2005-10-05
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 5,2005, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 241, County Office Building on Mcintire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers, and Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No.1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
Agenda Item No.2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No.3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No.4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Christopher Mislow addressed the Board, stating that he wanted to address the overlot
grading requirement for subdivisions, describing it as critical and long overdue. He noted that the Still
Meadows home in which he and his wife reside, as well as the homes of many of his neighbors, have
been impacted by grading and drainage problems. Mr. Mislow said developers have offered agreements
to give people their money back for their homes to avoid lawsuits. There needs to be some level of
supervision at a broad level. He offered to provide the Board with any needed information.
Ms. Liz Palmer, representing the League of Women Voters, congratulated Ms. Sally Thomas on
her appointment to the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee, a body appointed by
the governors of bay area states. She noted that the committee enhances the participation of local
government in the bay restoration effort by improving communication between stakeholders, by supplying
technical assistance to local governments, and by providing a local government perspective on policy
development within the Chesapeake Bay program. Ms. Palmer said that Ms. Thomas is one of just six
elected officials in Virginia to be appointed to the committee.
Mr. John Martin of Free Union reported that there was a rally organized in June in Scottsville
drawing about 150 people opposed to a pipeline being run from the James River to Charlottesville. He
also said that there was an arrest made at Shopper's World for a person campaigning for office, adding
that there needs to be a place for citizens to exercise their right to free speech.
Agenda Item No. 5a. Recognition: Landon Gregory Hatfield for efforts related to Raintree fire.
Mr. Rooker recognized 14 year old Landon Hatfield, a freshman at Albemarle High School, for his
quick-thinking and heroic efforts in helping a woman escape a burning home on August 8, 2005. He said
Mr. Hatfield helped the victim escape through a garage window from the four-alarm fire. Mr. Rooker also
commended firefighters from the many stations who responded to the blaze. He asked Mr. Dan
Eggleston, Director of Fire/Rescue to come forward and recognize Landon.
Mr. Eggleston thanked Landon for his selfless act of heroism that helped save a life and then
presented him with a plaque.
Agenda Item No. 5b. Recognition: Students Make A Difference Day Proclamation.
Mr. Rooker recognized "Students Make a Difference Day" in Albemarle County to be honored on
October 22, 2005. He urged fellow citizens to encourage and assist students for the benefit of the
community. Mr. Rooker congratulated June Smith (of Community Engagement) and Kelly Cramer (a
student at Albemarle High School) and presented them with the following proclamation:
STUDENTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY
Whereas, the youth of our nation are its future; and
Whereas, working together to help others bridges the differences that separate
Americans and strengthen the bonds that tie us together; and
Whereas, we, the American people have a tradition of philanthropy and volunteerism;
and
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Whereas, many of our citizens need the help of others to live happy and productive lives;
and
Whereas, millions of individuals have already enhanced the lives of others on this annual
day of doing good by giving where there was a need, rebuilding what had been torn down,
teaching where there was a desire to learn, and inspiring those who had lost hope; and
Whereas, USA WEEKEND Magazine and its affiliate newspapers and The Points of
Light Foundation and its affiliate volunteer centers have joined to promote an annual national day
of doing good that celebrates and strengthens the spirit of volunteer service; and
Whereas, volunteer services is an investment in the future we all must share;
Now, Therefore, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
October 22, 2005
As
Students Make a Difference Day
in Albemarle County, Virginia, and urge our fellow citizens to encourage and assist our
students in completing projects to benefit the community.
Agenda Item No. 5c. Introduction of George Shadman, General Services Director.
Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. George Shadman, the County's first Director of General Services. He
will help address issues of urban infrastructure in the way of regional solid waste management and water
and sewer service. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Shadman's expertise will be helpful in implementing urbanization
goals as well as the Neighborhood Model. He said Mr. Shad man has over 30 years of experience in
public works, including 19 years in supervising operations and maintenance of public works and utilities
systems. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Shadman had previously worked as Director of Public Works and Utilities
for the Town of Front Royal.
Ms. Thomas offered motion to appoint Mr. George Shadman as General Services Director. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No.6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve items 6.1
through 6.6 on the Consent Agenda (see two changes in Item 6.3) and to accept the remaining items for
information. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: September 8A, and October 6, 2004; April 6, April 18A, May 4,
June 1 and June 8, 2005.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of September 8 (Afternoon), 2004, and found them to be in order
as presented.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of October 6, 2004, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of April 6, 2005, and found them to be in order as presented.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of April 18 (Afternoon), 2004, and found them to be in order as
presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of June 8, 2005, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the above recorded vote, the minutes which had been read were approved. The
minutes of May 4 and June 1 will go to the next meeting for approval.
Item 6.2. Solomon Road (Route 1430) Watch for Child Playing Sign.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that residents of the Solomon Road neighborhood met
with Mr. Rooker and requested that "Watch for Child Playing" signs be installed to warn the traveling
public that children may be playing in the area. The County has criteria for reviewing such sign
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
installation requests. This request meets three of the four criteria. There are no central child activity
attraction areas along the road (criteria 3). However, given the number of homes in the neighborhood
with children and the lack of sidewalks, it is staff's opinion that this request for installation of signs has
merit. The average cost to install a sign is approximately $125. VDOT will utilize the County's secondary
road maintenance funds to install the signs. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution
supporting installation of "Watch for Child Playing" signs on Solomon Road.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO INSTALL WATCH FOR CHILD PLAYING SIGN ON
SOLOMON ROAD
WHEREAS, the residents of Solomon Road are concerned about traffic in their
neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live and play in
the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Solomon Road requested the County to take the necessary
steps to have a "Watch for Child Playing" sign installed; and
WHEREAS, there are numerous children that live and play on Solomon Road and that a
"Watch for Child Playing" sign would help alleviate some of the residents' safety concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's request for VDOT to install the necessary "Watch
for Child Playing" signs on Solomon Road (Route 1430).
Item 6.3. Authorize staff to proceed with Eastern Connector Alignment Study.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that County and City staff has developed a draft work
plan for an alignment study of the Eastern Connector. (Recent discussions by County and City officials,
as well as the CHART, place a high importance on an Eastern Connector as part of the regional
transportation solution.) The study will evaluate a minimum of three possible alignments for cost
effectiveness, environmental impacts, impacts on private property and impacts on public property. The
work plan also includes a series of public participation meetings and processes for acceptance by the
Board and City Council. As proposed, this study is estimated to have a project cost of $500,000 with a
50-50 cost share by the City and County.
As currently proposed, the project would be directed by a steering committee comprised of a City
Council member, a County Board member, a planning commission member from each locality, a citizen
from each locality, and two staff members from each locality. Given that the area to be studied is largely
within the County, the study would be managed by County staff. Staff will ask the Board to confirm this
project direction and assign members to the steering committee at a later date. The City will be
considering a matching appropriation request at it meeting on October 3, and staff will advise the Board if
that request is not approved.
The County's approved FY '05-06 CIP set aside $1.0 million for undesignated transportation
projects. The Eastern Connector study was one of the projects considered to be funded with this source.
County staff has not been able to locate any other funding sources for this study. As this study has not
yet been contracted, a 20 percent contingency for the project budget is planned. With this contingency,
staff is seeking approval for a project budget of $300,000. Today, the Board is requested to authorize
staff to proceed with procuring this study using a 50-50 cost share agreement with the City and that it be
allowed to expend no more than $300,000 from the CIP for the County's share of this study.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said in the past a connector road south of Route 250 had been
considered. He thinks that should be studied as an option in addition to other options in the connector
study. He does not like the idea of a 20 percent contingency. Mr. Tucker said the City has allocated
$300,000 for their part of the study.
Mr. Boyd said it seems to him that $500,000 is a lot to spend on this study since there should be
information available from previous studies.
Mr. Rooker agreed with approving $250,000, and agreed with the suggestion to include a road
south of Route 250 as the primary point of congestion is right around Free Bridge. He added that
previous studies have not done much to resolve the alignment issue, and expressed uncertainty as to
whether that old information would be of much value.
Mr. Wyant asked if there was a target date for completion of the study. Mr. Tucker replied that
staff is trying to move quickly, but it will depend on the availability of engineers, etc.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Thomas said that she was surprised to learn that the northern Free State Road connector
would not even be a part of the modeling. Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said
that was viewed as an extensive addition to the modeling. He said there is uncertainty about how the
"Places 29" master plan might impact crossings, etc.
Mr. Dorrier said the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center is planned for the southern part of the area
above Route 20, and that might impact traffic in that area.
Ms. Thomas agreed that it should be considered. Mr. Graham commented that each additional
consideration takes more time and money.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized staff to proceed with procuring
this study for an Eastern Connector using a 50-50 cost share agreement with the City and that it
expend no more than $250,000 from the CIP for the County's share of this study.
Item 6.4. Resolution to accept roads in Parkside Village Subdivision, Phases 1 & 2, into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Community Development Department the Board adopted the
following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Parks ide Village Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2, described
on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated October 5, 2005, fully incorporated herein by
reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County. Virqinia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Parks ide
Village Subdivision, Phases 1 and 2, as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A)
dated October 5, 2005, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 333.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as
described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
The road(s) described on Additions Form LA-5(A) is:
1) Hilltop Street (State Route 691) from the intersection of Indigo Road (Route
1233) to the intersection of Sunflower Lane (Route 1296), as shown on plat
recorded 10/03/2002 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2284-2415, pages 80-90 and 214-223, with a 40-foot right-
of-way width, for a length of 0.11 miles.
2) Hilltop Street (State Route 691) from the intersection of Sunflower Lane (Route
1296), to the end of maintenance, as shown on plat recorded 10/03/2002 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2284-
2415, pages 80-90 and 214-223, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.04 miles.
3) Sunflower Lane (State Route 1296) from the intersection of Hilltop Street
(Route 691) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 03/27/2003 in the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2415, pages
214-223, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.20 miles
Item 6.5. Adopt resolution authorizing County Executive to set Mileage Reimbursement Rate.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that it has been the practice of the County to set the
reimbursement rate to match the rate authorized for Commonwealth employees. The reimbursement
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
rate for private vehicles used by persons while traveling on County business is currently set in the
County's adopted FY '06 Annual Resolution of Appropriations at the "same rate as that established by
the State of Virginia for its employees". That rate is 32.5 cents per mile and was set in the General
Assembly's adopted FY '06 Appropriations Act. That rate cannot be reconsidered by the General
Assembly until its next session. The current Internal Revenue Code standard rate that can be
deducted as a business expense is now 48.5 cents per mile. That rate became effective September
1, 2005. The Federal government has acted to set the reimbursement rate for federal employees to
match the 48.5 cents per mile rate.
Because of the significant increase in the price of gasoline since the state reimbursement
rate was set, staff feels it would be timely and appropriate for the County to reexamine its
reimbursement rate. Rather than have the Board set a specific rate, staff recommends that the Board
authorize the County Executive to periodically set and adjust the rate to address the cost of gasoline
in the currently fluctuating market. The maximum rate that could be authorized by the County
Executive is the IRS rate of 48.5 cents with the caveat that for any person for which the
Commonwealth bears any portion of the reimbursement expense the reimbursement is limited to the
current state reimbursement rate of 32.5 cents. It is recommended that the County Executive be
given the authority to set and adjust the reimbursement rate from time to time depending on the
market conditions affecting the cost of travel so as to fairly reimburse persons using private vehicles
while conducting County business.
Impact on the budget will be dependent upon the reimbursement rate set by the County
Executive. If the maximum reimbursement rate is set, reimbursement costs could increase by
approximately 50 percent. It is anticipated that the funds for these increased costs would be covered
by already appropriated funds in the local government and school budgets and that no additional
appropriation of funds would be necessary. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution
authorizing the County Executive to set and to adjust from time to time the mileage reimbursement
rate or rates to reimburse any person for using a private vehicle while traveling to perform the
business of the County in the discharge of their official duties.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO SET MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE
WHEREAS, Virginia Code 3 15.2-1508.1 authorizes a county to reimburse any person
using a private vehicle while traveling on business of the county; and
WHEREAS, the rate of reimbursement may not exceed the standard rate that is
deductible as a business expense pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code and its promulgated
regulations; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code 3 15.2-1508.2 further restricts the maximum rate of
reimbursement for those persons that the Commonwealth bears any portion of the
reimbursement expense to the reimbursement rate set for the Commonwealth's employees in the
Appropriations Act; and
WHEREAS, it has been the practice of the County to set the reimbursement rate in the
Annual Resolution of Appropriations adopted by the Board in June of each year; and
WHEREAS, due to the dramatic increase and fluctuation of gas prices, the Board finds
that greater flexibility is needed to fairly reimburse persons using private vehicles for public
business; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the County Executive should have the authority to set
and adjust from time to time the reimbursement rate on behalf of the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby authorizes the County Executive to set and to adjust from time to time the mileage
reimbursement rate or rates to reimburse any person for using a private vehicle while traveling to
perform the business of the County in the discharge of their official duties. Such rate or rates
shall not exceed the standard rate that is deductible as a business expense pursuant to the
applicable Internal Revenue Code, and its promulgated regulations. In addition, for those persons
for whom the Commonwealth bears any portion of the reimbursement expense, the maximum
rate shall not exceed the reimbursement rate allowed by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Item 6.6. Forest Lakes Traffic Calming Resolution - request to install speed humps on Powell
Creek Drive.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in January of 2005, residents of Powell Creek Drive
in the Forest Lakes South subdivision contacted several State and Federal elected officials concerning
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
the safety of Powell Creek Drive. This information was forwarded to the local VDOT Residency office and
the Department of Community Development. VDOT conducted a speed study that indicated there was a
speeding problem on Powell Creek Drive. The posted speed limit on Powell Creek Drive is 25 mph, but
the average speed is 34 mph. Staff met with the Forest Lakes Community Association (FLCA) to discuss
the safety of pedestrians and vehicles in both Forest Lakes North and South. Staff informed the FLCA
about the VDOT Traffic Calming Program so the FLCA has not requested a number of improvements to
address vehicular and pedestrian safety. One of these improvements can be made under the traffic
calming program (the majority of the improvements requested by the FLCA can be completed without
Board approval because they are considered maintenance type improvements and/or are improvements
that can be approved by VDOT administratively). The improvements that VDOT and/or the County staff
will complete that do not require Board approval include:
. Paint 6-inch edge lines on Powell Creek Drive in the Forest Lakes South section, typically the
edge line is four inches (VDOT has completed this improvement).
. Paint "Slow 25 MPH" on the road in large print on Powell Creek Drive near the Ashwood
Boulevard intersection and the roundabout (VDOT anticipates a Fall 2005 completion date).
. Speed enforcement through Forest Lakes North and South (County Police will periodically
conduct speed enforcement).
. Reduce unnecessary use of school buses on Powell Creek Drive in the Forest Lakes South
section (County Pupil Transportation Department has made this a standing policy).
. Change the color of the existing "Watch for Children Playing" signs on Powell Creek Drive to
fluorescent yellow-green (VDOT anticipates a Fall 2005 completion date).
. Place a yellow "Caution" sign on top of the existing speed limit signs (VDOT anticipates a Fall
2005 completion date).
. Selective trimming of hanging tree branches on Powell Creek Drive to improve sight distance
(VDOT anticipates a Fall 2005 completion date).
. Installation of a flashing 15 mph school zone sign may be added on Powell Creek Drive (Route
1521) in front of the schools. (This improvement would be considered at a later time if other
improvements are not effective.)
The FLCA requested two improvements that by VDOT policy require verification of support from
residents directly impacted by the project. They also require endorsement of the Board. Specifically, the
FLCA requested the installation of 1) speed humps; and, 2) establishment of enhanced fines for speeding
(and the installation of signs notifying the traveling public of the enhanced speeding fine) on Powell Creek
Drive. Speed humps are considered a traffic calming improvement. VDOT's Traffic Calming policy
requires the establishment of a Task Force to discuss and recommend traffic calming improvements for
the neighborhood. Staff convened a Task Force including representatives from the FLCA, County staff
from the departments of Community Development, Pupil Transportation Division, Police, Fire/Rescue
Office, and VDOT District and Residency offices, and a member of the Board (Ken Boyd). This Task
Force has met on numerous occasions to discuss specific traffic safety concerns and the best way to
address those concerns.
