2006-03-01
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 1,
2006, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building on Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky,
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 V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No.1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
Agenda Item No.5. Recognitions: Emergency Responders Presentation.
Mr. Rooker recognized emergency responders who participated in a life-saving incident on May 27,
2005, on Stony Point Road near Gilbert Station Road. He described the event, with units arriving on the
scene to find an adult female who had been riding her bicycle and was struck by a car. The patient was
suffering life-threatening injuries, although she was wearing a helmet which reduced her head injuries. He
reported that responding fire and rescue units initiated advanced life support care on the scene, and
requested Pegasus to continue this care and provide rapid transport to the University Hospital's Trauma
Center. The patient received care within "the golden hour," or the first hour within dispatch of emergency
services, as she arrived at the trauma center within 29 minutes.
Mr. Rooker thanked the representatives from those units who participated in the care and treatment
of Mrs. Janet Cheeseman. He said their dedication and professionalism is truly inspirational. They make
the community a better and safer place to live, and show the incredible value of a well-coordinated and
integrated emergency response system. He recognized the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department, the
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Department, the Albemarle County Police Department, the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, Pegasus, and the Emergency Communications Center. He said
the Board had waited until this time to recognize this incident so that the patient and her family could be
present to participate. He then recognized Mrs. Janet Cheeseman and her husband Charles and asked
them to come forward and make any comments they might like to make.
Mr. Charles addressed the Board thanking them for putting this item on the agenda. They thanked
the first responders for their quick action. Mr. Cheeseman said the day of the bike ride was beautiful, and
the next thing he knew his wife was lying in the road. He called 911 and the operator said they were already
on their way. He said the UVA medical team did a wonderful job, but were only able to do so because of
the first responders' actions. He also thanked the board for funding such a wonderful response system.
Mrs. Janet Cheeseman thanked the Board for recognizing the rescue team, and expressed her
deep gratitude to the first responders' team for their care.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire/Rescue, to come forward and make a few
comments.
Mr. Eggleston thanked the responders' team for their work, and thanked the Board for their support
of rescue efforts.
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. John Martin of Free Union addressed the Board. He said the Daily Progress ran an editorial on
February 23 challenging the competence of County government, alleging a pattern of public dissatisfaction
with planning and communication, and suggested that "something is drastically wrong." He felt the paper
had gone too far with that editorial. There is an excellent County government and staff. He commented
that dissatisfaction with government stems from the fact that this is a democracy, which is messy and
inefficient but absolutely the best option. He thinks there are economic interests in this community that are
not getting what they want fast enough, and he feels the editorial is part of an effort to undermine the
County's role in planning. He said the Task Force developed to examine the planning process is also part
of that, which could mean the death of the Neighborhood Model. He said the Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development is part of that effort. He feels that by investing public money in this
commercial enterprise the County has purchased responsibility to participate in the corporate governance
of this organization and its related organization.
Ms. Mary Rice addressed the Board. She has an issue with whether the Crozet Master Plan was
originally intended to include a build-out figure that was looked at solely as a measuring stick against
infrastructure needs in the short term, or whether that figure was an ideal population figure that would allow
Crozet to retain its small-town historic nature despite its growth. If you add the number of dwelling units in
the growth area to the by-right developments that have received final or preliminary approval and to the
rezonings that have taken place since the Crozet Master Plan was completed, there are a total of 4,234
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
dwelling units now approved to be built in Crozet. That does not count rezoning requests that are on their
way to the Board, which will add another 258 units. She said a proposal being considered by developers for
the property behind Con-Agra has the potential to add 600 units. This means a total of 5,092 new dwelling
units with a potential population of well over 12,000 people.
Mr. Hugh Meagher addressed the Board. He said a world-class community should not tolerate
poor government. It deserves a world-class board of supervisors and planning staff. He thinks the public
no longer feels that is the case. He feels the public does not deserve third-class planning and third-rate
development. He thinks people see a "Board-sanctioned land bonanza perpetrated by robber-baron
developers who make millions while leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill for needed upgrades and
infrastructure." He presented petitions with signatures from community members expressing their concern
over the lack of transparency in public affairs and asking that the Board keep the population of Crozet at
12,000. He said the County has not produced any evidence to believe otherwise, and "a deal is a deal."
The Crozet Master Plan calls for just such a build-out. He mentioned that Loudoun County Supervisor Jim
Burton addressed the League of Women Voters at a luncheon meeting yesterday, but no member of this
Board attended. He cited many growth-associated problems in Loudoun County, including the fact that
many farmers are being driven out of that county because of high taxes. He said this Board is responsible
for betraying the public's trust and refusing to maintain proper balance between developer needs and its
duty to protect the interest of the citizen taxpayer.
Ms. Karen Arch addressed the Board. She said her group is present today to let the Board know
they feel betrayed and they are angry and are organizing. She was part of the Crozet Master Plan process
from the beginning. She has also served on the Crozet historic committee whose goal it is to preserve the
"downtown" area and keep it viable. She said her family moved to Crozet because it had the quality of life
they were looking for - great natural beauty, low-key and friendly nature, socio-economic diversity and
inclusiveness, safe roads, uncrowded schools, and an intact downtown with locally-owned businesses. She
emphasized that during the planning process she heard the citizens of Crozet state repeatedly that these
were the qualities they wanted to preserve, and they agreed to accept the build-out figure of 12,000 total.
She said they comforted themselves with the idea that this growth would be spread out over 20 years, but
that is not going to be the case. She added that people are asking whether the Board is working for the
people who elected them, whose interests they promised to represent, or the people in New Jersey who
want to move here, or developers who are advertising nationally to get more people to move here.
Ms. Barbara Westbrook addressed the Board. She said her family moved to the Crozet area about
100 years ago and has been very active in the community ever since. She expressed concern that
developers' needs seem to be considered over the needs of the residents. There is a negative atmosphere
in Crozet right now, with a "them vs. us" mentality. She quoted Ms. Lee Catlin from the previous evening's
news: "We need to manage growth so it does not destroy the attributes of the County that people hold
precious."
Mr. David Wayland addressed the Board. He said his family came to the Crozet area around 1820.
Many residents who live there now have a great stake in what is happening in the area. The sentiment is
that the Board is ignoring their pleas, despite having high citizen involvement in the Master Planning
process. He asked what those citizens have to do to be taken seriously when they ask that the County
follow the master plan and stop the out-of-control rezoning. He said the County promised a 12,000 build-
out for 20 years, but that is already going to occur. He asked if the Board was going to ignore every
promise made to the citizens or keep the people-gates open, adding that the 18 percent growth rate being
experienced now is "absolutely insane." He asked when the Board members would stand up and draw a
line on growth. He wants to know whether the Board is for the developers or the people.
Mr. Tom Loach addressed the Board. He cited the Daily Progress editorial that opened with the
sentence, "Albemarle County can't have good planning without good communication." He mentioned that
in the last three months there have many public meetings in Crozet to discuss the new library location. The
citizens indicated their preference for the new library to be located in the old school building rather than
downtown. Despite this the County seems to be on a course of having the new library downtown. What the
citizens have heard is that all of these conversations are taking place behind closed doors without any
opportunity for the Board to acknowledge citizen views. He said there is no way to make a comparison
between the two sites because there is nothing on paper to show where it might be located in the downtown
area. He said the view seems to be that the community would like to have it downtown for several reasons.
Mr. Loach said as a separate issue he would like to address the committee that Mr. Boyd has
talked about. He said from the citizens' view the committee makeup is not acceptable. To have only two
residents represent 11 growth areas is unacceptable. Then appointing two developers does not create any
sort of equity for those in the growth areas. He has spoken to people in different growth areas around the
County, and it is not acceptable. The County does not need another committee where growth area
residents on growth area issues are not voting members of those committees. The County does not need
another situation like the DISC Committee where there were more people on the committee from outside
the County than there representing the community itself. He is not against the committee but thinks it has
'to be representative of all the development areas, and a majority representation of those residents on the
committee in order for it to be acceptable.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Rooker said when the Crozet Master Plan was done it seemed to be the expression of the
majority of the people that participated in that process to have the library downtown to help revitalize the
downtown area. Mr. Loach said he can't make a decision because the County has given him nothing to
compare it with. He does not know how the downtown library would look and yet he knows from attending
the recent meetings that a majority of the people prefer the old school site. A lot of that has to do with the
architectural preference, i.e., if the library goes downtown, it has to go vertical which is less desirable. He
heard that the people want the old school site because they want to have green space; a central green mall
in the library, the library's themselves said that going vertically would make it harder for staff. There is also
the traffic issue in downtown. There is no parking plan yet for a downtown library. While it might be a good
idea, he does not think the County's made its case except to say that it would be better downtown for the
downtown merchants. He said he thinks some people felt it would be better downtown especially since Mr.,
Wyant brought up the potential for the old school to be a cultural center.
Mr. Wyant said that at the last meeting of the Crozet Community Association on this subject it was
agreed that all options for a library would be considered and shared. As soon as this matter can be
discussed outside of closed session, he intends to bring it up for discussion in open session.
Agenda Item No.5. Recognitions.
Mr. Rooker expressed the Board's gratitude to Mr. Will Rieley for his dedicated service as a
member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission from January 7,1998, to December 31,2005. He
said Mr. Rieley honorably served the Board and the citizens of the County by applying the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan wisely, providing insight and sound reasoning on complex land-use
decisions and by diligently pursuing stewardship of the County's resources. He presented Mr. Rieley with a
certificate of appreciation for his service on the Planning Commission and as a Commission representation
on committees important to the community, including the Mountain Protection Committee, the Bypass
Design Committee, the Development Area Initiatives Steering Committee (DISC II) and the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART). He said the Board wishes Mr. Rieley
the best of luck in his future endeavors.
Mr. Rieley said it has been a gratifying experience to serve on the Planning Commission and other
boards; the most gratifying part has been the thoughtful engagement of citizens in the community, and the
most frustrating part has been when significant issues came forward and no one spoke about them. He
thanked everyone.
Ms. Thomas added that Mr. Rieley was instrumental in the progress on the Meadow Creek
Parkway, with the planning of it and the support for it.
Agenda Item No.6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 6.1 (as noted) through 6.8 and to accept the remaining items as information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: September 7, October 5, October 12, October 19, November 9(A)
and (N) and December 14, 2005.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of September 7,2005, pages 1 to 31 ending at Item No. 16, and
gave the Clerk a list of typos to be corrected.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of October 12, 2005, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of December 13, 2005, and found them to be in order as
presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved those minutes which had been
read. All other minutes will be moved to the next agenda for approval.
Item 6.2. Wickham Pond. Request to set public hearing for April 5, 2006, to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority jurisdictional area to provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 92.
It was noted in the executive summary that the applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer service for the Wickham Pond
development approved by the Board on January 4, 2006. The 20.5 acre property is located on the south
side of Route 240, adjacent to the Highlands subdivision. The property is located within the designated
Crozet Development Area, in the White Hall Magisterial District. The parcel is currently designated as
"water only to existing structures." The applicant is requesting water and sewer service to serve the
development. Since the Comprehensive Plan recommends serving development areas with public water
and sewer service designating this as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water and sewer
service would align with County policy.
In December of 2005, as part of the Board's consideration of the Chitester request to amend the
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Jurisdictional Area in another part of Crozet, staff noted that while most of the Crozet Development Area is
designated for water and sewer service, there are some parcels that have restricted designations ("water
only", "water only to existing structures" or "limited service") and some are not included in the Jurisdictional
Area. At that time, the Board directed staff to do the necessary research and set a separate public hearing
to designate all properties within the designated Development Area for water and sewer service. Staff is in
the process of doing the research to prepare for a comprehensive amendment of the Jurisdictional Area for
Crozet, but does not expect to be finished before this request goes to public hearing. The property owner
will bear the costs for water and sewer hook-up.
As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity be reserved to support development
of designated Development Areas. Since this property is located within a designated Development Area,
the provision of both water and sewer service to the property would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan public utility policy. Therefore, staff recommends the Board set a public hearing date of March 1,
2006, for this request for public water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 92.
By the above recorded vote, the Board set this request for a public hearing on April 5, 2006.
Item 6.3. Resolution to Support Application by Buckingham Branch Railroad Company for Funding
from Rail Preservation Fund.
It was noted in the executive summary that the Buckingham Branch Railroad Company (BBR) is
requesting a resolution of support from this Board for the company's request for funds from the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), Rail Preservation Fund. The VDRPT created the
Rail Preservation Fund to assist in preserving short rail lines throughout the State. A description of the
improvements to be undertaken with the requested funds was forwarded with the executive summary. BBR
is not requesting any financial support from the County for this work.
The BBR Company leases approximately 200 miles of tracks from CSX between Clifton Forge and
Richmond, including the CSX rail line located in Albemarle County. BBR commenced operation on this line
in December, 2004. BBR needs to conduct periodic maintenance and make other improvements to this
track and is pursuing Rail Preservation Funds to help cover the cost of this work. Applicants for Rail
Preservation Funds are required to obtain support from each locality where work will take place. BBR will
also be requesting support for these improvements from the counties of Louisa, Hanover, Augusta,
Rockbridge, Bath, Allegheny, and the City of Charlottesville.
There will be no budget impact to the County of Albemarle. The VDRPT's Rail Preservation Fund
requires a 30 percent match from the fund recipient. BBR will provide the 30 percent match. Neither the
BBR Company nor VDRPT is expecting financial assistance from the County of Albemarle for this project.
This request is consistent with Albemarle's transportation policies which support the provision of rail
transportation in the County, region and State. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a
resolution of support.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Support:
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT APPLICATION
BY BUCKINGHAM BRANCH RAILROAD COMPANY
FOR FUNDING FROM RAIL PRESERVATION FUND
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for its projects; and
WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are estimated to cost
$4,350,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program,
provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in the Commonwealth
of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the County of
Albemarle transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic
development of the area, and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and
provides an alternate means of transportation of commodities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the project and the retention of the rail
service; and
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for all
allocation and distribution of the funds provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle Board of
Supervisors does hereby request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give
priority consideration to the projects proposed by the Buckingham Branch Railroad.
Item 6.4. Final Endorsement of the Places29 Vision and Guiding Principles.
It was noted in the executive summary that on February 1, 2006, the Board discussed the draft
Vision and Guiding Principles for the Places29 Master Plan and recommended changes before the
document was given a final endorsement. The Board recommended changes, specifically changes to the
Vision itself along with changes to Guiding Principles #2, 4, 5, 6 ,11 and 13. Those changes have been
made and are shown in the text provided with this executive summary. Staff recommends that the Board
endorse the Places29 Vision and Guiding Principles.
By the above recorded vote, the Board endorsed the Places29 Vision and adopted the
following Guiding Principles:
Vision Statement and Guiding Principles
The Vision Statement and Guiding Principles for the Northern Development Areas Master
Plan are an essential part of the plan. Both were developed from a combination of
community input and policies manifest in the County's Comprehensive Plan. They are to be
used in conjunction with the County's Comprehensive Plan. The County recognizes the
impact of the vision and guiding principles on the City of Charlottesville and the University
of Virginia, as well as on the region as a whole.
Vision Statement
Albemarle County's Northern Development Areas will feature compact development organized into
neighborhood and employment centers. These centers will be pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use;
they will offer a variety of housing choices, high quality retail, office, and employment opportunities.
They will be connected by an attractive, efficient, and accessible multimodal transportation system.
Integrated into this urban-style development, parks and open spaces will provide a sense of respite
and contribute to an overall excellent quality of life.
Guiding Principles
Development
1. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the County has chosen to focus future development in
the Development Areas in order to lessen development pressure on the Rural Areas. New
Development in the four Northern Development Areas is intended to follow the Neighborhood
Model so that those areas will include lively mixed-use pedestrian friendly centers.
2. The four Northern Development Areas form a corridor centered on US 29 North. As
development in the corridor and elsewhere increases, the additional traffic it generates must be
addressed by this master plan.
3. By improving on the current configuration of neighborhoods, places of employment, and
shopping areas, the community seeks to create a pattern of walkable places with a diverse
range of uses. Pedestrian and bicycle connections and facilities should improve access and
ensure safety.
4. The Northern Development Areas can expect a combination of new development, infill
development, and redevelopment to take place subject to this master plan. It is essential for
this development to follow the principles of the County's Neighborhood Model; to respect and
work with the terrain.
5. Preserving the character of existing neighborhoods while improving the quality, diversity, and
affordability of new housing is important. Housing, including workforce housing, located close
to employment centers, shopping areas, transportation, and recreation is important for the
Northern Development Areas.
6. The Northern Development Areas community values high quality design, which respects the
scale and character of existing development and adjacent planned open space.
7. It is important to provide infrastructure at or before the time it is needed to serve new
development.
Transportation
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
8. A high-quality transportation system will serve users across the entire spectrum, from local trips
to regional ones, and it will be multimodal-including vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
access. In particular, improvements to the US 29 corridor should recognize and address the
road's multiple purposes. The system will also address the movement of freight by truck, train,
and air.
9. Future development of the transportation system is an opportunity to increase the connectivity
of places and land uses currently separated by US 29 and other high-traffic roads, such as
Hydraulic and Rio roads. The future transportation system can also enhance the connectivity
between neighborhoods, recreational amenities, and community facilities throughout the area.
In certain instances, connections for pedestrian and bicycle access may be made where road
connections would be inappropriate or would disturb established neighborhoods. The road
network that will best serve the Northern Development Areas includes US 29, roads that are
parallel to US 29, and good east-west connecting roads.
10. Safety and aesthetics are important for new and existing streets.
11. Public transit is now available in some parts of the Northern Development Areas. New
development and transportation improvements should be transit-ready.
Open Space and Community Amenities
12. The community values the expansive views of the Blue Ridge Mountains and other vistas; they
add to the quality of life. They should be preserved through careful delineation and protection
of viewsheds.
13. The Northern Development Areas community values a well-connected network of accessible
public open spaces, greenways, and trails that will be created by preserving the existing
planned open spaces and adding new ones, and making connections between open spaces in
the Development Areas and surrounding Rural Areas and the City of Charlottesville.
14. The County's public facilities, such as libraries and schools, are both a source of pride and a
resource. These facilities should be convenient and accessible to neighborhoods and
employment centers.
Item 6.5. Resolution to accept road(s) in the Quarries Subdivision, Phase 3, into the Secondary
System of State Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, and by the above recorded vote, the
Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Quarries Subdivision, Phase 3, described on the attached
Additions Form LA-5(A) dated March 1, 2006, 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 Quarries Subdivision,
Phase 3, as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated March 1, 2006, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229, 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) Havenwood Lane (State Route 1809) from the intersection of Route 800
(Schuyler Road) to the intersection of Route 1810 (Firefly Court), as shown on plat
recorded 08/11/2003 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2552, pages 668-680, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.50 miles.
2) Havenwood Lane (State Route 1809) from the intersection of Route 1810 (Firefly
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Court) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 08/11/2003 in the
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2552,
pages 668-680, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.25 miles.
3) Fireflv Court (State Route 1810) from the intersection of Route 1809
(Havenwood Lane) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 08/11/2003 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2552,
pages 668-680, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.15 miles.
Total Mileage - 0.90 miles
Item 6.6. Resolution to accept the relocation of Route 662 in the State Secondary System of
Highways.
Memorandum dated February 8, 2006, had been received from Mr. Greg Cooley, Roads Engineer,
Department of Community Development, asking that a resolution be adopted approving of certain changes
in the State Secondary System of Highways re: Route 662, Bleak House Road.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated March 1, 2006, depicting the
additions, discontinuances and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways;
and
WHEREAS, the portions of Route 662 (Bleak House Road) identified to be discontinued is
deemed to no longer serve public convenience warranting maintenance at public expense; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified
to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part
of the secondary system of state highways those portions of Route 662 (Bleak House Road),
identified as from .96 miles south of Route 665 to 1.15 miles south of Route 665, a distance of 0.19
miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those portions of
Route 662 (Bleak House Road), identified as from .96 miles south of Route 665, to 1.2 miles south
of Route 665, a distance of 0.24 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia; and
RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Abandonment
1) Bleak House Road (State Route 662) from .96 miles south of Route 665 to 1 .15
miles south of Route 665.
Addition
1) Bleak House Road (State Route 662) from .96 miles south to Route 665, to 1.2
miles south of Route 665, as shown on plat recorded 1/12/2006 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3138, page 473, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.24 miles.
Item 6.7. Resolution to accept road(s) in Deerwood Subdivision into the Secondary System of
State Highways.
At the request of the County's Engineering Department, and by the above recorded vote, the
Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Deerwood Subdivision, described on the attached Additions
Form LA-5(A) dated March 1, 2006, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. Virqinia; and
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
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 Deerwood Subdivision,
as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated March 1, 2006, to the secondary
system of state highways, pursuant to S33.1-229, 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) Deerwood Drive (State Route 1510) from the intersection of the existing and
maintenance of Route 1510 (Deerwood Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat
recorded 08/30/2001 in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 2075, page 71, with a 44-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.22
miles.
Total Mileage - 0.22 miles
Item 6.8. Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy.
It was noted in the Executive summary that during its meeting on February 1, 2006, the Board
approved the proposed Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy with two modifications as listed below:
. Titling of County-Purchased Apparatus
The original Volunteer Funding Policy as approved by the Volunteer Advisory Board suggested that
County-purchased apparatus be titled in the volunteer station's name. Based on a
recommendation by staff, the Board approved a change to the proposed policy that would co-title
County-purchased apparatus in the name of the County and the volunteer station.
. Proceeds after the Sale of County-Purchased Apparatus
The Board also decided that when a County-purchased apparatus is sold at the end of its useful
life, the proceeds after the sale will go back to the individual volunteer department. If the volunteer
department originally upgraded the apparatus being sold, the volunteer department will receive the
percentage of the proceeds used for the upgrade to use at its discretion. The remainder of the
proceeds will go back to the volunteer department and must be used to upgrade the new
apparatus.
The Board directed staff to revise the proposed Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy and include
the revised policy in the March, 2006 consent agenda for final approval. Attached to this executive
summary is the revised Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy that reflects the changes requested by the
Board, specifically Sections 5.6 and 5.7 were modified to reflect the changes outlined in Items 1 and 2
above. Staff recommends that the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board Volunteer Funding
Policy be adopted as an official County policy.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Albemarle County Fire
Rescue Advisory Board Volunteer Funding Policy:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE RESCUE
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
VOLUNTEER FUNDING
Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to outline the funding policies for volunteer fire rescue stations.
