscano, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville.
If I can be of assistance or if you have any questions regarding "linked deposit,"
please call me at 977-7863.
Mitchell Van Yahres
MVY 1 jb
Enclosure
. .
tr)
~
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
RICHMOND
WILLIAM C. MIMS
101 NORTH KING STREET
P.O. BOX 7..1
LEESBURG. VIRGINIA 22075
August.22, 1994
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS,
COURTS OF JUSTICE
HEALTH, WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES
THIRTY-SECOND DISTRICT
Honorable Mitchel Van Yahres
408 A1tamont Circle
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Mitch:
You may recall that in 1993 I sponsored legislation to permit
counties and cities to establish "linked deposit" affordable housing
programs.
The linked deposit law permits local governments to deposit up to
25% of their funds in banks which offer competitive interest rates ~
incentives for affordable housing in the locality. Without this law,
localities would have to make deposit decisions based solely upon
interest rates, according to Virginia's public procurement statute.
I am pleased to report that Loudoun County entered into the first
"linked deposit" contracts earlier this year and the program has been an
unqualified success. Loudoun has deposited $5.5 million with Signet
. Bank and First Union Bank. These two banks have agreed to provide some
extraordinary affordable housing incentives, including $5 million in
home mortgage-funds with no private mortgage insurance required, $3
million in residential construction funds, and various seminars and
presentations to the targeted population for affordable housing. The
direct revenue loss to Loudoun County from foregone interest income was
only $5,000; the direct and indirect benefits from construction of
affordable housing are immense and far outweigh the costs.
I wanted to let you know about the success of this PUblic-private
partnership with the hope that you will share this letter and the
enclosures with your local elected officials who may want to consider
implementing such a program.
Enclosed for your review are a local newspaper editorial and a
description of Loudoun's program. Your local officials who want more
information about this innovati ve program are encouraged to contact
Cindy Mester, Loudoun's Housing Director, at 102 Heritage Way, N.E.,
Suite 202, Leesburg, Virginia 22075, (703) 777-0389. Thank you for your
attention to this letter and I look forward to seeing you in September.
Sincerely,
~~~LDJ
BL0Mims .
· ""
loudoun County lInke~ Deposits Affordable Housing Plan
Purpose:
The Linked Deposits Plan is a public! private partnership designed to expand
affordable housing opportunities for citizens with low to moderate incomes who live
and! or work in the County. The "link", which gives the program its name, leverages
the County's bank deposits with an agreement by the financial institution(s) to provide
incentives for first time home buyers and the preservation of affordable housing (ie.
reduced housing costs, down payments and! or points; reduced financing or
rehabilitation costs).
Summary of Program:
Early in 1992 a County taskforce, representing Financial Services, Treasurer's
Office, County Attorney's Office, County Administration, Youth and Family Services
and Housing Services, formed to pursue the development of the Linked Deposits Plan.
As a result of the taskforce's preliminary research it was determined that the County
did not have the authority to "link" its investment decisions to affordable housing
criteria. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors initiated a request of the General
1
. .
Program Results:
On March 17, 1994 the County Treasurer, with the Board of Supervisors
concurrence, awarded to Signet Bank and First ~nion National Bank of Virginia a split
deposit of $5,500,000 with the agreement for the provision of $8,011,500 affordable
housing initiatives. The interest income on the deposit is approximately $202,000.
When comparing the Linked Deposits Plan interest income against a traditional
investment the loss of interest income is only $5,000. The specific affordable housing
initiatives for the contract year include: 20 Affordable Home Mortgage Presentations,
Marketing, 8 First Time Homebuyers Seminars, $5,000,000 Home Mortgage Funds
with no Private Mortgage Insurance, $3,000,000 in Residential Construction Funds
and Federal Home Loan Bank Funds Advisory Services and Presentations to non-profit
and housing agencies. Both Financial Institutions have actively begun to implement
the agreed upon affordable housing initiatives and will be submitting quarterly progress
reports. Regular contacts are occurring with the Housing Services which serves as
the County's lead agency in monitoring the affordable housing component.
--. -
. .
.
.
~
o
t
o
r
~
:-\
J.
,.
-
3
4
~.
~
'"
~
~
~
·anss! .8U!~oq alq~p.t0J.fe alp o~ 1.[J~o.tdd~ U! UOHHW 9~ pa~nwwo~ ~q uO~U n ~S.I!~
:nsodap-paJIUn s,unopn01 jjuµp~e.M ÂnnJa.mJ . Á~uno~ unopn01 U! S~JafoJd ~U!snoq
aq ffiå\ sa~unoJ ..Ia1.[~o ~uapYUOJ ~,a MaIqepJo¡¡e }O s.zapI!t\q pamrenb o~ ~UptreUY
. t1! U0!II!W t1 pan!WWOJ frnq ~au.8!s 'u.m~a.l UI
- .maÁ ~w¡ Á[qlUas!!V 1I.m1BÐ "JjUUg uom 11 ~s.n.!I IpIAl. uO![[!W g"zt pUll ) U8g
aq~ wo.I] tm¡d alp ;(o¡ 1l0nçzµolpl11! äuµ!a:la.l ~au2[s q~m nop st ~[sodap UJ61 Á~unoa aq~
.I~ '\4uaurnwwoo ~uaw:¡saA1l!iI.I ~JUlIwwoa '\4uåwaaßv ~;sòdap på3[Uß óJ~ .Iapu 11
1pJ61 \4JSodap ~ S'U~ ~ epIµ!.n.A 1I! ~uaw ,_.".., . 'saAnen!1l! BllJSlloq
-lUaA0,8 (1IaO[ ~ atp '3! ~unoo tnlopnO'J ð[q1Ip.I01J1l' µoddns i>~"mimKI -alp Áq lI0!ll!w
.. ..s.taÁnq awoq åA~SO.ld .to) g$tœtna.tOW}O ~uaa.qJWWoJ a1.[~ .to) tLtlQa.t U!
sdot{ID[.to.M ptre sDupuas Jmlo!=J8anpa .Jnpu~ .; mJtœq o~!pµ\ spun¡ ~unOJ U! uOJrnW .g"9$]0
II!A\ SJ[U1fq t{~~ ~~~~:µom ~:n~Aµd s~!s<KJap-p~otn~e ~oq ~tn. ~1{~ ~w1
~~ ~~ '~=~;:;:'!;~ ::~:~~ ~~¡¡Jn~ o;:=~~:a~o
3AOW ~1IJsnoH,3Iqepio, UV
f
J
9- /c- - ;; Ý
9'/{h"C ¿j () -/j<-()
.'
.100
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of County Executive
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902·4596
(804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 972-4060
September 14, 1994
Letters to the Editor
The Daily Progress
P. O. Box 9030
Charlottesville, VA 22906
Dear Editor,
This fall there will be an opportwllty for all Albemarle County residents to have meaningful and immediate
input into decisions that will effect every facet of their lives - issues concerning growth, education,
transportation, public safety, human services - as the county reviews and updates its Comprehensive Plan.
Every five years as required by the Code of Virginia the county reviews its Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan provides a blueprint for future decisions on land use and development, transportation
systems, public facilities including schools, resource protection, housing, human services, and public services,
We need your suggestions and comments as we review and update this important document. We need to
know how county residents feel about the critical issues we face as a community - our future decisions about
growth, economic development, preservation, environment and other major planning needs will use this plan
as a reference point.
If you are interested in and concerned about the county's future direction, this is the time to express your
wishes and desires. Our Comprehensive Plan should be a shared vision which reflects the community's needs
and priorities as determined through an open dialogue with county planners. We have scheduled a series of
meetings at sites around the county beginning this week to allow residents the opportwllty to review the plan
and discuss specific issues with Albemarle County staff. I encourage you to fmd out about the meetings in
your area by calling the Comprehensive Plan Information Line at 296-5835 or the Daily Progress InfoLine at
975-INFOX1220 and becoming an involved partner in the planning process.
t/rJ .
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
ounty Executive
RWT,Jr/dbm
94.127
~
THE LOCATIONS AND DATES FOR THE PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
(Times will be 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted)
Sutherland Middle School (Hollymead)
Western Albemarle HS
Cale Elementary School
Red Hill Elementary School
Scottsville Elementary School
Broadus Woods Elementary School
Stone Robinson Elementary School
Jack Jouett Middle School
County Office Building
September 19
September 22
September 26
September 29
October 3
October 6
October 10
October 10
October 17-21, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
Presiden t
Peggy R. Wiley
GreensvilJe County
President-Elect
William H.H. Blevins
Smyth County
Firsl Vice President
Harper R. VVagner
Bath County
Second Vice PresidC111
Katherine K. Hanley
Fairfax County
Secrelar¥- Treasurer
E. VirgifSampson Jr.
Scott County
Immediate Past President
Harry G. Daniel
Chesterfield County
Region 1
Gregory L. Duncan
Accomack County
Region 2
Marion B. Williams
Prince George County
Regiml 3
Rudolph V. Jones
Charles City County
John A. Waldrop Jr.
Heruico County
Arthur S. \Varren
Chesterfield County
Region 4
John J. Purcell Jr.
Louisa County
Region 5
Charles W. Cun\'
Augusta Coun~'
Region 6
John M. Nolan
Orange County
Region 7
Ferris M. Belman Sf.
Stafford County
Hubert S. Gilkev III
Rappahannock Co~nty
Region 8
William J. Becker
Prince WiJliam County
Thomas M. Davis III
Fairfax County
Robert B. Dix Jf.
Fairfax County
Michael R. Frey
Fairfax County
Gerald W. Hyland
Fairfax County
John D. Jenkins
Prince William County
Mary Margaret Whipple
Arlington County
Regioll 9
Wanda C. Wingo
Botetourt County
Regioll ]()
J. Michael Davidson
Campbell County
Mason A. Vaughan Sr.
Pulaski County
Region 11
M. Jay Hubble
Smyth County
Regioll 12
James H. Gibson
Lee County
Pasl Presidenls
Kathleen K. Seefeldt
Prince William County
W.D. Gray
Richmond County
Jack D. Edwards
James City County
Execu tive Director
James D. Campbell, CAE
~ Gelleral COUIlSel
~ C. Flippo Hicks
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
1001 East Broad Street · Suite LL 20 · Richmond, Virginia 23219-1901 · (804) 788-6652 . fax (804) 788-0083
.I"
(,
To: County Board Chairs
From: Ellen Davenport, V AC~vJ
Subj: Attached letter to Governor on unfunded mandates
Date:
September 19, 1994
The attached letter and recommendations to stop unfunded mandates on local
governments were delivered to Governor George Allen on September 9. The letter
and recommendations are a result of the work of V ACo's Unfunded Mandates Task
Forëe, which has been meeting since April.
Members of the task force requested that I forward the letter and recommendations
to you, and ask that you read the letter and recommendations aloud at your next
board meeting.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
I ¡
Prc::;idl'Ht
Pq,;&y R. Wik')'
GrL"cn.c;vi11c County
PresidCllt-Etccl
Wi1liam I-Ui. nlcvins
Smyth County
First Vic~ Presid~"t
Harper R. Wagner
8ath County
S('(~o"d Viet, PrcsÙit',rJ
Katherine K. l-tanl4!Y
Fairfax County
5«rdary- T rcasu rer
E. Virgil Sampson J,.
Scott County
fmlll~diat~ Past Prcsidmt
Harry G. Dani~l
Chest~rfi~ld County
R~gio" 1
Gregory l. Duncan
Accomack County
Region 2
Marion B. Williams
Prinœ Georg~ County
Region 3
Rudolph V. Jones
Charles City County
John A. Waldrop Jr.
Hen.rico County
Arthur S. Warren
Chesterfield County
Region 4
John J. Purœll Jr.
Louisa County
Region 5
a.arles W. Curry
Augusta County
Region 6
fohn M. Nolan
Orang~ County
Region 7
Ferris M. Belman Sr.
Stafford County
Hu~rt S. Gilk~y UI
Rappahannock County
Region 8
William J. Becker
Prince William County
Thomas M. Davis III
Fairfax County
Robert B. Dix Jr.
Fairfax County
Micha~1 R. F r~y
Fairfax County
Gerald W. Hyland
Fairfax County
John D. J~nkins
Prince William County
Mary Margaret Whippl~
Arlington County
Region 9
Wanda C. Wingo
Botetourt County
Region 10
J. Micha~1 Davidson
Campbell County
Mason A. Vaughan Sf.
Pulaski County
Region 11
M. Jay Hubbl~
Smyth County
Region 12
lames H. Gibson
L€'{' County
Past Presidents
Kathleen K_ Seefeldt
Prince William County
W.o. Gray
Richmond COLJ nty
Jack O. Edwdfds
amt..'S City County
Executive Oirt'ctor
lames D. Campbell, CAE
t:Þ+. CrHcral COil nsd
W C. Flippo Hl("ks
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
1001 East Broad Street · Suite LL 20 · Richmond, Virginia 23219-1901 · (804) 788-6652 . fax (804) 788-0083
September 9, 1994
The Honorable George F. Allen
Governor's Office, Third Floor
The State Capitol
P. O. Box 1475
Richmond, VA 23212
Dear Governor Allen:
The Virginia Association of Counties has a long-standing concern about the
proliferation of unfunded mandates imposed on local governments. For many
years, it has been V ACo's position to oppose any state or federal mandates on local
governments which are not accompanied by full funding. We regard unfunded
mandates as hidden tax increases. They leave counties with few alternatives but to
increase local taxes as state and federal tax rates remain unchanged. Combined with
the overall trend of fewer federal dollars being distributed to localities, county
governments are under serious fiscal stress.
We wish to applaud you for the concern that you have already demonstrated about
unfunded mandates. We recognize and appreciate that your stance against
unfunded mandates has severely limited the introduction and passage of these bills
by the General Assembly. We would like to work with you to arrive at mutually
acceptable strategies to stem the tide of any future unfunded mandates on localities.
As president of V ACo, I appointed an Unfunded Mandates Task Force this spring
which has been working diligently to resolve the problem of unfunded mandates.
With the backing of the V ACo Board of Directors, the Task Force has come up
with the attached recommendations for reducing or eliminating unfunded mandates
on localities, both at the statutory and regulatory level.
Representatives from the task force--R. B. Clark (County Administrator of
Charlotte County), Robert Dix (Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County), Flip
Hicks (General Counsel for the Virginia Association of Counties)--and I would like
to request an audience with you to discuss these recommendations. It is our hope
to meet with you before November I so that we can share the results of our meeting
at V ACo's annual conference on November 13-15. By the way, we would be
delighted if you and Mrs. Allen could join us at the annual meeting.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, and I look forward to meeting
with you soon.
Sincerely, .
@ðð/Ú? ~:Luf
Peggy R. Wiley
President
I 1
VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Proposal to Address the Problem of Unfunded Mandates
Background
Existing procedures for evaluating fiscal impacts of legislation or
regulations on localities are woefully inadequate. Currently,
whenever a legislator or other participant in the legislative process
believes a proposed bill may result in increased costs to local
governments, the bill is referred by the Division of Legislative
Services to the Commission on Local Government which then surveys
approximately fifty to sixty local governments throughout Virginia.
Through this survey, the participating localities are asked to
determine any additional costs that may be associated with the
proposed new or expanded service. Within the time-frame
established by COLG, many of the sparsely staffed localities being
surveyed may not have adequate time to perform a complete
analysis. The rapid pace of events that always characterize
legislative sessions also creates a problem. There are many
instances when a bill in question may be amended to such an extent
that it quickly invalidates many of the underlying assumptions in the
local government's analysis.
As a basic consequence of this flawed process, there may be many
occasions when neither the state, nor local governments, have truly
accurate ideas of how much money certain mandates will cost. In
reality, the cost of a mandate is most often not sufficiently
understood until well into the implementation stage. By that time,
they become politically entrenched programs that are extremely
difficult to eliminate. For example, many of the costs associated
with local efforts to comply with recycling requirements (imposed
as a result of legislation passed in 1989) were not adequately
understood until years later. Curiously enough, there is no record
that any local fiscal impact analysis was ever performed to try and
understand the local costs of mandated recycling programs.
This proposal is not to suggest that recycling, and other programs
are without merit. In many cases, local governments adopted
programs of this type at their own option, long before mandates. In
all too many instances similar to the recycling example, mandates
are based on assumptions that one approach to addressing a
particular problem fits all local circumstances. As a consequence,
--
there is an impediment to the ability of local governments (together
with the citizens they serve) to develop programs that might most
meaningfully improve their own communities. Local creativity
becomes stifled. Mistrust and conflict between local, state and
federal officials can intensify. These are among the chief reasons
why we, as county government officials, believe unfunded mandates
to be inconsistent with "good government" principles.
Recommendation
Because of the problems identified above, we urge the
institutionalization (preferably by statute) of new policies and
procedures that would achieve the following results:
co Establish a reasonable time-frame (perhaps ten months)
to allow a state agency (possibly the Department of
Planning and Budget) to analyze the future fiscal impacts
of any legislation that may impose a financial burden on
local governments. A procedure of this type should allow
a thorough study (to be conducted in cooperation with
local governments) to determine all possible net
additional costs that a local government would assume
as a result of a new or expanded service. This more
extensive analysis should yield more accurate cost
estimates. The minimal ten month period for analysis
and review would coincide with the time period between
adjournment and commencement of legislative sessions.
No bill deemed to have any possible fiscal impacts upon
local governments could become law until the completion
of such a review.
