2006-06-07June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 7,
2006, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241 of the County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:10 a.m.), Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. W yant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, from the County Executive’s Office, Diane Mullins, and Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tom Loach provided Board members with a copy of information regarding the Crozet Master
Plan that he received as the result of a Freedom of Information request. He had asked for all information
pertaining to the issue of the build-out and rezoning analysis as they relate to the master plan. W hile
reviewing all the information, he did not find any documentation supporting anything other than the 12,000
build-out population cited repeatedly in the master plan, nothing to support the 24,000 number proposed
by County planning staff. He found specific statements in the information by Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas,
Ms. Elaine Echols who was the Planning staff person on the DISC Committee, and Mr. Eric Strucko,
Chairman of the DISC Committee, to name just a few, and all supported the 12,000 population build-out.
He said that no one in the County or this Board has presented any evidence to support that 24,000 build-
out figure presented by staff. He will be recommending to the members of the Crozet Planning Committee
to stay the course and accept the 12,000 population figure found in the Crozet Master Plan as the agreed
upon total build-out population for the growth area.
Mr. Loach said the documents he handed out deal with the way staff has been calculating
rezoning requests under the master plan. He said in theses documents Mr. Schwartz, the lead consultant
for the master plan, says the numbers found in the master plan were not precise or fine-grained. (8:18:04).
W ith regard to Old Trail, Mr. Schwartz said he had not seen the site plan figures, but it sounded to him as
if they had been aggressive and creative in packing as much as possible onto the property. He said Mr.
Schwartz did not explain how the consultants arrived at the figures found in the master plan. If Mr.
Schwartz cannot explain the figures in the master plan, and in an attached E-mail from Ms. Echols he
thinks it is clear the planning staff did not understand the methodology used to arrive at the numbers found
in the master plan, who decided on what method would be used to evaluate the Old Trail numbers. He
said the answer can be found in Ms. Echols E-mail when she states “we aren’t worried about defending
Old Trail’s density.” He thinks the Planning staff made no further attempt to build-out differences in the
master plan and took it upon themselves as to how to interpret the Crozet Master Plan. He asked who
gave staff the authority to apply their own methodology to Old Trail and subsequent rezonings or to
summarily remove the consultants’ data from the master plan without the advice or consent of the
community. He thinks the numbers that staff now produces violates both the spirit and the letter of the
master plan since the only numbers available to the public are those from the consultants.
Mr. Loach said he thinks what occurred in Crozet was an abuse of government at its worse. It
transformed the Crozet master plan into nothing more than a huge ”bait and switch” operation and
resulted in the defrauding of the entire community. He will recommend that the Crozet Planning
Committee also pass a resolution finding the current methodology used in calculating rezonings in Crozet
is noncompliant with the Crozet Master Plan. He thinks it is important that all growth area residents keep
an eye on any decisions coming before this Board in the near future regarding rezonings and to vote
accordingly on next election day since it will be their community that is on the chopping block next.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Recognitions.
Mr. Rooker said he read in the Daily Progress recently a notice saying “Congratulations to Roxanne
W akefield W hite on receiving the John L. Snook Child Advocate Award. W e are so proud to count you as
a friend and one of us. W ith love. Old friends from MHS Class of “61.” He said that Roxanne jointly
received the John L. Snook Child Advocate Award with Linda Peacock, Assistant City Manager. He said
the expression that was in that notice is something that also applies to the County. He said Roxanne
joined the County in 1986 as an Administrative Assistant in the County Executive’s Office, in 1988 she
was named a Management Analyst, in 1991 she was named an Executive Assistant to the County
Executive, and in 1994 she was named an Assistant County Executive. Today she manages the Human
Services functions for the County.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to read one paragraph from the document nominating Linda and
Roxanne for this award: “Linda and Roxanne are perhaps most highly valued by the many who have
worked with them for the direct, commonsense, can-do approach, natural deep compassion for children
and their families. They are true servant leaders who have inspired, encouraged and supported countless
others to do their best for children and families. They are often the ones creating multi-discipline
approaches to community problems by engaging police, housing, the schools, parks and recreation,
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
community agencies and others to address multi-level complex social problems. In their years of working
together they have modeled and fostered the spirit of City/County collaboration that has been invaluable in
building cooperation and partnerships throughout the community. Our exemplary human services system
for children and families would not exist as it does today without them.” He then congratulated Roxanne
for all she has done and continues to do for the County.
Ms. W hite said thanked Mr. Rooker for his words and said this is a surprise and she is at a loss for
words. She said it was an honor to receive that award. She said it has been a great experience working
with the City. A lot of progress has been made with the City in the way of human services because they
worked closely together.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that on April 20, 2006, he attended a meeting of the Virginia Municipal Clerks
Association and had the pleasure of swearing in Ms. Ella W ashington Carey as the new President of the
Virginia Municipal Clerks Association. At that ceremony Ella was also surprised to receive their Clerk of
the Year award. Although somewhat speechless for a moment, she gave a wonderful talk about clerks
and the work that they do. He said Ella and others who work primarily behind the scenes make everything
in the County function smoothly. He thinks the Board is fortunate to have people like Ella work for them.
She has been with the County for 20 years, and during that time has been a source of consistency and
continual guidance for staff and the Board. She manages the diverse aspects of her office with skill and
professionalism. He said Ella is a critical resource in the governing of Albemarle County.
Ms. Carey said this took her by surprise when she saw her family walking down the hall. W hat
she said at the Clerk’s meeting is that it has been a pleasure working with the Board and everybody she
works with. She said her family makes working easier for her, and she then introduced those family
members who were present.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.7 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for
information (conversation relating to individual items will be found at the end of that item).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Authorize County Executive to Execute VDOT Agreement for Hillsdale Drive Pedestrian
Improvement Project.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in June, 2004 the County was awarded a $296,000
Federal Safety Grant for pedestrian related safety improvements on Hillsdale Drive between Rio Road and
Greenbrier Drive. To date, staff has been working with VDOT to formalize the Scope of W ork for the
project and also to meet Federal procurement process requirements necessary to finalize an agreement
with VDOT. The County is required to enter into an agreement with VDOT in order to receive the grant
funds. The project agreement outlines the County’s and VDOT’s project responsibilities. The project
improvements will take place on Hillsdale Drive between Greenbrier Drive and Rio Road and will include:
constructing raised median crosswalks in front of the JABA Building, at Squire Hill, at the Food Lion, at the
Senior Center and on Branchlands Boulevard; re-striping travel lanes for the purpose of traffic calming;
constructing sidewalks between Branchlands Boulevard and Mall Drive, and between Pepsi Place and
Hillsdale Drive to complete gaps in the existing sidewalk system and to serve transit stops; and,
installation of lighting at raised medians and along sidewalks for nighttime and inclement weather
pedestrian safety. All of the improvements will be constructed in existing rights-of-way, therefore, no right-
of-way phase is required by VDOT.