Background:
This policy was adopted by the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB) at the November
2003 meeting.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Definitions:
Basic Operating Costs - Basic operating costs include building utility costs, buildings & grounds
maintenance, communications, fire suppression, emergency medical & rescue services, vehicle expenses,
administrative expenses, training, and uniforms.
One-Time Costs - One-time costs include major vehicle repair, hoses, nozzles, ladders, self-contained
breathing apparatus, personal protective equipment & gear, radio purchases, pager purchases,
defibrillators, cascade equipment & compressors, kitchen appliances, rescue equipment, building repairs &
improvements (paving, HVAC, etc.).
Policy:
1 . Basic Operating Costs
1.1. Annual funding of basic operating costs will be provided as a quarterly contribution to each
volunteer station.
1.2. The funding will be based on an annual review by ACFRAB and the County of Albemarle.
1.3. An annual audited report will be provided to the County as part of the annual budget process.
1.4. Future adjustments of budgeted operating costs will be based on an audited history of the previous
years.
2. One-Time Costs
2.1. One-time costs should be identified separately from operating costs and will be considered for
funding separately from the annual operating contribution.
3. Consolidated Purchase of Goods & Services
3.1. ACFRAB will strive to consolidate the purchase of goods and services to achieve better pricing. As
consolidation occurs, the line items associated with consolidated goods and services will be
eliminated or will reflect the revised price structure.
3.2. Items to be considered for consolidation include the following:
3.3. Long Distance Telephone Service
3.3.1. Fuel Oil
3.3.2. Fuel for Apparatus
3.3.3. Trash Disposal
3.3.4. Linen Service
3.3.5. Radio/Pager Repair
3.3.6. Small Tools & Equipment
3.3.7. EMS Supplies
3.3.8. Vehicle Repairs Outside the County Vehicle Maintenance Facility
3.3.9. Uniforms
3.4. Foam is provided to stations by the County; thus, no additional funds will be provided for such.
3.5. Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) maintenance is funded by the County; thus, no
additional funds will be provided for such.
4. Loan Payments
4.1. Outside loan payments obtained before 2003 are considered a basic operating cost. Outside
loans after 2003 will not be considered a basic operating cost.
5. Capital Expenses
5.1. The County will fund the purchase of emergency vehicle replacement based on an adopted
specification.
5.2. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for emergency vehicle replacement that identifies vehicle
replacement needs will be developed and recommended by ACFRAB according to the regular
schedule established by the County.
5.3. Any variation from the adopted specification will be a cost born by the volunteer station.
5.4. A vehicle fleet size will be established for each volunteer station and will be the basis for
replacement of emergency vehicles.
5.5. A vehicle replacement schedule will be established based on consideration of vehicle mileage,
age, and mechanical condition.
5.6. Vehicles will be co-titled in the County and volunteer station's name.
5.7. Once a County purchased apparatus is sold at the end of its useful life, the proceeds after the sale
will go back to the individual volunteer department. If the volunteer department originally upgraded
the apparatus being sold, the volunteer department will receive the percentage of the proceeds
used for the upgrade to use at their discretion. The remainder of the proceeds will go back to the
volunteer department and must be used to upgrade the new apparatus.
Example: Apparatus cost at time of purchase is $200,000. The volunteer department added
$20,000 in upgrades (10% of the total price). The apparatus is sold at the end of its useful life for
$5,000. The volunteer department will receive the upgraded percentage (10% or $500) to use at
their discretion. The reminder ($4,500) must be used to upgrade the cost of the new apparatus.
5.8. The County will consider participating in the construction or improvement of volunteer stations on a
case-by-case basis [d2].
Master Chart of Basic Operating Costs:
Electricity
Fuel Oil or Gas (for heat, cooking, etc.)
Building Utility Costs Water & Sewer
Cable TV/DSS: Basic level of cable or DSS using $50 per
month as a budget figure.
Trash Disposal
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Building Maintenance (routine HVAC, plumbing, generator
repairs, painting, cleaning supplies, paper products, oil trap
service, etc.)
Buildings & Grounds Grounds Maintenance (lawn care, snow removal, pavement
sealing, etc.)
Maintenance Building Supplies (cleaning supplies, paper products, light
bulbs, etc.)
Linen Service (only provided for stations with duty crews)
Janitorial Services
Telephone (land-based) including land-line costs
Mobile Telephone (expense for each front-line apparatus &
two chief officers): Use $40 per month per phone as a
budget figure.
Alphanumeric Pagers (expense for each front-line apparatus
and two chief officers): Use a budget number of $200 per
pager for each front line apparatus and chief officer.
Front line apparatus includes engines, tankers, brush trucks,
Communications and a first due EMS response vehicle. Although not further
defined by the committee, the volunteer funding policy implies
that ambulances, squads/special rescue, and first due EMS
response vehicles are included for rescue squads.
Internet Service: Single internet-access point using $50 per
month as a budget figure.
Pager Repairs (based on the formula: Number of Active
Members * 20% * $75.) Stations requiring additional funding
for pager repair due to age and condition of current stock will
be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Radio Repairs
General Supplies (stay-dry, fire-line tape, etc.)
Small Tools (generally, tools and equipment less than $500)
Maintenance (maintenance and service of portable pumps,
equipment, cascade systems, etc.)
Meals for Duty Crews (allowance for duty crew meals only
provided for stations with duty crews at the cost of $4 per
Fire Suppression member per meal.)
One meal per 8 hour shift is to be used as a budget figure.
Although most evening crews are 12 hours, it usually
includes only one meal.
Example 1: one 3-person crew, M-F, 0600-1800 = $60
Example 2: one 3-person crew, S-M, 0600-0600 = $72
General Supplies (generally, cost of disposable supplies)
Emergency Medical & Small Equipment (generally, tools and equipment less than
Rescue Services $500)
Maintenance (maintenance and service of defibrillators, etc.)
Fuel (includes gas & diesel)
Preventative Maintenance (includes funds that were
Vehicle Expenses reimbursed by the County.)
Repairs (Stations shall deduct insurance reimbursements
from repairs to vehicles before declaring repair costs.)
Office Supplies
Postage
Administrative Expenses Printing
Dues
Professional Services (accounting, etc.) Audit services only.
Licenses
Training (includes tuition, books, instructor expenses, etc.
estimated by the formula: Number of Active Members *
$120.)
Training Subscriptions
Travel (includes lodging, meals, and mileage costs
associated with out-of-town training estimated by the formula:
Number of Active Members * $20.)
Uniforms (includes the cost for any station-provided duty
uniforms and dress uniforms for two chief officers based on
the formula: Number of Active Members * $110.) Some
Uniforms stations may require a one-time amount to outfit volunteers to
a minimum level (e.g. station uniforms such as boots, pants,
tee-shirt, sweat-shirt); then, the $110 per member will be
used as an annual uniform allowance.
The following costs associated with fund raising are not
Fundraising Expenses included as a basic operating cost: painting & repairs to
space, expendable items for space, janitorial items for space,
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
office supplies, postage, printing, professional services,
and/or licenses.
Loans Building
Apparatus
Item 6.9. 2005 Website Annual Report.
It was noted in the executive summary that Albemarle County continues to see rapidly increasing
usage of its website as both an information resource and a place where business is being transacted. The
website's 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, accessibility offers obvious customer convenience and access
benefits, and extends the County's ability to interact with citizens well beyond the traditional work day. The
constant addition of new features, for example the online proffer database and the online tax payment
option in the past several months, continues to provide additional functionality that drives new traffic to the
site. As we look toward the upcoming addition of GIS and Cityview online in the upcoming year, we expect
to see this usage continue its dramatic increase. Coupled with the use of A-Mail, the County's online e-
news service, the website offers a powerful information provision and self-service tool for citizens.
The annual report (on file in the Clerk's Office) provides a brief summary and comparison of the
2004 and 2005 Albemarle County website usage statistics provided by Web Trends, a comprehensive
tracking software package. The report was prepared by the Community Relations Division of the County
Executive's Office.
General Statistics
General statistics provide the best picture of website usage. Albemarle County's website usage
continues to climb in all major categories.
Average Page Views Per Day
12,656
16,171
+27.78%
Average Page Visits Per Day
1 ,783
2,449
+37.35%
Total Number of Files Downloaded
668,811
1,070,802
+37.54%
This report was received as information only. No Board action was required.
Item 6.10. 2005 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community
Development, Office of Geographic Data Services, was received as information and is on file in the
Clerk's Office.
Item 6.11. 2005 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community
Development, Office of Geographic Data Services, was received as information and is on file in the
Clerk's Office.
Item 6.12. Review of Road Extension Regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance.
It was noted in the executive summary that one of the cornerstone principles for development in the
Development Areas is interconnectivity - an interconnected network of streets within new developments
and connections with existing developments. The Comprehensive Plan states that this "network is essential
to support the pedestrian environment, mixed-use developments, and compact, livable neighborhoods
envisioned for the Development Areas." A benefit of interconnectivity is that, over time, a network of
multiple travel routes are established, thereby reducing pressures to widen existing streets. The principle of
interconnectivity is implemented in Albemarle County Code S 14-409, which is part of the Subdivision
Ordinance adopted by the Board on April 20, 2005. Section 14-409 requires subdividers to extend
subdivision streets to the property line, terminating within the subdivision with a temporary turnaround.
These streets are connected to abutting lands when those abutting lands are subdivided. The requirement
to construct street extensions may be waived by the County's subdivision agent in prescribed
circumstances.
The State enabling authority for Albemarle County Code S 14-409 is Virginia Code S 15.2-2241 (4),
which requires that local subdivision ordinances provide for "the extent to which and the manner in which
streets shall be graded, graveled or otherwise improved. ..."
On January 11,2006, Mr. Neil Williamson, representing The Free Enterprise Forum, submitted a
proposal to amend Albemarle County Code SS 14-409 and 14-428 (submittal on file in the Clerk's Office).
The proposed amendment would require subdividers to merely dedicate the land for the extension, rather
than construct and dedicate the extension. The amendment also would provide that, where an extension
has previously been dedicated, the subdivider of the abutting lands would have to construct the street
extension within the previously approved subdivision. This issue was considered at length in the drafting of
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
the 2005 Subdivision Ordinance. The amendment proposed by the Free Enterprise Forum is not enabled
by State law because it would require a subdivider to construct off-site street improvements within an
abutting, previously approved subdivision. Virginia Code S 15.2-2241 (4) does not enable such a regulation.
At most, the County is enabled only to provide for the voluntary funding of off-site street improvements.
(Virginia Code S 15.2-2242(4))
Before the Board of Supervisors adopted the 2005 Subdivision Ordinance, some in the community
characterized Albemarle County Code S 14-409's street extension requirements as unfair to subdividers
because the extended streets would provide an economic benefit to the abutting landowners when those
lands were later subdivided. Staff views this issue quite differently. The public's interest in diffusing
vehicular and pedestrian traffic through an interconnected transportation network, as reflected in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Plan, should be paramount. A network of interconnected streets
promotes the public safety and general welfare and allows residents of these subdivisions to safely and
conveniently travel to adjoining subdivisions and other destinations. In addition, characterizing a street
extension as an unfair economic benefit to an abutting landowner fails to recognize that, over time, those
subdividers who may be "burdened" by Albemarle County Code S 14-409 in one case will benefit from it in
another case. Finally, the Zoning Ordinance has required, since 1980, that developers of commercial
projects provide interconnectivity. Albemarle County Code S 18-32.7.2.5 authorizes the Planning
Commission and the site plan agent to require commercial developments to provide travel lanes or
driveways to serve adjoining properties.
As stated above, Albemarle County Code S 14-409's requirement to construct street extensions
may be waived by the County's subdivision agent in prescribed circumstances. In deciding whether to grant
a waiver, the agent must consider a number of factors to determine whether an extension is practical,
including whether the need for the extension outweighs the impacts on environmental resources such as
streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, and floodplain; whether alternative connections to the abutting lands
from a different location would provide a better connection; and, whether the street would be extended into
the Rural Areas. Another factor the agent must consider is whether the subdivider would contribute to the
cost to complete the extension to the abutting property line when the adjoining lands were developed, and
how. The agent's decision to grant the waiver must be based on two findings grounded in the public
interest: (1) requiring that the extension would not forward the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance or
otherwise serve the public interest; and (2) granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land
adjacent thereto.
This report was provided for informational purposes only.
Item 6.13. Second Quarter Report for JAUNT services for FY '06, was received as information.
Item 6.14. Memorandum dated February 1,2006, from Dr. Jonathon D. Earl, to Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: Planned use for the 2006 Justice Assistance Grant to Albemarle County.
Dr. Earl notes that grant funds in the amount of $15,847 are being provided through the 2006
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Program (JAG). He said it is a requirement of the grant that the
planned use of the funds be reviewed by the County Executive and made available to the Board of
Supervisors for their review. The grant is proposed for prevention and control of crime and will be used in
Albemarle to support overtime activities for community policing projects (see copy of the full Program
Application Narrative on the Police webpage of the County's website).
This memorandum was provided to the Board for informational purposes only.
Item 6.15. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors minutes of December
13,2005, and January 10 and January 11,2006, was received for information.
Item 6.16. Copy of letter dated February 14, 2006, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Paul D. Julian, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map
139, Parcels 25, 25A, 25D, 25E, 25F, 25G and 28 (property of Dunterry LLC) Section 10.3.1, received for
information.
Agenda Item NO.7. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Sue Friedman, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board, addressed the Board. She said
that after a nationwide search, they found a new School Superintendent - Dr. Pamela Moran. They also
have a new Board member, Mr. John Stokes, an attorney with the CFA Institute, was elected in the Samuel
Miller District to take the seat of Mr. Gordon Walker. She said Ms. Diantha McKeel, Jack Jouett District, and
Ms. Pamela Moynihan, Rio District, were also reelected.
Ms. Friedman said the School Board took to heart the Board's suggestion for a needs-based
funding request, and will be coming forward with a budget that matches projected revenues. She said they
have increased the teacher assistant time dramatically in the kindergartens and first grade, since research
shows that if young people are successful in reading, they will do well later in school. They are also looking
at enhancing and revamping career and guidance counseling activities at both the middle and high school
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
levels, as the Schools have been behind what the professional associations recommend as the guidance
counselor/per student ratio. She added that they are shifting away from just guidance counseling into more
of a career-focused assistance, which should be more valuable to students and the local business
community.
Ms. Friedman reported that there is a salary increase component after the two-year phase in to
raise the salary of all teachers to the bottom of the quartile in the adopted market. She said this was
discussed with the Board last fall. They found that teachers with 25+ years of service were behind the
bottom of the quartile. The salary increase for this budget cycle will help bring the teachers at the higher
end back into the market arena. She said someone had mentioned to her that his wife, a career teacher,
had decided not to retire as originally planned because of the new proposed salary structure. She thinks
those actions are having the desired results by keeping the highly qualified teachers in the system.
Ms. Friedman said three teachers have recently accomplished National Board Certification, and
there are few around the country who have done this. She said the School Board already has six in the
Division and now Ms. Eliza Lathrop at Albemarle High School, Ms. Natasha Heny at Albemarle High
School, and Mr. Chad Sansing at Henley Middle School, have been accepted as nationally board certified
teachers. She said they will become teacher mentors and offer an enhanced opportunity for teaching
excellence and peer mentorship.
Ms. Friedman said Ms. Gwen Hairston at Agnor-Hurt, has been selected as the Virginia winner of
the 2006 Southern District AAHPERD "Elementary Teacher of the Year for Physical Education." She is one
of six who will be competing for the national elementary teacher of the year award.
Ms. Friedman said in the Governor's Nutrition and Physical Activity Scorecard and Awards
Program, Brownsville Elementary School received a bronze award and Agnor-Hurt Elementary received a
gold award for enhancing the nutritional aspects of cafeteria food as well as looking at health and physical
education.
Ms. Friedman handed to the Board a card containing the Schools' Vision, Mission and Goals. She
said these came up through their Strategic Planning process, "that all learners believe in their power to
embrace learning, to excel, and to own their future." She said that last phrase is the catalyst for what is
done in the School Division. She said that is colorful and they appreciate the strategic planning process
and the community's input into that process.
Ms. Friedman invited the Board members to meet with their counterpart in their magisterial district
and visit a school. She has met with Mr. Rooker and Mr. Boyd and they have talked about having a series
of joint meetings regarding capital improvement projects and revenue planning.
Ms. Friedman said it has been agreed that the Chairman of the School Board will provide this report
only every three months, so for the months between there will be a monthly written update of School Board
activities. She mentioned that the Schools are promoting their VIP Gold Card program (for those 62 years
of age or over) which allows these people to attend any school activities - plays, athletic events, etc. - at no
charge. She also brought the Board's attention to the new Albemarle County Public Schools logo displayed
on the brochure. She then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked what Board certifies teachers. Ms. Friedman said it is the National Board for
Certification. Dr. Pam Moran said the governor of North Carolina several years ago said teachers should
be able to move across state boundaries and carry with them a high level of certification so they do not
have to go back through certification procedures, as well as look at it through a differentiated pay scale so
teachers who have been through a rigorous certification process would qualify for additional pay at the state
or local level. It started in North Carolina which has the most national certified teachers in the nation. But,
Virginia has started to pick that up. The State Legislature has funding in the budget which differentiates pay
for teachers who go through this certification. They describe the process of becoming national board
certified as being the equivalent of doing doctoral course work in a year. They have to prepare a portfolio,
video tape themselves, and the tapes are then adjudicated by a national board certification group. They
take a series of exams in their content area that last more than one session, as well as in their teaching
skills set. It is a very intensive process. They can take that anywhere in the country.
Ms. Thomas said she remembers that Mr. Gordon Walker consistently asked about the living wage.
She knows that school systems tend to have the lowest paid workers in county government as a whole, so
she asked how the lowest paid people compare with other employees. Ms. Friedman asked if the living
wage is $8.00 an hour. Ms. Thomas said in this community, it is over $10.00 an hours. Ms. Friedman said
there are some positions that are not at that level, but adding the total benefits package raises that amount
to almost $21.00 an hour.
Mr. Wyant asked if kindergarten and first grade classes have a teachers' assistant in each class.
Ms. Friedman explained that they use a formula which says that for each 20 children there's one and one-
half hours of teaching assistant time, and the school system is working to increase that to four hours. She
said this would allow schools to use their discretionary money to have a full-time teaching assistant in every
kindergarten and first-grade class if they choose to use their money that way. It is at the discretion of the
school's principal.
Ms. Thomas commented that she is a little concerned about the enrollment projections the School
System is using for its CIP. If there is to be a joint meeting, this might be included as a discussion item. Ms.
Friedman said those figures are always updated and changed. The Schools are using County figures, but
as data changes their projections of enrollment change also.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to see some information on the living wage, and Ms. Friedman
agreed to furnish that to the Board members.
(Note: The following two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report, March, 2006.
Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters Not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Jim Utterback, Resident Engineer, reported that statewide VDOT is $40.0 million over budget in
its $1.0 billion road maintenance budget, which impacts Albemarle County's allocation by about $900,000.
He emphasized that this will not compromise safety in any way, as safety items would be moved higher on
the priority list.
Mr. Utterback reported that this VDOT residency - which includes Albemarle and Greene Counties
- will become part of a Staunton Smart Traffic Center, which means reporting operations and traffic
engineering will go through that center. He hopes this will mean more resources for the Charlottesville
Residency.
Mr. Utterback reported that the 1-64 maintenance contract would possibly be advertised at the end
of the month, although funding for it may not be available until next year. He explained that this includes
ordinary maintenance on 1-64 from the 1-81 interchange to the 1-288 interchange in Richmond, over 80
miles of interstate highways.
Mr. Utterback said Norfolk Southern Railway has contacted him to indicate they plan to replace the
railroad bridge on Proffit Road "in-kind," which means it will be rebuilt with new parts. He said they want to
start in Mayor June, but it needs to be coordinated with the closing of schools since the road will be
impassable for a while. He clarified for Mr. Boyd that the entire structure would be rebuilt to a safe capacity,
but would not be made into a two-lane bridge.
Mr. Utterback reported that Nelson County is planning to begin work on Heards Mountain Road
(Route 633) this Spring.
Mr. Utterback said staff is beginning to look at three roads on the County's priority list of Rural
Rustic Road projects: Woods Edge Road (Route 623), Hacktown Road (Route 744) and Rocky Hollow
Road (Route 769).
Mr. Utterback said the Georgetown Road Citizens' Informational Meeting is scheduled for March
28,2006.
Mr. Utterback said the public hearing on Jarmans Gap Road is scheduled for March 30, 2006.
Mr. Utterback said they are actively working on Rio Mills Road (Route 643) as a gravel road project.
Mr. Wyant asked if there would be some attention given to the alignment of that road as some citizens had
expressed concern to him. Mr. Utterback responded that VDOT would try to straighten out the curves, but
there are issues with this road that make this an atypical gravel road project. "Safety is paramount and
we're going to look at the typical section to address the traffic."
Mr. Utterback said the landscape design is in process for the Ivy interchange as previously
discussed with the Board. He is waiting for some feedback from the roadside manager.
Mr. Utterback said three traffic studies are in progress - the Route 22/250 intersection, the
intersection near Western Albemarle High School, and the Rio Road/Hillsdale Drive/Northfield Subdivision
intersection.
Mr. Utterback said a "No U-turn" sign was installed on Route 29 at the Rio Road intersection so that
a U-turn can no longer be made on Route 29 at that intersection. VDOT received complaints that there
was no sign, and now is receiving complaints about that installation. Mr. Rooker said he did not understand
why there couldn't be a U-turn made since it is a four-lane highway, and cars can come out in the single
right lane, make a right turn, and stay in their lane, all at the same time.
Mr. Utterback said speed studies were done to reduce speed limits on Route 630 and Route 640.
They are in Richmond now waiting for Transportation Commission approval.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Utterback said a "school bus sign" was installed on Route 649.
Mr. Utterback said a crosswalk on the Barracks Road ramps was not recommended.
Mr. Utterback said the speed study on Inglewood and Solomon Roads has been completed.
Mr. Utterback said there have been some questions about right-of-way acquisition for the Meadow
Creek Parkway. That is an interim milestone in the VDOT development process. He said each project is
unique and some things are handled individually just for that project. Although it appears that the notice to
proceed will not be issued until June, VDOT is proceeding with parallel activities with the right-of-way
acquisition process. The advertisement date in 2008 is not compromised. He then asked that Mr. Spencer
DeJarnette, Assistant District Right-of-Way Manager for VDOT, update the Board on right-of-way
acquisition for the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Rooker asked if the notice to proceed is for the right-of-way work. Mr. DeJarnette said "yes."