· Require all regulatory agencies to adopt and promulgate
any new, non-emergency regulation on or before
December 1 of the year adopted, but with the regulation
to become effective after the the date of the veto
session of the following year. This would enable the
Governor and the General Assembly to study the
regulation, its effect and cost, and receive any criticism
from the affected sections of the regulated community
and local governments. The Governor and/or General
Assembly could take such action as necessary to modify
the effect of the regulations if he or they believe this to
be necessary. Most agencies now spend well in excess of
, ,
one year in the process of adopting regulations. This
time would not be unduly burdensome on the agencies.
In each session, require the General Assembly to
appropriate additional aid to localities which is equal to
cumulative net costs which would result from
the new or expanded services required under state law.
The amount appropriated as new financial aid to local
governments would equal the cumulative amount of funds
determined as necessary to pay for all newly
mandated public services to be performed by
local governments. Failure by the General Assembly to
appropriate additional funds would invalidate the
mandate.
Collectively, the objectives identified above could be incorporated
into a legislative package which would be referred to in the future
as "truth in legislating." There are similar initiatives that have
been introduced at the federal level which are enthusiastically
supported by all state and national organizations representing local
governments.
.
-,
'.
,,:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
f¡
L
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of supervisors¡t;~
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. , County Executive !
September 20, 1994
Gainsharing
At the September 7, 1994 meeting, a request was made to provide an update on the Gainsharing
Program approved by the Board effective January 1, 1994. After 8 months of availability, the
program has met with some interesting results.
It was the intent that the program (1) provide an incentive to hold vacancies open as long as possible
to take advantage of that savings, and (2) reward employees for taking on additional workload
created from the vacancies. The concept of the program has been implemented in several different
ways in the organization. In some cases, some of the savings from extended vacancies has been used
for part time help to help with the workload for short periods of time. Others have used a portion
of the savings to purchase capital equipment to improve the efficiency of the department. Others
have held vacancies open for an extended period of time in order to take advantage of opportunities
to improve service delivery that came up after the budget was approved.
In the one instance where an individual shared in the savings through a one-time bonus, approximately
$2,400 was paid out with a savings to the County of approximately $40,000. As you will remember,
after reappropriations were approved, savings on the expenditure side of the local government budget
was approximately $1 million. While this was clearly not attributable solely to the Gainsharing
Program, it does point to the conservative nature of cost center managers who are constantly looking
for ways to manage their appropriations carefully.
In fairness, it should be noted that many of the vacancies which occur on the local government side
cannot be held vacant without degradation of service levels to the public. Since this was a premise
upon which the program was established, executive staff reviews each vacancy which occurs to
determine its eligibility for the program and the effect on service levels. Since positions have not been
added in most departments over the last several years, departments have been asked to absorb the
growth in workload making it difficult to hold vacancies open in many.cases.
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
September 20, 1994
RE: Gainsharing
Page 2
Stafffeels that this program can be a useful tool and should be continued. It is widely used in several
other jurisdictions including the City of Charlottesville and is one of a number of ways to encourage
savings to occur at all levels of the organizations.
If there should be any further questions, I would be happy to respond.
RWT,Jr/dbm
94.128
C·F:·¡ "··1T"H ,..., r.: ,
,hj:J " ( l' ',J- l".LBEMARLE
r::;·· ~'¡:; nn nr~
¡.---~..d'4,"'¿4:" I [1
!: SEP 191994 )i II
U L; .' ,r'Tc.. ¡Uí
\'._-...', ._,~ \,~ L~...,j_ (..::-'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS L:Y: "fiVE Œ:F¡CE
Memorandum
DATE:
September 16, 1994
FROM:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
Carole A. Hastings I'll J.~
Acting Superintende~""
TO:
RE:
Presentation on Site-Based Management
On Monday, September 26, 1994, Dr. Ed Kelly, Superintendent of Prince
William County Schools, will be making a presentation to the School Board and
community on site-based management. Dr. Kelly is nationally known for his
efforts with this model and we are fortunate to have him joining us.
His presentation will be held in the County Office Building Auditorium
beginning at 6: 30 pm. This is to formally invite you, the Board of Supervisors
and local government staff to join us that evening if you are interested. Should
you have any questions on this matter, feel free to contact me.
CAH/bmc
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
H. Alexander Wise, Jr., Director
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Department of Historic Resources
September 15, 1994
Dear Local Government Official:
During the month of October, the Department of Historic
Resources and the Virginia Division of Tourism will co-sponsor
seven regional workshops for "Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks -1995
- Telling Our stories." The workshops will provide information and
guidance for communities joining in the third annual virginia
Heritage Tourism Weeks, April 30 - May 14, 1995. The meetings will
also enable individuals, historical organizations, historic site
managers, tourism officials and local economic development staffs
to share ideas and coordinate events.
Because heritage tourism is a vital part of community
revi talization and an important element in local economies, we
invite you or your representative to attend. There is no fee for
these workshops; the only cost for participants is a minimal charge
for a box lunch. The schedule of dates and locations is enclosed.
Please call our office to reserve a space. We hope you will
be able to join us.
Sincerely,
/1 (UL~ú/~)-,
H. Alexander Wise, Jr.
Director
COUNTY OF AL8!?MARLE
¡r:,::: '> :"::~: .--:-; r-.~
: . ....
1 ¡' ..'
I ; ~
'eTI
,
,
¡ '\
SEP 20 1994
. ~
~ ;
<.
. :...0
E'¡'~;~,L~(J'T- i .. ~_
. ',' -.
~,,-..."~ . ~v'~
TELEPHONE: (804) 786-3143
TDD: (804) 786-1934
FAX: (804) 225-4261
An Equal Opportunity Agency
..."
~v
V~
HERITAGE
TOURISM
WEEKS
"Telling Our Stories"
CJ
V~
HERfT^GE
TOURISM
WEEKS
Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks
Come join us as we plan for one of Virginia's most exciting new programs, Virginia Heritage
Tourism Weeks 1995. The Department of Historic Resources and the Division of Tourism will host
seven regional workshops, co-sponsored with the groups listed below.
The workshops will cover: 1) guidance and technical support for planning and promoting events
in your community/region; 2) ti.rst-hand experience of communities involved in the event; 3) benefits
of collaborations among state agencies, local governments, museums and other community groups.
The two-week statewide event, April 30 - May 14, 1995, will celebrate Virginia's historic
villages, towns and neighborhoods. This innovative program appeals to residents and visitors alike,
promoting one of the state's leading assets--its history--in ways that eliminate competition between towns
large and small, urban and rural. Now in its third year, Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks invites
communities to tell their stories. The event has been received enthusiastically by many communities.
"We didn't know we had this much talent," said a coordinator from Bluefield. "The long-term benefits
have been great already--in one weekend, we got the okay to go ahead with our museum," said a
Northern Virginia host. Other comments: "The whole town got together to plan this thing." "The
teachers loved it," (Winchester sponsor).
Schedule for Virginia Heritage Tourism Weeks Workshops
October, 1994 9:30 - 2:30
Wednesday, October 12
Tuesday, October 18
Wednesday, October 19
Thursday, October 20
Monday, October 24
Tuesday, October 25
Wednesday, October 26
Falls Church: The Falls Church Community Center; co-sponsored by the
Falls Church Tricentennial Committee
Marion: Hungry Mother State Park; Hemlock Haven Conference Center
Bedford: Avenel; co-sponsored by the Bedford Historical Society
Richmond: Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development; 501 N. 2nd St.
Newport News: Campus Center Building, Room 150, Christopher
Newport College; co-sponsored by the Newport News Department of
Planning and Development
Westmoreland County, Northern Neck: Stratford Hall; Council House
New Market: Quality Inn; co-sponsored by the New Market Battlefield
Historical Park, Virginia Military Institute
To reserve a space, please call tire Departmelll of Historic Resources (804)786-3143 or the Virginia
Division of Tourism (804)786-2051. Only fee is cost of box lunch.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND. 23219
September 19, 1994
Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated July 20, 1994, the following addi-
tions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective
September 19, 1994.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
MILL CREEK. SECTION 6
Route 1167 (Stoney Creek Drive) - From 0.22 mile Northwest Route
1168 to Route 1197 0.44 Mi
Route 1195 (Copper Hill Drive) - From Route 1167 to 0.11 mile
Northeast Route 1167 0.11 Mi
Route 1196 (Bent Tree Court) - From Route 1195 to 0.07 mile
Northwest Route 1195 0.07 Mi
Route 1197 (Whispering Oaks Drive) - From Route 1167 to 0.02
mile East Route 1199 0.15 Mi
Route 1198 (Sagewood Drive) - From Route 1197 to 0.08 mile
Southwest Route 1197 0.08 Mi
Route 1199 (Arrow Wood Drive) - From Route 1197 to Route 1167 0.28 Mi
Very truly yours,
h~\<. ~
David R. Gehr
Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
2
MEMORANDUM
September 21, 1994
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
VACO Concerns on sentencinq and Parole Reform
VACO has recently submitted to me a list of concerns that they have
developed to present at public hearings on Governor Allen's
Sentencing and Parole Reform. I submit this to you for your
information and for any comment or additional issues we should
raise with VACO to be presented at one of the public hearings
scheduled over the next several days with the General Assembly.
Please feel free to contact me with your comments or concerns that
can be passed along to VACO or presented by one of our Board
members.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
RWT,Jrjdbm
94.132
Attachment
.
I .
TEL: 804-788-0083
Sep 20,94 19:03 No.094 P.02/02
. ~
. Concerns 01 County Officials
Public HearinSj1s on Sentencing and Parole Reform
State Aid to local Governments
If revenue growth remains consistent with projected trends averaging 5% per yoar,
projected operating costs of sentencing and parole reform (Astimat8d to grow to $1
billion per year by 2005) will consume any new revenue growth and erode the existino
revenue base. It .'ands to reason that, Without II stst, 'ax Increase,
localities will lose sIgnificant money from the s'ste,
Aid to Localitle5 comprises 47% of 1118 sté:lt~'s general fund budget now.
· State aid to localities ic alroady deolining; from 1969 to 1993, $tate aid as
a percentage of total revenue decreased from 32.0-1% of total revenue to
30.20% of total revenue for all local governments. This decline Is even more
dramatic for counties; state aid decreased from 32.54% of total revenue In 1989
to 29.66% In 1993.
· Declining revenue from the state has already created a "back door" tax in
local governments. One of the few unrestricted taxes available to local
government~ is the propel1y tax.
"'From 1080 to 1993, tho average local effective property tax rate
increased 7 cents state-wide.
"'Increased prAJI;~lJr8 on the state general fund will translate into
more local property tax rate Increases of an even greater magnitude.
· 599 funds for law enforcement are underfunded and fringe benefits funding for
constitutional officers are unfunded in next year's state budget.
Debt Capacity
Will the state have the capacity to issue debt for hislorically funded local projects
(regional jails, school construction projects through the literary rund) after assuming
the cApital costs of abolishing parole?
Jail Overcrowding
What will be the Impact on housing state prisoners In local jails and local
overcrowding? How will jail per diem amounts be affected?
Community Correctlon$
What financial and operational roles will local governments assume in the area of
community oorrections Qf) a result of the plan to reform sentencing and parole?
Juveolle Corrections
What will be the impact to the juvenile justice system and juvenile detention homes?
FuÞflc Hearing TImes and Dates: Chantilly, Wednesday, September 21, 1994, 7:00 p.m"
ChantIlly High $!,;lIoul Auditorium, U. S, Route~, Wythevllle. Wednesday, Septomber 21, 1994,
7~OO p.m., George Wythe High School Auditorium. Norfolk, September 22,1994,7:00 p.m., Norfolk
City Council Chantlers, 11th Floor. 810 Union Street. Richmond, Tuesday. September 21, 1994, Q:OO
a. m. Senate Room B General Assembl Bui/din .
TEL: 804-788-0083
Sep 21,94 14:59 No.093 P.02/02
j
" ~
Public Hearings on The
Virginia's Sentencing
Reform of
System
.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 7:00 P.M.
(S) Chantilly - Chantilly Hígh School
(S) Wythcville - George Wythe Hí¡h School
THURSDAY, SEPTRMRRR 22, 7:00 P.M.
(5) Norfolk - Norfolk City COl1ncil Chambers
(H) Fredericksburg - Mary Washington Colle¡e - Dodd Auditorium,
George Washington Hall
MONDA Y, SEPTEMB~K 26, 7:00 P,M.
(H) Char10ttesviUe - Piedmont Community Col1ege
(H) Blacksburg - VPI-SU, Donaldson Brown Center
(H) Alexandria - City Council Chambers
(H) Wise - Clinch Valley Comm. Co)]ese, Cantrell HaIl, Room 206
(H) Roanoke - Virginia Western Community Collegc,
Whitman Auditorium, Business and Science Building
TUESDA V, SEPTEMBER 27, 9:00 A.M.
(S) Richmond - Senate Room B
TVESDA Yt SEPTEMIU£R 27. 7;00 P.M.
(H) Richmond - House Room D
(S) ¡¡¡ Senate Sponsored
(II) == House Sponsored
Luella E. (Pynke) Gohaner-Lyles
2813 Huntington Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
I reside in Northfields subdivision with my husband Vernal, and daughter Sloane. Our
daughter is five years old, and just entered K-l at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. We are
just being introduced to the Albemarle County School system. As you will be able to tell, I
have a great deal of involvement with the Charlottesville Public Schools and I am a life-long
native of this community. I feel that I have a vested interest in this community and with a
child in the public schools, I have an interest in her education.
EXPERIENCE
Presently, I am the Deputy Director of the Monticello Area Community Action
Agency (MACAA), which is an anti-poverty organization serving Planning District 10.
I have been employed by this organization for 26 years.
I have experience in supervision, fiscal management, public relations, mediation and
program planning.
I am a former business owner with my husband, which was called, L & G Landscape
and Lawn Service, Inc.
My experience with children:
* First and foremost, I am a mother.
* MACAA administers the HeadStart program for the region and I personally
supervise the program.
* MACAA administers Project Discovery, which is an educational program
that motivates students to further their education beyond high school and I
also supervise that program.
* I am also a Mediator for students, teachers and parents.
* The "Just Friends" Mentoring program was founded by myself and five
other professionals to work with at-risk children and families in Charlottesville.
This program let us be role models for children with problems and who come
from one-parent homes.
* Lead Case Manager for MACAA. I supervise the function in our
agency that take me into the homes, schools, courts, and other organizations
dealing with children and parents who have multiple problems.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
- Presently a member of the planning committee for the Charlottesville Alternative
school.
- Ob5e ;-vB d - the entire process of selecting and hiring the Charlottesville Public
SchoolSuperintel1dept, q!)d w~s ¡:;v:JjiJed I~ ).)je~l/jetj¡~c¡c¡,"/d tl;p J-r}?(J¡(j'''¡
pI'LL. r J -5 fur h I i~J n; lh[~ c¡ jIJp/ N c¡V / \f f S"C h (/0 J ]J/r'¡:>c 'fdr,
. former Vice-Chairperson of the Charlottesville Drug Advisory Board
- Present member of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Foundation Advisory Board
- Former member Charlottesville Social Development Commission
- Co-founder of Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE), and am a member of many
more boards.
The concerns that I will focus on if I am seated on the Albemarle County School Board are:
1) Hiring a competent school superintendent who will make sure all children in
Albemarle County receive a quality education. One who will see the need to
involve parents in their childrens' education. One that is committed to
establishing a multicultural curricula and aggressive recruitment of minority
teachers and administrators.
2) Hire skilled teachers that deserve to be paid well.
3) Have a balanced budget.
4) All of the schools in Albemarle County deserve equal attention. Schools in
Southern Albemarle County (i.e. Walton and B.F. Yancey) seem to get left out
of the loop.
5) The School Board needs to assist principals in addressing other ways to teach
children besides the "traditional ways" when it is clear that the "traditional
ways" will not help all of the children.
6) A Family Life curriculum need to be taught in Albemarle County. The class
needs to be structured in such a way that it can be effective and appreciated by
all children participating in the class.
7) Educators need to learn to understand and appreciate diversity.
8) Prioritize the needs in the school system and financially address each need
according to priority.
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
LUELLA ELIZABETH (PYNKE) GOHANER-L YLES
CURRENT MACAA POSITION: Deputy Director, MACAA
PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITY: Administration of all MACAA programs and activities;
Assist in administering a budget over three million
dollars; and
Supervise 100 full time employees.
P AST/PRESENT PERSONAL ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATES:
* Board of Directors, Region Ten Mental Health Board
* Member, Social Development Commission
* Member, Task Force on the Virginia Employment Commission
* Member, Task Force on Race Relations and Employment in the Private Sector
* Member, Westminster Center Board of Directors
* Member, Vice-Chairperson of Charlottesville Drug Advisory Board
* Member, Boys/Girls Club of Charlottesville/Albemarle Board of Directors
* Member, Coalition for Racial Justice
* Member, Information and Referral Board of Directors
* Member, Advisory Board, Charlottesville/Albemarle Foundation
OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
* Strong interest in programs for children, women and families
* Founding member, Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE)
* Founding member, "Just Friends" Mentoring Program
* Founding member CORE, Cooperation of Resources Efforts Coordinating council
comprised of large human services organizations
* Task Force sponsored by PVCC recruitment of African-American faculty as well as
students
* Public Housing Resident Management Initiatives Advisory Board
* Task Force sponsored by Health Department and Cancer Society
* Task Force sponsored by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce -
employment in the private sector
* Expertise is in case management and family dynamics
Loretta F. Henderson
1742 Hearthglow Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
804-973-0645
September 20, 1994
David Bowerman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Bowerman:
I wish to express my support for Luella E. "Pynke" Gohaner-Lyles. She is applying for
the position of School Board representative for the Charlottesville district. I have
known Ms. Lyles since 1987, and am proud to count her as one of my personal friends.