The Task Force determined that four speed humps should be located along Powell Creek Drive
between Ashwood Boulevard and the traffic circle with installation of signs notifying the traveling public
that there is an enhanced fine for speeding on Powell Creek Drive. Speed humps are a traffic calming
improvement and require a petition indicating community support. Enhanced fines for speeding is not an
official VDOT traffic calming improvement, but does require community support as well. The Task Force
decided to consider implementing enhanced fines for speeding only after the speed humps had been
installed for several months. If the speed humps are effective in reducing speeding then establishing
enhanced fines (and installing enhanced speed signs) would not be necessary. This position also aligns
with the Boards' policy on installation of signs notifying the traveling public of enhanced fines for
speeding; signs are not to be installed until other traffic calming alternatives have been exhausted.
The FLCA was required by VDOT to obtained approval of 75 percent of the residents in the
impacted area for the speed humps and the installation of signs notifying the traveling public there are
enhanced fines for speeding. The FLCA was able to garner approximately 82 percent of the residents in
the impacted area to support the request. Upon adoption by the Board of the Forest Lakes Traffic
Calming resolution, the Task Force will work with VDOT to install the speed humps. It is possible the
speed humps could be installed before winter. Once the speed humps and the other improvements
bulleted above are installed, staff will monitor the traffic situation in the area to determine if enhanced
fines for speeding should be pursued.
The estimated cost for each speed hump is approximately $5,000 ($20,000 total). The cost for
the speed humps will be funded from the VDOT Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Program where
funds have been allocated for traffic calming. Other improvements will be funded through VDOT
maintenance funds. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Forest Lake Traffic Calming Resolution.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
IN THE FOREST LAKES SOUTH AND HOLL YMEAD SUBDIVISIONS
ON POWELL CREEK DRIVE (ROUTE 1521)
WHEREAS, speeding has been identified as a major concern with the residents of Forest
Lakes and Hollymead Subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has conducted a speed study in
the Hollymead and Forest Lakes South Subdivisions, which confirmed that a speeding problem
does exist on Powell Creek Drive (Route 1521); and
WHEREAS, The Forest Lakes Community Association has worked with Virginia
Department of Transportation and Albemarle County staff to establish the Forest Lakes Traffic
Calming Task Force, which fulfilled the requirements listed in VDOT's Traffic Calming Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia supports the construction of four strategically placed speed humps on Powell
Creek Drive (Route 1521) that will encourage slower speeds; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia will further consider the installation of signs advising drivers of an additional maximum
penalty of $200.00 for exceeding the posted 25 MPH speed on Powell Creek Drive if the speed
humps are not effective in reducing speeding; and
BE FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to construct four speed humps on Powell
Creek Drive as recommended by the Forest Lakes Traffic Calming Task Force.
Item 6.7. FY 2006-07 Operating Budget and FY 2006-2010/2011-2015 CIP Events Calendar.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the process of developing the County's Operating
Budget for FY 2006-07 and the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for FY2006-1 0 and Capital Needs
Assessment for FY 2011-15 is underway. The proposed schedule for the upcoming budget process is
sent to the Board to establish firm dates for Board meetings and public hearings on the budget and CIP,
and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for planned community meetings, public
hearings, and work sessions related to the budget and the CIP. Dates are identified in March and April,
2006, for public hearings on the budget, Board work sessions, and adoption of the FY 2006-07 Operating
Budget, CIP, and the 2006 calendar year tax rates.
This calendar was received for informational purposes.
Item 6.8. 2006 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Legislative Preliminary Draft
Program, received for information.
Item 6.9. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors minutes for July 21,
2005, was received as information.
Item 6.10. Copy of assessments made for the year 2005 by the State Corporation Commission of
Virginia of the real and personal property of electric light and power corporations (including electric
suppliers), gas and pipeline distribution corporations, telecommunications companies and water
corporations, as of the beginning of the first day of January 2005, was received as information.
Item 6.11. Copy of letter dated September 21, 2005, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Edward D. Campbell, III, Roudabush, Gale and Associates, re: Official Determination
of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 65, Parcels 11A1 and 12B (property of Keswick
Acquisitions, LLC) - Section 10.3.1, received as information.
Item 6.12. Copy of letter dated September 19, 2005, from Gerald Connolly, VACo President,
regarding proposed real estate tax relief plans by candidates for Virginia Governor, received as
information.
Item 6.13. Motor Vehicle Decal Program.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that County staff was informed on Tuesday, September
28, 2005 that the Charlottesville City Council is considering, at its meeting on October 3, 2005, an
ordinance to eliminate vehicle decals. The following Executive Summary provides the Board of
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Supervisors with information about the ordinance being considered by the City of Charlottesville, the
County's Vehicle Decal Program, and other jurisdictions that have eliminated annual vehicle decals.
At its meeting on October 3, 2005, the Charlottesville City Council is considering an ordinance to
eliminate its vehicle decal program effective January 1, 2006. As noted in the report accompanying the
ordinance, the City would replace its vehicle decal fees with a license tax, resulting in no loss of revenue
for the City. The report further states that the elimination of the decals would result in cost savings for the
City of approximately $42,000 in materials and postage fees and eliminate the impact on City staff of
issuing decals, a very manual and time-intensive task.
Attached to this Executive Summary is a report (on file) prepared in March, 2005 by County staff
about the County's Vehicle Decal Program. As noted in the introductory paragraph, the report reviews
the vehicle decal program as currently administered by the County, discusses the program as modified by
three other jurisdictions, and summarizes the major issues for consideration in analyzing the program.
Also attached is a list of jurisdictions that have eliminated annual vehicle decals.
This Executive Summary and Attachments are provided for information purposes only. Staff is
available to respond to Board questions.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Charlottesville (VDOT) Residency Report for
September, 2005.
Mr. Jim Utterback, Resident Engineer, reported that VDOT has spent over $26,000 in Albemarle
this year to spray thistle and Johnson grass along Routes 1-64, 250, 29, 20 and 6, adding that every
stretch of guardrail has been sprayed. He reported that sidewalks around Hydraulic Road have also been
sprayed within the past week, and said that next year they will take a more proactive approach. He asked
Board members to work with staff or himself to identify areas that are of concern to citizens.
Mr. Utterback Updated the Board on the contract for secondary road line painting and markings.
He mentioned that on Lynchburg Road and Garth Road there has been some new line-painting done, but
since there is new paving planned, VDOT will wait before doing the edge lines. He said this has taken a
little bit longer than anticipated.
Mr. Utterback said VDOT has awarded a contract for picking up dead carcasses from roads.
Mr. Utterback said the Route 649 (Airport Road improvement project) and Buck Creek bridge
replacement projects are on schedule to be completed about November 1 st.
Mr. Utterback said that district-wide bridge painting will not be complete this month; it is
anticipated to be complete the first of December.
Ms. Thomas asked about the clean-up of the Ivy intersection. Mr. Utterback said it is still in the
process. He will keep the Board members updated.
Mr. Utterback noted that he has had discussions with County staff about Jarmans Gap Road, and
recommends that there be a public hearing on the plans in early March after the Hydraulic Road review is
complete.
He said that the Georgetown Road project is Still on schedule for a spring Citizens' Information
Meeting. The project is expected to be scoped this month.
Mr. Utterback said that in reference to Dickerson Road, there is an issue about right-of-way with
the University Real Estate Foundation and some of their proffers.
Mr. Utterback noted that he had talked with County staff and there is some potential to accelerate
the advertisement of the Rio Mills Road project.
Mr. Utterback said the Rural Rustic Road improvements for Route 640, Gilbert Station Road,
should be completed by end of the month.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Utterback said the District Traffic Engineer is looking at the intersection of Route 29 with
Austin Lane where there was an accident a couple of weeks ago. They will reevaluate or update the
study again.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant thanked Mr. Utterback for the work on Millington Bridge and the relocation of signs in
White Hall.
Mr. Wyant asked VDOT to take a look at the bridge on Route 811 going up Jarmans Gap Road
toward Greenwood.
Mr. Wyant asked VDOT to look at installing "blind curve" signage on Route 240 near The
Meadows in Crozet. There is a problem there with sight distance.
Ms. Thomas said that last night some Batesville citizens met to discuss traffic calming measures
for their area. A lot of ideas were generated and she thinks they will be forwarded to the Rural Technical
Committee. She asked Mr. Utterback to research whether there could be speed limit signs that are
unconventional (like 22 1/2 mph) to catch people's attention.
Ms. Thomas commented that the Dry Bridge bridge has severe potholes.
Mr. Rooker stated that there needs to be a "Dead End" or "No Outlet" street sign on Dunromin
Road. Mr. Utterback replied that he would have staff look into that matter.
Mr. Utterback said regarding the drainage issue on Woodstock Drive, the Superintendent is trying
to get in touch with that individual and identify some options.
Mr. Boyd said that he appreciates VDOT's efforts for traffic calming in Forest Lakes, and he
commended Mr. Juan Wade for his work on this resolution.
Mr. Boyd said he has received comments concerning safety issues regarding on Doctors
Crossing. Mr. Utterback said he will check the status of this road.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the intersection of Route 250 and the North Grounds Connector is
dangerous because several lanes quickly merge into one and there is no lead time to get into the one
lane. This is the new road leading to the new UVA basketball stadium.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Cilimberg to brief the Board on the Annual Primary Road Plan public
hearing to be held in Culpeper later in October.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the meeting on October 18 would include a public officials briefing
about the proposed 2007-12 improvement plan. MPOs have also been invited to present their long-range
transportation plans. He added that a public discussion session would follow and said that if any Board
members plan on attending, they should let him know.
Agenda Item NO.8. Update on "Places 29", Lee Catlin.
Ms. Catlin reported that as part of the study the first task was the initial mapping and data
gathering. This was done before the public meetings started and it formed the basis for the meeting on
May 25. The public workshop on community visioning produced the material which has been put together
and assessed by the consultant. The Planning Commission is looking at the results of that process, and
two public meetings are scheduled for early November. The consultants would be refining and assessing
the framework and planning concepts that have come from the public, as well as developing initial
implementation strategies. In February the consultants will bring forward the preferred master plan
including implementation strategies and other ideas. The final draft plan will have a public review and
comment period beginning September, 2006.
Ms. Catlin said the intent of Places 29 is to bring together residents, business owners, and other
interested parties to "map out" the best possible shared vision for northern Albemarle County. Places 29
is really two studies in one - the northern development area master plan which defines how to
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
accommodate development in northern Albemarle, and to manage growth by creating livable urban
places. The U.S. 29 North Transportation Study will coordinate with the master plan to balance regional
and local functions and create a circulation network to serve all modes of transportation, and to support
and integrate with the master plan. Both needs with be accommodated during the same public process.
Mr. Boyd said that he has received feedback that people don't feel enough attention is being paid
to interconnecting existing neighborhoods.
Ms. Catlin said the consultant and staff are very aware of this feeling. It is important for the public
to know the difference between connecting roads that carry local traffic and parallel roads that carry
through/truck traffic. The Citizens Planning Academy held on May 12 had over 100 attendees
representing 30 to 35 neighborhoods, as well as businesses and groups from outside of the area. There
were about 175 attendees at the public meeting held May 25, representing 40 to 45 neighborhoods. She
added that there have been stakeholder meetings with the consultant, including neighborhood
representatives, advocacy groups, business groups, the ARB, developers, etc.
Ms. Thomas asked about JABA participation in this process. Ms. Catlin indicated that JABA is
part of the advocacy stakeholder group, and they have met as part of this several times.
Ms. Thomas noted that the 2020 Community Plan on Aging is a great resource for future
planning.
Ms. Catlin reported that Charette #2 is taking place between October 31 and November 4. The
purpose of this first meeting is to get public comment on the draft vision statement and guiding principles,
then to verify the materials on assets, needs, and opportunities that the consultant has drafted. She
mentioned that there would be a joint meeting with the Board, Planning Commission and consultant on
Places 29 at the Board's next day meeting, followed the next evening by a public meeting. There will be
stakeholder meetings that week also, with the ARB, and with a group of internal stakeholders. She noted
that there is a Places 29 "A-mail" list containing a few hundred names of members.
Ms. Catlin concluded by presenting the draft vision statement and guiding principles drafted by
the consultant, adding that feedback indicating a multi-modal transportation system will be the foundation
for the success of this area as a thriving urban community. She said that feedback also indicated
language and concepts should be about urban areas and this exercise should not get sidetracked by
discussion of the rural areas.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Greene County is included since they are part of the northern corridor. Ms.
Catlin said "yes."
(Note: At 10: 17 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:35 a.m.)
Agenda Item NO.9. JAUNT Annual Report, Donna Shaunesey.
Ms. Donna Shaunesey, Executive Director of JAUNT, said the JAUNT service provided in the
County has continued to improve every year. This year they celebrated their 30th Anniversary and
carrying the five millionth passenger. She mentioned that JAUNT has implemented an intelligent voice
response system - funded entirely by a Federal grant - allowing JAUNT to use voice recognition software
to help passengers. Passengers can call in to check schedules or cancel trips without having to talk to
someone, accommodating them at all hours. She added that the system will call the passenger if their
pickup time changes.
Ms. Shaunesey said there were unexpected increases in the number of rural riders over the last
year, 19 percent over the previous year. She added that some people can't use regular routes and that
caused an increase in demand response. There was Federal funding for the Welfare-to-Work
participants, but that program has been discontinued. Most of those people have been able to find
alternate forms of transportation. She said more people would be out of work if they could not use
JAUNT to get to work, and more people would be in nursing homes. She thanked the Board for the great
members they have appointed to the JAUNT Board of Directors.
Ms. Shaunesey reported that there have been more people riding to north Route 29 as new
developments open up and this presented challenges to JAUNT.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there had been a change in interest since gasoline prices have increased.
Ms. Shaunesey replied that there had not been; commuter route ridership from outlying counties has
actually gone down. She mentioned that the urban boundary moved further out into the County after the
2000 census. Funding for the urban ring is more limited than rural funding.
Ms. Thomas asked if site plan designs were taking JAUNT pick-ups into consideration. Ms.
Shaunesey responded that in the case of The Laurels facility, it does not have a high enough canopy to
accommodate their vans.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Thomas asked why adult day care had fewer trips this year. Ms. Shaunesey responded that
it is not a big dip, just a category change due to people riding different routes.
Mr. Rooker thanked Ms. Shaunesey for the report.
Agenda Item NO.1 O. Report on National Ground Intelligence Center, Colonel John Chiu,
Commander.
Col. John Chiu said he assumed this position in July. He presented a series of PowerPointe
Slides on NGIC, stating that they provide intelligence to the U.S. military about future threats they may
face; they focus on ground forces of future threats. He said there are more than 1,200 employees on
their workforce, broken out by government and civilian workers, enlisted men, reserve soldiers and
officers, and contractors. He mentioned that they have a small library that supports research and
analysis, a small police force for security, and a state-of-the-art computer facility. He also has employees
at Fort Meade, Maryland, to assimilate information collection, as well as staff at the Aberdeen Proving
Grounds in Maryland.
Col. Chiu reported that the Nicholson Building was named after a foreign area officer in Eastern
Europe killed during the Cold War. He said the NGIC building stands on more than 28 acres north of the
North Fork of the Rivanna River and it has over 250,000 square feet. Within that building there is
analytical space, a couple of labs, a cafeteria, and a state-of-the-art auditorium. He said that 100+
reservists play an active role in NGIC's work, bringing in $3.0 million to the local economy. He mentioned
that the extended active duty reservists receive their regular salary and a substantial per diem.
Col. Chiu explained NGIC's "University Experts" program, noting that one reason for the facility's
Charlottesville location is to take advantage of expertise at U.Va. on an ad-hoc basis - computer science,
mathematics, engineering, etc. He mentioned that for the next fiscal year, $125,000 is budgeted for this
program. He said there are also two officers from the U.K. stationed here to work at NGIC.