Mr. Rooker said that was originally supposed to begin in February. He said they have asked the same
question at the MPO and tried to be firm that VDOT needs to give a schedule and some assurance that
they are moving forward with this project on schedule. The Board was assured a couple of weeks ago that
there was no slippage in this project. The problem in the past has been that when this type of thing
occurred, the Board was told there would be no slippage in the project, and then six months later, the
project has been moved further into the future. He said with inflation the cost of delay in projects eats up a
huge percentage of the County's Secondary Road funds every year.
Mr. DeJarnette explained that the right-of-way process is long and involved including many steps.
He said when the notice to proceed is issued from Richmond he has the authorization to start making the
actual offers. In the meantime, he will give a brief overview of where the process stands. On January 17
they received the City's resolution which was necessary for their planning people to bring together their
elements and to finalize their design. At that time, estimates for right-of-way were updated as were their
title examinations, so a lot of groundwork has been completed. That information needs to be updated now
and the information sent to the designers to make sure the correct landowners are shown; also the property
lines and survey information needs to be updated. That will take about 60 days. Simultaneously, the VDOT
utility engineer has met with every utility company involved in that project, which includes five to seven
companies. They met with those people on January 18 and each of those companies now has to get their
requirements for right-of-way width for replacement of utility easements. They have to engineer and design
their lines, and they have already done a good portion of that work, and sent those requirements to VDOT
so he can buy those replacement easements for those utility companies. That information is due back to
VDOT by the end of this month. He expects the notice to proceed will not be received until June or July.
Mr. DeJarnette said there is one side issue. There is a large piece of property that VDOT needs to
buy to replace the City's park. He is working to accelerate that particular right-of-way acquisition ahead of
the rest of the project since this is a total take and there are no utility easements involved. He is preparing a
special request with a special plan sheet to be sent to Richmond asking for permission to move ahead of
schedule and acquire that property. While they go through their process in Richmond and then allocate
funding to do that, he is in the process of hiring an appraiser. It will take him about 30 days to prepare a
contract. Hopefully within an additional 30 days there will an appraiser working, and it will probably take
him 30 to 45 days to do his report. He said VDOT could be making an offer for total acquisition of the
parkland from Willow Heights LLC as early as June or July.
Ms. Thomas asked if VDOT is being led in this by the General Assembly's resolution which said
VDOT should buy more than just an acre to replace an acre. Mr. DeJarnette said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said it is the area that the City, the County and VDOT have all agreed upon. Mr.
DeJarnette said VDOT is going to buy the entire 36-acre tract. He can advance this purchase because he
does not have to wait for utility companies and other things. They have asked for permission to move
ahead with this acquisition. The appraisal process will be started as soon as possible. When the notice to
proceed is received, he will be ready to finalize the other appraisals. He cannot start those until the utility
easements are shown on the plan. Once that is done, offers will be made by late summer or early fall. He
does not anticipate any problems meeting the timeframe. He said the advertisement date for this project is
2008, so the right-of-way must be cleared ahead of that date because then all of the utility lines must be
relocated before the advertisement can be published. He assured the Board that "time is money for all of
us, particularly in the real estate purchase [market]."
Ms. Thomas asked if VDOT will be impacted by the law that is in the General Assembly now
concerning condemnation, eminent domain. Mr. DeJarnette asked if there is a particular part of that
legislation that concerns Ms. Thomas.
Ms. Thomas said there is a stipulation in the language that says land cannot be condemned for
public use. Mr. DeJarnette said the only legislation he has seen is the result of the New England case
where a municipality condemned private property for private use.
Ms. Thomas said the language was amended in the House. Mr. DeJarnette said they do not
believe there will be any compromise on the Commonwealth's ability to condemn property for roadways.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
The parkland for this project is already covered by a specific statute, and so they do not anticipate any
problem.
Mr. Wyant asked where VDOT is in the process for the right-of-way and utilities for Jarmans Gap
Road. Mr. DeJarnette said VDOT finished the estimate today that now goes to Richmond for the public
hearing to be held in March. He said the scope of the project has changed a little bit. All the title work has
been done, but will have to be updated after the public hearing. They have tried to assess some of the
damage issues to see what can be done to cure some of the parking situations, etc.
Mr. Utterback said that right-of-way is difficult to control in the way of the budget and a timeline for
the project. It is a rigid process but there are some variables where there is limited control. He said VDOT
is planning to meet with County staff and review the Jarmans Gap project before holding the public hearing.
Mr. Wyant said in the Crozet Master Plan it talks about traffic calming and there has been a request
from people who live on Hilltop Road; there are probably other areas that could benefit from traffic calming.
He asked Mr. Utterback if he should talk with the Community Association and identify some other streets
that may be of concern. Mr. Utterback said he thinks this process should begin with Mr. Juandiego Wade.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to get the schedule for Heards Mountain Road.
Ms. Thomas commented that if there is to be more maintenance work on 1-64, there needs to be a
better plan about how to deal with "tie-ups." When that is maintenance, people "rubber neck" and then
there are accidents, and the whole road is "plugged up."
Mr. Utterback said there is a center in Staunton for incidents management. There are cameras on
1-64 to monitor traffic and these types of incidents, along with the variable message signs on 1-81 and on 1-
64. There is a big initiative within VDOT to address issues with interstate tie-ups.
Ms. Thomas said a constituent of hers got a letter saying the intersection at Owensville Road/Route
250/Morgantown Road was being looked at by the Culpeper Office. Mr. Utterback said it is and he will
follow up on that. They will schedule a meeting to see if that intersection would meet the basic analysis
criteria for a roundabout.
Mr. Boyd said he has been involved with discussions with VDOT about providing some signage for
the Ashcroft Subdivision entrance which is near where traffic comes off of 1-64. Mr. Utterback said he has
talked with the Traffic Engineer, but needs to be sure an official study has been requested. He personally is
concerned about a queue on 1-64; traffic coming off of 1-64 onto Route 250 will take priority over traffic
coming off a side street.
Mr. Boyd mentioned the Places29 transportation study. He said the T.J. Planning District has been
requested to "put on the table" the Ruckersville Turnpike, and yet it has been said to leave the Western
Bypass "off the table." He is bringing this up because he thinks there is a lot of misinformation circulating
about that bypass, especially regarding the cost, and what Mr. Utterback provided him as the VDOT
numbers. He said the Chamber of Commerce just went to the General Assembly and they said it would be
a $270.0 million contract, when Mr. Utterback told him it would be a $165.0 million project. He said that
four of the current Supervisor members were never part of any discussion or study about the Western
Bypass. He is not advocating one way or the other about a Western Bypass, but it bothers him that a totally
new thing called the "Ruckersville Turnpike" is being studied at the behest of just a few individuals, and
there is an engineered road on which $30.0 million was spent, and it is not "on the table." He wants the
Western Bypass to be put back in the study the MPO is doing about transportation issues on Route 29
North.
Mr. Rooker said there is a misconception here. The traffic models being run are being run with and
without the bypass; that is the same with all the potential roads that are in that area.
Mr. Boyd said he did not see the bypass mentioned in the report at all.
Mr. Rooker said the Western Bypass is included in some of the traffic models being run by CHART
for the traffic flows in that area.
Mr. Boyd said he was talking about the transportation study that is going on with Places29.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the Ruckersville Parkway is a project that would ever be built.
He does not think there would ever be the money needed to build it.
Mr. Boyd said it was included as one the options for Route 29. There was no Western Bypass on
any of the drawings.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the traffic modeling includes both the Ruckersville Parkway and the
Western Bypass. As to the cost, the County went to its member on the CTB two years ago, and the figure
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
he showed was close to $300.0 million. There was a lower figure given for that project at one time and
when VDOT was asked about that, they said they no longer consider the peculiar aspects of projects, but
are calculating costs based on a "cost per mile" basis, and adding in a few features. The original cost
figures used by Mr. Butch Davies and Commissioner Suchet before he left, were based on particular
analyses of the cost of the components of that project; the cost of the southern interchange of that project is
immense; the property where the northern interchange would go on the west side is currently on the market
for $40.0 million. VDOT has never designed a northern interchange.
Mr. Boyd said $40.0 million is a ridiculous price for that property.
Mr. Rooker said even if that price were cut down to one-third of that amount, it far exceeds even the
budget in the $270.0 million estimate.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to go back to his original point. He asked Mr. Rooker if Places29 is
studying the Western Bypass as a way to alleviate transportation on Route 29. He asked if there will be
new information about the pros and cons of a Western Bypass.
Mr. Rooker said he understands that road is not being drawn as a new road because it is already a
road that has been considered. He said the traffic modeling done by CHART and by Places29 shows the
levels of service which can be achieved by building certain improvements; he understands that will include
the Western Bypass.
Mr. Boyd said he is not getting that impression.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Chairman is right; it is in the traffic modeling.
Mr. Boyd said at the first public workshop six of the nine tables said a bypass is needed. It was fifth
on the voting list of 29 priority items from the community. He wants to make sure the Board is listening to
the community.
Mr. Rooker said there were only 50+ people making those comments.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said the Western Bypass is being included
in the Places29 traffic modeling. This was done at VDOT's insistence because they are paying for part of
the cost of the modeling. He emphasized that it is not one of the alternatives being considered for the land
use plan because most of it is lies outside of the development area.
Mr. Boyd said he does not know what paralleling Route 29 will do. He saw Berkmar Drive
Extended on some of the drawings and it is outside of the growth areas. He has heard a lot about the ease
of getting across Route 29 but has never heard anything about a bypass.
Mr. Rooker said the Western Bypass project is still in VDOT's plan at this time. Whether it is built is
subject to their cost-benefit analyses. When the MPO has traffic analyses done for update of the 20-year
plan, it is included because they do not know whether it will be built.
Mr. Boyd said he will rephrase his question. He asked if when the Board talks about transportation
options for the Route 29 Corridor the pros and cons of the bypass will also be discussed. Mr. Graham said
"yes." The transportation modeling will be discussed with Places29.
Mr. Boyd said he misunderstood; he thought they were told to leave that "off the table" and not talk
about it. He just wants the opportunity to see the numbers himself.
Mr. Rooker said all Board members should see those numbers. For land use planning purposes,
very little of that project is in the land use planning area. When talking about Berkmar Drive, most of it is in
the growth area. You can't talk about Berkmar without talking about the bridge across the Rivanna River
which actually is not in the growth area today.
Mr. Boyd said the Board did not get a report on the transportation side of the Places29 study; was
the preliminary information just on the land use side?
Mr. Wyant said this is not the message he got last night. The consultant just said the Ruckersville
Parkway was an alternative to the bypass and that is all that was said.
Mr. Boyd said the community is vocal on this subject.
Mr. Rooker said he believes the community will be vocal on both of these issues. His district is
affected by both. He said the Ruckersville Parkway has been pushed by Delegate Mitch Van Yahres and
Mr. Bern Ewert who have taken the project "on the road" and showed it to a number of groups. He thinks
they have enough support to have it looked at as part of a transportation study.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has never seen that presentation. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Mr. Slutzky said he can't imagine what support they have gotten. Part of it goes through his district,
and he has heard nothing but "hate mail and outrage" expressed by just about everybody in that district.
Mr. Boyd said he brought this up because he thinks the Board needs to have a public discussion of
the issue. If it has not occurred yet because the Board has not received the transportation component of
Places29, which is okay. He wants to be sure the bypass is "not off the table."
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Slutzky asked if in the traffic models being run there is consideration being given to the Eastern
Connector, and if there is consideration being given to a significant mass transit system. Mr. Graham said
he cannot give an answer about mass transit because he does not know enough about it to speak. As far
as the Eastern Connector is concerned, it was left as an option to be studied. In what they are working on
now, there is no Eastern Connector as far as a point of origination, and no alignment has been set. That
makes a tremendous difference.
Mr. Slutzky said he will rephrase the question. Because there was an existing plan, it sounds like
the Western Bypass is being modeled. Now that the Ruckersville Parkway has appeared in one of the
three scenarios, it will also be modeled into the traffic flows. What would it take to get the Eastern
Connector and a look at mass transit options imbedded in the transportation study? Mr. Graham said if the
Board is interested in exploring this, he would suggest that they hold a work session with Mr. Harrison Rue
of the Planning District Commission and others about these issues.
Mr. Rooker said he understands that each Board member has the opportunity to have an individual
meeting about Places29. He suggested that the Board members take advantage of that opportunity, and
then they can talk about whether to hold a work session with the T JPDC people involved. He said the road
decisions are not going to be made by Places29. This Board ultimately has to approve projects which then
go to be approved by the MPO. The projects have to go through CHART and be approved by the 20-year
Road Committee. The fact that some lines get drawn on the map, even if they end up being suggested by
this study, does not necessarily mean these are projects which will be built. The MPO has to make cost-
benefit analyses continually about the funds it gets and how to best achieve transportation results with those
funds.
Mr. Slutzky said the transportation studies were generated by community demand and they are an
integral component of the Places29 planning exercise. They profoundly influence the land use decision
array. He said in order to make Places29 an effective planning exercise, major transportation issues that
relate that planning district to the rest of the metropolitan region need to be looked at.
Mr. Rooker asked if he had had the individual meeting.
Mr. Slutzky said he attended a meeting with Mr. Rue, County staff and the consultants. In that
dialogue he asked why the Ruckersville Parkway was listed since he felt it would be a "lightning rod" that
would detract from a meaningful consideration of Option #3. He is asking the Board members if they want
to be proactive. He would like to assert that each of the major transportation issues be reflected in this
planning exercise, with due haste. He is frustrated that the only one that is visible to the public now is the
Ruckersville Parkway.
Mr. Wyant said he attended a meeting in Earlysville last night at which Mr. Rue was present to talk
about Places29 transportation. In Alternative #3 the Eastern Connector was excluded. He assumes they
are modeling it in another alternative. Mr. Tucker said the consultant has been requested to look at an
Eastern Connector. The Board may want to delay Places29 until that information is received.
Ms. Thomas said an Eastern Connector would not impact this area unless there is the Meadow
Creek Parkway coming all the way to Route 29 and crossing the Rivanna River so it is another crossing.
Until two years ago, that was the Board's number one request at the Culpeper District meetings. Now, it
has been dropped because it was such a "lightning rod" for the City. For this planning exercise, she thinks it
might not be a good idea to have it dropped. She agreed with Mr. Rooker that the Board members go to the
meetings with staff so they have a better background.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem doing that, but agrees with Mr. Slutzky that
transportation cannot be separated from land use. He did attend one of the public meetings held in this
room about Places29 and he did not hear anything about a western bypass. He did hear about the Free
State Road Connector, old Meadow Creek Parkway, because that is drawn in one of the options.
Mr. Wyant said the consultant's presentation has been improved since that meeting. They
elaborate on a lot of other issues now.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board members are in agreement. The members should have those
individual meetings. Places29 still has a lot of time to go, and a work session can be scheduled after those
meetings are held.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Utterback has not said a word about this today.
Mr. Boyd asked that Mr. Utterback comment on his numbers.
Mr. Utterback said for the public record the numbers are not his, they were pulled from the project
cost-estimating system, a statewide system used to generate estimates. They were done in Culpeper by a
project manager who consulted with the location design engineer. He said that without interchanges, the
project has not been completely designed.
Mr. Tucker said the right-of-way has already been acquired, so he wonders if the amount shown is
just for the portion of the project left.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Utterback told him the total project cost is $165.688 million, and $9.284 million
has been spent for planning and engineering, and $26.568 million has been spent for right-of-way
acquisition. That totals $35.0 million, leaving about $130.0 million for the project.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Utterback pointed out that right-of-way acquisition is estimated to cost $55.0 million.
Mr. Rooker said that number was generated by this system, and was received after they had
estimated the cost of the project on a section-by-section basis.
Mr. Boyd said this number was just updated this year.
Mr. Rooker said that was done using a system which looks at the specific sections of that project,
such as how much dirt would need to be removed from Still house Mountain and where that dirt would go.
They are taking a system used statewide for estimating projects and applying it generically to this project to
get that number. He suggested that Mr. Boyd talk with the CTB member for Albemarle about that number.
He thinks the number is close to $300.0 million.
Mr. Utterback said when you go through each milestone of the development process for a project
such as this, as more information is known about each discipline the estimates are updated, and the
estimate tends to get larger. This project is not completely designed, right-of-way has not been acquired,
so a full-blown estimate would take hundreds of hours of efforts to do that, and he is confident there would
be a different estimate.
Mr. Boyd said it concerns him that the estimates are $100.0 million off.
Mr. Rooker said in order to believe that estimate Mr. Boyd would have to believe that the cost has
fallen by about $100.0 million from the estimate made for the project two years ago.
Mr. Boyd asked if this estimate is less than what was originally proposed.
Mr. Rooker said it is, and when asked why, they were told it was done on a generic basis.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be inappropriate to ask VDOT not to spend hundreds of hours casting
a new estimate, but to give the Board what VDOT considers today to be the most accurate capture of what
this project is expected to cost.
Mr. Utterback said that is what VDOT knows using that generic system, which is a standard system
used across the state without spending hundreds of hours on an estimate.
Mr. Slutzky asked if hundreds of hours were spent previously coming up with the higher numbers.
Mr. Utterback said the estimate has a history, as some Board members know. Over the last couple
of years, just from inflation, he has seen it grow from $153.0 million to $165.0 million. What is in the VDOT
cost-estimating system now is the number he has provided the Board.
Mr. Boyd said his question has been answered; it is on the table and is being studied as part of
Places29. Mr. Tucker said transit is also part of the study. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a multi-modal
component to the modeling.
Mr. Slutzky asked that his fellow Board members have their individual meetings before the April day
meeting. Then the Board could discuss whether to hold a work session or not.
Mr. Slutzky said when driving on Hydraulic Road going past K-Mart toward Route 29 there are two
right turn lanes, and the inside lane has a "no turn on red" sign. Some of his constituents have asked him if
they can turn right on red at that point.
Mr. Wyant said there is a sign at that point that says there can be no turn on red from that second
lane.
Mr. Rooker clarified that one can make a right turn on red in the far right-hand lane, the lane
closest to the edge of the road, but not in the second right-turn lane.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks there is some ambiguity there, and he asked Mr. Utterback to check.
Agenda Item NO.9. SUB-2005-391, Old Trail Creekside II, Phase 1 Subdivision & SUB-2006-007,
Old Trail Clayton Subdivision Open Space, Dedication to Public Use.
Mr. David Pennock, Planner, addressed the Board, reporting on dedication of public space for the
Old Trail/Creekside II and Old Trail/Clayton subdivisions, both of which are being pursued as by-right zoning
subdivisions. He reported that Creekside II at Old Trail is zoned R-1, Residential, and the Clayton
Subdivision is zoned R-2, Residential. The Zoning Ordinance allows bonuses in density for provision of
certain amenities, and in this case the applicant is pursuing a five-percent increase for planting of street
trees, a ten-percent increase for provision of internal public roads, and up to a maximum additional 15
percent for dedication of open space for public use. Through analysis of the subdivision plan the Planning
Commission reviewed the appropriateness of this green space, and the Department of Parks and
Recreation also examined the open space's usefulness.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Pennock noted that approximately 20 acres in the Creekside II subdivision, and 2.8 acres in the
Clayton subdivision were identified by staff as potential useful areas; both acreages exceed the maximum
15 percent allowed, if the full amount is accepted. For Creekside II that would be an additional 11 lots and
for Clayton Subdivision it would be an additional three lots. Based on the analysis, staff recommends that
the areas identified on Attachment "D" as "A" through "H" in the Creekside Subdivision and Areas "1" and
"6" in the Old Trail Clayton Subdivision be accepted for public use through fee simple dedication during the
subdivision process. He then offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said she would like staff to verify that these areas are correct, useable and integrated.
Mr. Pennock said the green space was reviewed as to appropriateness both by staff and by the
Planning Commission. The Parks & Recreation Department looked to see how useful these spaces would
be toward fulfilling Strategic Plan Initiatives. A concern is that these areas of greenway provide a link from
Jarmans Gap Road to existing and future dedications of green space between Ballard Field and Creekside,
which will then tie in to Old Trail Park. The idea is to bring people from the opposite side of Jarmans Gap
Road, Waylands Grant Subdivision, and Bargamin Park, to link the whole area with a walkable system.
Mr. Dan Mahon, Greenways Planner, addressed the Board. He said this plan is consistent with the
Crozet Master Plan where there are attempts to make connections across the Old Trail development to
Jarmans Gap Road serving the existing neighborhoods with safe connections to the schools. From the rest
of the community, they are seeking safe and accessible off-road routes eventually to Mint Springs. In the
works are some connections to Waylands Grant and other areas which will serve to make connections for
new opportunities to connect with this new park. Along Jarmans Gap Road there will be a sidewalk. He
said it is not the best route, but it will work. There are some areas that are tight along the creeks where
there are steep slopes, but connections can be made.
Mr. Wyant asked if there can be a connection made on the Gray Rock side. Mr. Mahon said there is
an area which has been dedicated on the back side of Gray Rock.
Mr. Wyant said he wanted to know what he would have to do to get across Jarmans Gap Road
over to Lane Town Road. Mr. Mahon said there is not a route there. Mr. Wyant said he was actually trying
to get to Mint Springs. Mr. Mahon said in the Master Plan that route is shown behind Gray Rock. The
Master Plan did not go out of that area so it has not been studied. Mr. Wyant asked if this is all consistent
with what the Master Plan proposes so a continuous path can be made. Mr. Mahon said there is also a
connection coming down behind Orchard Acres that is part of the open space plan in the Crozet Master
Plan, and there is also the potential for a future connection somewhere in that area.
Mr. Wyant asked if most of this land is being dedicated to the County. Mr. Mahon said this property
would be dedicated to the County. What is not shown on the map being reviewed by the Board today is a
continuation of a linear park dedicated to public use that goes as far as Henley and Brownsville schools.
Mr. Wyant asked if the County will maintain these trails after they are constructed by the developer.
Mr. Mahon said "yes" as a linear park.
Mr. Wyant asked if this will take place even if the homeowners retain some of the property. Mr.
Mahon said "no." All the areas where trails will be located will be on ground dedicated to the park. He said
that Old Trail is developing its own trail system which will interconnect; it will be a semi-public trail system
which will connect at different points. Staff has been looking for ways to connect these neighborhoods with
the schools, to preserve these creek riparian areas which are dedicated to public use.
Mr. Wyant asked if they will be walkable and bikeable. Mr. Mahon said "yes."