As you are aware, Pynke is the assistant director of MACAA. One thing Pynke strongly
believes is the importance of parents becoming involved by taking part in the education
of their child. Her duties with the Head Start program is one way she can pass on her
belief by encouraging parents of the children in Head Start to volunteer in the system.
Budgeting, planning and deadlines are not new to Pynke, either. Pynke is in a
supervisory position where she deals with the public extensively, the confidentiality
of personnel matters, and the strategies of marketing with confidence. In addition, her
duties with MACAA have certainly taught her about the financial aspects of running an
office. She has learned how to stretch the dollar when funding was limited. Her
experience gives her the confidence to be in the public eye.
She was appointed by the city council to the Drug Advisory Board. Then, the other
members of the board had enough faith in her abilities to elect her as the vice chair.
While this advisory board is no longer active, she feels that the contacts she made are
invaluable.
Pynke feels that her knowledge of the community and the people who live here is based on
the fact that she is a native of Charlottesville and that she has held positions which
enable her to come in contact with many people. She is not afraid to make decisions that
might be unpopular if they are for the good of the community. Pynke and her husband have
made a commitment to live in this area, and she wants to make this the best place to raise
their daughter.
As one who lives in the Charlottesville district, I feel confident in recommending Pynke
for the position of School Board member. One way she can do this is by serving on the
School Board.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
i~\:Þ ~L-;<~-
Loretta F. Henderson
CLARK C JACKSON
Auto-Life-Health-Home and
716 W RIO ROAD SUITE C
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
Business
Staff:Cindy, Nadine, & Gloria
PHONE (804) 978-7457 FAX (804) 974-6769
September 20, 1994
To whom it may concern:
I have know~Ms. Luella E. Gohaner for about 8 years thru our involvement
in the community working together on various organizations.
She has proved herself to be very responsible and dependable ln
every situation we have encountered together. She works well
as a team player and has excellent interpersonal skills.
She has always taken a leadership role in making sure the job gets
done timely and effectively. I have no reservations in recommending her to
be considered for the Albemarle County School Board and know she will
make an immediate inpact in improving our community.
Should further information be needed please call me
at (804) 978-7457.
Sincerely,
/"'/)1
L-.J¿:--~ C __. (J - () ~ .
/~~~
Clark C. Jackson
'f
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902·459('í
(804) 296·5823
October 19, 1994
Tom Batchlor
3505 Marlboro Court
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-94-22 Charles W. Hurt
Tax Map 45, Parcel 109
NOTE - CORRECTED CONDITION
Dear Mr. Batchlor:
The Albemarle County Planning Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on September 21, 1994,
approved the above-noted request to establish modular and mobile home sales. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsel or other attention getting devices shall
be allowed;
2.. Use is limited to a maximum of eight (8) units at anyone time, including the office.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
¡)Wa:r
v. Wayne Cdimber
Director of Planning
cc: Ella Carey j
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Rio Associates Limited Partnership
J
o·~ ~·,-;_7 t b ;,' ~
" ,.,'
(> -/f:..-'!
''J,~';'cí(l ":1.7'/ ,:' it¡
j. .-.:o-._~
f../,~.~ ;::;:.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902·4596
(804) 296-5823
August 11, 1994
Tom Batchlor
3505 Marlboro Court
Charlottesville, VA 2290 I
RE: SP-94-22 Charles W. Hurt
Tax Map 45, Parcel 109
Dear Mr. Batchlor:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 9, 1994, 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. , No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsel or other attention getting devices shall
'be allowed;
2.. Use is limited to a maximum of eight (8) units at any time.
Please note the Planning Commission granted a modification of Section 32.7.5.1 to allow the use
of private septic system subject to the following condition:
At such time as a sewer line with adequate capacity is in place with 200 feet of the office,
the applicant shall connect to public sewer;
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review the
special use permit petition and receive public comment at their meeting on
SEPTEMBER 21. 1994. 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.
Page 2
August 11, 1994
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
V~ti~.
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
Jo Higgins
Amelia McCulley
Rio Associates Limited Partnership
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
AUGUST 9, 1994
SEPTEMBER 21, 1994
SP-94-22 CHARLES HURT
Petition: Charles Hurt petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use pennit for
outdoor storage and display of Modular and Mobile Home Sales on a portion of Tax. Map 45,
Parcel 109 [30.6.3.2(b)]. This site is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and is within the EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The property is located in the northwest comer of the
intersection of Route 29 and the Keglers access road in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood One.
Character of the Area: This site is located just to the south of the existing miniature golf course
and is between the Keglers site and Route 29. Access to the site will be rrom the Keglers access
road.
Aoolicant's Prooosal: The applicant proposes to display modular and mobile home units for sale
on this site. A sketch of the proposed layout of the site is included as Attachment C. The
applicant has stated as a description and justification for this request: "Modular and Double Wide
Home Sales Center. Models will be set up for sales displays. Models will be changed as usage
occurs. Single wide homes will not be emphasized but may be displayed on occasion. A needed
business. A display for modular and mobile homes presented in a attractive and tasteful manner
that will be appealing to prospective home buyers. While there is little rrontage on 29 we do
expect people to exhibit a home that will be remembered when people are considering a new
home. Our visual display will be a enhancement to the 29N corridor."
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of
Sections 31.2.4.1 and 30.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Plannine and Zonine Historv:
December, 19, 1985 - ZMA-85-17 approved establishing the present zoning on the site.
May 4, 1988 - ZMA-88-06 approved which modified the proffers of ZMA-85-17
June 6, 1988 - Subdivision plat administratively approved establishing current parcel boundaries.
October 13, 1993 - SP-93-25, a request for a commercial recreation establishment was denied.
ComDrehensive Plan:
This area is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood One. The non-residential land
use guidelines for Regional Service contained in the Comprehensive Plan contain the widest
variety of uses. Mobile home sales are a typical primary use in Regional Service.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the use of public utilities in Urban Neighborhoods. A
private septic system is proposed as the existing public sewer serving this drainage basin is
currently at capacity.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 31.2.4.1
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 which states:
"The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
pennits pennitted hereunder. Special use pennits 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 pennitted 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. "
This use is by special use pennit only due to its location within the entrance corridor. The
proposed use is by-right in the underlying district and is a typical use of the Regional Service area.
Therefore, staff has limited review to the potential impact of the site to Route 29 and not adjacent
properties which are similarly zoned. Residential properties are located on the east side of Route
29 and to the west behind Keglers. Due to the distance to these properties no adverse impact is
anticipated.
This use will require a Certificate of Appropriateness trom the Architectural Review Board
(ARB). The ARB held a preliminary conference with the applicant on August 1. Subject to
design considerations which will limit to eight (8) the number of display models and will require
substantial landscaping. The ARB has indicated it can issue a certificate of appropriateness. The
staff report trom the Design Planner is attached.
Private Se,ptic:
The applicant is requesting the use of private septic systems which is pennitted in accord with
Section 32.7.5.1 which states:
"Within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority and where the
commission determines public water and/or sewer to be reasonably available, such service
shall be extended by the developer. All such facilities shall be constructed to Albemarle
County Service Authority specifications and dedicated to the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Except as otherwise provided by Albemarle County Service Authority policy,
all costs shall be borne by the developer. "
"
The Planning Commission may grant this modification.
The developer will connect to public water. Attachment D is from the Albemarle County Service
Authority. The existing pump station serving this drainage basin requires upgrading which will
involve physical improvements and the platting of an access easement on property not owned by
the applicant. During the review of the miniature golf course located in tront of Kegler's and the
recreation center behind Kegler's, the Planning Commission did authorize the use of a private
septic system. During the review of the recent Todd Shields request, the Planning Commission
added a condition requiring future connection. That condition has been included in this request.
During the review of SP-93-25 on this site, the Planning Commission did authorize use of a
private septic field. The Health Department will require a soils report prior to approval of the site
plan. The anticipated water use is less than that for the proposed recreation center.
Staff recommends allowance of private septic system until such time as public sewer is available.
Staff recommends the following condition:
At such time as a sewer line with adequate capaicity is in place within 200 feet of the
office, the applicant shall connect to public sewer.
WESTERN BY-PASS:
This site lies in the path of the western by-pass as currently proposed. The County has agreed
with VDOT that it will attempt to protect this alignment from development. One rezoning
(ZMA-89-09 Rio Hill West) in the alignment of the bypass proposing to increase density from R-
6 to R-15 was denied by the Board of Supervisors. Commercial development of equal or greater
intensity is available by-right on this site. It is due only to the use of outdoor storage in the
Entrance Corridor that this use involves a special use permit. Because of this circumstance,
commercial development of this property cannot be prevented.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The ARB has recommended conditions by which a Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued
for this request. With this determination, staff recommends approval with the following
conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDmONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
1. No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsel or other attention getting devices shall
be allowed;
2. Use is limited to a maximum of eight (8) units at any time.
----------------
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Sketch of Site
D - Albemarle County Service Authority Comment
E - Design Planner's Report
L
I ATTACHMENT AI
-.......... ...
o
(j
\.'.
ALBEMARLE ,COUNTY
I ATTACHMENT B'
44
I,.
SEE
46-IBD
...
...
---
SCALE I~ FE E:T
1100
....
,
61
CHARLOTTESVILLE, RIVANNA
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION 45
·'1"...
~ J,i . .
~
~
<J
"{
l
/2. 3,5
,r.~
I
I 1\
I '~
I !~
I ¡~
I I
I .
I
I
I
l'
, '-1 I
, ~ I
" Q.., ,
1'(
1\9
I ~}
i~ f
: \-,
,
¡ATTACHMENT C
\
)
\)
~
~
".
~
~
~
~ l{
""" ,,/ '"
,¿ rC)
'" '-9
.~
""
- - -- -- - - -~ - -
J f IV StJ VI IfJlt/ E
- --------
. ¡
1:1, ) ,
~(8EMARLt' COUNTY S"ERVICE AUTHORITY
If . ME M 0 REOEIVED
. . AU~ 7 199j
" To,: .~ ." Wiiliam D. Fritz. Senior Plann~r " ~/
FROM: Paul A. Shoop, Director of Englneerlng- 1?(>
DATE:
RE:
I ATTACHMENT D I
August 17, 1993
Planning Dept.
Sanitary Sewer Service West of Rt. 29 in the Woodbrook
Drainage Basin
No residual capacity exists in the Woodbrook pump station
serving' Keglers and part of the Woodbrook subdivision.
Development in that area will requir~ replacing the pump
station either with a new station or a gravity sewer.
Late in 1990 we discussed upgrades with Frank Stoner, C. W.
Hurt and Wendell Wood. In an effort to "phase" the
replacement system we told them we would consider pumping
options as they could be achieved with the following .
investment levels:
Increase capacitY/46,000 gpd(new pump station) $117,600
Increase capacitY/114,000 gpd(force main) 55,000
Increase capacity to meet basin need
(gravity sewer)
Total Upgrade Cost
54,000
$226,600
The alternative to the above is a gravity sewer through
Carrsbrook. A preliminary estimate to construct this sewer
is $350,000.00. '
In 1990 the attractive solution was to const~uct the pump
station in phases with contributions from the primary
property owners in the basin. A contract acceptable to all
parties has yet to be drafted.
our current capit~i improvement program includes a line item
for the gravity Sewer. This project is not proposed to be
funded in the current biennium, ~ut has been identified as a
potential project between 1995 and 1998. A lot of factors
play in funding a project during a current biennium, and'
there are no guarantees the sewer project will occur before
1998.
I hope this information will give you some background for
projects proposed within this basin. If you have any
questions feel free to call.
~. ..
PAS:dmg
¡:
f(
¡
.'
Î,",
':'.'-.:
r~\' -~.
n::~.~;
~,{,~ :~~
"
¡ATTACHMENT E\
STAFF PERSON: Marcia Joseph
PUBLIC MEETING: August 1, 1994
ARB-P(SDP)-94-17 Home Sales Center
Request for a Preliminary Conference
DESCRIPTION
Tax Map 45 Parcel 109, Charlottesville Magisterial District, Zoned HC Highway Commercial.
LOCA TION
Located on the west side of Route 29N just north of Wood brook Drive.
PROPOSAL
To provide an area to store and display manufactured housing.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site has been graded into a level plane and currently exists as a grassy field.
STAFF REPORT
Because the applicant proposes to store and display items for sale visible from the Entrance
Corridor a special use permit is required. The ARB is requested to provide recommendations
to the Board of Supervisors concerning the use, and the visual impact this use may have on the
corridor.
The site has been graded and cleared. The northern boundary of the property is shared with the
miniature golf area, the entrance to the bowling complex is located on the southern boundary;
directly across from the entrance is a vacant graded and cleared parcel. This site will b?highly
visible from the corridor. \
The applicant proposes placing 6 manufactured homes and an office on the parcel. This will
include a gravel surface for parking the homes and maneuvering the homes onto and off the site
as the sales occur.
The homes resemble small single family homes. The office proposed is a mobile office.
The home illustrated closest to Route 29N be used as a model. The model will be elevated in
relation to Route 29N, and therefore, visible from Route 29N. .
I ATTACHMENT E I , Page 2 ,
Home Sales
August 1, 1994
Staff suggests that the use can be accommodated on the site if the following occurs:
1) Use the home closest to Route 29N as a model, landscaping should be used to frame the
building, and heighten the sense of residential use.
2) The homes located behind the model should be separated with a grouping of evergreen
trees 6'-8' in height, these should wrap around the model home and around the property
line.
3) Street trees (2) are planted in the area adjacent to Route 29N.
4) Street trees are planted 35' on center along the access road and along the most northern
property line.
5) The parking area should contain landscaping in conformance with the requirements in the
zoning ordinance and design guidelines. This should include trees and screening shrubs.
2
.-
" /
(j -{~(; (~ /._.7& .
""
?/Ä-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Pept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902·4596
(804) 296·5823
September 9, 1994
Marjorie Shepherd
Box 40
Free Union, VA 22940
RE: SP-94-24 Free Union Country School
NOTE CORRECTED BOARD DATE
Dear Ms. Shepherd:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 6, 1994,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions (amending condition 5 and
deletion of condition 6):
1.' If licensure is not required by the State Welfare Department, this approval shall be
construed to include waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. All other
requirements of Section 5.1.6 shall be met;
2. Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated and is non-transferable;
3. Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendation of the Site Review
Committee, provided that enrollment shall in no case, exceed fifty-five (55) students;
4. Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Standards for Licensed
Child Care Centers;
5. Staff approval ðf 3ite plftfi amendmcnt Expansion shall be limited to 300 square feet;
6. Exptmsiofi shall be limited to a IDotprirtt of21 feet 4 ifichcs b)· 36 feet and shall not
cxeeed two floors.
Page 2
September 7, 1994
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on September 21. 1?94.. A,ny 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.
Sincerely,
~¿~
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Ella Carey
Free Union Country School
.
.
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
SP-94-24 FREE UNION COUNTRY SCHOOL
Petition: Petition to amend SP-90-82 to permit expansion of the existing building for an office
and art room. Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel15D consists of 4.76 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas and is located on the west side of Route 601 approximately 300 feet east of the
Route 601 /Route 665 intersection in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located
within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1).
NOTE: The original approval for this school was granted by the Board of Supervisors in 1984
(SP-84-19). An amendment (SP-88-33) in 1988 increased enrollment from 35 to 48 students.
An amendment in 1990 (SP-90-82) increased enrollment from 48 to 55 students and was later
amended in 1991 to permit a building expansion. The current conditions applicable to the site
are included as Attachment C.
STAFF COMMENT:
Prior approvals have allowed for expansion of enrollment and building area. Conditions 5 and 6
of SP-90-82 specifically limited the expansion area. It is due to these conditions that a special
use permit has been processed. The current proposal is to increase the building area by
approximately 250 additional square feet to allow for an office and art room. No increase in
enrollment is proposed. The purpose of the expansion is to improve the functional ability of the
school for accreditation purposes.
No grading or clearing oftrees is required to accommodate the additional expansion. The
expansion will be visible from Route 601. No additional parking is required.
Staff opinion is that this increase does not substantially change the expansion allowed under
SP-90-82 nor does it alter the character of the district due to the location and limited size of the
proposed additional expansion. The applicant should be put on notice that further increases
could change the character of the district and may, therefore, not be supported as consistent with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
1
.
Staff recommends approval of SP-94-24 subject to amended condition 5 and deletion of
condition 6.
1. If licensure is not required by the State Welfare Department, this approval shall be
construed to include waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. All other
requirements of Section 5.1. 6 shall be met;
2. Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated and is non-transferable;
3. Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendation of the Site Review
Committee, provided that enrollment shal1.in no case, exceed fifty-five (55) students;
4. Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Standards for Licensed
Child Care Centers;
5. Sttiff ttf'þfO'itil ef 3itc þltiB am.eBàmeBt Addition shall be in general accord with
Attachment D;
6. EXþftfl.3ÍeB 3hall be limited to ti f'Ootþfim ðf 21 feet 4 inehe3 by 36 f-eet and 3htill Bot
execed t....,o flôOf3.
