1993-06-16June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1) ..
0001
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 16, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., in the Auditorium, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte
Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F.
Perkins.5.1 Memorandum dated June 8, 1993, from Forrest D. Kerns,
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Mr. Craig Van de Castle, a resident of the White Hall District, stated
that recently he took a walk along Hydraulic Road from Albemarle High School
heading in the direction of Phillips' Building Supply. This is a pleasant
pedestrian walk because it goes behind the stone wall cemetery and passes by
the lush plantings of the Birnam Wood Subdivision, and continues past Four
Seasons, edging the woods. He said that throughout the entire length the walk
is separated from the roadway, it is safe and it is a pleasant experience. He
went on to say that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) recently
posted notices on a four lane widening of that road. He noted that in a
previous widening of Hydraulic Road, a cement sidewalk was put immediately
adjacent to this busy highway. Since this is an important entryway, he
wondered if this Board was consulting or cooperating with VDoT in the design
of the widening of Hydraulic Road. He wondered, too, if there were any plans
to re-fence or re-wall any of this section to give it character and whether
there are any plans for bicycle lanes or off-the-road pedestrian walkways.
Mr. Van de Castle then spoke about his other concern which involved the
clear-cutting of a large tract of urban forest behind the North Grounds of the
University of Virginia between the North Grounds Recreation Center and the
Route 250 Bypass. He said the Law School has purchased the business school
building and the business school now intends to build a new complex on that
land, which until a few weeks ago, was a large mature oak forest of trees of
great dimension. He wondered, since this is technically County land, if the
University has made any record of the sizes, species, or number of trees that
were cut. He asked if any of this information has been communicated to this
Board because, in the future, people may be interested to find out what the
physical environment may have been and what has been changed, lost or altered.
Mr. Bowerman responded that it is his understanding the walkway along
Hydraulic Road will not be disturbed. He said the sidewalk will be in place,
but most of the walkway and scenic areas which Mr. Van de Castle described are
on private property. He has had communication from the o%rners of the proper-
ties, because they would like to see the pathway, and especially the cemetery,
off their properties and on a public right-of-way. He said this has been an
ongoing issue, and it is hoped that the construction of Hydraulic Road will
take care of this problem, because there is a lot of pedestrian traffic in the
area. He reiterated that there will most likely be a sidewalk in VDoT's
right-of-way without any use of private right-of-way.
Mr. Van de Castle asked if there will be a bicycle path in the vicinity
of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes." He said there is a sepa-
rate bicycle path on the outside of Hydraulic Road planned with this project.
He added that the bicycle path will continue along Rio Road.
Mr. Van de Castle next asked if the University had communicated with
County officials about the tract of land to which he referred. Mr. Tucker
replied that he will have to look into the situation. He was unsure if the
University had submitted plans as to the types of trees that have been taken
down on that particular tract of land. Someone from the County staff will get
back to Mr. Van de Castle with this information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item 5.5 and to accept all other
items on the consent agenda for information. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Memorandum dated June 8, 1993, from Mr. Forrest D. Kerns,
Charlottesville Housing Foundation, addressed to Mr. David Benish, Chief of
· ' 0001 6
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Community Development, and M~ R6b~t W. ~cker, Jr., County Executive, re:
Crozet Crossing, received for information.
Item 5.2. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 4, May 18 and
June 3, 1993, received for information.
Item 5.3. Letter dated June 10, 1993, from Mr. Robert R. Humphris,
Chairman, Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors, re:
Albemarle County Service Authority Bond Rating, received for information.
Item 5.4. Notice of a public hearing of the Albemarle County Service
Authority, on a proposed changes in the water and sewer rates and fees,
received for information.
Item 5.5. Appoint Neal Gropen as the Joint City/County Representative
and Chairman of the Rivanna Solid Waste Advisory Committee. By the above
shown vote, the Board appointed Mr. Neal Gropen as Chairman of the Rivanna
Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee with term to expire on May 1, 1994.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-93-05. Robert & Victoria Burton. Public
Hearing to rezone 18.5 ac from RA to R-4. Property S of and adjacent to
Deerwood Subd is in the designated growth area of Hollymead and is recommended
for Industrial Service in the Comprehensive Plan. TM32C,P2,Sec3. Rivanna
Dist. (Property is located in designated growth area. (Deferred from May 12,
1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The applicant
proposes to rezone the site to R-4 and construct 38 single-family units and 36
townhouse units. The single family lots would be similar in size to the
existing lots in Deerwood. The applicant proffered the plan for 38 single
family and 36 townhouse lots. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant originally
prepared a subdivision plat for review as a "by-right" plan of development.
The applicant had assumed that the area under review was zoned R-4 and in fact
the applicant had been receiving a tax bill based on R-4 zoning of the
property. Because of the error, this Board, on February 3, 1993, adopted a
resolution of intent to consider rezoning the site to R-4 from RA.
Mr. Cilimberg said although the subject area is physically proximate to
existing Deerwood and its development as industrial will necessitate alterna-
tive access across drainage areas, staff does not support this request based
on the safety of the intersection at Route 649, the location of residences in
the Airport Noise Impact Area and the additional lots without alternative
access. Staff based its recommendations on land use considerations and has
not considered the historical taxation of the property in arriving at its
recommendation. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff recom-
mends the acceptance of the applicant's proffer.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 3,
1993, by a vote of 6:1, recommended denial of ZMA-93-05. When the Commission
voted on this request, its primary concern was the impact of the development
on the intersection of Route 649 with the entrance road to Deerwood Subdivi-
sion. The applicant has provided the following proffers, one of which is an
attempt to deal with this problem:
"In conjunction with ZMA-93-05, I hereby proffer the following
conditions:
the rezoning and preliminary plan (SUB-93-01) be approved at
this time, as requested for the entire parcel (Tax Map 32C,
Section 3, Parcel 2);
2 o
the applicant agrees that not more than 20 single family
lots shall be platted and developed until such time that
turn lanes on State Route 649 are constructed in accordance
with VDoT recommendations; and
3 o
the final plat for the first 20 lots will be consistent with
the preliminary plan (SUB-93-01), and review and approval of
that plat will be administrative."
Mr. Cilimberg said staff feels that V/DoT should have an opportunity to
review the language in the second proffer. He said that VDoT needs to deter-
mine traffic impact at the Route 649 intersection, since this was a primary
issue of consideration of the rezoning.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing. No one came
forward to speak.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that this matter be sent back to the Planning
Commission since the proffers do substantially change the application. He
thinks the Commission should reconsider the issue and be given the opportunity
to make another recommendation to this Board.
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0001~7
(Page 3)
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded, by Mr. Marshall to refer ZMA-93-05
back to the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-91-62. Barbara & Leo Wachter. Public Hearing on
a request for a gift, craft & antique shop on 91.72 acs zoned RA. Property on
N sd of Rt 708 approx 1.5 mi W of Rt 20. TM101,P52. Scottsville Dist.
(Property is not located in designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The applicant
proposes to construct a fourth structure. The new structure would contain a
dwelling unit, work/storage area, and an area under 500 square feet for a
gallery/shop for the gift, craft and antique shop. Staff opinion is that the
use will have minimal negative impact. The use may support the existing
tourist activity on adjacent property and in the area. Staff recommends
approval of SP-91-62 subject to the following conditions:
Area devoted to the gift, craft and antique shop shall not
exceed 500 square feet and shall be located in the structure
proposed by SDP-93-020;
2. No auctions;
3. Building Official approval;
4. Relocation of fence to obtain 450 feet of sight distance;
Recordation of appropriate sight easements to ensure
maintenance of 450 feet of sight distance; and
No outdoor storage or diSplay.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 18,
1993, recommended approval of SP-91-62 subject to the conditions recommended
by staff.
Mr. Cilimberg said he was notified today that the applicant has a
problem getting an agreement from a property owner across the street to allow
for a sight easement along the frontage of that property. He said this ease-
ment is needed for the maintenance of sight distance. The applicant cannot
honor the fifth condition, if he is unable to get that easement. If the
permit is approved, the applicant is requesting that this condition be deleted
from the conditions of approval.
Mr. Bowerman asked if, in Mr. Cilimberg's recollection, a condition such
as the fifth condition had ever been deleted from an approval of a special use
permit. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he could not recall that this has ever
been done before. He said staff had done some research, but it did not find a
similar situation in past history. He stated that staff wondered if it would
be acceptable to have an agreement with that particular property owner to
ensure maintenance of the sight distance instead of an easement. Mr. Bowerman
inquired if there ha~ to be some sort of agreement whereby VDoT would unques-
tionably have access to the property so that necessary clearance could be
done. Mr. Cilimberg replied, "yes." When he visited the site, he did not see
a problem. He added that any growth which has occurred is below the sight
distance line which is needed when a vehicle goes into the turn to the west of
Route 708 and approaches this intersection. He said that the maintenance
issue would probably be long term as far as growth of vegetation or installa-
tion of some construction that might take place by the property owner at some
future point.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she did not see any mention of signage along
the road. She asked how signage would be handled. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
there are signage allowances under the Sign Ordinance that he really cannot
address at this time, but the applicants would be required to meet the signage
requirements. He stated that there are no signs there now, except for road
signs.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing and asked who was
representing the applicant.
Ms. Barbara Wachter, the applicant, indicated that she would be speaking
to the Board. Ms. Wachter stated that she and her husband have run into
several problems since they started working with this application. She
pointed out that since she first applied, her mother has had a heart attack,
and this building that she is trying to get has an apartment for her mother
located in it. She went on to say that she is an artist, and she can work in
the shop in the other part of the building. She stated that she has done
everything that she can do to comply with what has been asked, and has gotten
several signatures for the easement. She mentioned that there is only one
other signature needed, and that one property owner has the largest amount of
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
O00:I. S8
property involved. She remarked that she can drive out of her driveway and
there is a sight clearance of 450 feet. She does not think that there is any
question that the man, who has refused to do the recordation, will allow her
to take care of his property. She said the man gave her a letter stating that
the trees could be cleared. She feels, however, that this property owner does
not want the permanent easement recorded, although he has not gotten back to
her about this issue.
There were no further public comments, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marshall if he had visited the site or if he is
familiar with it. Mr. Marshall replied, "yes." He knows the area well, but
he cannot visualize why the sight distance across the road is needed. He has
traveled the road many times, and he does not understand why this is neces-
sary. Mr. Cilimberg said staff asked VDoT about the situation, and VDoT
representatives did a running speed study in that area, and found that the
average speed is 48 miles per hour. He said that because of this study, the
sight distance requirement standards have not been lowered. He pointed out
that ten feet is required for every mile per hour that a car is traveling, so
45 miles per hour requires a 450 foot sight distance. Mr. Marshall reiterated
that he does not see why there is a problem on this particular road. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the particular area where there is the problem of
getting the easement is actually closer than the 450 feet. He said that it is
the property across the road from the site and down the road some distance to
the west. Mr. Marshall noted that if the trees are cut on that piece of
property and the property drops off, it will be possible to see around the
curve. He asked if this Board can give permission to cut the trees.
Mr. Wachter commented that he had asked VDoT to study the situation,
also, because there are signs posted relating to a 30 miles per hour speed
limit, but they are not the black and white signs. He said that these signs
are black and yellow. He noted that there is a 30 miles per hour speed limit
sign posted between KOA and his property. He said that the curves are posted
at 30 miles per hour, so his property is located in a 30 miles per hour zone.
He added that VDoT still required the 450 foot sight distance, after the speed
test. He answered Mr. Marshall's question by saying that his property is on a
knoll and all of the rest of the property drops away. He said that he is
relocating a fence, which, upon completion, is one of the conditions of
approval. He said the fence is on his property so he can provide sight
distance in that area. He pointed out, however, that this involves visibility
to the east, which is no trouble to maintain. He mentioned that he has
received permission from the other property owners and some trees have already
been cut. He said that his Farm Manager took care of stacking up the trees
and taking them away from the area, and no debris was left behind. He noted
that he did not want to necessarily get rid of the trees, but they had to be
taken down for the required sight distance.
At this time, Mr. Marshall offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve SP-91-62 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion, with the deletion of condition number five.
Mr. Bain commented that if condition number five is deleted, then all
requirements will be removed for sight distance.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much sight easement can be obtained, assuming
that there is some blockage in that area, without the sight easement obtained
from the adjacent property owner. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out on the map the
parcel of land that is posing the problem. He stated that there could be an
obstruction of sight from the driveway of the gift shop looking west along the
frontage of the other property. Mr. Bowerman then stated that it could be
possible that there would be no sight distance to see a car coming from the
west, if a left turn was being made. Mr. Cilimberg described another area,
with use of the map, which he felt was the critical point. Mr. Bowerman asked
how far from the Wachter's driveway was this critical point. Mr. Cilimberg
answered that the area in question is probably 400 feet from the Wachter's
driveway. He said that at this point, the road takes a slight bend so that a
driver would not be looking straight up the road. He added that the driver
would have to actually look across the property into the curve where traffic
is coming from the west.
Mr. Wachter then showed the Board the plat. He said that if a person is
going west, using the scale on the plat, 350 feet of sight distance would be
available. He pointed out his entrance, and he said the dotted line on the
plat is the existing paved highway, and the dark lines are the rights-of-way
and the 50 feet of cleared land that belongs to VDoT.
Mr. Bowerman asked, again, if the minimum sight distance that can be
maintained by VDoT is approximately 350 feet. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
there appears to be approximately 300 to 400 feet of minimum sight distance
available.
Mr. Bain stated that he would like to have a sight distance requirement
of 350 feet included with the approval, even though it is impossible to have
450 feet of sight distance.
Mr. Cilimber9 explained that there is actually sight distance now of 400
to 450 feet, and the area which could be maintained up to 350 feet would be in
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
VDoT rights-of-way. He said that this requirement would not necessitate any
kind of easement.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the condition could stipulate that 450 feet
of sight distance would be desirable if it can be acquired, but there should
never be less than 350 feet of sight distance.
Mr. Marshall asked if he is correct in believing that 350 feet of sight
distance is possible. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is already 350 feet of
sight distance available.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant would have any objection if condi-
tion number five is changed to require 350 feet of sight distance. Mr.
Wachter indicated that this was satisfactory.
Mr. Marshall then amended his motion to include condition number five to
state: Recordation of appropriate sight easements to ensure maintenance of
350 feet of sight distance to the west and maintenance of 450 feet of sight
distance to the east." Mr. Perkins, as seconder of the motion, agreed to this
change. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Area devoted to the gift, craft and antique shop shall not
exceed 500 square feet and shall be located in the structure
proposed by SDP-93-020;
2. No auctions;
3. Building Official approval;
4. Relocation of fence to obtain 450 feet of sight distance;
Recordation of appropriate sight easements to ensure
maintenance of 350 feet of sight distance to the west and
maintenance of 450 feet of sight distance to the east; and
6. No outdoor storage or display.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-93-16. Centel Cellular Monopole Tower. Public
Hearing on a proposal to construct an approx 80 ft high monopole for cellular
telephones on Bear Den Mtn which requires amendment of SP-91-36. Property on
S sd of 1-64 is zoned RA & EC. TM74,P23. Samuel Miller Dist. (Property is
not located in designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 2 and June 9, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board. The proposal
involves an approximately 80 foot monopole tower and a 12' x 28' (336 square
foot) equipment building. Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance
with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 and 10.5.2.1 and that the positive
factors overcome the negative factor. Staff recommends approval of SP-93-16
subject to the following conditions:
Tower height shall not exceed 85 feet and shall be a
monopole;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3 o
There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a
federal agency;
Development shall be in accord with the revised plat of The
Rocks, initiated WDF, dated 5/5/93; and
Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No
administrative approval shall constitute or imply support
for or approval of, the location of additional tower,
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network
or system as any antennae administratively approved under
this section.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 18,
1993, recommended approval of SP-93-16, subject to the conditions recommended
by staff.
Mr. Bain asked what is the distance of the road to the tower.
Cilimberg responded that the distance of the road to the tower is
approximately 1000 feet.
Mr.
Mr. Bain asked how the determination is made that a tower is not the
start of a "tower farm." Mr. Cilimberg said in many tower locations it is
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000160
(Page 6)
expected that there will b~'"~ultiPle u~rs~or if other towers are necessary,
they would be located in a similar area. He stated that a unique aspect with
this tower is that it is proposed to be located on a preservation tract. He
pointed out that one tower and its building will have minimal visual impact
and minimal impact on the purpose of the preservation tract. He added that a
second tower or another user without another equipment building will have a
different impact, as well as multiple towers in this particular location. He
said that visual impact will be a primary consideration in any special use
permit approval, He thinks that the Recreational Facilities Authority would
also be concerned about the impact and acceptability of towers in this
location.
Mr. Bain called attention to condition number five as it relates to
staff approval of additional antennae installation. He asked what circum-
stances would allow additional antennae. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this is a
standard condition used for all towers. He said it is important that the
staff be aware before any additional antennae would be installed as to the
visual impact. He added that if the staff saw that it would be inconsistent
with the original approval of the special use permit, it would be brought back
to the Board of Supervisors. (Mr. St. John arrived at 7:40 p.m.)
Mr. Bain then wondered what type of antenna installation would be
required for this tower. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he would prefer that
the applicant answer Mr. Bain's question. He said, though, that the applicant
has indicated he does not expect to have a dish antenna.
Mr. Martin recalled reading in the Planning Commission minutes that a
dish would be the next logical type of antenna.
Since Board members had no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr.
Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dick Gibson, representing Centel, first noted that Centel has
changed its name to Sprint. He mentioned that several representatives from
Sprint are present at this meeting, as well as Hiram Ewald, the landowner, and
Sam Hemingway, Sprint's land planner. He stated that the proposal is to build
a monopole of approximately 80 feet in height which will be a self supported
structure. He said that it will be unlit. He added that the proposal also
calls for an equipment shelter to be located adjacent to the pole, as well as
a fence surrounding the complex for security reasons. He said that the pole,
itself, will be at a height to just clear the tops of the trees. He stated
that he has photographs to show the site from various vantage points along
Interstate-64, and the primary purpose of the photographs was. to illustrate
that the equipment shelter would not be visible. He said that when the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) had its review of the project, there was some
concern that the equipment shelter might be visible from 1-64. He added,
though, that there was no concern that the tower would be visible from any
point along 1-64i because of the distance from 1-64, and the fact that the
clearance of the tower above the tree tops is so minimal that someone driving
along the interstate would not be able to see it.
