Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-08 December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 8, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; the regular night meeting scheduled for December 8, 2004, in Room 241, began at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Revision of Subdivision Ordinance (STA- 2001-08). Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, handed to the Board members some new information. He said the first 30 minutes will be devoted to discussion of the new information requested by the Board members at its recent retreat. It is focused on defining service in an urbanizing county. Then there are some people present from the DISC II Committee and the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association who would like to speak about the Subdivision Ordinance text amendments. After that, staff would like to have directions from the Board members as to how to proceed with these amendments. Mr. Foley handed to the Board members a copy of the PowerPointe presentation which will occur next. He said the purpose of this work session is to refine and clarify the Board’s desired level of service for streetscape and transportation. In setting a level of service and in adopting subdivision text amendments, the Board needs to ask how these will achieve the Board’s vision for the Neighborhood Model. It needs to discuss the fiscal and organizational impacts of implementation and the impacts on development. Mr. Foley said staff will not be discussing interconnections between developments today or over- lot grading. Other speakers will address those subjects. Staff will focus on private streets and streetscapes. He reviewed some subjects which were discussed at previous work sessions, such as, defining urban infrastructure, and the reality of implementing it. Discussion has taken place on the subjects of protecting the rural areas, the Neighborhood Model form of development, and the quality of life in the urban areas. There has been discussion of construction and replacement of infrastructure, and operation/maintenance of those facilities. Mr. Foley said staff has discussed with the Board transportation in an urbanizing county. VDOT would maintain all public roads. Staff suggests that private streets only be allowed on a limited basis and only by waiver. Relating to streetscape, staff suggested that the level of service include extensive streetscape as determined by master plans. Outside of master planned areas, County involvement would be more limited, but there would be an effort beyond what is happening at the present time. Mr. Foley said in terms of capital costs, developers would be expected to provide streetscape with new projects; there would be expanded County construction of sidewalks, pocket parks, and installation of street trees; and, VDOT would construct sidewalks as part of their road projects. Important to the discussion today is what the Board expects in terms of the location of streetscape, especially street trees. Also, what will the County expect from property owners as to replacement of these features in the future? Mr. Foley said staff had proposed four questions in the Executive Summary and those questions will be used to direct the rest of the discussion today. This should help to flesh out what the Board expects in the level of service in the urban areas, and this in turn will help staff to determine the final language for the subdivision text amendments. Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said the first question is: “Does the Board support allowing private streets that are not designed to meet VDOT standards? If so, who will be responsible for maintaining or replacing streets? He said staff has made some assumptions, namely: through maintenance agreements property owners maintain private streets; due to expenses, property owners cannot afford some streets; and, the County will be asked to be responsible for some private streets. Mr. Rooker asked why staff had made these assumptions. He does not know of any private street where there is a homeowners maintenance agreement (and where there is no unusual circumstance) where they have not been successful in maintaining their own streets. Mr. Bowerman mentioned Stonehenge. Mr. Graham said that may be a good example. Homeowners there have come to the County in the past and asked why the County does not maintain their streets. Also, outside of the County throughout Virginia the experience related to private streets has not all been good. The real question is “what will the will of the Board be 20 years from now?” Mr. Boyd said he echoes what Mr. Rooker said because he lives on a private street. He has lived there for 12 years and he does not believe that any property owner believes it is the County’s responsibility to maintain their streets. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 2) Mr. Rooker said there are a number of cases like that where there were no covenants in the beginning that required maintenance of streets. Now, the County requires those covenants and a recorded maintenance agreement. He said, for example, Glenmore, Flordon, Farmington all have private streets. The developers of Albemarle Place believe private streets are necessary private streets and they are willing to take on the private maintenance obligations. To him, to not do this would gut the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Graham said that is the question. How much of the Neighborhood Model would be gutted if streets were required to be built to VDOT standards? Mr. Tucker said previous private roads were built on a rural cross-section. The streets being discussed would be built to an urban cross-section which requires curb and gutter and storm sewer, etc., which would add more cost if the County had to take over these roads at some point in the future. Ms. Thomas said she was thinking it would be just the opposite. She was thinking of private streets in rural areas where the distance from one house to the next is significant, and the responsibility for the road is determined by the number of houses using that road. In an urban infrastructure area, there would be more landowners responsible for much shorter stretches of road. She thinks that is a good reason to support private roads contrary to what she has sometimes thought about in the rural areas. She does not think private roads should be supported in the rural areas. Mr. Rooker said if there is a mixed-use development, there are commercial interests which have a strong need to make sure the roads are well maintained. There is more economic support there to maintain the roads. Mr. Boyd said considering current VDOT policies, why does the Board think VDOT might be more responsive to fixing roads than the people who live on those roads? Mr. Foley said staff has found that when roads need major repairs, there are requests to have the locality take over the road. Mr. Rooker asked if any mixed-use development has petitioned to have their roads taken into the State system. Mr. Foley said staff’s assumption related to the residential component. This is something on which the Board must make the decision. Mr. Bowerman said if streets must be built to VDOT standards, then what is the point of having a Neighborhood Model? One thing discussed in DISC I and DISC II was the fact that if the County had to use VDOT standards, which often require a wide width and high speeds in residential neighborhoods, the Model did not work. Mr. Rooker said he thought the Board had already decided on this issue. He was fairly stunned when he got this staff report. The last time this was discussed, at least with respect to the streets and the ability to have private streets as an option, the Board talked about private maintenance agreements and he thought everyone was in agreement. Mr. Foley said at the retreat, he thinks defining the level of service could have been made clearer. He said staff is looking for directions today. Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is the direction the Board is taking. Mr. Rooker said he thought all Board members were pretty much in agreement at that time. Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Foley was saying that no waiver would be required in order to have a private street. He said the ordinance says it requires a waiver. Mr. Rooker said his preference is that it not be by waiver if the application meets certain design standards. Ms. Thomas said staff has worked hard along with DISC to develop some design standards for private road, and she appreciates what staff did with VDOT for a year trying to get them to change their standards. It did make a dent, but not a big dent. A lot of work went into this proposed ordinance. Mr. Foley said that is an important point because at this time the ordinance does require a waiver. That will need to be changed. Rather than going into the assumptions and projections, staff will go on to the next issue. Mr. Graham said the third question in the Executive Summary is: “Does the Board support the requirement for sidewalks in all new subdivisions? If so, who will be responsible for maintaining and replacing sidewalks in VDOT rights-of-way if VDOT roads are required? Who will be responsible for maintaining and replacing sidewalks on private roads, if private streets are permitted?” He said the assumptions are: sidewalks constructed for all new streets in the development areas; public street sidewalks will receive minimal maintenance from VDOT; the County will provide supplementary maintenance of sidewalks on public streets to assure a minimum service level is maintained; private street sidewalks will be the responsibility of property owners; County will construct sidewalks at the December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 3) current CIP funding level; and, the County would assume responsibility for sidewalks along private streets that the County accepts as public streets. He said that assuming a minimum level of service for sidewalks, the annual maintenance expenses in 20 years is projected to be from $100,000 to $150,000 in 2004 dollars. If the annual maintenance service went far beyond that level to include things such as snow removal (where there was true Neighborhood Model development and children were expected to walk to school and people are expected to walk between where they live and where they work), the extra expense could triple that cost. Mr. Bowerman said the City requires that homeowners provide their own snow removal. Mr. Graham said the County currently has no authority to do that. Mr. Dorrier asked how many miles of sidewalks are being predicted for the County to maintain. Mr. Graham said by the year 2030, he predicts that number to be 264,000 feet of sidewalk. Mr. Boyd asked if that is just for new construction. Mr. Graham said it is based on new construction, CIP generated sidewalks and existing sidewalks. Mr. Boyd asked if the figure Mr. Graham just gave is based on the assumption that the County will be taking over the expense as opposed to a homeowners association. Mr. Graham said it is based only on the County supplementing the maintenance that VDOT would do to those sidewalks, not that it would take over all of the expense. VDOT will provide a basic level of service. Mr. Boyd asked if the homeowners association would be maintaining the sidewalks. Mr. Graham said if the street is private, then the homeowners would be responsible for maintaining those private sidewalks. Mr. Foley said based on the fact that the Board has said there can be private streets, staff would assume that there would be property owners’ agreement to maintain those sidewalks and streets. He suggested the Board move to the question of street trees. Mr. Graham said the second question in the Executive Summary is: “Does the Board support street trees being required within the six-foot planting strips between curbs and sidewalks? If so, who will be responsible for maintaining and replacing street trees?” He has found that the greatest expense with the trees is removing the trees when they get to be of a size that is damaging the street and the sidewalk, or the tree is diseased and needs to be replaced. Mr. Rooker asked if staff has information from other localities concerning this question. Mr. Graham said he will get to that information in a minute. What staff has assumed is that the County and the property owners would maintain the street trees if they are in the right-of-way because VDOT has always made it clear that they will not maintain street trees. Also, sight distance has to be maintained. Normally, street trees would have an average life of 20 years. If maintained by the property owners, it is likely that at some point those owners will find the expense too heavy for the association to bear. Staff assumes that at some point in the future they would petition the County to be responsible. Staff assumes that if the County were responsible for street tree maintenance, in 25 years annual maintenance costs would be between $100,000 and $250,000 in 2004 dollars. If street trees in a subdivision were the property owners’ responsibility, the County’s annual maintenance costs in 25 years would probably cost between $50,000 and $100,000, which would include oversight and maintenance outside of the subdivision. Mr. Graham said the County would continue to be responsible for landscaping in the median such as that on Route 29 North and Route 250 East. That would continue as an active CIP program. There would be some expense beyond what the property owners have in the subdivision. He said that in the City of Charlottesville they do not allow the trees to be planted in the right-of-way. In the Entrance Corridors, trees are supposed to be within five feet of the right-of-way or within 10 feet of the edge in certain parking lots adjacent to the public rights-of-way. In the case of a property owners’ association, trees in the common area are maintained by the association; other trees are maintained by individual owners. Mr. Rooker said it appears to him that along Monticello Avenue in the City, they are currently planting trees in a strip. Mr. Graham said he talked with the City Engineer, and there are trees in the right-of-way. It is similar to what he has said, even if the property owners were responsible, the County would continue a program along the Entrance Corridors in the rights-of-way. Mr. Bowerman said the County does not have the enabling legislation which would allow it to require the homeowners to maintain the trees. Ms. Thomas said according to the DISC II minutes, they discussed this question and mentioned many different examples of how other localities handle this question. She said the Board has given the DISC committees a big job in advising the Board, and they have worked thoroughly over the last several years. For the Board to jump in now and say that what DISC said will be tossed out will have ramifications as to the kind of advise future volunteer committees will provide. She said the Board may need to do some tweaking on these recommendations, but she thinks the Board should be very cautious about undoing the advice it has gotten from a very diverse sector of the community. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 4) Mr. Foley said there were three alternatives given for the maintenance of street trees. Staff’s only objective is to figure out which one of those the Board thinks should be used. Should the County be involved in maintaining the trees? Should property owners’ association do it? Staff can look at what other localities are doing and can also pursue volunteer programs. As new subdivisions are approved, staff will need to know if the Board expects there to be a property owners’ agreement or not. Mr. Bowerman asked if there would need to be an agreement for street trees outside of the right- of-way. Mr. Davis said the County probably cannot require a property owners’ association to maintain the trees in the right-of-way. If trees are in private roads, it probably can be done. If the trees are in common areas, it can be required, but in the right-of-way that may be a problem. Mr. Foley said based on the Board’s directions today, and if the Board wants the property owners to assume that responsibility on private streets, staff will have to do some research about the form of the agreement, and bring that information back for the Board’s review. Mr. Dorrier said if the County requires property owners to do certain things on that right-of-way, it will increase the cost of the dues of the homeowners association. The County will have a direct impact on the dues structure. He asked what homeowners pay in the way of dues now. Mr. Boyd said he pays $200 a year just for maintenance of streets and snow removal. They do not have street trees. Everybody owns to the road so it is the individual’s responsibility to maintain their trees. Mr. Dorrier asked what would happen if the County required something which made the dues go up five fold. Mr. Boyd said if it was done before he bought the house and he understood what the amount would be in the beginning, he would have no problem. Ms. Thomas said there have been books written about the value of trees to the environment in the urban setting. Trees have been a big selling point for homes. She has heard from developers that the County is setting them up for a situation it is not quite the attractive urban setting that young professionals, retirees and others want. She thinks street trees are a major part of making a development more attractive. In the long run that will make the urbanizing areas desirable enough so the buyer does not “leapfrog” over certain areas and go someplace else to live. She feels strongly that street trees will make the urbanizing area more attractive to buyers, and in the long run developers will reap the benefit. Mr. Rooker said he wants to retain the planting strip requirements. He has not been able to decide between having a three-foot planting strip requirement with street trees on the other side of the sidewalk, or having a six-foot planting strip with trees between the sidewalk and the road. He thinks it comes down to the anticipated difference in costs. He finds the second option to be a more attractive form of development. It provides the benefit of having additional distance between the sidewalks and roads, and also having trees creating an ambience between them and the road. He said that today most of the sidewalks are right on the road, with no strip at all, so a three-foot strip is more substantial than what the County has today. He would like some information on the cost difference between these two options. Mr. Bowerman said there needs to be some information about how that would affect setbacks. Mr. Rooker said there needs to be information on the various impacts of those two options; he thinks both are consistent with the Neighborhood Model, but the six-foot strip is more consistent. He does think the Board needs to be aware of the limitation of dollars. Mr. Bowerman said the setbacks are important because they affect the density of neighborhoods. Mr. Boyd said what Mr. Rooker is struggling with about the costs is the very reason he does not believe there should be that much specificity in the requirements for every neighborhood. He thinks there has to be some flexibility considering topography and what the developer will be required to do in that neighborhood. He agrees that there should be some guidelines, but he does not think the ordinance should spell out exactly how it should be done. They