~ ----------------
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Conditions of SP-90-82
D - Sketch of Building Expansion
.
2
·
I:
I ATTACHMENT AI
-I..
"
~
.,.)
o
v
G
Ii
~
\>"
~
~0
,
*-
c,
o
~
....
Q~
'(
~
~
J
j\ /~I../
\
J
1\'
~
c
FLAT MTN
o
(j
MOUNTAIN
'é.\..'i\O~
/1'/-
r.
\
it
." \/
,..\LBEMARLE
COUNTY
¡ATTACHMENT 8\
76
III. _ _0
SCALI: IN fEET
1.0 1100
....
.
43
WHITE HALL AND
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION 29
... 'MOORMAN's RIVER AGRICULTURALIliFORESTAL DISTRICT'
.
.
.
. .
.-
.'
,-'"-
I ATTACHMENT C I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
April I, 1991
David Ashcom
Rt. I, Box 258A
Free Union, VA 22940
RE: SP-90-82 Free Union Country School
Tax Map 29, Parcel 15D
Dear Mr. Ashcom:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
March 20, 1991, approved the above-noted request to amend
SP-88-33 to increase enrollment from 48 to 55 students in a
private school on 2.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. A
building addition is proposed. Property, located on the
west side of Rt. 601 approximately 700 feet southeast of the
intersection of Rts. 601/655. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. If licensure is not required by the state Welfare
Department, this approval shall be construed to include
waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.
All other requirements of section 5.~.6 shall be met;
2. Permit is issued to Free Union Country School,
Incorporated and is non-transferable;
3. Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with
recommendation of the site Review Committee, provided
that enrollment shall in no case exceed fifty-five (55)
students;
4.
Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's
Minimum Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers;
5.
Staff approval of site plan amendment in general accord
with Attachment B (attached);
.
David Ashcom
Page 2
April 1, 1991
6. Expansion shall be limited to a footprint of 22 feet by
36 feet and shall not exceed two floors.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate'to contact me.
Sincerely,
Community Development
VWC/jcw
.
cc: Amelia Patterson
Richard Moring
.
, .
.. ..
:.
:
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
,! ¡
¡el.
I II
I ., I
j
I
!
.
I
I
! .
i
.---
h2.e-<...
¡~.
~
z.'
~
....-
.
I..... -
r;;"J I ~ , I \) If':' ~-:)
I
I
.
..c·~,,,...J ¿?...;~ ~~'/
~~(c-
I
x,/t
.:--
,
JJ
. D"tU-i7.,,,,:,,
, I
()F'~ 1'12
/4-,fJ ~
'r-
~
,
.J'
::
¿~~
"
I'
;C)pp,,-';;,v
J ATTACHMENT D J
I Page 11
~ -... ,;
\.
;-
,
I
Z. :
t~¡v¡ ,
: ¡ WA 11.£
, , .
r
\f .
~r;1'
'" ~ .
AJGw lJJp, '),
. , .
-/h~ i Þ~/6?r4J1. ¡tf~/I:.
t
. .
I .
i.
¡
Î'
...::1
AQ.r
lko,.,..¡
I
. .,
-I
i
. I
i
- I
!
I
-I
. .. ¡
f~/g t;¡ú
...1
ItII
¡ ~ I
I
I :
. L____ .
¡
I
\ ... i
1- !
i
·-t rp
I
'i)
''J é)
,:\YJ
~ ~ 1~
, --
1-\
I 0,r-ö
5~~ e) <s
~~~r-
~~ ~ :\11
~~I§~~
~ ~!¿y: ~ ~
\- lli~ ~ tJ
, . C\I
. to
I
~ 0
0)
w n.
a:
. ~ (f)
Z J:[l
\ ~~ 0 1::":1
, E 'D '{ :=:1
- \l''( C~
- ...J
.. ~ J C t,¡ J ~
~ ~~ C .~ ....... W
- 3
~ ~ ~ > ß
. v;t ~ ~.
::; . V''"(> ~ 0 B \
,j .::J? C
'::Z.\J'¡ W "i. 'ïJ a: \
~\l (f) ~ ~ 8: ~
~~ 0 Ü
<It ~ c(-
) ":2::'0 n. ~
<}. 0
-.. -... -..- . a:
n.
g
::t::
[
f1
~
bJ.
~
:11
~~
Á..~
Iff'
Jj~~? ..
~
~''';>'r.3'' '
\,~ ~.
....." Q'
\.,
~~~
\.L'
~~§
st
-'f)
18.lN3L^JH8V.l.lV
I ATTACHMENT D I
I Page 21
J ~j ]
..(
2
2 ~.~ ~
:; Ñ~';'
V) +
..{ Ü
D- b I
W. \D \ I
\ ~ I
J ~ I
..( ~ ~..{ ~ I
I
I
i' :t ,
~~~ !
I
r:: .J..
I
I..!..
~
~
We::.
~::I
~::s
"~{t
-i ..
<s :,
,....
[j,
'.L 0, ~.
~ (!::'
T. :í -<! :.
~ = .
w. :!: \!¡
::J'<"::'
'f)§,.....~1
b..¡:
.{ ...
~ ... ~ ;'
- i:
~~~::
V'jL~:
I ,>-
3 Q¡ . '.
L..J.~,
,.
_2~.l (::-? ~I
~;« DC¡ ¿ I. 'J 7C'
---p.........-..,"' '. 7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296·5823
August 10, 1994
Broomley Farm, Inc
Attn: Simon Harvey
815 Broomley Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-94-1O Broomley Farm, Inc
Tax Map 59Al, Parcel B
Dear Mr. Harvey:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 9, 1994, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to staffs recommendation that proffer 11 of ZMA-80-16 be amended
as follows:
11. Access limited to Broomley Road only, and no access onto Brook Road. This condition
shall not prohibit the connection of a private driveway from the Broomley Farm property
to the roads serving the subdivision.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on September 14.1994. Any new or additional
Page 2
August 10, 1994
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.
Sincerely,
:V~~¡;ý
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcw
cc: Ella Carey
· ..
t
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
AUGUST 9, 1994
SEPTEMBER 14, 1994
ZMA-94-10 BROOMLEY FARM
Petition: Broomley Farm petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend ZMA-80-16 to permit
modification of access. Property, described as Tax Map 59Al, Parcel B, is a portion of open
space for the Ivy Creek P.R.D. This property is located on the south side ofIvy Creek Drive
approximately 200 feet east ofBroomley Road in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site
is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Character of the Area: Broomley Farm is developed with a dwelling and several farm buildings.
Currently, access to the farm is over Broomley Road and Brook Road (in Farmington). A
security gate is located at the end ofBroomley Road near its intersection .with Ivy Creek Drive.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway to Ivy Creek Drive
which intersects Broomley Road. While access to Broomley Road already exists the purpose of
the proposed connection is to allow Broomley Farm to use the security features of the Ivy Creek
development. Access to Broomley Road would be maintained for farm use. The applicant has
submitted a description and justification for the request. In addition, replacement proffer
language is proposed (Attachment C).
RECOMMENDA TION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the original intent
of ZMA-80-16 and recommends approval.
Plannine and Zonine Historv: The zoning for the Ivy Creek development was established on
November 5, 1980. (See Attachment D)
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. No
resources are identified in the Comprehensive Plan Open Space Plan.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The original approval for the Ivy Creek development prohibited any connection to Brook Road.
The intent of this was to prohibit access through the existing Farmington development. While this
petition does not propose a connection between Brook Road and Ivy Creek Drive for the use of
1
.
the Ivy Creek development, the connection will physically exist. Staff notes that currently
Broomley Farm has access to Broomley Road (at Flordon to the south ofIvy Creek) and Brook
Road. Therefore, the proposed driveway will not represent significant alteration of the existing
pattern of access. Staff has prepared a map showing the existing and proposed road layout
(Attachment E). Attachment B notes the location of access to Ivy Creek Drive and the portion of
open space to be crossed is not useful as recreation area. The areas designation as open space
was to prevent a spite strip or odd shaped lot, both of which are prohibited.
The drive will be private and gated which will preclude its use as a through public connection
trom Ivy Creek through Farmington. Therefore, approval of this request does not appear to be
contrary to the intent ofZMA-80-16.
Staff can identify no negative factors to this application and recommends approval of the request.
Staff recommends that proffer 11 of ZMA-80-I6 be amended as follows:
11. Access limited to Broomley Road only, and no access onto Brook Road. This condition
shall not prohibit the connection of a private driveway trom the Broomley Farm property
to the roads serving the subdivision.
---------------
ATTACHMENTS:
.' A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Applicant's Information
D - Agreements for ZMA-80-I6
E - Map of Road Layout
.
2
(,
è;
t
FOX MOUNTAIN
I
[¿Ii~
, I
<~ ì !
~.ý>< "-=",~ _ t
" '_"_."0 ~
>7 " -1,~~
.. - '.iì'
, ?
'\[6TïJ
\
~ Pallef$on Slme
,.
'-I i!
) ~
I-
I '"
I ...
I
L g
...
'"
./ ~
Ie.}
T'~ ~66J ':¡, ~
-'~\;j. 6045
(j _ ¿ AA" "
ATTACHMENT AI
forA
íÎ>1" ,.
ó ~-
;>
)
Iilir
,0,
G~Q
'1>"
0,0
~o
~-"
"\
MOUNTAIN
o--N
,
~
\
CASTLE
ROCK
<;)
""----'
~\~
~i!
~
I
.. ""~~'
;//
"'.;;. ,,:'
,.t-/~
\
I
\-
<'
,
i
~
699]":
~\'""
'~
Ad!'
I ATTACHMENT B I
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
·
IVY CREEK
PHASE I 01731 pt. TÒ'
PHAS [ II 01 7'1 PO. ''A
PHASE III DB 1118 PI. 631
PHASE IV~ 08 1144 pt. ..,.
DB 11915 pt. ))4 CR[YIS[01
PHASE Y 08 1t9~ .... )...
·
ZMA-94-10
Broanley Fann, InC.
,.
/
·
SCALE IN rEET
-
SECTION 59,
SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT
~.
.
-
.
.
.
¡ I ATTACHMENT C I
DESCRIPTION OF REQUES~: (Please attach additional information as needed)
Amendment of ZMA-80-16 -- hy rppl~~;ng exiRtin~ p~r~fr~ph 11 ~;Th Thø fnllnTTiuS'
11. Access limited to Broomley Road only, ~nñ nn ~~~ø~~ nnrn R~nn~ ~oan
This condition shall not prohihit thp ~nnnp~T;nn of a private driveway
from the Broomley Farm propertv to the roads servine- the slIhdivision.
JUSTIFICATION OF REQUEST: (Please attach additional information as needed)
The owner of Broomle Farm wants to install a rivate drivewa servin his residence.
Drive will connect with Ivy Creek Drive approx. 300 fee from the Ivy Creek security
gate. In addition, the drive itself will be gated, providing additional security and
privacy for the Broomley residence. The Broomley Farm owner desires the additional
security provided by having the primary entrance to his residence located within a
gated community. Owner also desires to create a safer, more attractive main entrance
to his property by reducing the curves and slopes on the drive. Ivy Creek desires to
accomodate the Broomley farm owner. Ivy Creek does not believe that the ZMA-80-16
would be violated by the private driveway connection, and is requesting this action
for clarification purposes only.
Tax Map/Parcel
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I hereby certify that the information
accompanying information is accurate,
my knowledge and elief.
IvMreek~'
B' ~~v. \-
S1gnature Simon
IV~3e~k ~~/
By. /. ~
FEE: Simon R.
provided on this application and
true and correct to the best of
l0 ~;:t1
~ate
6 '2'· a~
00 {cO
Receipt #
Br~~ley F~ -IIlc.
By: ~~~ l- .
1mon R. Harvey,
V,P.
Date
b . 21, C; Ý-
DATE
.....r~.··:-
(m.Mgr.
6 .2]-c/
DATE
.P.
Planned Developments
Other Rezonings
1) Under 50 acres
2) Over 50 acres
$ 815.00
$1,225.00
Œ-~~=)
1) Under 50 acres
2) Over 50 acres
$ 815.00
$1,215.00
Minor Amendments
DEFFER,AL
1) Specific date
2) Indefinite
$
25.00
60.00
·
·
·
."
~'"{~
OV
c;
OF
I ATTACHMENT D I
Department of Planning
ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR.
804/296-5823
414 EAST MARKET STREET
-CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
RONALD S. KEELER
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF" PLANNING
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DOUGLAS W. ECKEL
SENIOR PLANNER
November 7, 1980
NANCY MASON CAF>ERTON
SENIOR PLANNER
KATHERINE L. IMHOFF
PLANNER
Mr. Thomas E. Worrell, Jr.
Post Office Box 1407
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Request for ZMA-80-16
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION
Dear Mr. Worrell:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at its meeting November 5, 1980,
approved your request for ZMA-80-16 to rezone 215.0 acres from A-I to RPN!A-l
on Tax Map 59, Parcel 27, subject to the conditions as outlined on the attached
memo of November 6, 1980, from Barbara J. Flammia, Deputy Clerk to Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
If you have any questions regarding this notification, please contact Mr. Tucker
at 296-5823.
Sincerely,
t<JðJ~JVI'tL-J
jg!
cc: File
Jane Gloeckner
¿.
/..~
.
.
4.
.5.
d
I ATTACHMENT D II Page 21
OFFICE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 6, 19ÖO
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning
Barbara J. Flammia, Deputy Clerk
Action Letter - November 5, 1980 Board Meeting
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
At their meeting of November 5, 1980, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors took the fOllowing action:
ZMA-80-16. Thomas E. Worrell, Jr.: This request for a RPN/A-l on
215.0 acres, described as Tax Map 59, Parcel 27; located off the north
side of Route 250 West and Route 677 with primary access through
Flordon on Broomley Road, was approved with the following conditions:
1.
Approval is for a maximum of 33 single family lots. Location and
acreages shall comply with the approved plan. In the final sub-
division process, open space shall be dedicated in substantial
accordance with the number of lots approved;
2.
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances;
3.
County Engineer review of improvements to Broomley Road. Said
improvements shall be brought to the standards of Section 18-36
of the Subdivisio~ Ordinance as modified by the applicant's
waiver request of August 26, 1980. Prior to approval of such
final road plans, the applicant shall present a permanent and
binding agreement for the future maintenance of such road, said
agreement shall be reviewed for approval by the County Attorney's
office. No building permit shall be issued prior to the granting
of approval of the road maintenance agreement.
County Engineer approval of interior road plans prior to final
Planning Commission approval;
County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the
maintenance of roads, open space, lakes, drainage and appurtenant
structures and the use of open space for septic drainfields if
necessary and where permitted;
(continued....)
.
. . .
I ATTACHMENT D I ( Page 31
Jbert W. Tucker, Jr.
Action Letter 11-5-80
Page 2
November 6, 1980
6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance of Broomley Road into Route 677;
7. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant prior to final approval;
ö. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans to
serve the dcv~lopment, if required;
9.
SUI'vey of C ¿r.d 0 br'idg(: to determine current
load as part of subdivision plat;
capacity and safe-\
\
1
10. Safety record of bridge to be made available to Planning Commission!
prior to Planning Commission review of the plat. \
11. Access limited to Broomley Road only, and no access onto Brook
Road.
4~ /" ?'...L.
e.. """4!C -c::P-
. bjf/
~-oeckner
M. Caperton
J. Hurt
B. Bradshavl
J. H. Bailey
G. St. John
I. Cortez
.
CC:
~
<: w
" I-
Z
w
I:
J:
U
~
~
)~\
35
.
....
~
¡
,
,
·'1·" ..'
, ,
27Y
\1
.
,
,
? ~_0~);/
G,,': J Ö Co¡'; ¿/ (' '. \' ,',
i . , -' r) \..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mcintire Road <', ,
\"
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296·5823
August 17, 1994
Forest Lakes & Associates
Attn: Greg Porter
1931 Commonwealth Dr
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZMA-94-04 Forest Lakes Associates
Tax Map 46B3, Parcell and Tax Map 32, Parcel 29F
Dear Mr. Porter:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 16, 1994, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is for the rezoning of 12.08 acres rrom R-l, Residential and R-4, Residential to
R-.10, Residential. The Commission did not recommend approval of rezoning 2.35 acres to
Commercial. This approval is subject to the following proffers:
1. Provide access rrom Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-01, to the west to align with access as shown
on the rezoning for Tax Map 32, Parcel29N (ZMA-91-08).
2. Dedicate at the time of subdivision plat approval a thirty (30) foot strip across the State
Route 649 rrontage for future road improvements by the County of Albemarle or Virginia
Department of Transportation.
3. Reserve for dedication up to nine (9) feet beyond the thirty foot dedication
aforementioned for construction of a bike path. The applicant will not be responsible for
the construction of the bike path.
Page 2
August 17, 1994
A new proffer addressing fencing on the western boundary adjacenî:tÒ\l)x Map 32, Parcel 29N2
is to be submitted, by the applicant, prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting.
,'\ '
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on September 21.1994. 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. !
Sincerely,
2/~/ø:-
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDFljcw
cc: Amelia McCulley
t.EÍla Carey
Jo Higgins
).
~
-I
-~
"1
i"-
t:
~
I
~ j
.-,
~j
,
11
24-94 WED 11 :53 0
P.02
THE
KESSLER
GROUP
.
