1995-03-01March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000087
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 1, 1995, beginning at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (arrived at 9:55 a.m.), Charles S. Martin, Walter F.
Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development,
V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from'the
Ms. Heather Midkiff, a graduate assistant at Madison Hall, thanked the
Board for its past support of Madison House. She presented the Board with "A
Guide to Volunteer Community Service at the University of Virginia 1995"
Mr. John Carter, a resident of Earlysville, expressed concerns about the
Board's decision to create a jail authority. He asked that the Board investi~
gate other options, such as a privately operated prison. He believes a small
number of citizens could, within a month, present the Board with a comprehen-
sive report enabling the Board to compare the benefits of a jail authority
with those of a privately operated prison. The Board would then have facts
upon which to base a decision as to what is best for the County and the
public. He urged the Board to make this investigation before proceeding with
any plans to form a jail authority.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 through 5.4a., to pull items
5.5 and 5.6 for discussion under highway matters and to accept the remaining
items for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
lng recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Item 5.1. Set public hearing to abandon road off of State Route 664 near
Earlysville area.
(On behalf of his clients, Mr. Richard E. Carter has requested the County
to abandon a public road beginning at ~he intersection of Route 664 to its
end. His clients are the only known users of this road. Staff could not find
any evidence that this public road was ever part of the state or county
maintained system. The request does not affect the use of the 50 foot road
easement. The road proposed to be abandoned does not have any historical
significance nor does it negatively impact any historical property. Staff
recommends approval of the road abandonment request after public hearing to be
held on April 5, 1995.)
,By the above shown vote, the Board set a public hearing for April 5, 1995.
Item 5.2. Set a public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority service areas for public water and sewer for Full Gospel Assembly of
Charlottesville (Tax Map 32, Parcel 30).
(The Executive Summary states that the property consists of 1.349 acres
described as Tax Map 32 Parcel 30. The property, bordered by Proffit Road
(Route 649) to the south and approximately 0.2 mile east of Route 29, was
added to the Hollymead Growth Area as part of the Towers Land Trust Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendment (CPA-92-05) in October 1993. The Comprehensive Plan
states as an objective and overriding policy guiding the planning and provi-
sion of utilities that public water and sewer services be provided to the
urban areas and communities as an incentive to growth.
The Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional map shows that
"water only" is currently available to this property and to the properties
immediately adjacent to the east and west. Both water and sewer are available
to the parcels along the south side of Proffit Road, including those parcels
directly adjacent to its southern property line. While this area drains
northward into the North Fork Rivanna River basin and is serviced by the
Camelot Waste Water Treatment Plant, extension of lines from the treatment
..... 000088
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
plant to serve this site would be cost prohibitive to the church. A more
likely option would be to prOvide service by pumping to the sewer lines under
construction for the Forest Ridge development across Proffit Road from the
site.
Staff finds this request meets the Comprehensive Plan criteria for
jurisdictional area designation and recommends the Board state a resolution of
intent to forward this request to public hearing to be held on April 5, 1995.)
By the above shown vote, the Board set a public hearing for April 5, 1995.
Item 5.3. Resolution to Appoint Mark Spicer as an Assistant Fire Marshal.
(The Executive Summary states that Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the
Board may appoint one or more assistant fire marshals who may, in the absence
of the Fire Marshal, carry out his duties and responsibilities. On Novem-
ber 3, 1993, the Board appointed Carl Pumphrey as Fire Marshal and Bruce Crow
as Assistant Fire Marshal. The appointment of Mark Spicer (who currently is a
Fire Prevention Inspector with the County Fire-Rescue Department) as an
Assistant Fire Marshal is necessary to have more than one person available as
back-up to Fire Marshal Pumphrey. Mr. Spicer has satisfactorily completed the
required training for fire marshals exercising police powers as required by
the Virginia State Department of Fire Programs. Staff recommends the appoint-
ment of Mark Spicer as Assistant Fire Marshal with full police powers of the
Fire Marshal.)
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, at its November 3, 1993 meeting, the Board of Super-
visors of Albemarle County lawfully appointed Carl Pumphrey as
Fire Marshal for Albemarle County and Bruce Crow as Assistant Fire
Marshal for Albemarle County pursuant to §§ 27-36 and 27-34.2:1 of
the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the appointment of Mark Spicer,
who currently serves as Fire Prevention Inspector for Albemarle
County, as an Assistant Fire Marshal is necessary in order to
further assist the Fire Marshal in carrying out the duties and
responsibilities of his office, and for other public purposes; and
WHEREAS, the appointment is necessary to have more than one
qualified Assistant Fire Marshal available to perform the duties
of the Fire Marshal in the latter's absence; and
WHEREAS, Mark Spicer has satisfactorily completed a course for
fire marshals with police powers, designed by the Department of
Fire Programs in cooperation with the Department of Criminal
Justice Services, which course has been approved by the Virginia
Fire Services Board.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia hereby appoints Mark Spicer as an
Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to § 27-36 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, and that Mark Spicer is hereby authorized to
have and exercise all police powers of fire marshals pursuant to §
27-34.2:1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mark Spicer is directed to take
the required oath before an officer authorized to administer such
oaths, faithfully to discharge the duties of such office; and that
the certificate of the oath shall be returned to and preserved in
the Clerk's Office of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County. Mark Spicer shall, at all times subsequent to this
appointment, continue to exercise police powers only upon satis-
factory participation in in-service and advanced courses and
programs designed by the Department of Fire Programs in coopera-
tion with the Department of Criminal Justice Services, which
courses will be approved by the Virginia Fire Services Board.
Item 5.4. Request to approve Early Retirement Application.
(The Executive Summary states that Albemarle County's voluntary early
retirement plan provides for an incentive for employees to retire prior to age
65 if they are eligible for earlier full retirement under the Virginia
Retirement System, have been employed for at least 10 of the last 13 years and
are at least 55 years of age. Under the County's new policy, approval of
early retirement applications are made by the Board of Supervisors upon
recommendations of the County Executive with the cost of the early retirement
program to come from the budgeted account in the FY 1995-96 budget.
The current application is from Ms. Jean Easton, who is asking to retire
on July 1, 1995, with 20 years of continuous service with Albemarle County.
Ms. Easton meets all of the requirements established by County policy. Staff
recommends that the Board approve the voluntary early retirement application
'0000 9
March 1, 1995 (Regular DaY Meeting) '"
of Ms. ~ean Easton.)
By the above shown vote, the Board approved Jean Easton's application for
early retirement.
Item 5.4a. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month
of January, 1995, were approved by the above shown vote.
Item 5.5. Letter dated February 15, 1995, from Mr. David R. Gehr, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, to Boards of Supervisors of All Counties
and the Suffolk City Council, re: Department of Transportation's Subdivision
Street Requirements, was received for information.
Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be discussed under highway matters.
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated February 15, 1995, from the Honorable
David J. Toscano, Mayor, City of Charlottesville, to Mr. Jack Hodge, Chief
Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: Meadow Creek Parkway, was
received for information as follows:
"Members of the Charlottesville City Council attended VDoT's
February 13, 1995 hearing illustrating the proposed new southern
and northern termini to the Route 29 bypass.
We were concerned that page 16 of the Major Investment Study does
not include the Meadow Creek Parkway as part of the Route 29
corridor improvements. The Meadow Creek Parkway is a priority
road for both Charlottesville and Albemarle County, which we wish
to have included in all plans for corridor improvements.
We ask that you convey our concerns to the Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Board and modify your documents accordingly."
Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be discussed under highway matters.
Item 5.7. Letter dated February 15, 1995, from the Honorable Mitchell Van
Yahres, to the Honorable Walter F Perkins, Chairman, re: Board's resolution
supporting visitor's center on RoUte 29 in Danville, was received for informa-
tion.
Item 5.8. January, 1995 Financial Report, was received for information.
(The report indicates that projected General Fund revenues were revised in
January. Total General Fund revenues are projected to exceed appropriations
by $1,422,944. Local revenues are projected to exceed appropriations by
$1,600,879. State and federal revenues are projected to be $152,918 and
$25,017, respectively, less than appropriated. The local revenue projected
increase is primarily due to additional anticipated property tax, sales tax,
and interest collections.
projected General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time.
Projected School revenues are based on the January School Financial
Report. Education revenues are projected to be $335 less than appropriated.
Local and federal revenues are projected to exceed appropriations by $14,924
and $30,000, respectively. State revenues are projected to be $45,259 less
than appropriations. '
Projected School expenditures are based on the January School Financial
Report. School expenditures are projected to be $247,828 less than appropri-
ated. Compensation is projected to be $60,000 less than appropriated while
CATEC expenditures are projected to exceed appropriations by $40,229 due to
our larger share of vocational expenses. A 3.0 percent holdback estimated at
$228,057 was adopted by the School Board on October 10, 1994.)
Item 5.9. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for December 15, 1994, was received for information.
Item 5.10. Copy of minutes of the Planning Commission for February 7,
1995, was received for information.
Item 5.11. Letter dated February 21, 1995, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Execu-
tive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, providing information on unaccounted-for water and how
the integrity of the distribution system may contribute to it, was received
for information.
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000090
(Page 4)
Item 5.12. Copies of' mi~utes of'~t~' g6ard of Directors for the Albemarle
County Service Authority for January 9 and January 19, 1995, were received for
information.
Item 5.13. Memorandum dated February 22, 1995, from Mr. David L. Caprara,
Director, Department of Housing and Community Development, re: Implementation
of the Governor's Plan for removing local regulatory barriers to Housing--
Community Development Block Grants for Housing, was received for information.
Item 5.14. Memorandum dated February 17, 1995, from Mr. David Hirschman,
Water Resources Manager, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re:
Third well at Corville Farms Subdivision, was received for information. (The
memo indicates that work on the third well at Corville Farms has been complet-
ed. The work has been inspected by Mr. Hirschman and the Health Department.)
Item 5.15. Copy of letter dated February 21, 1995, from Mr. James
Christian Hill, National Register Coordinator, Department of Historic Resourc-
es, to Mr. Robert W. and Mrs. Marie-Agnes S. Krogstad, providing notice that
the State Review Board has determined that Longwood, Albemarle County, appears
to meet the criteria for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the
National Register of Historic Places, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Presentation: 250th Birthday - Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Tucker said on February 28, 1745, a small group of citizens gathered
near the present Town of Scottsville to inaugurate County government. Those
present: Thomas Ballou, William Cabell, Joshua Fry, Allen Howard, Peter
Jefferson and Joseph Thompson were the county's first magistrates or "court
justices" This first court of justices had to deal with minor civil dis-
putes, debt cases and mistreatment of indentured servants, but their principal
concern was roads.
Mr. Tucker said to commemorate this anniversary, a-portrait of the current
Board of Supervisors has been developed. This portrait will be displayed in
the hallway near Room #7.
Agenda Item No. 7. PresentatiOn of Certificates of Appreciation.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Eugene Farish was hired by the County on June 6, 1977.
He first served as a carpenter working out of the shop in the Old Real Estate
Building. He was instrumental in renovation of the current County Office
Building 15 years ago. When the operations moved into this building, Gene
took on more specialized duties handling HVAC problems and computer cabling
needs. Gene recently retired at the end of last year. Mr. Perkins then
presented Gene with a Certificate of Appreciation and Jefferson Cup.
Mr. Tucker said Mrs. Carolyn Scott began her career in Information
Services in November, 1984 as secretary and documentationalist. She did
outstanding work as the only clerical employee in the department. Her tasks
varied from preparing reports and budget information to assisting County
staff. She was thanked for her contribution to the County and presented with
a Certificate of Appreciation from Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Tucker said Joe Shaver started with the County as an Animal Control
Officer in the Police Department. During his employment, Joe handled enforce-
ment of County animal ordinances, investigated live stock killings, domestic
animal bites, cruelty to animals, etc. He was thanked'for his contribution
and presented with a Certificate of Appreciation and Jefferson Cup from Mr.
Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: March 3 and March 22, 1993;
December 16, 1994; February 8, 1995.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of March 22, 1993, and found them to be
in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of February 8, 1995, and found them to
be in order with the exception of a typographical error.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of March 3, 1993, pages 36(#19b)
and found them to be in order.
end
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of December 16, 1994, and found them to be
in order.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
000091
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Six Year
Primary Road Plan.
Mr. Benish said staff has provided Board members with information which
includes a copy of the Culpeper District's Six Year Primary Road Plan, a copy
of staff's recommendations for comments at the preallocation hearing and a
copy of Board comments at the prior year's preallocation hearing.
Mr. Benish said staffcontinues to include comments regarding design/
acquisition and ultimate construction of the interchanges at Greenbrier Drive
and Hydraulic and Rio Roads, despite the Commonwealth Transportation Board's
decision. If the Board decides to delete that priority, staff suggests that
it include a specific statement regarding the inclusion of sidewalks, bus stop
pullouts and landscaping incorporated in the Route 29 project. Mr. Benish
then proceeded to summarize the County's priorities for each allocation of the
Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and each sub-allocation of
the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Mr. Benish noted that the
Thomas Jefferson Parkway project has been deleted from the enhancement
projects since it has received funding and under standard projects the
recommendation to construct an interchange on 1-64 at Avon Street.
Mrs. Humphris noted that page 64 of Attachment "A" (listing of projects
for the urban and primary system for the Culpeper District in the existing Six
Year Primary Road Plan) was missing from the material. This page included the
Route 20 South project.
Mr. Bowerman asked what could be done to put additional emphasis on the
Meadow Creek Parkway project. Mr. Tucker suggested that significant atten-
dance at the Commonwealth Transportation Board's hearing later this month
would make a bold statement. Area legislators could also be asked to attend
the hearing and lend their support.
Mrs. Humphris then referred to Item 5.6 (letter from Mayor Toscano) from
the Consent Agenda. It would seem to her that the Board should ask the
Charlottesville City Council to also attend the hearing to support the
designation of the Meadow Creek Parkway as a primary road for funding or
whatever needs to be done to insure that the road is constructed in a timely
fashion. Board members concurred. Mrs. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer)
noted that the hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 29, 1995.
Mr. Bowerman suggested a letter be drafted for the Chairman's signature
asking City Council to attend the hearing with the Board. He also suggested
that the statement include the County's efforts regarding Meadow Creek.
Mrs. Humphris said anyone who is interested in the Meadow Creek Parkway
should be encouraged to attend the hearing and speak. Also businesses in the
City that are supportive of Meadow Creek Parkway should be notified that they
can attend the hearing and speak.
The Board asked staff to find out the order in which comments from
localities will be taken by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
Mrs. Thomas said she appreciated the comments on Route 250 West in the
staff report. That is an area of growing concern. Part of the County's long
range plan is to encourage development in the Crozet area which means this
will be an even more impacted road. She appreciates staff placing it in the
priorities and expanding the area out a short ways further to include the
commercial area.
Mr. Perkins suggested that Project #3, under Standard Projects (improve
the north/south connection between Route 250 and Route 240 in Crozet, either
through an improved alignment of Route 240 from Route 250 northward to Route
810, or construction of the Route 240-Route 250 connector road recommended in
the County's Comprehensive Plan) be removed, but there does need to be some
sort of connector between Route 240 and Route 250 to the eastern part of
Crozet. He thinks the road is adequate at this time and it would destroy the
community to build this straight highway.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Board would have a stronger statement by
pursuing the Meadow Creek Parkway as its highest priority given the action
taken by the CTB on the interchanges. Mrs. Thomas suggested that the projects
outlined on Attachment "B" be rearranged to reflect high priority of the
Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mrs. Humphris felt that the interchanges needed to remain on the Board's
list because the CTB's action does not change the need for those interchanges
in the future. She does not think the Board should drop that out altogether.