Mr. Gibson said the original plan was to paint the pole a flat gray.
The ARB indicated that a brown color would be preferable. He said that Sprint
officials are amenable to painting it whatever color is desired. He went on
to say that the equipment shelter is a 12 foot by 28 foot shelter. At the
suggestion of staff, Mr. Gibson stated that the shelter will be aligned so
that the 12 foot side will face down the hill. He stated, also, that the ARB
felt it would be appropriate to put a pitched gable roof on top of the
shelter. He does not understand the logic of this request, but Sprint
officials are happy to do it. He said that Sprint representatives' feelings
were that there would be a pebble aggregate surface which would blend in with
the environment. He noted that the building will be taller than what was
indicated in the staff report, once the pitched roof in place. Mr. Gibson
remarked that mounted on top of the pole will be four Celwave collinear
antennae, three inches in diameter, and they are a sky blue color. He said
that at a distance of 500 feet, these antennae become invisible and blend into
the sky line. He stated that it is possible that a dish antenna may have to
be installed, which would be two or four feet in diameter, but it would be
painted a sky gray matte non-glare finish to blend in with the environment.
He added that it is unknown at this point whether or not the dish will be
needed. He went on to say that after the tower is installed, if there is
sufficient traffic, there may be the need to install a dish antenna in order
to relay signals received at this facility to another facility in order to
handle the increased volume of traffic. He reiterated that, initially, there
will not be a dish antenna on the site, but in the future, if the need
demands, there could be one installed.
Mr. Gibson commented that he sent a letter to the Public Recreational
Facility Authority dated May 1, 1993. He said the letter is attached to the
staff report, and contains considerable detail. He explained that the reason
this application is before this Board is to improve the cellular service area
that is served by Sprint Cellular. He described the way cellular service is
developed by saying that there is usually one tower in the beginning, and in
this case, it was located at Carter's Mountain. He said that this tower will
cover a certain area, and then they will determine if there are "dead spots"
due to the topography. Customer will provide feedback on areas where coverage
is lost. The engineers will take this information and study it to determine
where it would be appropriate to have additional sites. He added that the
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
proposed site is an important site to fill in "dead spots" and to provide good
coverage along 1-64 and along certain portions of Route 29 South, where the
coverage is now poor. He said the tower is needed to improve service to meet
customers' needs, many of whom are citizens of Albemarle County. He stated
that the tower is also needed in order to continue to expand the service that
has been made available to the people here. He also noted that this applica-
tion was filed prior to the amendment relating to The Rocks so Sprint is in a
"by-right" situation. He went on to explain that the special use permit for
The Rocks needed to be amended because there was a condition in that permit
which stipulated there could only be clearing that was required for the road
and the houses. He noted that there were only six trees involved with the
tower. He went on to say that there have been a couple of designs of the
access road studied, which is the spur that goes off from the family division
road to the site.
Mr. Gibson said that Sprint representatives have worked closely with the
County staff, and particularly Ms. Marcia Joseph, and a plan has been devel-
oped which follows the contours of the land in such a way that the road is
actually behind rises in the land. He indicated that from 1-64, it is
believed that the road will not be seen at all. He stated that the ARB was
concerned about this situation, as well, and some of the members of that Board
noted that there is not a wide area being cleared for the road. He said that
vegetation will seek the sunlight and will fill in the area. He added that it
is the feeling of everyone on the ARB, as well as Sprint's land planner, that
the road will not be visible from 1-64. He noted, too, that this road will
only be subjected to two vehicle trips per month, and it is expected that
vegetation will probably grow up into the road surface so the situation would
not be intrusive.
Mr. Gibson pointed out that there is a bit of a problem, and flexibility
may be needed on one of the conditions of approval by the ARB which deals with
the power provided to the site. He said that the problem lies in the fact
that Sprint cannot get a firm commitment from the power company as to the
route of the power lines. He stated that it is his hope the power lines can
be routed up the family division road and across the back side of the ridge.
He mentioned, however, if it is not possible to run the power line in this
fashion, and it has to be run along the Sprint access road, then flexibility
will be needed on the 20 foot right-of-way width, because the power company
will require a wider right-of-way. He has spoken with Ms. Joseph about this
situation, and she said that she could support this change in road width, if
necessary. He said that Sprint will stake out the road and the field, which
will be subject to staff approval, and will ask for some relief from that
condition to allow flexibility to go wider than the 20 foot right-of-way, if
necessary, to meet the power company requirements.
Mr. Gibson stated that Mr. Cilimberg has already indicated that this
application has been reviewed by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority,
and this Authority has given its approval. He pointed out that ARB has also
approved the application with conditions, and the Planning staff and Planning
Commission have recommended approval. He then respectfully requested approval
of the application by this Board. He noted that there are some people at the
meeting who can answer any technical questions.
Mr. Bain called attention to a letter of April 1, 1993 to Mr. Scott
Peyton which stated that the center lines of the antenna will be approximately
86 feet above ground level. He wondered about the total height of the tower
and antenna. Mr. Edward Byers, a representative of Sprint, answered that the
antenna would be 12 feet in height. Mr. Bain asked if that meant the four
antennae would equal 12 feet in height. Mr. Gibson answered, "yes".
Mr. Bain then asked for comments on condition number five dealing with
staff approval of additional antennae installation. He asked what is the need
for this condition, at this time. Mr. Gibson replied that his understanding
of the origination of that condition happened when the public television tower
went up on Carter's Mountain. He said that there was talk at that time about
other users co-locating on that tower. He thinks that staff was concerned, at
that point and wanted to make it known, that by approving the tower, it did
not mean that there was a blanket approval for other companies to use the
tower. He noted, however, that it is not a significant condition for Sprint,
one way or the other.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it is desirable to get as many units on a tower
as possible in a "tower farm" situation, but, in this particular situation,
the desire is to have as few units as possible.
Mr. Bain commented that he has understood Mr. Gibson to say that Sprint
does not need a condition that relates to additional antennae. He said that
if Sprint gets the antenna that is needed, all that will be needed in the
future, will be a dish antenna. Mr. Gibson agreed that the tower would be
loaded as much as Sprint would ever want it to be loaded.
Mr. Bain wondered if this condition was coming from a need that Sprint
might have or was it tied into the "tower farm" concept. He pointed out that
he is not interested in the "tower farm" aspect. Mr. Cilimberg reiterated
that this is a standard type of condition.
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Martin commented Ghat Mr. Ciii~erg is saying that this condition is
a protection. He said that it is clearly stated that just because there is a
tower in the vicinity, it does not mean that other antennae can be installed.
Mr. Bain noted that this condition also permits staff approval. He said
that the condition does not require approval from this Board.
Mr. Gibson remarked that it makes no difference to Sprint officials
whether or not condition number five is included. He reiterated that flexibi-
lity probably would be necessary for the condition pertaining to the 20 foot
width of the right-of-way for the road.
Mr. Bain asked if, from Sprint's point of view, other towers will be
needed as far as coverage for certain areas. He said that the Board had tried
to get Centel to address this situation in the past. He would like to know
what will be needed in the future.
Mr. Gibson responded that he could not say that this will be the last
request for a tower. He said that this is a growing service, and the equip-
ment is being expanded in order to meet the customers' needs. He thinks that
the only other thing being planned now is in the area of Scottsville. He
stated that discussions have been held with staff on that situation, and he
pointed out that the land that will be transferred to The Town of Scottsville
is the land that is in question. He noted that Scottsville welcomes that
addition. He added that there could be more requests of this nature, and he
could not tell this Board that this is the last request. Mr. Bain asked if
Mr. Gibson is referring to volume as well as "dead space." Mr. Gibson
answered, "yes." He said that as the users grow and the number of complaints
about the "dead spaces" grow, this is the kind of feedback that drives the
need to put up new facilities. He added that once the big tower is up on
Carter's Mountain, the types of facilities that are needed to compliment the
system after that would be situations with towers that would just clear the
tree tops. He said that other facilities would not be penetrating the air
space nor would they need to be lit. He went on to say that this is important
to a lot of people. He noted that if towers can be kept at tree top level,
then the FAA does not require that they be lit.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Gibson would have any problem with amending the
condition to not allow any lighting. Mr. Gibson responded that this would not
be a problem, unless the FAA changes its regulations and requires lights. Mr.
Bain stated that if this happens, then Sprint representatives would have to
come back to this Board. He said that the way the condition reads, if the FAA
required lighting, then Sprint would be in a position to comply with the
regulations. He noted that this takes all of the control away from this
Board. ~
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that a tower with a light on it is an entirely
different situation. He added that if there is a situation of a tower with a
light, then the Board members would like for the matter to be brought back to
them. He went on to say that this Board would propose that the conditions
indicate that no lighting will be installed.
Mr. Gibson replied that he does not think there will be any problem with
that because this tower is so far under the lighting requirement by the FAA,
and the likelihood of it being in a glide path is almost zero.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the amended condition would be an~extra
protection on the part of this Board, because there have been towers before
that did not require lighting, but ended up with strobe lighting.
Mr. Gibson emphasized that even though Sprint representatives are at
this meeting with a "by-right application, they want to work with the County
and do what is necessary to facilitate the situation. He added that there
would be no problem with a condition which stipulated that no lights could be
placed on the tower.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was public comment.
Mr. William Fitzgerald stated that this proposal indicates that the 80
foot tower will be located on Bear Den Mountain. He asked how high is Bear
Den Mountain. He thinks that the height of Bear Den Mountain is important.
He added that with the increasing aircraft coming into Charlottesville, and
with the expansion of the airport, he believes that it is going to be
necessary to have a light on top of the tower. He said that the light might
not have to be there this year, but certainly by next year, the light will
have to be installed. Furthermore, he said that Sprint is probably going to
want to build more towers, because the Sprint representative pointed out that
the technology in this field is growing by leaps and bounds. He added that
within three years, these towers will probably be antiquated. He pointed out
that Bell Atlantic has an unbelievable program now, so he thinks that a great
deal of study needs to be done on this project before approval is given. He
went on to say that if one tower is approved, there will probably be four or
five similar requests.
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bain asked what is staff's opinion about deleting condition number
five. Mr. Cilimberg suggested, if the Board does not want the applicant to be
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) ~%~4~
(Page 9)
able to alter or add to the number of antennae, then there should be a
substitute condition number five that would have limitations, rather than
leaving it open for staff approval. He went on to say that if the condition
is removed, and nothing is said, the situation could be left to the future
discretion of the Zoning Administrator, and it could raise the question of
whether or not the antennae are allowed at all.
Mr. Bain then mentioned condition number four which refers to the
revised plat of The Rocks. He asked if there is something from the applicant
that would show that there are four antennae involved, no one of which is more
than 12 feet in height, and that only one dish may be added.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he has the location within the Preservation
Tract, but he will have to look to see if there is anything else that actually
shows the tower and makes reference to the tower, other than the initial
description of what is planned.
Mr. Bain stated that he understands Mr. Gibson's comment as far as the
application being in a "by-right" category, but this request is for an
amendment to an existing special permit that was adopted in 1991 relating to
The Rocks Subdivision. He is considering this application for one tower, and
he does not want to consider additional towers. He appreciates the effort
that Sprint officials have put forth as far as the height of the tower is
concerned. He added that the tower will barely be above the height of the
existing trees that are there, and the tower will not be lit. He noted Mr.
Gibson's letter to Mr. Peyton, of the Public Recreational Facilities Autho-
rity, in which Mr. Gibson described the height and size of the antenna and the
dish. Mr. Bain said that he would like to use these size descriptions in a
motion.
At this time, Mr. Bain made a motion to approve SP-93-16 with the
deletion of the existing condition number five and the addition of a new
condition number five to read as follows: "There shall be no more than four
Celwave collinear antennas mounted on top of the 80 foot monopole, none of
which shall exceed 12 feet in height; and there shall be one dish antenna
allowed, either two or four feet in diameter;" and condition number three
amended to read: "There shall be no lighting of the tower." He then asked
if staff has discussed with Virginia Power the right-of-way situation. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that he has not discussed the right-of-way matter with
Virginia Power. He thinks this condition was requested by the ARB. Mr. Bain
inquired if this matter will be handled by the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg answered
affirmatively. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Tower height shall not exceed 85 feet and shall be a
monopole;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower;
DeVelopment shall be in accord with the revised plat of The
Rocks, initiated WDF, dated 5/5/93 (copy attached); and
5o
There shall be no more than four Celwave collinear antennas
mounted on top of the 80 foot monopole, none of which shall
exceed 12 feet in height; and there shall be one dish
antenna allowed, either two or four feet in diameter.
Agenda Item No. 9. CPA-93-02. Economic Development Policy. Public
Hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include goals, objectives and
strategies for economic development that would replace the existing economic
development section of the Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2
and June 9, 1993.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that earlier in the year a Planning Commission
member asked the Commission to consider amending the Comprehensive Plan to
include an Economic Development Policy. The Commission appointed a subcom-
mittee of the Commission, with assistance from staff, to move forward on this
request. After receiving several drafts of a proposed policy, the Commission
held a work session followed by a public hearing and then forwarded a recom-
mendation to this Board, by a five to one vote. Mr. Cilimberg then went
through the key components of the plan. A copy of the staff report is on file
in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record of the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said there has been some confusion over some of the
numbers regarding employment with major County employers that was part of
information given to the Commission earlier in its discussions. He added that
this data had been transferred from previously published information sheets
for Albemarle County which were based on telephone surveys of major employers
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000164
in 1990, 1991 and 1992. He went on to say that, unfortunately, some of the
employment numbers were not consistently reported in the survey so some
numbers for some employers were not comparable. He said that the staff has
re-surveyed those employers for employment figures for each of the three years
and is providing tonight the revised table (copy on file) as information. He
noted that the biggest changes from any of the earlier tables that were given
to the Planning Commission for its information are in the total reported for
Albemarle County, State Farm Insurance, the University of Virginia and the
National Legal Research Group. He pointed out that Centel and Pepsi Cola have
been removed from the list because the majority of their employment by place
of work is not in Albemarle County, although many Albemarle County residents
work for those two businesses. He said that non-Albemarle County businesses
were not included in the big employment list.
Mr. Bowerman asked for a summary of the old and new information. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that in prior surveying for Albemarle County there were
figures in 1990 that showed the County with approximately 1,900 employees, and
in 1992 they were shown at 2,050. He said the actual figure for employees in
Albemarle County in 1990 was approximately 1,700 employees, and there were
approximately 1,900 employees in 1992. He noted that the new table breaks
down the County's employment by school division, local government and the
Joint Security Complex, which are the major components under Albemarle
County's payroll. He then mentioned State Farm Insurance where the big change
is in employment shown in 1990, which originally was at 2,100. He said that
in resurveying, it was discovered that this figure represented regional
employment and not a local figure. He stated that the local figure for State
Farm employees was at 915, but the other State Farm figures have not changed
from the original survey. Next, Mr. Cilimberg called attention to the
University of Virginia, which showed a drop from 13,100 to 10,500 employees.
He said that these figures were based on some inconsistencies of reporting,
and some part-time employees were included at one point, as well as some
student workers. He added that this is not the case with the new figures,
which show the employment in 1990 at the University of Virginia at approxi-
mately 11,350 and in 1992 at approximately 11,885. He remarked that the
National Legal Research Group also showed a 1990 employment census of 175, but
it fell to 125 in 1992. He went on to say that the employment for the Group
had stayed, in fact, relatively steady at approximately 120 to 125.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that overall between State Farm and the
University of Virginia, the original survey showed a loss of approximately
3,600 jobs. After the resurvey, Mr. Bowerman mentioned that there was a net
gain for UVa and State Farm of 300 to 400 people.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that there was a 500 person gain at UVa, and
State Farm had a gain of 40 people. He reiterated that the discrepancies in
the reports were due to the first survey showing student employees at UVa and
the regional employment force at State Farm in 1990.
Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing and read the names of the
speakers from the sign up sheet.
Ms. Alexes Echols spoke first. She lives in Townwood Subdivision and
came to speak about the unavailability of jobs. She noted that even though
there is only a 3.2 percent rate of unemployment and the promise of economic
development in the future, there is nothing in place at this minute that will
allow many people who are unable to find jobs to become employed. She said
she had read that the median family income is $50,000, but this assumes that
there are two salaries involved. She pointed out that many County residents
are single and financially responsible for themselves. She has several female
friends who do not make nearly as much as $50,000. In fact, Ms. Echols
speculates that the salary is probably between $30,000 and $35,000. She has
degrees from two colleges, went to a business college, has a Master's degree
from the University of Virginia and an advanced graduate degree.
Ms. Echols said she returned to the work force in 1978, after being an
independent contractor for 15 years. She owned a successful business in
Charlottesville, which she sold in 1987 to move to Florida to care for her
terminally ill mother. She went on to say that in Florida she tried to decide
what salary profession she could enter that would give her a worthwhile career
for the remainder of her working life. She picked chemical dependency, got
another degree and became trained and certified in the State of Florida. When
she returned to Charlottesville in the latter part of 1991, she could not get
a job in that profession, because insurance companies were refusing third
party payments for chemical dependencies. She added that to go into private
practice in Virginia would require additional training and apprenticeship, and
she would again become an independent contractor, which does not seem to her
to be a financially sound decision. She had thought, at the time, that it
would be simple for her to find a job because she was well known in the
community, had been a director on several boards, a member of Region 10
committees, had owned Balloon Fantasy, which is now Fantastic Balloons and
Bears in Barracks Road and had fine tuned business, marketing and secretarial
skills, but she could not even get an interview. She believes that she has
sent out over 100 resumes. She sought job career counseling and went to the
job displacement service and the Virginia Employment Commission. She finally
started cleaning houses because she had grown up with servants and had
retained cleaning people when she had young children. She noted that cleaning
houses is a good, honorable profession, and she liked it. She stated, though,
that it was very demanding physically, she is 60 years old, and she could not
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Me~ting) 000165
(Page 11)
do it any more. She finally started getting interviews, usually preceded with
the statement, that the employer had no idea why she was applying for this
position, as she was incredibly over qualified. She emphasized, therefore,
that she is currently not employed. She reminded Board members that she has
four degrees.