JI rJ
11111
I
I I~
August 24. 1994
r:OUNTY OF AL8EM~RtE
ffil~:s.ë?...I2JIDJ]lÇ1 rm
\ \ \ ' ¡ \ \ \
,U AUG 30 ì~'i4 )\In
'11 \ . ¡ I
,\ ---,\:'
U\ ~lbUìJ ~ ~J
BOARD Of SLJPEF,~\lISO,,~
Mr. Wayne Cilìmberg
Albemarle County Department
of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Rezoning of Tax Map 46. Parcel B3-01, and Tax Map 32, Parcel29P
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
Forest Lakes Associates, as applicant and owner of the property which is the subject of
Zonin.g Application ZMAw94.:.04, hereby voluntarily proffers the fonowing cooditíons
which shall be applicable to the property if the entire property consisting of 12.08 acres
is rezoned to R·I0 Residential, such proffers replacing aUpreviøus proffers offered for
this property:
1) Provide access from Tax Map 46, Parcel B3.01, to the west to align with access
as shown on the rezoning for Tax Map 32, Parçel29 North (ZMA~91w08).
2) Dedicate, at the time of subdivision plat approval, a thirty (30) foot strip across
the State Route 649 frontage for future road improvements by the County
of Albemarle or the Virginia Department of Transportation.
3) Reserve for dedication up to nine (9) feet beyond the thirty foot dedication
aforementioned for construction of a bike path. The appliçant will not be
responsib1e for the construction of the bike path.
4) Install a chain link fence approximately four (4) feet in height along the
applicants western boundary, or the eastern bound3Jy of Tax Map 32,
Parcel 29N2.
Please feel free to caU me if you have any questions.
ä:: .
Stepr:;~2~
P'Q Box 5207. Charlottesville. Va. 22905 (80i) 979-9500 fAX (804) ~79-805S
·)- .,
7L..-L.:....
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
WILLIAM D. FRITZ
AUGUST 16, 1994
SEPTEMBER 21, 1994
. ~-\\
, '
ZMA-94-04 FOREST LAKES ASSOCIATES
\ \ '
.'
Petition: Forest Lakes Associates petitions the Board ofS\Jpervisors to rezone 12.08 acres trom
R-1, Residential and R-4, Residential to R-10, Residential (9.73 acres) and C-1, Commercial
(2.35 acres) [proffered]. Property, described as Tax Map 46B3, Parcell and Tax Map 32, Parcel
29F, is located on the south side ofRpute 649 at the northern end of Timberwood Parkway in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. This sit~ is located in the Community of Holly mead and is
recommended for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre), high density residential
(10.01-34 dwelling units per acre) and Neighborhood Service.
Character of the Area: Adjacent and nearby uses include multi-family development (to the
south), single family residential (to the east and west), a dance school (to the east) and churches
(to the north and west). The property under review is mostly wooded with deciduous trees. An
unused portion of the former Powell Creek Drive is located on-site. A single dwelling is located
on Parcel 29F.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to rezone the property to allow for 65 residential
units and limited commercial area. The applicant has submitted the following proffers which are
intended to minimize the impact of the development and to address improvements contained in the
Comprehensive Plan (Attachment C):
1. Provide access trom Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-01, to the west to align with access as shown
on the rezoning for Tax Map 32, Parcel29N (ZMA-91-08).
2. Designate a 2.35 acre parcel ofland for neighborhood service. The gross floor area will
not exceed 40,000 square feet, and no single use will exceed 4"QOO square feet. Access
for the neighborhood service area will be provided trom Proffit Road (if adequate sight
distance can be obtained) and Timberwood Parkway, but no through access will be
provided except for emergency access which shall be provided.
3. Dedicate at the time of subdivision plat approval a thirty (30) foot strip across the State
'Route 649 trontage for future road improvements by the County of Albemarle or Virginia
Department of Transportation.
1
4. Reserve for dedication up to nine (9) feet beyond the thirty foot dedication
aforementioned for construction of a bike path. The applicant will not be responsible for
the construction of the bike path.
5.
Number of residential units not to exceed 65.
~--...
- . \ \
Ii: ,
RECOMMENDA TION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance. with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning <?,rdinance and recommends approval.
Plannine: and Zonine: Historv: The R-4 zoning was established at the time of the establishment
of the zoning for the Forest Lakes development. Various subdivision plats have been approved
resulting the present parcel boundaries.
Development Impact to Public FacíÜties:
: f
At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning staff reviews rezoning requests for their
fiscal impact on public and transportation facilities. This analysis is limited to those rezonings that
have some effect on facilities that are identified in our Capital Improvements Program (CIP) or
Six Year Road Plan and have a cost associated with them.
The analysis is based on the fair share determination of a particular development's impact on
affected facilities. It must be pointed out that this analysis is cursory, due to the lack of
information on revenues attributable to this development. The cost outlined by staff only
indicates the proportionate share of construction costs from the additional development generated
by the rezoning over by-right development.
The following are those facilities which will be affected by the rezoning request and have a cost
associated with them:
A. Schools
Schools affected by this proposal which have a cost as identified in the CIP are:
Albemarle Hi h School Renovations
$2,331,000.00
Based on the additional students as estimated by multipliers currently used by the County, a total
of27 additional elementary school students, 13 additional middle school students, and 16
additional high school students are anticipated.
Costs attributable to this development based on the proportion of students is $21,911.40 or
$337,10 per dwelling unit.
2
B. Libraries
This proposal is considered to be in the service area of the Northside Library ($18,000). Based
on the proportionate impact to library capacity, the proportionate share cost of this project is
$120.60 or $1.86 per dwelling unit. -?"",
. \ ~I
, ,
c.
Parks and Recreation
,',',.
This proposal is considered to be in tlië service area of the Rivanna Park ($143,144) and
Hollymead Elementary School Outdoor Recreation facilities.($37,000). Based on the
proportionate impact to these facilities the proportionate share cost of this project is $2,239.56 or
$34.46 per dwelling unit.
I .
.... ~.
~::::~:::tt~~l:f:::@iiiiii:i::ii:i:iiiiii:i::::ii:::ii¡:i¡iii::iii¡:::i:ii:ii:ii:i:::i::::::i::ii:ii:iiiiii:i¡i: ii:::i:i¡äl_II~:i~I¡:I§IIËiilll.::::i:::i:i:i:i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:: :i:::::i:ii:iiiii:iii:ii:j:¡iii::iii:iiiii:ii !Ji iiiiiiii:ii:ii¡iiiiiiii:i::~:::....
PROPORTIONAL COST PER nu s
PROJECTS TOTAL COST S SHARE S (400 nUts)
Albemarle Hi h School Renovations $2,331,000.00 $21,911.40 $337.10
Northside Ubr StaffFumishin s $18,000.00 $120.60 $1.86
Rivanna Park 1m rovements $143,144.00 $1,743.76 $26.83
Hollymead Elementary School Outdoor
Recreation Facilities $37,000.00 $495.80 $7.63
TOTALS $2,529,144.00 $24.271.56 $373.42
Consideration of the fiscal impact of the development needs to be balanced against considerations
of the County's growth management policy and other County policies. Excessive development
exactions could have the effect of discouraging utilization of the holding capacity of area, and
thus, lead to accelerated development in the Rural Areas.
, ,
Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Low and High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Service. The majority of the site is recommended for High Density Residential and
only that portion lying to the east ofTimberwood Parkway is recommended for Low Density
Residential. The proffers submitted by the applicant limit the density of the residential area to
under seven dwelling units per acre. This is a lower density than recommended in the
3
Comprehensive Plan for the majority of the site. However, the proposed density may be
considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to the mixed designation of the area and
existing development in the area. The applicant's proffers limit the development of the
Commercial area to a level consistent with the recommendations for Neighborhood Service found
in the Comprehensive Plan on page 161 (Attachment D). .:_.~ ,
1"'\..
, ,
The applicant has proffered right-of-way for improvements to Route 649 aI:\Ø,the provision of a
bike lane. These proffers are consistent with proffers made in a rezoning of a nearby parcel
(ZMA-91-08) and are consistent wit Ii the Comprehensive Plan, provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance, the CATS study and the Bike Plan. , ,
The Comprehensive Plan notes extension of Timberwood Parkway to intersect with Rt. 649 in
conjunction with the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. This alignment would affect this
property due to the construction oftné roadway. This alignment is no longer under study due to
difficulties in obtaining adequate sight ¡distance for entrance on to Route 649.' Obtaining adequate
sight distance requires removaVrelocation of the church currently used as a dance studio to the
east or relocation ofRt. 649. Attachment E shows the location of various alignments for the
Meadow Creek Parkway and connector roads which have been reviewed by the consultant
(Sverdrup) who has been undertaking the alignment study. Any alignments which would affect
the property currently under review (T3 and T4) have not been recommended by the consultant
for further review.
No action has been taken to formally amend the Comprehensive Plan to delete the Timberwood
Parkway extension and no action has been taken as to the consultant's study of the final alignment
of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Based on this fact, this request is not consistent with the current
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for transportation improvements in the Community
of Hollymead. However, based on the sight distance situation for the Comprehensive Plan
alignment at Rt. 649 and the resulting study of alternatives by Sverdrup, staff opinion is that this
request does not adversely affect the transportation system plans.
STAFF COMMENT:
The County has attempted in past rezoning requests to obtain a conceptual plan for development
in order to determine the relationship of the development to adjacent arèas. Staff notes that
during subdivision review, staff can ensure that the development satisfies the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Development of the site will require significant
clearing of the woods on site and this development will be visible from adjacent properties and the
state road.
The applicant has submitted a proffer which grants access to adjacent properties. While no access
is anticipated at this time, should these parcels develop the allowance of access on this parcel may
reduce the total number of entrances on Route 649 and provide for internal circulation between
developments. The provision of access to adjacent properties is consistent with Sections 18-37(a)
of the Subdivision Ordinance apd 32.7.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has reviewed various sketches of development for the property under review. All show
access for the residential development through the existing Forest Lakes Development. These
sketches appear to be feasible. (None of the sketches are proffered.)
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
~".:-
. ,\
It..
, '
The designation of commercial area with limitations as to access and scale,Qf development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The provisions of right-of-way for road improvements
and a bike lane is consistent with several County adopted documents. The provisions of access to
adjacent properties is consistent with provisions of the Zonin,g and Sijbdivision Ordinances. The
limitations as to the number of dwellings results in a density sHghtly lower than recommended for
a high density area. However, staff has not viewed this limitation as inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan due to the natur~: of existing development in the area.
It appears unlikely any alignment ofMgadow Creek Parkway or connectors to' Meadow Creek
would affect this property. No proffer has been submitted to preserve any possible road
alignment for Meadow Creek Parkway or its connectors. Based on physical considerations and
recommendations from the County's consultants on Meadow Creek Parkway, staff opinion is that
this development will not interfere with proposed transportation system.
Based on the above findings, staff is able to recommend approval subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers:
1. Provide access from Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-0I, to the west to align with access as shown
on the rezoning for Tax Map 32, Parcel29N (ZMA-9I-08).
2. Designate a 2.35 acre parcel ofland for neighborhood service. The gross floor area will
not exceed 40,000 square feet, and no single use will exceed 4,000 square feet. Access
for the neighborhood service area will be provided from Proffit Road (if adequate sight
distance can be obtained) and Timberwood Parkway, but no through access will be
provided except for emergency access which shall be provided.
3. Dedicate at the time of subdivision plat approval a thirty (30) foot strip across the State
Route 649 frontage for future road improvements by the Countý of Albemarle or Virginia
Department of Transportation.
5
4. Reserve for dedication up to nine (9) feet beyond the thirty foot dedication
aforementioned for construction of a bike path. The applicant will not be responsible for
the construction of the bike path.
5.
Number of residential units not to exceed 65,
.~\
-, ,
\.,
, ,
"'I',;· .
----------------
A TT ACHMENTS:
" ,
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Proffers {:
D - Comprehensive Plan Information ¡!
E - Meadow Creek Alignments
F - Plat Showing Areas To Be Rezoned
6
GIBSON.
MðuNT AJN
t
(j
..............
fluq
-\
!J,
I ..~ I
~~·V
,I'
...ì"~Æ
.lŒïï1
f I
@ITj¥ \ .
',\ ì f<
>r~._ ~ (
~/ '.< ~>'.:_liliJ.'..
.r 'c~~;.....__~ _
,1:/.. ~~~ >,
~ ,
\
¡
I ATTACHMENT A I
'l
l.Q
c:.~"
"\
\
, ,~.J~
\ .' .i~lt\,
, It·
!illJ\t '/. .
.1-..,..-
. {
__ Ii
~II) .
É
'j
'0",
~
, .;-
,r""
.!"
~
<oj
'.
,:
.'
"
.
'1--(
.(
..
..
,
(
............... ;;,.)tÞ
"---..,@Dt~
ì-"
,;
If!'l I"
.. ~
,r
,1>'
... \~\~
.f
~.
"
,
t
'01'
I!1!Jd'
)
'~ \
..
"
'"
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
I ATTACHMENT B I
31
20
10
\
\
""
\
108
10C
100
10E
:g~
IDI
10"
'ON
lOP
,DO
lOR
. .
...
- --
,'Oð ..00
--~,
46
WHITE HAl,.L a
RIVANNA DISTRICTS
SECTION 32
SCALE IN fEET
E 1=-.== REH~'L ESTATE III
AUG- 9-94 TU ~ ~~
P . ø 1
¡::/1x £.0
~'/- :JfL'
/"0 Ø'/¿.e r--'/ T ¿:.
¡ATTACHMENT C
THE
KESSLER
GROUP
.., :-"-"
. \\,
...... .
...
,'\ '
Stephen N. Runkle
President
[ August 9, 1994 J
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Albemarle County Department
of Planning and Çonununity DeveJopment
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
I .
"¡,-.:
"
. .
Re: RezoIÚng of Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-01, and Tax Map 32, Parcel29F
Dear Mr. Cilimberg:
Forest Lakes Associates as the applicant proffers as pan of the rezoning:
1). Provide access from Tax Map 46, Parcel B3-01, to the west to align with access as shown on
the rezoning for Tax Map 32, Parcel 29 North (ZMA-91-DS).
2).
Designate a 2.35 acre parcel of land for neighborhood service. The gross floor area will not '
exceed 40,000 square feet, and no single use will exceed 4,000 square feet. Access for the
neighborhood service area will be provided from Proffitt Road, provided proper sight
distance can be obtained, and Timbèrwood Parkway. Through access will be prohibited
except for emergencies.
3). Dedicate, at the time of subdivision plat approval, a thirty (30) fóót strip across the State
Route 649 frontage for future road improvements by the County of Albemarle or the
VirgiIÚa Department of Transportation.
4). Reserve for dedication up to nine (9) feet beyond the thirty foot dedication aforementioned
for construction of a bike path. The appücant will not be responsible for the construction
of the bike path.
5). Number of residential units not to exceed sixty-five (65).
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
4ii~k
P.O. Box 5207. Charlo[[csvi1le. Va ZZ905 (804) 979·9500 FAX No. 296-1614
(,
If)
w
Z
~
w
Q
:J
()
w
If)
:J
~Q
wZ
~:s
~<
¡::
Z
w
Q
ii)
w
Ct:
Z
o
z
______n
~~
Qo::
0<
UJUJ
O::u
Ù)-
~~
u.. UJ
oV)
~
UJO::
U<
tEtJ
05
0::
w
.V)
-
.---
o
o
N
+
~ 0
00..
c::;:: u
ã3~~
'^ 00 .
~~è~
u 0 C'Q ::J
.~ *-.Ë ~
~ ~ o..'~
(;-coQ)
C:QJ_V')
o .. ..
.- U Q)
co)(~
.. .. ..
0::j3
o
N
+
E-
::> .,;
E ~
'c to
'Ë]
0.=
0.0
0_ 5
~ v
.....
-J~ -ò
~o:: ..
~< .t<
V) Ë
V) UJ +
:JU
05 Õ
zo:: z
- UJ
V)
-J~
<0::
z<
OUJ
-u
0-
UJ>
0::0::
w
VI
È~
zo::
:J<
::¡:UJ
::¡:~
O~
UUJ
VI
~~
:CO::
0<
wtJ
z_
0>
ze5
<V)
wO
00
:So
-J:C
5
<
~
UJ
I-
~
U
o
M
+
e
ë g
o ..
u~
EB~
::> '" ..
E:"'c
'¡:.!! ~
"Ë ,g- ~
0""
go.o
_ 0
0"
~:;
+ 0
o
M
..
~. v
';¡; g ~
go,s~ 0
e' ~ ~ ~ 1:)
::>"..!!!.. ~
E"o.~Õ
._ ~.~ ~ u
~ x -0 o.,¡ (;
E"O.oï'
o j3 0 0 ::¡:
g:;:~-
0'::>0
V)
N
V)
u;>
.....
~o~
.= Z ..
~ 0 ~
c g ~
E-....- ~
::>" ...
.Ë ~~
)( u .~
Ë~~
g 9 g
0""
~- ~ g
..
co
...
~
v
<
o
o
ü: ~
B<
o
tJ ,.
~
~
...
::>
~
.=
-----
----.
~ c
~ 0
~ .¡:¡
.....!!!
~ ::>
o ~
.... ,J
~ 0
Q) 't:
= ..
0-
v .5
o..c
.¡:¡-.~
::¡: ~
, '"
.. ~
~ ..
~-
c c
.. ..
E~
>-...
.Q .~
a...