should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Foley said staff just has a couple of more slides, and would like to proceed in order to get to discussion of the Subdivision Text amendments. He said there is obviously cost attached to the regulations. That is something to be considered whether it is the private property owners or the County. The Board has given some initial directions on that. Staff just wanted the Board to aware of some initial impacts so it could make a final determination. He said if the County is to work toward the visions set out in the Neighborhood Model, at some point the County will need to assure it is an attractive environment, and it is kept up properly. Therefore, the Board’s consideration of maintenance agreements will be important so as to make it an attractive place to live as an alternative to the rural areas. He said the Board can return to that question in a couple of minutes; Mr. Steve Runkle, Chairman of DISC II, has to leave the meeting soon and would like to have the opportunity to speak. Mr. Runkle said the Committee had many meetings and deliberated all of these topics. A consensus was reached, which their minutes will show. Nothing was agreed to 100 percent; only that it is December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 5) unlikely the Neighborhood Model could be implemented using VDOT design standards. The problem with this issue is that you cannot look at just one thing independent of all the other things because they have interrelationships. Potentially, there are things the County can do and may do, and there may be things which would help to enhance the ability to use VDOT design standards. A lot of that might take additional changes by the County. Mr. Rooker said if DISC discussed their recommendations again in light of the fact that design standards proposed by VDOT were going to be used, he is not sure DISC’s recommendations would be the same. For example, the proposed subdivision standards might vary because of the impact of the standards. One of those might relate to the planting strips. They are trying to establish a streetscape, and that is achieved with plantings, housing, separation of the housing, etc. The relationships, depending on whose rules are followed, can change. He assumes the Board has been saying that when it takes private streets to achieve the vision wanted, they will be allowed. He hopes the Board will also allow public streets where developers want to use public streets, and private streets where they are wanted. He knows developers have to accept the responsibility for maintenance of the infrastructure, and he also knows this responsibility can be transferred to the homeowners. Mr. Dorrier asked the major criteria which separates private streets from public streets. Mr. Runkle said some of these choices have to be left to the designers. The width of a street is less of an issue than other design requirements. Curb returns, and perpendicular parking instead of angular parking are things on which no relief will be granted. If the County looked at how their requirements might interrelate to some of the proposals by VDOT, the widths may become less of an issue. It is a question of pavement width, placement of the sidewalk, width of the planting strip, it is in the right-of-way, it is in common areas, etc. These things could influence decisions. Those kinds of issues over time might enable the County to make more things public. Mr. Dorrier said it seems the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association thinks the ordinance is inflexible the way it is written. He asked if Mr. Runkle agreed. Mr. Runkle said a consensus was reached in DISC and that is why they arrived at the waiver process. There is a standard for a planting strip, but there is the chance to change that by waiver. He thinks consideration was given to having some level of flexibility in design. He said there are some members of the BRHA present today, and he knows that everybody does not agree on everything in the ordinance. Mr. Dorrier said there are waivers in the system now. He wonders how well those work. Mr. Runkle said the DISC discussion relative to waivers was that the waivers not be viewed as negative. The development community today has the attitude that seeking a waiver is done to diminish the design; that they are trying to get by without doing something. He said the waiver process needs to be looked at as a way to enhance the design, or rationalization of a different design. He said a major concern of developers is that it cannot be a negative process. DISC ultimately agreed that there would be a standard, and developers would seek waivers. Ms. Thomas said changes in attitude are not easy to come by. When meeting the principles of having an attractive workable urban area, a waiver will be a process of making it flexible so the principles can be met. Mr. Wyant said a waiver keeps everything from looking the same, and allows some creativity. Because of the different terrains in the County, it would allow some nice-looking designs. Mr. Runkle said one of the concerns is related to the design standards of ongoing projects. If these regulations are adopted today and he has a project that is only 50 percent complete, does that mean he has to change his design standards? He does not think it would make sense to change the design in the middle of the process. DISC had long discussions about who should bear the costs of public infrastructure. There were some who thought that if it was something the County wanted, it should be willing to fund it. From his perspective, he does not think that will happen if it is something he wants to do and he will receive value in the project from that infrastructure. Mr. Don Franco said he was representing the Blue Ridge Homeowners Association. He said he did not have a prepared speech as he came to listen. He wrote a letter to the Board outlining the major concerns of the BRHBA, for instance, the waiver process. He raised a question as to whether some of the waiver standards in the process are too strict. One has to do with the over-lot grading aspects. Some of the performance standards fall into a category best described as “professional judgments”. The Engineering Department has established what they feel are reasonable standards. They feel that in a lot of cases exceptions to that standard could be applied. They could have discussions with Mr. Graham about this point and he might agree, but it is going to have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. There is a perceived liability by County staff and the engineers who review the proposal that if they allow something to be approved that goes against the standard, they are accepting that liability either on their behalf, or the County’s behalf. They think the waiver process should allow some outside professional to step in, to allow some waiver process that does not involve having to convince the County. He thinks it is important to establish an atmosphere early on that the waiver can be viewed as a positive change. In the past, he has found that when waivers are sought, nobody knows why the standard is required, so trying to get something changed is often difficult. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 6) Mr. Franco said identifying when the waiver process would occur in the process is a question. Would a full site plan have to be developed in order to get a waiver? How much detail is needed to satisfy concerns to help support a waiver? Would he have to design things twice, once for a waiver, and once for the standards? He thinks a lot of people would take the easiest road and not be creative and not pursue a waiver because of its difficulty, time constraints, and because it is too much of a risk. Mr. Rooker asked for Mr. Franco’s recommendations on the problem he just raised concerning two different designs. Mr. Franco said the recommendations in his letter are to have someone who is allowed to stamp a plan, whether it is a surveyor, an architect or engineer, certify some of the performance standards. In the letter he also proposed different ways of reviewing slopes. They have concerns about incidental areas on a driveway where there is a sidewalk from the front door that comes down to the driveway. At that point, the driveway might flatten and then get steeper behind it so the sidewalk comes in flat to an angled driveway. Will they be subject to an inspector going out and saying a portion of the driveway is steeper than 20 percent? He said to put in some practical aspects, but provide some relief for things like construction tolerances. Mr. Runkle said one of the concerns was that it may not be fully recognized what acceptance of some of these standards without relief may mean to the Neighborhood Model. In some cases, it may mean that a whole class of products will be eliminated. He thinks it is a function of the impact of the standard. Mr. Dorrier said Recommendation No. 11 in Mr. Franco’s letter says the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association asks the County Engineer to apply the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Low Volume and Very Low Volume Standards where appropriate. He asked the meaning of that recommendation. Mr. Franco said when there are private roads and alleys, etc., ASHTO has a standard for low volume roads and very low volume roads. They would like to see those recognized as a potential standard that can be used. A good example would be the radius return for the edge of pavements and curb lines as roads enter in at intersections. Another example might be guardrails. Ms. Thomas said that is a little over her head, so she would like to ask the County Engineer how this differs from the County private road standards. Mr. Graham said the Neighborhood Model standards actually considered the ASHTO low and very low standards and incorporated a good deal of them. He said there are sections in those road standards which do not go as far as the Neighborhood Model suggests curb and gutter being one, and street widths being another. Staff had incorporated what was possible from those standards, but actually went somewhat beyond those. Ms. Thomas asked if “going beyond” means they went in a direction the builders would want. Mr. Graham said he is saying it was something which was necessary to realize the ideal of the Neighborhood Model, something that was more flexible. Mr. Dorrier asked if this would increase the cost of the development. Mr. Graham said it probably reduces the cost to the developer because it allows him to build a narrower street that conforms to the existing topography so not as much grading is required. Mr. Franco said he agrees with Mr. Graham but the details are not clear because it is not in the ordinance at this time. Guardrails are a good example. On a private road or alley that supports five cars utilizing that road, the ASHTO volumes would suggest that the shoulder might only need to be three feet in width with no guardrail because no high traffic volume or speeds are expected. Yet, the Engineering and Design Manual at its current stage, would say there needs to be a ten-foot shoulder and guardrails. It does not go as far on some of the technical details. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Graham would comment. Mr. Graham said in talking about the Neighborhood Model, there should be no guardrail involved. Where there is a special situation such as an alley with a very steep slope that is one case where there is a question of design flexibility. In his opinion, it will need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. He does not think it is possible to come up with a one-size fits all standard for those situations. Mr. Dorrier asked who decides when guardrail is needed. Mr. Graham said it is done in consideration of a safety issue. Mr. Wyant said ASHTO has the criteria needed. They have a standard and the County has something that is a variation of that. Ms. Thomas said it sounds like the County’s standards are more generous than ASHTO’s. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 7) Mr. Graham said ASHTO relates to state highway standards, but they are talking about very low volume highways. They recognize that urban streets are a different “creature.” Mr. Boyd said he is curious about Mr. Runkle’s comments about the use of waivers. He asked the experience with waivers and staff. Was it a positive experience, or was it a negative? Mr. Franco said it is often hard to figure out a way to demonstrate that the waiver makes sense. He said everybody has their niche on what they do, and it is often hard to get someone to step back and look at the big picture. He said that as a designer, it is often hard to balance different things in the plan. There are circumstances where a wider slope means more of a stream is disturbed. There might be more erosion impacts. There might be more stream buffer impacts. The stream buffer guide says not to widen it, and the road guide says to wide it. Often, they are caught in a debate with different entities in the County. It is very hard sometimes to justify a waiver of one criterion because it affects somebody else’s criteria. There is a need to step back and look at the total design, and hope to balance the different components. Mr. Boyd asked if that is when Mr. Franco would want to bring in a certified expert from outside to make a decision. He thinks it would be difficult for himself as a staff member who had guidelines to follow. Mr. Franco said the circumstance for the expert would be to have someone else certify when there is more than a 20 percent driveway grade. When he is balancing design components and looking for a waiver for sidewalks (for example: sidewalks on one side only with an alternative pedestrian network on the other), someone needs to make that decision. That is a hard one to get an answer to. They might have a project with a high density and the street is put as the boundary to the greenway with housing facing the street and the greenway on the other side. Does he want a sidewalk next to the greenway path or should he eliminate the sidewalk? It is a tough debate at times. In an earlier meeting it was mentioned about the six-foot buffer, five-foot sidewalk, and three more feet of right-of-way. If he could save that fourteen feet and move the road over, he might be able to get an extra row of houses further along in the development. He said it is important to get answers to some of that early in the development process. Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Franco was saying the waiver process should be used more like the proffer process where it is give and take on the development issues that create the best project. Mr. Franco said not necessarily a proffer, but it has to get to the decision-makers early in the process. Maybe there could be a system where he could bring in the alternatives to show what they are talking about on a sketch basis and explain the impacts. Get to someone high up on staff or get the Planning Commission to help say “we are in favor of this” and allow the plan to move forward with the technical details, which would be helpful. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Runkle if the process in the ordinance is recommending anything new. Mr. Runkle said he has no problem with whoever will make the decision, but the process needs to allow the development community to get there sooner without spending money, and having to go back and spend that money again. He said the process needs to allow a decision to be made early on. There may be four or five concepts as to how something can be done and which one makes the most sense. Right now, the only way to get that done is to go through each one of those concepts. He said they go to the Planning Commission and get asked why they had not considered some other way of doing the development. He said the reality is that they have looked at numerous alternatives before the plans get to the Commission or the Board. The only plan the Board sees is the one that is finally presented. That is part of the process they would like to narrow down. If there are two viable concepts and they think one is better than the other one, they would like to have a process that allows them to get some directions quickly. Ms. Thomas asked about the process that has a pre-proposal meeting with the Planning Commission. Mr. Runkle said he does not know how quick that process is yet. He said they need to have a good process like that. Mr. Boyd said it comes back to the concept that if there is going to be a waiver-based system, and this conversation seems to be headed in that direction, there has to be some way to get through that waiver process quicker. Mr. Wyant said Fairfax County has a different process. He asked if staff has seen information about that. Mr. Graham said their plans got to be so complex that they had to create a process so the plan prepared could be verified as to accuracy before its submission. The process worked, but they did not get the type of submissions they had hoped to get. Mr. Wyant asked how the County can get the product that it wants. Mr. Franco said that is the challenge that DISC faced. They wrote a set of standards that they realized would cause requests for a lot of exceptions. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 8) Mr. Bowerman said there needs to be a process where there is certainty as to the amount of time it will take to get approval. It is frustration with the process that causes most of the discontent. Mr. Rooker said it is possible that some of these waivers could be granted administratively, and some go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyd said he thinks that puts an undue burden on administration because then there has to be an appeals process. Mr. Rooker said the quickest way to get a decision is to have someone who can make it. There are a number of waivers that are administratively granted now. His point is that this should be divided into waivers which can be granted administratively and waivers that should have Planning Commission approval. Ms. Thomas said that takes this back to what Mr. Franco was talking about where there is one decision that will affect another decision. Mr. Bowerman said the Board was told that would be taken care of, that there was to be a consolidation of the departments with the final arbitrator being the Director of Development. Mr. Graham said in talking about expediting the process, the more the Board wants to regulate, the longer the process will take. Administrative processes can be created, and things can be streamlined, but if decisions are needed on every issue, the process will be longer. Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner, said DISC II worked hard to get the administrative approval and the Planning Commission approval as discrete as possible. They came up with so many different scenarios and different cases that their decision was to let the Planning Commission look at the cases. That is why they recommended so many Commission waivers. They did not feel they could write all the exceptions. Mr. Tucker said a hearing on these amendments is scheduled to be heard by the Board in February. Staff had hoped to have another work session on January 5, and based on what he has heard today he is sure staff can pull things together on January 5 and get to the question of a pre-application or pre-proposal approach. He said there is still a lot of work left to be done. He has had some thoughts about interconnected streets and a collector road in a development. Mr. Dorrier referred to Mr. Bowerman’s remark about the Director of Development, and said he thinks the Board needs to know if the position is working out as expected. Mr. Boyd asked if January 5 will give staff enough time to respond to the questions raised today. He said staff did not have enough time to respond to the proposals by the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association. There are a lot of issues in the letter which are very specific. Mr. Rooker said they mentioned the problem of having to come forward with multiple designs or go a long way through a process based upon a design and then be sent back. Is there some lesser form of design that can be brought forward for the purpose of waivers that does not require a huge investment of time and effort? If that were the case, with a fairly small investment of time on the front end, it could be determined if the project qualified for the waivers. Mr. Bowerman said that would be handled through the pre-application meeting. Mr. Foley said the only question that was not discussed today was No. 4: “Regarding the above mentioned infrastructure, if property owners will be responsible for ongoing maintenance and replacement, does the Board support property owners’ agreements that require the establishment of escrow accounts and involve County monitoring of these accounts and of ongoing maintenance.” Mr. Boyd said he is more interested in a finding that private roads will be maintained by the homeowners association than monitoring their efforts to do that, so long as it is clearly defined that the County is not going to maintain these private roads. He does not want to create a bureaucracy to oversee these funds. Mr. Davis said under State law, whenever a property owners association is required to be formed, which is whenever there is common area or mandatory dues, they have provisions that actually require capitalized accounts to be maintained, to be reviewed every five years by the homeowners association itself. The problem with the Act is that there is nobody who looks over the homeowner association’s shoulder to make sure they do what the law requires them to do. Mr. Rooker said he does not think the County wants to get in the business of filling that gap. Ms. Thomas said the County would have to send all of those homeowners associations a letter every four years saying that the next year they would have to show the County that their escrow account was “up to snuff.” Mr. Davis said the County could probably require them to send the County their five-year reviews and their annual capitalization reports. Someone would actually have to review that information. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 9) Mr. Tucker said a practical problem to this is that the homeowners associations do not sent the County information, so it would have no way of knowing who to send the letter to. That is the case now when trying to share information about what the County is doing in their neighborhoods. Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Boyd. If this were begun, there would be an implied obligation. They would have to submit a plan, and someone would need to determine if their plan was adequate for their subdivision based on their potential capital needs. He does not think the County can do that. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County would just “throw up our hands” if they came before the Board and said they were in the “red” and could not come up with the money? Mr. Rooker said there is a huge difference between what is required of associations today and what was required of associations 20 years ago. At that time, the County did not even require that there be a maintenance agreement in place. That is required now. Mr. Davis said in the rural areas there is typically not a homeowners association but there is an agreement between the property owners themselves. In the homeowners association agreements reviewed for private streets today, the County reviews the agreement to make sure they have a responsible entity in place. In neither of those situations is there a mechanism where the County enforces those agreements. The County just makes sure there is a private means to do it and then they are basically on their own. Mr. Dorrier asked if the homeowners associations in the County should be contacted before deciding to do something to them. Mr. Rooker said this is for new developments; it will not affect existing associations. He does not see this going beyond what is required by the Virginia Homeowners Association Act today. This is all required by State statute. Mr. Davis said he would like to ask a question about the private streets which were discussed earlier. Does the Board want private streets by-right? That is not what was recommended by DISC II. It has not been part of any of the previous discussions of these amendments, and it is a pretty significant change in direction. DISC recommended that private streets be available by the waiver process, and staff has tried to clarify what the standards would be for a waiver. Mr. Rooker said he does not think the developers want to be in a situation where they have “to go a long way down the road” on a design for development before finding out if it will qualify for private streets. That is bothersome. Mr. Davis said he just wanted to be sure that is what the Board intended. Even with private streets, he assumes there would be specific private street standards and if the developer wanted to vary from those there would have to be a waiver process. It is a different level of process. Mr. Boyd asked if the DISC model provided very specific private street standards. He thought they were already available. Mr. Davis said there is a Design Manual proposed with private street standards, but those would be taken into account by the Planning Commission when granting the waiver. If that is the direction the Board wants to go, staff can do that in an ordinance, but it is a different “animal” than what has been looked at. Ms. Thomas said DISC II talked about private streets being an alternative and recognized this would frequently be the case. She asked if Mr. Davis was saying DISC never said these streets should be by-right. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Ms. Echols said there are some streets that this Subdivision text amendment proposes be allowed by-right, private streets which are included and administratively approved. They are the ones that are done now for townhouses, commercial developments, etc. She said the Subdivision Ordinance needs to be clearer and those are the ones which are proposed to be administratively approved. Mr. Rooker asked about a mixed-use development. Ms. Echols said that is where it starts to break down. What staff can do is to come up with what Mr. Rooker is talking about, that is, set out some parameters for an early review for a waiver so it still would go to the Planning Commission to make that determination, but it would not be after a tremendous amount of investment. Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is important, otherwise it would affect the entire plan of development. Mr. Dorrier said the most expensive part of the development is the roads. Mr. Davis asked if everybody is still “on the same track” as what DISC II recommended. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 10) Mr. Rooker said he thinks so. What Ms. Echols said is overlaying a quick determination process to determine if a private road waiver is going to be granted. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks that is a good idea. Mr. Foley said staff will bring back some kind of a cost estimate as to the difference between trees in yards and trees in planting strips. Mr. Wyant said there is the question of long-term maintenance costs, which are significant. He thinks the Board needs to be aware of what those costs will be in the future. Mr. Bowerman asked when the Board is going to deal with the amendments themselves. Mr. Foley said interconnected streets and over-lot grading did not get a lot of discussion today. Staff will bring these amendments back to the Board on January 5. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Recess. With no further discussion at this time, the Chairman recessed the meeting at 5:33 p.m. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Reconvene. At 6:00 p.m., the Board reconvened in Room 241 for the beginning of the regularly scheduled night meeting. All Board members were present. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 6. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no matters presented at this time. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Mr. Boyd asked that the Board hold Item 8.1 and discuss motion it as soon as the consent agenda is completed. Mr. Rooker immediately offered to pull Item 8.1, to approve Items 8.2 and 8.3, and to accept Items 8.4 and 8.5 for information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. __________ Item 8.1. Resolution Supporting dredging of the Rivanna Reservoir (this item will appear after the end of Agenda Item No. 8.) __________ Item 8.2. SP-2004-0016. Forest Lakes North Swim and Tennis Club (Signs #23 & 94) (deferred from November 3, 2004). It was noted in the Executive Summary that at the Board’s meeting on November 3, 2004, a public hearing was held on the special use permit requests for the swim and tennis club facilities at Forest Lakes North and South. At the hearing, staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested minor wording changes to the recommended special use permit conditions. Staff had no problem with the requested change in wording; however, the Forest Lakes Community Association, future owner of the property, wished to have the wording reviewed by their attorney. Staff recommended that action be postponed until that review took place. The Community Association has agreed to the wording of the recommended condition, so all outstanding issues have been resolved. Staff recommends that the two special use permits be approved with one condition. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved SP-2004-0017 subject to the following condition: 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe, Autumn Woods. Any future residential developments contiguous to the developments listed, that are added to the Forest Lakes Community Association, may be permitted to use the facilities. The total number of additional dwelling units in future residential developments permitted to use the facilities shall not exceed one hundred twenty-five (125). __________ December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 11) Item 8.3. SP-2004-0017. Forest Lakes South Swim and Tennis Club (Signs #18) (deferred from November 3, 2004). By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved SP-2004-0017 subject to the following condition: 1. The use, as approved, shall be limited to the residents and guests of the following developments: Forest Lakes South, Springridge, Lanford Hills, Steeplechase, Amberfield, Cove Pointe, Edgewater, Gateway, Worthcrossing, Chelsea, Arbor Lake, Waterford, Watercrest, Copperknoll, Echo Ridge, Ridgefield, Poplar Ridge, Heather Glen, Whispering Woods, Timberwood, Timber Pointe, Autumn Woods. Any future residential developments contiguous to the developments listed, that are added to the Forest Lakes Community Association, may be permitted to use the facilities. The total number of additional dwelling units in future residential developments permitted to use the facilities shall not exceed one hundred twenty-five (125). __________ Item 8.4. Copy of letter dated November 18, 2004, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, to Brian S. Ray, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax Map was received for information 37, Parcel 6 (property of George Frost) - Section 10.3.1, . __________ Item 8.5. Copy of draft minutes of the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee II (DISC) were received for information. meeting of November 30, 2004, _______________ Consent Agenda Item 8.1. Resolution supporting dredging of the Rivanna Reservoir (this item was removed from the consent agenda for discussion.) Mr. Boyd said when Ms. Thomas proposed this resolution last week he had not previously received any input on the matter, and had not had the time to review the wording of the proposed resolution. He will not vote in favor of the resolution. Although, he is in favor of increased communication with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the vehicle for doing it should not be through passage of resolutions. He thinks the Board should instruct its representatives on the Authority Board of its wishes. He thanked Ms. Thomas for bringing the resolution forward because it has stimulated a lot of good conversation. However, he thinks the resolution may unintentionally convey a feeling of “no confidence” in the Authority. He is interested in pursuing the possibility of having elected representatives as member of the RWSA Board of Directors. This resolution is too extreme for him. Ms. Thomas said this resolution contains directions for Mr. Tucker so he will know the Board’s wishes. She is not set on having a resolution adopted, but is glad it has stimulated some conversation. She said the Board could ask for a report on the work plan the consultant is following because Mr. Frederick has said he thinks they are progressing adequately. The Board does not know if that is correct, if they are looking at markets for the dredge spoils or if they know the nature of the dredge spoils. There have been proposals for catching the silt as it comes from the Mechum River instead of traditional dredging. There are lots of options for keeping the Reservoir from silting in more than at present. She was not reassured by Mr. Frederick’s note that he was considering many of those options. It seems to her that the things Mr. Frederick mentioned do not show those options as being adequate. She would like for the Board to keep pushing this subject, so if the Board members would like to discuss that further, maybe this conversation is sufficient in and of itself. Mr. Dorrier said there are certain things in the proposed resolution that give him pause, i.e., the statement that “sediment is a growth industry”. Ms. Thomas said she had said that staff in that community is convinced that sediment is a growth industry. That may or may not be the case in this community; it depends on the composition of the sediment. The sediment could be a base for various industries or it could be a horrible hazardous waste. Different communities have found different things in their dredging. She was told that when Schulykill River was dredged the sediment was turned into blocks of anthracite coal and resold. Luckily the Rivanna Reservoir does not have that kind of silt. She was expressing her own concern that the Board is not assured that it is getting that kind of study. She knows some other people share that concern and she knows Mr. Tucker will give this information to the RWSA Board members. Mr. Wyant said he would like to see the consultant’s contract completed. He also shares some of the sentiments that have been expressed. He is particularly concerned about future protection of the Reservoir after dredging, including protection of surrounding lands and streams. He was involved in dredging operations in the past, some in the State of Virginia. He thinks somebody needs to take a look at what should be done in the future. Mr. Bowerman said he has no problem with the resolution other than in the first “Whereas” where the language reads “and for recreational”. He thinks that language should be eliminated because this is a water supply impoundment and it is not encouraged for any use other than fishing. Mr. Rooker said a paragraph at the end of the resolution points out the difference between maintenance and complete dredging. Part of the concern was that the fact sheet presented on dredging only presented the facts on full dredging of the Reservoir as opposed to just maintenance dredging to try and keep the silt to its current level. Personally, he would like to see maintenance dredging as an option December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 12) for preserving the Reservoir in its current state combined with another option to meet the goals. His interest in the resolution was to make certain that point was communicated. He suggested this Board have a presentation on the status of the options before this gets so far along that what it actually receives are the final recommendation from the RWSA. He suggested that some process be set up so the Board can get some sort of an interim report on the options, and then feedback to the consultants could be taken into account. Questions such as those in Ms. Thomas’ resolution could be forwarded at a time when they are still meaningful. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Rooker is asking for a presentation on all of the options. Mr. Rooker replied that at some point the Board needs to get a report from Mr. Frederick and the consultants, maybe in a joint meeting with City Council, before RWSA has taken a position on the options. This presentation needs to be when there is still time to do additional investigation on the options, time to gather additional data and at a time when the Board can provide some input. Mr. Dorrier asked the meaning of the Ellicott “mud cat” based in Baltimore. Ms. Thomas said that was the equipment used in the Decatur, Illinois, project and which has been used in a lot of maintenance dredging operations. It gets its name because it is a relatively small piece of equipment that is easy to move around, so is of a size that could be used at Sugar Hollow without having a gigantic barge fill up the entire Sugar Hollow Reservoir. Also, since it is located in Baltimore, Maryland, it is not too far away. Mr. Dorrier said he basically supports the proposed resolution but he has questions about parts of it. Mr. Boyd said his concern is using this format to do what the Board has just done. He thinks the Board has made its point clear. He agrees that the Board wants to be more involved in the decision- making process on what alternative is used, not just to approve the RWSA’s recommendation. He supports conveying that to Mr. Tucker verbally or in writing in a letter from the Chairman. Mr. Rooker suggested the Board schedule a work session with Mr. Frederick and the consultants. The Board could receive an interim report on the options and the facts developed on those options. Then there could be an exchange of questions and answers on the options. If the Board thinks the consultants have not looked at maintenance dredging, that is something that can be discussed, but that would apply to all of the options. Ms. Thomas said if the resolution has provoked a useful discussion and brought forth the fact that the Board is interested in saving the Reservoir, then she thinks it will have served its purpose without its being passed as a formal resolution. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board could get some information on sediment as a growth industry. Mr. Rooker said part of his concern, with part of his district lying around the Reservoir, is not to turn the Reservoir into an industrial site. He would like to look at some dredging operations to see how they are handled before voting on that kind of an option. He thinks people owning property around the Reservoir’s edge would have a lot of problems if they thought there would be an ongoing operation with a lot of noise which also created a smell. Ms. Thomas commented that she understands that some dredging operations have used something called “hospital mufflers” and there have usually been no noise complaints during the entire operation. Mr. Rooker again said he supports having some kind of work session where the Board can raise all these questions and try to get some answers. Mr. Wyant said he thinks it is critical to know if there are dredging operations that are clean and do not disturb a lot of the sediment. It is also important for him to know that the disposal is done in a proper way. Mr. Rooker said that is important especially when there is an area where all the surrounding land drains back into the Reservoir. Mr. Tucker said this discussion has been helpful. When Mr. Frederick came before the Board recently and outlined the options RWSA was looking at with the consultant, he said there would be additional meetings. RWSA has already had two public sessions to review the options and there are two more sessions scheduled in January, 2005. After the final public sessions are held, RWSA can bring something back to the Board in a work session. Mr. Tucker said he will mention this discussion to the City Manager and offer to have a joint meeting with City Council and the Albemarle County Service Authority. He also thinks it would be helpful for Board members to visit a dredging site in operation. Mr. Rooker said he would prefer to visit a dredging operation that would be similar to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir site where similar equipment was being used. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 13) It was the consensus of the Board that a work session be scheduled with Mr. Frederick, RWSA, and the consultants on all the water supply alternatives. The Board also indicated a desire to visit a dredging operation that would be similar to the Rivanna Reservoir site. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: SDP-2004-095. T. E. Wood (Ntelos/ Arrowhead) – Tier II PWF. Request for installation of personal wireless service fac to replace existing fac approved as SP-1998-09. Lease area loc on TM 88, P 26, containing approx 71.34 acs. Znd RA & EC. Loc on Arrowhead Valley Rd (Rt 745) E of intersect w/Rt 29 S. Samuel Miller Dist. Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said the request is for a Tier II facility for a wireless site. This is the replacement of a personal wireless facility which was approved under a special use permit. The site is located on Arrowhead Valley Road which intersects with Route 29 South in the Samuel Miller District. This request was reviewed for compliance with the Tier II facility standards which were recently adopted. Staff found two unfavorable factors to this request; the monopole would be sky lighted from one vantage point near the site, and the site does not offer adequate opportunities for screening the monopole’s proposed height and location. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and essentially found that the proposed location was adequate and they could approve it, but only at the seven foot height, not at the ten foot height the applicant requested. One commissioner stated that he believed that the trees in the area would grow and would minimize the impact in a short period of time, but the motion was made at seven feet, and that is how it was approved unanimously by the Commission. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Rooker said the policy in the ordinance allows them to increase the tower height to maintain that seven-foot difference, so the idea that the trees would grow and preclude the signal is not a real concern. Mr. Fritz said that is correct. If approved at seven feet, as the trees grow the height of the tower could be increased incrementally also. Ms. Thomas said this particular pole is a metal pole. Mr. Rooker said that is the reason why the Board approved metal poles, when there was some consideration of just approving wood poles, because metal poles can be moved up to keep up with tree growth. Mr. Fritz said wood poles have been increased in height, but it is more difficult. Mr. Boyd asked if the photos in the Board’s packet were available to the Commission. He does not see a significant difference between the two. Mr. Fritz said the photos were available to the Commission. Mr. Wyant asked if the applicant would have to come back to the Commission if he wanted to increase the height of the pole. Mr. Fritz said staff would need to resurvey and certify the height of the tree within 25 feet of the pole which was being used as the basis tree for the height of the pole. It would be done ministerially. Ms. Thomas said there is mentioned that at one place the tower is sky-lighted. It does have a wooded backdrop which is some distance away. She asked from what point it is sky-lighted. Mr. Fritz said when it is viewed from a location about one and one-quarter mile to the north and near the intersection of Arrowhead Valley Road and Locust Hollow Road. At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Valerie Long was present along with several other representatives for the applicant, N’Telos. She said the site was approved by the Commission. However, the fact that the Commission did not approve the request for the tower to be ten feet above the tallest tree is difficult for them. They feel the application meets the legal standard contained in the ordinance. The ordinance states that the tower may be approved ten feet above the tallest tree unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that there is no material difference in visibility between the poles at ten feet above versus seven feet above. Ms. Long said the question is whether there is a” material difference” in visibility of the proposed facility at a height of ten feet above the tallest tree versus seven feet above. They tried to demonstrate that through the use of the photo-simulations; a copy of those was forwarded to the Board members. There is wooded backdrop behind the pole from all vantage points. She explained how the photo- simulations were taken and said the picture on the cover of the photos shows two balloons. That basically gives a feel for what people traveling on the roads will see with the naked eye. If the focus is on having a “material difference” in visibility, they believe it meets that criterion at a height of ten feet above the tallest tree. She asked the meaning of “material difference.” Her dictionary indicates that “material” means having real importance or great consequences. Their photos show that the difference in height of the tower has no real importance or great consequence. At the closest point, this facility will be over 1100 feet from Route 29. If anyone asks if three feet can make that much of a difference, increasing the height of the pole is a benefit to the applicant. They realize there is a procedure for having the height of the pole increased as the trees grow in height, but it is a significant expense for the carriers. They had arborists study the soils and estimate how fast the trees on this site will grow. He thinks it would probably be two to three feet per year. Even if this site is approved at ten feet above, Ntelos will probably want to increase the height of that tower in five years. This is a very expensive endeavor. The applicant must purchase for the additional facility whether it is a new wood pole or an extension of a steel pole, hire construction crews, hire surveyors, etc. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 14) Mr. Rooker said he thought the poles are designed to telescope. That is the argument the Board received as to why metal poles should be permitted. Ms. Long said that is correct with some steel poles. Sometimes rather than telescoping them, an extension is attached to the top of the pole. Mr. Rooker said he did not think the applicant would completely replace the metal pole and completely redesign the site because it was going to be extended by two feet. Ms. Long said it is still a significant expense for the carriers to think about having to do that every year or two at all of their facilities around the county, particularly the wood pole facilities. They have two times the facilities in Albemarle as in other localities because they have more facilities which are shorter in height. Since there is no material difference in visibility, this site will not work as well at seven feet above as at ten feet above. She does not think the applicant should have to incur an expense any sooner than they know they will have to do it. She said that the ability to increase the height of the pole, while very significant, is not a simple inexpensive process. Ms. Long said as part of Ntelos’ customer service monitoring, they conduct a drive test of their wireless networks to test the strength of their signals. They had already conducted that study in this area, and she asked for some graphic representation of how much the signal has deteriorated over the last four years at this location. She handed to the Board members a representation, showing four lines of colored dots along the road starting in 2001 and working forward to 2004. The data shows that even in 2001 this site was already at a marginal level. She said the moderate strength of signal is shown in yellow dots, while blue shows the strongest signal. Even in places in the 2004 data, there is literally no dot on the line and that indicates that no signal could be measured at all. This is just an example of the impact tree growth makes in a one-year period. That is why they are asking for the higher height particularly given that the application meets the legal standard and there is no material difference in visibility of the tower. Mr. Rooker asked if the current location is at a lower elevation. Ms. Long said that is correct. Mr. Rooker asked the difference in elevation of the two sites. Ms. Long said the base elevation of the proposed tower is 784 feet ASL and there is a difference of about 60 feet at the existing tower. It is a significant difference in elevation. Originally, Ntelos’ plan was to extend the height of the existing facility because the trees had grown significantly since the tower was built. Raising the height of the existing tower did not work. Since they did not believe they would not be able to gain approval to increase the height by 20 feet, they felt they would need to move the lease area to a higher elevation in order for it to function well. Mr. Rooker asked the significance of showing Britts Mountain. Ms. Long said that is the facility to which the tower connects. The next facility in the chain is at Camp Holiday Trails. Mr. Rooker asked if all of the lines on the representation are based on the current location. Ms. Long said that is correct. She believes the area of black dots is attributed to poor service at the Arrowhead site. The terrain in this area is challenging. There are mountains which are relatively close to the road. That combined with the heavy vegetation along the roadways makes it difficult to provide good quality coverage there. Mr. Rooker said all of the lines showing degradation in the signal are physically closer to Britts Mountain than to Arrowhead. Ms. Long said the 2004 data shows yellow/orange dots leading into black dots. The yellow dots show marginal service which is the least acceptable service. Orange is below marginal service. Mr. Rooker asked if one of these studies was done based on seven feet versus ten feet. Ms. Long said she had asked if that could be done, but it is difficult to measure. It would require placing a crane at the new lease location, raise the crane to the two heights, and plot it out on a graph. They actually considered doing so, but could not get a crane to the site without damaging trees in the area. It is a small difference in height and is difficult to measure with their data, but it does have a significant impact on the quality of service. This is tree growth that is causing deterioration of service. Ms. Thomas asked if there are other things that make the signal deteriorate over a period of time. Ms. Long said she did not think there are, but she asked Mr. Miklos to respond. Mr. Chris Miklos said they went back to Britts Mountain and surrounding sites to be sure wind had not blow antennas out of alignment. They have done everything possible to make sure they are still pointing in the right direction. They have tried to improve things so they would not have to incur the expense of raising the tower. Ms. Thomas asked if the deteriorating signal is at Britts Mountain or at Arrowhead. Mr. Miklos said they believe both sites have deteriorated through tree growth. They looked into what would be the best solution for this particular coverage hole. Raising Arrowhead seemed to be the only solution. Because of the terrain of Britts Mountain, and with a mountain at the bend, it would have been difficult to make any changes to that site. By moving up the mountain, there is a chance of getting around the ridge on the left-hand side to get more of a signal from that site. With no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Dorrier said the matter was before the Board. Ms. Thomas said this was a public hearing. Mr. Davis said this is not an advertised public hearing; it is an appeal of the Commission’s decision. However, it is at the discretion of the Board to take comments from the public. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 15) Mr. Dorrier asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Ms. Thomas said she saw someone in the audience from the neighborhood, and that is why she thought it was a public hearing. Mr. David VonRoijen said he is not fond of cell towers, particularly in this area. In reference to the previous speaker’s comments that the trees grow two to three feet a year, he thinks loblolly pines are the only trees that grow at that rate. Most hardwoods grow slower. He came to say he is particularly concerned about this location because it adjoins an historic property as well as one on which there is a conservation easement. The fact that there is more than one tower on this property also aggravates this condition. The application to move up the mountain further and to make the tower more visible, in his opinion, is wrong. At what point do they stop moving up the mountain? He also objects to this application because there is a requirement to have a 200 foot buffer around the tower in which trees are not to be cut, in order to shield and buffer the visibility of the tower. However this location does not have 200 feet of the owner’s property for a buffer. They are using the adjoining property owners’ property as part of that buffer. He does not think that is right. He thinks the tower is an insult to the neighbor’s property. He thinks the buffer should be required, but raising the height from seven to 10 feet is ridiculous. The tower should be left as it is. He knows lots of people and they are not losing phone calls in that area. His wife and children have cell phones and they do not lose calls out there. He knows of no problem at that tower. Basically, he does not like the idea of the tower. He asked that the 200 foot buffer be enforced around the towers. He was not at all pleased when this was passed as an administrative thing to the Planning Commission. He thinks it is important that it go through the full process although he knows the Board is overloaded with work. Ms. Long said she will submit a copy of the tree growth letter that she has. She said the previous speaker is correct in that the plans shown a 200-foot buffer around this facility; a portion of that buffer extends onto the adjacent property. She realizes there is no enforcement procedure that could keep the adjoining neighbor from cutting trees on their property. However, the reason this facility is relatively close to the adjacent property line is because the existing access road runs up the border of the property line. They tried to stay as close as possible to that existing access road to minimize any tree clearing. It is a heavily wooded property, so to move away from that existing road would require removal of trees. They are pleased with this location although they do have to extend the access road to reach the lease area. They are able to do that in a way that does not require the cutting of any trees. The existing facilities on the property were placed as close as possible to that access road so trees would not need to be cut. She pointed out that there are other facilities on the property, but this one would replace one of the existing Ntelos facilities upon construction of this new facility. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Rooker asked the height of the other facilities in this general area. Mr. Fritz said he thinks one is at seven feet and the other is at ten feet, but is not positive. Mr. Rooker said to him the standard is seven feet and to go beyond that is a waiver. If it goes to the Planning Commission, there must be a demonstration that there is no material difference in visibility. The Commission voted 6:1 against granting this waiver. He said staff recommended denial of the site in the first place for even seven feet above. In his mind a showing has not been made. The standard set is a policy developed over three to four years for seven feet. If the Board is going to allow that standard to be changed without some kind of significant showing he does not think there is a standard at seven feet. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Rooker was not entirely correct in what he just said. On page 1 of the staff report it talks about the facility being no more than 10 feet taller than the crown of the tallest tree. The Planning Commission set a standard at seven feet, but the County’s regulations do not actually say seven feet although it has very frequently been found that seven feet was the least visible of the options. Mr. Bowerman said the ordinance speaks specifically to seven feet. Mr. Fritz said Ms. Thomas was reading the definition that a treetop facility is ten feet. The language that is in the supplemental regulations reads in part “The approved height shall not be more seven feet taller provided that the Commission may approve ten feet.” Mr. Rooker said when the Board voted on the standard, that is what it approved. He said the Board discussed the difference between a metal pole and a wood pole. There were a number of things the industry came forward and recommended as changes to the ordinance and the Board made those changes. The seven feet was put in the ordinance. The whole idea of having a metal pole, which is more visible than a wood pole, was based on the argument that there needs to be some basis for being able to increase the height of the towers in place. It made sense to allow metal poles to telescope so they could be moved up as tree heights increase. Mr. Bowerman said the Board can “beat this thing around”, but it adopted an ordinance with seven feet and allowed the Commission to grant a waiver to ten feet. The Commission chose not to do that. If this is approved, the Board will likely see an appeal of every application that is denied the ten feet. This application met the standard in the ordinance, and the Commission chose not to find that it would be satisfactory to them at ten feet. He will go along with the Commission’s finding. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 16) Motionseconded was offered by Ms. Thomas, by Mr. Rooker, to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to allow the installation of a Tier II Personal Wireless Service facility with a monopole that is not more than seven feet in height above the tallest tree within twenty-five feet. The Board denied the applicant’s request for the proposed height of 10 feet above the tallest tree. Mr. Bowerman said if the height needs to be changed, then the ordinance should be changed. Ms. Thomas said this is not a bad site because for the most part it is not sky-lighted. On the other hand she thinks there is a difference even in Ntelos’ simulations. Living close to a tower, she knows the towers do jump out at you visually. She disagrees with the public that thinks it should not be there at all because she thinks this is a relatively good location for a cell tower. But, it being metal, she thinks the Planning Commission did the right thing. Mr. Wyant asked if the tower is painted brown. Ms. Thomas said it is, but it is still metal. Mr. Rooker said towers are substantially more visible in the photo-simulations. Also, he personally sees a significant difference between seven and ten feet even in those photo-simulations. Mr. Dorrier said for the reasons articulated he will support the motion. He asked that the roll be called. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. _______________ Public Hearing Agenda Item No. 10. : Ordinance to amend Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program’s application deadline and delete related deadlines. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 28, 2004.) Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said the ACE Ordinance establishes July 1 as the annual deadline for landowners to submit ACE applications. On September 1, 2004, the Board approved staff’s request to extend the July 1 application deadline to October 31 this year because experience has shown that the July 1 deadline and the other milestones have been impractical reflected by staff’s repeated requests for deadline extensions. The Board directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment which would codify October 31 as the annual deadline for landowners to submit ACE applications. Mr. Benish said the ACE Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance on November 10 and recommended the revision to October 31 for the annual deadline. The Committee also recommended that other dates used as milestones for processing ACE applications be deleted, rather than amended. The Committee believes these milestones are not useful because experience has shown that there are too many variables and potential delays in the application process to regularly follow those milestones, with the exception of the application date. Staff and the ACE Committee will continue to evaluate the application process so that changes can be made to allow applications to be processed as expeditiously as possible. The intent of deleting the dates is not to process them as quickly as possible, but those dates are difficult to maintain from year to year because of complexities in the review process. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked if any Board member had a question before opening the public hearing. Ms. Thomas asked if there has been an active attempt to speed up the process. Mr. Benish said ACE staff intends to work with the ACE Committee this year to see if there are ways to expedite the process. What has been found over the past four rounds is that there are some parts of that process that may be difficult to accelerate given existing staff resources. It depends on the number of properties that have to be reviewed, and the division rights process. If applications are received at the same time as time is needed to work with rezonings, special use permits and subdivision and site plans, the same staff that works on those is also doing work on the division rights calculations. There are higher requirements based on Code requirements for deadlines. Within the resources available, staff will continue to expedite the process as much as possible, but it may require more significant changes in order to improve that process. Mr. Wyant said the Committee discussed at length streamlining of the process. The deadline came up because the farms they are trying to get are still active farms, so the deadline needs to be moved to a less active time in the year for the owners. Mr. Boyd said he had no problem with eliminating the interim target dates. He asked if there is a need to have a finalized date for bringing it to the Board. Mr. Davis said there has to be some deadline. Mr. Boyd asked if there are any budgetary considerations connected with this. Mr. Benish said the Committee tries to spend the money in the year in which it is appropriated. However, there are a high number of submittals this year. There are eight properties with multiple parcels in each one. He said the ACE Committee thinks that while the goal or trying to achieve that is good, from year to year it may be difficult to hit a milestone and identify it in an ordinance. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 17) Mr. Boyd asked if leaving out the dates eliminates the incentive to get the process done on time and report to the Board. Leaving it to June seems impractical to him. Mr. Davis said the original thinking behind the ordinance was that the deadlines were needed to move the process along. That has not worked, and staff has had to come to the Board and ask for extensions. He would suggest that the Board ask staff for status reports during this next year and see how the process works. If it does not work to the Board’s satisfaction, the Board can amend the ordinance again and put back some milestones that would cause it to be more effective. At this time he thinks the ACE Committee believes this is an approach to try. At this point, Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motioneconded was immediately offered by Mr. Wyant, s by Mr. Rooker, to Adopt Ordinance No. 04-A.1(2), An Ordinance to Amend Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, of the Code of the County Of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. A.1-110, Application and Evaluation Procedure. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Note (: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 04-A.1(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX A.1, ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS PROGRAM, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. A.1-110 Application and evaluation procedure. APPENDIX A.1. Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program Sec. A.1-110. Application and evaluation procedure. Each application for a conservation easement shall be processed as follows: A. Application materials to be provided to owner. The application materials provided by the program administrator to an owner shall include, at a minimum, a standard application form, a sample deed of easement, and information about the ACE program. B. Application form. Each application shall be submitted on a standard form prepared by the program administrator. The application form shall require, at a minimum, that the owner: (i) provide the name of all owners of the parcel, the address of each owner, the acreage of the parcel, the Albemarle County tax map and parcel number, the zoning designation of the parcel, and permission for the program administrator to enter the property after reasonable notice to the owner to evaluate the parcel and for the county assessor or an independent appraiser to appraise the property; and (ii) state his adjusted gross income for the three (3) prior tax years, as explained in section A.1-111(B). The application form shall also include a space for an owner to indicate that he volunteers to have the parcel be subject to greater restrictions than those contained in the standard sample deed of easement, and to delineate those voluntary, additional restrictions. C. Additional application information required by program administrator. The program administrator may require an owner to provide additional information deemed necessary to determine: (i) whether the proposed easement is eligible for purchase; and (ii) the purchase price of the easement. D. Submittal of application. Applications shall be submitted to the office of the program administrator. An application may be submitted at any time. However, applications received after October 31 shall be evaluated in the following year. E. Evaluation by program administrator. The program administrator shall evaluate each application received and determine within fifteen (15) days whether the application is complete. If the application is incomplete, the program administrator shall inform the owner in writing of the information that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete. When an application is deemed complete, the program administrator shall determine whether the parcel satisfies the eligibility criteria set forth in section A.1-107 and, if it does, shall December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 18) determine the number of points to be attributed to the parcel by applying the criteria set forth in section A.1-108. The program administrator shall then rank each parcel scoring at least fifteen (15) points, with the parcel scoring the most points being the highest ranked and descending therefrom, and submit the list of ranked parcels to the ACE committee. F. Evaluation and ranking by ACE committee. The ACE committee shall review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the program administrator and shall rank the parcels in the order of priority it recommends the easements shall be purchased. The committee shall then forward to the board of supervisors its recommendation of which conservation easements should be purchased. G. Evaluation and ranking by board of supervisors. The board of supervisors shall review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE committee and identify on which parcels it desires conservation easements. The board shall then rank those parcels on which it will seek to purchase conservation easements. Nothing in this appendix shall obligate the board to purchase a conservation easement on any property that meets the minimum number of qualifying points. H. Appraisal of conservation easement value. Each conservation easement identified by the board of supervisors to be purchased shall be appraised either by the county assessor or by an independent qualified appraiser chosen by the county. Each completed appraisal shall be submitted to the program administrator and the owner. The program administrator shall forward each appraisal to the appraisal review committee, which shall review each appraisal and make recommendations thereon to the board of supervisors. I. Requirements and deadlines may be waived. Any requirement or deadline set forth in this appendix may be waived by the board of supervisors if, for good cause, it is shown that exigent circumstances exist to warrant consideration of an otherwise untimely application, or it is shown that the requirements unreasonably restrict the purchase of an easement. Under these circumstances, the board may purchase a conservation easement at any time it deems necessary and subject to only those requirements it deems appropriate. J. Reapplication. An owner whose parcel is not selected for purchase of a conservation easement may reapply in any future year. (Ord. 00-A.1(1), 7-5-00; Ord. 02-A.1(1), 12-11-02; Ord. 04-A.1(2), 12-8-04) _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-2004-015. Boar’s Head Inn and Sports Club (Signs #70, 71 & 72). Public hearing on a request to rezone approx 10.6 acs from R-1 to HC to allow new indoor & outdoor tennis courts at existing Boar's Head Inn & Sports Club. TM 59D2, Sec 1, P 15 & TM 75, P 63 (portion). Znd R-1 & HC. Loc on S side of Ivy Rd (Rt 250 W), just W of entrance to Ednam & S of Boar's Head Inn. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Office Service in Neighborhood 6.) Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 2005.) Mr. Benish summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant is seeking to rezone approximately 6.0 acres from R-1 to HC with proffers to allow for the construction of up to six new indoor tennis courts at the Boar's Head Sports Club. The existing Sports Club parcel has split zoning. The northern portion of the parcel has Highway Commercial and the southern portion is zoned R1. The property is located on the south side of Ivy Road just west of the entrance to Ednam and south of the Boar's Head Inn. The Comprehensive Plan designates it for Office Service and institutional uses. Mr. Benish said the proposed expansion site is located at the southern end of the Boar’s Head Inn property adjacent to Hole 3 of the Birdwood Golf Course. The Sports Club parcel is bordered on the east by Ednam Village development and on the west beyond the pond by Ednam Forest. Access is via Ednam Drive and Birdwood Court Road. He said that for the past few years the University of Virginia tennis program has used the Sports Club facility for its’ winter activities consisting of practices and occasional invitational tournaments. The University’s use has lengthened the wait time for Sports Club members. Three courts are located in the main building, and three more courts are located in the “Bubble” which is a seasonal structure, noisy and limited in height. The six additional courts proposed would accommodate both students and club players. Mr. Benish said there are no other requests pending for outdoor courts. The concept plan does indicate a plan for possible future development. He said the applicant is requesting the zoning from R-1 to HC because it is the only zoning district in which both the outdoor and indoor tennis courts can be accommodated as a health use. He said the proffers submitted propose eliminating the majority of the uses permitted in HC which are not related to a health spa. In addition, the proffers also address events management for larger events on the site. The internal road system and parking, although it is adequate for normal activities at the Inn, is not sufficient for special events. Therefore, the applicant proposed in the proffers, submittal of an events plan to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator; that plan would establish temporary parking and traffic management. Mr. Rooker asked if that is a one-time determination. Mr. Benish said he understands it would be submitted as needed for each event. He said the last thing to mention is that the proffer does cover the massing of the proposed building. He said staff December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 19) reviewed the request and recommended approval with the proffers. The Planning Commission reviewed this on November 30 and unanimously recommended approval subject to the proffers. With no questions for staff, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Valerie Long said she is representing the applicants, the University of Virginia Foundation and UVA Host Properties, Inc., which is owner/manager of the Boar’s Head Inn and Sports Club. She said there are several representatives of both entities present tonight. Mr. Tim Rose, president of the Foundation, Mr. Bruce Stauffer, Director of Real Estate Development, Mr. Fred Missel, Engineer and Landscape Planner, and Ms. Pat Simpson, Director of the Boar’s Head Sports Club. She said Mr. Benish gave a helpful summary. This proposal will increase the number of indoor tennis courts to accommodate both the Club’s existing members and guests, as well as the University’s men’s and women’s tennis team. She said the UVA tennis teams already use the existing facilities. They hold indoor matches there, mostly in the winter months. She said there is a shortage of indoor courts at the Sports Club. There is a significant demand for more courts. They are excited about improving this facility and accommodating the demand they already have for courts, particularly during inclement weather. There will be a net increase of six courts. Three of the existing courts under the “bubble” would be replaced by better indoor courts. Ms. Long said they looked at a lot of issues over the past six months, one of those being traffic issues. They had a traffic study prepared to insure that after the facility is built the traffic will be appropriate and the intersections will still function well. A copy of that study was included in the staff’s report. She said all of the internal and external intersections will continue to function at a level of service of “B” or better. The one exception is at the intersection of Berwick Road and Ednam. During peak afternoon hours that one will function at a level of service of “C”. They do not think traffic will be an issue since the demand for indoor courts versus the demand for outdoor courts occurs at different times of the year. Ms. Long said the Foundation and the Boar’s Head representatives have been working with the neighbors to keep them apprised of the proposal and to listen to their concerns. They believe that most of the issues have been resolved. She then pointed out the traffic pattern and the roads on a map. She said there is an existing road which is essentially an emergency road. It was planned to extend around the building only for emergency vehicles and emergency egress. The Foundation has been looking at ways to make it have two-way circulation. There are some site challenges to doing that, i.e., a stream, some steep areas and a narrow width. They are proposing to install some landscaping to help screen some of the residences from the outdoor courts as well as the new expansion area. The final issue has to do with access for delivery trucks. By upgrading one of the roads and adding a truck turnaround, all delivery trucks can be directed to the back of the Club. That was a specific request from some of the adjacent residents. Ms. Long said the University tennis team already uses this facility, and they are excited about this upgraded facility hoping it will help attract better talent to the team. She offered to answer questions. Mr. Wyant asked what is to happen to the “bubble”. Ms. Long said she thinks it will be taken down. She has been told that playing conditions inside of that bubble are not optimal because it is lower than an ideal height. Mr. Rooker asked about Proffer No. 4 which requires a one-time plan. He reads the condition to say that they can come in just one time. Mr. Benish apologized, saying it does talk about flexibility given certain events, but that will have to be incorporated into one plan and submitted before getting a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing at this time. Mr. David VonRoijen said he had not seen the plan, but he hopes someone had looked at the question of outdoor lighting and the shielding of lighting due to its proximity to the McCormick Observatory. Ms. Thomas said that is why the County has a “Dark Skies” Ordinance. It is because of the Observatory. The ordinance requires that all lights be shielded so there is no upward lighting at all. Ms. Marion Spano said she is a member of the Boar’s Head Sports Club and a resident of Ednam Forest. She would like to see the new buildings built for the UVA Tennis team and the Sports Club members. There is a need for more availability. Members now have to use a lottery in order to obtain use of the facility to play tennis. She has been a member of Ednam Forest Homeowners Association for a number of years. They have always had a good relationship with the Sports Club. She hopes the Board will consider new facilities, both indoors and