Ms. Echols stated that as soon as she returned to this area a few years
ago, she started taking computer courses at Piedmont Virginia Community
College, and she is still enrolled. She said that she left class tonight to
come to this meeting. She noted that she has to work, and the University of
Virginia is the largest employer in this area. She stated that Carruther's
Hall is called, "the black hole", because of the people who come back once a
week to check up on employment possibilities. She mentioned that a person can
be a temporary employee at UVa for $6.00 to $9.00 an hour, but there are no
benefits. She said that she was a temporary employee for two and one-half
months at $7.24 an hour, and the woman who took her position had been with the
University for 17 years, was a Grade Six, Executive Secretary, and she made
$22,480. She mentioned that the highest this woman can go is $24,575 a year.
She has another friend who has worked in the Engineering Department for 22
years and makes $22,480. She met a young woman yesterday, who told her about
this meeting. Ms. Echols was hoping that this woman, whose name is Phoenix
Bellomy would be present. Ms. Echols noted that Ms. Bellomy graduated magna
cum laude from college, is a clinical social worker, a statistical writer, and
she has been almost living in a tent, because she cannot find employment. She
stated that these are the facts. She said that she and others cannot find
work, and it is just that simple.
Ms. Echols urged the Board to consider increasing the possibility of
bringing employment to the community that would bring some competition with
the University salaries. She pointed out that most University secretarial
positions are Grade V, which go from $15,055 to a high of $22,480. She was
told, as an Executive Secretary, that there was no way, since she had not
worked for the University since 1954, that she would be able to start any
higher than $20,000. She said that she appreciated the Board's time.
Ms. Gennie Decker, President of the League of Women Voters, stated that
the League urges the Board to set an economic development policy and program
only as a part of the Comprehensive Plan review. She remarked that the League
is not speaking against the Planning Commission's recommendation, but only
against the Board's adopting it now, without waiting for the Comprehensive
Plan's review, which will begin later this summer. She added that there is
already some misinformation out because one editorial reported in the
Charlottesville Business Journal has the Board already making a decision.
Ms. Decker mentioned that there is another advertisement in Sunday's
paper that worries her. She read the ad which stated, "Attention working
citizens of Albemarle. We need your help now." She pointed out that this ad
does not identify the, "we." She said that the ad goes on to speak about the
need for jobs, and the League does not deny that there is a need for jobs for
area residents. She agrees, too, that the County should have a clearly stated
economic policy. She stated that jobs are not the issue for this Board
tonight. She said that the real issue is how the County sets long term policy
and decides to spend taxpayers' money. She noted that in the proposed amend-
ment, the Board is being asked to consider making radical changes in the
Comprehensive Plan and setting up a new bureaucracy which would be the Econo-
mic Development Department. She stated that the League believes the expenses
incurred if that amendment was adopted should only be done when the County
reviews the Comprehensive Plan and considers citizen input. She said that in
the plans for that review, as she understands it, are considerable opportuni-
ties for citizen input. She added that the League hopes the project will move
forward in that manner. She went on to say that, in the League members'
beliefs, to adopt the plan tonight would violate the comprehensive planning,
because it is not considered part of the Comprehensive Plan. She said that
the plan undermines the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan, and it would
provide no opportunity for citizen participation. She reiterated that the
need for jobs is real, and even if the amendment was approved tonight, it
would only relate to the jobs in the new Economic Development Department. She
said that there are other plans underway, and there is some question as to
whether that department is needed. She stated that the League hopes this
question will also be explored in the Comprehensive Plan review. She pointed
out that the League is not implying that the County should do nothing, and
while the comprehensive review is going on, County officials can work on
projects they believe are vital to the development.
Ms. Decker remarked that development of the economic data base has
already been mentioned by staff. She said that it would also be helpful to
work with local employees to ensure that they thrive in the area. She stated
that educational programs could also be developed which would provide gradu-
ates with skills that local businesses need. She indicated that pending
projects should be completed such as the Master Utilities Plan and the Fiscal
Impact Analysis. She said that the League strongly supports the County's
participation in regional efforts such as the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission and the recently established Jefferson Regional Economic
Development Partnership. She mentioned that the County could also consider
using the Industrial Authority as a partner in economic development. She said
that growth in the area is important, and the economic base is among the most
important issues confronting the County. She added that these issues warrant
taking time for extensive discussion and careful examination of all available
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 00016G
(Page 12)
data to ensure that the County arrives at a cost efficient and long term
approach. She stated that the League sincerely believes that adopting the
proposal before the Board tonight would be an unwise and potentially costly
short cut. She said the League asks the Board to address the proposed
amendment and formulate the County's Economic Development Policy in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan review.
Mr. James E. Edwards, an attorney, stated that he and his wife live on
the north side of State Route 732 between Shadwell and Monticello, on 25 acres
which they bought in 1985. He stated that there already is a growth rate in
this County of 22 percent which is one and one-half times the State rate. He
said the issue is whether a bureau needs to be set up to increase that rate of
growth at citizens' expense. He mentioned that in 1950 he and his wife moved
to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which had a population of approximately 25,000.
He said that enormous growth started there, and in 1969, they moved to the
northwest, to a town that had a population of approximately 1,350 persons. In
1990, he said that the population was at 75,000, and today it is at 85,000
people. He mentioned that with this growth came traffic problems and more
school children, and that area worked as fast as it could to provide more
schools at mounting expense. He emphasized that he does not think more people
moving to Albemarle County should be sought.
As for jobs, Mr. Edwards stated that the unemployment rate is 2.8
percent, which means that 97.2 percent of the workers are employed. He
pointed out that the Labor Department considers 95 percent of people working
as full employment. He mentioned that the Route 29 traffic problems have not
been solved, and Route 250 and Free Bridge roads to 1-64 entrance are being
widened. He said that Murphy's Law of auto dynamics implies that traffic
always rises to equal or exceed road capacity. He does not think that another
bureau is needed to lure more people here. He added that the County needs
only to plan for the growth of 22 percent between 1980 and 1990, which will
bring more children to the County's schools, and is one and one-half times as
fast as the State is growing. He remarked that the Albemarle County budget
for 1993-94 shows 64 percent of it going to the County schools while the
courts, police and fire protection use a total of only eight percent. He
pointed out that the school system uses eight times the expense of courts and
public safety. He mentioned that County taxes grew 75 percent between 1980
and 1990, and Debt Service cost six percent. He said that today local, State
and federal taxes consume a large part of the income. He added that
virginians work 115 days to pay taxes, or 31 percent of the year, but the
federal debt of $4,000,000,000,000 hangs over everyone like a dark menacing
cloud. He noted that a baby born today starts with a debt of $45,000 for the
baby's share of the Federal debt. He said that tax has now become a three
letter word to be shunned.
Mr. Edwards thinks this Board needs to keep the present plan and not
aggravate the problem by spending more money to bring more people's problems
into the County, and he believes that the present shopping centers should
suffice. He said that growth needs to be controlled and money should not be
spent to increase it. He stated that open space needs to be preserved as well
as the beauty and tranquility of Albemarle County. He asked that taxes not be
increased by another bureau with more burden placed on the schools.
Mr. Reuben Hitchcock, spoke for the Southwest Mountain Coalition. He
said that the Supervisors have his written statement, so he would not repeat
everything that is in the statement. He added that a lot of the numbers which
he has in his statement have already been mentioned, but there are some things
which he considers important, that the Board has not heard. He then read,
beginning with Paragraph Three, from the prepared statement, in which he
mentioned how high growth has affected Fairfax and Loudon. He talked about
destructive growth, as the information appeared in his statement, and
mentioned such places as Charleston County, South Carolina and San Diego. He
asked that Albemarle County not make the same mistakes. He suggested that all
of the true facts be considered, and when the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed,
have citizen input, so that a decision will not be made in haste, based on
supposition, bad data, propaganda and misinformation. He then asked for the
people who were opposed to the growth proposal to stand. (Approximately 100
persons responded.)
Next to speak was Mr. Tom Roach, President of the Crozet Community
Association. He announced that the Crozet Community Association has initiated
a broad based community-wide survey. He said it is the hope of the Associa-
tion that the results of the survey will provide Crozet with its direction
into the 21st Century. He stated that, in the short term, the survey will be
used to present the community's desires to the Planning Commission in regard
to possible revisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Aside from the topics of
economic growth and development, Mr. Roach mentioned that the Crozet survey
includes such topics as the quality of life, current issues facing Crozet,
community development and growth, community services and the environment. He
informed the Board members that the survey should be concluded by the end of
June, and he looks forward to presenting the results to this Board at a later
date.
Ms. Pat Napoleon stated that she is a proud and lifelong resident of the
Keswick community, and it alarms her greatly to hear of the proposed new
Economic Development Plan and subsequent ill-advised changes in the present
Comprehensive Plan at this time. She said that Albemarle County is being
exploited by those who see dollar signs in their sleep. She asked why must
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000 1.67
(Page 13)
families, who have had associations with this beautiful area for generations,
have to sit back and watch as certain growth oriented Supervisors disregard
the need and desire for restraint where growth is concerned. She stated that
it is obvious that developers are setting a tone for growth rather than the
people who contribute to, live in and care for the community. She said that
while the developers' pockets are being lined with gold, residents are losing
a part of their heritage. She added that things are getting out of hand. She
went on to say that the quality of life in Albemarle County is being adversely
affected by the shortsighted decisions of certain for-growth Board members.
She noted that the school system is growing too fast, highways are congested
and the citizens' way of life is being undermined. She said that, sadly, it
is too late to save certain areas of the County, because the damage is already
done. She pointed out that now is the time for enlightened members of this
community to unite, to prevent further decimation of the rural historical
areas. She said that County citizens must be alert in these dangerous times.
Mr. Dan Beattie stated that he has a home in the County and a business
in the City. He read a letter, dated June 16, 1993, which he and his wife had
sent to the Board of Supervisors, in opposition to a County Department of
Economic Development.
Mr. Trubie A. Kegler, Jr., a Crozet resident, stated that the unemploy-
ment figures which are being discussed tonight are false because, once a
person is unemployed and the check stops, that person is no longer an
unemployment figure. He noted that the person is still unemployed. He said
that he is tired of hearing about these figures that are being punched into
computers and then put on paper. He added that a lot of the people in this
room do not know what it is like out in a poor community in Albemarle County.
He went on to say that one-half of the people in this room do not know what it
is like to get their hands dirty. He said that these people are saying that
they do not want businesses, tax rates or more children. He remarked that he
loves children, and this nation is supposed to be a christian nation. He
stated that some of these people act as though they were not children at one
time. He pointed out that someone had to face the burden of taxes when these
people were children, too. He noted that there are layoffs in plants within
the Crozet and Charlottesville areas, and these people were making $8.00 to
$10.00 an hour. He said, however, that if a person gets a job at one of these
plants, he will start with minimum wages.
Mr. Kegler stated that he does not want to push economics to the point
where there will be businesses in the County resulting in a new Economic Board
being created. He said this will cost taxpayers money. He thinks that if a
new Board is needed for economic growth, it should be set up with existing
people. He commented that the Supervisors are prejudiced to the working class
and poor people in Albemarle County, because the working class and middle
class people are being pushed into the poor standards, and the poor are being
pushed out of Albemarle County. He said that some poor people are still
coming to Albemarle County to work. He remarked that if a can is thrown out
along the road, Albemarle County citizens pay to have it picked up. He does
not see where pushing businesses and poor people out of Albemarle County is
helping. He is willing to pay his taxes, and he is here to support the
working class people. He said that he asked two people to attend this meeting
with him tonight. They answered him by saying that they had to work a second
job to pay their taxes and support their families. He asked how fair do some
of these people think this is. He went on to say that there are a lot of rich
people in Albemarle County, and they want to hold the County back, because
this keeps the hourly rate of pay that they are paying their employees down.
He said that he is talking from his heart. He thinks that everyone in
Albemarle County should be christians and love their neighbors and treat their
neighbor the way that they want to be treated. He said that it is not this
way in the whole country anymore. He reiterated that he is willing to pay his
taxes and do whatever the law requires him to do because he is a working class
person. He wants everybody to get a fair chance, whether they make $10,000 or
$40,000. He knows two people who are working within Albemarle County and
trying to pay their taxes and trying to raise children, who are not making
$20,000 a year. He said these people are working for $4.65 to $5.00 an hour.
Ms. Bunny Murray, speaking for the Piedmont Environmental Council, read
a statement, dated June 16, 1993, opposing CPA-93-02.
Mr. Robert Tobey, a citizen in the Scottsville Magisterial District and
Chairman of the Economic Council, stated that the Economic Council is an
independent coalition of government, University representatives and local
business leaders, committed to promoting economic growth in this community.
He read a statement in which he indicated that the Economic Council supports
the proposed Comprehensive Plan update regarding economic development for
managing economic and environmental obligations. At the end of his presenta-
tion, Mr. Tobey asked how quickly anyone in the room could find equivalent
employment in this community, if they were to lose their jobs.
Mr. Edward Strauss, who lives in the western part of the County, stated
that some of the people in the room are living in other worlds. He said that
these same people speak of the quality of life. He asked whose quality of
whose life are they referring to, and to whom are they talking about benefit-
ting. He added that the people in this room do not look like Albemarle County
to him. He said that if people travel around the County, they will agree with
him. He went on to say that special interest groups are ruining this County.
He emphasized that the Board of Supervisors is responsible for economic growth
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000168
(Page 14)
in the County. He gave an example by saying that if he had been the man from
1781 Productions who applied for a permit, he would have left, and would not
have put anything in the County, because of the stipulations that were put on
his permit. He mentioned the Centel Cellular permit and said that the
Supervisors are the barrier to economical development. He said that the
Centel Cellular permit should not have taken five minutes. He added that he
had told the Centel representatives outside that they should tell this Board
that there would be no more cellular service in Charlottesville. He said that
the Supervisors would have approved the permit next time, because the County
citizens would be upset. He added that nobody knows what they have until they
lose it. He reiterated that the Supervisors are the barrier to economic
development. He said that nothing else is needed. He indicated that the
Supervisors are voted for by the County citizens, and the Supervisors know
what to do. He stated that the Supervisors have a platform every time there
is an election, they tell the citizens what they can do, and the citizens
either vote for them or they do not vote for them. He noted that writing a
thesis on the situation will not help.
Mr. Strauss said that a 2.8 unemployment rate is like saying that all
children are good. He pointed out that the 2.8 unemployment rate in Albemarle
County is one of the biggest fabrications that he has heard, and he stated
that all a person has to do is ride around the County to find out. He said
that businesses pay taxes, and if a GM or Ford plant comes to this area, there
will be a lot of money to spend. He said that this is an election year, and
he asked the Supervisors if they want to maintain the area or maintain the
people. He asked who the Supervisors are for.
Mr. Jim Wallheim, a resident of the County and a member of the local
business community, said that there has been much talk over the last couple of
years about the need for the County to attract new businesses to the area. He
said that this has been heard although the County is the envy in many respects
of the rest of the counties in Virginia and probably most in the country. He
pointed out that there is an extremely low unemployment rate here, high
average income, wonderful environment, strong planning, rich history and a
first class University. He said that there are those who think that these
things are not enough to attract the kind of business the area wants. He
added that some of these qualities that he hears discussed that are desired
from companies are environment, friendliness, quality jobs, meaning not
minimum wage, but $8.00 to $10.00 an hour and up and a willingness to hire
local people.
M.r Wallheim said he is Executive Vice President of Lakeland Tours,
which moved here 14 years ago. He noted that in 1979 a decision was made to
move the company here, and this decision was made for one reason. The
Lakeland Tours officials wanted a better quality of life for the people who
worked for them. He said that the company was fortunate because the business
was moveable and they could go anywhere in the country that they so desired.
He asked why did his company choose Charlottesville. He went on to say that
the President of the Company had a niece at the University of Virginia at that
time, and his sister said that it was a wonderful area, and that the company
officials should consider it. He mentioned this because he does not think
that it is the kind of reason that is so atypical and why many small success-
ful companies consider a place when they decide to relocate primarily because
of the quality of life. He said that his company chose Charlottesville for
the quality of life. He then asked how the community has benefitted from his
company moving here. At this point, he read a prepared statement in which he
gave some statistics relating to employment with his business. He asked the
Supervisors to continue to manage the growth that is in the County and not to
get into the business of promoting it.
Mr. Kevin Cox, an employee at the University of Virginia, stated that he
is not a developer, does not work for a developer and has no vested interest
in development, but he supports the Economic Development Policy. He added
that he is here tonight because he is concerned about his children's future in
the community, and he wants them to be able to stay here. He added that,
given the salary that he makes at UVA, he will not be able to afford to send
them to college, but he would like for them to be able to stay in the commu-
nity and have a decent quality of life. He went on to say that this whole
discussion seems bizarre to him. He said that the nation is in the middle of
an atypical recession, and people are screaming for the country to get back on
its feet. He commented that the people want to see the national economy
developed and revitalized anywhere but in Albemarle County. He pointed out
that Albemarle County is part of the United States, and it has a role to play
in the national economy. He would like to see that role being used for the
development of high technical and clean industries associated with the
research that is going on at the University. He said that the area has a fine
University that is deeply committed to research, and some good firms could be
attracted to this community, if the effort was made. He commented that rural
preservation does not have to be destroyed because of some well planned
economic development. He said that the two do not have to be at odds.
Concerning the issue of employment and the statistics, Mr. Cox stated
that the VEC's statistics are not correct. He said that the actual statistics
are double what the VEC reports. He has the methodology that VEC uses in
determining those statistics, and VEC acknowledges that its figures are wrong.
He stated that he brought some better indicators of the employment
circumstances with him. For example, Mr. Cox reported that between March,
1990 and March, 1993, the number of people in Albemarle County collecting food
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000169
stamps went from 1,664 to 2,858. He pointed out that this is an increase of
almost 1,200 people or a 74 percent increase. He said that if the median
family income increased by 15 percent, why did so many more people need food
stamps. He thinks that the median family income increase is a demographic
indicator that shows the shift in population as low and moderate income people
flee the County, so that they can buy a house that they can afford, while the
wealthy people move to Albemarle County. He said that this is not a valid
indicator or suggestive of the actual wages. He then noted that from
September, 1989 to September, 1992, the average weekly wages paid in the
County increased by $34 from $400 to $434. He said that these statistics came
from the Planning District, and the food stamp statistics came from the
Director's office of the Social Services Department. He reiterated that
unemployment statistics do not indicate in any way the wages that are paid.