E E
.. E
"0
.. v
)(~
i "[3
~ c:
.. .2
1: :;
~3
o ~
'õ
-£.~ E
.~:~ ~
~ tí 0
V to a..
ëc_
.. .2 0
vt)co
~ -5 ·É
EeJ¡
>- a.. (;
%] E
E ,t<"
UJ Æ ~
o
t:: 0
Q) ï:::
== ..
8 .~
.2.. -5
~ .~
II
}! ··ê
v.g!
1: ...
...-
~ ::>
o ~
'- 'ü
~ 0
Q) .¡:
=g~
v c
o~
'fi"~
::¡: ~
è-
t:
::>
"
.=
-;v
~
c
..
o
~ c:
Ii .2
~E
~ ::>
o ~
o 'ü
t) 0
Q) .~
~~
u .=
o..c
'fi' .~
::¡: ~
~
" v
:¡ .~
~:;:
'ã.. -g
a....
o '"
..c"
'" 0
c 0
oco
.~]
a..!:!
E-;V
(3 .~
a.
'"
-;v
~ '"
c ..
.. v
~.~
'" ..
" '"
8-g
co...
..-
::õ '13
r! ~
::>
o
ë
..
.¡:
.. ë
> ..
g E
v a.
" 0
2~
0"
]9
Õ
U
..
V"t~ ::õ
~ f! ~
.~ ~.~
.. 0 ~
'" c: ..
.. 0 '"
vc:"
c:~ c:
.. 0 ...
'ë: OJ .....
~ :;-g
6~ ~
U ::>
a.
'"
'"
..
v
v
<
ë
..
ë
~
o
a.
5
a..
¿ iD
o::~
-gè-
.. ..
.. E
.~ .~
.. ..
V)v
~ .~
¡¡:~
O-;v
_ c:
<.2
o co
'"
~
... -
a.. ~ VI
~ E ~
.- a... 6J
~ -ß ~
.2.. à) g
E":!2. 'P
~-5 Ê
~ ~ 0
~..~
o '" c:
0."-
~ 0:: 0
(30
COco '"
.§ .~ .2 ~.~
~g~:ëB
.!!...c~==:!
~ ~ .~ -g 2
~?;0'7~
I I I I
~ ~
o ::>
:~:ß Q)
~ ; ~ v .~
Et..õ~~",
1: - E..c .- .. ~
to tQ o.=::::z. 0.. VI ._
0.-8 ..c ~ Ô èð
~ B ~ ~ =7 '§ I
o~-go E
ï. 0 E E
::¡: (3
'" -~....:
ì\;
"'!".
" '
, -
I ATTACHMENT D I
o ~ Q.
~ ê ~
c: ... c:
..- 0
.~ ¿:;
C'- C
::> >-..
"'Eå.
~~~
V.i:J Q)
~- >
<e-8
~ " ...
~~g-
" c v
c: ... c:
..- 0
.~ ~~
C'- c:
::> >-..
"'Eå.
-£~.2
jP~ ~
<e-8
..
c:
o
Z
£t:
~ Ë
"'0.
'Zj 0
"'5 õj õ...
E ~ ..
è" g
-v; ~ 8
~ c:
" ~
-€b~
I,=
~ '"
-;:ü 4)-
g-~ ~~:3~ tV
B 9 Q) ~,~ g ~ ~ '~ g
4) :1 :: ] ~ IU c.. Q..J:: ~ '~..s! ~'õo '^
~ "' § 11.1 +J W g- ~ ~ G:;::: Q) e '¡: ~ ~
to oð 0 .... c ... '^ ~..... C'Q (J) c...:.::: :;)
E c ~ r! ~ ~ ~-g e.o ~ g]""O ~~ ~
~.g ~ ~ ~ .....!. -- ra ~ ...c 'Zj 0 c: CO'- ,_
::> 1'3 ç" :t~;g ~ è-t-:" ~ -E ~ .~ [ ~
V") '^ v lJ v I ~ .È ~ t¡ ~ fj 15 E ~
I ~'~ . 0 IE:; ~ -fo] (3
.~ ::: 2 z "0; ::¡:
~ I I Z
o
co "
c: c:
'ã.. CIJ C'3 '^
0- V ~ c!} \J.~
~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g >. Ci c: !9 co v ~ ~ .~ .~ c
.~ è ã:; ~ ~ 2.~ 0 ~ ~] .~
~I~~~OQ) OQ ~i
~ LJ~I',-? ~ 10
8 ICD ð a.
- ~
... ::>
'5. ~
~.§
a..
Hí I
E
~.: ë
.. >- ..
E==E
,,~g--
¡~~g-
~3"V
.¡: E" g
::> è] v
".- c:
~ ~ ;
v"_
a"o.
<
~co
c: c:
Q) .'^
E ::>
1: 0
....c
a. "
... ..
è--5
s¡a
~ ...
V"
V c:
< ...
è-~
... -
-oc;a
c:~U\
8 ';,; :J
.. ..
V) 0::
.¡,
0::
"
~ .. ~
Q) .~ ::¡
,~ ~ è-
~ ~ '"
~~-g
u 0 8
.- .- ..
ð co '"
<
- ..
.!! v
v c
~ ..
.. ~
E~
E c:
o 0
v~
coO;
c: -
'e ,g
0......
0.0;
o.õ
~::¡:
-;v
'ü
~
E
~ E
v 8
¡¡: co
o c:
I '€
o
Q.
Q.
::>
V)
co
.~
::>
o
..c
~
..
?;
co
c:
';:;¡
::>
o
..c
Q)
~
?;
è-
~ ...
"" '"
..c c: ..
õ8:5
..
VI
Q
~
~
s
~
.
I ATTACHMENT E I
l.
.
AIRPORT ( \ /,
CENTER lJ
~\
~I
N
I
f
/ (
. / ..(
. I
.J
R-*'"
~("j
-
RECOMMENDED 15 OCT 92
RECOMMENDED
NOT RECOMMENDED
ON EXISTING ROW
:E:II:I
. {I
<v.<?: .-;-.;:~.;'
<?-~.. ~...-
1/
1/
-
''':''':-.
- ~-
MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
'I.
I
".
: SC,AI£,
ORiGINN. SIIE IN /1<CHES
I ATTACHMENT F I
---
~--.--.:I> ~
n
'- t.zoJ
~~ 00
""
H Þ-t
'1] t::J
:: " > ;J) );!>CI ~
!! .. > r- ;: t.zoJ
c: )(~~
~ Q III >
m Z
!"! .. C I: z ~::~ t.) en
.. (þ z
. . " -4 > > >:IlCII 0 :J: 1-3
21
~! -, J" r- I: -clom ~ ~
m > ~ !!C 0 ~--
. ;,; 0 Q '" 0 t.) z
" CD 0 ëñ 't! "TI 0
.. ... C -4 (i)
" co
~ Z m oj!
-4 21 f: )-
:< > " ':II
0 ;;.
= < r- .J!! en
'!' c c:
ëñ \) :n
~ -4 y> < tr.t .'
:. ::ø
~ \) m
UI -< '. ti>
m 0
~
-n ..
, .
~
III
III
....
'"
II.
....--,
I .
¡ "
l
"1
~...
.J
..
.
~
D
..
A
..
~.~.
" ~-
. ',J'
N 10 a 00
---
I
r.~
..
ON..
~Uo.':
~ ..
o.
o.
II>
n
þ
r-
III
.
.,.
o
o
.'
:II
f g
~~
~ID
,~C
I i ~.~
f~~
·lam
i I ~ ~
i~~
'It èi 0
~p
~
...
~
o
..
\.
..
.
,"- \
.....t:
o
" ..
.. .
4 .
.. .~..
NO..
.... .
~O'i
..
.
.
-:.
..
..
-:.
...../ .'
, .
..1. .,:"1
, ....
..
.....
[!
,.'
,
,0 \
...,.lÞ \
t.) \ ..
0 ..
\) ÿ
0 .. .i'
t.)
0 .
CO
)- ..
..
p "
/ .....
/ 4
..
./
.'
,
.
.
,
..
..
..
.."
.....
..
';
.
N
..
,.
..
..
g
o
-'I'
1)0. \
1.../
~
0'
-
Q)
.. ~
..
"A
Ó ()
~ ~
\
~ ~
"
,
'4 (þ
"
..
..
0
~
...
..
"
.
.
..
. .i/.
",' I
: r\'~~ 1J '."
. ~~1
''l\
,:'.:'~! f,t..,)
- ¡ .~~\
----
..
.
.
N
..
..
..
·
·
·
.
..
..
,.
o¡:
~
or!
f..,A1
:
Þò/
'5
¿;2 uI'JIT5
---
301 ~ 30 / T'7~
~
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296·5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
MEMO TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
7Y V./ C
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~
DATE:
September 27, 1994
SUBJECT:
Supplement No. 77 to the Zoning Ordinance
Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning
Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by the amendments adopted
on September 21, 1994, relating to FEES.
EWC/len
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1)
Richard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (3)
Water Resources Manager (1)
V. Wayne Cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (15)
Clerk (3)
*
Printed on recycled paper
.'
35.0
FgS
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made
to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the board of
supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth
hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such applica-
tion.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Mobile home - $35.00.
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit -
$85.00.
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9)
children - $390.00. (Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children -
$780.00. (Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended
7-8-92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres -
$1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50
acres - $815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more
acres - $1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit
- $95.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals
(including appeals of zoning administrator's
-229-
(Supp. #67, 7-8-92)
.~ ....
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
MEMO TO:
FROM:
Board of Supervisors
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC fl;U C.
DATE:
September 27, 1994
SUBJECT:
Supplement No. 77 to the Zoning Ordinance
Attached are amended sheets to be placed in your copy of the Zoning
Ordinance. These changes are occasioned by the amendments adopted
on September 21, 1994, relating to FEES.
EWC/len
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. (1)
Richard Huff, II (1)
Larry W. Davis (3)
Water Resources Manager (1)
V. Wayne Cilimberg (12)
Amelia McCulley (15)
Clerk (3)
*
Printed on recycled paper
~.-- .....
35.0
FEES
Exc7pt as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the
zon~ng administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall
be accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of
processing such application.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division"
where all original 1980 development rights have been ex-
hausted under "family division" as defined under section
18-56 of the subdivision ordinance - $175.00. (Amended
effective 1-1-94r
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use
permit to allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use -
$85.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94)
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $-
390.00. (Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00.
(Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres -
$1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00.
(Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including
appeals of zoning administrator's
-229-
(Supp. #77, 9-21-94)
.~- '..
35.1
FEE REDUCTION (Added effective 1-1-94)
The provisions of 35.0 notwithstanding, fees shall be re-
duced under the following circumstances
a. In such case in which a preliminary site development
plan and/or preliminary subdivision plat is filed as
supportive of and to be reviewed simultaneously with an
application for zoning map amendment and/or special use
permit, no fee shall be applied for review of such
preliminary site development plan and/or preliminary
subdivision plat. .
b. In such case in which multiple special use permits are
required by operation of this ordinance to establish an
individual use, the largest single fee shall be applied
to the review of all such special use permit applica-
tions.
c. In such case in which determination is made subsequent
to filing any application under 35.0 that such appli-
cation is not required to allow establishment of the
use, such application fee shall be refunded in full.
(Added effective 1-1-94)
-229.3-
(Supp. #77, 9-21-94)
· t t (
ORDINANCE NO. 94-20(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 20, ZONING, SECTION 35.0, FEES,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 35.0, Fees, is hereby amended and reordained
effective January 1, 1994, by amending section 35.0 as follows:
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning
administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be
accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing
such application.
a. F or a special use permit:
1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all
original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under
"family division" as defined under section 18-56 of the
subdivision ordinance - $175.00. (Amended 1-1-94)
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use
permit to allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use -
$85.00. (Amended 1-1-94)
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00.
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $390.00.
(Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00.
(Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
, · 't' t
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres -
$1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00.
(Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including
appeals of zoning administrator's decision) -$95.00, to be
refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is
overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $1O.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.0011000 square feet.
f. Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary
site development plan - $900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary
site development plan - $630.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
, .., I
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size,
location - $75.00.
b) Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review
board - $160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of supervisors -
$190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of
supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not
be refunded. $50.00 fee shall be required to reinstate
project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape
waiver by agent - $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site develop-
ment plan:
1. Road - $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
1. Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
J. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use
permit or zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the
first bond estimate - $45.00.
, .
1. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
m. Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00
o. Sign Permits
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by
the architectural review board - $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board -
$60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under
Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the
extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section.
Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any
application. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given,
no part of the fee will be refunded.
35.1
FEE ADJUSTMENT (Added 1-1-94)
The provisions of 35.0 notwithstanding, fees shall be adjusted under the
following circumstances:
a. In such case in which a preliminary site development plan and/or
preliminary subdivision plat is filed as supportive of and to be reviewed
simultaneously with an application for zoning map amendment and/or
special use permit, no fee shall be applied for review of such
preliminary site development plan and/or preliminary subdivision plat.
b. In such case in which multiple special use permits are required by
operation of this ordinance to establish an individual use, the largest
single fee shall be applied to the review of all such special use permit
applications.
c. In such case in which determination is made subsequent to filing any
application under 35.0, that such application is not required to allow
establishment of the use, such application fee shall be refunded in full.
(Added 1-1-94)
This ordinance shall be effective retroactively to January 1, 1994.
* * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of
an ordinance unanimously adopted by the Board of County Supervisors at a regular meeting
held on September 21, 1994.
/tlt (u
"'"
.,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, County Board of Supervisors
Rolisa C. Smith, Legal Services Assistant~
September 22, 1994
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 35.0,
Fees
I am providing herewith two ordinances: (1) the document
identified as 35&35.1 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
September 21, 1994; and (2) the document identified as 35.WPD which
I understand the Board requested be placed on the Consent Agenda
for formal denial by the Board. In addition to hard copies, I am
providing the documents on disk.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
RCS:rcs
cc: Larry W. Davis, County Attorney (w/o encls.)
EWC922.WPD
l
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, SECTION 35.0,
FEES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 35.0, Fees, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section
35.0 as follows:
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning
administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied
by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Mobile home $35.00.
1 Rural area division for the Dumose of "familv division" where all
orÜrinal 1980 develoDment rÏlzhts have been exhausted under
"familv division" as defined under section 18-56 of the subdivision
ordinance - $175.00
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810,00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a sDecial use
Dermit to allow minor eXDansion of a non-conforming: use - $85.00.
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $390.00. (Added
6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00. (Added
6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres-
$1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00.
(Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals
of zoning administrator's decision) -$95.00, to be refunded if the
decision of the zoning administrator is overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential- $945.00, plus $1O.00/unit.
2. Non-residential- $1,260.00, plus $10,00/1000 square feet.
f Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site
development plan - $900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site
development plan - $630.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size,
location - $75.00.
b) Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board -
$160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of supervisors -
$190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of
supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be
refunded. $50.00 fee shall be required to reinstate project.
g. For reliefftom a condition of approval ftom commission or landscape
waiver by agent - $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development
plan:
1. Road - $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
1. Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
J. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use
permit or zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the
first bond estimate - $45.00.
1. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, SECTION
35.0, FEES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 35.0, Fees,
is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 35.0 as
follows:
35.0
FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application
made to the zoning administrator, the conunission, or
the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee
as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of
processing such application.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Mobile home - $35.00.
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Conunercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit -
$85.00.
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9)
children - $390.00. (Added 6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more
children - $780.00. (Added 6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00.
(Amended 7-8-92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance -
$665.00.
J
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
1. For planned developments - under 50 acres -
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres
$1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under
50 acres - $815.00.
4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or
more acres - $1,255.00.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use
permit - $95.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning
appeals (including appeals of zoning
administrator's decision) -$95.00, to be
refunded if the decision of the zoning
administrator is overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $10.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000
square feet.
f. Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval
of preliminary site development plan -
$900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval
of the preliminary site development plan -
$630.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5. For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking,
circulation, building size, location -
2
~
$75.00.
b) Major - commission review - $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the
architectural review board - $160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board
of supervisors - $190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by
commission or board of supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site
development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site
plan fee shall not be refunded. $50.00
fee shall be required to reinstate
project.
g. For relief from a condition of approval from
commission or landscape waiver by agent - $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal
of site development plan:
1. Road ~ $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
i. Extending approval of site development plan -
$35.00.
j. Granting request to defer action on site
development plan, special use permit or zoning map
amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for
each inspection after the first bond estimate -
$45.00.
1. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
3
¡
~
m. Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
n. Official Letters:
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating number of development rights - $30.00
o. Sign Permits
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs
requiring review by the architectural review
board - $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the
architectural review board - $60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any
notice required under Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the
Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent
that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth
in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees
shall constitute grounds for the denial of any
application. For any application withdrawn after
public notice has been given, no part of the fee will
be refunded.
The Board of Supervisors, in a particular case, may
reduce the foreqoinq fees in accordance with the
followinq procedures and findinqs:
a. The applicant shall file in writinq for such fee
reduction at the time of application to the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors. Such filinq shall
state iustification for the requested fee
reduction in accord with c. below;
b. Such request shall be entertained and acted upon
by the Board prior to public notification as
required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code. The
Board may reduce such fee to an amount not less
than that estimated to provide public notice as
required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code;
c. No fee shall be reduced unless the Board
determines that:
4
, .
'.
1. Requirement of payment of full fee would
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict
the applicant from pursuit of public hearing
or other review relative to the use of the
property; or
2. The Board is satisfied, upon evidence heard
by it, that the qrantinq of such fee
reduction will alleviate a clearly
demonstrable hardship, as distinquished from
a special privileqe or convenience souqht by
the applicant.