The grant is a reimbursable grant. The Board has allocated $237,000 in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) for Hillsdale Drive improvements. An additional $17,000 of County funding will come from
the sidewalk and street light CIP Fund.
Staff anticipates that the project will be advertised for construction bids this summer, with
construction taking place in the Fall of 2006. The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed and approved the
project agreement. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution to authorize the County Executive
to execute the Standard Project Administration Agreement for the Hillsdale Drive Pedestrian Safety
Project and to take all other necessary steps to secure the reimbursable Federal Safety Grant and to
complete the project.
(Discussion: Mr. W yant said the County made an announcement about this project over a year
ago. He thought the County would be moving toward getting plans approved so the work could be done.
Mr. Tucker said the announcement concerned the grant funds, and now staff is in the process of finalizing
getting the money and the plans identified. He said the County received the grant funds and then had to
establish exactly what improvements would be made.
Mr. W yant said the same thing occurred for Crozet, and he just wondered about that process. Mr.
Cilimberg said one of the factors involved is that it is a Federal grant which required the County to go
through the federal process with VDOT to get agreements in place.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. W yant asked if the Crozet grant is at the same stage. Mr. Cilimberg said it has been decided
that Phase 1 of the Crozet project will be undertaken without the use of the grant moneys; those moneys
will then be used for Phases 2 and 3. Staff feels Phase 1 can begin quicker without having to go through
that process.
Mr. W yant said both of these projects were announced at the same time. That is the only reason
he asked about Crozet. Mr. David Benish said the Crozet project can probably proceed quicker. It is
hoped the section from the railroad bridge past the existing library will begin by late summer or fall.
Hillsdale still has to go through final design, engineering and bidding. Now that the money has been
secured both projects are progressing through the design, build phase.
Ms. Thomas said she is interested in the lighting that will be selected and hopes the Board will get
to see what is proposed. There are a lot of creative ways to provide lighting for pedestrians.
Mr. Boyd said a committee was established for Hillsdale Drive. He asked if they will be involved in
the design of this project. Mr. Tucker said the neighbors have been involved with Mr. Juandiego W ade,
Transportation Planner, in the design of both projects.
Mr. W ade said there have been three or more public hearings to establish the design. As part of
the County’s review process staff had to establish a team to review all of the proposals received.
Someone from VDOT and the MPO will review those plans. There will be additional public meetings as
part of the proposals received from the consultants.
Mr. Boyd said he knew that but thought the Board established a Hillsdale Committee. Mr. W ade
said there are two different committees. One is for the Hillsdale Drive Extension to Hydraulic Road. The
other is for the improvements to the existing road.
Mr. Boyd asked if that committee should have input into the approval process. Mr. W ade said that
throughout the entire process for the Hillsdale Drive Extension the Committee was given updates and
information on the project and it provided staff with information. The Committee was not officially part of
the safety improvements, but provided input; they will continue to be involved.
Mr. Rooker said this project needs to be moved forward expeditiously, and also the Crozet project.
The announcements were made in June, 2004. Now, it is two years later and the cost of the projects has
probably gone up 20+ percent. The County is putting in $288,000 of its own money and that is now about
equal to the amount of the Federal grant. He said the Board is hiring a new employee to work on
transportation and he suggests this person be given this project quickly and asked to get it moving
forward. Mr. Tucker said this is a reason staff recommended that the Board hire a transportation
engineer. That person has not been hired, but staff is down to offering the position to a candidate. A
great deal of time and effort has been expended planning these projects and getting the money. The
projects need to be accelerated or the County will find that the local share is much larger than planned.
Mr. W yant said several of his constituents have mentioned the fact that the project was
announced, but they had not seen anything happen so far. That is his concern.
Mr. Benish said for the Hillsdale project the grant was awarded a year before the money was
actually available on the Federal level. The County had to wait for that appropriation; the project then had
to go through an environmental process.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said the design for Phase 1 of the sidewalk project in
Crozet is almost completed. Staff feels a year has been saved by not going the Federal grant route. That
grant money will be shifted to the second and third phases which are in the planning process. Staff hopes
the project will be bid in the next couple of months so it can start this summer and be completed by the
end of 2006.)
By the vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution authorizing the
County Executive to execute the Standard Project Administration Agreement for the Hillsdale
Drive Pedestrian Safety Project, and it authorized him to take all other necessary steps to secure
the reimbursable Federal Safety Grant and to complete the project.
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the County
Executive is authorized, on behalf of the County, to execute the Standard Project Administration
Agreement for the Hillsdale Drive Pedestrian Safety Improvements (Project Number 1427-002-
574).
__________
Item 6.2. Resolution of Appropriations for the Albemarle County Operating and Capital Budgets
for FY 2006/2007.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation for the operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year 2006-07, and adopted the
following Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
_____
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Borrower”),
intends to acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto
(collectively, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its
own funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring
indebtedness and to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt
bonds or taxable debt, or both;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”)
or to incur other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to
exceed $26,206,000.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the
Borrower for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more
than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date
hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel,
either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax
principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with
respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current
revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as
such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount
to or for the benefit of the Borrower.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written
allocation by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to
reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the
Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than
three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that
exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de
minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year
of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official
intent” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
Exhibit A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED PROJECTS
FY 2006/07
Schools Amount
1. Cale Addition $2,863,000
2. ADA Structural Changes $15,000
3. Monticello Auditorium $4,731,000
4. W AHS Auditorium Moveable W all $390,000
5. School Maintenance Projects $3,301,000
6. Jouett-Greer Site Reconfiguration $475,000
Schools - Subtotal $11,775,000
General Fund Amount
1. Court Expansion $1,450,000
2. Pantops Fire Station $390,000
3. Ivy Fire Station $1,634,000
4. Fire Rescue Apparatus $2,265,000
5. Fire Training Center/Police Firing Range $584,000
6. County Office Building Renovations $2,475,000
7. Recreation Facility $2,030,000
8. Crozet Library $3,603,000
General Fund - Subtotal $14,431,000
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE $26,206,000
__________
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Item 6.3. Authorize County to join the Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk
Pool for FY 2006-07.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Albemarle County’s property and liability insurance
plan is reviewed and executed on an annual basis. The effective dates for the plan coincide with the
County’s fiscal year (July 1 through June 30). Since FY 2000–01 the County has participated in an
insurance plan sponsored by the Virginia Municipal League (VML) for coverage under the Virginia
Municipal Liability Pool. For FY 2006-07, proposals were received by the County for insurance plans
sponsored by both VML and the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo).