He said that these statistics only indicate who is collecting unemployment,
and there are a lot of people left out of the statistics. He noted that in
the last two days, he went to over 200 homes in different mobile home parks,
knocked on doors, talked to people and explained to them what was happening
tonight. He said that all of them to whom he spoke wanted to come to the
meeting and express their support, but very few were able to come because they
are working two jobs, they are dead tired and they are sitting at home. He
added that a lot of them are very cynical, and said to him repeatedly that
Albemarle County has always been that way, and he will not be able to change
it. Mr. Cox said that he does not believe this, because he thinks that
reasonable, rational people can develop a policy that can promote some clean
economical development in this County without destroying the quality of life
for everyone. He encouraged the Board to move in this direction.
Mr. William Fitzgerald opened his remarks by saying that the current
rate of unemployment in Albemarle County is 2.8 percent. He said that the
Albemarle County area has the lowest percentage of unemployment in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Moreover, Mr. Fitzgerald said that Virginia is one
of the fastest growing states in the union. He mentioned that auto traffic is
almost impossible in the Albemarle and Charlottesville area. He stated that
the irony of the situation is that there are certain businesses in the County
and City who are opposing the interchanges. He does not think that these
businessmen have been successful because it looks as though the interchange
near Route 29 North is going to be constructed. He remarked that Route 29 is
being widened, so these issues are being addressed. He reported that, to put
this matter in perspective, four months ago he decided to redo his kitchen.
He stated that no one would believe how difficult it was to secure the workmen
to do this job. In the first place, Mr. Fitzgerald said that it was
extraordinarily expensive. He added that a person would have thought he was
building the Sistine Chapel. He went on to say that he can get a date with a
surgeon at IIVA Hospital or in Richmond quicker than he can get a date with an
electrician, carpenter, plumber, tile setter, house painter, roofer or metal
worker. He stated that the problem in Charlottesville and Albemarle County is
that a new plan for industrial growth is not needed. He said that the County
already has a good plan, and it should be followed. He emphasized that what
this County and City needs is trade schools. He pointed out that some of
these workmen to which he referred are getting $50 an hour. He had inquired
of certain workmen as to why they did not have a helper. He said that the
answer was that they could not be found, and if a workman is lucky enough to
find one, after he is trained, he will more than likely quit because he thinks
the work is too hard, and he would rather do something else. He noted that a
person can be unemployed anywhere, if he or she wants to be. He stated that
if a person is a lifeguard at a beach, that person will not have a job nine
months out of a year. He said that most of the grocery chains have jobs
available, but the people come and go. He added that people wan~ to be
President of the company before they have been clerks on the floor. His
recommendation is for this Board to vote this proposition down. He believes,
too, that the Supervisors should consider getting some group in the area to
start trade schools, because this is what is needed. He said that hundreds of
workers are needed in all of the different fields -- electricians, carpenters,
plumbers, tile setters, house painters, industrial painters, roofers and metal
workers. He said the people will not move here if things cannot be built.
Mr. Tom Olivier, a resident of the Scottsville District and President of
Citizens for Albemarle, spoke to the Board on behalf of that organization. He
read a prepared statement, dated June 16, 1993, and urged the Board to reject
CPA-93-02 and, instead, adopt a proposal for a study of the job base of the
County that would produce results useful in the coming Comprehensive Plan
update.
Mr. Reggie Marshall, Jr., a concerned citizen of Albemarle County, made
it clear that he is not aligned with any organization. He stated that he had
received a mailing from the Southwest Mountains Coalition with a fact sheet
which makes a persuasive case against the need for a more aggressive Economic
Development Policy than the County now has. He was particularly interested in
the amount of land that is already being actively developed or planned for
development by the private sector and the number of jobs this would create.
He asked if these figures are in error. He would like to see in a public
forum, such as this one, an equally persuasive case made on the points in this
document, before he would be convinced of the need for a change in the present
policy. He wondered if an actual public debate between the two sides could be
arranged by the League of Women Voters, or a similar organization. He said it
appears that there is a significant amount of appropriately zoned land already
slated for development in the near future. He added that if it is the point
of an Economic Development Department to screen, select and recruit
,: 000170
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
environmentally benign companies to occupy this land, then he would be all for
the proposal, provided that the jobs created would actually go to current
County residents. He went on to say that in its current form, the wording of
the policy is sufficiently vague so that it is unclear just what the effects
of it might be. He said that he would like to suggest a few changes that
would make the intent of the policy clearer or would put in safeguards to
ensure that the intent can be achieved without unforseen, adverse effects.
On Page One of the proposal, Mr. Marshall called attention to Strategy B
which mentioned selecting an Economic Council from the business community to
advise the Economic Development Department. He said that if more than empty
lip service is being paid to preserve the environment, this Council should
include someone qualified to represent environmental interests. He added that
this need not be an adversarial position, in fact, this person could be a
member of the business community, as well. He went on to say that having a
respected and knowledgeable environmentalist in on the decision making process
at the outset could very well enable the County to avoid disappointment and
embarrassment at a later date. He suggested that the Board, in filling this
position, consult a nature conservancy and organization with a long history of
working cooperatively with businesses to protect the environment whose Board
of Directors would include many successful business leaders and whose State
offices are here in Charlottesville. Next, Mr. Marshall read from Page Two
as follows: "The focus of the plan would be on economic activities that are
desirable and can provide jobs for the County." He amended this statement to
read, "The focus of the plan would be on economic activities that are desir-
able and can provide jobs for current residents of the County." He noted that
the stated goal of the policy is to offset higher unemployment and hidden
underemployment and to provide, "employment within the County that provides
residents with the opportunity to sustain or improve upon their standard of
living."
Mr. Marshall stated that within the last few years it was rumored that a
company was considering relocating here and bringing 300 of its own employees
with it. He realizes that a sudden influx of this magnitude would create a
temporary boom for the real estate and construction industry and a permanent
trickle-down effect for local businesses simply through the circulation of
their incomes. He said that it would also mean close to 1,000 new residents
consuming water and other resources and creating waste for the Landfill, the
elimination of open space to meet housing needs and tax increases to educate
more children. He emphasized that if this is the intent of the Economic
Development Policy, it should be stated at the beginning, so that the people
will know on what they are passing judgment. He said that if the goal is to
benefit those people who are already living here who are underemployed or
unemployed, a stipulation should be placed in the policy that an incoming
business would fill 80 to 90 percent of its positions with local residents.
He would like to ensure that the people who benefit from a more aggressive
Economic Development Policy are those who are intended to be the beneficiaries
and not a few already wealthy land speculators. On Page Three, Mr. Marshall
called attention to the statement which said, "Identify additional land areas
suitable for business and industrial expansion." He asked what is meant by
the word, "additional." He wondered if it meant additional to those areas
properly zoned for such expansion. He stated that if this involves changes in
the zoning, it should be stated in the beginning. On Page Four, Mr. Marshall
read, "Work with landowners to improve the marketability of their land." He
asked if this refers to the landowners' properly zoned land, or are landowners
being encouraged to apply for zoning variances. He reiterated that specifi-
city of wording would allay the suspicions of himself and like-minded County
residents. Also on Page Four, Mr. Marshall read from Strategy A in the middle
of the page, "Develop criteria for evaluating new economic activity to be sure
it fits the County's environmental, fiscal and economic guidelines." He then
quoted from the same page in the paragraph directly below Strategy A, that,
"The County is currently undertaking development of a fiscal impact model and
an economic impact model to help in decision-making." He asked why the County
is not considering an environmental impact model. He emphasized that suspi-
cions such as this give rise to the suspicion that environmental concerns are
being paid lip service without substantial action to back it up. He said that
now is the time, not later, to talk about this document very specifically so
that it means the same thing to everyone who reads it and to make changes in
the wording where clarification is needed. Then, if it is adopted as policy,
Mr. Marshall stated that everyone will know what it is that has been adopted,
and it will have the broadest possible support.
Ms. Mary Scott Birdsall stated that with all due respect to the legi-
timate frustration expressed by individuals tonight, she does not think that
the people in this room live in separate worlds. She said that, by defini-
tion, everyone in this room lives and works in the same world. She added that
many of the people get dirty together on the same farms, many people commute
to work in the same offices, stores and schools. She commented that regard-
less of what job it is that people hold when they get to their work place,
respect for one another does exist. She said that respect is essential, and
she knows that this body of elected people want very much for the County
residents to have fair chances. She went on to say that fair chances are
essential for individuals, both those who are unemployed and those who are in
the position to be employers. She said that a fair chance is essential for
the sustainable use of the resources of land and water, and a fair chance is
essential for a place in a classroom. She stated that a fair chance to
examine these complex issues within the context of the Comprehensive Plan,
which was developed to examine them, is essential. She remarked that
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
000171
reasonable and rational people developed that plan, and reasonable and
rational people can amend it. She asked that this be done reasonably and
rationally, and not tonight piecemeal, but during the upcoming Comprehensive
Plan review. She thanked the Board and all of the people who have come
forward to deal with these complex issues.
Mr. George Larie opposed CPA-93-02, the Economic Development Policy,
because he feels that the facts do not support the need for using County funds
to staff an Economic Development Office or to make the other services that are
required available. He thinks that the facts do not support the need because
history shows that left to its own devices, which is the natural development
process by people who are interested in development in the County, there has
been substantial development in the County during the last ten years. He
added that in the period of time between 1980 to 1990, there has been a 22
percent population growth which will double the population in 35 years. He
said that the unemployment rate, over the same period of time, has averaged
3.65 percent, and it is currently 2.8 percent. He pointed out that 2.8
percent of unemployment is much lower than the State or national average, as
is 3.6 percent. He added that incomes during the last three years are up 14
percent, which is higher than the rest of the State and the United States as a
whole, despite the fact that in this particular County the University has had
a wage freeze for the last three years. He stated that the tax base in the
1980 to 1990 period has gone up 71 percent. He noted that major employers in
this area are expanding, such as the University and State Farm. He said that
State Farm is building a new 140,000 square foot office building. He called
attention to the fact that currently approved by the County, through proper-
ties zoned by various developers, are properties that would add from 4,500,000
to 5,500,000 square feet of new space in the County. He stated that this
additional space could easily add 9,000 to 12,000 new jobs. He said it does
not seem to him that it is necessary for government to interfere in this
process and to actively stimulate industrial development. He added that
development is already well in hand, and he is not supportive of the idea of
spending additional tax dollars to staff such an industrial development
commission or to face up to the additional services that would be required
should, in fact, that commission stimulate industrial demand to the extent
that many new people would move into the County. Finally, he said that he
certainly does not support the idea of additional traffic in the County, since
it is already a serious problem. He appreciates the Board's consideration
concerning this difficult issue, but he does not recommend approval of the
amendment. He hopes the Board will not accept this recommendation.
Mr. Bill Nitchmann spoke in favor of moving the Economic Development
Plan forward in whatever way that the Board should see fit. He stated that he
is amazed at what he is hearing tonight, and he is chagrined and disappointed,
but most of all he is pleased. He said that he is pleased that there is a
forum on this subject, which he does not believe would have been possible
prior to January, 1992, and he thinks it is time that this issue is brought to
the forefront. He commented that one of the reasons that he, as a member of
the Planning Commission, asked the other members of the Planning Commission to
see if he could move forward with this issue, is because he was tired of
seeing individuals come into his place of business with resumes showing quali-
fications for jobs, but they were seeking $5.00, $6.00 and $7.00 an hour type
of labor positions, because quality jobs are not available in the County. He
has been studying this issue since 1991, and as recently as two weeks ago, he
learned of a degree engineering individual who worked at Sperry Marine for 12
to 15 years and lost his job. He said that the gentleman has to stay here
because his wife has two more years of responsibilities in the area, so Mr.
Nitchmann hired that individual at $7.00 an hour to work the counter. He
noted that figures are being announced here tonight about unemployment, and
the figures can be read in whichever way people wish, but his major concern is
that there is a definite need for more quality jobs here. He believes that
quality jobs bring with it a quality way of life. He went on to say that the
adoption and expansion of the Economic Development Program gives the County a
place to start. He does not expect it to end up exactly as it is written, and
he might not expect to see an Economic Development Department. He would
expect, however, to see an Economic Development Council made up of citizens of
this County so that there can be citizen input. He agrees with the previous
speakers that there needs to be input from all aspects of the County, and from
all of the different individuals within the County, whether they are environ-
mentalists or pro business. He also thinks that individuals should be found
in the County, who need jobs, to serve on this council. He thinks there needs
to be an across-the-board input from all the citizens of the County. He told
the Board members that they have some choices this evening, and they can table
the matter, but he believes that they can move it forward. He believes, too,
that the supervisors can have further work sessions on the issue. He reite-
rated that the choice belongs to the Supervisors. He disagrees that there is
a lot of building space available. He does not believe that just because
there are building structures available in the County, that these buildings
will be filled with quality types of jobs. He believes that the County needs
to look at the assets of the County. He said that the County needs to do all
of the things that the people are asking County officials to do while they
have been speaking against this Economic Council. He thinks that this matter
can be moved forward, and he pointed out that the purpose of this Council is
to put perspectives into place. He asked the Supervisors to think carefully
about what they have to do tonight. He stated that he agrees with all of the
thinHs that the people have said tonight. He said that the County needs
planned Hrowth and not rapid growth. He agrees with the flyers that say,
"Don't Fairfax Albemarle," and he thinks that all of the Supervisors agree
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
O00 .TZ
with that, too. He added that what is before the Board tonight is the first
step in putting into place what he believes this County requires, and that is
a well thought out plan for an Economic Development Program.
Mr. Roy Patterson stated that he had some notes, but he believes that
everything he was going to say, has already been said. He pointed out that he
supports the statement given to the Board by Tom Olivier, who spoke on behalf
of Citizens for Albemarle.
Mr. DeForest Mellon, a resident of the White Hall District, remarked
that there are numerous arguments to support rejection of the proposal now
before the Board to establish a Department of Economic Development. He said
that anyone who has moved here as recently as five years ago and has watched
the erosion of the fields and woodlands of this County for the development of
shopping malls and commercial enterprises, such as discount warehouses, knows
that economic development in the County not only is alive, but it is thriving.
He said that the problem the proposed department would address is not a
problem, in his opinion. He added that its establishment would be a flagrant
waste of taxpayers' money. He stated that the fact that the proposal for its
establishment has proceeded to the point of consideration by this community
and its governing body represents, in his opinion, a retrenchment by the
Planning Commission. He urged the Board to reject the amendment.
Mr. Vincent J. Pugh, a graduate student at the University of Virginia,
opposed the Economic Development Policy on general grounds. He said that,
historically, governments have grown from small, active and impressive people
to larger, less impressive groups. He called attention to a famous British
historian who outlined this type of principle in History of the World. He
said this historian's theory was that first there is a small government which
gets bigger and bigger and will then result in a citizen revolt. He went on
to say that this can be seen in the revolutions against socialistic govern-
ments. He asked the question as to whether government can handle this situa-
tion better than business. He said that everybody knows that money does not
grow on trees, but money has to come from somewhere. He wondered if the
government can do better with money than the citizens, if they have the money
in their pockets. His contention is that no government can do better than
business.
Mr. David Van Roijen, spoke for a lot of people who he has spoken to
over the last week. He said that there have been many opinions for and
against this policy. He added that he spoke to a realtor who was for this
proposal, but on the other hand, the realtor did not want to pay for it, as a
taxpayer. He spoke to a banker, who told him that Albemarle County was dying
on the vine and that this policy was really needed. He said that he had to
laugh at this person, because the banker was a friend of his, and he under-
stood his motives. He added that the vast majority of the people to whom he
spoke, said that there is sufficient growth as is. He went on to say that
these people thought that the County, and particularly this Board, could not
manage properly what is already here, and they wondered why there was a desire
for more business. He asked many people to speak tonight, or to call or
write. He said that perhaps some of them have spoken to some of the members
on this Board, but most of them responded with comments such as, "The Board
has its own agenda and does what it wants." He stated that, in this regard,
it seems to him that often the Board fails to heed even the advice of its own
Planning staff in a majority of cases. On the other side of the issue, Mr.
Van Roijen said that the County seems to have problems fully funding a myriad
of requests of already funded departments. He asked if this policy is
approved, will it mean that organizations such as Battered Women, CATEC and
hospices are not worthy of full funding when there is already a tight budget.
He added that it seems funds are available for a new bureaucratic department.
He believes that the Board would do well to focus on the growth that is
already here. He does not believe that the Board members are elected to try
to practice microeconomics, but rather to handle existing growth problems such
as schools, sewer, water, increasing taxes and job training. He stated that
the Supervisors cannot be fairy godmothers and godfathers to everyone, but
they can vote against this proposal and concentrate on doing a fine job in
supervising this County's growth rather than to try to force it down the
public's throat.
Ms. Kat Imhoff, called attention to a report from the National Council
for Urban Economic Development, entitled, "Forces in the New Economy Implica-
tions for Local Economic Development." She said that in this report it is
pointed out that the American economy nationwide is undergoing a dramatic
change that will have long range effects on economic development at the local
level, and the report urges local officials to think strategically about how
they will spend their limited resources and how they will invest in the
future. She said that overall the report pushes the need for thoughtful
planning for growth and development. She stated that this new attitude was
recently seen in Prince George County, Maryland. She remarked that there the
County Executive noted that, "We must invest in the areas where our people
live and where transportation and utilities are already in place." She said
that the message is clear, at least in that county, that it is no longer
practical or cost effective for the county to join others in chasing out-of-
state businesses in the promise of new jobs. She added that the County
Executive of Prince George County, Maryland, also went on to say that, "It
also makes no sense to continue the mindless suburban sprawl that eats up more
space, clogs our roads and devours government resources." She hopes that
Albemarle County could learn from the mistakes of Northern Virginia and
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
000:1.73
suburban Maryland. She asked that the Board stay on course with the current
Comprehensive Plan and not put taxpayer dollars into an Economic Development
Office, or economic development initiatives at this time. Instead, she asked
the Supervisors to look at all the issues during the upcoming Comprehensive
Plan review.