35.WPD
5
ffÙ {~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
v. Wayne cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development
Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator~~
September 15, 1994
Proposed Fee Amendment - Retroactive Date
On March 2nd of this year, the Board first directed staff to
review development fees for certain circumstances. A request by
Mt. Carmel Church for a small addition to a nonconforming use
involving minimal staff review, was the impetus for this
amendment to the fee schedule. At that same meeting, the Board
authorized the Zoning Administrator to accept that special permit
application without requiring a fee, pending the revision to the
fee ordinance.
Should the Board chose to approve the ordinance to reduce certain
fees, staff recommends that the enactment is made retroactive to
March 1, 1994. This would allow Mt. Carmel Church and other
subsequent qualifying submittals to fall within the same new
fees. After the public was informed about the action with
respect to Mt. Carmel, several others have requested that the
collection of their application fees be suspended until the new
fees are in place.
One person has requested to have the new fees be retroactive to
about one year ago, in order to include an application for a
family subdivision for development rights. Staff recommends
against a lengthy retroactive period which could lead to some
argument of being arbitrary and to numerous refunds of fees paid.
Once the retroactive date has been determined, staff will process
refunds as requests are initiated by 'the applicants. There are
approximately 8 applications which would qualify based on the
recommended date.
~. cJ
é¡ - ,I (.. - 'I
u::'~.O,í',. )'SI
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902·4596
(804) 296·5823
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning v.ftf--
August 18, 1994
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ZTA-94-05 Fees
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 16, 1994, unanimously
recommended amending Section 35.0 Fees, to allow fee reduction for uses that may be subject to
multiple fees, minor expansions to non-conforming uses and the like, and family divisions that
necessitate a special use permit.
Attached please find a staff report which was presented to the Planning Commission on August
16, 1994. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RSK/mem
ATTACHMENT
(' I .. 'I
-J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community DeveloPIT!~pt
401 Mcintire Road \.'
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296·5823 ., .
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Ronald S. Keeler, Chie~OfPlanning ~
August 16, 1994
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ZT A-94-5 Fees
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at their July 6, 1994 meeting, adopted a Resolution
ofIntent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0 Fees, to allow fee
reduction for uses that may be subject to multiple fees, minor expansions to non-conforming uses
and the like, and family divisions that necessitate a special use permit. Attached please find a staff
report which oultines this zoning text amendment. This amendment is scheduled for your review
on August 16, 1994.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RSK/jcw
ATTACHMENT
· ,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECEIVED
JUl . 1 199'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ept.
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendments to Development Review Fees
AGENDA DATE:
July 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
ACfION:
x
\.,
INFORMATION:
SUBJECfIPROPOSALIREQUEST:
To amend those fees for uses that may be subject to
multiple fees, small additions to churches and the liké, and
family divisions that necessitate a special use permit.
,". ,
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACfION: INFORMATION:
REVIEWED BY:
ST AFF CONT ACf(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Davis, Ms. McCulley
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors rejected a prior zoning ordinance amendment which would have allowed the Board to reduce fees in a
particular case based on certain criteria. The Board directed staff to develop amendments under which fee reduction would be
implemented at staff level and cited the three specific circumstances referenced above (see attached draft amendments).
DISèuSSION:
1. Family division under Virginia Code applies to subdivision, not zoning matters. Staff previously recommended that special
_ criteria be developed in the zoning ordinance when a request for a special use pem1Ít for additional lots in the Rural Area resulted
tTom a proposed family division. The Board did not direct pursuing such amendments. Criteria for review remains the same for
family division as for a lot to be sold. Since review of a family division necessitating a special use permit in the RA zone would
be the same as for any other review for additional lots, staff has no basis for preferential fee other than to provide applicant relief.
The attached amendment proposal would provide a fee corresponding to "minor amendment to a zoning map amendment."
Language of the proposed amendment (35.0.a.l) would not allow preferential fee to be available in cases in which the original
property was developed as a combination of family/for sale lots or for a situation where the owner purchased with no development
rights and later proposed a family division.
2. Small addition to non-conforming churches and the like would be treated in the same manner as "minor amendment to a valid
special use permit." Determination of minor amendment is currently an administrative one and would also be so for small
additions. Should specific criteria be desired, Section 8.5.6.3 and Section 32.3.8 (attached) may serve as guidelines.
3. Multiple fees would be addressed by addition of a new Section 35.1 FEE REDUCTION. It has become customary for many
rezonings and special use permits to be accompanied by site plan/subdivision plats. Currently, due to overlay districts, multiple
special use permits may be necessary to establish an individual use (i.e.-Floodplain and scenic stream for a stream crossing).
RECOMMENDATION:
In accordance with the previous direction oflhe Board, adopt the following resolution of intent to address certain fee changes:
The Albemarle Cmmty Board of Supervisors, to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice
has adopted a resolution of intent to amend 35.0 FEES of the Zoning Ordinance to allow fee reduction for uses that may be subject
to multiple fees, minor expansions to non-conforming uses and the like, and family divisions th¡¡t necessit¡¡te ¡¡ speei¡¡1 use permit.
FEEAMEND.VWC
94.090
, ,1 "
. ,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, SECTION 35.0.
FEES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
\,
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virginia. that
,', ,
Chapter 20, Zoning. Section 35.0. Fees, is hereby amended ,and reor.dained by amending section
35.0 as foUows:
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning
administrator. the commission, or the board of supervisors shaU be accompanied
by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defTay the cost of processing such application.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Mobile home $35.00.
L RuraLarea diYis.ion fO[jhe.JllimQs.~~amilv diYis.ion" where an
Qrigjnal 1980 deYekUllnenLrightsl1iMili~austed under
~milY-division" aulefinedJ.mder section 18-5~bdiYisiQß
Qrdinance - $175.00
2. Rural area divisions - $990.00.
3. Commercial use - $780.00.
4. Industrial use - $810.00.
5. Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
7. Public utilities - $810.00.
8. Grade/fiU in the flood plain - $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a sDecial use
nennit to aUow millQf...exnansioll...QÛLnQll=ronfQrminlUl5.e - $85.00.
10. Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
. .
2
· ,
12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $390.00. (Added
6-3-92)
13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $780.00. (Added
6-3-92)
14. All other uses except signs - $780.00. (Amended 7-8-92)
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinanc~:~ $665.00.
C. Amendment to the zoning map:
''- ,
1. For planned developments - upder 50 ~cres -
$815.00.
2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,255.00.
3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $815.00.
4. For all Óther zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres-
$I>255.do.
5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment -
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $95.00.
(Amended 7-8-92)
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals
of zoning administrator's decision) -$95.00, to be refunded if the
decision of the zoning administrator is overturned.
e. Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $lO.OO/unit.
2. Non-residential- $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000 square feet.
f Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site
development plan - $900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site
development plan - $630.00.
3
. ,\ .,
. .'
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5. For she development plan amendment:
a)
Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size,
location - $75.00.
.:~ \.
b)
Major - commission review - $215,00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board _
$160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of supervisors _
$190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of
supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be
refunded. $50.00 fee shall be required to reinstate project.
g. For reliefrrom a condition of approval rrom commission or landscape
waiver by agent - $140.00.
h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development
plan:
1. Road - $15.00.
2. Development - $20.00.
I. Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
J. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use
pennit pr zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
4
'. " ....
k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the
first bond estimate - $45.00.
1. Zoning clearance - $25.00.
~ -,..:
m.
Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
\,
n. Official Letters:
,'\ ,
1. Of determination - $60.00.
2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
3. Stating'number of development rights - $30.00
!
o. Sign Permits
1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the
architectural review board - $25.00.
2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board -
$60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter
11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the
same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure to pay all
applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any application. For any
application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be
refunded.
35.1 FEE REDUCTION
The ¡u:OYisioos..J)f 3 5.0 tilltwithstandlngJeeuhalLbe...reduced undeuhe.fullmring
circumstances.: '
a... ÙL.SllclUdlse in whicluuu:eliminarv site deveillument plan and/or
preliminaIY-SubdhåsÎlln..plat is filedJluupDilltive of and to be reviewed
simultaneouslv with.JJnJlppli~tiillÛQI:..zQniDg.JI1alUlmendrnent and/or
soeciaLuse...oermit---lliL.fee.ß1aILbunnlied..iQr revitYLQf..sumprelimin~
siHt.d~IQpmenLDlalLand[QLDreliminaIY-sllbdiYÎsiQILPlaL
5
. ... ..,
b., IILSuchJdase..ilLwhiclunultiple...speciaLuse...permits....are required by-operation
o(this.J1rdinance to establistuuùndiYiduaLuse~heJamest single fee shall
~plied.toJhe..r.eyiew oûILsuclupeciaLuse..permiuDPlications..
c. In_suclLcase..irLWhich determinatiorUs.mapp..subsequenUoJilingJlny
implication.1lndeL3.i. O~that suclLaDplicatiòIÜU1oLœquired.Jo.Jlllow
establishmentºÜhe use--suc!LDPplicationlee..shall be refunded-inJùlL
..
\ ,"\
) }
,
,
, _:} \j_~') J ,\
",' ï""¡
'!\i II \,
~l/
. ,~, ./'" :, .',>,.\:¡
"/ ,11 ,,' ,.'~
¡' , ¡ . :'"
I.'" '.
. '
6
_ . I.J II.
. .
8.5.6
8.5.6.1
8.5.6.2
8.5.6.3
8.5.6.4
FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLATS
CONTENTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDIVISION PLATS
Unless modification is permitted by board of supervisors' action
pursuant to sections 8.5.4 and 8.5.5, all sit~\~evelopment plans shall
comply with section 32.0 of this ordinance ana 'all subdivision plats
shall comply with Chapter 18 of the Code of Alpemarle. (Amended
9-9-92) ,'\ ,
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDIVISION PLATS
Approval of site development plans and subdivision plats shall be
based on: compliance with site development plan or subdivision
regulations applying at the time the land was designated as a PD
district; or at the {option of the applicant,. compliance with such
regulations currently ¡in effect. (Amended 9-9-92)
VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED APPLICATION PLANS
Variations in site development plans and subdivision plats from
approved application plans may be permitted by the director of plan-
ning and conununity .development upon a finding that such variations
are: generally in keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved
application plans; in accordance with the comprehensive plan; and in
accordance with regulations currently in effect. Changes other than
permitted herein shall be made only by rezoning application. (Amended
9-9-92)
BUILDING PERMITS, GRADING PERMITS
After PD designation, no building permit including special footings
and foundation permits shall be issued in such district prior to
approval of site development plans or subdivision plats for the
development of the area in which such permits would apply. In the
case of a subdivision plat, the director of planning and community
development may authorize issuance of a grading' permit for road
construction upon approval of road plans by the director of engineer-
ing or the Virginia Department of Transportation as the case may be.
(Amended 9-9-92)
-86-
(Supp. ll68, 9-9-92)
". ~I _..
.
32.3.5
32.3.6
32.3.7
32.3.8
of the developer to notify the zon~Q administrator when
each stage of the development shall b~,ready for inspection
for compliance with the approved site development plan in
accordance with schedules and regulation~'promulgated by the
zoning administrator and as approved by the board of Super-
visors. (32.6.4~ 1980)
IMPROVEMENTS--CONSTRUCTION AND BONDING
All improvements required by this section shall be installed
at the cost of the developer, except where cost sharing or
reimbursement agreements between Albemarle County and the
developer are appropriate, the same to be recognized by
formal written agreement prior to site development plan
approval. (32.5.1, 1980)
The approval of a site development plan or the installation
of the improvements as required by this section shall not
obligate the county to accept improvements for maintenance,
repair or operation. Acceptance shall be subject to county
and/or state regulations, where applicable, concerning the
acceptance of each type of improvement. (32.5.23, 1980)
Prior to the final approval of any site development plan,
there shall be executed by the owner or developer an agree-
ment to construct all physical improvements required by or
pursuant to this section which are to be dedicated to public
use. The agent may require prior to final approval, issu-
ance of a building permit, or issuance of a çertificate of
occupancy, a bond with surety approved by the agent in an .
amount sufficient to cover the estimated costs of such
improvements. In determining the estimated costs of the
improvements to be bonded, the owner or developer shall
submit an estimate of such costs which shall be reviewed and
approved by the county engineer. The agreement and bond
shall provide for and be conditioned upon completion of all
work within a time specified by the agent. The completion
of all other improvements required by or pursuant to this
section shall be certified and/or bonded as provided in
section 31.2.3 of this ordinance. (32.5.2, 1980; Amended
5-1-87)
REVISIONS
No change, revision or erasure shall be made on any
preliminary or final site development plan' nor on any
accompanying data sheet where approval has been endorsed
on the plan or sheet unless authorization for such change
is granted in writing by the agent, except where such
change has been required by the site plan review
committee or commission. Any site development
-206-
( SlIpp. 1137, 3 -18 - 8 7 )
t.. "~,." (1':: it?,,?),
COUNTYOFALBE~E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Lewis A. Martin, Jr. -Request
for Jurisdictional Area Designation for Water Only
to Existing Structure(s)
AGENDA DATE:
September 21, 1994
¡
ITEM NUMBER:
q<-j, ¿. 9 ,:J f, $ f.;.2...--
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECTIPROPOSALIREOUEST: Request to
Proceed to Public Hearing to Consider Water Only
to Existing Structure(s) for Tax Map 59, Parcel
12Fl.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
T
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Lewis A. Martin Jr., requests Jurisdiction Area designation for water only to
existing structure(s) (See Attachments A and B). The request is for service to one unit located on Tax Map
59-12Fl. The parcel is located in the Oak Knoll Subdivision approximately 500 feet south of Route 250 West in the
Ivy area (See Attachments C and D). The applicant stated that the existing well servicing the house has dried up and
an attempt to dig a new well (400') has failed (See Attachment B). The Albemarle County Service Authority
indicates that a water line with adequate capacity exists along Route 250 West that can be extended south along Oak
Knoll Drive to serve the subject property.
DISCUSSION: The subject property is not within a Growth Area. The Comprehensive Plan states "only allow
changes in jurisdictional areas outside of designated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: (1)
adjacent to existing lines; (2) public health or.safety is endangered" (p. 146). Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan
warns that "such utilities are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase development
pressures" (p. 146).
The property is not directly adjacent to the waterline; however, as mentioned earlier the house is only 500' from the
existing waterline. There is one parcel between the subject property and the waterline along Route 250 (See
Attachments C & D). The request appears to be most closely related to the second strategy listed above.
Ivy is a former Growth Area and as such many nearby parcels are within the ACSA Jurisdictional Area. The parcel
directly adjacent to the subject property to the west and the Greencroft Subdivision also located just west both have
been designated for water only. The Kearsarge Subdivision located just east of the subject property also has a similar
designation (See Attachment D),
RECOMMENDA nON: As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacities should be reserved to
support development of designated growth areas. Past actions by the Board have typically been to limit utility service
outside the designated growth areas. However, where properties have experienced quantity problems and are
adjacent to existing lines, the Board has in certain circumstances granted iurisdictional area designation for water only
to existing structures. Staff believes that the effect of amendment to the jurisdictional area on the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan is minimal. No additional development will result from such change. Therefore, staff is
recommending proceeding to public hearing to consider water only to existing structures for Tax Map 59, Parcel
12Fl based on the documented problems.
I ATTACHMENT B I
LEwIs A MARTIN, III
STEVEN L. RAYNOR
BRUCE C. PHILLIPs
ANN C. BERGER
MARTIN & RAYNOR, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
415 FOURTH STREET, N.E.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902
TELEPHONE: (804) 296-4151
FACSIMILE: (804) 296-8316
LEwIs A MARTIN, JR.
OF CoUNSEL
September 15, 1994
Mr. Kenneth M. Baker
Albemarle County Planning Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4597
Re: Application for water service to Lot 2, Oak Knoll
Dear Mr. Baker:
Pursuant to your request you will find enclosed:
(1) My letter to Albemarle County Planning Department dated
9/15/94 which you requested.
(2) Copy of Foster Well & Pump Co. Inc. contract for
drilling new well dated 8/30/94.
(3) Copy of Foster Well & Pump Co. Inc. statement for
drilling well dated 9/9/94.
(4) Copy of letter from Foster Well & Pump Co. Inc. dated
9/14/94.
LAM:bld
Enclosures
#-'
"
LEwIs A. MARTIN, III
STEVEN L. RAYNOR
BRUCE C. PHrr..uPs
ANN C. BERGER
MARTIN & RAYNOR, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
415 FOURTH STREET, N.E.
CHARLOTTESVIU..E. VIRGINIA 22902
TELEPHONE: (804) 296-4151
FACSIMILE: (804) 296-8316
COUNÎV OF ALHÈMARLE
~ .r? r~ r-:::I '1\1 r;rf"-.' f.ffi"'.
µ.--__.lJ:.:..;,J. .".I....U.J.""". II
. \ Iii
. SEP 15 1994 ;¡ II
( SEPTt:;"r'l._~! I HI
1~.I..'::_d t L::tUdJ
EXECUTiVE OFFICE
LEwIs A. MARTIN. JR.
OF CoUNSEL
September 15, 1994
Albemarle County Planning Department
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Re: Application for water service to Lot 2, Oak Knoll
Gentlemen:
In support of my application for water service to our
property at 600 Knoll Ridge Drive, and my request that this
application be processed as an emergency matter, I would like to
state:
I have resided in Charlottesville and Albemarle County all
my life. We have lived at 600 Knoll Ridge Drive for the past
eight and one-half years.