The proposed insurance plans from VML and VACo for FY 2006-07 were reviewed by County
staff. The total cost for insurance coverage from VACo is $336,300. The total cost for comparable
coverage from VML is $459,181. Therefore, VACo’s bid is $122,881 less than VML’s. Both plans are
equivalent to the plan currently in effect with one exception. The deductible for liability for law
enforcement and public officials claims increases from the current deductible of $0 to $10,000 in FY 2006-
07. Both the VACo and VML plans, compared above, proposed a $10,000 deductible for FY 06-07. In
addition, VML offered a plan with no deductible for an additional cost of $40,000 per year ($499,761).
Historically the County averages three or less of these claims per year, so the deductible will not
significantly offset the savings provided by the VACo proposal.
In its FY 2006-07 budget, the Board approved $396,832 for the County’s property and liability
insurance coverage. The proposal from VACo is $60,532 under that budgeted amount. The VML
proposal is $62,349 over the budgeted amount. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a Resolution to
authorize the County to join the Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool to provide
for the County’s property and liability insurance coverage for FY 2006-07.
By the vote set out above the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing the
County to join the Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool to provide for
the County’s property and liability insurance coverage for FY 2006-07.
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE MEMBER AGREEMENT TO JOIN
THE VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
GROUP SELF INSURANCE RISK POOL
WHEREAS, Albemarle County desires to protect against liability claims and property
losses and to provide for payment of claims or losses for which the county may be liable; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool, aka
VACoRP, has been established pursuant to Chapter 27 (§ 15.2-2700 et seq.) and Title 15.2 of the
code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable for Albemarle County to join the Virginia Association of
Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool in order to provide a method of risk sharing for liability
claims and property losses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby agrees to participate under the member agreement entitled “Member Agreement for
Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool” which creates a group fund to
pay liability claims and property losses of the counties and other local agencies joining the Group,
and acknowledges that the County has received a copy of the pertinent Plan and supporting
documents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to execute the
member agreement to join the Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool
and to act on behalf of Albemarle County in any other matter relative to the Group.
__________
Item 6.4. Adopt Revision to Petty Cash Resolution.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Virginia Code Section 15.2-1229, provides that the
County may adopt a resolution to establish petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 to be used to transact
daily County business.
The Board last established petty cash funds by a resolution adopted on April 5, 2006. Staff
recommends adoption of a new resolution to authorize an additional $50.00 petty cash fund for the
Community Development Department. This petty cash fund would allow customers to conduct business
directly at the Community Development Department instead of going to the Finance Department to pay
their fees and returning to Community Development with a receipt to receive their permit, license, etc.
The establishment of a petty cash fund will provide better customer service to community residents and
developers who are required to pay a development fee or for licenses or for a building permit. A petty
cash fund will eliminate the need for citizens to make several stops at the County Office Building to
complete their business. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a Resolution to add a petty cash fund
for the Community Development Department and reestablish the existing petty cash funds.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-1229, provides that the governing body of any county may
establish by resolution one or more petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 each for the payment of
claims arising from commitments made pursuant to law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution on April 5, 2006, establishing
petty cash funds; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors now desires to amend certain petty cash funds for the
above stated purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia establishes the following petty cash funds:
Finance Department $ 3,350.00
Social Services 200.00
Community Development 50.00
Police Department 1,800.00
Sheriff’s Department 100.00
Fire and Rescue 150.00
Fire and Rescue - Monticello Fire Station 250.00
Commonwealth’s Attorney 300.00
Parks & Recreation 100.00
Total $ 6,300.00
__________
Item 6.5. Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, Revision of Charter.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee’s current
charter was approved in 1998. In the past year, members of the Committee expressed an opinion that the
Committee’s charter be updated in order to: (1) clarify the Committee’s mission, objectives,
responsibilities, membership structure, operating model and action plan; and, (2) give the Committee
explicit authority to evaluate, adopt and oversee the use of fiscal impact analytical tools other than just the
County’s Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM). The Committee voted at its March 9, 2006, meeting, to
approve the proposed charter and now seeks Board approval of this item.
The following points represent significant proposed changes and/or additions to the current
charter:
• The “Duties/Functions” section of the current charter charges the Committee with the “ongoing
community oversight to the implementation and use of the County’s fiscal impact model.” This
charge is assumed to refer only to the County’s current Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM). The
proposed charter’s “Mission” and “Responsibilities” sections explicitly broaden this charge to
include any other fiscal impact tools the Committee might wish to adopt. The Committee wanted
to make this change in the event better fiscal impact models become available so the County
would not be limited to using only CRIM.
• The current charter does not define the concept of fiscal impact analysis. The “Mission” section of
the proposed charter defines “fiscal impact.” The Committee wanted to include this definition in
the proposed charter in order to specify exactly the variables that CRIM and other fiscal impact
tools are intended to measure and, consequently, to help eliminate a perceived confusion about
the abilities of fiscal impact analysis.
• The “Duties/Functions” section of the current charter does not charge the Committee with the
responsibility of advocating fiscal impact analysis as an important input into development
decision-making. The proposed charter gives the Committee this responsibility. The Committee
wanted to include this responsibility because the Committee did not perceive that the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors place adequate weight on the results of fiscal impact
analysis when evaluating the overall desirability of proposed development.
• The “Length of Term” and “Membership” sections of the current charter have been combined into
the “Membership” section of the proposed charter. The “Membership” section of the proposed
charter, unlike the current charter, explicitly includes the Assistant County Executive, the Director
of Planning, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Fiscal Impact Planner
as non-voting ex-officio members of the Committee. The Committee wanted to include these
people in the fact sheet in order to clarify the specific staff members who are involved in the
County’s fiscal impact analysis efforts.