Mr. Ken Clarry stated that he has a business and a home in the County,
and he hopes that the Supervisors will vote in favor of the Economic Develop-
ment Plan, as it was presented by the Planning Commission. He said that this
is a thoughtful and a good plan, and will benefit the whole County, especially
those who seek good jobs, who employ people in businesses or who have children
and want to stay and work in this community. He added that it is not a plan
to invite smokestacks to Albemarle County, but it is a plan to invite good,
clean, high paying jobs to the area. He stated that this proposed plan is a
mechanism through which the County can deal with the issue of the economic
vitality of the region. He said that it is a tool to help everyone deal with
inevitable growth and to make an effort to provide enriching opportunities to
the County citizens and their children as they enter the work force. He
pointed out that none of the people present at tonight's meeting can stop the
County from growing. He suggested, though, that the growth be controlled,
planned for and managed. He noted that this plan is not about population
growth, but, instead, it is about economic growth. He stated that the hand-
outs that were given out in the hallway by opponents of this plan, speak to
the amount of industrial land available in the County. He said it is impor-
tant to note that much of this developable land has remained vacant for years,
and this plan may help to bring good, clean businesses to some of these
existing properties. He pointed out that this is an economic development plan
and not a plan for land development. He said that written into the goal of
the Economic Development Plan are things such as concern for hidden under-
employment, lack of traditional industry, preserving the environment, striving
for a balanced economic environment, improving the residents' standard of
living and fostering the vitality and retention of business activity. He said
that a move is hardly made in the County without study being given to the
environmental impact of that move, and he thinks that is fine. He asked if
concern should not be shown about the economic health of this County. He
suggested that people should challenge themselves to excellence in all aspects
of their lives. He said that without economic vitality, there will not be the
luxury of Sustaining many of the things that are valued by everyone in the
community. He urged the Supervisors to support the plan as presented. He
also urged everyone to actually read the proposed plan. He said that the plan
has been misinterpreted by several speakers tonight.
Mr. Carter Myers, a County resident, read a prepared statement to the
Board in which he supported the Economic Development Policy. Mr. Myers
suggested in his statement that the development of a strategic partnership
between the County and the private sector should be considered. He believes
that this would alleviate the concerns over County funding for this program.
Ms. Helen Gatling-Austin, a resident of the Red Hill area, stated that
she does not believe that economic growth is the lifeblood of the community.
She believes that the community is where people live, and it includes the
land, air and water. She said that lifeblood is having a small community
where everyone knows the people around them. She is against this proposal.
She said that more growth is not needed because there is already a lot of
growth in the County.
Mr. James King stated that it is shocking to him, if the ten percent
growth rate really means that the population will be doubled in 35 years or
even in 70 years, and it will be a process where the County citizens will lose
a lot of things. He is not just talking about the natural environment, but he
is talking about the cultural environment, stress on individuals, the social
problems, crime rates and other things which will result from that increase in
population. He pointed out that it is not as it has been in the past where
maintaining the area is considered versus maintaining the people. He stated
that this County is growing at an incredible rate. He thinks that the County
can handle this, if the growth is directed at a lesser rate into the growth
areas. He added that this cannot be done, however, if economic development is
set aside separately from community development. He said that, if there is a
council, and especially a department which is separate from the Department of
Community Development and not fully integrated with it, there will be a
situation of environment versus economic development. Instead of looking at
the changes that are needed in the job structure, such as the $8.00 to $10.00
an hour jobs that are needed, people from the outside will be attracted to the
County. He believes that this is a serious problem that has to be considered
deeply in terms of all of its social significance. He mentioned all of the
people who are saying that jobs have to be available for their children and
their children's children, when they have more than two children. He said
that the effect on family structure has to be considered, etc. He thinks that
a sophisticated study is needed, and he is very much in favor of the study
that has been proposed by several people. He is not, however, in favor of a
separate Economic Department. He said that if a separate department is set
up, the County will explode.
Ms. Ellen G. Craddock, from the northwest part of the County, remarked
that she had a statement she was going to present. However, in view of the
late hour, Ms. Craddock said that she would not read it in its entirety. She
said that, instead, she would simply state for herself and the two next
speakers, Rosemary Dent and Jane Dudinsky, who have decided not to speak
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000174
tonight, that they all live in the same area and are opposed to the proposal
for a Department of Economic Development, for the reasons that have already
been set forth.
(Mr. B. J. Shaw-Kennedy was the next speaker on the sign up sheet, but
he left the meeting before he spoke.)
Mr. Milton B. Moore remarked that, as Rush Limbaugh would say, "a mega
ditto to all of those who oppose the amendment at this time." He went on to
say that he will not read his entire letter, which he has already given to the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, but he wanted to emphasize a couple of
points which have not already been made. He noted that on March 11, Mrs.
Humphris asked the Board to affirm a set of sound principles. He strongly
urged the Board to follow through on her points. He also subscribes to the
points made by Mr. Reuben Clark to the Albemarle Planning Commission on May 4,
1993. Mr. Moore's two major concerns are the growth issue and how it affects
the physical environment of the community and the finances of the County. He
thinks that the Board's primary duty is what the Supervisors have already been
doing, and that is to plan, control and manage the growth within the County.
On a personal note, he informed the Board that he has a 26 year career in the
Air Force, and he has lived in a lot of cities and has seen a lot of growth
and progress in those cities. After ten or twenty years, when he returns to
these cities, he sees the results of this growth, which amounts to traffic and
congestion. He believes it is the same thing that is happening on Route 29
North. He mentioned that when he was in Las Vegas in pilot training in 1957,
it was a small town of approximately 40,000. He said that now the Las Vegas
area has over 1.0 million people. He remarked that control of these types of
situations is a big problem. He commented that he heard the concern tonight
at this meeting about underemployment. He does not personally feel that
bringing in more industry will solve this problem. He does not think that
everybody will move up to a better salary because industry will be brought
into the County. He believes that industry begets the types of $5.00 and
$6.00 jobs that have been mentioned tonight, because it brings in more people
and, therefore, more of the low priced service jobs. He has also seen a
figure which indicated that for every person who comes into an area because of
an industry, who pays $1.00 in taxes, the current people in that area will pay
$1.20 for the services that those people need. He thinks that this fact
should be taken into consideration. He next pointed out that there is between
4.2 million and 5.0 million square feet being actively developed by private
individuals, companies and the UniverSity. He believes that this would be
sufficient to meet the County's needs for many years to come. He suggested
that if Mr. Nitchmann is concerned about the $7.00 an hour that he is paying
the counter man with the Engineering Degree, then perhaps he should raise his
salary.
Mr. F. A. (Tony) Iachetta stated that he had promised himself when he
left the Board of Supervisors that he would not speak at meetings very often,
because he remembers as a Board member how hard it was to listen and try to
evaluate citizens' comments. He knows of no community that has put in place
the type of organization proposed here and has benefitted economically from
the activity during the long term. He said that in almost every case the tax
rate goes up, the population increases and the quality of living goes down.
He grew up in an immigrant neighborhood in New Jersey many years ago, which
was highly industrialized with lots of good jobs. His father was a skilled
mechanic in the machine tool industry. He pointed out that this industry has
disappeared, as well as a lot of others. He said that there is no way of
knowing what the future will give the area in the way of jobs.
Mr. Iachetta stated that this is a bad proposition because it creates a
new bureaucracy which is not needed. He said that growth should be dealt with
through the current organization. He suggested, however, that there is a need
for a less hostile environment for those who propose to come to this commun-
ity. He has had occasion in the last year to deal with some of the contrac-
tors who are working on a building for his church. He said that the constant
input from these people who have to deal with the County's bureaucracy is that
it is totally hostile. He added that these people get resistance and no
cooperation. He thinks that this is a serious problem because it does stifle
meaningful and good development that the community could have, if the reputa-
tion is that the County officials really do not want them here, no matter what
they wish to bring to this community. He told the Board members that they
should address this issue, and the proper way to address it is in the normal
review of the Comprehensive Plan. He went on to say that this procedure has
been in place over 20 years, and he thinks it has worked well. He commented
that a plan is decided upon during each five year increment, and then County
officials should see to it that this plan is brought to fruition. He thinks
that there should be fewer rezonings if planning is well done, because every-
body in the community would be aware that the community has decided that it
wishes to have certain kinds of growth. He said that this is his idea of the
Comprehensive Plan, although he does not know if it has worked well at all
times. He stated that he would leave the proposed plan to be included in the
Board's review of the Comprehensive Plan next year, but not as an effort to
create still another bureaucracy. He said that there are plenty of those now.
Mr. Brad Eure, a resident of the County and representative of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, stated that he is also a member
of the Chamber's Board of Directors and Co-Chair of the Economic Development
and Retention Committee. He said that the Supervisors are in receipt of the
recommendation from the Chamber's Board for the passage of this plan, and he
June 16, 1993 (Resular Nisht Meetins) r000~5
(Page 21)
urged the Board to approve the proposal tonight. He told the Supervisors that
they have heard much on the pros and cons of the economic development plan as
formulated and approved by the Planning Commission. He thinks that both sides
of the issue have made some good points, and he especially liked Tom Olivier's
suggestions, as he represented Citizens for Albemarle. Mr. Eure then read his
prepared remarks and called attention to an article entitled, "A Case for
Strategic Planning," by Delegate W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., as it appeared in a
publication from the Commission on Population Growth and Development. He said
the Supervisors will be forced to make some sort of decision tonight from the
information that they have heard, and he encouraged them to adopt the proposed
Economic Development Plan.
Mr. Charles Lebo stated that there is no doubt among many that Albemarle
County has not been receptive to welcoming new businesses to this area. He
said that the past policy of no growth resembles liberalism, and those who
consider themselves as conservatives, seek a change in Albemarle County
policy, as it relates to business growth. He remarked that this Board has
continued to exempt businesses from locating here directly and indirectly
under the guise of the Comprehensive Plan. He added that, while the
Comprehensive Plan is important to the area, it is only a plan designed by
people for all the people, and not just the vocal liberals who want to block
the entrances to the area once they move here from New York, New Jersey,
Boston, etc. He noted that specific examples of good businesses which were
unwelcome by the Board of Supervisors include a printing company, a health
farm and a reported Fortune 500 company. He said that these businesses
located in communities where they felt welcome, and those communities
benefitted from new jobs, broader tax bases, more divergent populations and a
place for young adults to work so that they did not have to move away from
their parents as they grew older. He welcomes the idea of the County adopting
an economic policy, plan and/or authority to promote clean business to the
area. He stated that the business sector has, for many years, paid its share
of taxes with little return in this context. He feels it is time that the
business sector gets its share of how it wants taxes spent, and that is to
have the appropriate funds established for the promotion of good, clean
business. He concluded by saying that if people want to start quoting Rush
Limbaugh, remember that Mr. Limbaugh promotes freedom, and that includes
freedom of growth.
Ms. Barbara Payne, who lives in the White Hall District, remarked that
she is not opposed to jobs for people or economic planning, but she is opposed
to the establishment of a Department of Economic Resources with the express
purpose of attracting new business to this area. She said that it has been
demonstrated many times that new business does not necessarily provide jobs
for the resident population, but it does attract new population. She feels
that County services are already strained beyond capacity by the growth that
the County is already experiencing.
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom spoke on his own behalf. He said that he is
not a contentious person, but when the numbers that he has worked hard to put
together are described to this Board as being known by him to be inaccurate
and double what he has reported, he has to contend with that statement. He
stated that the numbers which this Board has heard tonight, for which he is
responsible, are as accurate as he can make them, and he hopes that he is
always able to do a responsible job. He thinks that the notion of providing a
government solution to this type of problem is a conservative proposal, and
having the government to stay out of it is a liberal one. He believes that
this is a rather remarkable political concept, which is totally foreign.
Mr. Chuck Beegle stated that many points have been made in opposition to
this proposal, and rather than repeating many of those same issues, he would
like to go on record in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Steve Blaine informed the Board that he has had the pleasure of
serving on the Chamber of Commerce Business Retention Committee with Mr. Eure
and other capable business leaders. He thinks the case has been made with
some of the statistics that have been pointed out tonight, that strategic
planning needs to be improved for dealing with growth issues. He added that
the Committee's position is fairly stated that economic development is a
critical element of effective strategic planning. He does not think that this
is any less articulated in the article by Delegate Murphy, who is the Chairman
of the Commission on Population Growth and Development, which was mentioned
earlier. He said it is interesting that this Committee has studied these
growth issues since its inception in 1989. He added that the Commission is
not really trying to re-invent the wheel, but economic development is an
important aspect of that Committee. He thinks that the figures relating to 22
percent growth over the last ten years, and the problems that people in the
County see as a result of that growth, indicate that there is room for
improvement. He believes that it is fair to say that the Committee would like
to see this County use all of the arsenals available to improve its strategic
planning, and that would support developing some policy for economic develop-
ment. He remarked that the County has a strong Planning Department staff and
capable people who have good ideas, and they have developed advanced policies
in protecting the County's natural resources. He thinks that a case for
moving this plan along now, rather than waiting for the Comprehensive Plan
review, is that some catching up needs to be done. He said that the County
has to learn some things relating to the economic development area. He
mentioned that the group has heard tonight about economic development being
the "lifeblood in the body," as well as, "hands squeezing clay." He said that
O00:l.'?G
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
another metaphor would be that the County's economic development arm has been
in a cast for the last ten years, and the other arms of the County are very
strong. He added that great inroads have been made in protecting the County's
environment, but the cast needs to be taken off so that the withered arm can
catch up with the strong arm. He commented that this County is rich in
resources and talent. He said that there are people who have come to this
County with experiences to improve the County's strategic planning. He went
on to say that these people have lived in other areas, and they have seen the
mistakes made there. He believes that the County should be able to tap these
resources and come up with the best plan. He added that the people, with the
same view as his Committee, would like to see the County proceed without one
arm tied behind its back.
Mr. John Sandborn stated that he has lived in the County for 36 years.
He said that he is a lifelong resident and has gone to local schools. He went
on to say that approximately six years ago he started a business in the County
and has maintained it. He added that just recently he has had to become
politically involved. He reiterated that he is just a businessman. He stated
that now he has had to come before the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors because he believes in what needs to be done in the County, and
the business community needs to step forward. He pointed out that he is also
an environmentalist and tries to do his fair share. He is concerned about the
landfills, roads, etc. He stated that he agrees with almost everything that
all of the speakers tonight have said. He noted that this is an emotional
issue, and it will be a tough issue for the Supervisors to decide. He said
that everybody has to be open-minded about the matter, and there are two sides
to a coin. He asked the Supervisors to think about the future of the County
and the children who will need jobs in the future, as well as the people who
are working now or not working now. He asked the Supervisors to try to make
the right decision.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick stated that last year she was working on a project
in southwest Virginia. She said that Ford Quillan, the legislator from that
area, when he heard that Ms. Buttrick was from Albemarle County, remarked that
Albemarle County had everything, and his area had nothing. She said that he
continued to say that Albemarle County could choose any business that was
desired. She said that the people in his area were competing to get the
federal prison because it was all that they could get. She asked that the
things in Albemarle County not be degraded and that higher taxes not be
charged to the citizens. She urged the Board to reject this proposed
amendment in its entirety.
Mr. Don Wagner, a resident of Albemarle County, spoke on his own behalf
and as President of the Great Eastern Management Company, which is head-
quartered and does business in Albemarle County, and as Chairman of the North
Charlottesville Business Council, which represents a number of businesses in
the Route 29 area. He said that he has listened to radio programs and read
newspaper articles and letters opposing this plan. As he has listened tonight
to some of the things that were said in opposition, he finds it hard to
believe that the opponents and he have read the same document. He added that
the plan is not radical, and it does not advocate a drive for economic
expansion. He said that it simply proposes gathering appropriate data and
making rational decisions based on that data. He went on to say that it would
put the County in a pro-active rather than a reactive situation when new
businesses are considered or when trying to save existing businesses.
He has also been struck by parallels with this proposed change to the
Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space Plan, which was the last Comprehensive
Plan change that was considered. He hopes that the Board will also see these
parallels and adopt this plan now, just as the Board did the Open Space Plan
then. He said that he came tonight to quote the Supervisors' minutes of the
Open Space hearing. He is comfortable that the quotations that he will use
are not taken out of context and he will provide the Chairman with a high-
lighted copy of those minutes. He then proceeded to quote from the minutes
statements made by Mr. Tim Lindstrom. He said that on the particular night
from which these quotations were taken, the Supervisors voted to approve the
Open Space Plan, which Mr. Lindstrom had characterized as protecting one part
of the County's resources.
Mr. Wagner urged the Supervisors to approve the Economic Development
Plan tonight to protect and enhance another and, at least, equally important
part of the County's resources. He stated that even with all of its natural
beauty, Albemarle County is not a nice place to live, unless a person is
wealthy or has a good job. He next referred back to Mr. Lindstrom's comments
which he had just quoted, and he said that Mr. Lindstrom indicated that the
Open Space Plan was a gesture and not a regulation. Mr. Wagner noted that at
the Open Space public hearing, some people were concerned that the plan would
infringe on their property rights. He said that Mr. Lindstrom's characteriza-
tion of the Open Space Plan as a gesture was one of many attempts to alleviate
their concerns by saying that nothing specific would happen without legisla-
tion to implement the plan. Mr. Wagner did not entirely believe this, and
speaking at the Open Space hearing, he said that once a plan is adopted, it
carries a lot of weight, even though it does not carry the same force of law
as an ordinance. Mr. Wagner said that this was true then of the Open Space
Plan, and it will be true now of the Economic Development Plan, if it is
adopted. While he has some reservations about this argument, he will point
out that it was one of the Supervisors' justifications for adopting the Open
Space Plan. He added that if the Supervisors thought that it was a valid
June 16, 1993 (Resular Nisht Meetins) 0001~7
(Page 23)
consideration then for discounting some of the fears expressed by property
owners, he hopes they will believe that it is valid now and use it to discount
some of the opposition to this plan.
Mr. Wagner pointed out that the establishment of an Economic Development
Department is one part of the plan which has drawn much attention. He sugges-
ted that initially the duties that are proposed for an Economic Development
Department be instead assigned to the existing Department of Planning and
Community Development. He said that by adopting this plan, the staff would
not have any more additional workload, than last year, when the Open Space
Plan was approved. He noted that opponents have also stated that if this plan
is adopted, there will be a huge cost to the County. First of all, Mr. Wagner
stated that simply adopting the plan will not cost a cent unless the Supervi-
sors make an appropriation. Next, he referred again to the Open Space paral-
lel, where he had pointed out at the hearing that accomplishing the objectives
of that plan would cost money, and there was no indication as to from where it
would come. He said that the Open Space Plan was approved without even
discussing the cost. He wonders why, if cost was not a matter of concern
then, it should be a deciding factor now. He added that this is a matter for
which the County is more than likely to get a lot of free outside help. He
noted that someone suggested that the adoption of this plan be delayed until
the fiscal impact and economic models are in place. He said that this plan
includes using those models to determine what types of industry are desirable
for Albemarle County. He went on to say that this comes after a lot of
preliminary work. He suggested that this plan be adopted and gotten started.