Mr. Martin said he strongly supports the Meadow Creek Parkway in the
absence of the T-connectors.
March 1, I995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000092
(Page 6)
Mr. Tucker stated that staff would rearrange the projects listed on the
statement and prepare a statement for the Chairman to present to the CTB. The
Board can have an opportunity to review the statement and make any suggested
changes.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Discussion: Route 610 Proposed Improvements.
Mrs. Tucker said after a recent review of the Route 610 project, VDoT has
determined that the intersections of Route 610 and 612 will remain substandard
without some realignment of the two roads at Route 20. VDoT has been unable
to obtain the necessary donation of right-of-way for the alignment. There are
four options on how to proceed with the development and construction of the
project:
1. Construct the section of Route 610 with the available donated right-of-
way (from 0.4 miles east of Route 20 to the deadend). This will leave
approximately 0.4 miles of unimproved road and a substandard intersec-
tion at Route 20. Right-of-way from Route 20 to 0.4 miles east is not
available through donation.
2. Remove the Route 610 project from the Six Year Plan because all of the
right-of-way is not available through donation.
Purchase the necessary right-of-way (two parcels) to upgrade Route 610
under the current project scope and leave the intersection with Route
20 substandard.
4. Proceed with the survey on the 0.4 mile section of road and purchase
the necessary right-of-way to realign Routes 610 and 612. This option
will delay construction of this project approximately two years until
mid 1998 and increase the overall cost of the project by approximately
$250,000. This will require two separate projects, but they could
likely be built simultaneously.
Mrs. Tucker said the allocation in the current Six Year Plan for the
proposed improvement is $940,000. Utilizing Option 4, an additional $250,000
will be required to fund the entire project based on current estimates. The
Department recommends pursuing Option 4 in order that all improvements be made
in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
Mr. Perkins asked about the traffic counts on Route 610 and 612. Mrs.
Tucker said the traffic count on Route 610 is 375 vehicles per day, and Route
612 has 187 vehicles per day.
Mr. Martin asked if VDoT is still recommending Option 4. Mrs. Tucker
replied, "yes". Mr, Martin said he thought there was some opposition to
continuing to purchase right-of-way because it was slowing down other projects
and some people had already donated right-of-way. Mrs. Tucker said that is
true; however this is the second gravel road on the priority list and the
majority of the right-of-way is available for the project. It seemed in
fairness to those persons on Route 610, who have already donated right-of-way
in anticipation of the improvement being made, that perhaps the two parcels
not available requiring substantial impact to them be purchased. Perhaps VDoT
could look at this as two separate projects; a gravel road improvement and a
realignment to bring Routes 610 and 612 into Route 20 at a location that would
improve the sight distance for both roads.
Mr. Martin commented that all the telephone calls he has received concern-
ing this project are to pave Route 610. No reference was made concerning the
intersection of Routes 610 and 20. Mr. Bowerman said in looking at the area,
it would seem to him that this is a safety improvement and the most important
thing is the intersection because of sight distance.
Mrs. Tucker said VDoT also feels this is a worthwhile project for the
money involved. For an additional $250,000 the County would get an improve-
ment to Route 20, for two secondary intersections with substandard sight
distance, and for $1.2 million the County would not only have an improved
intersection, but also the improvement of approximately two miles of gravel
road. Mr. Martin said that is good, but he does not think the County should
be in the business of purchasing right-of-way. He thinks the County got
itself into some trouble when it purchased right-of-way on Route 682. He has
no problem with going ahead and doing this for Route 610 and then stopping.
Mrs. Tucker said that would be VDoT's recommendation, insofar as there is a
priority list of enough priorities with 100 percent right-of-way available
through donation. VDoT is working on a package which will show the Board the
impact to the gravel roads program beyond this Route 610 project. The
attention to Route 610 is such that it is Priority #2 and has been for some
time on the priority list. Again, the improvement is substantial and worth-
while.
Mrs. Humphris asked how substandard are the intersections. Mrs. Tucker
said the sight distance at the intersection of Route 610 and Route 612 is
several hundred feet less than the required commercial sight distance of 550
feet. The accident rate is not such that this qualifies for any spot improve-
ment safety funding. She does not have accident statistics available.
The proposed Route 610/612 tie into Route 20 also includes a right turn and
taper lane off Route 20 to serve the new intersection. The new intersection
00009
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
would provide needed sight distance; it basically brings the intersection in
on the crest of the hill.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the additional money is put into this pro]ect, would
that move everything else on the list down two years. Mrs. Tucker said the
impact with regard to funding is less than a year. What will take some time
is the survey involved and the plans required to purchase right-of-way.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to hear some other Board members
thoughts concerning purchasing vs. donated right-of-way, and the cost of the
project considering the residents on the road want the road paved and are not
concerned about the intersection. At issue also is that this appears to be a
dangerous intersection, although evidently people are using good sense in
entering and exiting and there are not a lot of accidents.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with the issue of purchasing right-of-way and
thinks it should be discontinued, although he understands that this is a good
deal. He thinks that to some extent when the Board discussed purchasing
right-of-way on Route 682, the decision was also made on Route 610, because
both were discussed.
Mrs. Thomas said she is intrigued about the idea of improving the road,
but not at the intersection so that no one thinks it is a paved road that they
can speed on. It would still leave the option of improving that intersection
in the future. Mrs. Tucker said that is true; however it may get to a point
that the Board does not want it to be an all or nothingprogram. Many gravel
roads can be improved with donated right-of-way and have the existing road
widened. The alignment is such that there are not many curves that need to be
straightened. It is VDoT's intent when they get to the revision of the Six
Year Plan to explain publicly the benefits of donated right-of-way in the
gravel road improvement program, especially because of the cost. VDoT can
proceed with two miles of gravel road improvements every year if it has the
donated right-of-way available.
Mr. Perkins asked how much of the donated right-of-way affects the change
at the intersection. Mrs. Tucker said the land that is not donated is
adjacent to the intersection.
(Mr. Marshall arrived at the. meeting at 9:55 a.m.)
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board needs to be flexible. When a road
improvement in the secondary system is identified as a high priority based
upon vehicle count and the majority of the people along that road want to get
it paved, he thinks the Board has to look at the option of making that a
reality. Because of the unwilling property owners, he thought it was a
natural conclusion to purchase the right-of-way in order to meet the needs of
a large number of people based on the Board's criteria. His concern is with
improving a road which will inevitable increase development along the rest of
the road. He does not think it makes sense to pave the road and leave the
intersection in a bad state.
Mr. Martin asked if anyone was present who lives on Route 610 or Route 612
and had comments. No one responded.
Mr. Perkins said he disagrees with Mr. Bowerman. He thinks improvements
to the intersection should be done as a Route 20 project. This intersection
is one of the Route 20 problems. He thinks the money should come from a
different pot. These gravel road funds are scarce.
Mrs. Tucker said it is an option at this time to improve this intersec-
tion. She does not know to what extent VDoT could go back at a later date and
tie in Route 610. She thinks a case could be made to tie it in if the four-
tenths section of Route 20 were already improved. However, the Board is aware
of the need for primary funding in the County and the potential of placing the
Meadow Creek Parkway in that same pot. In her personal opinion, it is
important to stress that for this additional $250,000 the County would be
getting a good deal. However, it does impact the gravel road program.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the project could be done at some future time even if
Route 610 were paved along the four-tenths of a mile part that starts from
Route 20. Mrs. Tucker replied, "yes", but she does not think it would likely
promote donation of the needed right-of-way. The only reason to hold off the
improvement at the Route 20 intersection would be in the hopes of eventual
donation of the right-of-way.
Mr. Perkins said he can see the justification for purchasing right-of-way
to change an entrance, but he does not think VDoT should purchase right-of-way
for purposes of paving a graveled road.
Mrs. Humphris said it makes sense to purchase right-of-way when there is a
need to improve an intersection for safety purposes, but it does not make
sense to do it because VDoT wants to black top a road. For this project, she
could go along with purchasing the right-of-way for the intersection and then
skipping over the section of road where right-of-way is not donated and pave
the donated section. Paving of Route 610 would start with the donated right-
of-way.
Mr. Martin said that sounds logical to him.
000094
March 1, 1995 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mrs. Tucker said all of Route 610 would have to be paved. It would not
make sense to pave a section, skip a Section and then pave another section of
the roadway. Mrs. Thomas said they are working to a justification for
purchasing right-of-way. Mr. Martin said it would send a clear message to the
property owners that if they want the road paved, they need to donate the
right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is a mistake to not pave the entire road in
an attempt to force a landowner to do something which is creating safety
problems. It is a mistake to do a halfway job. It needs to be done right or
not done at all. He will not support that recommendation.
Mr. Perkins suggested proceeding with Option B. VDoT would consider
anything that needs to be purchased from Parcel 29 as a part of the right-of-
way and then shift the road opposite Parcel 30B to the bottom side so that
nothing more is being taken from that parcel. Mrs. Tucker said she believes
the history of the property owner of Parcel 30B is such that if Parcel 29
agrees to sign and donate right-of-way, they will also donate the right-of-
way. This then would mean potentially purchasing right-of-way from Parcel 3
only. Option B does give the through movement to Route 610 which has the
majority of traffic and places Route 612 at a stop condition at its intersec-
tion with Route 610, which is ideal.
Mr. Martin suggested that Mrs. Tucker discuss these alternatives with the
property owners and inform them of the Board's position on the issues. That
should generate some activity from the people in the area which would give a
better sense of what the people involved really want. Mrs. Tucker said she
will take this guidance from the Board and approach these property owners and
report back to yo~ at the April 5th meeting to readdress this issue. Board
members concurred.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Discussion: Proposed through truck traffic restric-
tion, Georgetown Road (Route 656).
Mrs. Tucker said VDoT is requesting the Board's preference as to how to
receive public input on the County's request for the proposed restriction of
through truck traffic on Route 656. The three options are:
1. Publish a public notice of the proposed restriction, requesting written
comment only;
2. Publish a public notice of the proposed restriction and advise of the
Department's willingness to hold a public hearing, if requested; or
3. Publish a public notice of the time and place of a public hearing on
the proposed restriction.
Mrs. Tucker said in conjunction with the publishing of the public notice,
signs would be erected at the terminus of the proposed restricted routes
advising of the restrictions and listing an address for the public to send
their written comments. This signing shall be erected for a period of thirty
days. A copy of the public notice would be sent to the Virginia Trucking
Association for distribution to the trucking industry and other interested
parties.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the public hearing would be held by VDoT or by this
Board. Mrs. Tucker said it is a VDoT public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said she
feels there should be full public comment on this issue. Mrs. Tucker indicat-
ed that there is a cost involved with holding a formal public hearing. The
cost for a public hearing is part of the preliminary engineering costs.
Mrs. Humphris asked if anyone was present from Georgetown Road who had a
preference on how best to receive public comments. A member of the Georgetown
Road Task Force came forward and said the consensus of the committee is to
receive written comments. She thinks a better response would come from
written comments since not many people would probably attend a public hearing.
At this time it was the consensus of Board to publish notice of the
proposed restriction requesting written comment only.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Daniel Naude presented a petition on behalf of residents on Route 633
requesting the Board to complete the unpaved portion of Route 633 East and for
the Board to request the railroad company to build a new bridge across the
railroad. The residents wonder why one-half of the road was paved. Mrs.
Tucker said she thinks only the portion of road where right-of-way was donated
was paved. Mr. Naude said there is increased traffic using Route 633 East due
to Walnut Creek Park as well as through traffic between Route 29 and Route 20.
There is a small culvert that continually washes out and needs to be larger to
prevent this from occurring. In addition fire engines cannot cross the
bridge; they have to go the long way around. A decent strong bridge needs to
be built to handle heavy vehicles.
Mrs. Thomas asked who is responsible for the railroad bridge. Mrs. Tucker
said the railroad is responsible for maintaining everything other than the
surface. The bridge has always been less than adequate and is due to be
repaired by the railroad later this year to bring the three ton rating back up
000095
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
to the six to eight ton rating. It is unlikely that they will do work on the
bridge which would bring it fully up to standard capacity anytime soon.
Mrs. Thomas said since the railroad company plans to put some maintenance
funds into the bridge, it seems to be good timing to request that sufficient
work be done to allow for emergency vehicles, etc.
Mrs. Tucker said she would look into the potential for coordinating
upgrading of the bridge, including general repairs, with the railroad company.
She noted that these repairs may require use of some discretionary funds from
the Secondary Roads budget to assist with the upgrade. Mrs. Tucker also
agreed to make a general assessment of Route 633 and report back to the Board.
Mr. Naude also asked the Board to consider placing Route 633 on its
priority list for paving.
Mr. Perkins provided Mrs. Tucker with a map outlining suggested locations
for guardrail along Route 250 and Route 810, and maintenance work on Route
776.
Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the Millington Bridge project. Mrs.
Tucker said a project showing, to interested contractors, is scheduled for
March 20. The project will then be advertised for bids with construction
anticipated to begin in late spring or early summer and project completion by
the end of the year.
Mrs. Humphris asked why the advertisement dates for the section of Route
29 from Rio Road to the Rivanna River and the section of Route 29 from the
South Fork Rivanna River to Airport Road have been delayed. Mrs. Tucker said
bids were awarded and rejected twice. The projects will go out to bid again
in late March or early April. A third 'showing of these projects is scheduled
for March 20 in the hope of soliciting more interest and cutting costs. The
bid estimates were in excess of the engineer's estimates.
Mrs. Humphris asked why the advertisement date for Route 631, from Route
743 to Greenbrier Drive, was changed. Mrs. Tucker said she did not know the
date had changed since the last revision to the Six Year Plan.
Mrs. Humphris asked when the Department would change the slip ramp on Hy-
draulic Road at the northern end of Georgetown Road. Mrs. Tucker said she was
informed by the Traffic Office in Culpeper that there was concern for a left
turn accident trend developing on the westbound of Hydraulic Road and that as
a mitigative measure the Department has included a lagging exclusive green
phase for westbound traffic on Hydraulic Road. The Department wishes to
establish an adequate data base to assess the situation and will take accident
data for a six month period. By the end of March they should have the
accident statistics needed in order to insure that any rearranging of the
radius will not directly impact the situation that has been attributed to the
left turn accident trend. Mrs. Humphris commented that this is the first time
in the two years of this project she has heard anything about accident data.
Mrs. Tucker said she will attempt to find out why this issue was addressed at
this time.
Mrs. Humphris said she had a.citizen express concerns to her about
pedestrian traffic on Route 20 North between Route 250 and the Wilton Farms
Apartment Complex. People are walking along Route 20 and are not visible at
night. She does not know what should or can be done, but believes that VDoT
should work with the County to do something.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that pedestrian improvement needs have typically
been funded in the Capital Improvements Program. VDoT does not normally
participate when they are not part of the project.
Agenda Item No. 10. l~oved to Item 18b.