• The “Frequency/Times for Meetings” section of the current charter has been included in the
“Operating Model” section of the proposed charter. The number of meeting dates per year has
been changed from four to six, with the notation that the Fiscal Impact Planner will develop
meeting agendas and associated materials, will distribute these items at least one week in
advance of the meetings, and will run the meetings. The Committee sought to increase the
number of meetings per year because of a perceived increase in the public’s interest in fiscal
impact analysis. The Committee wanted to include language regarding the Fiscal Impact
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Planner’s responsibilities in order to set down in writing some of the tasks that the Fiscal Impact
Planner has performed regularly since 1998.
• The “Action Plan” section of the proposed charter mentions that the Fiscal Impact Planner will
submit an annual work plan to the Committee for the Committee’s review, comments and
suggestions. The Committee wanted to include this language in order to set down in writing a
tradition to which the Fiscal Impact Planner has adhered since 1998.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached proposed Fiscal Impact
Advisory Committee Fact Sheet.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the following Fact Sheet for the
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FACT SHEET
Mission
The Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) is appointed by the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to
provide advice to the Board of Supervisors on the development, implementation, and uses of the
County’s official tools for measuring the fiscal impact of development. The Committee’s goal is to
foster a well-informed, thoughtful, and constructive dialogue on the fiscal impact of development,
thereby contributing to rational decision-making. Fiscal impact, in this context, refers to the dollar
value of the public costs and revenues associated with development.
Objectives
FIAC has two primary objectives: (1) To enable the relevant and accurate fiscal impact analysis
of the County’s aggregate development; and (2) To facilitate the relevant and accurate fiscal
impact analysis of site-specific development proposals. FIAC’s goal in both cases is to contribute
to rational decision-making by providing accurate and relevant fiscal impact information to the
Board of Supervisors.
Responsibilities
Ensure that the assumptions behind the County’s official tools of fiscal impact analysis are
open to scrutiny and discussion from a cross-section of community interests;
Ensure the community of the credibility of the County’s official tools of fiscal impact analysis, by
providing oversight and management as the County uses its official tools of fiscal impact
analysis to analyze various growth scenarios and development projects;
Review for validity and accuracy any and all existing and proposed data changes or updates to
the County’s official tools of fiscal impact analysis;
Perform an in-depth assessment of three approaches to fiscal impact analysis, i.e., the
marginal cost project analysis, the average cost trend analysis, and the marginal cost trend
analysis and certify the accuracy of these tools prior to their use in any projections submitted to
the Board or the public;
W ork with the Fiscal Impact Planner on a regular basis to ensure the ongoing validity and
accuracy of the County’s official tools of fiscal impact analysis;
Ensure that all fiscal impact analytical tools in use by the County are appropriate to the needs
of the County, and are the very best tools available;
Review the suitability of alternate tools of fiscal impact analysis for potential use by the County.
Advocate the use of fiscal impact planning, by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission, as an important input into development decision-making.
Membership
Members of the Committee are appointed by the Board of Supervisors for terms of two years, and
are eligible to serve two consecutive terms, unless otherwise modified by the Board of
Supervisors. Appointments may be staggered for continuity. The Assistant County Executive, the
Director of Planning, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Fiscal Impact
Planner are non-voting ex officio members of the Committee.
Operating Model
The Committee meets six times per year, on the second W ednesday of the months of January,
March, May, July, September, and November. Meeting agendas and associated materials will be
developed and distributed at least one week in advance by the Fiscal Impact Planner. Meetings
will be run by the County’s Fiscal Impact Planner.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Action Plan
At each July FIAC meeting, the Fiscal Impact Planner will submit an annual work plan to FIAC for
the Committee’s review, comments, and suggestions.
__________
Item 6.6. Resolution Concurring with and Approving the Issuance By the Industrial Development
Authority of Mathews County, Virginia, of its Revenue Bond in an Amount not to Exceed $5,320,000 for
Charlottesville Catholic School.
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky asked why these bonds are being issued by Mathews County instead of
Albemarle County. Mr. Davis said there is a $10.0 million limit on bank-qualified funding by each locality.
The Albemarle County IDA has surpassed that amount in planned lending for this year. W hen that
occurs, applicants go to other IDAs in order to get the tax benefits of the bank-qualified lending. This is
something that occurs several times a year.
Mr. Slutzky asked how this private school was able to use a public authority for their funding. Mr.
Davis said it is well-established that these types of schools qualify.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any violation of the First Amendment in doing this. Mr. Tucker said
that question has been discussed by the IDA. Mr. Davis said there was a similar request litigated several
years ago in which the Albemarle IDA was involved. The IDA was upheld and the issue approved as
being a proper action of the IDA.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF MATHEWS COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, OF ITS REVENUE BOND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$5,320,000 FOR CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL
W HEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Mathews County, Virginia (the
Mathews County Authority), has considered the plans of Charlottesville Catholic School, a
component of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia (the Borrower), whose educational
facility and place of business (the School) is located at 1205 Pen Park Road, Albemarle County,
Virginia 22901, for the issuance of the Mathews County Authority's revenue bond (the Bond) in an
amount not to exceed $5,320,000 to assist the Borrower in refinancing an addition to the School
and financing the cost of constructing and equipping improvements to the School, including
improvements to the basement and the conversion of the cafeteria to a gymnasium (collectively,
the Project), located at 1205 Pen Park Road, Albemarle County, Virginia 22901;
W HEREAS, the proceeds of the Bond will also finance the cost of issuing the Bond;
W HEREAS, the Mathews County Authority has held a public hearing with respect to the
Bond on April 26, 2006, and has adopted an approving resolution (the Mathews County Authority
Resolution) with respect thereto;
W HEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
Albemarle County Authority), has held a public hearing with respect to the Bond on May 30, 2006,
and has adopted an approving resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County (the Board) concur with the Mathews County Authority Resolution; and
W HEREAS, as the Project is located in Albemarle County and the Albemarle County
Authority is in existence and has the power to issue bonds for the Project, Section 15.2-4905 of
the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the Virginia Code), provides that the Board must
concur with the adoption of the Mathews County Authority Resolution;
W HEREAS, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), provides that
the highest elected governmental officials of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the
area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located shall
approve the issuance of such bonds; and
W HEREAS, the members of the Board constitute the highest elected governmental
officials of Albemarle County; and
W HEREAS, a copy of the Mathews County Authority Resolution, the Albemarle County
Authority's approving resolution, a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at
the public hearing with respect to the Bond held by the Albemarle County Authority and a
statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of the Virginia Code have been filed with
the Board;
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, concurs with the
adoption of the Mathews County Authority Resolution and approves the issuance of the Bond by
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
the Mathews County Authority to the extent required by the Code and Section 15.2-4905 of the
Virginia Code.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bond, as required by the Code and Section
15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code, does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of
the Bond of the creditworthiness of the Borrower and the Bond shall provide that Albemarle
County shall not be obligated to pay the Bond or the interest thereon or other costs incident
thereto and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia or
Albemarle County shall be pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item 6.7. Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Resolution (copy of Plan on file in Clerk’s
office).