He added that the models should be in place long before they are needed for
purposes of this plan.
He then mentioned that several local groups have often advanced the
premise that any new economic development in the County would result in
increased taxes for existing County residents. He does not believe this. He
pointed out that the University of Virginia is without question the largest
local industry. He said that a significant portion of the University is
located in Albemarle County. He checked today with the County Assessor's
office to find the assessed value of non-taxed University real estate located
in Albemarle County, and the total value of all taxed real estate in Albemarle
County. He also found out the amount of the small annual fee the University
pays the County each year for services. He said that the difference between
the fee that the University pays and the taxes they would pay if privately
owned was $3,083,642, which is just over ten percent of the County's total
annual income from real estate taxes. In other words, Mr. Wagner explained,
if the University were taxed, the County's individual real estate taxes could
be reduced by ten percent which does not include the multi-millions of dollars
worth of vehicles and equipment at the University which would be taxed as
personal property, if privately owned. He is glad that the University is here
because it brings much to the area, but it does not bring taxes. He is
absolutely convinced that clean industries, which pay taxes, are equally
desirable in Albemarle County. He mentioned that in the late 1970's, R. R.
Donnelly and Sons, the world's largest printer, was interested in locating
here. He pointed out that the Board of Supervisors, at that time, refused to
meet with the Donnelly representatives, and Donnelly went to Harrisonburg,
where the company now has over 600 employees. He went on to say that last
week the Donnelly Company announced a multi-million dollar, 250,000 square
foot expansion which will result in an increase of 200 persons in the work
force. At about the same time as the Donnelly Company was desiring to locate
in Albemarle County, Swift, an international monetary fund transfer company,
using sophisticated and expensive computer facilities, was interested in
coming to Albemarle. He said that the transfer company was also not welcomed
in Albemarle County, and went to Culpeper, instead. He understands that the
transfer company's taxes are equal to approximately 12 percent of Culpeper's
budget. He noted that if Albemarle County had the proposed Economic Develop-
ment plan in place fifteen years ago, there would have been a criteria to say
in advance whether or not Donnelly and Swift would be a welcome addition, and
we would not now be wondering what could have been.
Mr. Wagner said he was present for most of the preliminary discussion on
this proposed economic plan when the Supervisors met with the Planning
Commission on May 5. He stated that Ms. Humphris had said, at that time, that
she did not know why this plan was needed. He believes that she provided one
good reason. He mentioned that last year when the Board was discussing the
Open Space Plan, the minutes of that meeting say, "Mrs. Humphris said she
feels that planning is the absolute key for the future of this County. There
is a growing population with much more growth to come. The important thing is
that the Board show vision and learn from history." He told Mrs. Humphris and
other Board members that they have a chance to learn from history, show vision
and help plan the County's future. He asked the Supervisors not to let this
opportunity pass.
Ms. Ellen Schoonover, a resident of Albemarle County, spoke on her own
behalf. She respectfully requested that the Supervisors follow through with
the study that they commissioned in their attempt to deal with the complex
issue of stewardship of the economic vitality of the County of Albemarle. She
said that she grew up in the Charlottesville area, received an education in
Virginia and the midwest, served on active duty in the U.S. Navy and continues
to serve in the reserve forces. She returned to her home town to try to raise
her three children in Albemarle County to be near her parents. Despite her
education and experience, it has not been easy to obtain other than retail
service employment. She has worked part time in a local school system and is
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0001~8
(Page 24)
now new in business in the City/County area. She is confused by the fact that
most of those who have spoken tonight in favor of a strategic plan are hard
working employees and employers of local business. She said that those who
are opposed to a strategic plan appear to be predominantly retired citizens or
perhaps in business in this County. She is saddened by this dichotomy. She
is also struck by the need for the elected Supervisors to obtain accurate data
to define the true economic situation in the County. She asked that the
Supervisors develop some strategic program to control and manage County growth
so as to protect the remaining high quality assets of the community other than
just the University of Virginia.
Mr. Wendell Wood stated that over the years he has grown to respect the
difficult task which the Supervisors have. He mentioned the comments that
Tony Iachetta and Tim Lindstrom had made before this Board tonight. He added
that over the past 30 years, he has let the Supervisors know how he feels
about development and some of their decisions. He finds it hard to admit that
he has to agree with Tim Lindstrom about the liberal and conservative propo-
sal. He pointed out that he has never come before this Board and asked for
assistance in developing anything. He does not know that a commisSion is
needed, but he is certainly in favor of economic development. To follow Mr.
Iachetta's comments, Mr. Wood said that he would be happy not to have to deal
in the hostile environment. He stated that this is all he asks. He thinks
that there is enough in this County to attract the top industries in this
nation, if the County would put forth a willingness to show respect to these
industry officials. He pointed out that a high powered commission is not
needed because this community speaks for itself. He said that the very
elements that are offered by this County are enough to attract businesses. He
mentioned that he has a substantial amount of land in this County, and he is
willing to compete with any other location in the United States to sell his
product here. He does not need the Supervisors' help, other than to show
respect to industries when they want to locate here. He said that an open
mind is also important, and he noted that he does not believe that there has
been open-mindedness in the past. He stated that this Board has made the
decision that it does not wish to meet with industry. He does not need a
commission to back him up, because there is a product in the County, and he
has no trouble in selling his product on a fair playing field. He will
compete with anybody in this nation, but he dislikes the hostility to which
Mr. Iachetta referred. He said that it is unbelievable how much hostility
there is to be dealt with from the local Planning Department.
Mr. Wood thinks that if the Supervisors err tonight, they should err on
the side of economic development. He believes that this is the safest bet for
the Board because the audience before the Board tonight is not a representa-
tive audience of this County. He said that the Supervisors know the facts,
and no one has to tell them about costs, etc. He said that he has built more
roads, more sewer lines and more water lines without any assistance from this
County out of his own pocket. He has never been before the Supervisors to ask
them for funds. He recalled that he built a hotel, but he did not ask for
funds, even though he lost money on it. He asked that the Supervisors let
private enterprise do what it wants to do, and let private enterprise live or
die by what it does. He is willing to compete in that arena. He does not
need government assistance, but he does not like a hostile environment. He
asked that the field not be slanted which would put him at a disadvantage when
he is trying to deal with a Fortune 500 company. He said that the people at
the meeting are very fortunate, and he hopes that he is one of them. He joked
that if anyone is fortunate to have hair in this crowd, it is gray, and that
is not where the future is. He reiterated that he is not in favor of a
commission. He suggested that business be given a chance to go out and do
what it needs to do, with support from County officials. He stated that there
will not be any smokestacks, and he is not in favor of that, nor of a heavy
machinery outfit. He said that this community does not have jobs that are of
good quality. He noted that he has four children in their 20's who are all
college graduates. He said that two of them graduated at the top of their
classes. He stated that he has to subsidize them to keep them in this town.
He added that he wants them here, but they have job offers outside of the
Commonwealth of Virginia at triple the salary of what they could make in this
community. He thinks that more opportunity needs to be offered, and that is
all that he is asking. He reiterated that people need to be given a chance
and opportunity. He said that if the Supervisors do not believe that provid-
ing good jobs is an opportunity, then there is no sense in having a discus-
sion. He stated that opportunity is all people ask. He noted that not
everybody is going to succeed, but everyone should have a level playing ground
and available opportunities.
Mr. Bowerman stated that this is the end of the list for all of the
people who signed up to speak. He asked if there is anyone else who feels
compelled to add anything to this discussion before the public hearing on
Economic Development is closed.
No one came forward to speak, so, at 10:40 p.m., Mr. Bowerman closed the
public hearing. He thanked everyone for their comments. He said that he did
not think that he had ever seen so many well thought out and prepared state-
ments, with very little repetition.
Mr. Martin stated that, trying to look at both sides so that a rationale
can be developed, it seems as though most people are in agreement, but he does
not believe that the people are understanding each other. He thinks that
everybody is in agreement for the necessity of planning. He said that Ms.
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
000179
Buttrick had said it the best when she described what the man had said to her
about living in Albemarle County and being able to choose any business. Mr.
Martin believes that this is the crux of the whole situation, and he remarked
that the County probably can choose from different businesses~ but there has
never been anything in place to allow this choice. He said that there has
never been any kind of strategic plan to allow a choice, which has meant that
Route 29 has grown, but if people had been able to express their views, some-
thing else may have been preferable. He added that if a choice is available
then there needs to be a mechanism to say that this is something that County
citizens would like to have, and another thing may be something that is not
desirable. He thinks that the Board really needs to go forward, even though
he is not necessarily in favor of having a separate department. He does not
think that a separate department is necessary, but he thinks that the Board
needs to move forward in some manner, so that there is some type of strategic
way to plan for the County's growth. He went on to say that, if it is the
County citizens' desire to preserve, conserve and protect, the citizens should
also be able to plan to at least have some mechanism in place to choose
businesses, because there is no mechanism in place to choose one thing versus
another. He said that it just happens. He believes that this has created a
situation where there is an abundance of service industry jobs and that is
all. He thinks that something needs to be done about this and he is concerned
because, if his son decides not to go to college, he will not be able to live
in this area. He added that if his son should decide to live in this area
without going to college, he would have to subsidize him, and he does not have
the resources to subsidize him now, and probably will not be able to at a
later time. Mr. Martin believes that there are a lot of people in the
community just like him who have to go to work every day for someone else,
realizing that if they do lose their jobs, they will have a difficult time
finding another one which pays the same amount of money. He said that these
people are also showing concern for their children as far as whether or not
their children will ever be able to afford the American Dream in Albemarle
County, which is a home. He noted that a lot of his friends are moving out of
Albemarle County, because they cannot afford to live here.
Mr. Bowerman asked if anything had changed Mr. Martin's thinking over
the past four or five weeks, as he thought about these issues, worked with the
public and talked to people. Mr. Martin responded, "no." He said that in the
beginning he did not feel as though a department devoted strictly to develop-
ment was needed. He thinks that this should be strategic planning where all
aspects of the County are being planned for at the same time. He reiterated
that he does not feel that a separate department is desirable or necessary.
He believes that it is more desirable to have people in the Planning Depart-
ment doing the County's planning including any type of economic plan which
might be done. In his opinion, economic planning means that some things
should be encouraged, and other things should be discouraged, so that a choice
can be made.
Mr. Bowerman commented that during the last four weeks he has spent a
lot of time talking to the public in terms of suggestions and what the
policies of the County should be. He thinks that it has been a concentrated
effort on his part to focus on these issues. He said that Mr. Nitchmann
mentioned the fact that, if his program has done nothing else, it has focused
on the issues. Mr. Bowerman put down some of his thoughts this afternoon
about the situation with which the Board is dealing, and the comments that he
heard. He supports more County involvement in working with existing and
potential employees, but he believes that this should be private sector
initiated with County involvement and support. He said that the County should
be in a position to take advantage of employment opportunities when they
present themselves so that this Board can improve the community for the
citizens. He added that part of this involves being more receptive, both in
appearance and in fact, and that is why he supports a change in the "Goal
Statement" of the Comprehensive Plan. He is referring to the first part of
the plan that is recommended to this Board by the Planning Commission. He
read from this "Goal Statement" as follows, "Develop a comprehensive economic
development program which is consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals
and achieves a stable, sustainable economic environment within which the
citizens of the County can pursue economic well-being." He mentioned that Don
Wagner, Tony Iachetta and Wendell wood all spoke to the issue of appearance,
receptivity and open-mindedness, and they came from different aspects of the
problem. Mr. Bowerman recalled the situation with the Fortune 500 company and
the discussion that went on at that time, and the discussion that was held
tonight, and he agreed with a great deal of what he heard from every speaker.
He said that the question is how this can be synthesized, so that there can be
something with which the community can work that benefits the whole community.
He noted that whatever else has been done, he has to also be aware that in
this time of recession and what this County has been faced with in terms of
the loss of jobs, that in four years, 4,000 employees have been added in
Albemarle County. He pointed out that the County has gone from 33,633 people
who were employed in 1989 to the latest figure of 37,623, which is 3,990 more
employees. He does not know about the unemployment rate, and underemployment
can be discussed. He said that the first information that he received about
true underemployment was given to him two days ago, when he spoke to Sally
Thomas at the University of Virginia. He stated that Ms. Thomas told him that
30 percent of the clerks who work for the University of Virginia have either a
Bachelor of Science or a Bachelor of Arts degree. He added that this is the
first time that he has heard anything concretely about the statistics which
deal with the potential of employment. He believes that this is the type of
information that is needed and that it can be gained by adopting this "Goal
000 180
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Statement and letting the private sector identify the areas where they need
assistance from the County, whether it is in education or at CATEC. He is not
saying that all parts of the plan before this Board are not appropriate
because he thinks that many sections of it are appropriate, but it is too big
of a change tonight. He would like to see this plan developed more fully and
incorporated into the full review of the Comprehensive Plan, which will be
coming up in a few months. He thinks that the Board's policy of staff meeting
with potential employers when they come to the area will be helpful. He said
that these employers will be shown the land in the County that is either
designated or zoned for industrial use, and they will be told that, if what
they are bringing to the County makes sense, then the County officials will be
receptive, and the employers will be shown the planning process and made
welcome to this community. He added that if this is something that was not
done before, he thinks that it was wrong. He said, however, that this plan
has been initiated, now, and he thinks that it has created a different
environment. He believes that this, along with the "Goal Statement," which is
supportive of other Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, makes a lot of
sense. He reiterated that this Board needs to work with the private sector,
which is a key element, because he thinks that the point relating to liberals
and conservatives and what is being recommended is apt. He believes that this
is a private sector responsibility in which the government can participate.
He stated that there could be two members of this Board on any board or
commission that the private sector puts together, or there could be a full
Board appointed by the Board of Supervisors. He pointed out that there are
different ways to do this, but he likes reliance on the private sector.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman would support changing the goal, or at
least as it is written in the Comprehensive Plan, currently, so that it is
more pro-active. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this could be done. He said that
it would be a recognition that a lot of points have been made that are
positive, but also reflective of the fact that the County is what it is, and
people want to come here because of what has been done in the past.
Mr. Martin inquired if then the Board would work on the strategies for
that goal during the Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Bowerman answered that he
is basically suggesting that these strategies be considered as a community,
drawing a lot from what has been said tonight.
Mr. Martin stated that he will not call this a first step because he
thinks that this is a good second or third step in the right direction. He
could support Mr. Bowerman's suggestion.
Mr. Bain commented that there were a lot of good remarks from many
members of the public made tonight. He said that he likes to deal with facts,
and he really thinks that the facts need to be found. He mentioned Mr.
Olivier's remarks, and Mr. Bain agreed that it needs to be determined as to
who is unemployed and underemployed, what are the percentages and where these
people are in the community. He said that some better figures could be used
than those offered by the VEC. He thinks that some people have a better
understanding of VEC and its figures than others. He asked that the Supervi-
sors not make rash judgments and decisions when they are not dealing with the
facts. He stated that getting the facts might mean that a staff member or a
committee in the community might have to deal with this in the next six months
to come up with some information. He said that this information would not
necessarily be similar to that of the Fiscal Impact Committee, because its
study is more comprehensive than what is being considered here. He said that
there could be some good solid data within the narrow confines of job areas
which will really be needed during the entire Comprehensive Plan review. He
would support this type of situation.
He hears what Mr. Bowerman is suggesting and what other people have
said, and he has always felt that the business people in this community can
take care of themselves. He listened to Mr. Wood's comments, and he pointed
out that he and Mr. Wood grew up in this community and have seen a lot of
things happen over many years. He added that a lot of mistakes have been
made. He noted that Albemarle County did not have any zoning until the late
1960's. He said that the people voted against zoning in 1966, but the General
Assembly required it in 1967. He stated that he knows about the University's
problems. He went on to say that nobody wants to put the University down,
because it has provided a lot for this community in the way of quality of
life, employment and student dollars. He supports the concept of the one
community. He said that the business community, the University, the City and
the County need to be involved much more than they have been in the past, and
in a better way. He is not sure what the forum should be, but the facts need
to be found as well as the implications for this community. He mentioned the
2,000 student growth at the University which is mandated by the State. How-
ever, he noted that the County nor the City is asked whether or not they can
handle these students nor where the students will be nor who is going to take
care of them. He knows that there are some good things brought out by the
Tayloe Murphy Commission, but some things are not thought through very well.
He reiterated that part of the problem lies in the General Assembly mandating
to the University or State agencies that certain things have to be done no
matter what happens in the community. He asked if this is the way that the
State should be passing this on to us as local citizens and taxpayers in this
community. He believes that more thought needs to be given to this situation
at the State level as well as the community level. He knows that this goes
beyond the issue before this Board tonight, but he likes to look at the broad
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
0001.8:1.
picture. He wants the broad picture to be considered comprehensively, and
that includes the economic growth of this community.
Mr. Bain said he has a lot of questions on this plan because he does not
see fact basis for a number of items that are shown. He knows that this is a
general statement given to this Board by the Planning Commission, but it needs
fact base, and he supports trying to obtain fact base. He does not support
hiring a lot of new people because he does not think that it is necessary, and
he would not support that. He next mentioned Wendell Berry, and he said that
he would support people reading Mr. Berry's articles. He stated that there is
a wonderful article by Mr. Berry in the March/April Audobon, from which Mr.
Bain used an excerpt in a speech that he gave to a Ruritan Club. He said that
it talks about communities, and looking at issues and the aspects of what
makes a community. He went on to say that the article suggests that communi-
ties stop looking at growth for growth sake or anti-growth, but basic concepts
of what in a community are important and how the community should function,
not only for the economic well-being of the people, but for the whole person.
He would like to have a work session and a public input session on this
because there will be pros and cons. He said that it goes into the interna-
tionl economy in terms of what is taken away from the local communities. He
added that the country's landscape is in the power of an absentee economy,
once national and now increasingly international. He reiterated that facts
are needed, and they can be dealt with entirely across the board. He supports
this. In relation to the "Goal Statement," he is not necessarily in accord
with the precise language of the "Goal Statement," but he can support it in
general concept. He does not see this as a significant change from what is
currently in the "Goal Statement" of the current Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she finds what Mr. Bain said really interest-
ing, because it mirrors what a lot of people, who spoke tonight, said. She
added that his statement really mirrors the position that she has had on
planning for a new economic policy for Albemarle County since she presented a
statement to the Board of Supervisors on March 11, 1992, well over a year ago.