outdoors, for the Sports Club. Mr. Holmes Brown said he owns the house nearest the Sports Club. He is 90 years old and has played tennis for 80 years. He could have played earlier, but there were no rackets for children at that time. This Sports Club is one of the finest things in the community. He has never heard a single bad word from anybody, or any loud yelling, etc. It is a very fine, well run club, and he thinks the Board should support it. Since this Club was built, the City and County have more than doubled in size. Ms. Sally DuBois said she is also a member of the Sports Club. They live in Ednam Forest next to the proposed project. She supports and commends the request for several reasons. One is that the December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 20) University is known for its tradition of excellence, in academics or athletics, or the hospital and in the community. They have addressed traffic, specifically during the Boyd Tinsley Tournament and in the turkey trot. She said this is an incredible gift and will be a great asset to the community. She highly recommends the project. Mr. Davis said he would like to report that the final proffers have been signed. He has reviewed them. There were some minor word changes in the proffers which were sent to the Board, but they are now in order and are consistent with what is before the Board tonight. With no one else from the public rising to speaking, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. motion Ms. Thomas offered to approve ZMA-2004-015 subject to the proffers. She said she had forced this group of people to come to two extra hearings in the last couple of days because there were a few issues left concerning transportation. They came, and agreements have been reached, and she is confident that this will be the pride of the neighborhood. seconded The motion was by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Note (: The proffers, as signed, are set out in full below.) Boar’s Head Sports Club ZMA 2004-0015 Proffer Statement The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA-2004-0015 and thus to this proffer statement: tax map parcel 059D2-01-00-01500 and the portion of tax map parcel 07500- 00-00-06300 shown as Parcel “X” containing 1.774 acres, on a proposed subdivision plat prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. entitled “Subdivision Plat Showing Parcel “X” - - Being a Portion of Tax Map 75 Parcel 63 Hereby Added to and Becoming a Portion of Tax Map 59D(2) Parcel 1-15, Samuel Miller District, Albemarle County, Virginia,” which subdivision plat is dated November 16, 2004, and is attached hereto as Exhibit A (collectively, the “Property”). The Applicant is University of Virginia Host Properties, Inc. The owner of tax map parcel 059D2- 01-00-01500 is University of Virginia Host Properties, Inc. The owner of tax map parcel 07500- 00-00-06300 is the University of Virginia Foundation. For purposes of this proffer statement, University of Virginia Host Properties, Inc., and the University of Virginia Foundation are herein collectively referred to as the “Owner.” The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to rezone the portion of tax map parcel 059D2-01-00-01500 that is zoned R-1 Residential to Highway Commercial, and the portion of tax map parcel 07500-00-00-06300 shown as Parcel “X” containing 1.774 acres on Exhibit A from R-1 Residential to Highway Commercial as requested, the Owner and its successors and assigns shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. In the event the request is denied the proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect. If the zoning is granted, these proffers and conditions will supersede all proffers now existing on the Property. 1. Development of the Property shall be in general accord with the plan entitled “Boar’s Head Sports Club Conceptual Plan” prepared by the University of Virginia Foundation, dated November 22, 2004, containing two (2) pages, and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Development Plan”). The Development Plan shall not be construed to prohibit the realignment of the 14 existing outdoor tennis courts, subject to existing provisions of the Albemarle County zoning ordinance, provided that the courts remain in the area marked “14 Existing Outdoor Courts” shown on the Development Plan. The Owner will break up the massing of the proposed improvements by dividing them into multiple segments and/or structures (or creating the appearance of multiple segments and/or structures with a terraced roof line) and then locating the different segments and/or structures at various final elevation levels, all as reasonably possible given the Property’s site constraints and applicable regulations and ordinances. Unless specifically referenced on the Development Plan, or otherwise referenced in this proffer statement, all other plans and illustrations submitted as part of the Owner’s rezoning materials shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. The Owner reserves the right to develop the Property in phases, as shown on the Development Plan. 2. Within the Property, only the following uses shall be permitted by right, subject always to the express terms of this proffer statement: December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 21) a) Pursuant to subsection 24.2.1 of Section 24, HC highway commercial zoning district, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as those regulations exist on December 8, 2004, as set forth below: Section 24.2.1 numbers 6, 20, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, and 45. b) Pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of Section 22, C-1 Commercial zoning district, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as those regulations exist on December 8, 2004, as set forth below: Section 22.2.1 numbers b.4, b.8, b.17, b.18, b.19, b.24, b.26, and b.27. The by-right uses of the Property that are permitted pursuant to sections 24.2.1 and 22.2.1 and pursuant to this Proffer Statement are shown below without strikethrough. Uses which will not be permitted on the Property (subject always to the express terms of this proffer statement) have been indicated by strikethrough. Any use classifications added to sections 24.2.1 and 22.2.1 after December 8, 2004 shall be uses which shall not be permitted on the Property. 24.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any H-C district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. 1. Automobile laundries. 2. Automobile, truck repair shops. 3. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). 4. Building materials sales. 5. Churches, cemeteries. 6. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). 7. Convenience stores. 8. Educational, technical and trade schools. 9. Factory outlet sales – clothing and fabric. 10. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22). 11. Financial Institutions. 12. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service. 13. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 14. Funeral homes. 15. Furniture stores. 16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 17. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. 18. Hardware. 19. (Repealed 6-3-81). 20. Hotels, motels and inns. 21. Light warehousing. 22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. 23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. 24. Modular building sales. 25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. 26. New automotive parts sales. 27. Newspaper publishing. 28. Administrative, business and professional offices. 29. Office and business machine sales and service. 30. Eating establishment; fast food restaurants. 31. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. 32. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles. 33. Wayside stands – vegetable and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). 34. Wholesale distribution. 35. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93). 36. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 22) (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89). 37. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 38. Indoor theaters. 39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 41. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92) 42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 43. Farmer’s market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) 44. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02) 45. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless services facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04) 22.2.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted in any C-1 district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. a. The following retail sales and service establishments: 1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops. 2. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops. 3. Department store. 4. Drug store, pharmacy. 5. Florist. 6. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service). 8. Hardware store. 9. Musical instruments. 10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops. 11. Optical goods. 12. Photographic goods. 13. Visual and audio appliances. 14. Sporting goods. 15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. b. The following services and public establishments: 1. Administrative, professional offices. 2. Barber, beauty shops. 3. Churches, cemeteries. 4. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02). 5. Financial institutions. 6. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 7. Funeral homes. 8. Health spas. 9. Indoor theaters. 10. Laundries, dry cleaners. 11. Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours during operation). 12. Libraries, museums. 13. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.06). 14. Eating establishments. 15. Tailor, seamstress. 16. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). 17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 5-2-93). 18. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1- 9). 19. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.1). 20. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). 21. Medical center. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 23) 22. Automobile, truck repair shop excluding body shop. (Added 6-3-81; amended 9-9-92) 23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 24. Indoor athletic facilities. (added 9-15-95) 25. Farmers’ market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95). 26. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10-9-02) 27. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04) Notwithstanding that the above-referenced uses will not be permitted on the Property, this proffer statement shall not be interpreted to prohibit uses accessory to a health spa on the Property, which accessory uses shall expressly include, but not be limited to the following: indoor tennis courts, outdoor tennis courts, multi-sport courts, other recreational or fitness facilities, a restaurant, a snack bar, a “pro shop,” administrative office space, and a child care facility. 3. Prior to the final approval of SDP 2004-00086, the Owner shall record the subdivision plat attached hereto as Exhibit A in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, to combine the portion of tax map parcel 07500-00-00-06300 shown on Exhibit A as Parcel “X” containing 1.774 acres, with tax map parcel 059D2-01-00-01500. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first improvement proposed by SDP 2004-00086, the Owner shall submit for approval by the Zoning Administrator an Event Management Plan to provide adequate parking for the public during periodic public events at the Property, and further designed to avoid or minimize public parking in adjacent and nearby residential areas during such public events. Such a plan shall include a commitment by the Owner to provide adequate event parking at the Birdwood Golf Course parking lot (with access to the Property either by shuttle service or on foot along the golf course cart paths, at the discretion of the Owner), the large field at the northwest corner of Ednam Drive and Boar’s Head Point, and/or in other parking areas controlled by the Owner, each in the discretion of the Owner given the expected attendance at each particular event. Such a plan will also provide for the use of shuttle services as necessary given the size and nature of a particular event, for the use of adequate signage directing the public to permitted parking areas, and the use of appropriate personnel to direct the public to such permitted parking areas and to discourage or prohibit public parking in adjacent and nearby residential areas. This proffer statement may be signed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. WITNESS the following signatures: UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HOST PROPERTIES, INC. By: _______________________________ Robert G. Butcher, Jr., President UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION By: ____________________________________ Tim R. Rose, Secretary & Chief Executive Officer Exhibit A (Subdivision plat of Tom Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated November 16, 2004 showing Parcel “X” containing 1.774 acres, a portion of tax map parcel 75-63 to be added to and combined with tax map parcel 59D(2)-1-15 will be attached to the final signed proffers) Exhibit B (Development Plan will be attached to the final signed proffers) _______________ Note (: The following three agenda items will be heard simultaneously, with separate votes being taken on each item.) Public hearing Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-2004-04. Groundwater. on an ordinance to amend Section 31.2.2, Building Permits, add Section 32.5.7, Groundwater Assessment Information, and amend Section 35.0, Fees, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment to section 31.2.2 would prohibit issuance of a building permit for any structure to be served by an individual well located on a qualifying lot of record until the applicant submits the groundwater assessment information (including a well drilling completion report) required by Albemarle County Code § 17-401. Section 32.5.7 would require that developers submit with each preliminary site plan the groundwater assessment information required by Albemarle County Code §§ 17-403 or 17-404, as applicable. The amendment to section 35.0 would impose fees to cover the cost of services rendered by the County in reviewing and approving the information, reports, documents and plans required to be submitted under sections 31.2.2 and 32.5.7, and other expenses incident to the administration of the Zoning Ordinance related thereto. The fees for the groundwater assessment information required by sections 31.2.2 and 32.5.7 are as December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 24) follows: groundwater assessment information under Albemarle County Code § 17-401: $50.00; groundwater assessment information under Albemarle County Code § 17-403: $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot; groundwater assessment information under Albemarle County Code § 17-404: $1,000.00. The ordinance would become effective February 8, 2005. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(6). (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 15 and November 22, 2004.) __________ Public hearing Agenda Item No. 13. STA-2004-02. Groundwater. on an ordinance to amend Section 14-203, Fees, add Section 14-308.1, Groundwater Assessment Information, to Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. Section 14-308.1 would require that groundwater assessments required by Albemarle County Code § 17-402 would begin in conjunction with the submittal of the preliminary plat, that draft groundwater management plans and aquifer testing work plans required by Albemarle County Code §§ 17-403 and 17-404, as applicable, would be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of the preliminary plat, and that all such assessments and plans would be satisfactorily completed prior to final plat approval. The amendment to section 14-203 would impose fees to cover the cost of services rendered by the County in reviewing and approving the groundwater assessments, groundwater management plans and aquifer testing work plans required to be submitted under section 14-308.1, and other expenses incident to the administration of the Zoning Ordinance related thereto. The fees for the groundwater assessment information required by section 14-308.1 are as follows: groundwater assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-402: $250.00 plus $25.00 per lot; groundwater assessment information under Albemarle County Code § 17-403: $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot; groundwater assessment information under Albemarle County Code § 17-404: $1,000.00. The ordinance would become effective February 8, 2005. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2241(9). (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 15 and November 22, 2004.) __________ Public hearing Agenda Item No. 14. Watershed Protection Ordinance - Groundwater. on an ordinance to amend Section 17-102, Purposes, and to add Sections 17-400, Applicability, 17-401, Tier 1 assessments, 17-402, Tier 2 assessments, 17-403, Tier 3 assessments, 17-404, Tier 4 assessments, and 17-405, Fees, to Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Albemarle County Code. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the long-term sustainability of groundwater resources by requiring that certain land development approvals (building permits, subdivision plats, site plans) and central water supplies that will rely on privately owned wells serving as the primary source of potable water be subject to a groundwater assessment. The nature of the land development approval will determine which of four tiers of groundwater assessment will be required (Sections 17-401 through 17-405). The required groundwater assessments range from drilling a well on the lot and submitting required information to the County’s program authority (e.g., as a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit for a new structure on a lot of record less than 21 acres), to reviewing and evaluating data, to submitting for approval a groundwater management plan meeting the applicable requirements (e.g., prior to approval of a preliminary subdivision plat creating 4 or more lots where at least 3 of the lots are 5 acres or less). Satisfactorily completing the applicable requirements of the groundwater assessment would become a prerequisite to the land development approval. Section 17-405 would require that each owner seeking approval of an assessment pay the applicable fee imposed by Albemarle County Code § 18-35.0 (zoning) and Albemarle County Code § 14-203 (subdivisions). The ordinance would become effective February 8, 2005. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 15 and November 22, 2004.) __________ Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineer, said the Board had discussed these ordinances many times in the recent months, so he will keep his presentation to a minimum. Since the work session on October 27, staff made the changes to the Tier III assessment to allow for an expansion to a Tier IV assessment if the Groundwater Program Manager determines that is necessary. Staff has begun making the changes needed for administrative processes. A couple of minor changes came to staff’s attention during this work and these changes are noted in Mr. Davis’ memo of today concerning the Groundwater Ordinance. Mr. Graham said the first change has to do with the reference to the preliminary site plan for “commercial and industrial uses.” It was apparent that residential uses requiring site plans were to be exempt from these assessments. Agricultural uses are generally exempt from the site plan requirements and would not be subject to this regulation. However, there is a range of institutional and other uses that may not cleanly fall into a “commercial” or “industrial” use classification but are intended to be subject to this ordinance. To address this, staff proposes that “commercial and industrial” uses be changed to “nonresidential and nonagricultural” uses. This is intended to be sure that all uses are captured and covered by this ordinance. He said there is a question about the use of “nonagricultural.” By including that, presumably such uses as a farm store would be excluded from this requirement. Mr. Graham said another question concerned a preliminary plan versus a final plan. The Subdivision Ordinance allows an applicant to skip the preliminary plan process and go directly to a final plan. The existing ordinance applies to a preliminary plan, so staff has recommended a change which would allow the applications which are going directly to the final plat to be captured. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 25) Mr. Graham said the final question is the provision to allow the program authority reviewing a Tier 3 assessment to require additional information or a Tier 4 assessment when there are special areas of concern. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board members had questions for staff. Mr. Wyant asked if someone can put a road and a well on their lot prior to getting a building permit; they are required to have Health Department approval. Mr. Graham said in the rural area a road could be put in, but if more then 10,000 square feet were being disturbed, an erosion and sediment control plan is still required for the disturbed land. Mr. Rooker said the only new requirement is that there be a well in place approved by the Health Department before the building permit is issued. Mr. Graham said that is true. Under Tier 1, proof would have to be furnished showing the well had been drilled. Mr. Boyd said the staff report recommends holding off for 60 days in order to allow the hiring of a groundwater management monitoring position. He asked if this is just a replacement position, not a new position. Mr. Graham said it is actually a new position which was funded over a year ago and a decision was made to not fill the position until it was known that this ordinance would be adopted. Mr. Boyd said the Board talked at length during work sessions about drilling test wells. He said that is not part of this ordinance. Mr. Rooker said those are monitoring wells. Mr. Graham said that is not a requirement; that is a program the County would undertake on its own. Mr. Boyd said he just wanted to be sure that was not a part of this ordinance. Mr. Dorrier said the Board would hold a public hearing on all three zoning text amendments at the same time. He asked the first person who had signed to speak. Ms. Liz Palmer said she is present to represent the League of Women Voters. She was encouraged by words she heard tonight about dredging. She said the League believes that nothing but good can come out of the Board of Supervisors being involved in water supply planning. She then read into the record a statement (on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors) concerning the Groundwater Ordinance. She said the League sees the proposed groundwater ordinance as a giant step forward in promoting sustainability, and it heartily supports its passage, and implementation of the assessment standards. Mr. Jack Marshall presented a statement on behalf of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP) (see copy of statement on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). They hope the Board will approve the proposed Groundwater Assessment Ordinance. Ms. Ann Messina urged the Board to approve the ordinance change. She thinks it is a giant step toward protection of groundwater. Using projections made by the TJ Planning District Commission, there will be an increase of 74,000 units when built-out. Water is a resource that has to be protected and groundwater protection is a local responsibility. The County has the authority to strengthen the State’s regulations. She commended the Board for realizing this and going forward with this ordinance. She thinks it is wonderful that the County will have a groundwater manager to oversee the enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. David vanRoijen complimented the Board for tackling the issue. He will also criticize the Board for taking so long to do anything about it. His concern is that the Board is not just creating more bureaucracy. He sees lots of fees and requirements for information, but does not see anything insuring that neighbors will have adequate water, or that the homeowner will have adequate water. He lost his water during the last drought and had to drill a new well. He was surprised to find that there are no standards as to how much water you need to get when a well is drilled. He thinks this is where the County needs to have input. From what he read, this is more of a fact-finding amendment with fees attached creating a position for a staff person. He thinks there are lots of people in the County who are concerned that a subdivision will be built next to their property, wells will be drilled and then suddenly their water supply will be depleted and there is no one to protect them. Ms. Mary Wolfe said she and her husband love Albemarle County and hope to remain living here through retirement. They do want the County to reassure them that their home investment remains sound. They live in an area surrounded by Route 708 and Route 710. Currently they have an adequate water supply, but they do not wash their cars or water their grass. There are five households on their hilltop on the Route 708 side, and all have wells that have had adequate water, some since 1950. They understand that the Route 710 side of the valley has experienced water shortage and even dried up wells. They believe it is due to a much higher density on that side of the valley. They understand that nine more houses will be built in a development, plus three more as individual units on their side of Route 708. That almost triples the density in their area. They are worried about the housing density in the area and how it will eventually affect their water supply. How can the residents who already live in this area be protected? They feel there is a strong possibility of water loss because there has been such a December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 26) demonstration on the other side of the valley. The planned housing development appears to be drawing water from a lower point in the valley which puts their water table access at risk. She understands there was a study completed in 1980 about bringing public water into the area, but the study said that was not feasible. They want the County to assure them there will be water available in their future by one of two ways, either a water table study to evaluate the water supply before letting housing density grow and shift in the area, and if the water appears restricted, the County should limit housing density, or reevaluate bringing in public water. Mr. John Foster said he was present on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council. He read a statement into the record supporting adoption of the proposed Groundwater Ordinance and Assessment Standards (see copy of full statement on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). Mr. George Larie said he lives in the Jack Jouett District. He applauds the Board for considering this legislation. He believes water is the most critical resource. He said this ordinance is long over due. He endorses statements made by previous speakers indicating that it is a strong first step. He hopes it is not the last, and he urged the Board to support the ordinance. Mr. Zeke Krieger said he lives in Ivy. He also wants to support the ordinance. He thinks groundwater is the most important resource. It needs to be protected. He applauds the Board’s steps and hopes it is not the last one. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Thomas asked that staff reiterate for the people present that the Board was told there could not be an ordinance that says you cannot build your house because when you drill that test well it draws down the existing well of your neighbors. She asked if staff could put that thought into better language. Mr. Davis said the committee and experts told staff there is not any existing scientific methodology that could attribute the drilling of one well having an affect on an adjacent piece of property. At this time that would be difficult to substantiate or justify. That, combined with the law for water rights in Virginia basically does not give an adjacent property owner any additional rights to the water than the property owner who is drilling the well. Those two factors combined made it premature for the County to go to that step at this point in time. Data would need to be refined and additional methodology found to substantiate the finding that there was an adverse impact. Then, look to see if the law would allow the County the enabling authority to address that issue. At this point, staff does not think that can be done, so they felt the best step was to move forward with the things that can be done and start gathering data to put together a data base that can justify additional steps in the future. Mr. Rooker said he understands the law does not enable the County to deny a building permit based upon the alleged impact on somebody else’s well. If people own lots side-by-side, the person who builds first does not have any priority right to the water than the person who is waiting to build. Ms. Thomas said that is not true in the western United States, but it is true with Virginia’s riparian water rights. Mr. Graham said this is one reason the Committee thought it was important to create the network for monitoring wells. That would help create the data base. He said unlike land on the coastal plains, the County’s geology is very complex. There may be a lot of water in one place, but just a mile away there may be no water. A blanket could not be applied over an entire area assuming it works the same everywhere. That will make it difficult to get data to show there is an impact on existing properties. Mr. Wyant said it depends on the rock formation. Typically, groundwater runs with the contours of the land. But, some rocks do not bear water. Ms. Thomas said a comment was made about the DEQ and the Health Department. She said if a single-family home is in an area where staff believes there is an impact on the quality of the water, this can be kicked up to higher tier that counts on the DEQ and the Health Department communicating with each other. The Board knows that in the past that has not happened well, but those are the sources available to the County which is trying to take into account when there is any known impact on the water in the area. Mr. Rooker said he is an enthusiastic supporter of this ordinance and has been since he was a member of the Planning Commission back in 1997. They pushed for a long time to make sure wells were drilled before building permits were issued. For the first time, that will be a requirement. For the first time subdivisions in the rural areas will be designed in a way to take into consideration protection of groundwater and protection of recharge areas in particular. For the first time, subdivisions of a certain size will be required to complete groundwater management plans. For the first time, the County will move forward to establish a monitoring program on a more county-wide basis. He thinks this will go beyond just the movement of well levels. They also will look at water quality. He said this Board strengthened the ordinance that came to it from the committee. Mr. Dorrier said he is reminded of the fact that if Mrs. Treva Cromwell were alive she would be present tonight. He thinks that she would approve of this ordinance. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 27) Motionseconded was then offered by Mr. Boyd, by Ms. Thomas, to adopt Ordinance No. 04- 14(1), An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, Article II, Administration and Procedure, and Article III, Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted, by amending, Sec. 14-203, Fees, and by adding Sec. 14-308.1, Groundwater assessment information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Note (: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 04-14(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, ARTICLE II, ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, AND ARTICLE III, PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Administration and Procedure, and Article III, Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 14-203 Fees. By Adding: 14-308.1. Groundwater assessment information. Chapter 14 Subdivision of Land Article II. Administration and Procedure Sec. 14-203 Fees. Except as otherwise provided herein, each subdivider shall pay a fee upon submittal of a plat or other request provided herein, in an amount according to the schedule set forth below. The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." Neither the County nor the School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required by this section if it is the applicant. A. Preliminary plat for subdivision: 1. If subject to review by the commission: (a) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00. (b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00. (c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00. 2. If subject to review by the agent: (a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1) or if all lots front on an existing public street: $95.00. (b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.00. (c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00. (d) 20 or more lots: $670.00. 3. Reinstatement of review: $65.00. 4. Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the same property has been filed previously, shall be subject to the same requirements. B. Final plat for subdivision: 1. If subject to review by the commission: (a) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00. (b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00. (c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00. 2. If subject to review by the agent: (a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(1) or if all lots front on an existing public street: $95.00. (b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.00. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 28) (c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00. (d) 20 or more lots: $670.00. 3. Condominium plat: $100.00. 4. Reinstatement of review: $65.00. 5. In addition to the foregoing, if the subdivider is required to construct a public street or a private road, he shall pay to the county a fee equal to the cost of the inspection of the construction of any such street or road. These fees shall be paid prior to completion of all necessary inspections and shall be deemed a part of the cost of construction of the street or road for purposes of section 14-413(B). C. Plat for rural division: $95.00. D. Plat for family division: $95.00. E. Other matters subject to review: 1. Waiver, variation or substitution of subdivision requirements: $180.00. 2. Relief from plat conditions imposed by commission prior to the date of adoption of this chapter: $180.00. 3. Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: $240.00. 4. Extension of plat approval: $45.00. 5. Request to defer action on plat to an indefinite date: $75.00. 6. Bonding inspection for plat: $60.00. 7. Vacation of plat or part thereof: $170.00. 8. Review of groundwater assessment information required by section 14- 308.1: (a) Tier 2 assessment under section 17-402: $250.00 plus $25.00 per lot. (b) Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot. (c) Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1,000.00. (9-5-96, 12-11-91, 6-7-89, 4-17-85, 12-1-82, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988 Code, § 18-43; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 99-14(1), 6-16-99; Ord. 02-14(2), 7-3-02; Ord. 04- 14(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9). Article III. Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted Sec. 14-308.1 Groundwater assessment information. Groundwater assessments required by section 17-402 shall be initiated by the program authority upon the submittal of the preliminary plat. The draft groundwater management plans and aquifer testing work plans required by sections 17-403 and 17-404, as applicable, shall be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of the preliminary plat. The requirements of sections 17-402, 17-403 and 17-404 shall be satisfied prior to final plat approval. (§ 308.1, Ord. 04-14(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2121. This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 8, 2005. __________ Motionseconded was then offered by Mr. Rooker, by Mr. Wyant, to adopt Ordinance No. 04- 18(4), An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County Of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 31.2.2, Building permits and Sec. 35.0, Fees, and by adding Sec. 32.5.7, Groundwater assessment information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 29) Note (: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 04-18(4) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, 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 18, Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 31.2.2 Building permits Sec. 35.0 Fees By Adding: Sec. 32.5.7 Groundwater assessment information Chapter 18. Zoning Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2.2 Building permits The zoning administrator shall review each application for a building permit to ensure that the building or structure proposed is in accordance with the terms of this ordinance. No permit shall be issued for any construction for which a site development plan is required to be approved by the commission in accordance with section 32.0 of this chapter unless and until such plan shall have been so approved. Thereafter, any item shown on such plan as approved shall be deemed prima facie in accordance with the terms of this ordinance. No permit shall be issued for any structure to be served by an individual well subject to a Tier 1 groundwater assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-400 until the applicant complies with Albemarle County Code § 17- 401. Each applicant shall provide a copy of the most recent plat of record of the land to be built upon unless no such plat exists, in which case the applicant shall provide a copy of the most recent deed description thereof. Any other information which the zoning administrator may deem necessary for consideration of the application may be required. If the proposed building or use is in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance, a permit shall be issued to the applicant by the zoning administrator. One (1) copy of the drawing shall be returned to the applicant with the permit. (§ 31.2.2, 12-10-80; Ord. 04-18(4), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) Sec. 32.5.7 Groundwater assessment information The draft groundwater management plans and aquifer testing work plans required by Albemarle County Code §§ 17-403 and 17-404, as applicable, shall be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of the preliminary site plan. The requirements of Albemarle County Code §§ 17-403 and 17-404 shall be satisfied prior to final site plan approval. (§32.5.7, Ord. 04-18(4), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) Sec. 