In a letter from Billie Campbell dated May 24, 2006, he said that at its June 1, 2005, meeting, the
Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the Albemarle Chapter of the Regional Natural Hazard
Mitigation Plan and adopted it pending approval by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. VDEM and FEMA have reviewed the Plan and found it
satisfactory, with only minor revisions needed for full compliance. All revisions have now been
incorporated into one full Plan. The final step is formal adoption by all participating localities. All of the
mitigation projects detailed in the Albemarle Chapter remain the same. A resolution is forwarded for the
Board’s consideration. Albemarle County and Planning District staff recommends adopting the Plan.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ADOPTION OF THE
REGIONAL NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
W HEREAS, hazard mitigation is sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the risk to
human life and property from natural hazards and their effects; and
W HEREAS, it is essential to protect life and property by reducing the potential for future
damages and economic losses resulting from natural disasters; and
W HEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation act of 2000 provides new and revitalized approaches
to mitigation planning; and
W HEREAS, compliance with the new mitigation plan requirements will position Albemarle
County and the region to receive pre- and post-disaster mitigation funding; and
W HEREAS, Albemarle County has been involved in the preparation of the Regional
Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, including review, and public hearings and approval by both the
Albemarle Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; and
W HEREAS, Albemarle County approved the Hazard Mitigation Plan for submission to the
Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA); and
W HEREAS, VDEM and the FEMA have deemed the submitted plan satisfactory with no
changes in the mitigation activities for Albemarle County;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
does hereby adopt the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan.
__________
Item 6.8. 2006 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the County of Albemarle Community
Development Department, was received for information.
__________
Item 6.9. Copy of letter dated April 25, 2006, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to David W . Lewis, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS -- Tax Map 58, Parcel 3 (Property of David W . Lewis and Mary Alice Lewis) Section 10.3.1, was
received for information.
__________
Item 6.10. Copy of application of Virginia Electric and Power Company to revise its co-generation
tariff pursuant to PURPA Section 210 (Case No. PUE-2005-00114) was received for information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said whenever the Federal government, the SCC or private
companies say they are doing something to enable you to make more efficient decisions, it worries her.
She does not know whether what they are proposing will make it easier or harder for co-generation to
exist. She said that on her recent trip to Germany, she was impressed by all of the windmills everywhere.
Apparently they were influenced by this sort of thing as to what co-generators receive in the way of funds.
She asked if anyone with expertise had looked at this notice to see whether the Board should comment, or
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
whether it can comment. Also, will what they are proposing make it easier or harder for co-generators to
receive some funding for payment for the energy they produce.
(Mr. Slutzky said he took a quick look and then talked to an energy consultant who works with
him. This person observed that PJM methodology is more standard and accepted and is usually
advocated by co-generators. He assumes they get more clarity as to the actual cost avoidance that the
utility experiences and that is why they push for it. This person was not speaking about Virginia’s
methodologies, but generally speaking to what they are switching to.
Mr. Davis said VACo and VML both have a person who is responsible for monitoring these things.
If staff sees an issue, they generally talk to them. They have outside counsel with expertise in this area,
so staff does not analyze these issues in depth. Normally, they don’t directly involve Albemarle County.
Mr. Rooker said for the public’s information, this is not an action item on the agenda. It is in the
Board’s packet for informational purposes.)
__________
Item 6.11. Albemarle County’s Draft FY 2007–10 Strategic Plan.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that on September 9, 2005, the Board initiated the
County’s FY 2007–10 Strategic Plan. The Board 1) reviewed the County’s Vision and Mission statements,
2) identified five goals for inclusion in the FY 2007–2010 Strategic Plan, and, 3) identified and voted on top
priorities for this time period.
On November 2, 2005, the Board reviewed the results of its Retreat and made several
suggestions to further clarify its priorities for staff. On December 6 the Board received an updated
Executive Summary that included the recommendations made by the Board during its November 2nd
meeting.
During the past four months, the Board has held five work sessions to provide additional analysis
on the priority issues and to give more specific direction to staff. The purpose of these efforts was to
make the FY 2007–2010 Strategic Plan statements clear, actionable, and results-oriented in order to best
focus and drive staff’s strategic efforts in the years ahead. In addition, on April 5 the Board provided
guidance regarding the schedule for master plans and the Rural Area Plan Implementation strategic
priorities as part of a work session on the Community Development Department’s work plan.
Based on the Board’s guidance, a draft of the FY 2007–2010 Strategic Plan has been completed
and is attached (on file) for the Board’s review. The draft will be available to the public and County staff
for their review and comments. The final draft, including a summary of comments and suggestions, will
be presented to the Board for consideration at the July 5 Board meeting. Performance measures will be
finalized and detailed action plans will be developed by staff after the plan has been approved.
The Board’s strategic goal “to develop a comprehensive funding strategy to address the County’s
growing needs” will be the basis of the Board’s September Strategic Planning Retreat.
The County’s Strategic Plan is not a static document. Each year the Board will review its progress
and identify new challenges and opportunities. As necessary, the Board may adjust its efforts to ensure
that the County reaches its goals and achieves its vision. Staff requests Board members to review the
draft FY 2007–2010 Strategic Plan and provide comments and suggestions for improvements to Ms. Lori
Allshouse, Strategic Management Coordinator. These comments will be used to prepare a final draft to
be considered by the Board at the July 5, 2006, Board meeting.
This report was received for information only.