Mr. Rooker asked the total acreage of open space. In looking at the tables on the map it appears
to be 46.0 acres. Mr. Pennock said there are actually areas identified on the map that staff determined
would not necessarily be useful as public open space, but are still proposed to be open space for the
subdivisions, but not part of the open space to be dedicated. The charts indicate only the open space to be
dedicated to the County; there is additional open space that the homeowners will maintain.
Mr. Rooker said he was looking at the map handed to the Board members today. He said for
Ballard Field there is a note that 16.6 acres of open space was provided. He assumes this is just for that
subdivision. Mr. Pennock said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said that for Upper Ballard Field there is the same thing; it references 10.56 acres. The
Old Trail Creekside II references 20.07 acres. For Old Trail Clayton, it references 2.8 acres. That totals
between 46.0 and 48.0 acres. Mr. Pennock said that is without the Old Trail Park.
Mr. Rooker said he is just curious to know the densities designated for these areas in the
Comprehensive Plan. It is a development as a matter of right, so this is not a rezoning. Mr. Pennock said
Old Trail Creekside has a density of about 1.26 dwelling units per acre after the dedication, Old Trail
Clayton is about 2.6 dwelling units per acre after the dedication. Based on the Crozet Master Plan which
shows ranges for each of these CT dedications (based on net area), it comes out to a minimum of about
2.8 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of approximately 14.4 dwelling units per acre. He said the by-
right subdivision they are achieving is actually less than what they could obtain using the full Master Plan
projections.
Mr. Rooker asked about Upper Ballard Field. Mr. Pennock said he does not have the numbers for
Upper Ballard Field with him.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Rooker asked if the lower end of the density range would be 2.8 dwelling units per acre
according to the Master Plan. Mr. Pennock said that is correct.
Mr. Wyant asked if the 1.6 du/ac is a net figure. Mr. Pennock said it is gross.
Mr. Cilimberg said there will never be a Master Plan done this way again because the whole net
density term has become a nightmare to explain and calculate. He said what Mr. Pennock provided was
the gross density of the development of those two areas subject to the request for the dedication of open
space, and he calculated what the CTs would translate to in gross density which he said was the 2.8. He
clarified that Mr. Pennock has provided the gross resulting density for those two areas under their zoning,
and the gross resulting density if you take the net density and convert it into gross density for those areas
using the 80 percent factor.
Mr. Boyd said since the community has the "population meter going" does the Board need to have
those numbers translated into population every time there is a request. Mr. Cilimberg said he would
suggest that the Board focus on the dwelling unit numbers, which would essentially be multiplied by 2.4
people per household.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Cilimberg knows what that number would be in this case since it was said this
request reduces the density overall.
Mr. Rooker said when the Crozet community talks about 24,000 population, that number is based
on the highest limit so that would be like applying 14.0 as the density for this piece of property as it exists in
the Crozet Master Plan. He said for this request, the density will be less than 2.0, which is below the
minimum. If this plan is approved, this will reduce the Master Plan computation number significantly
because the upper limit is 14.0+. Instead of 14, which is the number the 24,000 population is based on, this
piece of property will be approved at a density of two, which is about one-seventh of what the Master Plan
would allow.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board needs to make this very clear to the public; that when these
decisions are made, density is not being increased.
Mr. Rooker said that is why he asked the question about the density shown in the Master Plan. He
thinks it is important to understand what is being done in relation to the densities in that Plan.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to establish what the community is saying and as the Board makes
decisions in the future it indicate how that impacts their numbers. Mr. Cilimberg said staff just completed a
table that compiles information on recent approvals in Crozet. It was provided to the Commission and
public last week. It will serve as a starting point to answer those questions.
Mr. Boyd said in theory, after getting a building permit, densities are sometimes reduced.
Mr. Slutzky asked if in the future staff could let the Board know the maximums and minimums
contemplated for the property in question. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board will be hearing a request for the
"Cross" property in about two weeks. Staff will provide a table showing the various approvals that have
occurred in Crozet so the Board has that when considering the request.
Mr. Slutzky asked if in the future the Board will continue to get that information along with requests.
Mr. Cilimberg said "yes."
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it is important to have some specific growth number of people that are
being targeted, so it can be argued to the public that the 1.8 percent figure Albemarle uses is below what
other rapidly growing counties like Loudoun are experiencing.
Ms. Thomas said she has seen the chart put together for the Commission and she thinks it is
useful. She thinks there are two sides. There are the population numbers that came out of the Master
Plan, but also there was the picture in the Master Plan of what the community wanted Crozet to be. She is
encouraged by this dedication of trails. When the Parks Department did the telephone survey of the County
to determine what kind of recreation most people wanted walking trails ranked high on the list. She said all
through the Master Planning process people were interested in these types of opportunities. Mr. Cilimberg
said that last week staff discussed with the Commission how the development before them that night
related to the densities of the Master Plan. He said there are other elements as to form and the total
package that are important, it is not just about density.
Mr. Wyant said if the County had not developed the Master Plan for Crozet, the by-right population
would have been about 12,500. If this request is approved, he thinks it would be nice to show the trails so
everyone can see the "missing link" in getting these amenities that people in the community are looking for.
If there are gaps in the system, they need to be shown. In looking for a walkable community, it is important
to show the folks where than can walk and bike to schools, businesses, and other things. He thinks that
would help the Board in making decisions.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board should look at the impact on the community as a whole.
The bonus provisions are in the ordinance, but have seldom been used. She said because the Board
thought it was important to have greenways around the County those bonus provisions were kept in the
ordinance.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
At this time, Mr. Rooker asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Vito Cetta offered to answer any questions the Board might have. He said they are excited
about the connections and the trails. It is important to them individually and an important part of Old Trail.
Ms. Thomas asked what kind of surface will be on the trails. Mr. Cetta responded that they will use
the same specs that Mr. Peter Hatch designed for the Monticello Trail - a mixture of grading, two sizes of
stones and stone dust.
Mr. Wyant asked when the trail would be built. Mr. Cetta responded that the first section is under
construction.
Mr. Dorrier asked the timeframe for build-out of this subdivision. Mr. Cetta said it could possibly be
three years.
Mr. Rooker invited public comment at this time. None was offered, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Wyant said he thinks this plan brings amenities the citizens are looking for in the development
areas. He then moved to authorize the acceptance of the open space areas as identified on the plats for
SUB-2005-391, Old Trail Creekside II, Phase 1 Subdivision, and for SUB-2006-007, Old Trail Clayton
Subdivision. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: At 11 :30 a.m. the Board took a brief recess. They reconvened at 11 :50 a.m. and continued
with the meeting.)
Agenda Item NO.1 O. Public Hearing: FY 2005-06 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on February 29,2006.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Budget Manager said the Code of Virginia S15.2-2507 stipulates that any
locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal
year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent
of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser,
must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before
amending the budget. The proposed increase of this FY 2006 Budget Amendment totals $571,375.28. The
estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund
Local Government Programs/Grants
Education Fund
Education Programs/Grants
ECC
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES - All Funds
$
$
$
$
$
$
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues
State Revenues
Federal Revenues
General Fund Balance
Other Fund Balance
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES - All Funds
$
$
$
$
$
$
28,000.00
422,097.47
20,366.54
81,536.05
19.375.22
571,375.28
32,311.76
91,842.56
406,676.79
28,000.00
12.544.17
571,375.28
The budget amendment is comprised of 15 separate appropriations, two of which were approved
by the Board on February 1, 2006: One appropriation (No. 2006-042) totaling $15,200.00 for the CERT
Grant; and one appropriation (No. 2006-043) in the amount of $650.00 for various education programs.
The 12 new appropriations are: One appropriation (No. 2006-044) totaling $16,710.29 to transfer
funds from the Kelly Watt Scholarship Fund; one appropriation (No. 2006-045) in the amount of $1 ,000.00
for education donations; one appropriation (No. 2006-046) to provide $4,175.22 to upgrade ECC's records
management software; three appropriations (No. 2006-047, No. 2006-049, No. 2006-050) for Social
Services grants totaling $89,206.00; one appropriation (No. 2006-048) in the amount of $199,245.00 for a
Police Department grant; one appropriation (No. 2006-051) for various education programs and donations
totaling $83,542.30; one appropriation (No. 2006-052) transferring $4,167.00 from the Board's Reserve for
the TJPED membership fee for FY '06; one appropriation (No. 2006-053) totaling $9,458.47 reappropriating
fund balances and current year proceeds received in the Drug Seized Assets accounts; two appropriations
(No. 2006-054 and No. 2006-055) totaling $124,188.00 for grants awarded to the Commission on Children
and Families; and, one appropriation (No. 2006-056) in the amount of $28,000.00 funding the Citizen
Survey.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of $571 ,375.28
after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations No. 2006-044, No. 2006-045, No. 2006-046,
No. 2006-047, No. 2006-048, No. 2006-049, No. 2006-050, No. 2006-051, No. 2006-052, No. 2006-053,
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
No. 2006-054, No. 2006-055, and No. 2006-056 to provide funds for various General Government, School,
and ECC programs as described in Attachment A.
Appropriation No. 2006-044. $ 16.710.29. At its meeting on February 9,2006, the School Board
approved the following appropriation: A scholarship fund was set up for Kelly Watt, graduate of Albemarle
High School in 2005. At the time the fund was set up, the money was collected at the school with the
intention of transferring it to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation. The parents of Kelly
Watt and staff at Albemarle High School support this transfer to the Foundation. The school system may
not make a donation to another charitable organization. This appropriation will transfer the funds from the
School Fund to the General Fund at which time the funds will be transferred to the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Community Foundation.
Appropriation No. 2006-045. $ 1.000.00. At its meeting on February 12, 2006, the School Board
approved the following appropriation: Monticello High School received two donations totaling $1,000.00:
$500.00 from The Oak Hill Fund and $500.00 from Jeff and Mary Adams. It has been requested that these
donations go toward the needs of the marching band at Monticello High School.
Appropriation No. 2006-046. $ 4.175.22. The records management system at the Emergency
Communications Center requires a software upgrade totaling $4,175.22. The cost of this upgrade will be
shared equally between the City of Charlottesville and the County. The County's share, $2,087.61, will be
funded from existing CIP funds.
Appropriation No. 2006047. $ 48.623.00. The Department of Social Services has received a
continuation of the Family Access to Medical Insurance Security Plan (FAMIS) Keep 'em Covered Grant in
the amount of $48,623.00. The FAMIS Plan provides Medicaid-like benefits to uninsured children. These
grant funds provide for a dedicated worker to serve the community on behalf of this program. There is no
local match.
Appropriation No. 2006 048. $ 199.245.00. The Department of Criminal Justice has awarded the
Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the amount of $199,245.00 to assist in the training of public
safety officials as well as educating the public in matters concerning terrorism. Examples of fund usage
may include interactive web sites, additional IT support, and linking officers with lap tops for
record/information sharing. There is no local match.
Appropriation No. 2006-049. $ 29.983.00. The Department of Social Services has received funding
through the Family Treatment Court for a part-time position. This funding is provided by a Federal Bureau
of Justice Grant and will provide for a primary case manager for foster children whose parent(s) are
involved in the Family Treatment Court Program. This case manager will coordinate substance abuse
services through Region Ten, attend weekly Family Treatment Court meetings, as well as monitor and
encourage parents' compliance with substance abuse treatment. Piedmont Court Appointed Special
Advocates (CASA) will serve as the fiscal agent for this grant. The local match of $3,680.00 will be funded
from the existing Social Services budget.
Appropriation No. 2006-050. $ 10.600.00. The Department of Social Services has received a
continuation of funding provided by the Virginia Community Corps via a Federal grant in the form of the
AmeriCorps Program. The AmeriCorps worker will serve the Adult Division of Social Services to help
achieve the following strategic goals of the agency: Develop and implement strategies focused on
preventing and early intervention and ensuring that all services meet the needs of the change
demographics of the Community Corps.
AmeriCorps is a network of national service programs that engage more than 50,000 Americans
each year in intensive service to meet critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the
environment. AmeriCorps members serve through more than 2,100 non-profits, public agencies, and faith-
based organizations. They tutor and mentor youth, build affordable housing, teach computer skills, clean
parks and streams, run after-school programs, and help communities respond to disasters. Created in
1993, AmeriCorps is part of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees Senior
Corps and Learn and Serve America.
Appropriation No. 2006-051. $ 83.642.30. At its meeting on January 26, 2006, the School Board
approved the following appropriations:
. Monticello High School received a donation in the amount of $1 ,000.00 from the Frederick S.
Upton Foundation. This donation was made to match a previous donation made by Sarah DuPont.
It has been requested that this donation be used for the educational needs of Monticello High
School students.
. B.F. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from Sentry Electric
Company. It has been requested that this donation be used to help fund a field trip for B.F. Yancey
students.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
. In 2004, the Virginia Department of Education approved a new scientific calculator for use on the
6th, 7th, and 8th grade Standards of Learning assessments starting May 2006. Federal funds have
recently become available to help school divisions implement the statewide Standards of Learning
assessment system. The assessment funds can be used to purchase new scientific and graphing
calculators, repair non-functioning calculators, or to purchase calculator batteries. The grant
distribution for Albemarle County Public Schools is $5,166.06 based on Title I eligibility.
. "Families in Crisis" is funded under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance
Improvement Act, Title X, Part C, of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The program is
designed to identify students eligible under the Act and provide support services needed to assure
their continued success in school. Funding for FY '05/06 was increased by $13,000.00 from the
original budget amount of $12,000.00 due to an increase in the amount awarded by the State in a
new competitive grant cycle. The funds will be used to provide additional services, including
tutoring for the increasing number of homeless students living in the Albemarle County school
district or being forced to move out of the district because of circumstances beyond their control. In
addition, The Dave Matthews Band's Bama Works fund in the Charlottesville Area Community
Foundation has awarded the Albemarle County Schools "Families in Crisis" program $2,500.00 to
provide food, school supplies, clothes, books and emergency needs for homeless families in the
Albemarle region. Two thousand dollars of the money will be used to purchase forty - $50 gift
certificates so that the students and their families can pick out exactly what they need with no
stigma attached. The remaining funds will be spent for books for students and family members
attending Adult ESL or GED classes, field trip fees, or other emergency needs. Emergency needs
include purchasing and delivering items such as food, water, propane, and other items, and
temporary after school fees to assure that students remain in a safe environment if needed.
. The Reading First grant is a Federally-funded program designated for Benjamin F. Yancey
Elementary School. The grant funds support a comprehensive K-3 reading instructional program
and the implementation of prevention and intervention services to include: hiring a literacy
coordinator to work with staff to provide high quality research based classroom reading instruction
in grades K-3, purchasing research based instructional materials to be used for reading instruction
in K-1, providing professional development related to implementing the research based reading
instructional materials purchased, purchasing research based intervention materials to be used for
reading intervention in grades 2 and 3 classrooms and purchasing a variety of pleasure reading
books for students to read in addition to those books read during core reading instruction time.
Funding for FY '05/06 was increased by $57,163.70 from the original budget amount of
$100,000.00. Additional funds were requested in order to provide supplemental materials to
students reading well above grade level. This is an area that was previously lacking in the Voyager
program at Yancey. By providing this additional component, instruction will be more rigorous for
these students. In addition to these materials, teacher resource kits were purchased to assist
professional development in the area of phonics. After reviewing recent data, the need for
additional focus in this area is evident. This funding provides each teacher with a starter kit to
support both instruction and professional knowledge in the area of phonics.
. Wood brook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Sarah and
John Lloyd. It was requested that these funds be used for the EDGE (Extended Day Generates
Excellence) program at Woodbrook Elementary School.
. V.L. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $256.25 from Lower Dryad
Music. It has been requested that this donation be used toward cultural enrichment activities at V.L.
Murray Elementary School.
. The Partner in Character Education Grant has a fund balance from FY '04/05 in the amount of
$3,806.29. These funds will help support K-12 character education programs.
Appropriation No. 2006-052. $4617.00. On February 8, 2006, the Board voted to join the Thomas
Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development. This appropriation, from the Board of Supervisors'
Reserve, provides the one-third year membership fee in the amount of $4,617.00 to cover the period of
March 1 through June 30, 2006.
Appropriation No. 2006-053. $9.458.47. The Police Department receives proceeds from the sale
of drug seized assets through State and Federal programs. These accounts had fund balances totaling
$8,837.88 from FY '05 and they have received $620.59 in additional revenue during FY'06. Proceeds in
these accounts will be used for supplies and equipment related to drug enforcement.
Appropriation No. 2006-054. $49.389.00. The Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children
and Families (CCF) has been awarded a reimbursement grant of $49,389.00 from the National Children's
Alliance to pilot a Children's Advocacy Center for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. The
purpose of a Children's Advocacy Center is to provide a comprehensive, culturally competent,
multidisciplinary team response to allegations of child abuse or victimization in a dedicated setting, resulting
in improved outcomes for child victims and improved accountability for perpetrators. The funds will be used
to support and train a part-time case manager and a part-time forensic interviewer. This position will be
housed at and supervised by CCF pending attaining non-profit status. No local funds are required.
Appropriation No. 2006-055. $74.799.00. The Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children
and Families (CCF) has been awarded a reimbursement grant of $74,799.00 from the Virginia Department
of Health and Human Services to pilot a Children's Advocacy Center - the Foothills Child Advocacy Center.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
The funds will be used to support a CAC Coordinator, provide training to police and social workers, and
some equipment needs. The Coordinator will provide Case Management Services and will serve as staff of
the pilot CAC. This position will be housed at and supervised by CCF pending attaining non-profit status.
No local funds are required.