Col. Chiu said a major part of the NGIC mission is to follow ground forces of other countries in the
world - how they're organized, how they train, what equipment they're buying and have on hand - to give
senior U.S. military leaders information on their capabilities. He added that the science and technology
aspect of NGIC is to conduct research and analysis and produce assessments on grounds weapons
systems. NGIC acquires foreign weapons systems such as Russian tanks, for the Aberdeen facility to
reverse technology and find out what their capabilities are. He said the exploitations are done at
Aberdeen, with the intelligence analysis being done at NGIC, partnering closely with different Department
of Defense organizations.
Col. Chiu reported that NGIC was able to use their imaging capability from satellites and airborne
platforms to show where water supplies were contaminated, where fuel was leaking, etc. He presented a
three-dimensional fly through image of Baghdad from overhead, showing ingress and egress routes. He
noted that they maintain a round-the-clock watch situation, post 9-11. He said NGIC would soon be
connected to the "Global Information Grid Bandwidth Expansion" project, which will give them bandwidth
to accommodate any requirement. He said the Rivanna Station was identified as the Continuity of
Operation site for INSCOM headquarters.
Col. Chiu emphasized that NGIC employees are an involved part of the local community, with
many living in Greene, Albemarle and Charlottesville and many being active in local affairs. He explained
that Chaplain Nelson is an analyst working at NGIC who serves as chaplain, and is the Deputy
Emergency Services Coordinator for Albemarle County. He said his payroll is over $63.0 million annually
for the civilians and contractors, with the military being over $5.0 million. He added that they spent $1.5
million last year in travel costs, and $225,000 in local small purchases, with $39.0 million being spent on
local contracts. He said NGIC hosts over 11,000 visitors per year from around the world, citing a recent
example of an envoy visiting from China. He said NGIC leases nine apartments at Turtle Creek at a cost
of $14,000 per month.
Col. Chiu said there would be 900 Defense Intelligence Agency employees relocating from
Bolling Air Force Base to the Rivanna Station, and an additional 130 staff would be added between now
and then. He said the Army Corps of Engineers is purchasing land contiguous to the Rivanna Station
where a new 220,000 square foot building will be constructed in FY 2008 as a "Joint Use Intelligence
Facility." He added that some analysts in the old building would be moved into the new one to work with
the DIA analysts.
Several Board members expressed concern about the mass of parking at the facility and
encouraged Col. Chiu to explore carpooling and van pooling opportunities with employees.
Mr. Rooker thanked Col. Chiu for his presentation and for his participation in the community.
Col. Chiu acknowledged the Albemarle Sheriff and Police departments for their assistance when
foreign dignitaries visit, noting that his small police staff of 18 cannot always handle that duty. He added
that he often contracts with the state police for part-time assistance from troopers.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 11. Update on Retirees Health Insurance (continued from September 7,2005).
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Office of Management and Budget, reported that there is no new
information to give at that time. He said that at this point the Board should indicate their level of interest
in moving forward with this project.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Breeden if it was legally permissible to only provide coverage to age 65.
Mr. Davis said that issue has not yet been resolved.
Mr. Breeden stated that if people don't retire until age 64, they would be eligible for the full 10-
year period. There is a current court case related to limiting coverage only to age 65.
Ms. Thomas noted that an employee retiring at age 60 in the school system can get a VRS
supplement of up to $75 per month, which costs the County $300,000 currently. She doesn't understand
how the proposal affects a person in that situation. Mr. Breeden said the program to which Ms. Thomas
is referring applies only to teachers, administrators and clerical staff; other classified personnel are not
covered. He noted that the first option being reviewed is to have the County participate in a program
mirroring the Schools' plan. He explained that the allocation for teachers only provides up to $75 per
month, with $45 per month for other employees.
Mr. Tucker clarified that this is a contribution for school professionals only to the Virginia
Retirement System, with criteria dictated by the State.
Mr. Breeden noted that the State paid this at one point and then turned it over to localities. He
said the existing program is in place based on 10 years of service at 50 years of age, with that employee
receiving the employer contribution toward health insurance for five years at 100 percent, and
recalculation of VRS with five additional years of service; the difference in that calculation and what is
actually drawn from VRS is paid to them for five years. In order to qualify for the second tier, an
employee would need to have 20 years of service and be 55 years of age. He emphasized that with 10
years of service and at least 50 years of age, everyone qualifies for the existing VERIP program.
Mr. Rooker asked if that would cover school employees as well as all local government
employees. Mr. Breeden responded that the dollar amount shown makes the assumption that everyone
would receive the benefit, but noted that there would still be some inequity to be addressed. He
confirmed that teachers and classified personnel were considered as part of this scenario, adding that it
would be over and above the $300,000 currently paid out to teachers.
Ms. Thomas asked what the situation would be for a 60-year-old retiree. Mr. Breeden replied that
this makes the VERIP program a two-tier program - the existing program based on 10 years of service
and 50 years of age. That person receives the employer contribution toward health insurance for five
years at 100 percent. Then, their VRS retirement benefit would be recalculated adding five additional
years of service; the difference between that calculation and what they actually draw from VRS is paid to
them for five years. He explained that in order to qualify for the second tier, you would have to have 20
years of service and be 55 years of age. He recalled that the total cost for the health insurance program
for retirees is about $1.5 million from the County.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to create a more equitable system, noting that people
retiring at age 50 with 10 years of service are receiving very generous benefit in the way of the health
insurance payment. Mr. Breeden said the School System feels the existing program is a good tool for
retention of teachers for at least a 1 O-year period.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Rooker that there should be a reworking of the VERIP allocation so it
remains affordable for the County. Mr. Breeden said a substantial number of employees are slated to
retire over the next five to ten years and that might present some problems for teachers. Going to 20
years of service to qualify for the second phase would hopefully keep some of those people who have 15
or 16 years working for a few more years.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the plan treats public safety employees the same as all other County
employees. Mr. Breeden responded that it does, noting that Sheriff's Department employees qualify
under the VRS program for the $45.00 per month, which is currently paid by the State.
Mr. Boyd used the analogy of "coordination of benefits" as insurance companies do, so that if
there is coverage from one source, there isn't from a second source.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern about rising health insurance costs and wondered if the plan
could be set up in a flat dollar amount.
Mr. Boyd said the State pays a fixed amount per year of service.
Mr. Breeden said there is an assumption under the current policy for a marginal increase each
year. Mr. Rooker's suggestion for having the flat dollar amount could be done at the discretion of the
Board. He pointed out that the original assumption was that everyone who had 20 years of service would
retire at age 55 and that is unlikely to occur.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Thomas said she would like to have staff look at the benefit. Mr. Breeden mentioned that it is
time-consuming to perform the calculations, and he would like to make sure the Board wants to move
forward.
Mr. Rooker said he would like it to be a fixed cost so the County does not have a mushrooming
liability. He wants to make sure it is integrated with the VRS amount so the same net benefit would be
applied across the board to all employees.
Mr. Dorrier suggested forming a committee to evaluate the system.
Mr. Rooker replied that a committee might slow the decision-making process down and
suggested waiting until a report comes back. Mr. Breeden asked what the Board would like to see in the
report.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see what impact the benefits might have on retention and hiring,
as well as a proposal for a fixed dollar amount for health benefits.
Mr. Tucker noted that the School Board is going to want to review the proposal as well.
Mr. Boyd wondered if it could be discussed at the next joint Boards meeting. Mr. Tucker
responded that the full report would probably not be ready at that time.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the Boards have the discussion in general terms. Mr. Tucker noted
that the LEOS system provides some coverage for law enforcement personnel in an effort to remain
comparable with what the City offers.
Agenda Item No. 12. Proposed Annual Fire Inspections Program.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire/Rescue, reported that there had been a number of
commercial structural fires and fatalities as the urban area developed. With that in mind, he said County
fire personnel feel the need to move toward a "risk-based program," not based on the current minimum
standards in the State Fire Prevention Code.
Mr. Rooker referred to the Executive Summary and said the recommendation is to establish an
annual fire inspections program through authorization of a new fire inspection position, and to adopt a
resolution amending the current fee schedule. He asked if the fees are expected to offset the cost of this
inspector so it would be a net zero cost to the County. Mr. Eggleston said both the Budget Office and the
Finance Department have reviewed the figures and agree with the calculations.
Mr. Wyant asked why the cost of a burn permit has increased so much. Mr. Eggleston replied
that most fires are related to land clearing, including burning by farmers.
Ms. Thomas said she wants to make sure that using fire in their work, i.e. a blacksmith, does not
make that person subject to a $100 fee every time. Mr. Eggleston replied that the County is allowed to
charge a number of fees under the State Code, but it is discretionary as to whether they're imposed.
They want to concentrate on things that generate risk, and a blacksmithing operation is very low-risk.
Mr. Wyant commented that a lot of people have welding, etc. operations, especially on farms. Mr.
Eggleston emphasized that the focus is on flames that could cause fires in commercial buildings.
At this time, Ms. Thomas moved to approve the establishment of an annual fire inspections
program as described in the Executive Summary through authorization of a new fire inspector position.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas moved adoption of the following resolution amending the fee schedule to increase
the fees as proposed. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 27-97,
has adopted the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code as set forth in section 6-200 Code of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors is authorized by Virginia Code section 27-
98 to establish such procedures or requirements as may be necessary for the administration and
enforcement of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code; and
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors is authorized by Virginia Code section 27-
98 to levy fees in order to defray the cost of such administration, enforcement and appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby adopts the following fee schedule, which shall be
administered by the County Fire Official and his authorized assistants.
FEE
$ 175.00
Annual
Per location
$ 100.00
Annual
Per location
$ 175.00
Annual
Per location
$ 175.00
Annual
Per location
$ 100.00
Annual
Per location
$ 100.00
Annual
Per location
$ 300.00
Annual
Per location
$ 200.00
Annual
Per location
$ 200.00
30 days
Per location
$ 175.00
As specified
in applicable
section
Per location
FEE SCHEDULE
CODE SECTION
FIRE CODE REFERENCE #
Aerosol products 2801.2
An operational permit is required to manufacture, store or
handle an aggregate quantity of Level 2 or Level 3 aerosol
products in excess of 500 pounds (227 kg) net weight.
Combustible fibers 2901.3
An operational permit is required for the storage and handling of combustible
fibers in quantities greater than 100 cubic feet (2.8 m3).
Exception: An operational permit is not required for agricultural storage.
Compressed gas 3001.2
An operational permit is required for the storage, use or handling at normal
temperature and pressure (NTP) of compressed gases in excess of the amounts
listed below.
Exception: Vehicles equipped for and using compressed gas as a fuel for
propelling the vehicle.
PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR COMPRESSED GASES
TYPE OF GAS AMOUNT (cubic feet at NTP)
Corrosive 200
Flammable (except cryogenic fluids and liquefied petroleum gases) 200
Highly toxic Any amount
Inert and simple asphyxiant 6,000
Oxidizing (including oxygen) 504
Toxic Any amount
For SI: 1 cubic foot = 0.02832 m3
Cryogenic fluids 3201.2
An operational permit is required to produce, store, transport on site, use,
handle or dispense cryogenic fluids in excess of the amounts listed ICC Fire
Code table 105.6.11
Exception: Operational permits are not required for vehicles equipped for and
using cryogenic fluids as a fuel for propelling the vehicle or for refrigerating
the lading.
Cutting and welding 2601.2
For those who weld, cut with gas, electric arc or flammable liquid or any
combination thereof, outside of areas approved for this purpose an operational
permit is required to conduct cutting or welding operations within the jurisdiction.
Exception: In the case of an emergency which does not allow time for the
prior notification.
Dry cleaning plants 1201.2
An operational permit is required to engage in the business of dry cleaning or to
change to a more hazardous cleaning solvent used in existing dry cleaning
equipment.
Explosives 3301.2
To Manufacture, sell (wholesale or retail), or operate a terminal which handles
explosives or blasting agents
Explosives 3301.2
To store, possess or otherwise dispose of explosives in connection with
operations involving blasting. This will include, but not be limited to company
yards, storage sites and storage sites at job locations within the county.
Explosives 3301.2
To use explosives or blasting agents at any project site. The permit shall specify
at each location the type and extent of blasting to be performed and shall not
exceed 30 days.
Flammable and combustible liquids 3401.4
An operational permit is required:
1. To use or operate a pipeline for the transportation within facilities of
combustible liquids. This requirement shall not apply to the offsite trans-
portation in pipelines regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT)
(see Section 3501.1.2) nor does it apply to piping systems (see Section
3503.6). (annual)
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
2. To store, handle or use Class I liquids in excess of 5 gallons (19 L) in a
building or in excess of 10 gallons (37.9 L) outside of a building (annual),
except that a permit is not required for the following:
2.1. The storage or use of Class I liquids in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle,
aircraft, motorboat, mobile power plant or mobile heating plant, unless such
storage, in the opinion of the fire official, would cause an unsafe condition.
2.2. The storage or use of paints, oils, varnishes or similar flammable
mixtures when such liquids are stored for maintenance, painting or
similar purposes for a period of not more than 30 days.
3. To store, handle or use Class II or Class IliA liquids in excess of 25 gallons
(95 L) in a building or in excess of 60 gallons (227 L) outside a building,
except for fuel oil used in connection with oil-burning equipment. (annual)
4. To remove Class I or Class II liquids from an underground storage tank used
for fueling motor vehicles by any means other than the approved, stationary
on-site pumps normally used for dispensing purposes. (per event)
5. To operate tank vehicles, equipment, tanks, plants, terminals, wells, fuel-
dispensing stations, refineries, distilleries and similar facilities where
flammable and combustible liquids are produced, processed, transported,
stored, dispensed or used. (annual)
6. To install, alter, remove, abandon, place temporarily out of service
(for more than 90 days) or otherwise dispose of an underground, protected
aboveground or aboveground flammable or combustible liquid tank (per
event).
7. To change the type of contents stored in a flammable or combustible liquid
tank to a material which poses a greater hazard than that for which the tank
was designed and constructed. (per event and annual thereafter)
8. To manufacture, process, blend or refine flammable or combustible liquids.
(annual)
$ 175.00
Annual
Hazardous materials 2701.1 & 107.2
An operational permit is required to store, transport on site, dispense, use
or handle hazardous materials in excess of the amounts listed below.
PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TYPE OF MATERIAL
AMOUNT
Combustible liquid
See flammable and combustible liquids
Corrosive Materials
Gases
Liquids
Solids
See compressed gases
55 gallons
1000 pounds
Explosives
See explosives
Flammable Materials
Gases
Liquids
Solids
See compressed gases
See flammable and Combustible liquids
100 pounds
Highly Toxic Materials
Gases
Liquids
Solids
See compressed gases
Any amount
Any amount
Oxidizing Materials
Gases
Liquids
Class 4
Class 3
Class 2
Class 1
See compressed gases
Any amount
1 gallon
10 gallons
55 gallons
Solids
Class 4
Class 3
Class 2
Class 1
Any amount
10 pounds
100 pounds
500 pounds
Organic Peroxides
Liquids
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Solids
Class I
Class II
Class III
Any amount
Any amount
1 gallon
2 gallons
No permit required
Any amount
Any amount
10 pounds
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
$ 175.00
Annual
$ 100.00
30 days
Per site
$ 100.00
Annual
Per location
$ 175.00
Annual
Per location
$ 325.00
60 Days
Per location
Class IV
Class V
20 pounds
No permit required
Pyrophoric Materials
Gases
Liquids
Solids
See compressed gases
Any amount
Any amount
Toxic Materials
Gases
Liquids
Solids
See compressed gases
10 Gallons
100 pounds
Unstable (reactive) Materials
Liquids
Class 4
Class 3
Class 2
Class 1
Any amount
Any amount
5 gallons
10 gallons
Solids
Class 4
Class 3
Class 2
Class 1
Any amount
Any amount
50 pounds
100 pounds
Water Reactive Materials
Liquids
Class 3
Class 2
Class 1
Any amount
5 gallons
55 gallons
Solids
Class 3
Class 2
Class 1
Any amount
50 pounds
500 pounds
HPM facilities
An operational permit is required to store, handle or use hazardous
production materials.
801.5 & 2701.1
Hot work operations 2602.1
An operational permit is required for hot work including, but not limited
to:
1. Public exhibitions and demonstrations where hot work is conducted.
2. Use of portable hot work equipment inside a structure.
Exception: Work that is conducted under a construction permit.