__________
Item 6.12. Copies of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 28, April 11 and April 18,
2006, were received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Board-to-Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
Ms. Sue Friedman, Chairman, Albemarle County School Board, was present. She said that Friday
is the last day of school for this year and it is now graduation season. She noted some administrative
changes have been made in the School Division. Mr. Bruce Benson, formerly the Executive Director for
Curriculum, Instruction and Technology has been named the Assistant Superintendent for Student
Learning effective June 1. Ms. Kathryn Baylor, currently Principal at Sutherland Middle School, has been
named the Principal of Jack Jouett Middle School. Mr. David Rogers, currently the Principal of Jack
Jouett Middle School, has been named the Principal of Sutherland Middle School.
Ms. Friedman said the School Board is facing the fact that construction costs continue to
accelerate. They have made two changes in CIP funding so they can finalize the Cale addition project
and the Monticello High School Auditorium project. The changes were made within the agreed upon debt
service targets and no change is required in current funding.
Ms. Friedman said the School Board has approved a budget for FY ’06-07. In the event the State
budget is not as positive for education as they assume it will be, they are prepared to deal with that issue.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Friedman said the School Board’s No. 4 goal is to be a world class organization. The School
Board is looking at modeling that goal and at how the community is being engaged. It will be looking at
how to make the best use of its time and energy and staff’s time and energy. They have been looking at
an electronic meetings process called BoardDocs. Over 100 school divisions in the country currently use
the process. It would do away with binders and printed materials and allow nearly complete transparency
with the public as far as the agenda and documents are concerned.
Ms. Friedman said the School Board is engaged in a two-part retreat. They have homework. The
Superintendent provided them with a book by the founder and CEO of Edison Schools called “Crash
Course.” She found another book entitled “Five Habits for High Impact School Boards” by Doug Ede. The
School Board has had its first evaluation of its 2005–2007 School Board/Superintendent Priorities and
those results will be available to the public. There is a second retreat scheduled for June 10 to deal with
Goals IV and V which are “How do you know you are a world class organization?” and “Efficient and
effective uses of resources.”
Ms. Friedman said the School Board is committed to being sure all students excel, embrace life-
long learning and own their future. She then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Slutzky said he knows the School Board has addressed the fact that another Albemarle
student has died, maybe from alcohol. He asked if the Supervisors could be useful and supportive of any
decision the School Board makes.
Ms. Friedman thanked Mr. Slutzky for volunteering support. She thinks the School Board will
make an official request to the legislative delegation asking for legislation which would let law enforcement
officials share the names of students who are arrested, in particular, for underage drinking. The School
Board thinks this is a roadblock in allowing them to be as effective as possible. The appropriate role of a
world-class educational institution in this arena is the larger issue. W hat are other school divisions doing?
They want to be sure of their options and also to get a sense of the will of the community.
Mr. Rooker said another issue is how far the Schools can and should go to enforce things that
take place outside of school hours in a private venue.
Mr. Slutzky said it is a complicated problem, but the thinks the Supervisors should be proactive in
addressing it.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Schools should be used as an enforcement mechanism for things that do
not take place on school property.
Ms. Friedman said she has heard this discussed in many places in the community. There are
many facets to the issue. She thinks it is appropriate for the School Board to get a good sense of the
community’s expectation.
Mr. Dorrier said there is also a cultural issue involved. It is not just law enforcement, but
education of the citizens is required.
Ms. Friedman asked if there were other questions. She offered to send the Board members a
copy of the books she mentioned earlier, if requested to do so.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: Jarman’s Gap Road (Route 691) Improvement
Project.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said that on March 30, 2006, the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) held a design public hearing for the Jarman’s Gap Road improvement project.
The scope of the project is from Crozet Avenue (Route 240) to its intersection with Half Mile Branch Road
(Route 684), for upgrading the alignment of the roadway. He said Mr. Jim Utterback, VDOT Resident
Engineer, has provided a summary of the public comments received from the public hearing process and
recommendations for implementing the project.
Mr. Benish said VDOT held a Citizen’s Informational Meeting on this project on November 12,
2003. They furnished the Board a copy of the comments received along with their recommendations and
on March 3, 2004, the Board adopted a resolution recommending a concept for the roadway. At that time,
VDOT proposed two options for the eastern section of that roadway as it intersects with Crozet Avenue
(Route 240) (using the existing alignment/right-of-way) called Alternative A. Alignment B realigned
Jarman’s Gap to intersect at the Tabor Street/Crozet Avenue intersection utilizing the existing
alignment/right-of-way and providing a two-lane road with curb and gutter, bike lanes and a sidewalk on
the north side of the road using an urban design to the Gray Rock development, transitioning to a rural
cross-section with paved shoulders from Jarman’s Lake Road to Half Mile Branch Road. This design
minimized the impact to an adjacent potential historic property avoiding displacement of homes on at least
two properties, and best maintained the existing schedule for construction. At the time it was felt to be a
reasonable project given available funding and timing.
Mr. Benish said based on comments from the most recent public hearing process there is a
VDOT/staff recommendation for essentially the same cross-section on the alignment as previously
adopted in the Board’s resolution. There is one change recommended by VDOT and that is to continue
the sidewalk facilities throughout the length of the project, and on the north side of the road there would be
a bike lane and sidewalk extending through the entire length of the project from the Gray Rock
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
development. The south side of the section to Half Mile Branch Road would be a rural cross-section.
VDOT believes that to be a reasonable compromise.
Mr. Benish said one of the major comments made in both the 2004 process and the most recent
process concerns the impact on the side parking lot of the Crozet United Methodist Church. Between 10
and 25 spaces would be lost as a result of this project. Although there is no immediate solution to this
situation, certain approaches can be taken either in the short- or long-term through parking in central
downtown Crozet or parking on nearby streets. There is the potential for cooperative parking as
redevelopment occurs in the Blue Goose area and other places downtown. He said staff and VDOT need
to consider all these possible options as design of this project moves forward.
Mr. Benish said staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution approving the design
proposed by VDOT and directing staff to include further analysis of long-term intersection needs on Crozet
Avenue and possible improvements to Carter Street as part of the upcoming Crozet Sidewalk/
Streetscape engineering/design work, also directing staff and VDOT to address the issue as it moves
forward with the design of this project.
Mr. W yant asked if adding all of this together will change the timeline for the project. Mr. Benish
said one reason for having the project in Phases I and II is that there needs to be a good understanding of
what the ultimate Jarman’s Gap Road project is since it intersects with a portion of that roadway. He said
General Services is working toward hiring a consultant engineer to work on engineering the streetscape
considering the right-of-way available and other issues.