Appropriation No. 2006-056. $28.000.00. Preliminary work on the Citizen Survey will begin in FY
'05/06. This appropriation provides $28,000 in funding from the General Fund Balance.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to
speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Wyant moved to approve the FY 2006 Budget Amendment as advertised in the amount of
$571,375.28, and to approve the following appropriations. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2006-044
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Transfer of Kelly Watt Scholarship Fund to Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 16,710.29
1 2431 93010 930009 Transfer to G/F J1 16,710.29
2 1000 51000 512000 Tr Fm Other Funds J2 16,710.29
1 1000 59000 560000 Cont to other entities J1 16,710.29
0501 Est Revenue 16,710.29
2000 0701 Appropriation 16,710.29
0501 Est Revenue 16,710.29
1000 0701 Appropriation 16.710.29
TOTAL 66,841.16 33,420.58 33,420.58
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-045
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Education Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 1,000.00
1 2304 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 1,000.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 1,000.00
0701 Appropriation 1.000.00
TOTAL 2,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2006-046
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: ECC Records Management System Software Upgrade
SUB LEDGER
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
TYPE
2
2
1
FUND
4105
4105
4105
4105
DEPT
16000
16000
31061
OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE
160547 City of Charlottesville J2
160548 County of Albemarle J2
950191 Records Mgmt System J1
0501 Est. Revenue
0701 Appropriation
AMOUNT
2,087.61
2,087.61
4,175.22
4,175.22
TOTAL 16,700.88
4.175.22
0.00 0.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2006-047
DATE:
EXPLANATION: Keep 'em Covered Grant
SUB LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT
2 1565 24000 240615 State Revenue J2 16,531.82
2 1565 33000 330029 Federal Revenue J2 32,091.18
1 1565 53155 110000 Salaries J1 39,632.00
1 1565 53155 210000 FICA J1 3,283.00
1 1565 53155 301210 Contract Services J1 2,900.00
1 1565 53155 520100 Postal Services J1 115.00
1 1565 53155 550100 Travel/Training/Ed J1 900.00
1 1565 53155 600100 Office Supplies J1 793.00
1 1565 53155 601700 Copy Expenses J1 1,000.00
1565 0501 Est. Revenue
0701 Appropriation
TOTAL 97,246.00
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
48,623.00
48.623.00
48,623.00 48,623.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO: 2006-048
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Law Enforcement Terrorism Protection Grant
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1523 33000 300001 Federal Revenue J2 199,245.00
1 1523 31013 110000 Salary J1 45,990.30
1 1523 31013 210000 FICA J1 3,809.70
1 1523 31013 550403 Training J1 13,000.00
1 1523 31013 800700 ADP Equipment J1 136,445.00
1523 0501 Est Revenue 199,245.00
0701 Appropriation 199.245.00
TOTAL 398,490.00 199,245.00 199,245.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-049
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Family Treatment Court Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1562 33000 330029 Federal Revenue J2 26,303.00
2 1562 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J2 3,680.00
1 1562 53158 110000 Salaries J1 19,570.00
1 1562 53158 210000 FICA J1 1,497.00
1 1562 53158 221000 VRS J1 953.00
1 1562 53158 231000 Health Insurance J1 1,761.00
1 1562 53158 332104 Computer Maint J1 800.00
1 1562 53158 520300 Telecommunication J1 737.00
1 1562 53158 540200 Lease/Rent Bldgs J1 1,162.00
1 1562 53158 600100 Office Supplies J1 533.00
1 1562 53158 800100 Office Equipment J1 270.00
1 1562 53158 800700 Computer Costs J1 2,700.00
0501 Est Revenue 29,983.00
0701 Appropriation 29,983.00
1000 53013 570610 Adoption Subsidy J1 (3,680.00)
1000 53013 939999 Transfer to Grants J1 3.680.00
TOTAL 59,966.00 29,983.00 29,983.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-050
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: AmeriCorps Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1566 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J2 9,010.00
2 1566 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J2 1,590.00
1 1566 53156 110000 Salaries J1 9,789.00
1 1566 53156 210000 FICA J1 811.00
1566 0501 Est. Revenue 10,600.00
0101 Appropriation 10,600.00
1000 53013 570610 Adoption Subsidy J1 (1,590.00)
1000 53013 939999 Transfer to Grants J1 1.590.00
TOTAL 21,200.00 10,600.00 10,600.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-51
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Education Programs and Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 2,006.25
2 3146 51000 510100 Approp - F /B J2 3,806.29
2 3302 33000 330001 Federal Grant Rev J2 57,163.70
2 3304 18000 189900 Miscellaneous Rev J2 2,500.00
2 3304 33000 330001 Federal Grant Rev J2 13,000.00
2 3308 33000 330001 Federal Grant Rev J2 5,166.06
1 2212 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J1 500.00
1 2213 61101 550400 Travel-Education J1 250.00
1 2215 61411 580000 Misc. Expense J1 256.25
1 2304 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J1 1,000.00
1 3146 61311 550100 Travel-Mileage J1 400.00
1 3146 61311 580500 Staff Development J1 1,900.00
1 3146 61311 601300 Materials J1 1 ,506.29
1 3302 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher J1 4,866.00
1 3302 61101 160300 Stipen-Stf/Cur Dev J1 6,600.00
1 3302 61101 210000 FICA J1 450.25
1 3302 61101 221000 VRS J1 553.49
1 3302 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J1 44,693.96
1 3304 61101 132100 PT/Wages-Teacher J1 8,500.00
1 3304 61101 210000 FICA J1 650.00
1 3304 61101 550100 Travel-Mileage J1 1,000.00
1 3304 61101 580000 Misc. Expense J1 350.00
1 3304 61101 580500 Staff Development J1 250.00
1 3304 61101 600200 Food Service J1 250.00
1 3304 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J1 4,000.00
1 3304 61101 601700 Copy Supplies J1 500.00
1 3308 61101 601300 Educational Supp J1 5,166.06
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 2,006.25
0701 Appropriation 2,006.25
3146 0501 3,806.29
0701 3,806.29
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
3302
0501
0701
0501
0701
0501
0701
57,163.70
57,163.70
15,500.00
15,500.00
5,166.06
5.166.06
TOTAL 167,284.60 83,642.30 83,642.30
3304
3308
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-052
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development membership
TYPE
1
1
FUND
1000
1000
DEPT
11010
95000
OBJECT DESCRIPTION
580100 Dues & Mbrships
999990 Continqencv
SUB LEDGER
CODE AMOUNT
J1 4,167.00
J1 (4.167.00)
TOTAL 0.00
GENERAL LEDGER
DEBIT CREDIT
0.00 0.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-053
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Drug Seized Assets
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1234 24000 240403 State Drug Asset Seizure J2 65.34
2 1234 51000 510100 Approp. - F/B J2 1,664.39
1 1234 39000 580902 Drug Seizure Assets J1 1,729.73
1234 0501 Est. Revenue 1,729.73
0701 Appropriation 1,729.73
2 1236 24000 240403 State Drug Asset Seizure J2 446.40
2 1236 51000 510100 Approp. - F/B J2 1,116.10
1 1236 39000 580905 State Drug Asset Seizure J1 1 ,562.50
1236 0501 Est. Revenue 1 ,562.50
0701 Appropriation 1 ,562.50
2 1235 33000 330205 Federal Drug Seized Assets J2 108.85
2 1235 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 6,057.39
1 1235 39000 580905 State Drug Asset Seizures J1 6,166.24
1235 0501 Est. Revenue 6,166.24
0701 Appropriation 6.166.24
TOTAL 18,916.94 9,458.47 9,458.47
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-54
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: National Children's Alliance Children's Advocacy Center Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1570 33000 330001 Federal Grant J2 49,389.00
1 1570 53159 110000 Salaries J1 31,500.00
1 1570 53159 210000 FICA J1 2,410.00
1 1570 53159 221000 VRS J1 0.00
1 1570 53159 231000 Health Insurance J1 5,765.00
1 1570 53159 232000 Dental Insurance J1 200.00
1 1570 53159 520300 Telecommunication J1 1,000.00
1 1570 53159 540200 Rent J1 2,000.00
1 1570 53159 550100 Travel J1 3,014.00
1 1570 53159 600100 Office Supplies J1 500.00
1 1570 53159 800200 Furniture & Fixtures J 1 1,000.00
1 1570 53159 800330 Computer Equip J1 2,000.00
1570 0501 Est. Revenue 49,389.00
1570 0701 Appropriation 49.389.00
TOTAL 98,778.00 49,389.00 49,389.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-055
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Virginia Health & Human Services Children's Advocacy Center Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1569 24000 240545 State Grant J2 74,799.00
1 1569 53157 110000 Salaries J1 37,500.00
1 1569 53157 160305 Stipend-Proj Eval J1 1,000.00
1 1569 53157 210000 FICA J1 2,858.00
1 1569 53157 221000 VRS J1 4,553.00
1 1569 53157 231000 Health Insurance J1 4,872.00
1 1569 53157 232000 Dental Insurance J1 200.00
1 1569 53157 350000 Printing J1 1,476.00
1 1569 53157 360000 Advertising J1 864.00
1 1569 53157 520100 Postal Services J1 550.00
1 1569 53157 520300 Telecommunication J1 1,000.00
1 1569 53157 540200 Rent J1 2,000.00
1 1569 53157 550100 Travel J1 11,426.00
1 1569 53157 600100 Office Supplies J1 1,500.00
1 1569 53157 800200 Furniture & Fixtures J 1 3,000.00
1 1569 53157 800330 Computer Equip J1 2,000.00
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
1569
1569
0501
0701
Est. Revenue
Appropriation
74,799.00
74.799.00
TOTAL 149,598.00 74,799.00 74,799.00
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-056
DATE: 03/01/06
EXPLANATION: Funding for Citizens Survey
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12010 312390 Citizens Survey J1 28,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Contingency J2 28,000.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 28,000.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 28.000.00
TOTAL 56,000.00 28,000.00 28,000.00
Agenda Item No. 11. Development Review Process.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said this is a continuation of the February
1, 2006, work session when the Board tentatively agreed to proceed with the formation of a Task Force that
would focus on legislative review processes. Staff was asked to develop guidelines for the establishment of
the Task Force to be considered at this meeting. The Board indicated they were interested in discussing
the following related to the work of the Task Force: A general charge; membership; scope of the review;
and, desired outcomes. In addition, the Board discussed the anticipated staff workload impacts in
supporting the Task Force. Based on that discussion in February, staff offers the following proposed
guidelines and clarifications regarding the work of the Task Force:
CHARGE: At the work session on February 1, staff reviewed 2005 work sessions on process
improvement and previous direction given to staff regarding improvements. Related to this Task
Force, staff asked if it should start with the work that staff has done to date or should it start anew.
Based on the Board's general discussion and specific direction that the Task Force should focus on
the legislative review process, staff offers the following draft charge for consideration by the Board:
"Using the existing staff work on process improvements as a starting point, the Task Force will
review and assess the current legislative review process for improvements in efficiency,
effectiveness, quality and adequate public participation."
MEMBERSHIP: Mr. Boyd has recommended that the Task Force include two Board members,
one Planning Commissioner, two Community representatives, two Development representatives,
the County Executive, and a representative from the Darden School. Mention was made of adding
a second Planning Commissioner but the desire is to keep this committee small to improve
effectiveness, but no final decision was made regarding the final makeup of the Task Force. After
the general makeup of the Task Force is decided, the process for the appointment of specific
individuals will need to be determined by the Board.
SCOPE OF THE REVIEW: At the February 1 work session, the Board indicated the Task Force
should focus on improving the legislative review process, but should not alter policy regarding the
scope of legislative reviews. With regard to process improvements, the Board mentioned that the
following should be considered by the Task Force: Public Input Process; Timeliness of Review;
Quality of Review; Quality of Approved Plans; Complexity of Review, Thoroughness of Review,
Clarity of Expectations in Review, Ease of the Review Process, Efficiency of the Review Process,
and Review processes in the Rural Areas -vs- Development Areas.
To this list, staff would suggest that the Task Force also consider resources that may be necessary
to implement any proposed changes and, if additional resources are needed, whether changes to
current development fees should be considered.
OUTCOMES: Staff noted that the Board was interested in the Task Force presenting
recommendations for process improvements within six months. Staff has drafted the following
outcomes for consideration: "Within six months of the first Task Force meeting, present to the
Board of Supervisors a set of recommendations that address the charge of the Task Force and the
issues considered."
As a part of the Board's discussion of outcomes and the six-month timeline, Mr. Slutzky has
expressed an interest in assuring that the Rural Area Plan strategies and potential ordinance
amendments be considered at the same time as recommendations regarding potential changes to
the legislative review process. After discussion of this issue, staff was uncertain about the Board's
intent regarding the timing of consideration of the rural area strategies. Currently, staff is
scheduled to provide information from the Planning Commission on strategies for Rural Area
implementation in June.
Finally, also at the February 1 work session, staff discussed a five-year work plan for Community
Development and how support for the Task Force could impact that work plan. Until the Task
Force has begun its work, it is difficult to anticipate what information and/or assistance may be
needed. In starting this work, staff anticipates the Task Force will desire considerable staff
assistance in getting established, providing background materials, and educating members on
current processes. Staff believes the Board indicated the following work plan items could be
postponed, to provide adequate support to the Task Force: Comprehensive Plan Updates-
Economic Development Policy; Comprehensive Plan Implementation - Country Stores, Critical
Slopes; Other - there was uncertainty as to whether or not the Board was willing to delay the
Migrant Farm Workers ordinance amendment for support of the Task Force.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Staff notes that postponing these items may have a "trickle down" effect. If a work plan item is
postponed, the starting time for subsequent items will likely also be deferred. It is anticipated the
Task Force will require staff resources to provide background materials and education on current
processes, but any additional costs cannot be estimated at this time. Staff recommends that the
Board: (1) finalize the charge, scope of review, and outcomes for the proposed Task Force; (2)
confirm or clarify the changes to the work plan in light of this new effort; and (3) determine the
make up of the Task Force and the process to be used in making appointments.
Mr. Dorrier asked how this committee will interact with the Rural Area Study.
Mr. Boyd said they are two separate things. They are not together. He thinks Mr. Slutzky wants
them to be in tandem and parallel.
Mr. Slutzky said when this Task Force reports its finding and makes recommendations to the
Board, he would like for the Board to also consider the County's efforts to put together an ordinance for
Mountain Protection, phasing and for clustering so they are all considered at the same time because they
are all inherently linked. It is his recommendation that whenever output is received from this Task Force
that the Board vote on it simultaneously with the proposed three ordinances. It would be easier for him to
vote on all of them as a package.
Mr. Dorrier said they "may be ships passing in the night" if they are working independently of the
other. He was thinking there should be some interaction.
Mr. Slutzky said the interaction would happen by having staff manage the two processes, with the
goal being to have them wrap up at the same time. Mr. Tucker said the Board controls when they want to
hear items.
Mr. Slutzky said if the Board signals staff now that it wants to hear them on the same day then staff
can do what it can to make that happen. He asked if any member of the Board objected to having that
happen.
Mr. Boyd said he does not object, but thinks they will be on separate timeframes. Even if this starts
next month, it will be September before it is completed, and it looks like the other group will be finished
sooner.
Mr. Slutzky said he would be comfortable waiting.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think they will be ready sooner.
Mr. Wyant agreed.
Mr. Davis said he understands the Planning Commission schedule will bring the conceptual
approach to the Board in Mayor June for phasing and clustering and perhaps mountain protection. That
will not include having an ordinance that has gone to public hearing.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much time it would take to get an ordinance if the Board received that
information in June. Mr. Davis said it depends on the amount of public input which could be significant in
matters such as these. It takes a while to go through the Planning Commission. From a legal advertising
standpoint, it could be done quickly; in a perfect environment, it would probably take 90 to 120 days to
advertise, hold public hearings and get a recommendation. Experience will show that is an unrealistic
timeframe and it will take much longer.
Mr. Slutzky said if there is not a lot of contention over the outcomes, it might be possible for the
Board to have the three rural area protections ready by November assuming the Board actually likes what it
gets in June. Mr. Davis said that is not impossible, but it is optimistic.
Mr. Boyd said the Task Force will not be dealing with ordinances, but more with the process.
Mr. Rooker said what the Task Force recommends may involve some changes in ordinances. Mr.
Tucker said the Board can delay whichever comes first until the other catches up.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board may change its mind later, but he would like to know if the Board is
comfortable at least guiding staff to ask how these things are linked temporally. He would like staff to know
the Board does not expect to vote on one issue without voting on the others.
Mr. Rooker said he does not have a problem with that, but the Board needs to recognize that all
parts may not be finished at the same time. He asked if any Board member had a problem with waiting to
vote on all at the same time.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but said he was concerned that there may be too many issues to bundle them
into one vote.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks it is important to vote on the whole thing.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with "shooting for that."
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Slutzky is suggesting that there be one final public hearing and then the
Board vote on all of them at one time in one vote.
Mr. Davis said if they were all part of one ordinance that would be possible, but it is unlikely it would
be structured that way. There would probably be several different ordinances that could all be voted on the
same day, but probably not in one vote. It is possible that if they are initiated all together and written as one
ordinance, the Board can do that.
Mr. Tucker said the Board might hold hearings separately and delay action on the hearing until all
come to the Board at one time. He envisioned having three or four huge hearings. That would be difficult
and confusing, but if the Board had a hearing, did what was legally required, then held off on taking action
until all were ready, that might work.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think there would be a single ordinance encompassing all of these
items.
Mr. Slutzky said there should be discreet ordinances which get through their independent
processes, and the Board can then choose to vote on the amendments. Mr. Davis said that would take
place on the same day. Mr. Slutzky said he thinks it could be in the same vote. Mr. Davis said that is not
possible, each ordinance must be voted on separately because one legislative action cannot be bound to
another legislative action. Each ordinance requires a legislative action.
Mr. Dorrier said there will be work sessions on each of these ordinances. They may be at "different
speeds" and one might be deferred and another modified, and another readvertised. He said the Board is
guessing at what it will do six months from now.
Mr. Davis said they could all be called up on the same day for a vote. A vote could be delayed on
any ordinance that had gotten to the Planning Commission, or even gotten a Board public hearing, until the
Board was ready to vote on them all in the same day. That is possible.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is as far as the Board can take the process today. He said there are
recommendations before the Board today. He suggested looking at them one by one. First would be to
finalize the charge, scope of review and outcomes of the proposed Task Force. He asked if the Board
members were comfortable with staff's recommendation for that component.
Mr. Boyd said words could be parsed, but he thinks the recommendation covers all of the areas.
Mr. Rooker suggested taking a vote to accept staff's recommendation on the charge, scope of
review and outcomes of the Task Force. He asked for a motion.
Mr. Wyant moved to accept the Charge, Scope of the Review, and Outcomes as recommended by
staff. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas commented that she still thinks this is a waste of both staff and citizen time, but since
the Board has decided to do it, she will vote for the charge.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker said the next recommendation from staff is to confirm or clarify the changes to the
Work Plan in light of this new effort. He said the Work Plan is included as a part of the staff report for this
item. Mr. Tucker said the Board went over that plan in detail last month.
Mr. Graham said he wanted to be sure the Board understood this will delay implementation on
those measures. He added that there is a question about the migrant farm worker zoning text amendment.
Staff has a draft of that ordinance change and is ready to go public. He said it probably will not be delayed,
but there are two other zoning text amendments which would be delayed. That has a ripple effect because
the activities that would be subsequent to those would also ultimately be delayed.
Mr. Wyant asked about the critical slopes issue mentioned. Mr. Graham said that is a change
recommended in the Neighborhood Model. There are certain critical slopes being administrated that
probably would not be administered, such as manmade critical slopes.
Mr. Rooker asked if any of the Board members had a question about the changes in the Work Plan
as outlined by staff.
Mr. Slutzky said he assumes that if the demands on staff time with this process turn out to be
higher than expected, Mr. Graham will let the Board know that fact. Similarly, if they don't take as long as
expected, the Board will be informed of that fact also. Mr. Graham said what staff has presented is only its
best guess as to how the process will go.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board is comfortable with this one, he would ask for a motion.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Boyd moved to accept the changes in the Work Plan in light of this new effort, as
recommended by staff. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Rooker said the third recommendation is to determine the makeup of the Task Force and the
process to be used in making appointments. He commented that Mr. Boyd's suggested committee makeup
would include two Board members, one Planning Commissioner, two community representatives, two
development representatives and the County Executive.
Mr. Boyd said one other person would be someone from the Darden School who could serve as
fa ci I itato r.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks it would be difficult for someone from outside of the process, such as a
Darden School representative, to be part of the Task Force although they might have good general ideas
about how processes can move faster. When she was in Richmond yesterday she picked up a study done
by DEQ on its full permitting process and she brought it along thinking it might be a useful document to
view. Although there are many resources in the community, she questions whether bringing in a
representative from Darden is the right way to utilize that resource.
Mr. Boyd said originally he thought about bringing in more help to facilitate the process. But it does
not work out semester wise. He has spoken with the Darden School and has found someone who is willing
to do it, and he would view this person as being a facilitator.
Ms. Thomas said that is a good reason not to have that person be a part of the Task Force. She
thinks it will be hard to bring that person "up to speed."
Mr. Slutzky said the Board talked previously about having a Darden person or someone from the
planning department or the architecture school because of their knowledge of these processes that may be
more significant than the folks at Darden would know about. He would propose that instead of saying
"Darden" to say "an appropriate university person." When the Board goes into closed session and talks
about individuals, the niche that person would fill out, can be decided. He thinks the scope of this task force
should include some appropriate expertise from the University community.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is a good suggestion. He said in the past where there have been a
series of meeting, it often ended up with everybody not making every meeting. He would like to have two
people from the Commission and add one or two additional community representatives.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not uncomfortable with that, but the caveat about the community
representatives is that he does not want the body to become cumbersome and large.
Mr. Boyd said that is also his concern.
Mr. Slutzky said in principle he thinks there is a lot to be said for gathering as much public
participation in the process as possible. He does not object to three or four being the number from the
community and he agrees with having a second Commissioner.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the idea is to have representation from groups in the community such as the
Farm Bureau, PEC or is the Board getting away from that.
Mr. Boyd said that was not the thought.
Mr. Rooker said when applications are received, the Board can look at what type of balance it is
trying to achieve with the membership. He thinks the idea is to get the best applicants from the community
at large rather than designating specific slots in advance. He asked if that is the understanding.
Mr. Boyd said "yes." However, if this task is to be completed in six months it has to be a
manageable group of people, so he does not want to increase the size of the committee. His intent all
along has been to make it completely open to the public and have some community input meetings where
all of the people who represent different interests from the different neighborhoods would have a chance to
come in and speak with this group. If the committee is not kept to a small membership, he thinks it will get
off of the task it is supposed to do. It is not going to set policies, but look at the whole function of
neighborhood planning in the process, and see how it might be improved.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees. He said the number one item on the list has to do with the public input
process and he thinks members of the community at large may have something to add to that.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but he does not think all the diverse opinions in the community will be
covered just because there are four community members instead of two.
Mr. Rooker said he is suggesting that the number be increased; it does not have to be four. He
asked if everybody would agree to increase the number to three.
Mr. Boyd asked if that would be eleven members on this task force.
Mr. Rooker said he does not believe that all eleven people will attend a meeting. He thinks there
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
might be only seven or eight.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to have the process laid out with dates for the members of the
committee. He then moved to set the committee membership to include two Board members, two Planning
Commissioners, three community representatives, two development representatives, the County Executive
or his designee, and a representative from the University community. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion,
which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker asked if the usual process of advertising for committee members and accepting
applications is to be followed.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board members can just make appointments without advertising.
Ms. Thomas said the Planning Commission could pick their two people.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board wanted to discuss this in closed session.
Mr. Dorrier said if these appointments are advertised, it will put off the process for some time, and
time is the factor involved here.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board should just go ahead and make the appointments. He thinks
that anyone who is interested in serving will get in touch with a Board member. He has already had people
approach him about this.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Boyd was suggesting that there be no advertisements for the community
and development community members.
Mr. Boyd said he has no preference as long as it is done expeditiously.
Mr. Slutzky said he is in favor of moving this forward but does not see how it can be done creditably
without advertising for the public participants and the developer community participants.
Mr. Rooker said the Board will advertise for those positions if the advertisement can be done
expeditiously. Mr. Davis said the Clerk just informed him that the advertising process usually takes 30 days.
That would extend it beyond the Board's next meeting date.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it can be truncated to a two-week period.
Ms. Thomas said there is irony in the fact that this committee is supposed to talk about citizen
participation and the Board is truncating the process for people to put their names in.
Mr. Slutzky said he is eager to get on with the things that have been shifted. He is not sure there
will be a different applicant pool for the extra two weeks.
Mr. Rooker said the advertising could be set so the applications were available for the April 5
meeting. That would give almost an entire month for the ad to run. He asked if everyone is comfortable
with that. He asked if the Board wanted to vote on it now.
Mr. Wyant then moved to advertise immediately for the community representatives and the
development representatives, applications to be closed at the end of the month. Mr. Dorrier seconded the
motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Davis asked whether the Board intends to appoint the Planning Commission members or if it
will ask the Commission to appoint two members.
Mr. Rooker said in the past the Board has asked the Commission to appoint their members. He
said many of them serve on a lot of committees already.
Ms. Thomas said the Commission works so hard she wonders if the Board would let them appoint
retired Planning Commission members. There are two recently retired members who were on the
Commission for eight years. She is not suggesting that this Board tell them to do that, but she wonders if
the Board would allow them to consider that.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks it would be positive to allow them to use their own membership or retired
members.
Mr. Rooker said he has no problem with that.
Mr. Boyd said he had no problem.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis if a formal motion is needed for this. Mr. Davis said it is different from
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
the motion just adopted on membership, so he would suggest that there be another motion.
Mr. Wyant moved to amend his previous motion to allow former or current Planning Commission
members to be selected by the Commission to serve. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd, and passed
by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. County Executive's Operating and Capital Budgets. Because the meeting
was running behind schedule, this item was moved to the afternoon agenda.
Agenda Item No. 13. Closed Session. At 12:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky that the
Board adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) of the Code of Virginia under
Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions; and, under Subsection
(7) to discuss the acquisition of property for a public facility.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Session. At 2:03 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Slutzky 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, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
Non-Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the sales
contract between Edwina Harris and the County of Albemarle dated February 17, 2006, to purchase
approximately one acre of property and the improvements thereon located on Crozet Avenue for the price
of $370,000.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Boards and Commissions - Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant to:
Appoint Ms. Valerie L'Herrou to the Housing Committee with said term to expire December 31,
2008.
Appoint Mr. Edwin Adam, Ms. Rachel Collier, Ms. Beverly Ergenbright, Mr. Russell (Mac) Lafferty,
Mr. Michael Marshall, Mr. JoAnn Z. Perkins, Ms. Mary Rice, Mr. James L. Stork, Mr. Terry Tereskerz, Mr.
Tim Tolson, Ms. Maria Warnock, Mr. David Wayland, Ms. Barbara R. Westbrook and Mr. Duane Zobrist to
the Crozet Community Advisory Council with said terms to expire March 31,2008
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the
recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the nomination of Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. to serve on the Thomas
Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board should empower a proxy to go in Mr. Tucker's place. Mr. Davis
responded that the organization's by-laws don't permit substitution.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. County Executive's Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 2006-07,
Presentation of.