3. Fixed-site hot work equipment such as welding booths.
Exception: Fixed facility hot works, such as shops can be approved on an
annual basis at the discretion of the fire official
4. Hot work conducted within a hazardous fire area.
5. Application of roof coverings with the use of an open-flame device.
6. When approved, the fire official shall issue a permit to carry out a Hot Work
Program.
This program allows approved personnel to regulate their facility's hot work
operations. The approved personnel shall be trained in the fire safety aspects
denoted in this chapter and shall be responsible for issuing permits requiring
compliance with the requirements found in this chapter. These permits shall
be issued only to their employees or hot work operations under their supervision.
Lumber yards and woodworking plants 1901.2
An operational permit is required for the storage or processing of lumber
exceeding 100,000 board feet (8,333 ft3) (236 m3).
LP-gas 3801.2
An operational permit is required for:
1. Storage and use of LP-gas.
Exception: An operational permit is not required for individual containers
with a 500-gallon (1893 L) water capacity or less serving occupancies in
Group R-3.
2. Operation of cargo tankers that transport LP-gas.
Open Burning (Land clearing) 301.2
For the burning of land clearing debris such as brush, stumps, trees and other
clean wood to be burned at the site at which it is generated. This would include
debris waste generated from the development of property and from burning
unwanted, leaning or dead trees regardless of size.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
$ No fee
No permit
Required
$ No fee
$75.00
Per occurrence
$ 100.00
Annual
$300.00
Annual
$75.00
Per job
$100.00
Annual
Per site
$100.00
Annual
Per location
$100.00
30 Days
Per location
$100.00
Annual
Per location
Open Burning (Yard maintenance) 301.2
For the burning of vegetation that is removed from trees, shrubs or garden plants.
This would also include twigs and branches that fall or are removed from
trees. Note: The burning of trees, stumps and logs is considered land clearing.
Open Burning (Certified burn program) 301.2
For the burning of land clearing debris by persons who qualify for and have
attended the certified burn program and have received a certificate from the Fire
Marshal.
Bonfire 307.3.1
Issued to the owner of the land upon which the bonfire will be kindled. Fire is utilized for
ceremonial purposes only. Size shall not exceed 5'x5'x5'. The duration of the fire shall
not exceed 3 hours. Permit is valid for the date or dates specified only.
Open flame in public buildings 308.3
To use open flames or candles in connection with assembly and educational areas, dining
areas of restaurants or drinking establishments ( annual).
Fireworks (Wholesale)
To sell class C or 1.4 fireworks to stands or businesses within the county.
A bond is required in amounts specified in the Fire prevention code.
3301.2
Fireworks (Public & private display) 3301.2
To display or discharge fireworks for ceremonial, sports, fairs or amusement purposes.
For each additional date or location, there will be an additional fee. Before issuance
of a permit, a bond in the amount specified by the Fire Marshal shall be furnished for
payment of any and all damages which may be caused to persons or property as a
result of any permitted display.
Fireworks (Retail) 3301.2
To sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, store awaiting sale at any retail stand or
business n the county, of any class C or 1.4G fireworks. Insurance or bond
required in an amount specified by the Fire Marshal.
Storage of scrap tires and tire byproducts 301.2 & 2501.2
An operational permit is required to establish, conduct or maintain storage
of scrap tires and tire byproducts that exceeds 2,500 cubic feet (71 m3) of total
volume of scrap tires and for indoor storage of tires and tire byproducts.
Tents and Membrane Structures
Temporary membrane structures, tents and canopies. An operational permit
is required to operate an air-supported temporary membrane structure or a tent.
Exceptions:
1. Tents used exclusively for recreational camping purposes.
2. Tents and air-supported structures that cover an area of 900 square feet
(84 m2) or less, including all connecting areas or spaces with a common
means of egress or entrance and with an occupant load of 50 or less persons.
3. Fabric canopies and awnings open on all sides which comply with all of the
following:
3.1.
2403.4
Individual canopies shall have a maximum size of 700 square feet
(65 m2).
3.2. The aggregate area of multiple canopies placed side by side without
a fire break clearance of 12 feet (3658 mm) shall not exceed 700
square feet (65m2) total.
3.3. A minimum clearance of 12 feet (3658 mm) to structures and other
tents shall be provided.
Operation of Junk yards (Waste material) 301.2 & 1404.2
An operational permit is required for the operation of wrecking yards, junk
yards and waste material-handling facilities.
Agenda Item No. 13. Albemarle County Efficiency Report.
Mr. Tucker summarized the Executive Summary by stating that in 2003, the Board of Supervisors
adopted the FY2003-FY2006 Strategic Plan which included a Strategic Direction stating the County would
"provide effective and efficient County services to the public in a courteous and equitable manner." As an
illustration of the County's commitment to this Strategic Direction and its goals, staff prepared an
"Albemarle County Efficiency Overview". This report highlights cost saving and other efficient practices
undertaken by the County government over the course of the FY2003-FY2006 Strategic Plan with a
strong emphasis on the past year.
This report is the first of its kind to be formally delivered to the Board and was prepared as a
result of both the Board's and staff's desire to specifically demonstrate how the County conducts its
operations in an efficient manner. Additionally, the actions detailed in the report extend beyond the
County's Strategic Plan by providing numerous examples of the County's values in action, particularly
stewardship and innovation.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Through this Executive Summary, staff will also provide information on how the County's efficient
efforts will be identified, managed and reported in the future.
The "Albemarle County Efficiency Report" was prepared over the past few months by staff from
all local government departments. In determining the value of a given efficiency, staff used the most
reasonably conservative estimate possible. However, in instances where the value of an efficiency could
not be established due to measurement or resource constraints, a specific value was not reported.
While staff has worked to develop and report efficient practices in their department's operations, it
is recognized that finding ways to be more efficient is and will be an on-going effort. In order to better
identify and report the efficient practices in the County's operations, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) will continue working with departments through the budget process to ensure departments'
performance indicators include an efficiency measure. These efficiency measures will be connected to
departments' objectives and available in the budget document.
Additionally, County Executive staff will evaluate all newly funded initiatives using additional
criteria. Staff members have attended training on the Return on Investment (ROI) methodology and will
apply ROI principles of varying degrees to evaluate programs and additional efforts on initiatives that
have a high cost, visibility, or for those that are long-term programs. It is the aim of this practice to ensure
a high level of accountability for all new programs and to assist the County Executive and Board in
making their respective budget-related recommendations and decisions.
The efforts to manage efficient performance indicators and evaluate new funded requests are key
components of the performance-based system that the County is striving to achieve. These additional
new efforts will take some time for refinement, however; staff hopes the Board will find this information of
value.
The specific examples of measures taken to reduce, avoid and eliminate costs are reflected
each year in the County's adopted budget. It should be noted that in instances where increasing costs
were offset or avoided, year-to-year savings may not be evident when comparing budget documents.
Furthermore, many examples that reduce staff time do not result in a direct fiscal impact, but rather
allow staff to pursue more productive endeavors with the time saved.
This Report is before the Board for information. Staff has also informed the Board of ways they
plan to proceed with identifying, managing and reporting efficient practices in the future. If the Board has
any questions regarding this report or suggestions regarding this overall approach, staff asks the Board to
provide them and to further define the Board's expectations.
Mr. Tucker reported that this is an ongoing program by the Office of Management and Budget to
demonstrate staff efficiency, noting that some staff attended a training session on "return on investment."
He mentioned that Albemarle was the only local government group attending, as the rest were private
businesses.
Ms. Thomas said she did not think this effort should become a major expenditure.
Agenda Item No. 14. Update on Auditorium Renovations.
The Executive Summary states that staff received guidance from the Board of Supervisors in the
fall of 2004 to proceed with a design of Lane Auditorium that retains the large venue capacity, is sensitive
to the original character, and provides a means of conversion into a Board Room capable of supporting
smaller audience sizes in an appropriate atmosphere. A design team was assembled to work with
Moseley Architects in this effort: Lee Catlin (Community Relations Manager), Ella Carey (Clerk, Board of
Supervisors), Jennifer Johnston (Clerk, School Board), Sharon Taylor (Clerk, Planning Commission), Ana
Kilmer (Clerk, BZA), Mike Brown (Information Technology) and Ron Lilley (Project Manager). Their
progress was presented to a joint meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and School
Board on August 9, 2005. As a result of that meeting, the Board requested staff/architect to bring back
more options that would allow a narrower dais configuration. In addition, the Board requested that the
Planning Commission and other appointed committees and Board's be given an additional opportunity to
provide input before bringing revisions back to the Board. Comments from the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Board are attached (Attachment A) for your review. The Board of Zoning Appeals
had no comments.
Based on input received to date on the design of Lane Auditorium, the County's architects have
developed the enclosed alternatives for your consideration. These alternatives represent various options
to provide a more narrow dais configuration, as requested by the Board. Staff provides the comments
from the Planning Commission and ARB for the Board's consideration in making any final changes to the
preferred option.
Regarding the input from the Planning Commission and ARB, it is important to point out that the
decision to proceed with the renovations of Lane Auditorium was based on the Board's desire to improve
the public's ability to observe and participate in the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and other
Boards and Commissions of the County. It was ultimately decided that the investment needed to provide
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
a more functional space that provided adequate audio and visual aids should be made in a space that
would have more versatility than room 241. Because the architects were able demonstrate that Lane
Auditorium could be designed with the flexibility to serve both small and large meetings, the Board agreed
it was the best location for the investment needed in audio, visual and other improvement to better serve
the public regarding their participation in the meetings. In addition, the Board felt strongly about the need
to renovate Lane Auditorium because of its significance as a community asset and location for various
community events. While also retaining room 241 for meetings is possible, it would require an additional
significant investment in audio, visual and other improvements for it to be adequate to meet the Board's
original goals of improving the public's ability to observe and participate in meetings.
Finally, regarding the Board's selection of an alternative configuration of the dais, staff has
arranged for the Board to visit Lane Auditorium prior to lunch to gain a more clear perspective on the
originally proposed configuration regarding the distance of the various positions on the dais from one
another. While the Board may still prefer one of the new alternatives, it will at least provide perspective
on how much improvement they provide. Some input up to this point has suggested that the original
configuration provides more adequate seating given the varying needs of the County's different Boards,
Committees and Commissions.
The County's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes $1,180,000 for the renovation of Lane
Auditorium. An additional $210,000 for audio visual improvements is also available for the project from
the previous fiscal year.
Staff recommends that the Board provide final direction on the dais configuration and indicate any
additional changes that may be necessary to the proposed design so that final preparation can be made
for the project to go out to bid in January.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said the architects are present in the auditorium this
morning to make a presentation about alternatives for the renovation. He noted that the Planning
Commission, BZA, and the ARB have provided input on the plans. Mr. Foley emphasized that staff hopes
to get requests for bids out in January, with renovations to begin in September. He said the Board's
budget hearings may have to take place at the County Building on Fifth Street this year if auditorium
construction is underway at that time. He emphasized that the main goals for this renovation were to
allow the public involvement in meetings, as well as renovation of the auditorium itself. He noted that the
investment is going to be substantial, primarily because of audio-visual improvements.
At this time the Board recessed into the Auditorium to receive a presentation from the architects
and to discuss the proposed designs.
Following the architects presentation, it was the consensus of the Board to go with Option A for
the dais in the Lane Auditorium.
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:06 p.m., Mr. Dorrier moved that the Board go into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-
37.11 A of the Code of Virginia, under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees,
and commissions; under Subsection (3) to discuss acquisition of real property for a public purpose, and,
under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding a specific matter requiring legal
advice relating to taxation. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session. At 2:14 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Dorrier that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member's 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 closed session were heard discussed, or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd to:
Appoint Mr. Fred Missel to the Architectural Review Board with said term to expire November 14,
2008.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Appoint Mr. Stanley Binsted to the CHART committee with said term to expire April 3, 2008.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. FY 2005 End-of-Year Preliminary Financial Report.
Mr. Richard Wiggans, Director of Finance, noted that preliminary real estate tax collections for the
year total over $17.0 million, a 10.8 percent increase over collections for FY 2004. He noted that
approximately 69 percent of local revenues come from general property taxes, with total local revenues
up 10.4 percent from one year ago. He confirmed that these figures reflect one-half year of the rate
reduction, with the higher values.
Mr. Wiggans reported that the total General Fund expenditures for the year equaled $164.5
million, a 12 percent increase over one year ago. He said the distribution shows 45 percent going to
Schools, 35 percent for General Fund departments, and the remaining 19 percent split between non-
departmental expenses and transfers (to the CIP, etc.). Last fiscal year (2004) ended with a Fund
Balance of a little over $20.1 million, and $19.956 million of that amount was used, with $13.0 million
going into the Cash Reserve with the remaining $6.956 million being used for appropriation increases as
approved by the Board, leaving a Fund Balance of over $146,000 for 2004.
Mr. Wiggans said revenues for FY 2005 exceeded expenditures by a little over $6.5 million, with a
preliminary Fund Balance of $6.653 million. He noted that approximately $5.8 million of that is proposed
to be used, $2.6 million already authorized by the Board for expenditures in 2006, and another $764,000
slated for expenditures in FY'06. Based on the Board's approved policy for transfer of funds to the CIP,
he said $2.474 million will be transferred, leaving a Fund Balance of over $800,000 above the $13.0
million held in the Cash Reserve.
Mr. Wiggans said that today he is asking for approval of the preliminary report. The auditors are
expected to come in next week to review the performance for FY 2004-05. He noted that the certified
financial report is expected to come out at the end of December 2005, with the final audited figures to
follow.
Mr. Boyd commented that he liked the format of Mr. Wiggans report, and suggested that Debt
Service be separated for Schools and Local Government.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman to accept the Preliminary June 30, 2005, End-
of-Year Financial Report, as presented. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: FY 2005 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 25, 2005.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Budget Manager, said there are several expenditures for consideration today
(please see Executive Summary which is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the
Board of Supervisors).