Mr. W yant said he has heard often about the loss of parking for the church. That is a critical issue
which has to be addressed. Mr. Benish said VDOT will assess how the project affects that parking lot and
the resulting impact to the design at the edge of the project. He said staff will work with VDOT during the
planning process to figure out as many short-term fixes as possible. The longer-term fix is to look at the
downtown area and proactively trying to achieve some of the goals already in the Master Plan. Parking is
already an issue in the downtown area.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that the southern parking lot has not
been redesigned so no one knows how many parking places can be put back on the property after the
road is widened. VDOT needs to know the commitment is to put the road on this alignment, and then they
can look at alternatives.
Mr. Rooker said there will be monetary compensation made to the church and that can be applied
to replacement parking. W hether that mitigates the problem remains to be seen. Compensation should
cover the taking of the property and any damage to the remainder of the property so they could possibly
get a significant award.
Mr. W yant said loss of parking affects a lot of folks, and just getting compensation does not
address the problem. He thinks they should get some impact funds as well, but he thinks the Board or
VDOT should make sure their parking is replaced.
Ms. Thomas asked if VDOT has a responsibility to provide money for alternative parking
solutions. Mr. Davis said VDOT must compensate the church for whatever property is taken for purposes
of a highway project. He understands the church has the opportunity to make more efficient use of
parking on the church property. Then, as properties adjacent to the church are redeveloped, there may be
an opportunity to change the County’s parking regulations to allow for greater shared parking, especially
for a use like a church which may have parking needs that do not conflict with those of businesses. He
thinks the key is to allow the church the opportunity for adjacent owners to share parking. He said the
long-term solution is a new look at downtown parking requirements for businesses as they redevelop.
Mr. Tucker said staff is asking whether the Board wants to move forward with the draft resolution
furnished today, or does it want to delay a decision until it has more information.
Mr. Rooker said there was a member of the church present, and if no one objected he would allow
him to say a few words.
Mr. Martin Jensen said he is a lay leader at Crozet U.M. Church and does not speak for the entire
congregation. They only learned of this agenda item yesterday so did not have time to prepare anything
for presentation. In listening to the conversation, they feel underrepresented as far as their interests are
concerned. This is not just loss of parking spaces. They recently designed and built a new fellowship hall
with an elaborate entrance on the south side of the building. They use that entrance not only for Sunday
worship, but for their food pantry and other ministries. The discussion about what will be lost and what will
be left is of concern to them. They realize they are landlocked and there is not much land in that area
which would be available for parking.
Mr. Jensen said at this time the church has an issue with noise. On Sunday mornings it seems
that people intentionally drive up and down the road and that noise will be moved closer to the south side
of their sanctuary. It will impact their worship service and the lives of the 500 people who are members of
the church. They understand the complexity of the issue and do not want to be an impediment to growth
in Crozet. The decision which may be made today will impact the church, yet the “maybes” have not been
decided. He wants the Board to understand that this is not just about parking or compensation. They
realize that eventually the church may have to grow beyond this site, but what is being talked about now
will limit the amount of growth that can occur on this site. Phase I has already been built, but the church
has a Phase II and a Phase III plan. Land loss will impact that plan. He asked that there be a proactive
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
communication plan with the congregation. They only get information in bits and pieces and through “the
grapevine.”
Mr. Dorrier said there was a person in the audience with his hand up.
Mr. Rooker said this was not really a public hearing item, but he said the gentleman could come
forward and address the Board.
Mr. Cliff Fox said he owns property on the south side of Jarman’s Gap Road directly across from
Blue Ridge Avenue. The new plan takes an additional 46 feet of right-of-way and moves the utilities
completely out VDOT’s right-of-way. He thinks that kind of planning is antithetical to what the Crozet
Master Plan and the Neighborhood Model recommends. He said the County was looking at reducing
building setbacks in order to get them closer to the road. The current plan is essentially setting them 46
feet off the new road. He thinks there are things that still need to be looked at.
Mr. W yant asked if the plan shows full width lanes. Mr. Jim Utterback, Resident Engineer, said in
order to put in bike lanes they must adhere to a certain width. Having a typical section in some of the
lanes is not an option at this time.
Mr. W yant asked if VDOT has enough information now to go to the next step in the process. Mr.
Utterback said the next step is to present the plan to the Commonwealth Transportation Board to get
design approval. They are trying to get a “Notice to Proceed” for obtaining right-of-way. At that time,
some of the issues can be addressed directly.
Mr. W yant said the parking issue needs to be resolved. Mr. Utterback said once the design is
fixed he does not think it will be changed, but during the right-of-way phase there are adjustments which
must be made. A design has to be approved, or the issue can never be addressed.
Mr. Slutzky said he is wary of holding up the need for the Jarman’s Gap Road infrastructure
improvements until all the nuances of the project are sorted out.
Mr. W yant agreed, but said there are concerns that need to be addressed. The church needs
room to grow even after the parking is lost. There are ways to address noise impacts. He has talked with
the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the Pastor, but communications need to be improved.
Mr. Tucker said staff has done more work than Mr. Jensen and the Pastor of the Church are
aware. If the Board adopts staff’s recommendation, it will allow staff to move forward and make definitive
plans. The downtown area of Crozet is not unlike any other downtown area. He attends church in
Charlottesville and due to parking has to walk two or more blocks each time he goes to church because of
the need to use parking elsewhere in the community. It might be possible to find parking near and around
the Crozet Church, but that is the changing nature the Neighborhood Model will be looking at. Zoning staff
is looking at liberalizing parking requirements in downtown areas and it is also looking at other parking
areas in the little downtown part of Crozet so there will be parking for other churches during hours which
are not normal retail hours.
Mr. Boyd said evidently the church has not been involved in the planning process. He asked the
impact of the Board making a decision on this question today.
Ms. Thomas said there should be better communications with the church, but the Board
previously said the Jarman’s Gap Road process should be moved along. If it is delayed, that will send a
bad message to the Crozet community.
Mr. Rooker said included in the paperwork today is a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board
on March 10, 2004, in which it basically selected the options. He thinks this is just a fine tuning of those
options. That was done after a public information meeting had been held and comments reviewed. If this
project is to be done at all, he is not sure what other options would be considered other than the option
presented by VDOT. That option is basically the same one the Board approved two years ago. This
project has been pending for years. The Board can decide not to do the project at all and allocate the
money somewhere else and move on. He does not know what delaying a decision today will accomplish.