(At 10:50 a.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at
11:00 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
for FY 1993-94.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said the FY 1993-94 Audit has
been completed and is submitted for the Board's review'. The field work and
audit testing was completed by the County's external auditors (Robinson,
Farmer Cox Associates) on October 7, 1994. The General Purpose Financial
Statements and Comparative Cost Report was delivered to the Virginia Auditor
of Public Accounts (APA) by December 5, 1994 as required. Since that time
County staff and the audit staff have worked to convert the County's audit
from a General Purpose Financial Statement to a Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR). The primary difference is some minor changes in format and the
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
inclusion of a letter off transmittal which is a brief narrative report on the
County's financial activities and several schedules on the County's fixed
assets.
During FY 93/94, County staff, in cooperation with the audit staff,
completed the inventory of fixed assets with a value in excess of $5,000.
Completion of this project has removed the exception previously noted in the
audit as not meeting the guidelines for Generally Accepted Accounting Princi-
pals (GAAP) and the concern that this exception could affect interest rates
should the County need to enter the bond market.
This issuance of the County's first Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) qualifies the County to submit it to the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting.
This award is somewhat coveted by localities throughout the United States and
Canada and also could be a factor in any bond issuance. The County's CAFR was
submitted to GFOA by their deadline of December 31, 1994. The CAFR will be
reviewed for acceptance and the County should receive a decision in approxi-
mately six months.
The CAFR also reflects the change in reporting standards required by the
Government Accounting Standards Board #14 (GASB). This requirement basically
requires the County's CAFR to include financial statements on all entities or
agencies over which it has a substantial degree of control and/or financial
obligation. A detailed review was required to determine whether agencies such
as the Albemarle County Service Authority, Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport,
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and Joint Security Complex were to be
included within the CAFR. This review concluded that none of these agencies
were to be included; a primary concern in this decision process is whether
members of the Board of Supervisors constitute a majority of the Board of any
of the agencies. Had it been determined that an agency was to be included it
would have been presented as a "component unit" All major divisions of the
primary government (general operations) are now required to be presented as if
it were a separate entity (component unit) of its own, inclusive of all debt
service and capital improvements.
The County School System is required to be reported as a component unit
and as such has a significant impact on the way information is reported when
compared to previous years. In the past, data on the Debt Service Fund and
Capital Improvements Fund were presented in the audit and the amounts shown
were inclusive of both general and school operations. These activities are
now required to be segregated and reported as part of their respective
operations. Mr. Breeden said when the Board is making comparisons of this
year's CAFR to last year's audit, it needs to keep in mind that when fund
balances or other items show a significant increase, it is probably the result
of merging debt service and capital improvements with that operation.
Mr. Breeden asked the Board to accept the FY 93/94 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks this changeover is a good idea before having
the elected school board. Mr. Breeden agreed and added that one of the
complaints in the past has been that total cost of school operations is not
shown. This new format changes that.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the statement that a lot of the auditor's
suggestions are impossible for the County to implement because of the status
of its automated accounting system. Mr. Breeden said there have a been a lot
of updates in technology. There are accounting systems available that make it
much easier to pull information together. This is an in-house accounting
system that was written by Newport Ne%~s. It was one of the first systems
acquired by the County when the mainframe computer was purchased back in the
early 1980's. The system has had several revisions in the past years, but its
capabilities are limited.
Mr. Marshall suggested Mr. Breeden bring a proposal back to the Board on
the cost to upgrade the accounting system, including new hardware and soft-
ware. He thinks the County could save a lot of money.
Mr. Breeden introduced Mr. Jack Farmer who was also present.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the
FY 1993-94 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as presented. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-94-03. Craig Builders (deferred from February
15~ 1995).
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to accept the
applicant's request to withdraw ZMA-94-03. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
· 00009
:::. .
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-94-09. Jayel Industries.
Mr. Cilimberg said, at its meeting on February 15, the Board deferred ZMA-
94-09 to allow the applicant to discuss with the developer whether he would be
willing to submit a revised proffer for Board consideration to state that "a
connection between Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek shall be provided for emergen-
cy access"° The applicant has submitted the following'additional language to
proffer #3: "The second access at the end of Reynovia Drive will be con-
structed as a one lane gated emergency access road."
Mr. Cilimberg said staff feels the proposed proffer meets the Board's
intent. He added that the design of the access road for this purpose would be
subject to the approval of the Site Review Committee. Staff is recommending
approval of ZMA-94-09 with the acceptance of the applicant's revised proffer
dated February 23, 1995.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the access road would be paved. Mr. Cilimberg said
that has not been discussed. There have been emergency access lanes provided
that are not paved. He cannot say at this time. Mr. Bowerman asked how are
they typically gated for emergency access. Mr. Cilimberg said they are
normally chained and locked. Keys are provided to the rescue squads, fire
departments and police departments.
Mrs. Humphris said she is uncomfortable until she knows how this would be
done. She asked if it would be a satisfactory connection for emergency
vehicles. Mr. Tucker said there is a similar situation in dry hydrant
activities where the fire departments will have access to lakes or ponds that
they can get into but the owner may not want open access. The area is usually
chained and if they do not have the key for some reason, they use bolt cutters
to get into the area. It has worked in other situations.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the Board could encourage that there be a bicycle
lane for bicyclists. Mr. Cilimberg said it would probably depend on the type
of surface as to use by bicyclists.
Mr. Perkins said he is concerned that if the access is paved eventually
vegetation will take over and there needs to be some sort of maintenance. If
it is graveled, weeds are also going to grow. There needs to be some provi-
sions for mowing to keep the access open. Mrs. Humphris asked who would
provide maintenance. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not really know. He does not
know if there has ever been an agreement between the County and a homeowners
association to maintain an access. He noted that there are two developments
involved. There are no County funds designated for maintenance. Mr. Tucker
said the only other thing to do if they want to keep public access is use of
an easement so that the property owners would still have ownership to the
center of that easement. They would then provide maintenance. The base needs
to be adequate for any heavy vehicles to cross rather than paving. If there
is a solid base of stone, that would still allow emergency vehicles to get
back and forth. Mrs. Humphris asked what happens if the adjoining property
owner decides not to maintain the property. Mr. Tucker said it would become
unsightly and the owner would have to deal with that.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks the County should retain the right-of-way. At
some future date the County may want to open the road up.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to understand the implications of the
applicant's proffer, i.e., what is a road and who maintains the road. Mr.
Cilimberg said in terms of what the road will be, staff cannot tell the Board
unless it goes through a submittal and has the Engineering Department review
the basic design and make recommendations. That is the reason for staff's
recommendation that the Site Review Committee review the design. Maintenance
is an issue to be addressed by the County Executive, emergency providers and
Engineering Department. Mrs. Humphris said she does not see how the Board can
take action that will mandate that the emergency providers maintain a strip of
property. Mr. Tucker said staff would have to determine some other sort of
maintenance; the County would not require the emergency providers to maintain
the property. Mr. Marshall suggested that the Board require the road be paved
because not much could grow up through pavement.
Mr. Davis said he does not think the Subdivision Ordinance will allow the
Board to require the property owners to maintain that type of access easement
unless it was proffered. The developer could proffer that either he or the
homeowners association would provide maintenance. Otherwise, it would be a
public responsibility. The part of the road that has already been platted is
County-owned right-of-way and although the County has no obligation to
maintain it, the County can do that and it would be our responsibility unless
otherwise proffered.
Mr. Steve Driver, of McKee/Carson, representing the applicant, said as far
as paving for an emergency access connection, they would need to have some
type of base installed. The intent is to keep it as aesthetically sensitive
as possible. They would have to provide some type of firm base to provide
structural support for the types of vehicles that will be using it. It would
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 00009~
(Page 12)
not necessarily have to be black asphalt. It could be some type of grid paver
with a substantial base that would a~low for planting and mowing. He does not
think the growth of trees, etc., would be an issue. The intent is to also
keep it open as a pedestrian accessway. They could use the gridded area as a
walkway as well. Mr. Bowerman asked what is the meaning of "gridded". Mr.
Driver said there are different types of materials available in the market-
place. A gridded paver is a concrete web that allows soil to be placed
between the concrete grids and then you could plant between those. It would
have a grass-like surface but good structural support. The maintenance of
this would not be much different than a normal private road situation. The
only difference is the type of paving material. Regardless of type, what
would be provided would not be conducive to growth of trees, etc., because it
would be a firm based designed to support heavy vehicles.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the existing right-of-way is going to remain the same
or would it be narrower. Mr. Tucker said the right-of-way already exists;
therefore, unless the County choose to reduce that right-of-way into a lesser
strip, it would remain the same.
Mrs. Humphris again asked who would provide the maintenance. Mr. Driver
said the type of surface will allow structural strength for vehicles, but is
not conducive to the growth of trees, etc. The maintenance is something that
will have to be done by the individual homeowners or through the homeowners
associations. Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board can affect the maintenance by
the homeowners associations. Mr. Davis said the only way that could be
implemented is by proffer. Otherwise this would be a public right-of-way
which the homeowners would have no responsibility to maintain. The applicant
needs to discuss with the homeowners associations whether they want to
voluntarily make that amendment to this proposal.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
defer ZMA-94-09 until March 8 to allow the applicant to discuss with the
homeowners associations whether they would be willing to submit a proffer
regarding maintenance of the right-of-way. In addition, if these concerns are
adequately addressed, this item could be put on the Consent Agenda for action.
Mrs. Humphris said she opposes this action because she believes the
connection road should be built.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bowerman.
NAYS: Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 14. Request to set a public hearing to amend Section 3-28
of the County Code to expand the hours of operation for conducting bingo.
Mr. Tucker said staff has received a request from representatives of the
Senior Center asking that the County's bingo ordinance be amended to allow an
expansion of the hours of operation to conduct bingo on Sundays from the
current 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. to a proposed 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. This
request is based on a belief that expanding such hours will provide for
additional fund raising opportunities on Sunday afternoons.
Due to an oversight, an application to conduct bingo for another non-
profit organization was recently approved erroneously allowing that organiza-
tion to operate from 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Sunday afternoons. Once it
was brought to staff's attention tkat the application was approved in viola-
tion of the County Code, the organization was notified to cease its Sunday
afternoon bingo until the issue could be revisited.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends the Board set a public hearing to amend
Section 3.28 of the County Code to allow bingo to be conducted between the
hours of 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, and 6:00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m. on all other days of the week. Given some unpleasant experiences
in other jurisdictions with professional organizations conducting bingo, staff
notes some concern about expanding potential hours of operations greatly which
might encourage bingo to become more of a business for professional organiza-
tions, selling their services to conduct such games, as opposed to the current
situation of bingo being used largely by fire departments, rescue squads and
other non-profits for genuine fund raising activities conducted by their own
members.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, to set a public hearing for April 5, to
consider amending Section 3-28 of the County Code to allow an expansion of the
hours of operation of bingo games as recommended by staff.
Mr. Bowerman said he has been lobbied by representatives of the Senior
Center to consider going to public hearing with the 1:00 p.m. time. The Board
can always reduce that time after the public hearing. He would like the
opportunity at the public hearing to approve that time. Mrs. Thomas said she
has no problem with that and amandod her motion to include the hours of
operation on Sundays from 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion.
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Request for permanent pump and haul permit for the
Captain's Table Restaurant.
Mr. Tucker said the Captain's Table Restaurant on U.S. Route 250 has lost
the grandfather status of their septic system from the Health Department. The
grandfather status was lost because the property went through a series of
transfers. The existing septic system does not meet state minimum standards,
and there are no adequate sites on or adjacent to the property to expand
and/or upgrade the existing system due to the steep and rocky terrain.
Alternative systems (e.g., package plant, pumping) do not appear to be
economically viable for this site due to the distance to a potential receiving
stream or to an existing sewage disposal system. Another alternative is a
permanent pump and haul permit, which involves storing septage on-site and
transporting it periodically to an approved wastewater treatment facility.
The State Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (administered by the
Health Department) allow pump and haul permits to be issued only if a contract
is executed between the applicant, the County, and the Commissioner of Health.
This contract makes the County the responsible party for permit compliance.
In other words, the permit is actually issued to the County, and the County,
in turn, is responsible for both providing the pump and haul service to the
business (e.g., through a contractor) and ensuring permit compliance by the
business. It is common practice for counties that have signed these contracts
to require the applicant to post a bond to cover contingencies, such as the
permitted pumping schedule not being followed or the business closing. The
owner of the Captain's Table has initiated the process of trying to secure a
permanent pump and haul permit by requesting Albemarle County to enter into
the needed contract.
Historically, previous pump and haul permits, unlike this request, have
had other reasonable alternatives available to them and the previous permits
have all been temporary in nature while a permanent solution was being pursued
or constructed.
The County would have to write the contract or contracts. In a similar
case in Fluvanna County, the County drew up three separate contracts. The
first was between the County, the property owner, and the Health Department
making the County responsible for providing the service and for permit
compliance. The second contract was just between the County and the property
owner and spelled out the owner's responsibilities and requirement to post a
performance bond. The third contract was between the County, the property
owner, and the waste hauler and its chief purpose was to ensure that the
hauler would provide the hauling service to the property owner.
In the case of the Captain's Table Restaurant, the property owner has
supplied letters from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority agreeing to accept
the septage and from Campbell's Septic Tank Cleaning agreeing to haul the
septage to the Rivanna plant. The business would likely not be able to reopen
if a permanent pump and haul is not obtained. Furthermore, the Zoning
Administrator has determined that the restaurant is an existing nonconforming
use in the Rural Areas district. If such a use is discontinued for more than
two years, it is considered abandoned and loses its existing nonconforming
status. For the Captain's Table Restaurant, this two year period will expire
on December 31, 1995 (since the business closed on December 31, 1993). If the
restaurant use does not begin on this property before December 31, 1995, the
use will be considered abandoned.
If Albemarle County pursues a permanent pump and haul permit on behalf of
the Captain's Table, a contract or contracts should be written and/or approved
by the County Attorney that defines clearly the responsibilities and commit-
ments of the County, the property owner, the septage hauler, the Health
Department and other relevant parties. A component of the property owner's
responsibility should be to post a performance bond in an amount determined
appropriate by the Department of Engineering. It is also an option for the
contract or contracts to place restrictions on the operation of the restau-
rant, such as limiting operation to evenings and weekends (to effectively
limit the frequency of septage hauling).
If the Board supports the permanent pump and haul permit, it should
authorize the County Attorney to draft, and the County Executive to sign, the
contract or contracts between Albemarle County, the property owner, the State
Health Commissioner, the septage hauler and other relevant parties for the
County to provide permanent pump and haul services to the Captain's Table
Restaurant and ensure compliance with the permit.
Mr. Davis Hirschman, the County's Water Resources Manager, has been
working with Mr. Pete Lang, representative for the restaurant, and he is
present to answer any questions.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this is the first request for a permanent pump and
haul permit. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes" All other requests have been for
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) %;V%9~=UU
(Page 14)
Th0~!'~Sh~'~'~0~s of one small rural church that
temporary permits. Mrs.
is interested in the outcome. She thinks this could set a precedent.
Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned about all the various contracts
involved and the County having the responsibility. She asked how the County
insures that the terms are adhered to. Mr. Tucker said it is the responsibil-
ity of the owner and becomes a liability and problem for him if he does not do
it properly. Staff envisions requiring a bond as part of the contract so that
if the owner does not comply with the contract, the County can go in and
correct the problem. Also, if the business changes ownership or folds, the
County would have the bond to make any necessary improvements.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the County is being required to oversee. Mr.
Tucker said the County would be overseeing the removal of the septage on a
timely basis and Rivanna has agreed to accept the septage and make sure it is
cleaned out properly. Mrs. Humphris asked if the County has to send an
Inspector to do this on a regular basis. Mr. Tucker said not on a regular
basis; something would have to be worked out with the Health Department.
Mr. Hirschman said it is his understanding that, like any other permit the
Health Department issues, they would do the compliance and enforcement;
however, in this case the compliance and enforcement would be against the
County as the agent of the property owner. That is the difference in this
arrangement. The County in turn would want to make sure the permit is being
followed. The main use of the bond is to cover closing out the system in
terms of abandoning and filling in. Mr. Davis said the bond would also cover
any cleanup of spillage that might occur and payment of hauling fees if the
County was required to go in and remove septage from the site.
Mr. Tim Wood, representing the owner, said they also are required to
install a system inside the restaurant that indicates a light if the level of
the sewage gets to a certain point to keep from overflowing.
Mr. Martin said his concern with this is that the owner purchased this
property knowing that it had this problem.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board grants this permit, it needs make sure that
a precedent is not being set. The Board should clarify the permit is for an
existing structure for which the system has failed and the only alternative is
a pump and haul as opposed to granting this permit for a new use.
Mr. Perkins asked if a time limit would be put on this. Mr. Davis said he
thinks the Board can add a provision that it can terminate the agreement at
its option. He does not think the owner would be happy about that provision,
but the County can do it.
Mrs. Humphris said if the Board decides to do this, it should be made
clear that it is only because there is no other option available and only with
a building of the same size and no expansion.
Mr. Davis said if it is the consensus of the Board that it wants to
approve this request, the Board should direct the County Attorney to draft a
contract. Mr. Davis said this would not set a policy on how to deal with
these type situations. Mrs. Humphris said she would like for the Board to
review the contract.
Mr. Bowerman said he has no problem with the County Attorney approving a
contract; he is more concerned about the policy issue in granting the approv-
al. He is willing to let staff determine if the Board's intent is being met
and the County is protected.
Mrs. Humphris said she is reluctant; it puts the Board in a difficult
situation which has untold implications for the future.
Mrs. Thomas said she regards this as physically not a major liability
that the County is opening itself up to. This strikes her as a limited
situation.
Mr. Bowerman said he would not support establishing a commercial use in
the rural areas. This is an existing use. The Board is not expanding that
use but would be allowing it to continue. If there is'a reasonable method to
do that, he thinks the County should be able to work out an effective agree-
ment.
Mr. Tucker suggested that along with the contract, staff develop a policy
so the Board would know how it might deal with similar situations in the
future. Mr. Martin said the policy should include some of the things that can
be used to define existing.
Mot£on was then offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
authorize the County Attorney to draft a contract, for the Board's review, to
provide for permanent pump and haul services to the Captain's Table Restaurant
taking into consideration the concerns raised. Staff is also to draft a
policy, for the Board's review, to handle future requests for permanent pump
and haul permits.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
000 0
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15) - ~.-: ~i~ i'
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin; ~i~'~'~'~M~. Thomas, Mr' Bowerman, and'
Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Presentation of Albemarle County Housing Action Plan
from the Housing Committee.
Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Chairperson of the Albemarle County Housing Commit-
tee, said she was pleased to present, on behalf of the'Committee, their first
annual housing plan. The Committee will prepare this report each year to
inform the Board of its activities and accomplishments as well as to present
specific proposals and recommendations.
The Committee formally began operation in April, 1994. They meet on a
monthly basis and have created subcommittees which also meet at least monthly.
With the assistance of the Housing Coordinator, the Committee spent the past
year developing its mission and other necessary operational procedures. They
also devoted time at many meetings to speakers who provided information on a
variety of housing topics.
The Committee's primary accomplishment this year was the development of a
proposed housing element for the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Lilleleht then
summarized the following Committee objectives:
· Identify and rehabilitate the County's substandard housing stock;
· Provide or encourage development of a variety of affordable housing
types;
· Stress compliance with state and federal fair housing laws;
· Increase financial resources for affordable housing;
· Establish housing education program;
· Support regional housing initiatives; and
· Ensure that development regulations and the development process support
affordable housing development.
Ms. Lilleleht said 1994 was a year of planning and laying the foundation
for an aggressive housing program for Albemarle Countyl They suggest that the
Housing Coordinator and Section 8 Program be combined to create a Housing
Office, independent of other County departments. They think this would make
both of those operations more efficient. Lynne Carruth, the outgoing Housing
Coordinator, was of inestimable value to the Committee in this work and they
want to commend her highly for her contributions to affordable housing in the
County. With the Board's support, they hope to begin implementing housing
policies and programs designed to achieve the County's goal of decent and
affordable housing for all residents.
The Committee urges the Board to resist "not in my backyard" pressures
when affordable housing developments are brought before them. Neighborhoods
often resist change and fear what they think they know about people with
incomes lower than their own. Decisions made on the basis of such pressures
undermine the planning process and limit community diversity. The Committee
expresses its appreciation for the support the Board has shown and looks
forward to continuing its work together over the next year.
Ms. Lilleleht said she thinks they have a good housing education program
ready to go into effect. There is some staffing available in the Section 8
housing office that can help with the program. That is the one thing she
thinks they can start doing something about now.
Mr. Martin asked if the Committee is doing some coordinating with area
banks with regard to the programs. Ms. Lilleleht said, "yes"; the idea is to
bring in as much as possible in outside contributions.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Committee did an excellent job.
Mr. Marshall said he also thinks the Committee did an excellent job, but
he is concerned about Section 8 housing. He knows of a lot of landlords who
want to rent to people and he thinks the educational program will help a lot
in teaching renters how to take care of the property. One of the problems is
that the renters do not seem to care about the property. He thinks that maybe
one option is to provide a deposit or some money upfront to repair the
property if it is damaged. Ms. Lilleleht said she believes there is some
money available upfront to cover damages, but most of the time that is not
enough. Mr. Marshall said when the damages are done it is often difficult for
the landlord to collect on those damages. Ms. Lilleleht said that is one of
the problems that was addressed in the report. Mr. Marshall asked if there is
a problem in the County finding Section 8 housing for people. Ms. Lilleleht
replied, "yes'Q They have a problem finding landlords who will accept Section
8 tenants, partly because there are problems with some Section 8 tenants.
They have found that a lot of that has to do with education. In addition, it
is a lot easier for landlords to take students because those students do have
the money. Although they cannot force Section 8 tenants to take part in the
educational process, they can offer it and can guarantee landlords that it
will be offered. They are hoping that will bring in more landlords to the
program. The advantage is that the landlord is guaranteed to get that money
every month as long as that tenant is in that apartment.
000i02
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16) ~ ~ ~ i~ ~
Mr. Marshall asked if the landlord Could require a prospective section 8
tenant to go through the edUCatiOnal pr°g~ami~ Ms. Bonnie Davies, of the
Section 8 Housing Program, said she does not know that the landlord can make
that requirement, but he can refuse to accept them if they have not, as long
as he is consistent is applying that criteria across-the-board. Mr. Davis
said the landlord would have to be careful he is not being discriminatory.
Ms. Davies said since the people in the Section 8 Program are on low
income rental assistance, they are not required to put the money upfront and
the landlord has to make the appropriate repairs and then file a claim with
the office. Her office then processes the claim.
Mr. Martin commended the Committee on this report. He agrees with the
efforts of the Committee, but thinks most People who strongly want to be a
recipient of affordable housing would be better served by an increase in
opportunity to improve their income to afford the home. There are two sides
to this issue; one is making the home affordable and the other is increasing
income and wages. He thinks both of those issues need to be considered. The
County needs to look at an improved quality of income·
Ms. Lilleleht said the Committee actually discussed that and decided they
did not have the energy to deal with economic development as well as housing
and they could confine themselves to the specific side of housing. Everyone
on the Committee decided that income was one of the issues.
Mrs. Humphris said in her opinion education is the missing link in the
equation. She also thanked the Committee for an excellent report.
Mr. Perkins said he would like to see incorporated in this a change in
zoning which would allow housing where businesses are located. For example, a
business could be located on the first floor and housing on the top level.
When the business closes for the day the people would still be there which
then would cut down on the crime rate. Ms. Lilleleht agreed that is another
possibility.
Mr. Marshall said all of these enter into education and jobs.
Mrs. Thomas also commended the Housing Committee. She then offered
motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the Housing Action Plan and refer
it to the Planning Commission for further review and incorporation in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Request from Jefferson Area Board for Aging to help
fund construction of the Thomas Jefferson Adult Health Care Center.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said the Jefferson Area
Board for Aging (JABA) is requesting $100,000 to help them build a new
facility, the Thomas Jefferson Adult Healthcare Center, which will be located
on Hillsdale Drive in Albemarle County. This request is part of JABA's $2.0
million capital campaign to raise funds to purchase land and construct an
expanded facility for adult health care and other client and family services
provided by JABA.
Ms. White said in response to JABA's request, staff has considered the
following issues:
· The County has historically not been in a position to fund capital re-
quests from non-profit agencies. Funding this request would set a
precedent for other non-profit agencies.
· Most non-profit capital campaigns have gone to the community and
foundations for support, not to a public entity, i.e., SHE, Focus,
Salvation Army, AID's Support Group.
· In the County's role as a provider of operating costs for human service
agencies, the County is already supporting individuals using JABA's
Adult Day Care Center through scholarships. By supporting services,
rather than a building, the County can be assured that taxpayer dollars
are being used to assist those who cannot afford the services. Subsi-
dizing the total facility does not assure assistance to those most in
need.
· JABA's philosophy has been to advocate for more decentralized services,
or bringing services to the elderly at scattered sites, rather than
attempting to bring rural citizens into a central urban setting. This
type of center seems to fly in the face of this philosophy.
· The proposal states that the facility will be there for "residents of
retirement communities and members of the Senior Center in need of
physical, occupational or speech therapy". Is this facility to be used
March 1, 1995 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 17) ~ ~i i~ ~. ' ·
00o o
for current Albemarle cowry'reSidents or will it be used in lieu of
services that should be 'Offered atthe growing number of retirement
facilities coming into the comm%mity?
· Since the Center projects serving approximately 50 people annually, the
question arises on the substantial taxpayer investment for such a small
number of individuals.
· Many of the services, i.e., games, reading, crafts, television, seem
duplicative of the services offered by the Senior Center, another new
large facility only blocks away.
Ms. White said staff does not recommend that the County contribute
$100,000 to JABA's capital campaign for the reasons stated above. Rather,
staff recommends that the County's role continue to be one of targeting and
supporting specific programs for current County residents who cannot help
themselves and need taxpayer support.
Mr. Gordon Walker, Director of J~A, said he does not believe the issue is
whether the Adult Health Care Center serves Albemarle County residents well.
For seven years it has provided a safe, reliable alternative to more costly
nursing home care for many older persons, younger disabled adults and their
family caregivers. What needs to be discussed is why Albemarle County should
be a partner in the construction of this facility.
Mr. Walker said JABA is not just a nonprofit agency; it is a governmental
entity created by Albemarle County and other local governments. JABA takes
the mandate that was given to them ten years ago very seriously which is a
responsibility to bring to the Board's attention issues relating to an aging
community and to work to provide services in the community. Their capital
campaign is going to the community and foundations for 95 percent of its $2.0
million goal; the County is being asked for five percent. To date, they have
raised almost $750,000 of the $2.0 million goal. JABA believes County govern-
ment is part of the community, and an investment in the adult health care
center is an appropriate use of community/public tax dollars.
Mr. Walker said JABA is grateful for the program support from the County;
however, the best and most cost-effective use of program revenue is in a
building, fully able to maximize support from the County. They are not asking
for a subsidy of the total facility, they are requesting a partial subsidy,
thus allowing them to serve more persons with the greatest needs.
JABA has advocated for neighborhood programs; however when it comes to the
provision and affordability of adult health care, a county-wide center is
necessary. An analogy to this is a high school serving many small neighbor-
hood schools with specialized education because the cost of a high school in
every community is prohibitive. The new adult health center will attract a
private paying clientele from local retirement communities and the Senior
Center. This marketing of day care is appropriate andnecessary since persons
able to pay full fare are necessary to enable the center to provide care to
the economically disadvantaged and for the center to remain economically
viable. The Senior Center and other retirement communities do not offer adult
day health care services. To believe the residents of retirement communities
or members of the Senior Center cannot benefit significantly from adult day
health care (which will allow their ability to remain living at home) is a
failure to recognize and understand the different, yet complimentary, purposes
and operations of all these facilities.
The Center will serve far more than 50 persons. True, daily attendance
will be between 50 and 60; however more than 200 individuals will use the
Center annually. Further, this number does not include all the family
members, particularly working caregivers, who benefit from the Center's
services.
Mr. Walker said this may be somewhat precedent setting, but JABA is a
governmental entity, not just a private, non-profit organization coming to the
Board for support. He does not think JABA shOuld be held captive by the
history of past decisions made by the Board.
Mr. Tucker asked if JABA has been successful in obtaining funds from other
localities. Mr. Walker said Albemarle is the first locality and then he will
make a presentation to Charlottesville City Council.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would be the mechanics if the Board were willing
to fund some portion of this request. Mr. Tucker said the Board could
consider it now and make it a part of the next Capital. Improvements Program.
Mr. Martin asked about the statement to use Albemarle County's contribu-
tion to the capital campaign to leverage national foundation funding. He
asked if this is implying that money raised through fundraising activities
cannot be used for leverage. Mr. Walker said it can, but, as an example,
there is a large foundation they are asking $350,000 from and one of the
questions was what kind of support has JABA received from the local govern-
ments. It is a combination of both to leverage support. Mr. Martin asked if
Mr. Walker informed the foundation of the County's support in terms of opera-
tions and programs. Mr. Walker said that would be for operational support and
does not come into play for purposes of a foundation grant for a capital
campaign. Foundations are really looking for an investment.
000104
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Tucker said he thin~'it~'t~ '~ ~3~&'0f a PolicY issue It is not a
question of funding sUpp°~ Board wants %0 limit itself to
operational needs and funding for nonprofits or whether it Wants to Start
getting into capital issues.
Mr. Bowerman said JABA has asked him to be on the fundraising board to
raise this $2.0 million. He accepted it because he thought this was a
worthwhile project for the community. He knows that the current facility in
Charlottesville is inadequate and that JABA provides invaluable services to
many families and residents of the City and County. It seems to him that JABA
is a product of the City, County and outlying jurisdictions and that retire-
ment people are a basic industry. They bring money into the community from
retirement, they do not have children in the school system and they pay taxes.
They also pay for the education of other children in the community and the
elderly fund the capital costs of schools by their tax. payments. He does not
know whether it is that much of a precedent to support activities that support
not only seniors, but other adults. This also has a provision for health care
services for the elderly as part of the structure. It seems to him that if
this sets a precedent, it would be one that is beneficial to the community.