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd to approve the FY 2005 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $1 ,514,805.00, and to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation No. 2005-068, No. 2005-069 and
No. 2005-070. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion which passed by the following recorded vote:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-068
DATE: 10/05/05
EXPLANATION: Various Education Programs
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3104 24000 240266 Revenue-Murray J 2 7.00
2 3104 24000 240362 Rev-Touring Grants J 2 165.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Misc Revenues J2 5,500.00
2 3154 33000 330031 Comm Svs Grant J 2 49,953.60
2 3306 60301 161201 Tuition-Open Doors J 2 12,000.00
2 3307 33000 330610 Federal - USDA J2 7,597.27
1 3104 60216 312500 Prof Service-Inst J 1 37.00
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
3104 60253 312500 Prof Service-Inst J 1 165.00
3104 61101 420100 Field Trips J 1 5,500.00
3154 61311 301210 Contract Services J 1 49,953.60
3306 60301 135000 PT /Wages-Clerical J 1 4,900.00
3306 60301 210000 FICA J 1 422.33
3306 60301 312700 Prof Serv Consult J 1 6,677.67
3307 61129 600200 Food Supplies J 1 7,597.27
3104 0501 Est Revenue 5,702.00
0701 Appropriation 5,702.00
3154 0501 Est Revenue 49,953.60
0701 Appropriation 49,953.60
3306 0501 Est Revenue 12,000.00
0701 Appropriation 12,000.00
3307 0501 Est Revenue 7,597.27
0701 Appropriation 7.597.27
TOTAL 150,505.74 75,252.87 75,252.87
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-069
DATE: 10/5/05
EXPLANATION: FY '05 Overexpenditures
TYPE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
FUND
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2433
2433
2433
1000
1000
SUB LEDGER
OBJECT DESCRIPTION
DEPT
11010
12040
21010
21020
39000
39000
53014
51000
64600
64600
62420
530700
300203
601200
540100
561405
563400
457107
510100
800101
800903
510100
0501
0701
BOS-Liability Insurance
C/A-Special Litigation
Cir Ct-Books & Subscr
Gen'l Dist Ct-Rentals
Fire/Rescue Tax Credit
Juvenile Detention
DSS-Child Care Fee
G/F Balance
Mach & Equip
Abestos Removal
Electrical Services
Est Revenue
Appropriation
CODE
J1
J1
J1
J1
J1
J1
J1
J2
J
J1
J1
GENERAL LEDGER
AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1,950.00
4,500.00
7,000.00
500.00
4,500.00
61,200.00
56,000.00
135,650.00
27,854.16
46,788.38
(74,642.54)
135,650.00
TOTAL
135.650.00
271,300.00 135,650.00 135,650.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPPROPRIATION NO.: 2005-070
DATE: 10/05/05
EXPLANATION: FY '05 Grants and Programs
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
HUD Section 8 Grant
1 1227 81920 579001 Housing Asst Payment J1 373,000.00
2 1227 15000 150101 Interest J2 5,800.00
2 1227 33000 330016 Voucher Program J2 363,450.00
2 1227 51000 510100 Fund Balance J1 3,750.00
Druq Seized Assets-Commonwealth's Attornev
1 1234 22010 800700 ADP Equip J1 1,400.00
2 1234 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 1,400.00
Druq Seized Assets-Federal
1 1235 39000 580902 Drug Assets J1 7,500.00
2 1235 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 7,500.00
Druq Seized Assets-State
1 1236 39000 580905 Drug Assets J1 7,200.00
2 1236 24000 240403 State Seizures J2 4,000.00
2 1236 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 3,200.00
Bullet Proof Vest Grant
1 1241 31020 601000 Police Supplies J1 162.50
2 1241 33000 330001 Grant Revenue J2 162.50
Child Care Initiative
1 1561 53115 600100 Supplies J1 158.91
2 1561 33000 330001 Federal Grant J2 158.91
V.PA Grant
1 1660 53014 800700 ADP Equip J1 450.00
2 1660 33000 330027 Substance Abuse J2 450.00
Summer Nutrition
1 3002 63115 800700 ADP Equip J1 8,700.00
2 3002 16000 161247 AIMR J2 8,700.00
AIMR Summer Rental
1 3145 62190 800700 ADP Equip J1 63,000.00
2 3145 15000 150201 Rental J2 63,000.00
Internal Service-Vehicle Repair
1 3910 62341 600800 Vehicle Fuel J1 203,500.00
2 3910 16000 161271 Fuel Charges J2 203,500.00
Food Services
1 3000 60000 600000 Material & Supplies J1 304,400.00
2 3000 16000 161204 Cafeteria Sales J2 91,000.00
2 3000 51000 410100 Fund Balance J2 213,400.00
1227 0501 Est Revenue 373,000.00
1227 0701 Appropriation 373,000.00
1234 0501 Est Revenue 1,400.00
1234 0701 Appropriation 1,400.00
1235 0501 Est Revenue 7,500.00
1235 0701 Appropriation 7,500.00
1236 0501 Est Revenue 7,200.00
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
1236 0701 Appropriation 7,200.00
1241 0501 Est Revenue 162.50
1241 0701 Appropriation 162.50
1561 0501 Est Revenue 158.91
1561 0701 Appropriation 158.91
1660 0501 Est Revenue 450.00
1660 0701 Appropriation 450.00
3002 0501 Est Revenue 8,700.00
3002 0701 Appropriation 8,700.00
3145 0501 Est Revenue 63,000.00
3145 0701 Appropriation 63,000.00
3910 0501 Est Revenue 203,500.00
3910 0701 Appropriation 203,500.00
3000 0501 Est Revenue 304,400.00
3000 0701 Appropriation 304.400.00
TOTAL 1,938,942.82 969,471.41 969,471.41
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: FY 2006 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 25, 2005.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden reported that this 2006 Budget amendment is for a little over $44.0 million,
primarily related to re-appropriation of various capital projects from last year into the current fiscal year.
He explained that the first appropriation is for the Fire Inspection Program, DSS funding for child care
initiatives ($23,000), the re-appropriation of projects approved in FY 2005 that have not been completed
and are coming forward in FY 2006 ($620,000). He said there have been amendments totaling $66,000
related to a study of development related inspection fees, replacement of equipment in the Circuit Court
Clerk's office, $159,000 for outstanding purchase orders rolled over from last year, a Police Department
grant of $26,000 for overtime, $129,000 for School programs requested for grants and donations
received, and Capital Fund projects outstanding in the amount of $31.0 million, including those where the
County is the fiscal agent such as that for the ECC (mobile data, 800 MHz radio project). He said School
capital projects have brought $2.7 million from last year, and the Stormwater Fund brought $1.4 million.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd to approve the FY 2006 Budget amendment in the
amount of $44,027,649.04, and to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation No. 2006-012, No. 2006-018, No.
2006-019, No. 2006-020, No. 2006-021, No. 2006-022, No. 2006-023, No. 2006-024, No. 2006-025, No.
2006-026 and No. 2006-027. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-012
DATE: 10/5/05
EXPLANATION: Funding to implement new Fire Inspection Position and fees.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32013 110000 Salaries J1 15,962.50
1 1000 32013 120000 Overtime J1 500.00
1 1000 32013 210000 FICA J1 1,020.68
1 1000 32013 210000 Medicare J1 238.71
1 1000 32013 221000 VRS J1 1,810.88
1 1000 32013 231000 Health Ins J1 2,876.00
1 1000 32013 232000 Dental Ins J1 100.00
1 1000 32013 270000 Wkrs Compo J1 165.00
1 1000 32013 311000 Health Services J1 600.00
1 1000 32013 332104 Computer Maint J1 325.00
1 1000 32013 360000 Advertising J1 2,000.00
1 1000 32013 520300 Telecommunicat J1 400.00
1 1000 32013 530900 Vehicle Ins J1 325.00
1 1000 32013 550100 Training J1 1,000.00
1 1000 32013 580000 Background Invest J1 400.00
1 1000 32013 600100 Office Supplies J1 500.00
1 1000 32013 600800 Vehicle Fuel J1 1,000.00
1 1000 32013 600900 Vehicle Maint J1 0.00
1 1000 32013 601100 Turnout Gear J1 3,300.00
1 1000 32013 601315 Pub Safety Suppl J1 12,900.00
1 1000 32013 800500 Motor Vehicle J1 24,000.00
1 1000 32013 800700 Computer J1 1,500.00
2 1000 13000 130361 Burn Permits J2 13,477.00
2 1000 13000 130367 Haz-Mat Permits J2 13,477.00
2 1000 51000 510100 GIF Balance J2 43,969.76
1000 0501 Est Revenue 70,923.76
1000 0701 Appropriation 70.923.76
TOTAL 141,847.51 70,923.76 70,923.76
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-018
DATE: 10/5/05
EXPLANATION: Social Services Child Care Initiative Grant
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE
2 1561 33000 330001 Federal Grant J2
1 1561 53115 110000 Salaries J 1
1 1561 53115 210000 FICA J 1
1 1561 53115 600100 Office Supplies J 1
1 1561 53115 310000 Criminal History Ck J 1
1561 0501 Est. Revenue
1561 0701 Appropriation
TOTAL
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
23,964.05
21,221.96
1,595.09
147.00
1,000.00
23,964.05
47,928.10 23,964.05
23.964.05
23,964.05
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-019
DATE: 10105/05
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of projects and programs from FY '05
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12015 312210 OMB-Contract Services J1 16,842.00
1 1000 13020 800100 Registrar-Equip J1 47,110.00
1 1000 32015 561415 Car Seat Safety Program J1 1,642.31
1 1000 39000 565510 SPCA Sterilization Fund J1 1,955.40
1 1000 42040 999851 RSWA Contribution J1 250,000.00
1 1000 81022 312342 PI-Development Area Study J1 249,255.90
1 1000 81022 312344 PI-S Urban Area B J1 2,717.00
1 1000 81022 312342 Development Areas Study J1 5,500.00
1 1000 81021 800200 Furniture & Fixtures J1 2,500.00
1 1715 71018 800605 Recreation Trail Greenway J1 43,150.00
2 1000 19000 190240 UVA Share-Area B J2 8,300.00
2 1000 19000 190245 City Share-Area B J2 27,300.00
2 1000 24000 240607 State-HAVA Reimbursement J2 47,110.00
2 1000 51000 510100 GIF Balance J2 494,812.61
2 1715 24000 240765 Virginia Trail Fund Grant -
Rivanna Greenway J2 34,520.00
2 1715 51000 512031 Transfer from GFICIP J2 8,630.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 577,522.61
1000 0701 Appropriation 577,522.61
1715 0501 Est Revenue 43,150.00
1715 0701 Appropriation 43.150.00
TOTAL 1,241,345.22 620,672.61 620,672.61
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-020
DATE: 10105/05
EXPLANATION: FY '06 Supplemental request for use of FY '05 Surplus
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
Communitv Development
1000 81021 800200 Furniture & Fixtures - Repl J 1 3,400.00
1000 81022 130000 Part-time Wages J 1 4,500.00
1000 81024 312105 Prof Consulting Services J 1 20,000.00
Clerk of the Circuit Court
1 1000 21060 63005 Salaries-Regular J 1 14,568.00
1 1000 21060 130000 Part-time Wages J 1 4,640.00
1 1000 21060 600100 Office Supplies J 1 9,974.00
1 1000 21060 312800 Prof Ser Audit J 1 2,900.00
1 1000 21060 601700 Copy Expense J 1 3,500.00
1 1000 21060 800101 Machinery & equipment J 1 2,500.00
2 1000 51000 510100 GIF Balance J 2 65,982.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 65,982.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 65.982.00
TOTAL 131,964.00 65,982.00 65,982.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-021
DATE: 10/5/05
EXPLANATION: FY '05 Purchase Order Reappropriation
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
See Attached Details County Executive 2,725.39
Finance 3,500.00
Gen'l Dist Court 2,628.84
Police 1,660.66
Fire/Rescue-Adm 18,436.41
Fire Prevention 1,199.90
Fire/Rescue-Operations 17,174.75
Monticello Fire Station 4,445.80
Solid WastelRecycling 44,458.04
Gen'l Services-Maint. 24,244.13
Gen'l Serv-Custodial 9,515.00
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
VPA Management 15,017.00
Parks/Rec-Maintence 2,477.34
Planning 3,400.00
E911/Planning 8,000.00
Zoning 368.75
2 1000 51000 510100 GIF Fund Balance J2 159,252.01
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 159,252.01
1000 0701 Appropriation 159.252.01
TOTAL 318,504.02 159,252.01 159,252.01
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-022
DATE: 10/5/05
EXPLANATION: Funding for DOJ Grant #2005-DJ-BX-0891 to cover police overtime
TYPE
1
1
2
FUND
1536
1536
1536
1536
1536
DEPT
31013
31013
33000
OBJECT DESCRIPTION
120000 Overtime Wages
210000 FICA
300001 Federal Grant Rev
0501 Est Revenue
0701 Appropriation
SUB LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT
J1 24,228.02
J1 2,006.98
J2 26,235.00
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
26,235.00
26,235.00
26.235.00
26,235.00
TOTAL 52,470.00
SUB LEDGER
OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE
Finance J 1
Information Tech J 1
Courts J 1
Gen'l District Court J 1
Juvenile Court J 1
Clerk of the Court J 1
Public Safety J 1
Police J 1
FirelRescue J 1
Northern Fire Sta J 1
Pantops Fire Sta J 1
Monticello Fire Sta J 1
Volunteer Fire J 1
Volunteer Rescue J 1
Engineering J 1
Street Imp J 1
Public Works J 1
Health Department J 1
Parks & Recreation J 1
Tourism J 1
Libraries J 1
Planning J 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-023
DATE: 10105/05
EXPLANATION: Various Education Programs and Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 4,400.00
2 3104 18000 181258 Golden Apple J2 6,000.00
2 3220 24000 240000 Prof Partnership Gr J 2 99,927.00
2 3502 18000 181223 Shannon Found J2 13,955.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 5,150.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed./Rec Supplies J 1 4,000.00
1 2215 61411 580000 Miscellaneous J 1 400.00
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Development J 1 6,000.00
1 3220 61311 160300 Stipend-Stf Dvlp J 1 23,500.00
1 3220 61311 210000 FICA J 1 1,797.75
1 3220 61311 312700 Prof Serv Consult J 1 46,000.00
1 3220 61311 550100 Mileage J 1 100.00
1 3220 61311 580500 Staff Development J 1 8,130.00
1 3220 61311 601300 Edu Supplies J 1 16,250.00
1 3220 61311 601700 Printing J 1 4,149.25
1 3502 60606 601300 Instr Materials J 1 13,955.00
1 2210 61101 112100 Salary - Teacher J 1 4,644.68
1 2210 61101 210000 FICA J 1 355.32
1 2212 61101 601300 Ed./Rec Supplies J 1 150.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue 9,550.00
0701 Appropriation 9,550.00
3104 0501 Est Revenue 6,000.00
0701 Appropriation 6,000.00
3220 0501 Est Revenue 99,927.00
0701 Appropriation 99,927.00
3502 0501 Est Revenue 13,955.00
0701 Appropriation 13.955.00
T OT AL 258,864.00 129,432.00 129,432.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-024
DATE: 10105/05
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of projects and programs from FY '05 General Fund CIP
AMOUNT
30,613.81
915,191.04
50,649.13
5,000.00
6,136,339.36
51,165.21
1,033,004.71
1,352,028.69
20,301.01
4,273,435.70
880,000.00
549,000.00
1,552,656.94
100,538.82
2,263,397.41
2,416,413.78
2,629,248.73
70,000.00
884,659.18
1,390,273.30
565,269.23
4,350,691.29
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
TYPE FUND DEPT
See Details On File
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Zoning J 1 4,781.72
2 9010 16000 160536 City-Visitor's Ctr J2 244,000.00
2 9010 24000 240800 Clerk's Tech J2 36,004.00
2 9010 33000 330630 DEQ-Red Hill Std J 2 65,800.00
2 9010 41000 410500 Loan Proceeds J 2 7,015,000.00
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP Fund Balance J2 23,667,136.06
2 9010 51000 512027 E911 Radio Sys J2 496,719.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 31,524,659.06
9010 0701 Appropriation 31.524.659.06
TOTAL 63,049,318.12 31,524,659.06 31,524,659.06
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2006-025
DATE: 10105/05
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of FY '05 ECC Projects To FY '06
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 4101 12000 120605 E911 Service Chg J2 496,719.00
2 4110 16000 160503 County Share J2 496,719.00
2 4110 33000 330325 Grant J2 1,987,600.74
2 4110 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 2,502,932.00
2 4105 16000 160502 City J2 62,712.27
2 4105 16000 160503 County J2 56,653.06
2 4105 16000 160512 UVA J2 11,503.35
2 4105 16000 160540 City J2 16,827.83
2 4105 16000 160541 County J2 27,306.86
2 4105 16000 160542 UVA J2 8,093.51
2 4105 16000 160543 Airport J2 1,620.85
2 4115 16000 160502 City J2 6,064.00
2 4115 16000 160503 County J2 120,847.00
2 4115 16000 160512 UVA J2 1,519.00
2 4115 16000 160544 City J2 178,766.53
2 4115 16000 160545 County J2 169,855.58
2 4115 16000 160546 UVA J2 50,944.36
2 4115 33000 330325 Grant J2 934,076.57
2 4115 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 72,053.72
2 4100 51000 510100 ECC Fund Balance J2 58,392.67
1 4101 93010 930024 Transfer To CIP J1 496,719.00
1 4110 31050 312700 Consultants J1 558.27
1 4110 31060 800300 Comm Equip J1 138,632.00
1 4110 31060 800305 Radio System J1 1,704,455.39
1 4110 31060 800308 Subscriber Units J1 1,728,511.53
1 4110 31060 800625 Utilities J1 5,208.63
1 4110 31060 800635 Tower Sites J1 21,634.81
1 4110 31060 999999 Contingency J1 1,388,251.11
1 4105 31061 800306 Dispatch J1 130,868.68
1 4105 31061 950180 Spec ECC Proj J1 53,849.05
1 4115 31065 312700 Consultants J1 72,053.72
1 4115 31065 800316 Mobile Data Proj J1 971,634.57
1 4115 31065 800714 Tech Upgrade J1 290,438.47
1 4115 31065 999999 Contingency J1 200,000.00
1 4100 31042 520300 Phone Upgrade J1 58,392.67
4101 0501 Est Revenue 496,719.00
4101 0701 Appropriation 496,719.00
4110 0501 Est Revenue 4,987,251.74
4110 0701 Appropriation 4,987,251.74
4105 0501 Est Revenue 184,717.73
4105 0701 Appropriation 184,717.73
4115 0501 Est Revenue 1 ,534,126.76
4115 0701 Appropriation 1,534,126.76
4100 0501 Est Revenue 58,392.67
4100 0701 Appropriation 58,392.67
TOTAL 14.522.415.80 7.261.207.90 7.261.207.90
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-026
DATE: 10105/05
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of School CIP projects from FY' 05
TYPE FUND DEPT
(See Details on File)
OBJECT DESCRIPTION
School Board
Cale
V L Murray
Henley
Jouett
Albemarle
W Albemarle
Murray
Monticello
Class/lnstruction
Adm Technolgy
Facility Maint.