Mr. Tucker reported that the proposed operating budget for FY 2006-07 totals $259.3 million,
representing an increase of $26.2 million, or 11.2 percent over the current year's budget. He pointed out
that 63 percent ($16.5 million) of the increase is attributed to the School Division budget which is one of the
Board's top strategic plan priorities. Another 14 percent of that increase will go toward public safety
initiatives which is also a high priority in the Strategic Plan. He said when the operating and capital budgets
are combined they total $295.9 million, all funded with the current tax rate at 74 cents per $100 of assessed
real estate value; personal property taxes remain at $4.28 per $100 of assessed value. He added that 10
cents of the real estate tax rate automatically goes to the City of Charlottesville (Revenue-Sharing
Agreement).
Mr. Tucker said the budget is a financial plan or an implementing tool for the Comprehensive Plan,
the Board's Strategic Plan, and for the Capital Improvements Program. He said Albemarle is in a
continuing transition from a predominantly rural and suburban county to an urbanizing county, and is facing
the kinds of challenges and services that small cities might face. He said the Comprehensive Plan is
basically creating small cities. The population has moved to a point where more than 50 percent of the
population is in those development areas, rather than spread out through the rural areas as it had been in
the past.
Mr. Tucker noted that the first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1971. The focus at that time
was to encourage development in designated development areas and preserve/protect the rural areas as
much as possible. He added that 35 square miles of the County's 720 square miles are designated as
development areas so in the other 690 square miles development is discouraged as much as possible to
preserve that rural character. He said that is the challenge because unlike most communities -
Chesterfield, Henrico, Loudoun which are allowing development to occur anywhere in their counties-
Albemarle has diligently designated development areas for the last 35 years. He said it is a challenge to
protect the rural areas and also provide urban viable communities.
Mr. Tucker said a lot of things provided in the budget now were not even considered for funding ten
years ago. In 1997, there were only three paid firefighters, and this budget will bring that number to 54 paid
fire and rescue personnel. He added that the volunteer fire and rescue operation had about $760,000
allocated just 10 years ago, and that number will be $1.5 million in this budget. In 1997 there were 111 full-
time police officers, and this budget calls for 147. He reported that the County spent $321 ,000 on public
transportation in 1997, and this budget includes almost $1.0 million. There was no contribution made to
housing 10 years ago, and the County now gives $250,000 annually to the County's Housing Trust Fund.
He said the Board has made a major commitment in the last couple of years toward roads/transportation.
Ten years ago, the County tried to put $400,000 to $500,000 into the VDOT Revenue-Sharing program, but
this next fiscal year that amount will be at almost $2.5 million. Infrastructure costs have increased from
$61,000 in 1997 to $1.4 million. The ACE program did not even exist 10 years ago, and the County's
annual $1.0 million contribution over the last six years has eliminated over 200 development rights and
protected over 3,100 acres. He said the County has other partners who are working to put land into
conservation easements.
Mr. Tucker said he listed in his budget message the progress which has been made in fulfilling
Strategic Plan Goals. He wanted to mention the six major goals recently adopted by the Board. Under
"Provide High Quality Education and Lifelong Learning" $91.2 million is being transferred to School Fund
operations, a $10.2 million (12.2%) increase. Also in the capital budget for Schools, $13.4 million is being
allocated for school projects this next fiscal year with most of that going toward the Monticello High School
auditorium as well as a new addition on Cale Elementary School. With regard to the goal for "Enhancing
the County's Natural Resources", the County will be providing ongoing funds whereas it had been allocating
funds from the Reserve or Carry-over Funds. There will be ongoing support up to $1.0 million for the ACE
Program. He said the County is providing $640,000 for the Ivy Landfill environmental needs as well as an
expanded Stormwater Program for about $650,000, both of which are Federally and State mandated.
Mr. Tucker said "Promoting Public Safety" is a high goal for the Board. This budget recommends
approximately $5.5 million toward public safety efforts. This Board finishes the funding for the proposed
Northside Fire Station which will be located on Airport Road between the Airport and Route 29 North.
Significant funds are provided to go toward the first phase of planning a fire station on Pantops and in Ivy as
well as purchasing capital equipment for the volunteer fire departments and fire rescue training facility. All
of these initiatives are recommended to continue improving the emergency response times. For the Police
Department, the goal/standard to provide sworn officers has been met at a cost of about one-half million
dollars. Also provided is an additional investigator for the Police Department and an animal control officer.
Mr. Tucker said regarding the goals for "Quality of Life" and "Affordable Housing", about $3.6
million is allocated in the CIP for the Crozet Library, and $2.0 million for the indoor recreational program
that is a partnership with the YMCA and Piedmont College (PVCC). The County is also funding $250,000
each year for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Piedmont Housing Alliance.
Mr. Tucker said regarding "Urban Infrastructure" in the master planning areas, particularly in Crozet
and the next plan for Places29, next year there is $824,000 in the CIP committed for sidewalks,
neighborhood planning, roadway landscaping, and other urban-type services the public is demanding.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Tucker reported that in regard to the goal where "Effectiveness and Efficiency" are stressed,
staff provided a report to the Board late last year in which staff documented $750,000 in one-time savings,
$500,000 in ongoing savings, as well as 5,800 hours that were saved and redirected toward higher priority
projects. He said that hopefully by July 1, 2006, the new business systems will be online. He said Access
Albemarle will provide online payments for citizens and will provide them the ability to make applications
online for land use permits, for reserving parks and recreation shelters, dog licenses, employment
applications, etc. He said about $900,000 has been set aside in the Board's Reserve Fund to use at its
discretion to provide funds for some other activity, reduce the tax rate if that is the desire of the Board, or
move those funds directly to capital. He said staff is monitoring revenues on a weekly basis so he should
have an update when the budget work sessions begin on March 13. Staff is also monitoring what is
happening at the General Assembly particularly in regard to the PPTR program.
Mr. Tucker concluded by saying this budget supports the Board's Vision that Albemarle County is a
community that offers a high quality of life and preserves its natural resources and visual beauty for future
generations.
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Tucker for the presentation, and asked if any Board member had a
question.
Ms. Thomas commented that this is the first time the School Board has brought forth with a
balanced budget. Mr. Tucker said it is the first time that has happened since there has been an elected
school board. Ms. Thomas said she appreciates their efforts.
Mr. Tucker noted that the first public hearing on the budget will be held next week at Monticello
High School.
Agenda Item No. 16. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas reported that she went to Richmond yesterday to the General Assembly and would
like to make a report. She said the Commonwealth realizes it does not have an energy policy. She thinks
everyone would encourage them to draft such a policy, but as often happens, when these questions get to
Richmond they decide that local government has no role to play. So, the siting of things like wind towers
and oil storage facilities were all to be sited irrespective of what local zoning might be. She said the State
Corporation Commission was to have looked at this, but did not have to follow local zoning on any of the
sitings. She said VML and VACo are concerned about this. An amendment was proposed and actually
adopted (in a House subcommittee) that said local governments can participate, can hold a public hearing
if requested, citizens can also participate and call for a public hearing. Although it does not give local
governments any veto power, it opens up the process much more than the original bill. She thinks that is a
step in the right direction, but still finds it discouraging that Richmond always decides the quickest way to do
things is to make sure local government has no hand in it.
Ms. Thomas said there was a bill dealing with shooting that got carried over. It said that where
hunting is allowed, shooting ranges must also be allowed. She said there is a big difference where there is
bottom land and deer hunting is allowed, than having a shooting range in that same location. She said a bill
allowing essentially rock concerts at wineries was also carried over with modifications regarding noise
restrictions, etc. She added that there is a bill that says if a roadway median strip keeps people from seeing
a billboard the owner pf the billboard can cut the strip down without any local government permission
unless it is a county manager form of government. She does not know why VACo and VML worded the bill
that way. Mr. Tucker said it was because under the county manager form of government (Arlington and
Henrico) they maintain their own roads. Ms. Thomas said if the County started landscaping its median
strips, billboard companies could cut it down. Also, VDOT has a standard that people who cut down trees
must adhere to. They might not be able to apply their standards.
Mr. Rooker said he understands the winery bill would remove local authority over regulation of
activities at wineries. Mr. Davis said it would also take away the ability of the County to require a special use
permit for events that promote the sale of wine. There are two different bills now. One was passed by the
House in its original form. The Senate bill is different, so the two will have to reconciled. Neither is
particularly attractive to local governments but hopefully in the end the bill will make more sense than it
does now.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Slutzky may want to bring up this request, but it involves Crutchfield
Corporation and the BPOL tax. He thinks it is an important issue the Board should discuss and schedule for
a public hearing.
Mr. Rooker said he understands Mr. Crutchfield is requesting that the Board significantly lower or
eliminate the BPOL tax on internet type sales and catalog type sales where delivery is to a customer outside
of Albemarle County.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Slutzky has been researching this question with staff and has a proposal to
suggest.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not so much being responsive to Mr. Bill Crutchfield as an individual, but in
the context of his raising this issue he has illuminated some inherent characteristics of this specific category
of tax. He understands the BPOL tax was initially created because of the demand placed on public
infrastructure from the business sector drawing people into the community. He said it was modified into at
least two categories, creating a much lower tax rate for the manufacturing sector. It was recognized that
manufacturing was a little different than local businesses which were local, whereas manufacturing tended
to represent larger geographical domains on the regional and national level. He said that is a precedent he
thinks is relevant.
Mr. Slutzky said what Mr. Crutchfield has raised is that Greene County last month adopted a new
category for BPOL, dropping their rate from the across-the-board 15 cents they had been charging non-
manufacturing businesses to 2.5 cents for internet type businesses. Albemarle currently charges 20 cents.
The example given by Mr. Crutchfield was a customer in Guam who clicked on a button to order a product
manufactured and distributed out of New York, but technically it is run through Crutchfield's call center and
his paperwork so he is charged a tax on that sale just like that charged on a local business providing
services locally. Mr. Crutchfield thinks that is an unfair tax burden now that the technology age has
emerged wherein there is a bona fide category of business doing this type of thing, and he thinks the
County should consider creating a separate category within its BPOL tax structure for this type of business.
He said there are several local vendors who would be impacted by this change, it is not just Crutchfield.
Mr. Slutzky said a certain amount of the revenue stream would be lost to the County if this change
were made. For him there are other elements involved. He does not think the decrease in tax would be a
significant revenue loss to the County. He thinks most of that revenue would be lost anyway because he
does not think the County can actually capture the taxes from this type of business. He said it is a fairness
issue and may help keep businesses in the County. He is interested in making this adjustment and
proposes the Board schedule a public hearing for the April day meeting to consider this change.
Mr. Tucker suggested that staff have the opportunity to bring back some information for the Board
to consider. If possible, the staff could draft an ordinance.
Mr. Rooker asked if any Board member objected to having that information brought back at the
next meeting.
Ms. Thomas said she knows that Greene County lowered its rates specifically because Crutchfield
said he would locate there if they did. She said they realize now that they are a pawn in a game. She said
for Greene it is a penny on their tax rate. If the County lowered its rate, it would lose $200,000. If
Crutchfield moved to Greene County, it would lose $300,000. She said Albemarle is part of a regional
economy so she would like to have that noted when this matter is discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Slutzky said he has discussed with staff and other Board members whether there are smart
growth implications. He had asked how many of Crutchfield's employees live in Albemarle County, and
found that most of them do live in Albemarle (94 in Albemarle, 15 in Greene, 10 in Fluvanna, etc.). He said
there may be actual smart growth arguments that would favor making this adjustment that are hard to
quantify, but are not irrelevant to the discussion.
Mr. Rooker said he hopes the Board will consider this as an issue of a fair tax rate. If there is a
category being taxed too high based on some rational factors, that factor should be considered. He does
not want it looked at as being done for one company.
Mr. Slutzky said he would not favor doing it for one company.
Mr. Rooker said Greene County has nothing to lose. Apparently they will not lose any business but
could pick up some BPOL tax revenue. If the Board gets involved in that kind of game with surrounding
counties, it is a zero-sum gain. If there is a good rational argument for doing it, it should be examined.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks there is a legitimate fairness argument and his reason for bringing in
Greene was to establish that there is a precedent. He said there are practical implications in terms of its
revenue impact on the County budget. He would not bring this up if he did not think there is a legitimate
underlying fairness question.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the fairness issue goes the other way; the Board has discussed this
previously.
Mr. Davis asked if the idea is to have a narrow category that only relates to internet or telephone
sales and not local sales.
Mr. Rooker said that is correct.
Mr. Davis said Greene opened up a category for telephone sales and it could be for pizza deliveries
and everything else. He said there are other complications even to what this Board is being asked to
consider. It is not a simple concept and the fairness issue can get complicated as well. If the Board starts
looking at the BPOL as a fair tax, it might be in real trouble because it is not a fair tax for anyone, generally.
He said the State has recognized that fact. If the Board just wants staff to look at this one category as to
fairness, it can do that.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Slutzky said he does not mind if staff looks at the issue of fairness, but he would actually like
staff to draft an ordinance the Board could choose to enact that would create a very narrow "carve out" for
that category of business that is related to this emerging technology of telephone or internet sales that in
itself does not imply such a burden on services as traditional local businesses actually do.
Ms. Thomas said this will shift more taxes to the local main street businesses whenever internet or
mail order sales are exempted.
Mr. Slutzky said that mayor may not be true if an ordinance is drafted to see how that "would play
out." In this instance, the Board might enact an ordinance and the effect might be revenue neutral. He
thinks it is worth knowing that. He said there are other taxes which would be impacted if Crutchfield left the
County. He is not saying the Board should enact this to keep him here, but if the Board enacted it and it
resulted in Crutchfield and other businesses staying in the County, there would be revenue implications for
the County that would be positive, and they would offset the losses.
Ms. Thomas asked if that is the analysis Mr. Slutzky wants staff to make because that was the
question asked earlier.
Mr. Tucker said staff will do all the analyses it can, and would not expect the Board to reduce the
tax as much as Greene County has done.
Mr. Slutzky suggested staff look at a couple of different rates.
Mr. Wyant said it is "just a cat chasing its tail."
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this should be scheduled on the agenda for the next meeting if the
information is available and have a full discussion of the request at that time.
Mr. Boyd presented a letter from the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association, along with many
petitions signed by these residents, expressing their displeasure with the heavy silt sediment deposited in
their lakes from the Hollymead Towncenter. These residents request that Albemarle County and the State
of Virginia address the issue of the costs associated with cleaning up these deposits from the development
site. He suggested that the Board discuss the petitions in-depth at another meeting.
Mr. Slutzky commented that when he went to purchase his County vehicle sticker for a new car he
could not pay with a credit card. He waited in a long line and then could not do the transaction because he
did not have cash or a check. He asked why the County does not accept credit cards.
Mr. Richard Wiggans, Director of Finance, said the County accepts VISA and Mastercard. That
was instituted this year with the second cycle bill in December; it can be used online or through calling an
800 number.
Mr. Slutzky asked why credit cards cannot be used at the counter. Mr. Wiggans said there are
credit card restrictions which prohibit the County from accepting the cards at the window.
Mr. Davis said there is a contract with VISA and Mastercard companies.
Mr. Wiggans said there is a public computer at the Information Desk which citizens can use to pay
those taxes, but the cards cannot be accepted at the counter. He said the credit card company gets a three
percent fee for use of that card. He said there are legal restrictions that prevent the County from taking the
credit card at the window and processing it. It is his understanding that other jurisdictions have the same
limitations.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County is paying the three percent. Mr. Wiggans said that three percent is
paid by the individual cardholder.
Mr. Slutzky said if he had a Discover card he would not have this problem.
Mr. Slutzky said he is interested in the subject of broadcasting Board meetings. He remembers the
Board discussed the peculiarities of the County's status in regard to the cable contract. He knows there has
also been legislation in Richmond on this subject. He asked if there is anyway to have the meetings
broadcast.
Mr. Rooker asked that the memos which have been written in the past on that subject be furnished
to Mr. Slutzky. He said the County has no franchise agreement with the cable company. When he first
came into office he was a strong supporter of broadcasting. Adelphia was in bankruptcy. The State was
changing the revenue aspects of the legislation to basically take away the franchise fees from local
government and impose a tax at the State level and divide it up among localities. He thinks the Board has
been waiting to see what would happen with the legislation. Adelphia is selling to ComCast and that
transaction is about to close.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board could not negotiate a franchise agreement with them and even if the
revenue streams did not benefit the County directly, it could still negotiate a public broadcast of the Board's
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
meetings.
Mr. Davis said the General Assembly has gone forward with the legislation, so after July 1 the
County will no longer be able to have a franchise fee. There would be no additional revenue to the County
to fund that type of operation, but there is already a public access channel on the Adelphia system. It is
possible the County might be able to broadcast on that channel which has a lot of "dead" time now. But, it
only gets to the small portion of the County's citizens who have access to the cable. The Board has
explored having webcasting and staff feels that has more merit than cable broadcasting.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it is appropriate to ask staff to look at the two narrow questions of podcasting
versus public access and how many people would have access to these.
Mr. Tucker said Ms. Catlin may have some data on that.
Ms. Catlin said she has no data with her today, but staff is actively looking at the podcasting option
right now and hopes to have information for the Board's meeting on April 5. That is a much easier option to
do and can be implemented fairly quickly.
Ms. Thomas asked if that could not occur until the Board Room is moved into the new facility later
this year. Ms. Catlin said it could be done immediately because the present recording equipment is able to
make audio files. She said there are some software things to finalize before it can be done, and also the
County Attorney has to give an opinion on other issues.
Ms. Thomas said it is then an audio stream. Ms. Catlin said that is correct.
Mr. Tucker said there is one benefit to podcasting over video broadcasting. It is possible to go
directly to the item you want to listen to rather than having to view the entire meeting.
Ms. Catlin said in the citizens' survey a couple of years ago citizens were asked if they had access
to the internet. Of those surveyed, about 80 percent indicated having internet access, and 35 percent
indicated having Adelphia Cable television.
Mr. Slutzky asked if staff is looking at the feasibility of video streaming as well as audio streaming.
Ms. Catlin said that would probably not take place until later, because the podcasting is easier to get
started.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Thomas had forwarded to the Board members a copy of legislation which he
will ask her to explain.
Ms. Thomas said there is existing legislation that requires the seller of property or the developer of
large developments to have in his or her office certain things such as the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance, plans for the area, and proffers. She talked to a realtor about this and said that these things are
available on the County's homepage rather easily. But for things like "homeowner information" she
wondered if there is a way to make the webpage easier for the general citizen to use. She said this is an
alternative to what this legislation would require. She was trying to think of a way to meet this need, but to
do it through the County's webpage.
Ms. Catlin said staff sent to the Board members the link to the Community Development page
which has been upgraded by integrating Comprehensive Plan language and the Land Use Plan with where
people live. Once the CityView system is web enabled and the GIS System is online, it will be important to
make information-gathering as easy as possible for people in the community.
Mr. Mark Graham said one of the strategic initiatives for Community Development which will be
reviewed during budget work sessions is a digital records management system which basically would put all
history files online for public availability. He said special use permit conditions and zoning proffers have
already been made available. The department gets a lot of walk-in customers for that type of information.
He said the department has learned that all of this information just invites more questions and uses more
staff time. Most people do not know there is such a thing as a Comprehensive Plan, or what it is intended to
do. There are some concerns about communicating with the public and being sure they understand the
information.
Mr. Davis said in looking at the enabling legislation after it was raised, it is a very flawed piece of
legislation. It only applies to sellers of new homes. If someone sells a lot they do not have to provide that
information. If a developer sells the lots to builders, the responsibility would be on each builder to provide
the information. If he sold it to an individual who built his own house there would be no obligation, so
whoever conceived the legislation had a flawed concept sold to them. He does not think it would be helpful
for what Ms. Thomas is trying to accomplish. He and Mr. Graham discussed it and felt that having a county
information system that was more responsive might be a better way to get at the problem.
Mr. Rooker said the County has a great website now and there is a huge amount of information
available. He thinks that as more information is added it is harder to find things. The trick is to make it
easier to find that information. That is always the challenge.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a component in the school curriculum that teaches something about
local government and its processes.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Rooker said there is "County Government Day" and days when the Supervisors can sign up to
speak to government classes. Mr. Tucker said staff also does this.
Mr. Slutzky said it would be interesting to see if the schools have it in their curriculum planning.
(Note: At 2:35 p.m. the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 235 at 3:00 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 17. North Pointe Rezoning Request, Work Session.
Ms. Echols Echols, Senior Planner, said the last time this project was discussed, the Board spent a
great deal of time discussing its fiscal impact. The Board then requested additional information and staff
was able to obtain that from the applicant. Before getting into that item, she asked that the Board discuss
affordable housing while Mr. Ron White, Housing Director, is in attendance at the meeting. She said there
are a few issues remaining and one of those is "workforce" housing. Staff would like the Board to discuss
the combination of housing units and cash.
Mr. White said he sent the Board members an E-mail yesterday which addressed comments about
whether the affordable housing proffers are adequate to address the County's policy. The question he was
addressing came about because of the combination of cash and housing units; also, the number of units
proposed is less than 15 percent. Discussions in the past have centered on what is needed to promote
affordable housing in addition to units; that is cash to provide subsidizes for purchasers as well as cash to
help support development of other affordable housing units maybe in other areas. The response was that
the cash and the units appeared to be adequate.
Mr. White said his E-mail yesterday indicated that if the workforce housing is counted, the number
of units proffered is between 10 and 11 percent total. For the amount of cash needed to make up the
difference in the lack of units he used the precedent set with Belvedere ($750 per unit cash proffer in
addition to some affordable housing accessory units).
Mr. Rooker interrupted to say he thought the Board accepted the concept of accessory units as
being a form of affordable housing. He asked the percentage of total units counting those units as
affordable. Mr. White said the total that may be provided in Belvedere is 15 percent. There is no guarantee
that all of the accessory units will be built or occupied. In North Pointe, the units will be built and occupied.
Mr. Rooker asked if the developer in Belvedere offered cash because he does not expect all of the
15 percent planned to be built. Mr. White said that was his interpretation. Using that same $750 per unit
would mean about $335,000 in cash. He said the present value and the future value of the money could be
calculated because North Pointe is proffering to pay that money in a lump sum 60 days after the first site
plan is approved rather than doing it over a period of time.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about how the total for North Pointe was derived, Mr. White
explained that two-thirds of the expected affordable units (893 total) would be produced, leaving one-third to
be covered by cash, including the workforce housing.
Mr. Rooker asked for a definition of workforce housing. Mr. White said the definition used in Fairfax
County and the Culpeper area is: "Housing where at least one member is a wage-earner and incomes do
not exceed 120 percent of the median income." He noted that 120 percent would be $90,000 in Fairfax
County, and $76,000 in Albemarle. In Albemarle, that household could afford a home costing about
$220,000, allocating 30 percent of their income to its purchase.