He also thinks the benefits from the invested funds is very large. He would
like to find a way to do this. He thinks it is to the benefit of the communi-
ty and he does not think this is a subsidy. He plans to try to raise funds
from the private and foundation sector in addition to this public support.
Mr. Marshall said he will abstain from participating in this conversation.
He provides a great deal of services to these people.
Mr Martin said this is a real tough decision for him. He is also on the
fundraising committee and plans to do what he can to try to help raise some
funds. His first inclination is to say that the Board should not get into the
business of capital funding for these types of agencies and that it remain
with programmatic support. He thinks there are a lot of issues to look at
here. He is undecided but inclined not to support the request.
Mrs. Humphris said she is unsure as to how the Board would distinguish
this capital need from other capital needs from other nonprofit organizations.
More meal site centers are being planned for outlying areas of the County and
the needy and elderly living in the rural areas would have difficult getting
access to this day care center on Hillsdale. This is an extremely worthy
project, but she is reluctant because this is new territory and she does not
know how the Board would be able to distinguish it from another request. She
thinks the County's money is well-used the way it is for the services and
programs that are being provided. She knows a lot of thought went into
staff's recommendation and she puts a lot of credence in that recommendation.
There were seven reasons for staff's recommendation and when Mr. Walker was
going through his presentation, she was able to change one of those reasons.
Everything else seemed to Stay the same.
Mr. Perkins said he feels compelled to go along with the staff's recommen-
dation.
Mrs. Thomas said she would have thought the assurance of scholarship
support in terms of this being a steady form of income to pay the capital and
operating costs was relevant to a fundraising effort. She asked why that was
rejected. Mr. Walker said supporting program costs does not get a building
built. When a foundation is looking to invest in bricks and mortar, they want
to see what type of investment the organization can get from the community.
JABA feels this request for support is appropriate for many reasons. His
feeling is that staff is not sufficiently educated about what is going on in
an adult health care facility, and how it differs from the Senior Center and
rural centers. JABA needs a new facility to be able to serve people in the
rural communities that have the needs required by adult health care. A new
facility will allow JABA to double the number of people it serves and provide
that level of care for individuals from the rural areas. JABA is a creature
of local government; they are not the regular private, nonprofit organization
coming to the Board. Twenty years ago this Board's predecessors made the
decision that they needed to have an organization that was an "arm" of local
government responsible for administering programs to senior citizens much in
the same way as schools. The Board needs to think about that from the
standpoint of the precedent setting issue.
Mr. Martin said he would like to hear more about how JABA is an arm of
local government. He does not question the need, but if the Shelter for Help
in Emergency (SHE) came before the Board and needed capital expenses for a
shelter, would the Board be willing to provide funds. It is an issue of how
the Board treats other agencies. Maybe if he had more information on how JABA
is a governmental entity and how JABA was set up. He feels that given the
majority of JABA's clientele, JABA has the capability of raising 100 percent
of its funding needs. He is more than willing to help JABA do that. He
thinks there are other agencies the Board works with which are much less
likely and capable of raising capital funds. He is not sure this Board should
be in the business of funding JABA's capital needs unless he hears from staff
on how JABA is more like the school system than one of the other agencies~
Mr. Tucker said he thinks if Mr. Martin's comments are important in
helping the Board to make a decision, staff would need to look at considering
JABA as an "arm" of local government. There are other agencies he thinks also
have the same belief. He thinks staff needs to address that almost from a
000 105
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) ...........
(page 19)
legal standpoint and what other organizations the Board has created as a
partner with other localities and hgw they differ. Are those other organiza-
tions created by the Board "arms" of local government? If that is the case,
he thinks the opportunity is there for those organizations to request similar
funding. Staff is just trying to indicate that this is something it has not
done before and it is an issue of capital funding.
Mrs. Thomas said she would appreciate that type of'analysis.
At this time Mr. Tucker suggested the Board defer this item until April 5,
to allow staff to provide an analysis of Gordon Walker's position that JABA is
an "arm" of local government; it is a governmental entity created by Albemarle
and other local governments. Staff also will analyze other organizations in
the same situation that could make the same argument. Board members con-
curred.
Mr. Martin asked how much funding is JABA expecting from local govern-
ments. Mr. Walker responded $250,000 based on the number of people being
served.
Agenda Item No. 18. Resolution to establish and join the Jefferson Area
Community Criminal Justice Board.
Mr. Tucker said community corrections for nonviolent offenders have been
handled through the Community Diversion Incentive Program and Offender Aid and
Restoration. Under legislation enacted in September, 1995, community correc-
tions are to be handled through a newly formed board, the Community Criminal
Justice Board (CCJB). Localities may choose to implement this locally or
regionally. In this area, CDI has operated regionally in the City of Char-
lottesville, the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa
and Nelson. Since this has worked well, it is proposed that the same locali-
ties participate in the new CCJB. Staff recommends approval of the proposed
resolution in which Albemarle County agrees to the following:
· join in creating a Community Criminal Justice Board;
· appoint members to serve on the board;
· participate in appointing other members to the board;
· request the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to provide
staff assistance; and
· continue the role of fiscal agent (County has provided such assistance
to OAR for several flow-thru grants).
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt a
resolution to establish and join the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice
Board.
Mrs. Humphris noted that one of the Supervisors would have to serve on
this board. Mr. David Pastors, of CDI, said when this resolution was devel-
oped they had not received complete information from the state legislature.
They have now found that the legislature has amended its original act to
recommend that the Board may appoint a member, the representative does not
have to be an actual member of the Board. Mr. Martin commented that he would
not mind serving on the Board.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A
REGION~%L COM/3JNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD
WHEREAS, the virginia General Assembly enacted the Community
Diversion Incentive Act of 1980 to establish community corrections
programs for nonviolent offenders in an effort to reduce prison
and jail overcrowding; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson Area Community Corrections Resources
Board was formed under the authority of the Code of Virqinia
Section 53.1-183 to establish community corrections programs for
nonviolent offenders in the localities of Albemarle, Charlottes-
ville, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa and Nelson; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly revised the Community
Diversion Incentive Act on September 30, 1994, and enacted the
Comprehensive Community Corrections Act which replaced the former
Community Corrections Resources Boards with the new Community
Criminal Justice Boards;'and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned communities continue to believe
that working together on community corrections is in the best
interest of the citizens of their jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has offered.to continue the
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
role of fiscal agent; and
W~R~AS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is
agreeable to staffing the Community Criminal Justice Board;
NOW, THeReFORE, BE IT R~SOLVED that the County of Albemarle
agrees to:
1. join in creating the Jefferson Area Community Criminal
Justice Board;
2. appoint members to serve on the Jefferson Area Community
Criminal Justice Board;
3. participate in appointing the remaining members as required
under the law;
4. request the Thomas Jefferson Planning District to provide
staff assistance; and
000 .06
5. continue the role of fiscal agent.
(At 1:03 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 1:13
p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 1Bb. Appeal: SDP-94-037. Blue Ridge HC Area Preliminary
Site Plan. Proposal to locate approx 48,200 sq ft of retail & service uses
supported by 257 parking spaces on 6.189 ac znd HC & EC. Properties, de-
scribed as TM56,Pl10,110A(pt)&109B, are located on S sd of Rt 250 approx 0.9
mi E of inters with Rts 635/240. White Hall Dist.
This item was appealed to the Board in the following letter dated Septem-
ber 7, 1994 addressed to Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development, from Donald J. Wagner, Great Eastern Management Company:
"This letter is addressed to you in your capacity as Agent of the
Board of Supervisors.
We hereby appeal to the Board of Supervisors the August 30, 1994
actions of the Planning Commission as related to the proposed Blue
Ridge HC area. On that date, by a three to two vote, the Commis-
sion denied our request for a waiver of Zoning Ordinance, 4.2,
Critical Slopes, and subsequently denied preliminary site plan
approval. We request Board approval of the waiver. Further, in-
as-much as rejection of the site plan was based solely on the fact
that the site plan assumed development on the slopes in question,
we request that the Board also grant preliminary site plan appro-
val.
Finally, even though we question the need, at the recommendation
of staff we requested a waiver to allow encroachment into the 20
foot buffer along the western property line to allow the planting
of screening vegetation. Planning Commission members clearly
indicated a consensus for approval of this waiver, but failed to
actually vote. We request Board approval of this waiver.
Our appeal is filed at this time in order to comply with the ten
day time limitation. We request, however, that its pursuit be
held in abeyance pending our collection of additional information,
including investigation of matters raised by members of the public
and the Commission during the public hearing. I will contact you
later this month to schedule the appeal hearing date."
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, summarized the basis of the
appeal. At the Commission meeting he was asked about the land area involved
in the critical slopes. Following the Commission meeting he realized the area
of critical slopes is approximately one-half acre (24,000 square feet). Mr.
Keeler summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office
and a part of the permanent record of the Board.
In response to a request from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Keeler summarized all
amendments made to the Zoning Ordinance since approval of a prior plan for
this property in August, 1989, to determine what affects those ordinance
changes had on the plan. In August, 1989, the prior plan was approved and
showed 74,800 square feet which involved a two-story type project with parking
underneath the building. In summary, the amendments to critical slopes and
the Scenic Highways District caused the project to be moved forward on the
site. With the prior plan there was some issues concerning nonconformity as
to the parking setback which was lost with the expiration of the prior plan.
Mr. Marshall felt some issues needed to be clarified prior to the public
speaking. He knows a lot of people do not want this development on Route 250,
but that is not the issue. The developer already has the zoning; the only
topic of discussion is the critical slope issue and how it affects the
watershed. Mr. Davis said the waiver issue is whether or not the waiver of
critical slopes should be granted and that involves several criteria in the
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
000:1.07
issues and other environmental issues. The second deCiSiOn is related to
approval of the site plan aPproVal and is only an issue if the BOard approves
the critical slopes. The site plan cannot otherwise be approved and that is
an issue of the Board determining whether all the Zoning Ordinance require-
ments are met by the site plan.
Mr. Perkins stated that the Board will not take action on this request
today. Mr. Bowerman asked if that was a consensus of the Board. Mr. Martin
said he was not part of a discussion as to whether action would be taken.
Mrs. Humphris said it was her understanding that a lot Of peOple could not
attend the meeting because of the time. As a courtesy, the Board was going to
continue public comments until the next night meeting. Mr. Martin said if the
Board is going to do that, he would rather defer the entire appeal until that
time. He does not support taking public comments today and then continuing
public comments at a night meeting. Mr. Perkins said he thinks everything
that needs to be said can be said today. He thinks the Board can get enough
public input today. Mr. Bowerman said he had not thought the Board had ruled
out acting on the appeal today.
Mr. Perkins then opened the appeal for comments. Mr. Charles Rotgin was
present to represent the applicants, Great Eastern Management Company, and
Preston Stallings, the property owner. The site is zoned Highway Commercial
and has carried that zoning since 1976. The proposed use and site plan is in
compliance with both the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Further, the plan is by-right with the exception of a technically required
waiver to allow them to plant trees and shrubs in a 20 foot buffer on the west
side of the property which is solely for the benefit of the neighboring
property owner and the modification needed to allow development on a man-made
fill slope of 25 percent or greater which separates the front one-third of the
property from the rear two-thirds. Staff has recommended approval of both the
waiver and the modification and that is what is before the Board. The
applicants are not seeking a waiver in the true sense of the word. According
to the Ordinance, they are seeking a modification, not a waiver.
Mr. Rotgin said using the Architectural Review Board and site plan process
they have an opportunity to make the use of this property better, to make it
nicer, more appealing to the eye and a true benefit to the entire community.
The plan before the Board is a preliminary site plan, not a final site plan.
At the Planning Commission public'hearing the opposition argued that a final
site plan should be required before any action taken. That is not consistent
with the County site plan process. The staff report includes a list of
recommendations, conditions of approval and most of those conditions are a
checklist of those things needed to complete a final site plan. They are in
agreement with staff's recommendations. At the Planning Commission meeting a
number of allegations were made concerning possible toxic materials buried on
the site. The applicants have examined the portfolio of photographs taken in
1989 and provided to the Board. Only a few of the photographs include
identifiable features which clearly show where they were taken, but most
appear to have been taken in and around the old borrow bit to the south of the
stream rather than in the area of the proPosed development. They have spoken
to Mr. George Durham, the former owner of the property, who is responsible for
creating the steep slopes, and he advises that the flat area along the highway
was created partly by cutting down some ridges but mostly by bringing in some
fill from the borrow pit. There is no evidence that the site was ever used as
alleged at the Commission meeting. There are some old dry wall compound
buckets and other trash which they suspect was thrown down the slope by
transient workers who at one time lived in the old motel. Cleaning up that
trash, which is not visible from the highway, is not the matter before the
Board, but if anyone has real concerns about dangerous materials, they should
Support the proposed project as it would clearly solve any problem rather than
make it worse. No lender is going to make a loan on that site if there is any
evidence of toxic material.
A final matter that is not before the Board, but was raised before the
Commission, is the effect the proposed project might have on other merchants.
Crozet is a designated growth area and growth is occurring. This plan
presents a significant opportunity for all merchants in the Crozet area. In
order to capitalize like all other successful business people, the merchants
have only to modernize their physical plants and offer good service and good
products at competitive prices. In this society it is not the function of
government to give the business owners in the Crozet area a monopoly. The
significant matter which is before the Board is granting permission to cover
an existing man-made 25 percent slope. Given that permission, they anticipate
that a waiver to allow the additional screen planting on the west side of the
site and approval of the site plan would be perfunctory. Mr. Rotgin empha-
sized that the request for the steep slope modification reflects a condition
almost always present in commercial development in the County and is entirely
in line with what the Board and Commission have granted in similar situations.
In fact, a site plan for this property was previously approved withOut any
requirement for a modification as has been the case with many other sites.
Since the County maintains no list indicating which site plans involve
development on 25 percent slopes, they spent several days in the Planning
office conducting a detailed examination of about 40 site plans dating back to
1988. The Board has a copy of the list prepared of 26 sites all of which
involve development on slopes of greater than 25 percent. From the research
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22) ....... ~
that produced this list.and om C personnel, they believe this
private sector engineering ~lrms' y
modification request is the only request for a modification to allow develop-
ment on slopes of 25 percent or more on property zoned for commercial develop-
ment that has ever been denied. It is clear from this list that at the time
the applicant's prior site plan was approved, County policy was that no
modification was required to allow development on man-made slopes within
commercially zoned property. That was certainly the understanding within the
development community. It is also clear from review of the site plan files
and from general knowledge of currently undeveloped land that commercial
development on slopes of 25 percent or more has been and will continue to be
the rule rather than the exception in the rolling terrain of Albemarle County.
The Planning staff supports the waiver. The Engineering staff supports
the waiver and in a two page memorandum addresses five issues of concern in
waiver or modification requests and concludes that all of these have been
adequately addressed. The Zoning Ordinance requirements for steep slopes were
not written with the intent of prohibiting development. This opinion is
supported both by the recollection of past and present County staff personnel
who were involved in the drafting of the Ordinance and by the wording of the
ordinance. The intent of the Ordinance is to bring extra attention to bear on
projects which have the potential for causing increased erosion and the
trigger is the preexisting slopes of 25 percent or greater Modifications are
available specifically because the existence of such slopes does not automati-
cally mean that there will be a problem. In this case the slopes are to be
eliminated. For all of the above reasons, the applicants believe the action
by the Planning Commission to deny the request for a steep slope modification
on a very narrow 3:2 vote, with two members absent, was arbitrary, inappropri-
ate and inconsistent with longstanding County policy. They, therefore, appeal
that decision to the Board.