After our well went dry on August 26, we immediately engaged
Foster Well & Pump Co., Inc. to drill a new well. This was done
on August 31, to a depth of 305 feet, at a cost of $3,247.50,
without satisfactory results.
Our wonderful neighbors, Ray and Shirley Weems, have let us
fill containers from their water supply, but we are feeling
uncomfortable about imposing on them for any extended period.
They too depend on a well, which could fail under such added
demand.
My wife and I are both senior citizens - in seven weeks I
will be 70. I have been hospitalized for abdominal surgery three
times in the past two years, during which sixteen inches of my
intestine was removed. In our contemporary society most of us
have come to take for granted having running water in our homes.
It is no longer a luxury. To be without it is a deprivation. At
our ages it is particularly burdensome. When I was twenty years
old serving with the Army in Europe during World War II, we would
go for weeks without bath facilities and the opportunity to
bathe. But I am not as young now as I was then.
.-- .
We hope that you will be able to assist us with emergency
relief and that you will not have to handle our request as a
routine application by someone who is proposing to build on a
vacant lot.
LAM:blß
cc: YRobert w. Tucker, Jr.
J. W. Brent
sinc;::¿dl-i
L¡~:/l ~a~*Jr.
:roSTER WELL & POMP CO., INC.
3705 DOBLIWDi DRIVE
CIWILOTrESVILLE, VA 22901
(804) 973-9079
"BY-TØE-lOOT" CONSTRUCTION CORTBACT AlID SEC1JJU.TY AGREEIŒRT
DlIS CIJRrW:T... SI!C1WTr........." 18 ~t.red into the-5L da7 Of~ . l'±L.
be~en DORALD V. :roS~ and/or his assigns, trading as :roSTER WELL & POMP . ~ \IRC. ("Contractor")
and(1.~II.tl1 '^~ ~ ("Owner"), whose address is: ~('"--/J t,~QI~ ,OQ.e \)(' ,
and ~e~t~he consideration aet forth herein the parties agree as follbvs:
COJrrRACTOa SHALL:
1. Drill a hole approxt.ately six inches (6") in di..eter on the Owner's property at a site des-
ignated by the owner subject to approval by the Contractor and accessibility of Contractors equip-
~nt. The Owner ~y seek Contractor's advice regarding the location of such hole, however, Owner
shall designste the site for drilling. In no event shall any opinion or advice given by the Con-
tráctor.or his.t!Çloyees be cÌe_d to confer any warranty or.gnaranty with respect to the results
. öf clrillúig. ,'..' . . .
2. Drill one veIl only to a Jepth where the veIl is not !lOre than a¡'~:Iaœ of three hundred five
feet (305') unless directed by the owner.
3~ 'Inatall and e.bed sufficient casing in the hole to ~et al~ govern.ental requir_nts.
4. Guarantee the vork.anship and aaterials in connection herewith and case off any undesirable
surface vater for a period of one (1) year only fro. the date of cu.pletion of construction.
5. Shall exercise reasonable care in accessing the drilling site and coapleting its obligations
pursuant to this Contract. Due to the nsture of the construction the Contractor is not respons-
ible for disturbing the surface conditions of the property, the necessary or unintentional killing
of any trees or shrubs on the property. The Contractor shall be responsible for da.age to all
property other than that owned by Owner and shall hold the Owner har.1ess with respect to such
property. The Contractor is not responsible for re.oving froa the property the residue froa
drilling t;he vell. -
6. The contractor does not gnarantee the quality of the vater, the UIOUDt of vater, nor the
reservoir capacity of the veIl.
0WIIEIl SHALL:
1. Designate the site for the hole to be dug - subject to Contractor's approval as set forth
herein.
2. Provide ingress and egress to the site for Contractor's equip.ent.
3. Be responsible for abandonment pursuant to governmental requirements, and all costs associated
therewith, of any pre-existing or non-producing veIls. It is expressly understood by the parties
that the costs associated with any such abandonment are not a part of this Contract.
POBCIIASE PRICE: (: ~ \
1\ ì .()l) f'~ Drilling Fee -rt. s "') ^ f" ~: Casing Fee .tt ':JM, ñð .;lò . ::¿routing Fee.
The owner aay direct the Contractor to cease performance at any tt.e provided that in such event
the Owner shall be obligated to pay the Contractor the ~unt coaputed pursuant to the charges
set forth above. The entirety of the purchase price shall be due upon cu.pletion of the drilling
and Contractor's Vater VeIl Co.pletion Report, at which tiae the Contractor will invoice the Owner.
The Contractor shall not be obligated to deliver the Vater VeIl Coapletion Report to the Owner un- .
til it has received pay.ent in full as set forth herein. A finance charge of two percent (2%) per
IIOnth shall accrue on all ~unts not paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of. the invoice with
the first such charge accruing on the 31st day. In the event that the Contractor undertakes col-
lection for a past due account the Owner agrees to ret.burse Contractor for all costs associated
with such collection, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
SECOJUTY DI'l'EBEST:
Owner hereby grants Contractor a security interest in all casing of every nature and type that
Contractor iÒstalls'pursuant hereto. This security interest is granted to secure pay.ent to the
Contractor as set forth herein and is in addition to, ~ not in lieu of, any other rights, col-
lateral, or other r_dies which are available to Contractor. The Owner shall, if requested by
Contractor, execute such docu.entation as is reasonsbly necessary to record and effect the security
interest set forth herein. In the event that Contractor exercises its security interest granted
herein the Owner shall per.it Contractor access over and on the property.
IIISCELLAREOUS:
In the event that the parties verbally ..end this contract, Contractor shall proaptly send written
notice of the ter.s and conditions of such IIOdification to the Owner at the address set forth
herein. If the Owner does not proaptly object to' such ter.s in writing then the Owner shall be
concluaively de_d to have ' concurred with such ter.s and conditions.
VITlŒSS the following sd.gnatures and seals:
..... /:.y;d/~ ~ N-"...._
" .
I t.
. ",/ (#" .~...._,
...~-_.-_._-- '"
:roSTER WELL & POMP CO., IRC.
(~W \~.._~
· A.~' .
D
3:
o
e
Z
-1-1
o
-IÃ\ö
DrrJH
r('1OO
rrJ Ç)
OOHO 0
J><:e e
rrrJzzz
rrJö-l-l-l
tit
(oJ
n
:~~J~.
; .3:
;- fT1
','Z
~T.~
em
"'I)
.....
ID
!II
D III
C'
........
";'111
L
o
.""1
':;ÿ
....
::J
Ie
enc.nr
oo:rOID
J>!IIO~
""I .....
....7':UI
o ::J
cTOJ>
cT .... .
ID ....
UlAJ3:
< .....!II
..... a. ""I
.....1.0 cT
..... ID ....
ID ::J
Ö"
.....
<:...... t..,
J><.....
111 .
t··)
t··)
If!
,_,
....
eC1c.nroo
00 :r () ID I
J>!1J0~"""
..... ..... ï1
.... ^ UI -
O~' -I
cTOJ>O
C't-........ ..
111 ....
UlÃ\3:
< ..... !1J
..... a. .....
.....1.0 cT
.... 111 .....
ID ::J
ö"
.....
<: ..... t..,
J><.....
111 .
t··)
t··)
U:I
o
.....
</i',
~
o "'0
%
>wc:
:D:::i!3:'11
6Ðí 0
!i~8~
~F> 3:::D
m~i~~
>CZm
:D r-
~<-<r-
Sm:-
.. Z
P
-1('1
rrJe
Ã\OO
3:-1
00#
ZE
ID ('1
cTl
r
(,J J>
03:
t..,
a.
!II
'<
UI
\.
~', I. ~...
[:"'~~~~,4.~.:,!
r ", ~_ '
I VV I""''' .....,"-"-'- "VI I VIII "-U. I L...L-. <JV"t :J I....;· OOtrJO
,:leI-' J.....:;,...
10'¿1 NU.UUl ~.Ul
F08TEa WELL &. PUMP VUMrANY.IN(;.
8'106 Doblelnn Drivo
CharlottelvU1e. Virginia 22901
Sœptsmb~y 14, 1994
LEWIS A. MARTIN, JR
600 KNOLLRIDGE DRIVE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
Dear MY. Martini
Please be advi5~d that this lettey is to fur they explain the
s&rvir~~ YRndøyed by OUy company in yelation to the watsr well
gituation on your prQpeyty at KnollRidge Drive.
On Aug 26 we e~amined the existing well and found there to be no
w.tQr in w811. At. this time we filled your well with water from
a neighbors _ystem so that you may have watey throughout the
weekend. Upon your r9~øipt of a Well Permit fyom the County
Health Dapt., on Aug 31 we drilled a well to fa depth of four
h~ndred fa8t (400') And obtained no measurable watey. On
Sept 1 we returned to see if the well had filled overnite and
found thAt it was le-- than half full. Upon reporting our
findings to you, we have performed no other work.
I hope this provides the nece6s~ry information.
furthQY question~ or n~prl further assistance,
høsitate to contact us.
If you have any
pi e.u;¡e do not
Sin<:srely,
~~e~
r",-esident
Dwr¡dk1S
Office 978·9079
Home
978-8426
Mobile Phone
9'19~T(7
Pu.b 1072
Wait For Beop
p~
18'
.~
I
fil
Ii
;
§
f
n
~.
i
I
I
(Ã~:;¡ In
'?J I:j~ i
~ ..3 ~
~~ -<
ia e
;';1 -i
\ -'1:!j
\ ') ~
~ :j
~ i
'1 "
>
"
"
;u
o
,t :hih ~
·f~ /~!~~. !j~
. '5=~FI¡1
:i~§5g
-c. "ljlZ
'!ii~ 8.,
, U.,§
~~~§~
!...¡¡->1
. ~ ëf"
z
~ ... N:-O
. . -i 0
b !';¡i~r 3~} 1'1 ..
"'''Ii R~R oln z
0
- §5 ~_!~~ . ..
..
II! ....... g:... '"
-,-C°:Þo "'~
J: <. or,. ¡¡
~~~;~lAþ"'~ i
141- '" ¡ z
; z--4ca~~~ on
..
þ ~.E~~; ...
~ . 0'" i Þ
..c. ,
~ o' IÞ.., -
.. .. .
c,øONO
þ-:: ~
;D(IIt~
i ::. ~
... . .. ....
:x .....~8 ...
"' i
¡¡¡ ~~c~
... ~~~~ ...
~ ¡¡¡
Z _Ul~!:, ..
,f! "'0..
........
.. xOO
~ "'....
'"
III ~~
0 f!J~ 5
þ
r' š;:?lo-i
It! G(T (J)
. F-¡g-
1/ ÇJ-~-i
IV š;:N,:r
0 þ""T1fT1~
o. Ç)g¡oc
ÎÞ Q\DoS!
::0 ~-ZUl
~! õ
:J: ~ f1 n-
~ ~(J)gÞ"'O
- iß~ r
E. g i ~g ~~
. I: (Õ) <:-iVio
0 ~ ~e~~'"
~I
~;... š:: 0
¡:;:¡ f;;Rþ""T1
:<11> 8~~~
!;. COUlO
Z (1)-0
~~ ;ö -iZg¡ T
. . w-< ~
:II. -
~o IØ ~~fB-<
ëf~
'1 (T
I.
~
~
p;o
II>-i
. :z:
N:,!
~~
1.5€
IV
'"
..
N
-.¡
'V
~
-----
.....-,..--
l~:
~ ~
~ ~
~ U R
:~
G:!!
11'1
S!!r
QlO
k1~
~I
:z:
~pa·
mmG)
. . 1'1
""UI~
...,..
NUl
I I
"-0
lONe
1D"'::u
- ""II
~ £
!¡ þ
- ::1
o
z
.-----
ATTACHMENT CI
~~~.~M~~~~~~~~~~ø~
;jj8~;1~i~;~~~~~i~j
~~~.~~~8~~~:~.2~~~
~ ~~.~~~~~~~.~~g.~~.~!.~~ ~
~ .........."'"'......~.."'"' ....
II> þ
!~~~~~$8~~~~~:~~~~
~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~';:-:':''':·''=~:tr.~
NOTES:
I. LOT 2 SUBJECT TO 10' UTILITY 8 DRAINAGE ESAlT.
WITHIN 10' OF ANY LDT LINE OR 10' OF THE mGE
OF THE PRIVATE ROAD. 0.8. 704' 724.
2. V///////It DENOTES AREA OF LOT WITHIN THE
100 YEAR FlOOD PLAIN ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAPS,
CERTIFIED TO 8E A CORRECT PLAT
~.D.Sl-~".,-
lOT I
LOT 3
12' Dro/no".
'- ""-'1 I /
'--- I
-_--_ I ,
-- _, , .
-- r-_ , h:."
-"-t-- - I
LOT 2 ,-_ -, Pip.
\ --\, Found
5.00 AC. \ \ ~., .J'1I'~
0.8.8415-477 \ . ~" '0
0.8. 704 -721SPloI \~ \ ~, ;.';;,.
X:) ,\ ,I"-.
,», ~
" ,,~\
, \ .". \
, \ \
''! ,>'-,
'.~ \
\ -' \
I ¡
, ..
. I .
f. If,
/~ I : I
I 4i I
I I
" : /
13 I
/ v I
PIP'
Found
--
,
,
PHYSICAL SURVEY /
OF LOT 2
OAK KNOLL
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1";"100' DATE: 10'28'86
FOR
LEWIS A. JR. 8 ANNA SCOTT MARTIN
RO. SNOW. INC.
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA.
avomt:,r
I ATTACHMENT DI
'9:
REVH
/
/
/'
i ~~=-~
---L_ .L ~
---·',1
'( II
\.
SERVICE AUTHORITY
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS MAP KEY
WATER ONLY
WATER AND SEWER
21
W A TÈR ONLY TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
These are exlsllng structures as 01 the
adopted date, either 10-1-82 or 8-10-83
Please see "List 01 Existing Structures
OR Development Rights' for specific
structures and. dates,
LIMITED SERVICE
Please see 'LIst of Existing Structures OR
Development Rights" lor specific IImltallons.·
ICAlI 1" H.tT
SAMUEL MILLER
DISTRICT
SECTION 59
... .
------
... 'MOOAMAN', Rl\lER MRIWlT\J\JL80FOAESTJLClSmICT'
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Board of Supervisors
·-v
CMC 0l;.J
FROM:
Ella W. Carey, Clerk,
DATE: September 16, 1994
SUBJECT: Reading List for September 21, 1994
December 16,
u, .~____ 9-:-./~:.~_2..(¡_:·.~.
1<;. 092 (. s-9_3-
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
pages 1 - 15
pages 15 (#9)
(end Item #9) - Mr. Bowerman
- end - Mr. Perkins
1992 -
March 10, 1993 - Mr. Marshall
October 20, 1993 - Mrs. Humphris
December 15, 1993 - pages 1 - 8 - Mr. Martin
August 24, 1994 - Mrs. Thomas
EWC:mms
*
Printed on recycled paper
·
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, finds that two
temporary construction easements, a permanent guardrail easement and right-of-way over a certain
portion of a parcel of real estate located on an extension of Berkmar Drive in the Charlottesville
Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia, are needed by the County for public purposes, said
parcel designated as Parcel 68c on Albemarle County Assessor's Tax Map 45 and more fully
described below; and
WHEREAS, such easements and right-of-way are necessary in order to layout, construct,
operate, and maintain the road known as Berkmar Extended over the affected portion of this parcel;
and
WHEREAS, bona fide offers have been made to the property owner to purchase such
easements and right-of-way, however, such negotiations indicate an impossibility of an agreement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia hereby authorizes the acquisition of two temporary construction easements, a
permanent guardrail easement and right-of-way across a portion of this parcel ofreal estate as more
fully described below, and further authorizes the filing of a Certificate of Take, the entry upon and
taking possession of the property for public purposes and the initiation of condemnation proceedings
pursuant to Sections 15.1-238(B) and (C) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and Section
25-232.01 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, against the following described property
located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia:
That portion of a certain parcel ofland containing 42,602.23 square feet, shown and
designated as "Right-Of-Way 18,945.79 sq. ft.," "Temporary Construction Easement
10,042.11 sq. ft.," "Temporary Construction Easement 13,554.33 sq. ft.," and
"Guardrail Easement 60.00 sq. ft." on plat of Wiley and Wilson, dated April 15, 1994,
a copy of which is attached hereto, This is a portion of the property belonging to
Charlottesville Realty Corp., by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in Deed Book 815, page 79. By deed of
trust dated July 6, 1988, of record in Deed Book 1002, page 451, the subject property
was conveyed to Jerry H. Mathews and Harold D. Morris, Trustees, to secure an
obligation payable to Sovran Bank. The property is further identified as Tax Map 45,
parcel 68c, and is located on an extension of Berkmar Drive, Charlottesville
Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby
authorized to sign the Certificate of Take on behalf of the Board of Supervisors; the County Attorney
is directed to prepare and send a notice to the property owner by certified mail on September 22,
1994, setting forth the compensation and damages to be offered by the County to the property owner
for the value of the land taken pursuant to this Resolution; and the County Attorney is further
directed to prepare and file the Certificate of Take and a Notice and Memorandum of Lis Pendens
with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County.
"
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
September 21, 1994.
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Resolution #
92194.RES
2