Mr. Rooker said this would actually create a second category of affordable housing. Mr. White said
that is correct, but he will explain further. Using 80 percent of the area's median income, in Albemarle
County a first year school teacher would not be eligible to purchase one of these units. As part of the
Strategic Plan discussion, staff will be discussing with the Board who is to be served with the affordable
housing policy, and whether the County is creating another gap. He said this is what Mr. Rotgin has come
forward with in the way of workforce housing. There are other projects where similar types of things are
proposed.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Housing Committee is looking at these questions. Mr. White said "yes."
They are narrowing them down to who the County is trying to serve. He mentioned that 40 percent of the
County's population (based on the 2000 Census) falls below 80 percent of the area median income (which
for a family of four is roughly $50,000), and 20 percent of the County's population falls between 80 and 120
percent of the area median income (which for a family of four falls between $50,000 and $76,000). He said
the proffered housing the County will be receiving will only serve a very narrow band of that 40 percent
without significant subsidies.
Mr. White said the new houses with median sales prices of $390,000 cannot serve the population
that falls in the 80 percent to 120 percent of median income category, which facilitates the need to add the
category "workforce housing." If this were an environment where houses cost between $130,000 and
$150,000, this would not be an issue because market rate houses would be affordable to those in the other
income range. There are not many homes priced in the $1 OO,OOO's, although there are some condo
conversions that will likely cost in the $200,000's. He mentioned that first-time homebuyers can use a
VHDA financed or FHA insured program, which is a highly leveraged mortgage. A lot of the condo
conversions are not getting certification for those types of mortgages. They tend to be more interested in
selling to investors rather than to actual homeowners. In the case of Hessian Hills, about 60 percent of
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
their units had to be owner-occupied to maintain their certification. A couple of families worked through the
County Homebuyer's Club down payment assistance program and bought units in Hessian Hills.
Mr. Wyant asked where this discussion of affordable housing fits in with the North Pointe
discussion. Mr. White said he wanted the Board to know what staff was talking about when they mentioned
workforce housing. It is a different category of housing from what has been discussed previously. Staff is
seeking guidance not only for North Pointe, but from a policy prospective because they think other
developers will make similar proposals.
Mr. Rooker said he understands North Pointe is proffering eight percent affordable housing units,
and two-plus percent workforce housing, along with a cash amount of $300,000.
Ms. Thomas said she would not take what happened in Belvedere as a precedent. When working
on the Subdivision Ordinance amendments, the Board found that the building community thought the Board
had established a proffer system just because words like "precedent" were used in working on the
Belvedere request. She does not want anyone to think the Board has agreed to $750 per unit as an
affordable housing proffer. Mr. White said staff and the Housing Committee is still working with the
Planning Commission on a formula that sets $1750 per unit as a cash contribution in lieu of providing no
affordable housing.
Mr. Rooker said the land for Belvedere was already zoned for development. The Board accepted
their presentation that the accessory units they proposed would provide another kind of affordable housing
in that community. It was presented that those units would probably remain affordable in the community
longer than other kinds of affordable units. The number of units proffered was 15 percent, but the Board
recognized that there may be less than 15 percent when built out. Because a computation could not be
made for that, the developer came up with an additional $750 per unit for all units being built in the
development. He sees a significant difference in this development than he did in Belvedere. The only clear
cut example he is aware of is where less than the total number of units would be provided (after the Board
established a policy), so they proffered about $15,000 per missing affordable unit and that was in the
Fontaine Avenue development and the townhouses on Route 250 West. Mr. White noted that the Fontaine
development was established with a special use permit and there was no policy at the time of approval. He
believes that occurred through negotiation between the Board and the developer. The other was a project
where the developer initially offered to proffer affordable units and then came back after the fact and said
he could not do it, so offered cash instead.
Mr. Rooker said Wickham Pond had 15 percent affordable units plus a cash proffer. Mr. White
responded that their cash proffer was not for housing, but for infrastructure. The only two developments he
can think of that offered cash were the two examples given by Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board followed one of these examples it would require $365,000, and if it
followed the other example, it would be $600,000.
Mr. Rooker said part of it depends on how the workforce housing is counted. Just in terms of
affordable units, it would be about 60 units times $15,000 or $900,000. What kind of credit should be given
for workforce housing which is more expensive than affordable housing, but meets some other target the
Housing Committee has set. He does not know if the same credit would be given for those units. Mr. White
said he might want to work with the developer to see if the Housing Office would recognize the workforce
housing; that would be at a rate that is affordable for people with an income of $75,000. A product should
not be created where a household income is limited for purchase.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be appropriate that the developer get some credit for a category
that is not being served in the market called workforce housing. The question is how much that credit
should be.
Ms. Valerie Long was present to represent North Pointe. She said Mr. White worked with the
applicant to help them understand the needs in the community as well as to come up with some solutions
which will be more workable for Great Eastern as well as for the County's Housing Office as the units come
on line. In terms of workforce housing, they feel it is an underserved market. They think this will help
provide a range of housing prices to bridge the gap between the affordable units and the market units.
Also, the workforce units are a relatively small percentage of the affordable units being proffered. It now
stands at 16 units out of the total 84 units proffered for affordable housing. Four of the units will be single-
family detached. Originally they proffered 12 units, but after meeting with Mr. Slutzky, at his suggestion,
they added four additional units in the northern part ("high-end section") of the property; that is in addition to
the original 80 units.
Ms. Long said it would be easier for them to forget the units and just pay cash instead. They are
willing to do that, although prefer not to do so. They think cash is important to meet the needs of all the
people buying the affordable units; Mr. White said even families that qualify for the affordable units, without
down-payment assistance, will still be able to afford these units. The way the proffers are written, when a
builder has a unit ready to be sold within 90 days, the Housing Office has to find a family that qualifies, and
if no family is identified within that time period, the builder is relieved of the obligation to sell that house to a
qualified family and so can sell it to anyone at any price.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Rooker said the Board understands the cash payment is in addition to the units and that is
important. That is the reason the Board is contributing to the Housing Trust Fund.
Ms. Long said the time value of money had been mentioned. She said the $300,000 would be
proffered within 60 days of approval for the first site plan or subdivision plat for the project. There is an
added benefit to having cash upfront as compared to projects where the cash is contributed at the building
permit stage which is further into the project. They think the combination of having the money paid upfront
makes it more valuable than if it were paid a little at a time over the next 15 to 20 years.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, the applicant, said there is not a good market in this area for rental housing.
That is one reason they felt it was better to pay the cash upfront. The present value of $300,000 upfront
when compared to $750 a unit for eight to ten years is a monumental difference. He said they gave a lot of
thought to this affordable housing proffer. It has been in their proffers from the very beginning. In the extra
curricula activities with which he is involved he sees challenges with the very people the community needs
to remain in the community, policemen, firemen, school teachers, nurses, etc. who now travel across the
mountain to live. He said they have tried to design a program which they think will be accepted by the
market. He said Ms. Long mentioned the additional single-family detached units, and he would like to
emphasize that there will be single-family detached affordable units along with the Charleston-style family
houses in the first section, but they will not be noticeable from the exterior.
Mr. Rooker asked about the phasing of affordable units with respect to the building of residential
areas generally. Ms. Long said the proffer says they will be phased in over time, but the final details of that
proffer still need to be worked out. They are working on a floor so their obligation will be to provide three
affordable units per year.
Mr. Rooker said using a figure of five per year it would take 16+ years for provision of all the
affordable units. Ms. Long said it will probably be sooner. They are also working with the same banking
concept that was approved for Old Trail so if more than the minimum is provided in one year, credit would
be given for those the following year. She said in the "Charleston" area it is thought that 12 of the units
would be affordable. Some of the units would be platted in groups. In that section builders are excited
about the lots so may provide 10 or more units in the beginning of the project and then bank the credits.
The next area for residential development would basically be in single-family lots. There probably would be
no affordable units in that section. In another area there will be attached units, and it may contain
affordable units. She said Great Eastern has planned almost down to the individual lots when areas will be
developed. Working with builders, they tried to anticipate market forces which often dictate when housing
types come online.
Mr. Wyant asked the projected timeframe for completion of this development. Mr. Rotgin said he
anticipates having 60 to 80 attached or detached units built per year, more if apartments and condominiums
are included.
Mr. Wyant asked if it will take about 15 years to complete the development. Mr. Rotgin said it will
not take that long because only 62 percent of the units in North Pointe are multi-family. There are about
300 units which are attached and detached single-family, so he thinks it will only be five to seven years.
Some of the apartments proposed will take longer because there needs to be a significant additional
market for apartments in that area before they are built. He pointed out on a map some land which he said
was not originally a part of North Pointe, but there was some "arm twisting" done to get that road to loop all
the way through, so they made a deal with a partner to add that property to address some Supervisors'
suggestion that the road be connected.
Mr. Ron Keeney, the applicant's architect, said the decision about whether to put the school site on
that corner will be a major element. Mr. Rotgin said when a school goes in, houses sell faster. From a
planning standpoint, what happens in Phase 1 is that they start at Proffit Road and bring North Pointe
Boulevard all the way to Northside Drive, and also build a commercial, signalized, right-in, right-out
entrance. If it turns out that crossing a stream is very expensive, they may want to hold for a while. There is
the ability to continue North Pointe Boulevard all the way through the property and connect it with Northwest
Passage which goes into Lewis & Clarke. He said the road system pictured on the drawing is the road
system which will be built. Anything not built early on will be in soccer fields; it will not be vacant land.
Mr. Dorrier asked when the $300,000 will be contributed. Mr. Rotgin said it will be within 60 days of
approval of the first site plan. Ms. Long said it is when the first site plan or subdivision plat is approved for
the first building within the project, even before obtaining building permits.
Ms. Thomas asked the cost of workforce housing, whether it is $220,000 or $238,000. Mr. Rotgin
responded that the figure of $238,000 is the VHDA price-point for first-time homebuyers, and the advantage
is that VHDA has significant opportunities to use lower-rate financing within their program. The interest rate
on a VHDA workforce housing loan might be less than the loan the Housing Office might be able to put
together for affordable housing. He said there might not be much difference in the actual monthly payment
of workforce housing and affordable housing.
Ms. Thomas asked in what sense that is the limit. Mr. Rotgin said it is the upper limit. Mr. White
said it is the maximum limit for VHDA.
Mr. Wyant asked how many homebuyers could be helped with the $300,000 cash contribution. Mr.
White said if workforce housing is used as a category the Housing Office would not provide any
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
assistance for that population. The County's policy says any assistance provided goes to households
between zero and 80 percent of median income, and that $300,000 would probably help 18 families.
Ms. Long said the applicant has also proffered four carriage units as part of the overall affordable
housing plan. They would like to proffer more carriage units but the County's Zoning Ordinance definition of
a carriage unit counts it as a separate dwelling unit. If there is a carriage unit on a single-family detached
lot there are two dwelling units. If the market reacts well to these units and they could get an exemption
from that definition for purposes of the density caps in North Pointe, they would proffer that there would not
be more than 893 total dwelling units except for carriage units.
Mr. Keeney said there is the up-front present value of the cash proffer and the $300,000 should not
be treated the same as if it were being paid over a number of years. It is actually a significantly larger
amount.
Mr. White said he just made some calculations using a ten-year period at a three or four-percent
interest rate and came up with a future value of about $515,000.
Mr. Rooker said in reality the affordable units are supposed to be built ratably over those years and
that basically cuts in half the interest element of that computation.
Mr. Slutzky said that money could be used from day one to create affordable housing options in
other parts of the County.
Mr. Rooker said his point is that if the present value were calculated in affordable units instead of
cash, they would have been done ratably over a period of time, and not all at the end. He asked when the
cash payments are to be made for the development on Fontaine Avenue. Ms. Echols said she believes it is
tied to when the site plan is approved, early in the development.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has not typically accepted cash payments in lieu of affordable housing
where the payment was made five or ten years into the project. That whole part of the assumption in this
case is strange.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to finalize this discussion from their standpoint. He said this Board
has accepted things other applicants have done in the County. This affordable housing did not just come
up with North Pointe. They are committed to it, having programs in their other rental housing projects.
Mr. Tucker said there are four other major categories which the Board needs to cover today.
Mr. Rotgin asked Ms. Echols to continue with another subject.
Ms. Echols mentioned the executive summary of February 8 and said she would just go down the
list in that summary. First is "phasing of the residential units to commercial and hotel construction." She
said staff has tried, even though this is a PD-MC with a special use permit, to get the residential and
commercial a little more in sync with each other, rather than anticipating that the 290,000 square feet of the
commercial will be built out and then there will be a long period when nothing else happens. She said staff
has made a recommendation through the special use permit conditions that at least 224 units (25 percent)
be built before more than 290,000 square feet of commercial is built. Since the Board got this executive
summary, Mr. Rotgin sent the Board an E-mail on Monday at about midnight proposing to come up to 15
percent instead of the 25 percent. Staff just got this proposal so has not had time to make a formal
comment. She thinks it is important to get feedback from the Board on what it thinks about the commercial
relative to the residential. She said Mr. Graham may want to speak about the relationship of the 290,000
square feet to the Route 29 improvements.
Mr. Graham said the 290,000 square feet of commercial is likely what will be seen at North Pointe
in the foreseeable future. The question for staff has been how much residential the Board wants to see
along with that commercial and how quickly.
Mr. Rooker said he would not consider a 290,000 square foot shopping center with no residential
development as a "mixed-use community." If they are striving for a mixed-use community, the Board needs
to be assured that is what will be built.
Mr. Graham said the 289,900 square feet of commercial would require that 60 lots be platted for
seven or eight percent of the residential units.
Mr. Rooker asked the total commercial space applied for. Ms. Echols said it is 664,000 gross
square feet including offices and retail.
Mr. Wyant asked if that includes the second level of buildings. Mr. Rotgin said all of the offices are
either on the second floor or the third floor.
Ms. Long said the numbers they sent by E-mail earlier this week were: within 90 days of the first
commercial area building permit at least 24 single-family residential lots would be platted, with most of
them being detached units starting in the "Charleston" area.
Mr. Dorrier asked the price range of those units. Mr. Rotgin said his designer is not present today,
but he thinks the homes in that area would start at $238,000 in today's dollars and go up to $400,000 or
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
$450,000. He said there are a total of 82 units in that area, but some of those are combined
office/residential units.
Ms. Long said that within 90 days of the first commercial building permit, at least 24 of the
residential lots would be platted. Before a building permit is obtained for 142,000 square feet of
commercial space, the applicant will have to plat a total of 36 lots. The next threshold is 220,000 square
feet of commercial and that would require a total of 60 residential lots. Before building the 290,000 square
feet, they would need to have built on 138 single-family residential lots.
Mr. Rotgin pointed out an area on the plan that will be totally mass graded because that dirt will be
moved to fill in another area close by. He said all of the lots to which he is referring will be created before
the first building permit is secured. The question is how fast those lots can be developed and how fast they
will sell. He thinks the market will be a total of 60 to 80 a year, but it will not be 60 to 80 in that area.
Ms. Long said these numbers were not drawn out of thin air. They tried to target numbers where
they are not "over-promising" and "under-committing." They could probably do more, but want to be
cautious because of market uncertainties.
Mr. Boyd asked if these are platted lots. Ms. Long said they are platted. Mr. Rotgin replied that
once the lots become platted they are taxed as lots, not as acreage.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant is required to plat a lot but is not required to put in the infrastructure
to support that lot. He asked how the phasing requirement for the Old Trail development compares to
North Pointe in terms of timing for units being brought on line. He does not think it is measured based on
platted lots. Mr. Graham said it is different in that the first 50,000 square feet of commercial was based on
building permits.
Mr. Rooker said everyone knows housing is needed in this part of the County, but he does not know
that the County needs the commercial. He is not comfortable with a plan that talks about platting 24 lots
that never have to go to building permit. Mr. Rotgin asked if Mr. Rooker would prefer that it refer to building
permits.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it should be based on building permits. Mr. Rotgin agreed to that
change.
Mr. Wyant said before the project had 142,000 square feet of commercial, there would be 60 lots.
Mr. Rooker said it is not cumulative. At 142,000 square feet, 12 units could be added, not 32. One
thing that really bothers him about this plan is that he does not see a commitment to a mixed-use
community. He sees a commitment to building out commercial and then maybe dragging along the
residential. His concern is that it be a mixed-use community if this plan gets approved.
Mr. Keeney asked to speak about that architecturally. He said one of the characteristics of the
mixed-use element the Board wants are the residential units that will be around Main Street. If they built the
commercial units there and are expecting to have residences above them, they have to build the third and
the fourth floors now. Since they don't know whether there's a market for that type of housing at the
moment, they are anticipating vacant space above those commercial areas.
Mr. Rooker said in reality it should be based on occupancy permits, not building permits, because
to obtain an occupancy permit the unit would actually be built at that point. Mr. Keeney said they
understand that staff would prefer using the term "building permit" because occupancy gets tricky about
someone moving in.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many people would live above these buildings. Mr. Rotgin replied that there
are about 120 condominium units in the area being discussed. He said the 290,000 square feet of
commercial would not pay for the Phase 1 road improvements on Route 29; there are between $10.0 and
$12.0 million of road improvements needed. If there are 50 acres of commercial property, that will be
between $5 and $6 a square foot just in offsite road improvements. Typically it costs $6 to $7 per square
foot just to do the site work. He said their commitment is to this area, and he would be offended if he
thought everyone sitting around this table thought they went through this exercise over the last three years
just because they are involved in some sort of a ruse. This is the main part of the community (the library,
the park, the pedestrian orientation, the main street), but it's the commercial properties that pay the bills.
He said it was an oversight that they did not include a proffer to do some residential.
Mr. Dorrier asked the build-out period for the first phase. Mr. Rotgin responded that it would likely
be about 18 months, similar to the Hollymead Towncenter. He said for construction of the second phase, it
probably would not take as long as the first phase, but these are two to four-story buildings and they have to
commit to them and get residents who want to live there.
Mr. Rooker said the reality is that the County has residential developments going in with no
commercial. He said Mr. Rotgin keeps talking about the plan as if the residential has to be trickled out
based upon the build-out of some massive amount of commercial. Mr. Rotgin asked if any other
development has $10.0 million worth of roads.
Mr. Rooker said in talking about the center part of the development, if a circle is drawn around it, he
views the whole development as an integral thing and not just 20 percent of it being the most important
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
part. He said all the residential area around the school site is walkable to a good part of the commercial.
That is a walkable community, but it is not walkable if there are only 60 residences there.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Rotgin to explain the road and the other infrastructure improvements which
are tied to the 290,000 square feet of commercial.
Mr. Rotgin said before discussing the road improvements, he would like to say that just like
Hollymead Towncenter had to build its big stores first to get the draw, Albemarle Place will build its big
stores first to bring in the draw, Seminole Square was also built that way. All the shopping centers have to
get their magnet stores in to be able to finish and fill up the small tenant spaces. That is where the
challenge lies. He referred to the plan, and said that everything shown in purple is Phase I commercial.
They start at Airport Road and in Phase I commercial have agreed to put in a third lane and all the
associated turn lanes all the way up to Lewis & Clarke, the entrance into UREF. At the same time, they will
close a crossover on Route 29 that both VDOT and the County want closed. On the south side where they
signalized Northside Drive, they will go 1,000 feet north and 1,000 feet south with a third lane and the turn
lanes. In order to close a turn lane, it is necessary for them to build a parallel road between Northside Drive
and Cypress Lane to provide access so people on Cypress Lane can come out on Route 29 and make a
left turn at a stoplight. They will also install a roundabout at Leake Road and Proffit Road and have agreed
to put in another lane from Leake Road to Route 29 on the northbound side. That will all occur in the first
commercial phase.
Mr. Rotgin added that they said that if the County could provide the right-of-way on the south side of
Proffit Road, at the same time as they construct the northbound third lane they will put another lane on the
south side. He said Proffit Road is in the County's Six-Year Plan. Phase II would be signalizing the
southern entrance and completing the Route 29 southbound work from 1,000 feet north of Northside Drive
all the way to Airport Road, which includes fixing a vertical curve which is a significant challenge. In order to
take the vertical curve out they have to find a way to keep two lanes of traffic on Route 29 moving both
northbound and southbound.
Ms. Echols said Phase II is triggered by the 290,000 square feet. Mr. Rotgin said with respect to the
number of units they proffered to have in place before going above the 290,000 square feet, those are all
single-family units. If the apartment market was such that they could be built tomorrow, there would be no
problem achieving the Board's goal in terms of numbers. He said the 138 units they proffered are all
single-family units. They also represent 42 percent of the single-family units.
Mr. Rooker suggested moving on to the next issue.
Mr. Graham said regarding the phasing, he is not sure staff has a clear message from the Board
on what its expectation is as far as numbers of units expected. He said there are triggers set, but are those
triggers acceptable, or is the Board looking for something more?
Mr. Rooker said he has expressed himself; he is looking for something more than this. He thinks it
needs to be based on platted lots or something like occupancy permits in order to ensure there is a real
residential area as opposed to just the potential for someday having a residential area.
Mr. Dorrier said he could support the 138 family residential units, with the combination of units
above the commercial area. He said 120 condo units above the commercial area combined with the 138
single-family residences would provide more than 250 units. He thinks the appeal of this project is the
terrific expense of highway improvements on Route 29 North. How many other developers will put up $10.0
million for road improvements?
Mr. Graham said that is an interesting point. One of the most desirable parts of the development
from staff's perspective is the center with the library block around it, but, there is nothing now that ties
phasing to any of that development. He said staff has not pushed on that; Mr. Rotgin has laid out some of
the reasons. He said the worst case scenario would be for the County to end up with 289,900 square feet
of commercial space and 60 residential lots.
Mr. Rooker said that is his concern.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that what she is about to say may seem insulting, but it is a fairly
common trend around the nation to have it happen. The Board is not making up something and saying it is
worried. It is the kind of thing that can happen when big boxes in a development are proposed first.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates what Ms. Thomas is saying, but if this area does not have the growth
to buy those homes, how can the Board force the developer to build homes that aren't going to sell?
Ms. Thomas said the Board does not need to rezone the land.
Mr. Boyd said he knows that, but there is some demand and it has not yet been met. He does not
think the Board can say it does not believe the developer when he says the need will be for 60 units per
year. The Board cannot say it will be more than that because it thinks that you have to build that number or
else you don't build the commercial site. He does not see it being the government's responsibility to make
economic decisions for people who have invested millions of dollars into projects.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Rooker said in Old Trail it is the other way around, they can't build the commercial until they
have built the residential.