The staff also recommended approval of the preliminary site plan subject
to a number of conditions. All of the conditions are normal requirements that
they would have to satisfy as they proceed through the development process
~hether or not they are listed as conditions of preliminary site plan approval
and they have no objections to any of them. He will be glad to respond to any
questions by Board members and requests favorable action by the Board.
Mrs. Humphris asked if any of the site plans, shown on the list proposing
development on slopes equal or greater than 25 percent, are located in the
watershed. Mr. Rotgin said he does not know, but there is not much property
in the watershed zoned commercial. Mrs. Humphris said she did not find that
any of the properties cited are in the watershed and that is a matter to
consider.
Mr. Heinz Adam asked why is the area so critical to the development of the
project, if it is only one-half acre. Mr. Rotgin said two-thirds of the
property is behind the critical slope, therefore only one-third of the
property is usable. The one-third that is usable does not have enough depth
to make it usable for anything other than a strip commercial development which
is something to be avoided along highways. The steep slopes have never been
an issue until now; they were not an issue in the past.
Ms. Ellen Waff, a resident of Route 250 West, said she is an adjacent
property owner. She has no ties to the applicant or developer, but has a
great concern over a great disservice to other County citizens. The adminis-
trative directive to downgrade the scenic highway status of Route 250 West to
that of a scenic byway was approved jointly by the Commission and Board. She
is not sure exactly when it occurred, but knows that it did. She does not
believe that the checklist guide line measure of the ARB replaces in spirit or
intent the scenic highway designation. This completely negates the efforts of
the civic minded persons who sought and got scenic highway status for Route
250 West. This request is before the Board because of that action. The
residents, in cooperation with many other organizations, have met with
agencies and boards for the last six years and successfully negated this same
plan. If it were not for these continued and persistent efforts of many
others, they may have long ago lost hope. The residents believe a shopping
center violates the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which serves to maintain
downtown Crozet as a viable community of merchants, many of whom are owner
operated businesses. There are no businesses in Crozet that are so busy that
customers are turned away. The IGA, Crozet Foods, Videos Etc., the bank and
post office easily serve their customers. There are hardly any lines or
delays even though there have been two housing developments built in Crozet
within the past two and one-half years. Plans are underway for a small scale
shopping plaza near Windham.
She wonders why the Board is still considering this request. It was
defeated by the Commission in August, ].994, but it is appearing here in the
middle of the day as an appeal. This site simply does not readily lend itself
to a project of this type or scope. It still requires modifications or
waivers; it still seeks more than it is allowed. She asked that the plan be
rejected and that in the future, the developer attempt a project entirely
within the boundaries permitted by County regulations, no waivers, no modifi-
cations.
Mr. Kenneth Thompson said he is most directly affected by this develop-
ment. It seems to him the issue the Board needs to address is the threat of
the survival of an integral community. A wide range of ethnic groups and
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting
(Page 23) · ' ....... ~ ....
000109
people live, shop and Work together in CrOzet. This development would have an
enormous affect on the quality of life and the community to deal with a
succession of issues. The people shoP in Crozet, because it reminds them of
life within a community where people have mutual respect and he thinks to lose
that would be an enormous loss. The second threat is that of another Route
29. This decision not only affectS'~'~PPing Center or change in the
community, but a chain of events that can spread all over affecting the
character of the community. A third threat is the threat to the community
having to do with a preponderance of household wells, traffic in the area,
decimation of one of the great advantages of living in this community. He
asked the Board to examine the refuse piles that exist on the property. The
Board needs to take into account the effect favorable action might have to
people with property and resources who have been pUshing this issue for a
number of years.
Ms. JoAnne Stanley said in 1979 she was a member of the community group
that helped to give suggestions for the Comprehensive Plan. At that time,
they considered this property and the property across the road. They asked
that the property be grandfathered because of the uses on the property which
were before the critical slopes. She also lives downstream; Mechum River runs
through her property. She is concerned about the type of business, particu-
larly the grocery store that is going onto the property. They have already
found debris floating on the river that seems to have come from Blue Ridge
Supply. A business that has so much turnover of cardboard and other items
could be a problem.
Mr. Joseph Harding, an adjacent property owner immediately west and
contiguous with this property, said his driveway runs parallel with the
borderline and is buffered to the west, off set by no more than one dozen
feet. When he purchased this property in 1987 Golas was there and the motel
was not viable although occupied to a certain extent..He looked at 1000'
running feet on Route 250 for the highway commercial project vs. 400 feet for
himself of which only 180 feet is usable because of the terrain. He did not
envision a plan appearing in the present format which compels the deceleration
lane to use all of his road frontage. If this plan goes forth as presented,
he not only will have to cross a three lane road but an extra 12 feet of
pavement in the deceleration lane. With two young school aged children each
of which have to board a bus that factor Should preclude this schematic from
being approved. It seems to him it would be better if this plan was down-
sized, that an entrance way come much closer from Blue Ridge Building Supply
as opposed to him being sealed off and pushing the entire highway entrance
corridor up onto his property. The only access that he has to his property
which has 400 feet in the rear and 400 feet in the front is the 180 foot
section. It leaves little room for any alteration on his part. He has no
option to get off his property except where it is currently and that is a
problem. He does not deny the applicant's by-right use, but he believes he is
adversely impacted unfairly.
Mr. Rob Langdon said he has lived in this area since 1967. He submitted
the photographs and is concerned about the toxic waste buried on the property.
He has also requested a representative from the District Attorney's office to
come by and verify his statements. He knows about the businesses that were on
the property prior to Blue Ridge Builders Supply and he knows about the
mountains of garbage they created and what happened to that garbage.
Mr. Thomas Loach, a Crozet resident, said the Crozet Community Study,
recently approved by .the Commission and Board, is this community's attempt to
prevent Crozet from falling to the fate of development~ The rural character
of this town should be protected. The heart of Crozet is the downtown and is
why the community spent a considerable amount of time and effort in working on
how to preserve and improve it. He quoted objectives from the Study regarding
the uniqueness of the downtown area and how to strengthen the downtown as a
shopping area by encouraging all new commercial uses to locate downtown as
opposed to Route 250. To him this is a matter of proportionality. The
downtown area of Crozet is more than just a commercial place; it meets the
social needs of the citizens. In his opinion, the proposed project is too
large, it threatens the social fabric of the community and should be rejected.
Mr. Sanford Wilcox said he has lived in western Albemarle for 35 years.
He is concerned about critical slopes, threat to water resources, degradation
of the scenic highway and the ~amage that a commercial project of this scale
on Route 250 does to the cohesive development of this designated growth area.
He is not anti-growth but he is opposed to development which undermines the
carefully prepared Comprehensive Plan for Crozet. Through Board and Commis-
sion efforts a Blue Ribbon Committee was formed to develop a sound plan for
the development of this growth area. The number one objective was to enhance
the development of community scales in the downtown business district. This
proposed project flies in the face of that plan. It is not in the central
business district and it is not village scale. One of the proposed tenants is
a grocery store which is seven times the size of the Crozet food store. The
applicant has retained the right to develop the property, but without a
modification the development would not be able to expand beyond the portion of
the property that was used commercially. Granting the waiver permits an
expansion beyond comm~lity scale. Within the village scale of a development
it would minimize the damage of the business community, fiber in the community
plan. They have an opportunity to avoid the undesirable aspects of growth
which are evident along Route 29. This project, if permitted in the scale
proposed, would be the equivalent of the K-mart project of the early 1960's as
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001"~10
(Page 24)
far as accelerating strip development pre: and transportation headaches.
As a parent of small children, he sees an obvious parallel with the developers
plea to be granted a waiver because other waivers have been granted. The
developer will use all possible arguments to get his goal. He will refuse to
acknowledge that a request at a different time, different place and different
circumstances is different and carries no obligation. If the Board allows
this scale of development, it would undermine the development of Crozet.
Crozet is a vibrant secondary growth area in the county. He asked the Board
to reject the waiver appeal and require a smaller site plan.
Mr. John Marston, a life long resident of western Albemarle, said this
area has always had slopes. This property is also in the watershed. Communi-
ty planning calls for growth in downtown Crozet. He asked all the persons
present who had any interest in the project to stand (approximately 35 people
stood).
Ms. Rae Ely said the County's Ordinance regarding critical slopes have
been 18 years in the making. She does not think it is good policy for an
applicant to argue that an Ordinance applies only to residential applications
and not to commercial uses. Secondly, these 26 sites referenced by the
applicant evolved over an 18 year period, but most importantly none of those
26 sites involve a designated growth area in a watershed area. This is a
unique application and makes it important because it is a precedent. One of
the subtle references in the application is the threat'of confiscation; if the
Board does not go along with what the applicant wants, it is confiscating the
property. There is no confiscation here. This is a two-part, double-sided
argument. If this request was truly by-right, they would not be here making
this request. In fact, they do not have a by-right ability to do what they
plan. They are coming to the Board and basically asking for a rezoning. They
are asking the Board to enhance the value of their property. The Ordinance
dealing with critical slopes is there for a reason. The Board is being asked
to double the value of their property, give them rights they do not have and
rezone the property.
In her opinion, the real legal issue here is whether the Board would be
denying the applicant any reasonable use of his property; the answer is "no".
The Comprehensive Plan provided this area would be used for neighborhood
services; it is available for neighborhood services. There could be smaller
services, stores, shops, etc. This is completely out of scale. This is a
magnet that will draw population away from other established areas. Crozet is
a community struggling for survival in the County. This is not a neighborhood
service and the applicant has other uses for this property. There will be
strip development on this property no matter what is done; the issue is depth.
This project does not fit on the site. On behalf of the landowners, she asked
that the Commission's actions be upheld and the Board deny the appeal.
Mr. Rotgin again addressed the Board. He said there are some people
present in support of the application. He still believes the allegations of
toxic materials are unfounded. A part of this development would be the
construction of a runoff control basin which will serve the new development,
the entire adjacent area, Blue Ridge Building Supply and up to 20 acres across
Route 250 that is in the growth area, but does not drain into the Lickinghole
Creek impoundment. One of the conditions of site plan approval would be a
recorded stormwater management Best Management Practices (BMP) facilities
maintenance agreement thus ensuring significant long term improvement in
protection of both public and private water supplies. The design of a runoff
control basin is properly a part of the final site plan process, but because
of the concern about this issue they had previously commissioned the engineer-
lng design of such a basin. That design has been reviewed by County staff.
This development offers an opportunity to construct a basin which will result
in considerably fewer suspended solids and less phosphorous reaching the
reservoir in the future than is reaching the reservoir today. To the extent
that protection of the watershed is important this is a unique opportunity for
the Board to improve on an existing situation.
They do not share Mr. Harding's concern about the deceleration lane posing
a hazard, but in sympathy to his concern they would like to go on record with
their previous offer to him that they are willing to pave an extra private
deceleration lane providing an opportunity for traffic entering his driveway
from the west to slip out of the deceleration lane, which VDoT will require
them to build. This additional lane will include a paved turn into his
existing gravel driveway. The Comprehensive Plan states that convenient
shopping should be provided for residents which is what they propose to do.
When the applicants last did a marketing profile several years ago, it was
their estimate that the western Albemarle residents were spending as much as
$5.0 million in grocery store shopping in Waynesboro with additional spending
split between Charlottesville and Albemarle County. The Blue Ridge HC area
will provide residents of western Albemarle with a modern grocery store and
potentially a bank, restaurant and two or three other small service-type
tenants. This is a small shopping area. For comparison it will only be about
two-thirds as large as the east wing of the Pantops Shopping Center and barely
as large the north wing of Seminole Square Shopping Center which includes
Rainbow Bay Crafts. It is a very small area. The businesses will provide the
County with increased jobs, perhaps 75 to !00; it will provide the County with
significant sales, personal property and business license tax revenues which
are currently going to other localities. In addition from an environmental
standpoint, western Albemarle residents will now be able to do their shopping
with a four to six mile round trip as opposed to the existing 26 mile round-
000111
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25) ............................ ~
trip to either Waynesboro or Cha~:6~:~*~'thereby providing a significant
benefit to air quality. The current K-mart is about five times the size of
what they are proposing.
Another speaker indicated that this Ordinance had been on the books for 18
years; the site plans they reviewed were only from 1988. The argument
regarding Route 250 becoming a Route 29 North is spurious. This is the only
site zoned commercial and large enough to accommodate even a small scale
modern grocery store between the top of Afton Mountain and the Charlottesville
city limits. There is no question that Crozet is going to have some growth.
Downtown Crozet is just not sufficient in size to service all the anticipated
growth. All these arguments are side issues. The real issue before the Board
is whether or not the applicant is entitled to a modification for development
on steep slopes. To reiterate, since 1988 the Planning Commission and Board,
either passively or by specific action, have granted at least 25 modifications
for development on slopes defined in the Ordinance as critical. Research
indicates that the Blue Ridge HC area is the only modification that has ever
been denied when such a modification was needed for development of a site
already zoned for commercial use.
In conclusion, this is their first appeal in 25 years of business and they
have not taken it lightly. They have attempted to present their position in
detail to insure that each Board member understand both the letter and intent
of the Ordinance as it relates to steep sloPes and to enable the Board to
weigh these facts against the concentrated, but what the applicant feels are
inappropriate arguments presented by those opposing the plan. He thinks it is
evident that the opposition wants nothing on this property in spite of its
long time commercial zoning. He is satisfied that the supporters of this
shopping center far out number those who oppose it by at least 6:1. The
opposition is just arguing because neither the facts nor the law is on their
side. In reviewing the appeal today it is critical that the Board focus on
the issue presented. The Board decided many years ago that this property
should be zoned highway commercial. This being the case the zoning exists to
permit all of the uses they propose. There is no need for a rezoning, special
use permit or any other legislative action. Likewise, with one significant
exception, the plan of development complies in all respects with both the
letter and spirit of the Ordinance. The single exception is that because of a
peculiar shape and topography of the property it is necessary to reshape a
certain man-made slope which bisects the property in order that it can be made
usable. Since portions of this slOpe are in excess of 25 percent in grade,
they are required by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to devote special care
to insuring that the steep slope will not cause problems. The Zoning Ordi-
nance was never intended to and does not prohibit development on slopes in
excess of 25 percent. On the contrary, as by the staff's support, provided
care is taken to insure that as a result of the development there will be no
damage to the environment by five problems: rapid and/or large scale movement
of soil and rock; excessive stormwater runoff; siltation of natural and
manmade bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and travel of septic
effluent. It is unmistakable that while there may be some risk due to
existing conditions virtually all of that risk will be eliminated by the
developmentthey propose. Again, this is recognized by the Planning and
Engineering staffs. The existing slope can hardly be called an aesthetic
asset and cannot possibly result in loss to the public. With the availability
of public sewer, the final consideration may not even apply to this develop-
ment. Thus the alternatives they propose satisfy the purpose of the Ordinance
as well as avoiding the 25 percent slopes. In fact, disallowing the develop-
ment will not further the purposes of the Ordinance or otherwise serve the
public interest. On the other-hand if the modification is not approved as
evidenced by the September, 1994 memorandum, the site will be rendered
practically unusable and will have a limited value relative to the County's
own assessed value on which the owner has been paying taxes for 20 years.