She went on to say that she had mentioned principles that this Board needed to
consider in looking at the possibility of a new Economic Development Policy.
She remarked that changing what is now in the Comprehensive Plan were four
basic and simple principles. She would hope that if the plan is changed, that
the new policy would be effective in solving the identified problems that the
policy change intends to address. She also would insist that any change in
the policy be consistent with the other existing goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. She does not see how this is possible unless it is dealt with at the
same time as the review of the Comprehensive Plan. The third thing which she
considers a basic principle in changing the policy was that any change should
not increase the existing burden on the local taxpayers unless, at the same
time, it provides the taxpayers benefits that can be identified, predicted and
are significant. The fourth principle, which Mrs. Humphris pointed out, was
that any change in the economic policy should be preceded by formal public
hearings. She said that this public hearing has been really good, but it was
not advertised to the extent that one should be during the Comprehensive Plan
review process. She stated that the spotlight was not on it to that extent,
but she was amazed at the number of people who came tonight and participated.
She went on to say that if these principles are followed, which she believes
are very basic, simple and honest things to do, the problems need to be
identified. She said that all of the answers are needed to all of the
questions about what the County is experiencing.
Mrs. Humphris wondered if there really is insufficient population
growth, and if two percent is not enough. She asked if the County is dealing
well with its growth, since a lot of the people here tonight have indicated
that the County is not. She mentioned that underemployment needs to be
studied. She thought over her work experience in a number of jobs, and she
felt as though she was underemployed in everything except two jobs that she
had. One of those jobs to which Mrs. Humphris referred was when she was a
teacher, and the other job was when she was the boss and owned the company.
She pointed out, though, that she was also underpaid as a teacher. She said
that except for these two jobs, she felt that she was unappreciated, underpaid
and underemployed. She is sure that a lot of people feel that way. She never
found an answer to those problems except to become the boss. She thinks that
the impacts that any proposed change is going to have on the Comprehensive
Plan goals, as well as on the County budget, need to be identified. She heard
people say at this meeting tonight that there would not be an impact on taxes.
She said that any increase in growth is going to cause an increase in taxes
and impacts on affordable housing. She stated that she did not hear anything
about affordable housing mentioned tonight, but there will be a significant
impact. She went on to say that the County is trying to provide affordable
housing, and if growth is stimulated, the County will have~a difficult time
providing it. She said that the characteristics need to be identified of any
business or industry which is going to solve these identified problems, as
well as having the least negative impact on the County, environmentally and
bugetarily. One thing that concerns her is that every now and then an idea is
presented which indicates that a type of business or industry can be invited
into the area, and either it will come or not. However, Mrs. Humphris stated
that if a business chooses to come into the area that the County officials did
not invite and do not want, they can not accept it. She does not think that
there is a legally defensible way County officials can reject any business if
the land is purchased with the proper zoning. She said it does not work that
way, so there needs to be a way to identify legally defensible and practical
enforceable zoning methods that will help ensure these identified
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
000 2
characteristics so that they can be realized. She really thinks that she can
support a simple goal statement if it indicates that, "developing a comprehen-
sive Economic Development Program is consistent with other Comprehensive Plan
goals and achieves a stable, sustainable economic environment within which the
citizens of the County can pursue economic well being." She does not see any
way, however, if this goal is adopted, that the County could, at this time, go
beyond that. She said when the objectives and strategies are considered that
are required to implement this goal, the only planned way that these things
can be meshed into the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to do
it all together during the formal review of the Comprehensive Plan in the
fall.
Mrs. Humphris then said that it was her understanding when this public
hearing was set, the Supervisors were wondering whether to have a work session
first and a public hearing, or a public hearing first and then a work session.
She said that it was decided to have a public hearing and a work session, but
now it seems as though the work session has been forgotten. She still thinks
that a work session is needed to study some of the issues, before formal
action is taken.
Mr. Martin stated that he had hoped to have a separate work session
after the public hearing, also.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he believes the Board was trying to come to
some accommodation on more than just the "Goal Statement." It is his opinion,
however, after studying some of this information, that this will take a longer
period of time than one or two work sessions. He thought it was more appro-
priately a part of the Comprehensive Plan review, but he feels that the "Goal
Statement" is a significant statement relative to the Board's intentions and
attitudes about the situation.
Mrs. Humphris indicated that she could support Mr. Bowerman's comments.
Mr. Bowerman then said that he would like to present a challenge to
everyone. He stated that he would like to know the names of the communities
where any of the people in Albemarle County would like to live, which would
have the quality of life that they want, that is better and has a lower tax
rate than this community. He would be very interested for these communities
to be identified, because he thinks that this process would be enlightened a
great deal. He does not believe, however, that there are many of them, if
any.
Mr. Bain then referred to an article by Wendell Berry entitled,
"Decolonizing Rural America." He said the article indicates that by linking
local economies to the land, a sense of community can be restored. He then
read from that article that, "The real improvements in the community must to a
considerable extent come from the local communities, themselves. We need
local revisions of our methods of land use and production. We need to study
and work together to do scale overhead and industrial dependencies. We need
to market and process local products locally. We need to bring local econo-
mies into harmony with local economic systems. We need to substitute
ourselves, our neighbors, our local resources for expensive imported goods and
services. We need to increase cooperation among all local economic entities,
households, farms, factories, banks, consumers and suppliers. If we are
serious about reducing the size of government and its burdens, then we need to
return econo-mic self determination to the people, and we must not do this by
inviting in destructive industries to provide jobs. We must do it by
fostering economic democracy. We must do everything possible to assure
ordinary citizens the possibility of owning a small, usable share of the
country. In that way, we will put local capital to work locally, not to
exploit and destroy the land, but to use it well. This is not work just for
the privileged, the well positioned, the wealthy and the powerful. It is work
for everybody."
Mr. Marshall thanked everybody for coming and for the statements that
they made. He does not disagree with a lot of the statements, however, he
does disagree with a few people. In June, 1977, Mr. Marshall stated that he
was outgoing President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Retail Merchants
Association, and he gave a speech at Boar's Head Inn, in which he said that it
was imperative that the Retail Merchants Association install computers, so
that they could keep up with the rest of the community and not be taken over
by some outsider. He said that he was not well supported on that issue, and
he wondered how many people would argue with him that businesses can get along
without computers today. He stated that some months ago he was invited to the
Citizens for Albemarle meeting, and the gentleman who was President of the
association at that time, told him that he, as a public official, had to be
like a general in an army, and that he had to make sacrifices. Mr[ Marshall
went on to say that the President of this association told him that there
would not be job opportunities for everybody in Albemarle County, and he had
to sacrifice those people. He mentioned that Tom Olivier came before this
Board tonight with what Mr. Marshall considers an excellent proposal from the
Citizens of Albemarle, and he is delighted to say that it is a wonderful
change.
Mr. Marshall went on to say that he, as a businessman, knows that he has
to survive based on what he perceives the future to be. He said that most
businessmen know that and make such decisions. Therefore, Mr. Marshall stated
that he supports some sort of Economic Development Policy that is in conjunc-
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
0001 3
tion with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan is not complete
without it. He heard someone here tonight make a statement that Mr. Nitchmann
should pay the individual who does counter work more than $7.00 an hour. Mr.
Marshall stated that the person who made this remark is obviously not a
businessman because, if he was, he would know that anybody that is employed
has to be able to produce enough income for that business to warrant paying
his salary. He said that there are a large number of people who are under-
employed in Albemarle County, and are having to work for lesser wages, and the
employers cannot pay those wages because their businesses will not produce the
type of income that is needed. He added that Albemarle County does need some
sort of means of attracting jobs to Albemarle to replace those good jobs that
are being lost, so that it makes the other jobs, which are available in the
community more competitive. He said that the people at the University would
be the first ones to say that they have had to let a lot of good people go who
wanted to be employed here because their spouses also work and need good job
opportunities.
He mentioned that his family has a lot of history in this community and
goes back more generations than he knows. Mr. Marshall stated that he was
elected by a lot of poor people in southern Albemarle to fill the same seat
that Thomas Jefferson held. He said that Thomas Jefferson's philosophy of
government was that the least government is the best government. Mr. Marshall
stated that he also believes in this philosophy. He does not want to pay an
Economic Development Department, because it is not necessary.~ He finds it
unusual that other members of this Board, all of a sudden, are so concerned
about the budget when they all voted to increase the budget, and he was one of
the two who voted to decrease it this past year. He wants to see some sort of
Economic Development Department or commisSion or policy in place in this
County so that the Comprehensive Plan will be complete and all of the County
citizens can maintain some form of quality of life. He said that if the goal
statement is all that this Board is willing to adopt tonight, then it is fine
with him. He agrees with Mr. Nitchmann that the Board has the issue in front
of it, and the Supervisors can discuss the needs of the County. He does not
want to see this issue die because too many people's livelihood and well being
depend upon it. He said that the quality of life for some of the people in
this County is food in your stomach, clothes on your back and a roof over your
head. He will not sacrifice those people.
Mr. Perkins commented that he thinks the County does have an image
problem, but this is a step in changing that image. He said that he will
personally need time to evaluate the comments that were made tonight. He
thinks that they were all good comments, and he commended the people for
coming to this meeting. He believes that the County needs to be more involved
in economic development, and he thinks that basically hostility has to be
replaced with hospitality. He said that this is a start, but he is not
willing to support the package that is before the Board tonight. He believes
that Mr. Martin will make a motion that he can support, though, which is that
this Board move forward with this matter.
At this point, Mr. Martin made a motion to adopt the following Goal
statement for Economic Development, to replace the current Goal statement in
the Comprehensive Plan: "Develop a comprehensive economic development program
that is consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals and achieves a stable,
sustainable economic environment within which the citizens of the County can
pursue economic well being." In addition, the Board will discuss providing
objectives and strategies for the Economic Development section during its
review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Roi1 was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
(At 11:18 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:27 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on an ORDINANCE to amend and reenact
Chapter 16, Refuse and Garbage, in the Code of Albemarle. Section 16-1,
Defini-tions, shall be amended to provide additional definitions of terms that
apply to this chapter. A new Article III, Recycling, is added to encourage
and promote recycling throughout the County in order to protect limited
natural resources for the benefit of its citizens. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1993.)
Mr. Tucker said staff has drafted a Recycling Ordinance in response to
the recommendations of the Recycling Report conducted by Ms. Andrea Trank
which was accepted by the Board. He stated that staff worked with the area
haulers and others in the community in developing the ordinance. The proposed
ordinance has received significant review by the private haulers and is
responsive to their comments in meeting four primary objectives. He added
that there were three items at the Board's work session which the Supervisors
had asked for input, and he asked Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, to present
these items at this time.
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
000,1,84
Ms. Higgins noted that the first issue brought out at the Board's work
session was that there is no appeal procedure in the ordinance as it was
proposed, so a short section relating to an appeal procedure has been added.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the appeal procedure is added to this ordinance,
which has already been advertised, can the ordinance still be adopted tonight.
Ms. Higgins replied that she thinks that it can be adopted tonight. She said
that the County Attorney, however, would have to respond to this question.
She then stated that some clarification was needed, as far as recycling
services is concerned, to establish that recyclables would not be collected
unless trash service was provided to a resident. She said that six words were
added to the ordinance for that clarification. Mr. Bowerman asked what are
the six words. Ms. Higgins replied that the six words are, "for which they
provide refuse service." She said that these first two issues were raised by
haulers at the work session.
Another issue raised at the work session related to enforcement of the
ordinance. Ms. Higgins explained that there was money identified to continue
to implement this program, establish it and have enforcement efforts included.
She said that all three issues which were mentioned at the work session have
been addressed.
Mr. St. John told the Supervisors that, in his opinion, these changes do
not require readvertisement, and the ordinance can be acted upon tonight by
this Board.
Since there were no further questions from the Board, Mr. Bowerman
opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle, read a prepared
statement in which he pointed out that his organization supports the ordinance
to provide amendments and a new article for recycling for the refuse and
garbage section of the Code of Albemarle. He said that the intent of the new
article, which is to encourage and promote recycling throughout the County in
order to protect limited natural resources for the benefit of its citizens,
makes good sense.
Ms. Jeanne Scott, Co-President of Charlottesville/Albemarle Recycle
Together, reinforced the letter, dated June 10, 1993, of endorsement that she
and Susan Wildman, also Co-President of CART, wrote to the members of the
Board of Supervisors. Ms. Scott stated that CART believes that there are many
County residents who are strongly in favor of the recycling ordinance. She
said that every ton of trash recycled now will save costs in the future. She
added that CART believes recycling will extend the life of the Landfill, which
is the reason that recycling was started in the beginning, will slow the rate
of increases in tipping fees and will extend the closure of the old cell and
the opening of the new one, and, therefore, extend these costs over a longer
period of time. She went on to say that there are figures currently circulat-
ing that suggest in 1992 that the mandated 25 percent recycling rate set for
1995 had been achieved. She said that a closer look at this percentage
reveals that, perhaps, only a seven to nine percent increase in 1992 of
diverting waste from the Landfill has occurred. Prior to the mandate, Ms.
Scott reports that businesses were already diverting cardboard from grocery
stores, scrap metal and junk cars, sewage sludge for composts as well as many
other materials. She commented that ongoing businesses involved in recycling
would have accounted for 15 percent, even if there had not been a recycling
mandate or active City or County recycling programs in progress. She said
that, given this information, citizens must be pro-active. She concluded by
saying that CART strongly encourages the Board of Supervisors to pass the
Recycling Ordinance.
Mr. Ed Strauss stated that the County has no public trash collection,
and the Supervisors do not care if the public has someone to haul their trash
away. He said that, yet, the Supervisors want to get a law on the books and
try to control the situation. He added that if the Supervisors are that
interested in garbage in this County, a law should be passed. He said that
the Supervisors should find someone to haul the garbage, and they can charge
whatever they want. He went on to say that this issue should be comprehensive
and fact based. He noted that if the County wants to get into the recycling
business, then a maximum rate should be set for hauling away the materials.
He stated that if he does not live next to someone who wants to come and pick
up his trash, then he cannot recycle. He told the Supervisors to think about
the situation. He said that the Supervisors are putting something in place
that they do not know will work. He added that it is nice to hear the words,
"Let's save the world, let's recycle." He noted that recycling is available
to everybody on this planet, if they want to do it. He said that the citizens
of Albemarle are human beings, they have minds and they can choose what they
want to do. He remarked that the government does not have to get into this,
and he told the Supervisors that they will only make this situation more
expensive and less efficient. He mentioned the Landfill, and he said that if
he wants to get rid of a refrigerator, he can pay $14, or he can call someone
to pick it up, and he does not know what that person does with it. He pointed
out that there is a bounty on beer cans, and it can easily be seen where at
least 80 percent of them are going. He said that people are recycling beer
cans willingly, and there is no such law. He reiterated that if the Supervi-
sors want to make recycling mandatory, then they should set the collection
rates at $18.00 maximum, and see how much people like it then. He said that
if people cannot afford it, then the County will help them, and see show many
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
people will want to be involved. He told the Supervisors to try some of his
suggestions, but he reiterated that the program needs to be fact based and
done right. He added, however, that he would rather not see the ordinance
enacted.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Strauss, if a maximum rate was going to be set, would
it matter how far the hauler would have to travel. Mr. Strauss replied that
it all depends on the economic conditions of the people. He asked what is
going to be done for the people who cannot afford to get someone to haul their
trash. He asked if the Supervisors are not asking for trouble relating to
this issue. He pointed out that Albemarle County has no trash collection
service. He said that a lot of people are shocked because there is no trash
collection service in Albemarle County, but he is used to the situation.
Mr. Bain commented that a lot of people carry their own trash to the
Landfill, even though they have to make a special trip to do so. Mr. Strauss
responded that the Supervisors want to make a law saying that County people
must recycle without a mechanism in place. He said that a recycling mechanism
will not be available to everybody.
Mr. Bain stated that some people are taking their trash to the Landfill,
already, but he knows that other people burn their trash and would not ordi-
narily make the trip to the Landfill. He said that the people who take their
trash to the Landfill will have the mechanism there.
Mr. Strauss remarked that some people will do what has been done in the
past, and he referred to his comments about getting rid of the refrigerator.
He went on to say that fees could be set by the County, and he mentioned that
the City of Charlottesville picks up certain things on certain days. He
believes that the Supervisors are rushing into this program because it sounds
good. He said that he holds doors for people because it looks good, and it
makes it look as though everything is fine. He thinks that sometimes the
Board will rush into these types of things on the same premise. He stated
that this ordinance is really not necessary. He said that he could recycle
now, if he so chooses.
Mr. Martin reminded Mr. Strauss that this law would not be directed to
him. Mr. Martin explained that this ordinance would make the haulers
responsible for providing the recycling service. Mr. Strauss replied that it
all will still come back to the individual.
Mr. Bowerman told Mr. Strauss that this ordinance does not require
mandatory recycling. He reiterated that the service will be offered by the
haulers, but the citizens do not have to take it.
Mr. Strauss gave an example of a hauler, whose name he would not
mention, who has a route through Brown's Cove. He said that the hauler is an
older man, and if people want recycling on his route, he will have to offer
it, but he really does not want to get into a recycling program. He asked if
this man should sell his route. He reminded the Board that this hauler is
providing a service that the County does not provide. Mr. Bowerman responded
that if this man does not provide the recycling service, someone else will.
Mr. Strauss told Mr. Bowerman not to make such a statement. He said
that he lived in an area where there was only one person who would pick up his
trash, and that was Purcell McCue. He said that Mr. McCue got out of the
trash business and currently works with the University Police. He added that
Mr. McCue would support his statements that he got out of the hauling business
because it got so expensive.
Mr. Marshall asked what will happen to the haulers who cannot afford to
convert their trucks to be able to accept recyclables. He asked if these
haulers will have to go out of business. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Randy Layman
to address Mr. Marshall's questions.