VPSA Refund
Fund Balance
0501 Est Revenue
0701 Appropriation
9000
9000
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
J1 2,222.33
J1 1,628,000.00
J1 5,282.80
J1 228,905.87
J1 53,082.50
J1 196,502.65
J1 52,133.82
J1 307,500.55
J1 87,540.24
J1 73,359.48
J1 216.74
J1 70,187.87
J2 825,141 .95
J2 1,879,792.90
2,704,934.85
2.704.934.85
TOTAL 5,409,869.70 2,704,934.85 2,704,934.85
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2006-027
DATE: 10105/05
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of Stormwater CIP projects from FY '05
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9100 41000 800975 Stormwater Imp J 1 1,045,230.94
1 9100 41000 950093 Drainage StudylPI J 1 32,493.36
1 9100 41036 312400 Birnam Engineering J 1 3,837.10
1 9100 41036 800975 Birnam Imp J 1 12,750.95
1 9100 41037 800975 Ivy Road Imp J 1 34,587.50
1 9100 41049 800975 Wood brook Imp J 1 26,105.00
1 9100 41058 800975 Key West Imp J 1 285,380.95
2 9100 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 1,440,385.80
9100 0501 Est Revenue 1,440,385.80
9100 0701 Appropriation 1.440.385.80
TOTAL 2,880,771.60 1,440,385.80 1,440,385.80
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: Designation of Plank Road (Route 692) between Route
29 and Route 692 as a Virginia Scenic Byway. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily
Progress on September 19 and September 26, 2005.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request originated with the Batesville Ruritan Club in March of 2005. They
requested designation of Plank Road between Route 250 and Route 29 as a "Virginia Scenic Byway." He
said staff officially requested in May that VDOT begin its process to designate Plank Road as a byway.
VDOT has evaluated the County's request and recommended that Plank Road be designated, pending a
recommendation of approval by the Board after holding a public hearing. He noted that after adoption of
a resolution, the Commonwealth Transportation Board can officially designate Plank Road at its next
scheduled meeting, and subsequently signs can be posted and changes made to maps. He mentioned
that this designation would be included in the printing in the map for scenic roads in Virginia as part of the
Jamestown 2007 celebration. He said staff recommends approval of the designation.
Mr. Dorrier asked what section of the road would be approved. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that it is
the road between Routes 250 and 29.
Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner, noted that the road is about 10 miles long.
Mr. Rooker said the scenic byway designation has no land use implications.
Mr. Wade said he has received calls from residents concerning road improvements and he has
assured them it would not be impact any road improvements. He said billboards are not allowed on
scenic byways. The byway designation may actually cause a slight increase in traffic with travelers
choosing that road as an option.
Ms. Thomas said Plank Road itself has a historic marker, in addition to the town of Batesville
which it passes through. She noted that residents were initially concerned about the potential for
increased traffic, but agreed that it was the type of traffic they wanted coming through the area.
At this point, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
Mr. Randy Layman addressed the Board. He is a resident of Plank Road and he is opposed to
the scenic byway designation because of the potential for increased traffic. Residents complain now
about the traffic that is already there, and the designation does nothing to help Plank Road residents as
far as improvements, brush cutting, etc.
Ms. Diane Guyer, a resident of Plank Road, expressed concern about the potential for more
traffic. She emphasized that Batesville residents are already concerned about speeding traffic and trucks
on the road. There are narrow passages and there are problems with trucks and buses. She also noted
that there are developments going up on both the east and the west ends of Plank Road. She suggested
that a study be done on the traffic along the road.
Ms. Bronwyn Bryans said there is too much traffic on the road, especially log trucks. There are
no shoulders on the road, and no lines painted. She emphasized that the village residents should not
speak for the entire road.
Ms. Molly Bishop echoed the concerns of her neighbors. She suggested that if the byway is
approved, a four-way stop should be put at the intersection of Plank and Route 691 (Ortmann), as there is
a dangerous turn there.
There being no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said there was a petition circulated by people wanting the byway, and now those in
attendance at this hearing are opposed. She said the type of traffic on scenic byways is usually from
those characterized as "leisurely drivers", such as foliage viewers, etc., who tend to obey the speed limits
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
better than residents who disregard signs. She said she is leaning toward favor of the scenic byway
proposal.
Mr. Wyant said he has received calls expressing concern about traffic, and he is against the
request.
Mr. Rooker said he feels there should be agreement from the supervisor of the district in which
the road designated for change lies.
Mr. Wyant felt a traffic study would be very helpful.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning District Commission, last night, offered to have the Batesville
traffic situation looked at by Rural Tech - VDOT, the County, and the MPO staff.
Mr. Rooker noted that this just raises the issue of lack of funds for improving secondary roads.
Ms. Thomas agreed that this request could be deferred until the T JPDC takes a look at it. She
thanked staff for their work.
Mr. Wyant said that there is a PDC meeting tomorrow night, and he and Ms. Thomas would raise
the issue at that time.
At this time, it was the consensus of the Board to defer the resolution indefinitely. Staff is
directed to forward the request/resolution to T JPDC and MPO for review and comment.
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: To consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation,
of the Albemarle County Code, by adding Article XVII, Certified Solar Energy Equipment, Facilities or
Devices and Certified Recycling Equipment, Facilities or Devices. The amendment would establish in
Albemarle County a real estate and property tax exemption for certified solar and recycling equipment,
facilities and devices pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-3661. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26, 2005.)
Mr. Tucker said Virginia Code Section 58.1.36-61 permits localities to exempt or partially exempt
certified solar energy equipment facilities and devices and certified recycling equipment facilities from
local taxation. He said staff, in August, was instructed to prepare an ordinance for adoption. He said a
person owning such equipment would apply to the County's Inspections Department and they would
examine the equipment and ensure that it meets the definitions set out by the Code. At this time, impact
to the budget would be just $1,500 a year.
Mr. Boyd asked if this would apply only to new installations, or if existing ones would be
grandfathered. Mr. Davis said it could pick up previously installed equipment providing it is still
functioning, and costs can be demonstrated. The jurisdictions surveyed by staff have a five-year limit to
the program, and uses the fair market value as the tax deduction.
Mr. Rooker said the counties that have done this have not been overrun with requests, adding
that Albemarle should take a leadership position on this type of tax break.
At this time, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Wyant to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15,
Taxation, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Article XVII, Certified Solar Energy
Equipment, Facilities or Devices and Certified Recycling Equipment.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 05-15(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
15, Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
By Adding:
Article XVII.
Sec. 15-1700
Sec. 15-1701
equipment
Sec. 15-1702
Sec. 15-1703
Sec. 15-1704
Sec. 15-1705
Certified Solar Energy Equipment, Facilities or Devices and Certified Recycling
Equipment, Facilities or Devices
Definitions
Tax Exemption of certified solar energy equipment and certified recycling
Application generally
Certification of solar energy equipment or recycling equipment.
Determination of Exemption.
Presumption of Value.
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE XVII. CERTIFIED SOLAR ENERGY EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES OR DEVICES AND
CERTIFIED RECYCLING EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES OR DEVICES
Sec 15-1700 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, when used in this article, shall have, for the purposes
of this article, the following respective meanings except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
(1) Certified recycling equipment, facilities, or devices. The term "Certified recycling
equipment, facilities, or devices" means machinery and equipment which is certified by the
Virginia Department of Waste Management as integral to the recycling process and for use
primarily for the purpose of abating or preventing pollution of the atmosphere or waters of the
Commonwealth, and used in manufacturing facilities or plant units which manufacture, process,
compound, or produce for sale recyclable items of tangible personal property at fixed locations in
the Commonwealth.
(2) Certified solar energy equipment, facilities or devices. The term "Certified solar
energy equipment, facilities or devices" means any property, including real or personal property,
equipment, facilities, or devices, certified by the local certifying authority to be designed and used
primarily for the purpose of providing for the collection and use of incident solar energy for water
heating, space heating or cooling or other application which would otherwise require a
conventional source of energy such as petroleum products, natural gas, or electricity.
(3) Local certifying authority. The term "Local certifying authority" means the
county's building official.
(4) Local building department. The term "Local building department" means the
inspections division of the county's Department of Community Development.
(Ord. 05-15(2), 10-5-05)
State law reference-- Va. Code, ~ 58.1-3661(8).
Sec 15-1701 Tax Exemption of certified solar energy equipment and certified recycling
equipment.
Certified solar energy equipment facilities or devices and certified recycling equipment,
facilities, or devices, as defined in this article, are hereby declared to be a separate class of
property and shall constitute a classification for local taxation separate from other classifications
of real or personal property. Such property is exempt from local taxation, as provided in this
article.
(Ord. 05-15(2), 10-5-05)
State law reference-- Va. Code, ~ 58.1-3661(A)
Sec 15-1702 Application generally.
A. Any person residing in the county may proceed to have solar energy equipment,
facilities or devices, or recycling equipment, facilities, or devices certified as exempt, wholly or
partially, from taxation by applying to the local building department.
B. The person claiming an exemption under this article for solar energy equipment,
facilities or devices, or recycling equipment, facilities, or devices must file an application with the
local building department on forms provided for that purpose.
C. The application must be accompanied by a complete set of plans and
specifications of the solar energy equipment, facilities or devices, or recycling equipment,
facilities, or devices for which exemption is claimed. The application must also be accompanied
by sworn statements of contractors or suppliers attesting to the cost of the purchase and
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
installation of the solar energy equipment, facilities or devices, or recycling equipment, facilities,
or devices for which exemption is sought.
(Ord. 05-15(2), 10-5-05)
Sec. 15-1703 Certification of solar energy equipment or recycling equipment.
If, after examination of such equipment, facility or device, the building official determines
that the unit primarily performs any of the functions set forth in 3 15-1700 and conforms to the
requirements set by regulations of the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development,
such department shall approve and certify such application. The local building department shall
forthwith transmit to the county assessor those applications properly approved and certified by
the local building department as meeting all requirements qualifying such equipment, facility or
device for exemption from taxation. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the local building
department may appeal such decision to the local building code board of appeals, which may
affirm or reverse such decision.
(Ord. 05-15(2), 10-5-05)
State law reference-- Va. Code, ~ 58.1-3661(C)
Sec 15-1704 Determination of Exemption.
Upon receipt of the certificate from the local building department, the county assessor
shall proceed to determine the value of such qualifying solar energy equipment, facilities or
devices or certified recycling equipment, facilities, or devices. The exemption provided by this
article shall be determined by applying the local tax rate to the value of such equipment, facilities
or devices and subtracting such amount, wholly or partially, either (i) from the total real property
tax due on the real property to which such equipment, facilities, or devices are attached or (ii) if
such equipment, facilities, or devices are taxable as machinery and tools under Virginia Code 3
58.1-3507, from the total machinery and tools tax due on such equipment, facilities, or devices, at
the election of the taxpayer. This exemption shall be effective beginning in the next succeeding
tax year after the date of approval by the county assessor, and shall remain in effect for the four
(4) following tax years. In the event the qualifying equipment, facilities, or devices is part of a new
building subject to assessment pursuant to 3 15-1001, the exemption shall be first effective when
such real estate is first assessed, but not prior to the date of such application for exemption.
(Ord. 05-15(2), 10-5-05)
State law reference-- Va. Code, ~ 58.1-3661(0)
Sec 15-1705 Presumption of Value.
It shall be presumed for purposes of the administration of this article, and for no other
purposes, that the value of such qualifying solar energy equipment, facilities and devices is not
less than the normal cost of purchasing and installing such equipment, facilities and devices.
(Ord. 05-15(2), 10-5-05)
State law reference-- Va. Code, ~ 58.1-3661(E)
Agenda Item No. 23. Public Hearing: SP-2005-016. Hope Builders International (Signs #30 &
68). Request for amendment of SUP for church & priv school, to remove condition prohibiting transfer of
permitted use to new operator & to make possible expansion of office space w/in the use, in accord
w/Sec 10.2.2(5) & 10.2.2(35) of the Zoning Ord, which allows priv schools & churches respectively. TM
70, P 22, contains 13.473 acs. Znd RA. Loc at 7444 Plank Rd (Rt 692),0.65 miles E of its intersec w/
Ortman Rd (Rt 691). White Hall Dist. (Note of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on
September 19 and September 26, 2005.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for an amendment to an existing special use permit to allow
continuance of a church and religious retreat center, and operation of the business office for a missionary
organization. This amendment would remove a requirement that the facilities be operated only by the
original owners, Christian Retreats, Inc., who held meetings and retreats for other churches on the
property, the historic Oak Leigh House on Plank Road through a special use permit approved in 1989.
He said conditions were imposed to minimize the impact to surrounding rural areas for such things as
traffic, noise, rural and historic character while permitting a religious organization to carry out its planned
activities. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions, and the Planning Commission, at its
hearing modified a couple of those conditions, added a 13th condition and recommended approval of
SP-2005-016.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that since that Commission meeting, the applicant has approached the
County regarding the conditions addressing the seating capacity of 100 persons. The applicant has
asked about increasing that limitation, and staff indicated that issue would need to be raised at this
meeting. The applicant would like to amend the sixth condition to allow seating for 150 for a maximum of
five weddings per year. He said that without further review regarding the impact of that additional
attendance on available parking and Plank Road, staff cannot advise the Board as to the acceptability of
such an amendment to the request. Should the Board choose to approve the special use permit with the
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
condition as requested by the applicant, Conditions NO.1 through NO.4 may still limit the area of
assembly to less than that maximum after the necessary approvals of the Health Department,
Fire/Rescue, the building official and VDOT. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the request with
the conditions recommended by the Commission.
Mr. Wyant asked how many acres this site encompasses. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the site is 13
acres, noting that the Planning Commission recommends a condition that the parcel cannot be
subdivided or reduced in size in an attempt to address the development rights which could increase
activity and traffic.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to speak.
Mr. Lance Thollander, President of Hope Builders, addressed the Board and introduced some of
his co-workers. He explained that for over 30 years the property has been owned by Christian Retreats,
Inc., and used by Oak Leigh Christian Fellowship as a church meeting place and fellowship center. He
said that on a weekly basis 200 or more people gather there for worship, fellowship and meals, with
weddings and training sessions held on the grounds. He mentioned that church leaders, their families,
and guests, lived in a 10,000 square foot, nine-bedroom, nine and one-half bath home that sits on the 13
acres. Hope Builders acquired the property in 2003 with the intent of continuing those activities as well as
have offices on the property. They have begun weekly meetings including prayer, singing, bible study
and meals. Those meetings would soon move to Sunday mornings.
Mr. Thollander said the property has been kept up nicely and they have received positive
comments about its upkeep. He acknowledged that there may be parking and traffic issues, but they
have over 40,000 square feet available for parking on one side of the building. When Oak Leigh was
meeting there, they had about 17,000 vehicle trips per year, and his mission's maximum numbers would
be about 11,600 trips per year. They would like to hold weddings on the property, but past restrictions
have prohibited that activity. He read from a letter received from a constituent who liked Oak Leigh and
wanted to have her son's wedding there. He added that they accept the other conditions and would be
willing to operate within those parameters.
Mr. Wyant asked if the attendees for training sessions stayed on the grounds. Mr. Thollander
responded that they would be on grounds and residential, with few vehicle trips.
At this point, Mr. Rooker asked the public to speak.