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. Neither the County nor the School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required by this section if it is the applicant. 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 - $220.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94) 2. Rural area divisions - $1,240.00. 3. Commercial use - $980.00. 4. Industrial use - $1,020.00. 5. Private club/recreational facility - $1,020.00. 6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $980.00. 7. Public utilities - $1,020.00. 8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $870.00. 9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use -$110.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94) December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 30) 10. Extending special use permits - $70.00. 11. Home Occupation-Class A - $13.00; Home Occupation-Class B - $440.00. 12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $490.00. (Added 6-3-92) 13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $980.00. (Added 6-3-92) 14. All other uses except signs - $980.00. (Amended 7-8- 92) b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $840.00. c. Amendment to the zoning map: 1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00. 2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,570 .00. 3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00. 4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,570.00. 5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $220.00. d. Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $120.00. (Amended 7-8-92) 2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) - $120.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned. e. Preliminary site development plan: 1. Residential - $1,190.00, plus $13.00/unit. 2. Non-residential - $1,580.00, plus $13.00/1000 square feet. f. Final site development plan: 1. Approved administratively - $410.00. 2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development plan - $1,130.00. 3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development plan - $790.00. 4. For site development plan waiver - $270.00. 5. For site development plan amendment: a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location - $95.00. b) Major - commission review - $270.00. 6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $200.00. 7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $240.00. 8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors - $190.00. 9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan: a) Rejected within ten days - $200.00. b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $65.00 fee shall be required to reinstate project. g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by agent - $180.00. h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan: 1. Road - $20.00. 2. Development - $25.00. i. Extending approval of site development plan - $45.00. j. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or zoning map amendment: 1. To a specific date - $35.00. 2. Indefinitely - $75.00. k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first bond estimate - $60.00. l. Zoning clearance - $35.00. m. Accessory lodging permits - $35.00. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 31) n. Official Letters: 1. Of determination - $75.00. 2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $75.00. 3. Stating number of development rights - $40.00. o. Sign Permits: 1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural review board - $35.00. 2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $75.00. p. Review of groundwater assessment information required by sections 31.2.2 or 32.5.7: 1. Tier 1 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-401 – $50.00. 2. Tier 3 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-403 – $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot. 3. Tier 4 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-404 – $1,000.00. In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22, Title 15.2 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. (Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1- 85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92) (§ 35.0, 12-10-80; 5-5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; * to be effective 1-1-94; Ord. 02-18(4), 7-3-02; Ord. 04-18(4), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 8, 2005. __________ Motionseconded was offered by Ms. Thomas, by Mr. Wyant, to Adopt Ordinance No. 04-17(1), An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Article I, General, and by adding Article IV, Groundwater Assessments, by amending Sec. 17-102, Purposes, by adding Sec. 17-400, Applicability, Sec. 17-401, Tier 1 Assessments, Sec. 17-402, Tier 2 Assessments, Sec. 17-403, Tier 3 Assessments, Sec. 17-404, Tier 4 Assessments, Sec. 17-405, Fees, subject to the changes made at this meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. Note (: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 04-17(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE I, GENERAL, AND BY ADDING ARTICLE IV, GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENTS BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 17, Water Protection, is amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 17-102 Purposes. By Adding: Sec. 17-400 Applicability. Sec. 17-401 Tier 1 assessments. Sec. 17-402 Tier 2 assessments. Sec. 17-403 Tier 3 assessments. Sec. 17-404 Tier 4 assessments. Sec. 17-405 Fees. Chapter 17 Water Protection Article I. General Sec. 17-102 Purposes. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 32) The board of supervisors finds that this chapter is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the county and the Commonwealth of Virginia and to prevent water from being rendered dangerous to the health of persons living in the county, and is supported by the findings of watershed studies that have been conducted. Therefore, the specific purposes of this chapter are to: 1. inhibit the deterioration of state waters and waterways resulting from land disturbing activities; 2. protect the safety and welfare of citizens, property owners, and businesses by minimizing the negative impacts of increased stormwater discharges from new land development and redevelopment; 3. protect against and minimize the pollution and eutrophication of public drinking water supplies resulting from land development; 4. control nonpoint source pollution, erosion and sedimentation, and stream channel erosion; 5. maintain the integrity of existing stream channels and networks for their biological functions, drainage, and natural recharge of groundwater; 6. protect the condition of state waters for all reasonable public uses and ecological functions; 7. provide for the long-term responsibility for and maintenance of stormwater management facilities and best management practices; 8. facilitate the integration of stormwater management and pollution control with other county ordinances, programs, policies, and the comprehensive plan; and 9. promote the long-term sustainability of groundwater resources. (§ 7-1, 6-18-75, § 2, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.1-4, 9-29-77, art. I, § 1, 7-11-90; § 19.2-2, 6-19-91, § 2; § 19.3-3, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-1, 19.1-4, 19.2-2, 19.3-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04- 17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 10.1-560 et seq., 10.1-603.1 et seq., §10.1-2108. Article IV. Groundwater Assessments Sec. 17-400 Applicability. This article shall apply to the establishment of land uses that will rely on privately owned wells serving as the primary source of potable water and having not more than two (2) connections (hereinafter, “individual wells”) or central water supplies, as defined in Albemarle County Code § 16-101. The applicable requirements of this article are determined by the development approval sought by the owner and the land uses within the development, as follows: Development Approval and Timing of Submittal for Required Assessment Assessment Required Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new structure on a lot of Tier 1 record less than twenty-one acres in size existing prior to the effective date of this article that will be served by one or more individual wells Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new structure: (1) on a lot of record created after the effective date of this article that is subject to a Tier 2 or Tier 3 assessment that will be served by one or more individual wells; or Tier 1 (2) associated with a use that is subject to a Tier 3 or Tier 4 assessment that will be served by one or more individual wells Prior to approval of a preliminary subdivision plat creating lots of less than Tier 2 twenty-one acres that will be served by individual wells Prior to approval of a preliminary subdivision plat creating four or more lots Tier 3 where at least three lots are five acres or less Prior to approval of a preliminary site plan for a new nonresidential or Tier 3 nonagricultural use using less than 2,000 gallons/day (average) Prior to approval of a preliminary site plan for a new nonresidential or Tier 4 nonagricultural use using more than 2,000 gallons/day (average) Prior to approval of any central water supply under chapter 16 of the Tier 4 Albemarle County Code The program authority may require that development approvals subject to Tier 2 or Tier 3 assessments be subject to Tier 3 or Tier 4 assessments, respectively, as provided in sections 14- 402 and 17-403. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 33) If an owner submits a final subdivision plat or site plan without first submitting and obtaining approval of a preliminary subdivision plat or site plan, the assessment required by section 17-402 shall begin upon submittal of the final subdivision plat or site plan, and the assessment required by sections 17-403 or 17-404 shall be submitted by the owner with the final subdivision plat or site plan. (§ 400, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) Sec. 17-401 Tier 1 assessments . A Tier 1 assessment shall consist of the owner drilling a well on the lot and submitting the following information to the program authority: (1) a Virginia well drilling completion report (form GW-2) for each well drilled; and (2) the latitude and longitude coordinates of each well’s location. The information submitted must be accepted as complete and accurate by the program authority prior to issuance of the building permit. (§ 401, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) Sec. 17-402 Tier 2 assessments. A Tier 2 assessment shall consist of the program authority reviewing and evaluating the county’s well database, available hydrogeologic studies, and information from the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, as provided in chapter 5 of the design standards manual. Based on this evaluation, the program authority may require that the owner provide additional groundwater assessment data prior to subdivision plat or site plan approval, or may require that a Tier 3 assessment be submitted. (§ 402, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) Sec. 17-403 Tier 3 assessments. A Tier 3 assessment shall consist of the following: A. The owner shall submit a draft groundwater management plan with the preliminary plat or site plan. The groundwater management plan shall comply with the requirements for such plans in chapter 5 of the design standards manual. If the groundwater management plan identifies special areas of concern, such as an off-site resource of high groundwater sensitivity or a previously unknown source of contamination, then the program authority may require additional groundwater assessment data prior to preliminary subdivision plat or site plan approval. B. The owner shall submit a final groundwater management plan that must be approved by the program authority prior to approval of the final plat or site plan. C. Any structural measures (e.g., best management practices) shall be bonded as a subdivision plat or site plan improvement. The program authority may require that a Tier 4 assessment be submitted instead of a Tier 3 assessment if the special areas of concern identified in subsection (A) have not been adequately addressed by the additional groundwater assessment data. (§403, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) Sec. 17-404 Tier 4 assessments. A Tier 4 assessment shall consist of the following: A. The owner shall submit a draft groundwater management plan and an aquifer testing work plan complying with the requirements for such plans in chapter 5 of the design standards manual, with the preliminary plat, preliminary site plan, or the application for a central water supply. The groundwater management plan must demonstrate to the program authority’s satisfaction that the site’s groundwater conditions have been considered with the subdivision or site plan’s layout and design. The aquifer testing work plan must be approved by the program authority before the owner may conduct aquifer testing as required by subsection (B). B. After the program authority approves the aquifer testing work plan, the owner shall conduct aquifer testing as provided in the work plan. C. The owner shall submit a final groundwater management plan and a groundwater assessment report complying with the requirements for such a report in chapter 5 of the design standards manual, based upon the results of the aquifer testing. The final groundwater management plan and the groundwater assessment report must be approved by the program authority prior to final subdivision plat or site plan approval. D. Any structural measures (e.g., best management practices) shall be bonded as a subdivision plat or site plan improvement. (§404, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 34) Sec. 17-405 Fees. Each owner seeking approval of a tier assessment required by this article shall pay a fee as provided by Albemarle County Code § 18-35.0 and Albemarle County Code § 14-203, as applicable. (§405, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05) State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 36-98. This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 8, 2005. _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Wyant said he would like to mention the discussion earlier in the meeting about the seven feet versus ten feet for the cell tower. He thinks the policy could be simplified. Mr. Rooker said the Board heard testimony at the hearings and it decided on seven feet as the standard with a waiver at the request of the industry. He thinks there will always be applicants coming in asking for more height no matter where the standard is set. After going through all that over a period of several years, the Board adopted the seven-foot standard and at the industry’s request allowed them to have a potential waiver based upon a showing. Mr. Wyant said he wanted to avoid the Board going through what it did tonight, when there is a difference in visibility. Mr. Rooker said the height could be set at ten feet with no waiver. Mr. Davis said if the tower had been totally back-dropped and there was no increase in visibility, he thinks the Planning Commission would have viewed the request favorably. They felt that under the circumstances there would be an impact from the additional three feet. As the ordinance is designed now, they could have approved it at ten feet. Mr. Rooker said these requests do not normally come to the Board; only if there is an appeal. __________ Mr. Wyant said one of his constituents had sent an e-mail to the Board members about the floodplain. This related to his need for insurance. He knows there is difference in opinion with regard to elevations and the accuracy of the County’s data base. He does not know the outcome of last night’s Planning Commission meeting, but something needs to be done. Mr. Bowerman asked if it cannot be figured out exactly now with the GPS. Mr. Wyant said the data base they bring in is not a GPS survey. That would be very expensive. __________ Ms. Thomas said at the VACO Annual meeting at the Homestead there was a meeting of the High Growth Coalition; Albemarle County is a charter member. They asked that the County increase its contribution to the Coalition. She can discuss the value of the Coalition. They want to have a part-time director. This would be someone that does the kind of work that makes the Coalition more effective. The Coalition tends to be more defensive as opposed to coming forth with any proposed legislation. Every year since 1990 the General Assembly has done something to take away local government’s ability to deal with its land use. This organization has had some success in meeting with the development community and State administration, and blunting or keeping away some of that damaging legislation. Ms. Thomas said one example of legislation in which they have participated is the subdivision street standards. That was brought forward as an example of what both the development industry and the high growth communities agree needs to be changed. The General Assembly threatened legislation and VDOT said they would do something on their own. That is what Mr. Mark Graham has been working on for the last year, and that committee did come up with some changes. Mr. Bowerman asked the rate change. Ms. Thomas said it would go from $1,000 to $2,000. Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is a reasonable request. Albemarle is closely aligned with a lot of the counties on these issues. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it would be a good expenditure. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the money can be provided from the Board’s budget. __________ Motionseconded was made by Mr. Boyd, by Mr. Rooker, to adopt the following resolution to authorize acquisition of property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. December 8, 2004 (Adjourned Afternoon and Regular Night Meetings) (Page 35) RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville desire to acquire a certain property within the City for the purpose of providing public space for court house facilities and related offices; and WHEREAS, anagreement for the acquisition for property located at 417 - 419 Park Street in the City of Charlottesville has been negotiated and presented to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property and for a Temporary Construction Easement between R. Franklin and Hay L. Hardy and the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle for approximately 2,640 square feet of property located at the rear of 417 – 419 Park Street in the City of Charlottesville, and to execute all other documents necessary to purchase and accept ownership or easements of the property on behalf of the County. __________ Since this was the last meeting of the Board in 2004, the Board members congratulated Mr. Dorrier for his term of office as chairman. _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 8:05 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 11/9/2005 Initials: DM