Mr. Layman stated that he is a trash hauler and spokesman for the Waste
Haulers Association. He said that his Association represents approximately
two-thirds of the taxpayers in Albemarle County and not just special interest
groups. He has heard a lot of things at this meeting tonight, such as the
economic base and jobs. He noted that the haulers work with a lot of people
who make $5.00, $6.00, $7.00 or $8.00 an hour, as well as wealthy people in
Albemarle County. He stated that he is currently the largest hauler in
Western Albemarle, when the areas of Batesville, Greenwood, Afton, Crozet and
the remainder of Ivy are included. He said that he does not have a single
customer who is not now offered a recycling program. He has spent a tremen-
dous amount of money in developing his program and buying equipment. He added
that recycling is a second business for him, and the only way he can survive
the recycling business is to recover his investments in the cost of running
that business. He pointed out that the only way he can recover his invest-
ments is from the customer base, if the customers are willing to pay for this
program. He said that the programs are there. He thinks that there are
16,000 or 17,000 households that now recycle, and he would venture to say that
there are approximately 14,000 households which have the recycling service
available to them, if they wish to use it. He went on to say that there is a
business operating in Albemarle County which is a member of the Haulers
Association. He said that this business keeps good records, but it has lost
$33,000 in recycling. He noted that this money was not lost in the trash
hauling business, but in the recycling business. He said that his Association
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
has another company that has just spent $35,000 to $45,000 during the last 12
to 18 months in equipment, mainly containers, to promote recycling at no
increase in their current charges. He stated that this hauler went from
behind-the-house service to curbside, and encouraged people to recycle. He
added that this hauler has not been able to recover one penny of that money
and never will recover it. He pointed out that the cost he mentioned does not
include the cost to modify the hauler's trucks nor the employees to operate
the trucks. He said that the haulers have tried to work with the staff on a
lot of these things, and sometimes there was not the input that was needed.
He mentioned that he heard about hostile environment tonight, and he thinks
that the haulers have been working in a hostile environment. He noted that
the haulers are recycling approximately 21 percent of materials in Albemarle
County. He went on to say that if businesses that are currently recycling,
such as Food Lion and some of the other grocery stores, were to report what
they now recycle, the County would have already reached its 25 percent
mandate. He added that this does not mean that the haulers will not continue
to offer their program, because they are, but they have to be able to offer
these programs and make their expenses at a pace where their businesses can
survive. He said that they have to be able to get a recovery and a return on
the investments. He pointed out that this ordinance will require the haulers
to spend the money to buy this equipment to offer recycling programs no matter
where a person lives in Albemarle County, if that person requests this
service. He said that, because of this situation, there is no way of recover-
ing the haulers' economic investments. He noted that, according to the
proposed ordinance, if there were three or four homes near the Greene County
line or near the Buckingham County line, the haulers would have no choice but
to run a truck to those homes, if the homeowners request it, and they are
currently being serviced by a hauler. He recalled that a speaker had indi-
cated at tonight's meeting that the cost to homeowners would go down. He said
that this is not true. He pointed out that if the product going into the Ivy
Landfill is reduced, the Landfill will still have a fixed amount of money that
it will need for its operation, so rates would have to be raised on the
remaining amount of garbage that would be brought there. He said that this
means costs are going up as well as the cost of recycling. He added that most
of the haulers are in the collection business, and they did not generate or
produce the trash. He stated that the haulers are at the bottom of this pile.
He went on to say that industry produced the items, and the haulers are the
collectors, after the items have been used. He said that the haulers are
trying to provide a service for the homeowners and taxpayers of Albemarle
County to get the garbage to the Landfill. He noted that most of the haulers
do offer recycling programs, although there are a few haulers in the County
who do not. He said that most of these haulers are small in size and cannot
afford the investment. He added that if the County staff would work with the
haulers and give them an opportunity, this program will work, but it will not
happen overnight. He said that he has been offering the program for four and
one-half years, and in the areas where his program first started, there has
been great success. He added that when there are new customers, he has to
serve them, and the only way he can do it is to get a recovery on his
investment. He cannot have a program without spending money and getting a
return on it. He noted that he is a businessman in this County, he has
employees in this County and the haulers are taxpayers in this County, and
work with taxpayers. He mentioned that there were special interest people
before this Board tonight, but they did not think about what they were doing
because of the paper they used for their remarks, which was not double
printed. He said that these people generate a lot of stuff that cannot be
recycled, yet they call themselves environmentalists. He asked the Board to
think about some of the things that he mentioned.
Mr. Bowerman then read a statement by Andrea Trank, author of the
Recycling Study, who had to leave before she presented her remarks to the
Board. Mrs. Trank's statement indicated that she felt that she needed to
address the facts, because in the last few weeks she had heard a lot of rumors
and innuendoes about the proposed ordinance. She indicated that she had
involved many sectors of the community, most particularly the haulers, in
coming up with a compromise for recycling without enormous cost to the County
or hurting the haulers' businesses. She noted in her remarks that she has
learned that the haulers are no longer supportive of the proposed ordinance.
She contributes this to the fact that the haulers are not receiving a direct
subsidy from the County. She recommended that if the haulers are not
supportive of the recycling resolution, then all deals should be off, and the
Board should reconsider the idea of multiple dropoff centers. She said it is
unlikely that, absent a recycling ordinance, all residents will be guaranteed
recycling service that is reasonably priced, fair and dependable.
Mr. Layman stated that he is not opposed to recycling, and he wants
everybody to know that. He pointed out that the haulers have to make a living
and pay their costs. He said that he has no problem with dropoff centers,
just as long as the haulers do not have to pay for them, He added that the
haulers are now paying for the McIntire Recycling Center. He mentioned that
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority had to borrow $50,000 just to get set up and
for legal fees, etc. He stated that the first money Rivanna spent was $26,000
to support the McIntire Recycling Center. He said that the waste haulers in
Albemarle County are paying this fee, in addition to running their own
programs. He reiterated that he is not opposed to dropoff centers as long as
they are paid for in another fashion. He mentioned that the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority was originally set up with a tipping fee structure so that
each person who disposed of an item would pay for its disposal. He added that
this is not the way that the program has been handled. He noted that some
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
0001 7
people are paying to get rid of garbage at the Landfill, but when things are
taken to dropoff centers, the people can get rid of them for free.
Mr. Bill Colony stated that he was involved in the planning for solid
waste management in Albemarle County and Charlottesville, and he is a strong
supporter of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. He respects Randy Layman and
many of the haulers that he has gotten to know. He went on to say that during
the discussion of what should be done in this County, several people felt
strongly that it was preferable to let private industry continue to be the
collectors and haulers of solid waste materials, rather than the County
setting up its own system such as the City has done. He still feels strongly
that this is the correct way to proceed, but he is terribly disappointed in
the reaction from the haulers. He said that if a person is in business to
make a living, a price is charged that will provide that person with what he
or she wants. He stated that the ordinance before this Board this evening
simply says that the haulers shall offer recycling to all of their customers.
He told Board members that they should not set a price for recycling, but he
believes that he is hearing the haulers indicate that this Board should set a
price. He said that this is incorrect. He stated that he buys his service
from a hauler and pays extra for recycling, and he is glad to do it. He added
that it is cheaper than driving to a center two or three times a week. He
goes to the McIntire Recycling Center once a week now to take the mixed
paper -catalogs, phone books and things that come in the mail that are not
wanted. He reiterated his point by saying that if people are in business,
then they charge the price that is necessary to stay in business. He told Mr.
Marshall and Mr. Bowerman that they know, as businessmen, that they do not
give away their services. He wondered if the haulers are interested in
cooperating with the County and supporting the County's efforts to recycle,
reuse and reduce. He stated that if the haulers have only the demand made on
them by the County government to provide that service to their customers, and
if the customers are willing to pay for it, he sees no problem. He added that
the hauler can charge what he needs to charge. He noted that if the hauler
loses customers, so what. ~e came to this meeting because he is committed to
the recycling program, and he is the acting Chairman of the Citizens Advisory
Committee. He felt from the beginning of the planning process and through the
adoption of the plan that pulled the County and the City together, that if
private enterprise wants to stay in the business, fine. If the haulers want
to have a program with a little governmental initiative, then the Supervisors
will need to break the County up into service districts, and put each service
district, or the whole package, out for bids. He wondered how many of the
haulers who are unhappy will come in and bid. He pointed out that the County
has given the haulers the chance to do the job without creating districts. He
said that if the haulers are unhappy with this arrangement, then the County
can create districts and hold bids, and the low bidders will get those jobs.
He stated that the haulers are in the business to make money, and they should
be allowed to make money. He added that the market place governs the price,
but if the Supervisors want the whole community to have the advantage of a big
service area, then the program can be handled that way. He said that this is
the Board's option. He went on to say that if the haulers do not like the
ordinance and the Supervisors do not want to approve the ordinance, then he
would strongly advise that the Supervisors create districts.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he does not think that anything can be settled
tonight.
Mr. Dixon stated that he and the other trash haulers have a great
program. He invited anybody who wanted to ride on his truck to do so. He
said that he does not want to hear that the haulers are not supporting the
ordinance, because he has put $45,000 into the business to support recycling.
He noted that he and other haulers will continue to build the program, but
they need to build the program at their own pace. He said that he would love
for anybody, as well as special interest groups or Board members, to sit down
with him to write a statement to go to his customers. He added that he is
preparing a statement to go to his customers now informing them that he is
charging $2.00 for recycling. He believes that 95 percent of his customers
will say, "no" to the recycling program. He stated that it upsets him when
the haulers give the County a good program, and he hears someone putting the
program down.
Mr. Bain stated that he wanted to move this item forward, and he would
like to get the final issues resolved. His suggestion is that he, some staff
people (Mr. Tucker and Ms. Higgins), some of the haulers, Andrea Trank and
someone from RSWA, as well as other Board members, meet together. He would
propose that two to three meetings be held between now and mid-to-late July so
that the issues can be resolved, if possible. He said that this matter could
be brought back to this Board at the first day meeting in August with the
changes.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that Mrs. Humphris volunteered to serve on this
committee, unless someone else wants to do it. He stated that the committee
would deal with all of the issues and the two Board members would make a
recommendation back to this Board. He said there could be a continuation of
this public hearing at that time, and the matter could be settled.
Mr. Martin said that he assumes the remainder of the Board members are
invited to attend the committee meetings. Mr. Bain responded, "absolutely."
He said that he would inform the Board members of the dates and times of the
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
000188
meetings.
meetings.
Mr. Martin stated that he would be interested in attending the
Mr. Marshall remarked that no one had answered his question as to who
might be forced out of business by this proposed ordinance. He wondered, if
people are being forced out of business, what areas in the County would be
unable to get trash service because of it. He mentioned that he has a problem
in southern Albemarle because people are dumping trash on every road. He does
not want to do anything that will increase this illegal dumping of trash.
Mr. Bowerman stated that hopefully these questions can be answered.
Mr. Marshall reiterated that he needs to know the answers to these
questions, because if there is someone in southern Albemarle who is not set up
in a program such as Randy Layman can provide, will he stop picking up trash.
If so, Mr. Marshall wondered who will replace that hauler.
Mr. Bain stated, although he does not want to speak for the haulers,
that the haulers have felt there will be somebody who will offer the service,
wherever it is. He thinks, however, that this is the concern that has been
addressed tonight, as far as what the cost and expense will be. He added that
another concern is if the haulers offer the service, how much should be
charged, and will the people accept the service, if it is offered. He
concurred with Mr. Dixon that if a dollar figure is placed on the service, a
lot of people will not take part in the program.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that two or three meetings on this matter need
to be held, with a recommendation coming back to this Board by the day meeting
in August. He said that this gives the committee approximately six weeks to
work out these problems. He asked Mr. Bain to inform the entire Board when
the meetings will be held. He noted that these meetings will be public
meetings in the sense that anybody can attend.
Mr. Bain stated that he is not limiting the members on this committee.
He said that he mentioned Ms. Trank because he knew that she was instrumental
in working with the group, as well as Ms. Higgins and Mr. Tucker. He
suggested that the items be put before the group and discussed. He said that
the committee will either solve the problems, or it will not, but the informa-
tion will be brought back to this Board in August. At this time, Mr. Bowerman
stated that this public hearing would be continued to the August 4 day
meeting.
At 12:05 a.m., Mrs. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to
defer the public hearing on the proposed Recycling Ordinance until August 4.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on an ORDINANCE to amend and reenact
Article IX, Chapter 2, of the Code of Albemarle, by repealing Section 2-52,
entitled "Limitation on number of outstanding bond issues." (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1993.)
Mr. Tucker presented an ordinance to the Supervisors that would amend
the Albemarle County Code by repealing Section 2-52 entitled, "Limitation on
number of outstanding bond issues.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she needs to understand what the original
reason was for the limitation of the number of bond issues and what the
implications are for the change. Mr. Tucker replied that the reason for the
limitation of the number of bond issues was that it would give the Board more
control in terms of the number of issues that the Board reviewed, but under
current Federal law, the Board has to approve those bond issues anyway. He
said that this section results in a duplication.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the
public, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
At this time, Mr. Martin moved approval of the ordinance to amend and
reenact Article IX, Chapter 2, of the Code of Albemarle, by repealing Section
2-52, entitled, Limitations on number of outstanding bond issues." Mr. Bain
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Martin.
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
"INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY" BY REPEALING SECTION 2-52
June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
000189
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 2-52 of Article IX, Chapter 2, of
the Code of Albemarle, entitled "Limitation on Number of Bond
Issues" is hereby repealed.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments.
Mr. Bowerman announced that there are three vacancies for the Land Use
Classification Appeals Board. He said that Messrs. Dan Maupin, Samuel Page
and Montie Pace are currently serving with terms ending September 1, 1993. He
added that Mr. Pace wishes to be reappointed.
Mr. Perkins stated that he has talked to Mr. Maupin, and he wants to
continue to serve.
Mr. Bain moved the reappointments of Mr. Dan Maupin and Mr. Montie Pace
to the Land Use Classification Appeals Board, with terms to begin September 1,
1993, and expire on August 31, 1995. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman stated that two appointments need to be made to the Public
Recreational Facilities Authority.
Mrs. Humphris moved the reappointment of Mr. Guy Agnor and Mr. David
Bass to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority, effective December 14,
1993, and expiring on December 31, 1996. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 4 and April 8, 1992,
April 14(A) and May 5, 1993.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of May 5, 1993, Pages 1 - 12 (Item 17b),
and found them acceptable. He moved approval of these minutes. Mr. Martin
seconded the motion.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of April 14, 1993, Afternoon, and
found them acceptable, except for a few minor changes. He described the
changes by saying that the minutes refer to 0.02 cents, which is two one-
hundreds of one cent and not two cents. He said that this error is repeated
many times throughout the minutes. He stated that the same thing is true when
71 cents is shown in the minutes as 0.71. He said that he has corrected all
of these figures and has given them to the Clerk.
Mr. Bain indicated that he would include the approval of the April 14
minutes in his motion. Mr. Martin included them in his second.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins brought to the Board's attention a notice that the Albemarle
County Service Authority is having a public hearing at 10:00 a.m. on June 24
relating to sewer and water rates.
Mr. Bain informed Board members that he had a call from Ms. Gail
Lipscomb, a VDoT representative from Culpeper, relating to the Bellair
improvements. He said that VDoT would like to get started with the project
rather than to bring the matter before this Board. He said that the proposal
would be to leave everything as it is, and put a stop sign for the traffic
coming off of Route 250 Bypass, after the traffic goes under the bridge and
comes up to Route 250. He added that now there is a lane where traffic can
merge. He went on to say that the merging lane would be blocked off, and
traffic would come to a "T" intersection and would have to stop there. He
said that this is all that VDoT representatives want to do, other than put the
light in on Route 250. He said that traffic traveling under the ramp and up
to that light would be able to do so. He told Ms. Lipscomb that he was unsure
what the Board would want to do about this situation, but she felt that this
could be done as normal Highway Department work. She believes this because it
[ June 16, 1993 (Regular Night Me,ting) OOO190
· (Page 36)
does not involve blocking a road, and all of the other proposals that were
coming to this Board would have blocked off a segment of the ramp. He
reiterated that this proposal will not block a road, and the merging of the
traffic will be the only thing affected in front of the Bellair Gulf station,
but a stop sign will be put there, which will involve some reconfiguration.
He said that all traffic will come to a stop there and then proceed right onto
Route 250. He commented that, relating to the light, traffic going south on
- Route 250 Bypass would come under the bridge, go up the ramp, stop and turn
left to go west on Route 250. Mr. Bain stated that one of his main concerns
with the ramp and traffic light was that absolutely, under no circumstances,
could traffic back up onto the Bypass, itself. He said that this will not be
allowed to happen, because there is enough roadway on that ramp to put a line
~'~, down the middle, so there could be two lanes of traffic part of the way up the
ramp. He said that if eventually two lanes of traffic had to go all the way
up the ramp, this could be done. Mr. Bain stated that he had asked where
~--~ these funds would be coming from, and Ms. Lipscomb answered that she believes
the money would come from the primary funds. He emphasized that the traffic
light and all the work being done now is proposed to come out of primary
funds.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Bain had discussed this situation with Bellair
residents. Mr. Bain replied that he has not talked to anybody from Bellair,
but he knows Ms. Lipscomb has talked to John Green, who is President of the
Bellair Homeowners Association. Since Mr. Bain has not talked to him, he is
not inclined to give VDoT the Board's approval. He believes that the project
will have to wait for three weeks until the next meeting of the Board. Mr.
Bowerman agreed that he thinks this matter should be discussed at the Board's
next meeting, because this is a significant change.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that what VDoT officials had in mind originally
was a lot more significant. Mr. Bain responded that VDoT officials realized
that they would have to come to this Board with the first proposal. He said
VDoT officials think that their plan has now been modified. He had indicated
to Ms. Lipscomb that he would pass this information on to this Board, but he
would like to have VDoT representatives appear before the Board with the new
proposal.
Mr. Bowerman commented that VDoT officials might decide to go ahead with
the project, but at least there should be an opportunity to have a public
discussion. He asked Mr. Tucker to contact VDoT officials about a meeting.
Mr. Bain indicated that he would contact Gail Lipscomb.
Ms. Humphris stated that she had gone to Richmond Monday for the VACO
Committee on Health and Human Services, and had listened to a report on the
Task Force for long term care. She said that this was interesting, and the
gentleman who represents VACO on that task force thinks that it is possible
that there might be some hidden agenda. She stated that Departments of Social
Services are coming forth to express that fear as they evidently had to on the
issue involving youth. She said that there will be a lot more said about the
problems and cost of long term care for the elderly and others in the future.
Mr. Bowerman asked that the Board hold an executive session on personnel
matters on July 7, 1993. Board members indicated that this was acceptable.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn.
~~~i~ At 12:19 a.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
,~Jj ~v f~, '- Chairman