Mr. Rotgin said because of the peculiar shape and topography of the
property, if the steep slopes cannot be incorporated into the development,
only a narrow strip with a minimum width in some places of only about 160 feet
could be used. A small amount of property at the back could be used for
storage only by the existing Blue Ridge Builders SupplY business. At best
this could only be developed as strip commercial, a type of development
condemned by the highway commercial district's statement of intent and good
planning. Further, this alternative is not available as a practical matter.
The applicants market studies have made it plain that there is no demand in
western Albemarle for 160 foot strip of commercial property at almost $270,000
an acre. Denying the modification will unreasonably restrict and will
effectively prohibit economic use of the property. For all these reasons the
plain language of the Ordinance is satisfied and the applicants believe they
are entitled to have the modification granted and the preliminary site plan
approved. He will respond favorable to any questions by Board members.
-- At this time the Board adjourned into Executive Session.
Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 2:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas,
to adjourn into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of
Virginia regarding two matters %~der Subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding two specific legal matters concerning an agreement
and regarding a land use issue.
March 1, 1995 (Regular Da~ Meet~ng) ~;.~. O0~OI~.~
(Page 26) ~
Roll was called and the moti°n carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, M~rtin~"perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. Marshall announced that he was ill and would be leaving to go home at
this time.)
Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Executive Session.
At 4:13 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bowerman that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board members' knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted
from the open meeting reqUirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard,
discussed or considered iii the executive session. Mrs. Humphris seconded the
motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
At this time the Board went back to Item 18b.
Mr. Perkins asked what was the pleasure of the Board; whether it wanted to
continue the discussions and defer action until a night meeting.
Mrs. Thomas said she was under the impression that there were some people
from the public who could not be here today were expecting the Board to
continue the discussions until its next meeting. She is willing to continue
the discussions at another meeting.
Mr. Martin said he is willing to go either way, but he thinks the Board
has heard from the public, read the written material and heard from the County
Attorney in executive session. He is capable of making a decision, but he
does not mind postponing. He does not support postponing the discussions for
further public comments, the postponement would be for the Board's discussion
and vote only.
Mr. Bowerman said he could do either but he would rather deal with the
issue now. The issues are fresh in his mind. He has listened to the public,
the applicant and the County Attorney and he cannot see that any new informa-
tion will come forward between now and the next time the Board meets. There
seems to have been a good representation of the people present. He does not
know what would be gained by putting off a decision.
Mr. Perkins said if it had been a night meeting there would have been a
few more people present. He thinks the Board has enough information to act on
the reqUest. The information is fresh in his mind and he thinks the people
waiting would probably rather know an answer today. If it is the Board's
pleasure they can proceed and discuss the issue. The consensus of the Board
was to continue the discussions.
Mr. Perkins said he is sympathetic with people who have expressed what
this development might do to the Crozet area and the downtown area. He thinks
the development will have an impact, but there are a lot of issues that were
brought out that are not pertinent. He thinks there are certain things the
developer can do on the site without this waiver. It is still an economically
viable piece of property. There was once an active restaurant that the people
in the community frequented. He thinks the extent of the site proposed by the
developer is a little overbearing on the environment. He will vote to uphold
the decision of the Planning Commission based on the environmental impact.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes in the Crozet Community Plan and would like
to see it developed with a strong retail downtown area to provide a sense of
community and accomplish the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan. He is
taking a narrow view of the issue in terms of the fact that this is not a
legislative matter. This is an administrative matter; one that deals with a
waiver of the Ordinance. The intent of the waiver on the 25 percent slOpes is
to protect the environment. Since the Engineering Dep~rtment concurred that
25 percent slopes can be built on without damaging thD environment, it seems
an appropriate action to grant the waiver. He supports granting the waiver
because he thinks the applicant has demonstrated that the waiver is applica-
ble.
Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Bowerman. In his opinion the issue before the
Board is the waiver. The Ordinance is written in such a way that the Board
should grant a waiver if certain criteria is met. It seems to him that the
Board would need to come up with a legitimate and defensible reason to not
grant the modification. In looking at the issue of the storm basin being in
the watershed and this possibly being one of the first applications of this
nature for commercial use, it could set a precedent, but the problem with that
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27) ~.~'~?~
is if the modification is not granted, by-right the applicant could do things
that would also require the basin. Even though he sympathize with the issue
that this will create change and it will play a role on downtown Crozet, the
Board needs to have a legal reason to deny the modification. He does not see
that legal reason to deny, therefore, he supports the modification and would
over rule the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks all the Board members have a great deal of
sympathy for the people of Crozet given all they have done to protect and
create in Crozet. However, the situation before the Board is the issue of
critical slopes. The issue here is the protection of the reservoir, the
watershed and the watersupply and it seems to her the best way to do that is
to grant the waiver. She thinks it is unfortunate if that might do damage to
Crozet, but she does not think there is an answer to this problem that will
make the citizens happy. If the Board votes to grant the waiver, she would
like a condition that would require testing for contaminated soil, a require-
ment for removal of that soil if it is found to be contaminated, attention
given to the fence for the wall across the back, Planning Commission review of
the site plan and review by the ARB. She feels this situation is beyond the
Board's ability to control.
Mr. Davis said since the Commission has recommended denial of the prelimi-
nary site plan, the Board needs to ask the Commission to reconsider that
denial and take up the site plan again in lieu of the action taken by the
Board on the modification.
Mrs. Humphris added that the Board should also require the Commission to
require a landscaping plan.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
waive the requirements of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, of the Zoning Ordi-
nance subject to the followin~ conditions:
1. Tests be conducted of the critical areas to determine if the area
contains hazardous or solid wastes;
2. Such tests shall be to specifications determined by the County Engi-
neer;
3. If a determination is made by the County Engineer that removal of such
wastes are a benefit to the environment, then such wastes shall be
removed;
4. Such test shall be completed prior to Planning Commission review of the
preliminary site plan.
Mrs. Thomas said the real concerns about what this does to the community
are not issues that can be handled by the Board. She has concerns about the
materials that are in the manmade slope and she thinks the motion will make
sure they are not dangerous materials. She is also concerned about privately
maintained retention ponds in the watershed, but the County may be facing one
of those with whatever happens on the site. She does not think a tall
retaining wall looming over a stream is any better than the current situation,
but it meets the intent of the Ordinance. She thinks the Board is in a
situation where it has to grant the waiver.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
~ot~on was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to request
the Planning Commission to reconsider the preliminary site plan.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to waive
the requirements of Section 21.7.3 (to allow encroachment in 20 foot buffer
along western property line) with the condition that a landscaping plan be
approved prior to final site plan approval.
Roll was called and the motion Carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs.. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28) ~'.~i
Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion: Economic Development Policy and Public-
Private Regional Economic'Devel'°~merit ~artnership.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has n° additional information regarding the
Partnership. Regarding the policy, staff incorporated within the text of the
Goals, Objectives and Strategies two changes mentioned earlier by the Board.
Staff reviewed its notes and the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting
concerning Objective 4, Strategy 1, in reference to fiscal impact, and they
have confirmed that the language the Board originally received was correct.
Staff recommends the Board approve the Economic Development Policy.
Mrs. Humphris questioned the need for inclusion of the following statement
in the Economic Development Policy, listed on page 7, second paragraph, in the
Introduction section: "Possible increases in the minimum wage nationally
would benefit those who continue to work in the minimum wage positions." The
statement seems to go astray from the County's policy.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the
Economic Development Policy, as revised, which is intended to be included in
the Comprehensive Plan when it is revised.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission did not specifically discuss
the Public-Private Partnership. The only reference to the regional aspect is
covered under Objective III, Strategy 1, in the policy which references
cooperation through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission with
other jurisdictions in the region.
Mr. Perkins said there were some discussions after the public hearing that
maybe there needed to be some changes in the makeup of the Partnership. He
does not know what all those changes should be. Me has personally been
receiving a lot of phone calls and mail urging the Board to not join the
Partnership. The feeling is that Albemarle County does not need this. Me
cannot disagree with that, but he does not think that is the whole purpose of
the Partnership.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been fairly outspoken on this issue from the
beginning. She has carefully analyzed the pros and cons on the Partnership
and in doing so discovered that there are a lot of pertinent facts that deal
with the issue and there are a lot of questions that need to be asked. The
thoughts that are pointed out in the County's Economic Development Policy
document are many, but the pertinent ones are that since 1980 the County's
population has grown by over 25 percent, about 1200 new residents every year.
Since 1980 the County's tax base has grown by over 71 percent, about $700
million. Yet unemployment in Albemarle is now 2.7 percent and the average
unemployment rate since 1980 has been just under three and one-half percent.
The median family income is currently under $50,000 having grown by over 14
percent since 1990. People across the country envy Albemarle County. This
record of economic development has been achieved without having spent one
single dime of taxpayers' money. This growth has some negative effects which
we know to be increased taxes, a decreased quality of life in the form of
overcrowded roads and schools, and significant encroachments on our rural
areas. As she was going through all the material she has collected, she asked
these questions:
1) What problems have we identified in Albemarle County that membership
in the Regional Economic Development Policy (REDP) would be effective in
solving? She could find no problems that she thought REDP could solve. Some
people believe that the elusive concept of underemployment might be helped
through this partnership, but because we have learned that this concept is an
individual matter, it is extremely difficult to quantify and she does not
think REDP has provided any solutions to it.
2) }{ow do the purposes and process of the REDP relate to the policies and
processes of Albemarle County government? She finds that they are at cross
purposes as related to growth management, resource protection and sustainabil-
ity as far as being open totally to public scrutiny as these meetings are and
to accountability.
3) What benefits would the County derive from becoming a member? She
finds that there are no real benefits from membership that we cannot provide
for ourselves on our own.
4) Would membership be consistent with the goals of our Comprehensive
Plan? They do not seem to be because in order to do what REDP wants to do, we
would have to promote growth and market the County and that flies in the face
of everything that the County's Comprehensive Plan supports.
5) Would REDP cause growth to occur in Albemarle County beyond our normal
growth rate? She believes that it would. The citizens have told us clearly
through the ballot box and elections to the Board, well-attended visioning
forums, a major survey, input from neighborhood groups, letters, telephone
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Mee~i~g)~ 000~.~
(Page 29)
calls and public hearings that they value job opportunities and a strong
economy. They do not want the BOard to promote growth or put at risk the
County's ability to manage its own growth. They want to maintain or minimize
our normal growth rate, certainly not increase it. They do not want to give
up any of the County's quality of life.
6) Would membership in the REDP increase the existing burdens on local
taxpayers without providing them with identifiable, predictable and signifi-
cant benefits? Her answer to that is "yes"; the burdens would be increased.
7) What happens if Albemarle County does not join the Partnership? The
County continues to do its long range planning for growth and it continues to
play catchup as is being done with the pressures for capital needs and
services that the current growth rate is bringing.
8) Can we "expand" our tax base or can we. have a more "balanced" tax base
if we join this Partnership? Given our historically low unemployment rate any
promotional activities which succeed in bringing more businesses and industry
to Albemarle County are certainly going to out of necessity be in a growth
spurt that is beyond the normal growth rate in which we are already trying to
play catchup. This means that the residential tax base and the requirements
for services from residents are always going to continue to outstrip that in-
creased tax base provided by the new business and industry. The idea of
expanding the tax base and having a balanced tax base are myths which cannot
be realized in circumstances such as ours. Promoting growth to achieve them
will increase taxes for everyone. The members of this Board have asked over
and over again if anybody knows of any community comparable to Albemarle
County which has followed that myth of expanding the tax base and balancing
the tax without experiencing higher taxes as a result of that thinking. We
have never had a positive answer to that from anyone to this point.
The Board knows that currently there are approximately 5.0 million square
feet of land zoned for office, retail and light manufacturing in Albemarle,
and much of it is being actively promoted for development by sophisticated
developers with substantial financial resources. Albemarle County taxpayers
do not need to subsidize these private development efforts through a regional
promotional program. While regional cooperation does sound warm and fuzzy
this partnership program does not appear to compute and this Board has heard
her go through those reasons before. In order for a program of regional
economic development to work to the advantage of the entire region as its
reported intent, it would have to work to the detriment of Albemarle. Albe-
marle tax dollars would be spent promoting development in other localities so
their tax base would grow because our tax base is already sound. In order to
help the whole region Albemarle would likely absorb the costly residential
growth paying for additional schools and services while businesses generating
positive revenues would be encouraged to locate elsewhere. This would be a
likely scenario based on past experience because of the high quality of life
in Albemarle County.
Another major point is that she truly does not believe that any elected
official can justify the expenditure of Albemarle County taxpayer funds on
such a partnership. The promotion of regional economic development may make
sense for the special interests who are pushing this idea, but it violates the
proven and more limited role for government which has always worked so well
for Albemarle. The proper role for local government in insuring the right
kind of economic development is to provide a stable and attractive environment
which businesses find desirable and that is what we have been doing for many
years. It should provide careful, dependable long range planning which should
apply zoning laws fairly, rationally and consistently. She believes that
would be compromised if the County belonged to the partnership. The County
should provide efficient services and especially provide its citizens with an
excellent education system and marketable job skills. Local government must
fairly weigh and measure the wishes and needs of everyone in the community,
many of whom will not benefit from the promotion of growth and many of whom
will be hurt by growth. It is simply not the proper role of government to use
taxpayer dollars to promote one group's private interest at the expense of
others. What may benefit certain private interests can put a triple whammy on
County taxpayers. Active promotion of economic development means additional
pressures on the availability of affordable housing; it means higher taxes to
pay for new schools and increased services for all the new residents who will
come to fill new jobs and additional taxes to staff the new partnership whose
duties will include traveling, wining and dining new prospects and will not be
accountable to County taxpayers. In response to the specific purposes of the
REDP:
1) A clearinghouse for economic development and to gather and disseminate
information - data of all kind about our available workforce, available sites,
etc., that business and industry in search of a home might need or want. The
County certainly needs to provide that information, but it does not need
another organization to do it.
2) To foster an internal climate for economic development region-wide.
She is not sure what that really means. Maybe it means getting control of
boards of supervisors.
3) To market the region. There is absolutely no question that County
citizens have said emphatically no to marketing the region.
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~6
(Page 30 )
4) To nurture the growth of .~x~sting~ businesses. She hopes that we are
doing that in the care we take on this Board in providing a good educational
system, good public and human services and carefully preserving our fiscal and
natural resources.
5) To recruit. Absolutely not.
6) To cooperate with other counties. She certainly hopes Albemarle is
doing that and if there is more we need to do we need to find out about it.
7) To support creation of better and more diversified jobs and higher
wages for the existing workforce. Of course Albemarle County does this for
jobs for all of its citizens but it does not benefit from growth. Education,
training and the careful stewardship of County resources are the key to a
sustainable growth rate and achieving this goal of the creation of better and
more diversified jobs and higher wages for the existing workforce. Growth in
the region may benefit those who want to use tax dollars in their promotional
efforts. This is precisely why those people and not our taxpayers should pay
for that promotion.