Mrs. Lucinda Riley of Kings Way Road, across the street from Hope Builders, addressed the
Board. She explained that she was a member of Oak Leigh Christian Fellowship, when approximately
200 to 250 people attended church there each Sunday, many of whom stayed to eat lunch after church.
She never found parking and traffic to be an issue, adding that her brother-in-law was married there, as
was his daughter. She noted that the site easily accommodates 200 guests with no issues.
Mrs. Riley's husband addressed the Board. He said he has a full view of the property and has a
full eye of what happens there. He has observed a number of events over the years and none of them
produced negative issues for the neighborhood. He said the events usually wind down at a reasonable
hour, and there have not really been traffic problems.
Mr. Albert Culliman addressed the Board, stating that he and his wife Kathy live next to the Oak
Leigh property. He has worked for a number of non-profits and this organization seems to be more of a
business than a religious organization. The weddings are basically fundraising events for the church, and
he cited his concerns about the impact of additional people attending. He would like to see the limitation
kept at 100 people.
Ms. Diane Guyer addressed the Board, noting that she purchased her property in 1986 from the
Christian Retreat. At that time Oak Leigh was a local church with a smaller congregation. Now the traffic
along Plank Road has picked up. She thinks Hope Builders was using Oak Leigh illegally as their
business headquarters before they assumed ownership. She stated that none of the Hope Builders
board members actually live on the site, noting that this is not a local church serving local people. She is
concerned about the balance of nature that increasing the church congregation and conference activity
might bring. The surrounding properties were supposed to be protected by the covenant defining
"church," and now Hope Builders wants to redefine "church." She added her concerns about the impact
to water and sewer in the area, and the impact to roads and traffic.
Ms. Kathy Culliman, a Plank Road resident adjacent to the church property, addressed the Board.
She said the church has done nothing offensive, and her family has attended church there. She does not
see the Hope Builders initiative as personal, but it does impact neighbors personally when there is excess
noise, traffic, etc. She asked the Board to honor the Comprehensive Plan and not let a "conference
center" come in next door.
Ms. Bryans addressed the Board, stating that she bought her property from Christian Enterprises
believing that Oak Leigh would remain the same without becoming a business.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Dan Whitten addressed the Board, stating that he owns property on Ortmann Road, owning
and managing farms along the road. He expressed concern about traffic along Ortmann Road from
Route 250 to Plank Road, as that stretch is very narrow. He encouraged the Board to vote against the
change in the special permit.
Mr. Michael Riley addressed the Board. He is in favor of Hope Builders plan, stating that he
attended church there in 1977, and was married there in 1980. He does not see car traffic as an issue as
trucks cause most of the traffic concerns.
Mr. Johann Bell addressed the Board. He said he would really appreciate the Board's
endorsement, as there has been a reduction in the traffic that used to be there.
Mr. Mark Haskins addressed the Board, stating his favor for the revised special use permit. He
said Hope Builders is a non-profit Christian organization and it meets all IRS requirements as such. The
purpose of the request is just a continuation of how the site has been used. He said the people involved
with Hope Builders are upstanding and respectable.
Mr. Jeff Bowman addressed the Board, stating that he has lived in Albemarle County for 21
years, owning property for seven years near the site in question. He has heard the landowners discuss
what they would like to do with the property, and he does not find it objectionable. The owners are trying
to make the site an asset to the community, and the church has made their facility available for others to
use for conferences and meetings.
Mr. Thollander readdressed the Board, and stated that if they had just wanted to run a business,
they would not have chosen this site. He stated that they love the property, and want to make the best of
it.
Mr. Wyant asked if they plan to have Sunday service on a weekly basis. Mr. Thollander replied
that they do.
Mr. Wyant asked if the conferences would be kept to three days a month, with attendance of 100
each time. Mr. Thollander responded that it would be an average, with two in one month, and none in the
next month. He said that there would be no more than 12 per year.
Mr. Wyant asked if the definition of "church" is met with this application.
Mr. Davis replied that the term "church" in the Zoning Ordinance has a broader definition than
what might be commonly known as a church that encompasses other religious uses. He said the Zoning
Administrator has determined that the use as described in the application falls within the church
classification. Mr. Davis said the Board must consider the application as it relates to land use, such as
traffic, noise, etc. The Board should not take into consideration whether it wants 200 people attending a
religious activity, but whether 200 people being on that property would cause concerns related to
whatever factors are appropriate for a land use decision.
Ms. Thomas asked about the covenant referred to in the applicant's presentation. Mr. Davis
replied that he believes the applicant is referring to limiting the special use to that owner.
Mr. Rooker said they were referring to the original special use permit as a "covenant" from the
County.
Ms. Thomas noted that weddings were not mentioned at all in the conditions. Mr. Davis said that
right now there could be weddings regularly having no more than 100 attendees; the amendment calls for
allowing weddings of 150 up to five times per year.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there are currently no restrictions on weddings within the
conditions, just on areas of assembly. He said that there were only five conditions related to the previous
special use permit.
Mr. Davis noted that there are several factors that could limit capacity - fire or health department
restrictions, parking restrictions, access limitations, VDOT, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg said the first four conditions mentioned in the staff's report would still govern no
matter what the area of assembly is.
Mr. Rooker said he does not believe the application can legally be turned down, although
restrictions related to land use could be imposed. He said staff has not yet had an opportunity to assess
the requested 150-person threshold. Mr. Davis commented that Condition NO.6 could be amended to
add language stating: "... except that seating for up to 150 persons may be provided for up to five
weddings per calendar year."
Mr. Thollander reiterated that they are planning on five weddings maximum per year.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
At this time, Mr. Wyant moved for approval of SP-2005-016 with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission, but adding to Condition NO.6 the language provided by Mr. Davis ("... except
that seating for up to 150 persons may be provided for up to five weddings per calendar year.").
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Health Department approval of well(s) and septic system(s) for all proposed church,
conference, residential, and office uses;
2. Fire and Rescue Department approval of the structure for all proposed church,
conference, residential, and office uses;
3. Building official approval of the structure for all proposed church, conference, residential,
and office uses;
4. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance and exit;
5. The applicants shall present evidence of the approvals required in Conditions 1 through 4
and obtain a zoning clearance for the use within six (6) months of the approval of this
permit;
6. Seating capacity in any area of assembly shall not exceed one hundred (100) persons,
except that seating for up to one hundred fifty (150) persons may be provided for up to
five weddings per calendar year;
7. Conferences or retreats, each limited in duration to no more than three (3) days, may
occur up to twelve (12) times per calendar year. Attendance shall not exceed one
hundred (100) persons;
8. Once per calendar year, a missionary training program may be held on the site, for a
single continuous time period not to exceed eight (8) weeks. A maximum of thirty (30)
people may be enrolled in the training program;
9. No more than thirty (30) persons attending conferences, retreats, or missionary training
shall reside on the property at anyone time. All attendees shall be housed in the Oak
Leigh house;
10. No outdoor amplified sound systems shall be used on the property;
11. Outdoor group activities (meetings, services, recreational activities, and other similar
events and activities) shall not occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.;
12. The footprint of the existing Oak Leigh house shall not be expanded, and no other
structures shall be used or constructed for this use, without amendment of this permit;
and
13. This parcel shall not be subdivided or reduced in size.
(Note: At 3:50 p.m., the Board took a brief recess and reconvened at 4:03 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 24. Public Hearing: SP-2005-017. Chick-Fil-A - Route 29 (Signs #60 & 66).
Request to allow drive-in window serving fast food restaurant in accord w/Sec 24.2.2.13 of the Zoning
Ord, which allows drive-in windows serving or associated w/permitted uses. TM 45, P 93A, contains
21.733 acs. Znd HC & EC. Loc in front of Lowes Home Improvement Store on N side of Wood brook Dr
(Rt 1417) & at intersec w/ Seminole Trail (Rt 29N). Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised
in the Daily Progress on September 19 and September 26, 2005 .)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said this is a request for a fast food restaurant. He
said the restaurant is to be located in the parking lot of Lowe's, and the proposed drive-through restaurant
is in the parking area closest to Route 29 and Wood brook Drive. The property would ultimately be
subdivided. The plan was reviewed to determine if it met the requirements of the site plan and the design
requirements for a drive-through, and it was determined that it does meet those elements. He added that
the ARB recommended approval of the special use permit, and the Planning Commission recommended
approval unanimously at it meeting on August 30, but they made changes to Condition 1 and Condition 3
as recommended by staff to clarify which plan this special use permit was for and to clarify that a
certificate of appropriateness needed to be issued for the site.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Rooker invited the applicant to speak. The applicant had no
comments.
Mr. Rooker then opened the public hearing to the public. With no one rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2005-017 subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Chick-Fil-A Preliminary
Site Plan Documents", last revised July 8, 2005, and initialed SBW on August 22,2005;
2. The existing evergreen hedges and trees along Wood brook Drive and the Route 29
North EC shall remain fully intact and allowed to reach mature height and habit typical
of the species. Pruning shall be limited to the correction of damage and the overall
maintenance of the health of the plantings; and
3. The color and material of the awning on the drive-through elevation shall be resolved to
the satisfaction of the ARB and a Certificate of Appropriateness issued.
Agenda Item No. 25. Public Hearing: ZMA-2004-007. Belvedere (Signs #62, 76 & 84).
Request to rezone approx 206.682 acs from R-4 to NMD to allow up to 775 du, w/overall density of 3.74
dulac, ranging from density of 1.6 du/ac in some areas to 9.4 du in others. TM 61, Ps 154, 157, 158, 160
(portion) & 161, TM 62, Ps 2A (portion), 2B (portion), 2C, 3, 5 & 6A, & TM 62A3, P11. Loc on E side of
Rio Rd (Rt 631) immediately E of Southern Railroad. (The Comp Plan designates this property as
Neighborhood Density in northern portion of property (3-6 du/ac), Urban Density in middle & southern
portions (6-34 du/ac) & Community Service adjac to railroad, in Neighborhood 2. Rio Dist. (This public
hearing was continued from September 7,2005).
Mr. Cilimberg said the new Executive Summary for this item was inadvertently not provided to the
Board members in their packets. He stated that initially there was a recommendation for denial from the
Planning Commission which expressed concerns regarding right-of-way dedication for the northern Free
State Toad connector, no commitment to affordable housing, and resolution of right-of-way between the
Fairview Swim Club and land owned by Mr. Phillip Brown. He said these issues have now been
addressed so staff feels they are no longer issues. He said the applicant has worked with staff to resolve
other issues including shifting of alignment of Belvedere Boulevard to accommodate future widening, an
increase in the preservation areas from 3.1 acres to 7.6 acres, and the pinch point of where the boulevard
will go into the northern section of development.
Mr. Cilimberg SAID staff feels the Code of Development, the proffers, and the Application Plan
have been adjusted to reflect those issues. However, in reviewing the Application Plan, one feature that
had been a part of the plan has been removed - the pedestrian bridge between Block One and Block
Two. Staff felt that provided convenient access between the two areas which are separated by a stream
valley; people would not have to walk out along the sidewalk along the boulevard. The applicant
expressed concern about the unknown expense of the standard of construction for this bridge - a
boardwalk that would be ADA compliant.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal for buffering of the already developed Dunlora and Rivercrest
neighborhoods from Belvedere has been examined regarding where buffers should be provided, how
they should be provided, and how they should be maintained in the long run.
Mr. Davis stated that he has not yet seen or reviewed the siqned proffers.
Mr. Bowerman said he wanted to add some green buffer to the are already shown on the plan -
90 feet of existing wooded buffer - adding some evergreen plantings at the top of the hill to buffer the
new development would be reasonable.
Mr. Rooker said staff recommended that the applicant incorporate tree protection language in the
Code of Development.
Mr. Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner, said the applicant has expressed a willingness to do that,
and has provided language to staff for this. He does not anticipate it being an issue, but it's not in the
Code of Development now.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board needs to see this information before they can vote on this
petition.
Mr. Davis said the proffers could be reviewed in time for the Board's next meeting, but he is not
sure about the Code of Development.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant would need to provide a new Application Plan if there is further
delineation and language for the Code of Development regarding how the areas would be treated. He
said that language would have to be reviewed by Planning staff and the Zoning Department.
Mr. Rooker said the tree protection language used for the Old Trail development was provided to
the applicant. At that time the applicant chose not to do anything.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that one of the areas is not on their property, and would need to be
dealt with as a separate item. Staff wants to have this done as soon as it can and there is no intent to
delay this item. In response to Mr. Boyd's question, Mr. Cilimberg said staff felt the applicant had met all
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
of the issues raised in prior meetings, with the exception of the removal of the pedestrian crossing. He
added that the additional tree buffering came up later.
Ms. Thomas said it came up in the public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said it is something staff can still
take care of. He added that every new submittal is done electronically, so staff has to review and make
sure that all of the accepted pieces are there.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern about doing an amendment to the Application Plan rather than
having an entirely new plan. Mr. Davis responded that a replacement page would probably cover it.
Mr. Dougherty said amending the conservation and preservation space and delineating the areas
for buffer would take care of most problems with the Application Plan. He added that there would need to
be a reference to the tree protection language in the Code of Development.
Mr. Rooker said that it would save a lot of staff time if just one page were submitted as an
amendment. Mr. Davis pointed out that the Code of Development becomes the legal controlling
document for the property.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cilimberg about the foot/pedestrian bridge. Mr. Cilimberg replied that when
the applicant became aware of the need to provide it to a standard, there was a concern on his part that it
would be too costly.
Mr. Dougherty said the project was started before he was a County employee, but Mr. Kelsey
said he would like to have some kind of connection between the two blocks, even if it were vehicular
instead of pedestrian, and it was his feeling that it is important. One idea discussed was providing a
bridge over the dam for the stormwater facility just to the east of where the bridge is shown, in the area of
the re-grading. That option is not as attractive as a direct connection.
Ms. Thomas asked if the ADA standard must be used. Mr. Dougherty replied that it is his
understanding from Mr. Mark Graham and Mr. Jack Kelsey that that is the desire.
Mr. Bowerman said it is an extensive area to cross. Mr. Dougherty said from the interior of Block
Two to the interior of Block One, the distance across the bridge would be about 300 feet. With no
connection there, one would have to go down to Belvedere Boulevard, get on the trail, walk over, and
walk back up.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the uses to the south side of the stream are non-residential.
Mr. Frank Stoner, the applicant said they have been through about 15 reviews, and the standard
of that bridge has never been raised. He said the suggestion was made that the bridge be built to VDOT
standards.
Mr. Rooker asked if he had another standard in mind to offer.
Mr. Stoner replied that he had envisioned it as a wooden bridge and the shorter the span the
more cost-effective it would be. He noted that the Rivanna Trails bridge would be a good model of a
"Class B trail with bridge." It would need to span a minimum of 70 to 90 feet; the bridge built across
Emmett Street was $5.0 million. He said they are building a pedestrian trail along the main road, similar
to one that would be along the Parkway on the southern end. The trail is 250 feet away from the
proposed bridge location.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be nice to have a pedestrian connection, and he would be satisfied
with a standard comparable to Rivanna Trails.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would not feel comfortable requiring the applicant to build a bridge
to VDOT standards.
Mr. Rooker suggested having Mr. Davis include in the proffers mention of a bridge sufficient to
handle pedestrians that could be approved by staff.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a key question is whether the bridge is expected to be ADA compliant,
as that will dictate design.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, explained that one of the first questions
he raised about this application was how Blocks One and Two would be connected. He asked why there
was not a road to join them together, and the response was that the depth and width of the ravine made
crossing it cost-prohibitive with possible environmental impacts. Putting in a span and making it ADA
compliant as far as width, grade, etc., was viewed as providing the interconnection the Neighborhood
Model requires. He pointed out that VDOT has standards for pedestrian bridges, bicycle bridges, etc.,
specifying the width of the bridge, the grade, height of handrails, etc.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it is pretty late in the process to identify that as a major issue.
Mr. Dougherty replied that after the September 10 hearing with the Board, staff put together consolidated
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
comments. He acknowledged that it was late in the process, but the original plan for a boardwalk was
part of a plan recommended for denial by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Stoner emphasized that there is a significant pedestrian connection between the two blocks
and it is more convenient that the one being discussed. He said there would be a "redundant facility" 200
feet away from an existing major pedestrian facility. The cost associated with a VDOT standard bridge,
balanced with the other issues they have encountered may be "a bridge too far." He confirmed that the
trail would be wheelchair accessible.