Mr. Boyd said that development is not being built as a regional site.
Mr. Rooker said one of the problems with this development is that it is not being built in the form
some people would support; a more neighborhood-friendly form. The design of this development does not
meet a lot of those parameters, so how can the Board be assured the development is completed in a way
that provides a true mixed-use community, with walkability for a number of its residents. The only way to do
that is to make certain there are enough residential units built on a reasonable phasing schedule with the
commercial.
Mr. Boyd said he was not part of the decision for Hollymead Towncenter and Albemarle Place, so
is curious to know how many residences have been built in Hollymead, how long that project has been
approved, and how long it has it been under construction. Mr. Graham said there were no requirements
because there were separate rezonings. In Hollymead, "Area "D" is the residential component. There is a
little bit of residential in Area "C", but Area "C" is basically a rezoning of an industrial site, rather than a
rezoning from a rural area site. Area "B", the Target property, was already zoned for retail.
Mr. Boyd asked if it has been about 18 months. Mr. Graham said it has been three years. Mr. Boyd
said it is going to be three years before the first residential unit is build, whereas in North Pointe they are
proffering to have at least 60 units in about 18 months. He thinks that is better than what is happening in
Hollymead.
Mr. Rotgin said it is a hard concept to understand and a bit confusing, but it is the second phase of
the commercial that finishes all of the road improvements everybody wants. It is the second phase of the
commercial that yields what is essentially the town center. He does not know why the County would want to
restrict them from building something for which there is a demand, when the construction of it finishes the
highway work the County wants and at least gets the structure of the mixed-use area. They don't know
what the demand will be but when the first footing is set for a building, there will be a four-story building
built. They don't know yet that they can sell those units.
Ms. Echols said the Board "has beaten this dead horse" enough. She perceives that there are
varying opinions on this, and though discussing it, nothing is being resolved. She said there have been
some changes to the library block design and she thinks that issue should be discussed. She said staff has
discussed for a long time the library block because it believes it is the most vital part of this development.
Staff wanted to create more of a town center in appearance and use. It wanted the applicant to create a
place that brought the buildings closer to the road. In the E-mail on Monday, the applicant gave a new
design showing modifications to that area. Preliminarily, that seems to go a long way to create the place
staff has been looking for, but there are issues related to the library site. She said they have created a
pedestrian-friendly area where people feel like they are in a downtown. There are plaza areas, a green
park in front of the library, and she thinks this is a positive change. Although she has not had time to totally
analyze it, she feels it is a much better arrangement than previous plans.
Mr. Rooker said there were topographical issues raised in the e-mail that he had difficulty
understanding in written form. He asked Mr. Rotgin to explain those. Mr. Rotgin said that on main street,
north of the intersection of Library Road and the cross street that goes into the residential area, looking
south from the residential area as it goes down to North Pointe Boulevard, the street goes down grade and
they actually used the buildings to kill that grade so they do not need to build retaining walls. Instead of
having a roofline that goes straight across with the grade, with the building behind it sunk down into the
grass with parking behind it, they stepped the buildings up the hill about two or so feet for each building in
order to have storefronts that open up directly onto the street across from the library. It creates some good
architectural opportunities in the front because it faces the library and creates a sense of place. They are
still concerned because every magazine they read talks about shoppers who want pertinent parking. So,
they took out about 40 parking spaces in front of these spaces and replaced them with about eight parallel
spaces which is the same as the other side of the street. It makes a difference in appearance in terms of
the buildings on each block in sort of an urban park plaza area.
Ms. Long asked that Mr. Rotgin explain about the roofline from the opposite direction. Mr. Rotgin
said heading north there is not a single monolithic building. They have to figure out some way to deal with
the backs of these buildings. He said it will be a more expensive building.
Ms. Thomas asked what would be going in the big block part of that if the front is in separate small
shops. Mr. Rotgin said they believe it will be a 30,000 square foot soft goods retail store, such as The Gap,
Linens and Things, Marshalls, T.J. Maxx, Ross Dress for Less, etc. The difference is that normally retailers
like the box, and that is all they like. They have actually cut into that box in order not to have one big
storefront. They will cut some small tenant spaces into this box and have that retailer L-rounded. He said
this is something being accepted by the retail market, whereas it was not accepted three years ago. Mr.
Keener said that gives the building a townhouse perspective. Instead of seeing one long storefront there
are several because there is an entrance back in the big box.
Mr. Dorrier said Target is all one store. He asks if this development will use the second and third
floors. Mr. Rotgin pointed out the locations of two-story buildings on the plan, the location of three-story
buildings, and the location of four-story buildings. He said when they took the parking from the front, it was
moved and relegated. He said Charlottesville and Albemarle County is a regional draw for about 160,000
people. He said there are a lot of people who have the talent and the money to do something, but there is
not always the market. There needs to be a critical mass, and the area is close to that point now. If the
Board said the Pritchett Lane hard edge of the growth area would not be a hard edge much longer and all
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
the land to the east would be in the growth area, then there would be residential development in the area.
They will need to draw people from not only Forest Lakes and the Proffit area, but also from Greene
County, and all surrounding counties. He said Hollymead had to do that also. Albemarle County is a
regional shopping destination. He said that is good because a lot of those people will be stopping in the
Hollymead/North Pointe area. In the near future the importance of this area along with what the University
is planning is going to be as important to the County from a revenue standpoint as the Barracks Road area
and Hydraulic Road is to the City, and that Rio Road from the South Fork of the Rivanna is to the County.
He thinks North Pointe will be the last big commercial development in Albemarle County.
Ms. Echols said if the Board members had no questions about the library block design, she would
move onto discussion of overlot grading. She referred the Board members to Attachment "D" in the
executive summary which set out the special use permit conditions. She said many of these conditions
started out as proffers, but were moved into the special use permit conditions section. This section reflects
staff's recommendations, which does not necessarily reflect the applicant's position on what those
conditions should be. She said one of those items was phasing of the units which was not a proffer, but a
special use permit condition and the applicant wanted a different condition. Another has to do with overlot
grading. The overlot grading special use permit conditions staff provided reflect what it originally
recommended with the subdivision text amendment, not the newer language proposed after Mr. Graham,
Mr. Wyant and the BRHBA had their discussion.
Ms. Echols said the reason staff believes the overlot grading condition should be stricter than what
the applicant supports is because of the topography in the residential section. She said the special use
permit conditions only apply to the residential sections, not to the commercial section. There has been
much discussion about the sensitivity of these areas. The applicant has protected some areas as
conservation areas, but there is still the potential for impact in these areas and staff thinks it is important to
have some stricter restrictions for environmental reasons. She said the applicant provided some additional
information in the E-mail about overlot grading.
Mr. Graham said he thought Mr. Rotgin was interested in mass grading of the site. Part of his
concern with the special use permit condition was that if the site was to be mass graded that there be
sufficient controls to prevent the kind of drainage staff has seen occur in other developments, such as the
Hollymead Towncenter.
Ms. Thomas said one of the complications with this request is that there has been talk about overlot
grading, about mass grading, about overlot grading plans, stormwater drainage, and she things there might
be some confusion because of different words being used. She thought staff was interested in an overlot
grading plan. Then there is massive grading, which is quite different and it might or might not fit with an
overlot grading plan.
Mr. Graham said that would be a totally separate issue. If there is concern that the sensitivity of this
site is such that it requires a higher level of erosion and sediment control, staff can look at that. He said the
one site he can think of where something was applied was for the Northtown Center site; staff wrote some
specific and rigorous conditions to assure that there would be no downstream damage from that project.
He said that has not been done for this project, but if that is something people think is important, staff can
look at that issue. Then, the overlot grading will deal with the end result once houses are built.
Ms. Thomas said that is an overlot grading plan. Mr. Graham said that is correct. Ms. Thomas said
that plan will not say all of the lots have to be graded at the same time or anything about the phasing of the
grading. It just says a plan has been worked out so the topography is known, and not where the
drainage/runoff will go. Mr. Graham is just now introducing the thought that there may be need for a higher
standard for erosion/sediment control. She asked where the disagreement lies. Is there agreement that
there will be an overlot grading plan? Mr. Graham replied that there has not been agreement on what an
overlot grading plan should include. The applicant believes he should follow what is recommended in the
ordinance; basically it would be as if it were a by-right development.
Mr. Rotgin said except for areas where there is going to be massive grading. That was in his E-
mail. In the area where there would be grading for sure, the plan was to make that site work part of the site
work for the commercial area so it could be considered at the same time; in essence there would be overlot
grading. Mr. Keeney pointed to the plan and said "we can draw a line right there and mass grade that and
not touch this."
Mr. Rooker said that is the difference Ms. Thomas is talking about. She is talking about an overlot
grading plan, not necessarily mass grading. Mr. Rotgin replied that for any areas that are to be massively
graded they will have an overlot grading plan.
Mr. Graham said he is not concerned about an overlot grading plan "down here". It is all part of a
site plan, and there is a requirement for a site grading plan with that site plan. In the single-family
residential area ("this area here and this area here I consider environmentally sensitive"), it would not fall
under the site plan requirements, but would fall under subdivision requirements, and only the bare
minimums under that ordinance. He said there isn't that kind of protection.
Mr. Wyant said going back to his experience with VDOT, when a new road is opened today you do
not see the seeded slopes and everything else it has been phased down. He asked if construction in the
residential area cannot be phased with overlot grading. Mr. Graham said it is difficult because often the
developer will submit a plan which basically shows the road being constructed, and it has the limits of
grading and construction which are just outside of that road grading. But, once that buildable lot is graded
and they start building houses there is not just the road construction, but all the lots being built on, so the
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
whole area is basically being disturbed at one time. It is being done under two separate plans. There is a
plan for a building permit for what is occurring on the lot, and then there is a permit for what is going on with
building of the infrastructure to support the subdivision. Without that overlot grading plan, the two are not
linked.
Mr. Wyant said Mr. Graham was really referring to how that roadway ties into each lot so grading is
not created across lots in the future when someone opens it up to build a house.
Mr. Boyd said that is the problem he thinks the committee Mr. Wyant was working on tried to solve.
The overlot grading plan puts a restriction on the homebuilder who to submit the design for his house. If
the homebuyer wanted the garage on the left side of the driveway instead of the right side of the driveway,
that would require the builder to go through an additional process. He thought that committee was working
through a methodology so that did not have to be done.
Mr. Wyant said some of those lots would be built on first, so when it comes to the second house,
there has to be an overlot grading plan for several lots.
Mr. Boyd asked if the committee worked that out.
Mr. Wyant said he thought it did.
Mr. Graham said he tried to make this clear in January when the Board talked about this issue.
The committee recommended a reduced requirement that is a compromise. He is not comfortable that the
compromise is going to adequately protect the areas he considers to be fairly sensitive.
Mr. Wyant asked that Mr. Graham point out on the plan the areas he considers to be sensitive. He
understood those sensitive areas were identified to be overlot graded when the committee discussed this.
Mr. Rooker said that as the plan stands now, there is no requirement for an overlot grading plan for
that section of the development.
Mr. Rotgin said they agreed that they would abide by the language the Board approved in January.
He said there is a legitimate difference between the builders and Mr. Graham. He said Mr. Graham has
said to go in, clear and cut down all the trees. He said there are a lot of areas in this development in trees,
and they would prefer not to go in with a big piece of equipment and cut down those trees preferring to let
the builders come in with a back hoe and work on the lot. That builder would not scrape that whole lot.
Basically, he would scrape where the house sits and leave the natural terrain and foliage until he is ready to
put in grass. He said it is cheaper to come in with the big equipment and pan and scrape the area.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Rotgin is talking about overlot grading being done at one time. He said there is
no reason why there cannot be an overlot grading plan for that area that involves preservation of certain
trees. Mr. Rotgin said they will do that, and they have tied it into the agreement the Board adopted in
January. He said they do not feel they should be treated differently than everybody else.
Ms. Long said they are preserving those sensitive areas. She said all the conservation areas and
the streambed areas combined with the overlot grading plan that Mr. Wyant worked out with Mr. Graham
and the builders works well in that area. If they were not preserving those sensitive areas she could
understand better the argument for an elevated level of protection, and ultra strict overlot grading plan. She
said they are already preserving those areas in a way that the staff has been complimentary of.
Mr. Wyant said that is the "light green area" outside of each of the lots. Ms. Long said all the "dark
green areas" are conservation areas.
Mr. Wyant said he considers that to be different from overlot grading. He does not mind keeping
the trees around the perimeter of the house, but when the next house is built, it is a different thing. When
the trees are cleared between the lots, that is when the lot floods the lot below, and that is when complaints
are heard. Overlot grading was intended to make sure the grades were set throughout so there were no
flooding problems; they were not meant for preservation. Leaving the trees between the lots means that
when they are cleared off the lot below gets the water. That is what is not wanted.
Mr. Graham said the primary difference between what has been recommended and the
recommendation brought forth in January for an ordinance change is how much water can be dropped onto
an adjoining lot. In the recommendation made in January, no limit was put on that. As much water as you
want can be dropped onto the adjoining property. With this proposal they have said to let the water run
across no more than three lots and then have it picked up in a storm structure or carry it to a drainageway
outside of the lot. That is the big difference.
Mr. Wyant asked if that was in the committee recommendation. Mr. Graham said that was not in
the original recommendation, but it was the compromise reached.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is important for this area which is close to the Rivanna and is in
this sensitive area. She said what Mr. Graham just described is a higher standard. However the lot is
graded to make sure the runoff from House NO.3 does not go across more than the lots for House 2 and
House 1 before it is captured in some way. It has nothing to do with when to take down the trees of when
the grading is done, or that the lots are sold to separate private builders. It has to do with the standards to
which the developer is held when the grading is done.
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Rotgin said he understands that better now. He said when he met with the Department of
Environmental Quality and the Corps of Engineers they were surprised that the water would have to be
collected at a point source and then released. They would rather have the water be spread over more than
three lots and then naturally disposed of. He said he is not opposed to an overlot grading plan.
Mr. Wyant said he agrees, but the compliant heard by the committee concerned the flooding of a
lot below. If there were some way to be sure the grades on the pads did not affect the neighbors below that
would be better.
Ms. Thomas said she knows DEQ would rather not have this area built on at all, and not have any
impervious surface, and just have the rainfall spread across the land. She said when there are houses with
the asphalt, the roofs, the roads and the river is nearby, it is preferable to have that water get quickly to the
river so not piled up and gets to the river at the same time as water from upstream gets to that same point.
Mr. Keeney said if they design a plan for one of these sections, the builder's concern was that it
would dictate where on the site he had to build the house and which side of the house the driveway had to
be on. He said the builder on one lot does not want to contend with the lot where that has been reversed.
They are not objecting to having the plan, it was about the level of detail they were being held to, lot by lot.
He said the second issue is that DEQ has not said it does not want them to do this, but have said they would
prefer to have the water sheet flow off of the roadway down the hills rather than it being collected in a
curbway system that gets transported to the low point in the road and goes into a pipe and then comes out
in a point load. He said a creek would be created at that point because all the water has been directed to
one point. DEQ wanted to keep the water spread out.
Mr. Graham said DEQ may think they want to do that, but level spreaders have been tried over and
over and have repeatedly failed in this area. He described a level-spreader as an attempt by grading to
allow the water to sheet flow down the side of the hill. It does not work in the Piedmont.
Mr. Keeney said they did not suggest that it works in all scenarios. They were opposed to the idea
that every spot had to be curbed.
Mr. Rooker asked if DEQ has any jurisdiction over whether Albemarle has an overlot grading plan
requirement for this property. Mr. Graham said that it is a local government decision.
Mr. Rotgin said it is a local government decision, but they have to negotiate with DEQ both the
mitigation and the amount of money they have to put up.
Mr. Graham said that is for impact on the stream. They are not addressing what is done on the
hillside.
Mr. Rotgin said they are not opposed to the overlot grading. They are willing to superimpose what
the Board agreed to in January. He asked Mr. Graham to give him the two or three main issues which are
different from what the Homebuilders' had.
Mr. Graham said the one big point is how much water can be dropped from one lot to the next. The
Homebuilders want no restriction on how much water can be dropped from one lot onto another.
Ms. Long said they took the Homebuilders' language which the Board approved in January and
added a requirement that water not flow over more than three lots. Mr. Rotgin said Ms. Long should not
confirm three lots until they have had a chance to look at the issue further. Mr. Graham said that is
something that might be negotiated. Mr. Rotgin said the Homebuilders' want nothing and the County wants
three. He wonders if there is a way to figure that out.
Mr. Wyant said it the generation of runoff from one lot to the next. Mr. Graham said it is how much
that lot can drop on the one below it. That is the only difference between what is here and what was in the
January meeting.
Ms. Thomas said that does not say where the driveway will be, but it says what the outcome has to
be. Mr. Rotgin said it says where it will be initially because you have to agree with the plan. If the market
does not follow what the builder has put in he has to come back and ask for a change. Mr. Keeney said
location of the driveway is driven by the topography of the roadway.
Mr. Wyant said that is why much time was spent discussing this. Mr. Graham said that is included
now; the builder submits a plan and then if he changes what he wants to do, he has to submit a revision to
the plan.
Mr. Rooker said the Board needs to conclude this discussion.
Mr. Boyd said before leaving this discussion he wanted to answer one question. From his
standpoint, he wants more sediment control in the mass graded areas. He was at that meeting last night
and he does not want to go through anymore meetings with the neighbors. He would like for the County to
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
improve those standards on the State level to be sure that what happened with Hollymead Towncenter
does not happen on this site.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Boyd was referring to the mass grading.
Mr. Boyd said "yes."
Ms. Echols said the interesting thing about this discussion is that it is not complete. The last
question has to do with when work on this request will be completed. She said there needs to be some
decisions made. There is a lot of information in the notebook given to the Board members, and there are
more sections that can be discussed. She said staff would like for these decisions to come soon, but the
Board may feel there is more to be discussed. She asked if the Board wants to continue to discuss this or
just say it is done.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to get a revised "Exhibit E" based on things that have
come out of the last two work sessions and things which has been exchanged in E-mails. The Board can
then decide whether or not it needs another work session. He said the proffers need to be consistent with
the general understandings which have been reached. He asked if everyone was agreeable to that
approach.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to address one issue listed on Exhibit "E" dealing with form and
design. He said the current design reflects the design unanimously approved by the Board-appointed ad-
hoc committee on March 2, 2004. He said the next day Mr. Wayne Cilimberg presented it on that basis to
the Board, and that recommendation was presented to the full Board on March 3 as being a "joint
recommendation of the Engineering and Planning Departments." With the exception of a few tweaks,
which included the library block and a couple of other things which have been discussed, there was never
any question that the form and design presented would be anything different than what was presented. He
said they have operated in good faith for two-plus years on that understanding. Second, with respect to the
library itself, the staff report for that ad-hoc committee meeting on March 2, 2004, specifically said staff
supports the library. He has a letter from the Library Board that says some issues need to be resolved and
they want a 20,000 square foot building, not a 15,000 square foot building; they have resolved that with staff
over the last few years. He does not want to see a grid come back that says anything different than what
the Board agreed to and under which the applicant has been operating for the last couple of years. There
are other issues that need to be discussed; timing of the road improvements is one. He said there was a
meeting with VDOT on January 30, and Mr. Graham was in attendance. They have finally gotten a letter
from VDOT saying they can use the right-of-way so that condition has been taken out of the proffers. The
only issue now is the timing of the southbound lane. It is not a question for the County as to whether it will
happen, but when. He said they have copies of minutes if the Board needs them.
Mr. Rooker asked if the ad-hoc committee kept minutes. Mr. Rotgin said for the ad-hoc committee
there was a staff report dated February 26 or 27, and they had a stenographer attend that meeting so they
have 17 pages of minutes. For the Board meeting on the third, they have relied on the Board's minutes.
Ms. Long said she brought copies of the Board's minutes for the day after that last ad-hoc
committee meeting (March 3, 2004). She said this all occurred before she was involved with this project,
but those Board minutes say exactly what Mr. Rotgin said.
Mr. Rooker asked that they be E-mailedtotheBoardmembers.Ms. Long said she had copies with
her and distributed same to the Board members. She said she had done some highlighting on those
minutes for her own benefit.
Ms. Echols said in terms of what the Board wants to do next, Mr. Rooker said there should be a
revised Exhibit "E" distributed before deciding whether or not to discuss this project further.
Mr. Rooker said today the applicant named some things he is willing to do, and he believes those
should be reflected in the proffers. There need to be changes in the proffers to reflect what has been
tendered in the E-mails and what has been tendered in oral discussion today, things to do with grading,
things to do with soil and erosion control, etc. He thinks that needs to come back to staff and then staff
needs to prepare for the Board an exhibit comparable to Exhibit "E" so it can understand where the
applicant is in regard to those 15+ issues in Exhibit "E".
Ms. Echols asked if Mr. Rooker wanted that to come back to the Board at a meeting, maybe next
month.
Mr. Rooker said he wants it to come in the form of information. When the applicant presents his
proffers is really driven by the applicant. After that, an exhibit should come back which summarizes the
issues, and as far as he is concerned that can go out by E-mail so the Board members can think about it.
Then, at a meeting after that information is received, this Board needs to decide whether or not it needs
another work session, or whether it is prepared to act on the application.
Mr. Tucker said that during March on Wednesdays the Board has work sessions scheduled on the
budget.
Mr. Rotgin said the revised proffers and special use permits will be in the County's hands by Friday,
except for anything involving the additional erosion/sediment controls.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant will present revised proffers based on these conversations and the E-
mails received. Staff will summarize where the issues stand and provide that information to the Board.
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 09/06/2006
Initials: EWe
March 1, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Depending on when that information is received and based upon its schedule, the Board will decide how to
proceed from that point.
Ms. Echols asked if the Board wants more financial information than what it has received.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant indicated at the last work session that there has been a study on
retail absorption. Since that time, the Board got a single page from a spreadsheet showing vacancy rates in
the Route 29 North corridor. He does not think the Board has seen a copy of the whole study. He said
there was a fiscal impact study done by County staff and there was a fiscal impact study done by the
applicant. Mr. Rotgin said they have their own internal data (population/retail sales/square footage) which
he will make available to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that next Tuesday night at Hollymead Elementary School there will be a meeting at
7:00 p.m. to present the North Pointe project to the community.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn.
At 5:02 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to adjourn this meeting until March 8, 2006, at
Monticello High School. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Chairman