Albemarle County should continue its sure and steady course of sound
planning and fiscal conservatism and leave the promoting to those who would be
direct beneficiaries of such activities. The Board has been told again and
again that it should be at the table where the decisions will be made that
will affect Albemarle County's future. She submits that Board members will be
at that table because they were elected to be there and this is that table.
Mrs. Humphris then referred to the County's Economic Development Policy
which states "the purpose of this Economic Development Policy is, first and
foremost to provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living,
improved job opportunities and competitive wages, and workforce development
opportunities, rather than to seek to stimulate further population growth. We
do not seek growth or to add new population, but accept that more people will
move to our community and that jobs, goods and services will be needed to meet
their needs. Accordingly, we will designate sites to address further growth
needs in ways that will not detract from, but will add to strengths of our
community. We will provide information about those sites to those who request
it and attempt to answer all questions promptly and directly." She thinks
that says it all in the way the County's Economic Development pOlicy should be
applied to the proposed regional economic development partnership.
Mr. Martin said he remembers three years ago when it was proposed that the
Board have something in its Economic Development Policy in the Comprehensive
Plan other than the one statement. Those who were making that proposal were
laughed at and told they were trying to promote growth. He was told he was in
"the hands of the developers," etc. At that time, he felt the guiding issue
was based on the part of the report which states that the Charlottesville area
is consistently ranked at or near the bottom of every region in state housing
affordability index. He thinks the end result of the County's Economic
Development Plan is something that we can all be proud of because it does
compromise by taking into consideration what is important to us, our water
resources, the natural history, our beauty and that job diversification is
something that we desire.
There are things about the REDP that he does not like. There are all
kinds of possibilities. He thinks Mrs. Humphris did a good job of outlining
some of the negative possibilities of this group. He has thought about this
Partnership at length. He realizes that a lot of the issues she raised and
concerns of other people he has talked to are a result of the advertisement
placed in the newspapers by the Southwest Mountain Coalition. He did explain
to people that if their worst fears about the REDP are true, would they not
want someone from this Board to be at the table when the decisions are being
made. He thinks this is something the Board needs to face. Knowing this
group of people is making decisions that will affect Albemarle County, at the
least we should be there with our Economic Development Plan in hand and say
these are some of the thinks that need to be considered. He thinks the Board
needs to find out what is the most advantageous position for Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowerman asked what if a member of this Board, City Council and the
other boards of supervisors cannot be a member of the partnership; they would
have to appoint a representative that is not from one of these entities. Mr.
Martin said he thinks the Board would then have to interview and carefully
select a representative. He thinks the bottom line is that we need to be at
that table. He would hope that the other local governments would also be
caring about some of the things we care about.
Mrs. Humphris said the other localities have entirely different situations
and motivations from Albemarle. She is concerned about our one vote out of 20
votes. Mr. Martin said he still wants to be in the most advantageous posi-
tion. Mrs. Humphris asked what happens with the company that is wined and
dined to come here by this group and then they get here and have to come
before this Board for a rezoning or other special dispensation and at that
point we have to reverse our role from being one of the recruiters and
promoters to one of the people who set the conditions under which the company
will come. That compromises our ability to do what the people have elected us
to do. Mr. Martin said he sees it differently. One of the important issues
is that of openness so that everyone knows what everyone is doing from the
0001' 7
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
beginning. For example heW°uld want 't~know at the beginning if someone was
talking to a company Which he feels would be undesirable for Albemarle County.
Mrs. Humphris said that is not historically how this has worked. This Board
has not known who is looking to come to the area. Mr. Martin said historical-
ly we have not had a policy on economic development. Mrs. Humphris said
companies depend on secrecy; they do not want people to know they are looking.
The idea of making it open and known is not the way this kind of recruiting
works. It works behind closed doors.
Mrs. Thomas said she has done a lot of talking and thinking about this for
several years. She was involved when the REDP title was chosen. She was
working at the University of Virginia but was a part of the early discussions
through the Planning District Commission. She 9ot to thinking about how this
group would judge its success. Would they judge it by a 2.7 percent unemploy-
ment rate in Albemarle County? Would they judge it if the economy absorbed
695 jobs when they were deleted by the area's largest employer and end up the
year with more jobs than has ever been existing in this County? Without any
such partnership, just in the last year the County has a 100 employee new
company moving in; 100 new employees added to one of our major employers; 60
families brought in by one of our major Federal agencies; an increase in the
transient occupancy tax of over 11.4 percent; growth in the numbers of new
businesses of over 300 or an eight percent increase; retail sales grew by
$100.0 million in one year and a 16 percent sales increase in housing sales.
That is the kind of economy in Albemarle County. She has always been inter-
ested in a regional approach thinking that our economy is very much a regional
economy and she has been delighted that the Plannin9 Commission and the new
Economic Development Policy recognize the regional nature of the economy.
She has been extremely distressed by every spokesperson in the private
sector part of this partnership who after speaking for more than a few minutes
starts talking about the companies that we have lost to adjoining counties.
If that is truly their attitude, then this whole idea is a sham. It is
getting jobs in those outlying counties that has to be addressed if this is
going to be a regional economic development partnership, because it is those
outlyin~ counties that are being stressed out by this County's high housing
costs largely because of our growth and our prosperity.
Mrs. Thomas said she is delighted that some of the Board members are
taking a more regional look at the economy and that the new economic develop-
ment section of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the regional nature of the
economy. She cannot vote for Albemarle to join this partnership as it is
currently constructed. The Partnership will proceed however with or without
us, with about $500,000 already having been pledged for its support. She
considers it a major problem that if we did join, we are only one vote out of
20 votes and we are not likely able to shape the Partnership's operation, so
how can we join, put our name to it and assure our taxpayers that we are being
prudent with their money. She favors either postponing the County's joining
until either the Partnership has shown by its own actions what kind of
operation it plans to run or getting total assurance that the Partnership can
meet our standards.
The Partnership obviously does not needour small contribution; what she
assumes it needs is the imprinteur of our county's name on the letterhead.
The Board should not give that lightly to a group with no track record, only
the vaguest of intentions with a great deal of public mistrust, as shown in
the public hearing and her own observations after months of talking with
constituents on this issue. Almost all known private support is coming from
firms that profit from population 9rowth, and no known involvement by groups
interested in job training, placement or sustainability, especially in the
midst of a thriving economy. It is frighteningly possible to do more harm
than good to our region.
The three times the Board discussed economic development, almost every
member has stated an interest in getting the right kind of job opportunities,
but not an interest in promoting population growth in Albemarle County. She
has done a lot of thinking about how we can do that and/or how we can make
sure the Partnership is doing it. The following is her proposal for judging
whether the Partnership is doing what the Board and our residents and taxpay-
ers want done. She proposes submitting these to the Partnership before we
agree to join.
She proposes a set of objective standards that the Partnership would a~ree
as a measure of whether it is having desired affects; all three are measurable
and must be met for the partnership to be considered successful enough to
warrant the Board's continued support: A) Albemarle County's growth rate must
not exceed its present projection as measured by the Center for Public
Service. That rate of growth sufficiently stresses schools, roads and other
public services. No one aware of pressures on those services wants it
exceeded and we would even hope it decreases; B) Albemarle County's average
non-government, non-agriculture wages improve and poverty rate decreases in
relation to state average. The wage category is the only objective measure
that shows a weakness in our job picture; C) Albemarle County's minority
community's situation regarding job opportunities improves. This situation
was the only one in the county-wide telephone survey that indicated an
identifiable problem in our job pool.
She proposes performance directives, which focus on the importance of
having benefits for local employees, on job development and on assurances to
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33) ~ ~
000 .9
strengths from a lot of different points of view. Emotionally and intellectu-
ally, he agrees with Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas. For Albemarle there is
nothing that is broke. Albemarle's approach to new business, adopting this
policy and implementing this policy is realistic and meaningful. We clearly
do not have any significant problems in Albemarle. People are always talking
about underemployment, but we can create 500 new engineering jobs and we would
still have 2000 people in the food service. We are always going to have
different echelons within the employment sector.
He wishes the partnership well because he thinks it can bring some
definite benefits to some of the outlying neighbors. He thinks whether the
County joins or not, the partnership is going to proceed forward and is going
to do as it sees fit. He thinks this Board has an opportunity around this
table to deal with everything that affects Albemarle County and he thinks this
is the place to do it. The fact that we cannot be specifically represented
nor can City Council or any other board of supervisors on this partnership is
an important consideration because that is one of the things that was used to
sell it. In discussions with the County Attorney, the Board is limited by law
from participation unless the legislature changes the number of organizations
that Board members can be appointed to. That was a key issue used and
unfortunately we must have a surrogate representing us and we are a surrogate
representing the citizens. He thinks that we maintain the best of possible
worlds here in Albemarle. We can work with the partnership when it comes to
us with an issue that deals with Albemarle, perhaps in relationship with one
of our neighbors. He sees ample opportunity to use this as a positive
experience for the region. He does not see the rationale for us to join the
partnership.
Mr. Davis said the state law prohibits Board members from serving on
boards it appoints unless they are specifically authorized in the State Code.
If the law does not specifically provide for that then a Board member cannot
be appointed by its board to sit in that other office. The partnership board
is not one of those set out in the State Code as being a body that this Board
can appoint one of its members to serve. This issue came up a couple of years
ago with Jail Boards and the law was changed to allow Board members to sit on
jail boards; it is the same principle and is set out in Section 15.1-50.5 of
the State Code.
Mr. Martin said all along he has been thinking it would be a Board member
on the partnership. Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, said the premise was that it be a
Board member on the partnership. This is something new to her and it is a
surprise. Mrs. Jane Dittmar, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Chamber of Commerce, said there are other partnerships in the state that have
local officials on them.
Mr. Bowerman said he is not personally ruling out participation in the
partnership at some later time after it has established some record.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks we all have a good idea of what we are doing
and there is nothing more this Board can do. She thinks it would be a good
idea wishing the partnership well and letting it get underway. She thinks the
citizens have spoken to Board members and voiced their opinion.
Mrs. Humphris then offered motion that Albemarle County decline the
invitation to become a member of the Regional Economic Development Partner-
ship. Mr. Bowerman seconde4 the motion.
Mrs. Thomas said the public has spoken and told the Board about its many
concerns regarding the partnership. She thinks that in some ways by saying
"we wish them well, but wash our hands of it", the Board is letting down the
public who wants to have the partnership better directed to the needs of
Albemarle County given that there are job needs in Albemarle and the region.
She would far prefer submitting these proposals; although she realizes not
everyone on the Board agrees with them, but they might do for getting a
reaction from the partnership. She thinks attempting to have some hand in
controlling this organization is preferable to simply setting it loose upon
the community.
Mr. Bowerman said members in the audience from the partnership have heard
the concerns raised by the Board and they can deal with those concerns as they
deem appropriate.
Mr. Martin said he still does not think anyone has addressed his question
of whether we would be better served by having some influence. The first time
he heard about this partnership was following Mrs. Thomas' election when she
had brought it to the attention of the Board one day. The next time he heard
about this was from Nancy O'Brien. This group may be the "boogie men" that so
many people in the community think they are, but he has reason to give the
benefit of the doubt to some people he has a great deal of respect. Maybe the
best way to have influence is to not be part of the group. Everyone is
talking about the worst case scenario.
Mr. Perkins said he will not support the motion because he feels it is
slamming the door shut and rather doing that, he thinks the Board should give
them this information and say look at it and come back and let us know what
you think.
O00&20
March 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mrs. Humphris said her'problem is that this is Mrs. Thomas' document and
has no input or thought from other Board members. If this is going to be a
Board proposal, then it needs a lot of Board work.
Mrs. Thomas said if the motion does not close the door and if the Board
does not think that her proposal embodies what the Board might want, then what
would you expect of the partnership that would ever open the door. Mr.
Bowerman said nine months from now any Board member could say I have seen what
the partnership has done, I like what they are doing and I would like for the
Board to reconsider membership. He thinks there is a genuine difference of
opinion about some aspects of the partnership and Albemarle County which have
been expressed.
Mrs. Thomas said she has not wanted Albemarle County to appear to be so
inward looking that we do not recognize the regional nature of our economy.
She does not want the Board to appear to be closing the door permanently at a
regional partnership, looking at the economy and what can be done for the
economy. If the motion is saying the way it is constituted today, we cannot
join it, then she could agree to it. If the motion is saying this is a
concept that we do not want to ever have anything to do with, she cannot agree
to.
Mrs. Humphris agreed to include the wording "at this time" into her motion
so that the motion would read that Albemarle County declines the invitation to
become a member of the Regional Economic Development Partnership at this time.
As seconder, Mr. Bowerman concurred.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Motion was offered by Mr, Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint
Mr. Thomas J. Jakubowski to the Regional Disability Services Board, to fill
out the unexpired term of Brian Lindquist. This term will expire July 1,
1995.
Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Tucker said the Board has supported rent subsidy housing at the
Whitewood Village Apartment Complex. It has been determined that some recre-
ational facilities are needed at the complex. Alpha Phi Omega from the
University of Virginia, has agreed to go in and build some recreational
playground facilities. The work requires a $150 building permit fee. He
recommends the Board waive the fee since they will be supplying the materials.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to waive the
building permit fee for Alpha Phi Omega to build recreational facilities at
Whitewood Village Apartments.
ROi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Tucker said the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association
of Counties negotiates on behalf of localities an agreement setting rates for
municipalities with Virginia Power. Those negotiations have been completed.
The new rate agreement will be effective through June 30, 1997. The rates
have decreased. He recommended that the Board authorize the County Executive
to sign the agreement on behalf of Albemarle County.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize
the County Executive to sign an "Agreement for Purchase of Electricity Service
by Municipalities and Counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia from Virginia
Electric and Power Company" on behalf of the County, with new Agreement
effective July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1997.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
March l, 1995 (Regular D~!Y Meeting)
(page 35) :~. <,~
hold a public hearing to take
Mr. Tucker asked i
comments on the proposed jail expansion project.
Mr. Martin suggested setting the public hearing for wednesday, March 22,
at 5:00 p.m. to take comments on the proposed jail expansion. Board members
concurred.
Mrs. Thomas announced that she would be attending the National Association
of Counties (NACo's) Annual Legislative Conference at the end of this week and
would make a report to the Board.
move forward on the
Thomas suggested that the Board direct staff to Plan Ordinance. Board
Mrs. Preservation ordinance and Mountain Protection
Historic
members concurred.
Mr. Davis said that due to advertising requirements on Item 5.1, the
public hearing to abandon a road off of State Route 664 near the Earlysville
area, needs to be set for May 3, 1995. Board members concurred with the
change.
Mr. Tucker provided an overview of the FY 1995-96 budget, staff has
balanced the budget with existing resources and allocations of revenue. There
are no tax rate increases proposed. The budget amounts to approximately
. . . he current budget. In his opinion, the
$110.3 million, $6 8 million o~er_~ ~ f~r educational system and
· =~ _ the
budget has been driven by growuh u,xd ......
public safety.
Mr. Perkins announced that Habitat for Humanity would be dedicating its
housing project in Esmont on Saturday, March 4, at 11:'00 a.m. Mrs. Humphris
~aid she would attend.
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m.