Mr. Bowerman said that this isn't a "deal-killer" for him.
Ms. Thomas said it is good to have a connection, but feels better knowing that the trail is wide
enough to accommodate wheelchairs.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it is frustrating to have an entire development plan hung up on one
single issue. He thinks there must be a way to make approval a little bit faster and more efficient.
Mr. Stoner said the applicant has been through four revisions since the July meeting to try to
finalize the plan, and the issue of the buffer arises. He said that every time the document is reviewed,
staff finds something that it looked at and now think about differently. He thinks the County has to make
some kind of a recommendation to bring closure to their request.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that perhaps the public needs to be brought in sooner, as the buffer
issue was raised during the public hearing.
Mr. Rooker said the buffer issue came up before the Planning Commission several times, and
they handled it by expanding it to 100 feet. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission thought the buffer issue
had been settled.
Mr. Rooker said it is the Board's right and responsibility to review and make changes before it
votes. He asked to continue with the discussion of the bridge.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant mentioned having it as a Class B trail, adding that he doesn't
know what kind of crossing would get incorporated. The other option would be to go up across the dam.
Mr. Stoner said he cannot build an 80-foot span bridge, even though they supported the concept
and did propose it in the beginning. Part of the problem with this rezoning is that it got into so much
minutia that it made the process cumbersome. He thinks enforcement of Neighborhood Model plans will
be a full-time job for someone. He emphasized that at the site plan level, he is committed to building a
pedestrian bridge as long as it can be kept to a Class B standard and the grades will work. He is
committed to addressing the buffer issue with the Dunlora Community Association, and has provided
them with a plan.
Mr. Stoner explained that the Plan has been modified three times in response to Dunlora's
concerns about the buffer. The buffer zone was modified from 50 feet to 90 feet, then extended to
include areas in the north end of the property, and then dedicated as preservation areas. He said the
Planning Commission reported to the Board that it was not an issue any longer, it had been resolved. He
expressed his frustration that the issue has now been raised by a Board member, and he plans to work
through the issue with Dunlora. He said the diagram shows the areas in which there needs to be
significant tree buffer protection provided after construction. That picture shows the relative benefits of a
landscaped buffer on the Belvedere property behind the existing buffer in comparison to the same
buffering located on the Dunlora property.
Mr. Bowerman said this had been suggested by Mr. Stoner earlier, but there was no way to deal
with it in the Code of Development. He said he would like to move this application forward.
Mr. Rooker suggested deferring and bringing it back next week, provided the only thing needed is
the one page regarding maintenance of the preservation area.
Mr. John Putalik of the Dunlora Community Association said they had presumed that their buffer
concerns which were expressed to Ms. Susan Thomas would be forwarded to the Board.
Mr. AI Reynolds of Rivercrest at Dunlora, said his biggest concern is the preservation space. He
added that he is very concerned about what he just heard.
Mr. Rooker clarified that the preservation area is proffered, and Stonehaus Developers are
proposing that potential evergreen planting for additional screening be handled pursuant to what they set
out in the letter presented as a private matter between their company and the homeowner's association.
Mr. Reynolds said he does not understand how this will end up, but emphasized that the
homeowners would like a substantial fence at the drip line behind the buffer to protect the trees so they
aren't damaged or killed during construction. He added that they were disappointed that the sanitary
sewer system would have to be routed through the mature tree forest in the Dunlora open space area,
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
behind four units of Rivercrest. He thanked the Board and staff for their in-depth work on this application.
He also applauded Mr. Stoner for his willingness to agree to the preservation area.
Mr. Bowerman said he is going to look to staff to see how this should be moved forward.
Mr. Davis said the question is how comfortable the Board is with a private agreement between
Stonehaus and Dunlora.
Mr. Bowerman said he is not comfortable with that since there is no guarantee this developer will
be the one to actually develop the property.
Mr. Davis said amendments to the Code of Development could possibly be done using
replacement pages in order to simplify the review process, but he is unsure about the plans that have to
be changed.
Ms. Thomas said the letter seems to address what is going to be done with the homeowners in
Rivercrest because that is believed to be the better buffer. She understands Board members to be in
agreement that the bridge can be a Class B bridge.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant has provided a letter to the Homeowners Association that shows
additional plantings for screening purposes would be more effective. He asked Mr. Dougherty to point out
on the Plan the location of the additional 80 evergreen trees for screening. Mr. Dougherty indicated on a
map where they would be planted.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Plan shows what would be planted in between the sight line from the
houses in Rivercrest to the dam.
Mr. Davis clarified that the trees would be planted at Belvedere's expense on Rivercrest property,
then maintained by the Rivercrest property owners.
Mr. Wyant said the proposal is for the landscape plan to come from the homeowners to the
applicants, and then they give them the allowance and pay to have the trees installed.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the County can't require the alternative to happen - trees planted on
Rivercrest. He said the issue could be dealt with through a condition requiring plantings onsite, or let the
property owners and developer work on it privately.
Ms. Thomas said it would affect about 10 property owners.
Mr. Bob Hauser, the applicant, addressed the Board. He said in the Avamore rezoning they dealt
with the public issues and concerns of the Board. They had a lengthy negotiation with the Fontana
Homeowners Association for a separate agreement between two property owners. He noted that it was a
similar situation of planting offsite, which really isn't a public issue.
Mr. Rooker asked if everyone agreed to have this petition come back next week with an
agreement regarding what appears to be the last issue.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that for next week's meeting there needs to be language presented
regarding preservation area maintenance, and the downgraded bridge language.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to hear back from the Dunlora/Rivercrest Homeowners
Association.
Mr. Putalik of Dunlora stated that he is hearing that the residents would like to have an internal
meeting, and after that time they would sit down with Mr. Stoner. He added that he would like Mr.
Bowerman to be a part of the meeting too.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the expected outcome is an agreement between Rivercrest and
Belvedere.
Mr. Putalik said he can't promise there would be an agreement.
Mr. Rooker said the developer has expressed confidence as to how the planting would take
place. He added that all of the issues raised by Rivercrest have been dealt with except for this last
request concerning evergreen plantings.
Mr. Putalik said it sounds to him that Stonehaus wants to speed up the process.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the Association needs to understand that the Board would be
making a decision on the proposal and the planting agreement would be a side agreement. He added
that the developer could proffer the planting of the additional evergreens on Belvedere to be in the Code
of Development, and any offsite plantings would be subject to a private agreement with the Rivercrest
Homeowners Association.
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Bowerman agreed that the item needs to be considered at next week's meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said he understands the Board would like to see clarification of the following for
next week: the additional evergreen planting, preservation area maintenance, and lower scale crossing
for pedestrians between Blocks 1 and 2. He agreed that staff would deal with separate pages instead of
an entire new Plan.
Mr. Dougherty asked if the intent is to protect the entire drip line of the trees.
Mr. Bowerman replied, "Yes."
Mr. Davis suggested that the public hearing be continued to next week so that it is still a legal
public hearing if needed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to continue this public hearing on ZMA-2004-007 to
October 12, 2005. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wyant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 26. SP-2004-052. Kenridge (Sign #40). Request to allow development of
multifamily complex in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ord which allows for R-15 use in CO district.
TM 60, Ps 27 & 27B, contains 16.5 acs. Loc on N side of (Rt 250 W) Ivy Rd approx 1/2 mile W of intersec
of Ivy Rd & Rt 29/250 By-pass. (The Comp Plan designates these lands as Office Service in
Neighborhood 7. General usage for Office Service is mixed office & residential uses & is recommended
for 6.01-20 dulac, w/possible densities of up to 34 du/ac under planned development approach. General
usage of the proposed amendment (SUP public hearing on request) is residential. The existing carriage
& manor houses have the option of being used for residential and/or office use. The density of the
proposed amendment is 4 du/ac.) This property is also located in EC. Samuel Miller Dist. (This public
hearing was deferred from September 14, 2005.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board deferred this request at its last hearing in order for
conditions to be provided addressing concerns discussed at the public hearing. He said staff has
provided 17 conditions reflecting the discussion from that meeting; they have been agreed to by the
applicant.
Mr. Rooker asked about Condition No. 15 which says the owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a
sum of $3,000 cash for each new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs but
the money would be returned to the owner if it were not spent within 10 years. He wondered how it could
be determined whose money was spent from a housing trust fund. Mr. Davis stated that language is
taken from proffer language, and there is no reason for the sentence if the Board and applicant agree it
should not be included.
Ms. Thomas said the parking limit was intended for the office use, not residential, and the
applicant has agreed to that. She added that concern has been expressed about the way Condition NO.9
is worded, suggesting that the language say "exteriors of blocks" instead of just "exteriors" so there's no
chance of a "checkered" affect.
At this time, the Chairman asked for public comments.
Ms. Diana Strickler said she is Chairman of the Route 250 West Task Force appointed by the
Board to advise on traffic issues related to the Route 250 West corridor. One of the positive aspects of
the Kenridge proposal is the provision of a new entrance opposite Birdwood, which would enable an
internal access road involving four parcels of land - the old Textile Institute, Kenridge, White Gables, and
the National Legal Research property. She stressed the importance of having the internal traffic funneled
to a single traffic point. She noted that when White Gables was approved, the county engineer or VDOT,
were given the power to require White Gables to close its entrance to Route 250 or convert it to right-in,
right-out access, or some other modification as determined by the County. She added that the Task
Force believes there should not be a separate entrance here.
Mr. Davis stated that when the entrance is constructed, the County can provide notice to adjacent
property owners that they need to convert the entrance. He added that they do have the option of
maintaining it as a right-in, right-out access.
Mr. Cilimberg said either VDOT or the County's Director of Engineering may require the applicant
to close the existing entrance shown on the conceptual plan, convert it to a right-in, right-out only
entrance/exit, or require that other modifications be made to the entrance.
Mr. Jeff Werner addressed the Board. He finds the offering of $3,000 per unit for affordable
housing to be repulsive. He said that a few weeks ago, Mr. Cetta had offered $20,000 per unit for a
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
development. He emphasized that developers are paying a token fee to buy them back into the market.
This is not what should be done.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that this property is zoned commercial. This is a request for a special use
permit, not a rezoning. He understands the requirement could not be imposed on the applicant if he had
not voluntarily offered to do it. With 66 units at $3,000 each, there would be $200,000 put into the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund, matching what the County has put in the fund this year. A sizable
housing trust fund is needed to help people with down payments; sometimes price points for homes make
it impossible to offer a larger per unit offering. He had never heard of a per unit contribution of $20,000.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that $20,000 per unit was discussed for the Fontaine apartments, but
that did not happen. She expressed her desire to see more contributed both in per unit allocations and in
the provision of affordable homes. But, this is a different situation because it is a special use permit
rather than a rezoning.
Mr. Rooker said the proposed Fontaine contribution of $20,000 was intended to be a replacement
for affordable units, and the number worked out to be almost identical to the number here.
There being no further public comments, the matter was placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant has worked to meet the conditions arising out of the concerns
expressed in the application process. She has concerns about the lack of affordable units, and the
design of these proposed units which conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. She hopes the rest of the
development community is not watching and that the Board does not feel it is setting a precedent and that
it is always going to be happy with this kind of design. She appreciates the preservation of the front yard
and the tree conservation plan. She said there are many good aspects to this plan. She then offered
motion to approve SP-2004-052 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,
but making the following changes: In Condition No 1, the second sentence, language addition: "Parking
for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on the Conceptual Plan." For
Condition No.9, first sentence, language addition: "... the exteriors of blocks of attached single family
buildings shall be either red brick, or white painted brick, with gable roofs." For Condition No. 15,
eliminate the language: "If this cash contribution has not been exhausted by the County for the stated
purpose within ten (10) years from the date of the last contribution, all unexpended funds shall be
refunded to the owner."
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan prepared
by McKee Carson, dated June 16,2005, revision ("Conceptual Plan"). (See Attachment).
Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces shown on
the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an amendment of
this special permit shall be required;
2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy-five (275) feet between the
southernmost structure (the "Main House") and the property line adjacent to Route 250
as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the
Conceptual Plan;
3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual
Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such
streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard
consistent with the connecting street on the White Gables property. All streets and
pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County
Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A, revised and dated
August 30,2005, and initialed as CTG;
4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 28) and
across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat
or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval, the applicant
shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development
to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of ingress to and
egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel 28;
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and
construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall
pay its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by
traffic from the development as follows:
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in
escrow or provide other security ("security") acceptable to the County in an
amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the
security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for
the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special
use permit; security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be
annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year
according to the consumer price index, as determined by the Director of
Community Development; and
(b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use
permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and
the County's Engineer approve the signal's installation before the applicant has
obtained a building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant's
pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay its pro
rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand.
6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the
project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of
Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12,2005, by Charles J. Stick,
attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress
Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten (10)
feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit
for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on
eight (8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas.
Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be
provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent
property and the impact of the railroad on this development;
7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level
documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural
description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation
Planner;
8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made
available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development;
9. Except for those attached single family buildings located in Zone (A) the exteriors of
blocks of attached single family buildings shall be either red brick, or white painted brick,
with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single family buildings in Zone (A) shall be red
brick with gable roofs. The features in Zone (A) shall be reviewed and approved by the
ARB during its review of the site plan for these buildings. The exteriors of detached
residences shall be either red brick or painted white brick. These materials shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit
for the buildings (See Attachment C);
10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate;
11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as
depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick,
Landscape Architect (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided
for and required by the Homeowner's Association which shall be set forth in the
Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps and walks shall be
constructed of either brick or stone;
12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-
five (275) foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main
house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor), the applicant shall submit for review
and approval by the County's Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a
state certified arborist that meets the requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance. This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site
plans, and subdivision plats;
13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings
that include its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and
other improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include
closing the existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall be included on
the grading, site plans and subdivision plats that state: "The existing site wall shall
remain. Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the
opening of the proposed entrance into the site." Any changes to the wall shall be minimal
and articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the
Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final
block, the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250;
14. The design of all single family detached residences, including but not limited to colors,
roofing, siding and foundation material selections, shall be coordinated with the
Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential units, as
determined by the Design Planner;
15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) cash
per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs [including
the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance
of the Building Permit for such new unit. The acceptance of this special use permit by the
owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution;
16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall
be provided to the Manor Home and the Carriage House; and
October 5, 2005 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets within the development shall conform
to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community
Development.
Agenda Item No. 27. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas referenced the letter from Peacock Hill residents noting that they are in a leash law
area, and the fine for violation is still $25, and has been since 1973. She said she would be happy to go
to the maximum allowed of $250, and asked staff to come back with an amendment. Mr. Davis pointed
out that a judge can impose any amount of fine up to $250.
Ms. Thomas then offered motion to authorize staff to draft an amendment to County Code
Section 4-213B to raise the maximum allowed fine to $250. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Thomas said in light of increasing fuel costs, she would suggest that the County share on its
web page or through press releases, tips for reducing energy usage. She said Ms. Lee Catlin has
already put together five pages on energy efficiency. She also encouraged County staff to look at its
operations for both conservation and efficient use of energy. Mr. Tucker said he has spoken to the new
Director of General Services about this matter.
Mr. Tucker said a voting delegate and alternate need to the appointed to represent the County at
V ACo's Annual Conference in November. The V ACO business meeting is scheduled for November 15,
and he asked the Board to choose a member to serve in this role. Mr. Rooker volunteered to serve as
the voting delegate, and Mr. Dorrier agreed to serve as alternate.
Mr. Tucker said the City is moving toward eliminating the requirement for an automobile decal
effective next calendar year. He said County staff is suggesting that a decal be furnished that does not
have an expiration date, or has a longer effective period, noting that cars can be ticketed in some areas
when they display no decal. Mr. Dorrier stated that he is in favor of decals with no expiration date.
It was the consensus of the Board that the County has a permanent or long term decal rather
than eliminating the decal all together. The Board asked that staff bring back an amendment to the
County Code with a public hearing in December.
Agenda Item No. 28. Adjourn. At 6:03 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/15/2006
Initials: EWe