Mr. W yant then moved to adopt the following resolution endorsing VDOT’s recommended
alignment for Jarman’s Gap Road. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION ENDORSING
JARMAN’S GAP ROAD PROJECT
IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) held a Public Information
Meeting to solicit input on the proposed design concept for Jarman’s Gap Road (Route 691)
(Project 0691-002-258, C501), located in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
WHEREAS, the project proposes to improve Jarman’s Gap Road with two (2) twelve foot
(12’) lanes, two (2) four foot (4’) bicycle lanes, curb and gutter and a five foot (5’) sidewalk on the
north side of the road from Route 240 (Crozet Avenue) to Jarman’s Lake Road, and with two (2)
twelve foot (12’) lanes, shared bike path, sidewalk and curb and gutter on the north side of the
road and a rural design (shoulder and ditch) with a paved shoulder on the south side of the road
from Jarman’s Lake Road to Route 684 (Half Mile Branch Road); and
WHEREAS, 68 people attended the public hearing to provide input on the Jarman’s Gap
Road project; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the options, public and written comments, and considering all
aspects of the proposed project, VDOT recommends the alignment presented at the March 30,
2006, public hearing for the following reasons:
• it has least impact to potentially historic properties;
• it is the least expensive option;
• it will facilitate the use of Federal funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby endorse the following improvements to Jarman’s Gap Road: two (2)
twelve foot (12’) lanes, two (2) four foot (4’) bicycle lanes, curb and gutter and a five foot (5’)
sidewalk on the north side of the road from Route 240 (Crozet Avenue) to Jarman’s Lake Road,
and two (2) twelve foot (12’) lanes, shared bike path, sidewalk and curb and gutter on the north
side of the road and a rural design (shoulder and ditch) with a paved shoulder on the south side of
the road from Jarman’s Lake Road to Route 684 (Half Mile Branch Road).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8b. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report for May, 2006.
Mr. Jim Utterback, Resident Administrator, said he would like to make two introductions. Both of
the residency program manager positions have now been filled, and they will both start work next Monday.
He introduced Mr. Joel DeNunzio, PE, coming from Richmond VDOT where he has worked for a number
of years. He will be the Residency Program Manager overseeing all land development, permitting and
Six-Year preliminary plan activities for VDOT’s Culpeper Residency. Next he introduced Mr. Darin
Simpson, PE, who will be the ARA for Maintenance, overseeing maintenance, traffic engineering and
safety programs for the VDOT Culpeper Residency.
__________
Mr. Utterback said the Proffit Road railroad bridge project is on schedule. Southern Railway plans
to start that work on June 12. VDOT will be setting up detour signs soon, and expects the project to be
completed in 60 to 90 days.
Mr. Boyd asked if there will be a light installed on Polo Grounds Road at the railroad underpass.
Mr. Utterback said “yes.” There will be a portable light at that location. That will not be a detour route; the
detour is to keep traffic on Route 250 going around to Route 29.
__________
Mr. Utterback said the Advance Mills Bridge is still closed. A member is being machined now and
hopefully it will be ready for installation in a couple of days so the bridge can be opened on Friday, June 9.
He said the bridge continues to deteriorate. VDOT spends a significant amount of money (since 2001
between $300,000 and $400,000) maintaining the structure. It is a significant maintenance cost to keep
the structure open and keep it up to the minimum rating of three tons. Because of limited maintenance
funds, VDOT will not be able to continue spending that much money on this structure. They will be
discussing with the County the idea that the County agree to pay some of those maintenance costs.
Mr. W yant asked if Mr. Utterback was talking about the “large” bridge. Mr. Utterback said “yes.”
Mr. W yant asked about the “small” bridge going back to Route 29. Mr. Utterback said the
tonnage on that bridge has gone down. He has asked if some correction can be made to the bridge to
bring it up to legal load because when that bridge is reopened there will continue to be issues. It needs to
be replaced. If they had replaced the “big” bridge, they would have gotten the “little” bridge at the same
time and fixed the whole situation. He will draft a letter to the Board to recommend a way to address the
situation. He does not think there has been any success keeping the bigger vehicles off of the bridge. He
has asked the District Traffic Engineer to look at some type of measures to restrict the larger vehicles
from crossing the bridge.
__________
Mr. Utterback said his last item is related to the State budget. VDOT has been going through
exercises the last two weeks concerning the impact to the Secondary Six-Year Plan. VDOT had a
statewide meeting last week and made two different projections since then. He said that statewide they
are required to put their allocations toward Federal projects. There is a big move to match the Federal
funds. A number of projects in the plan have been federalized. This means that allocations in future
years will go to Federal projects in the Secondary Plan. The three projects for Albemarle are: Jarman’s
Gap Road, Georgetown Road and Old Ivy Road. He said the Meadow Creek Parkway is a State-funded
project so it is not involved.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Boyd asked what that means to the Meadow Creek Parkway project. Mr. Utterback said once
a plan is settled on, there are a number of options. There is a significant amount in Revenue Sharing, and
those funds can be moved and pooled.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Utterback to explain this further. Mr. Utterback said that before he came to
this area, revenue sharing moneys were spread among projects for no reason that he has been able to
determine. He thinks those funds could be moved and put on higher priority projects. There is some
revenue sharing money allocated to the Old Ivy Road project. It is possible that money can be moved to
another project.
Mr. Rooker said the Board had already discussed taking the money from that project and putting it
on Georgetown Road so at least one project could be completed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Revenue Sharing money was allocated among a number of projects for
several years because that is the way State law was written at the time. He thinks the law has been
liberalized. If it is possible to start moving that money to other projects, staff will want to work with VDOT
on that.
Mr. Benish said the Revenue Sharing money is a match, so once VDOT expenditures took place,
staff was not able to reallocate that money without VDOT’s permission.
Mr. Utterback said there are some funds on other projects that could potentially be moved. He
does not know the exact amount, but those funds are not being broken out by the different sources. That
is previous State money.
Mr. Boyd said he understands there was right-of-way acquisition taking place for the Meadow
Creek Parkway. He asked if that has been suspended. Mr. Utterback said “no.” They have not gotten
final approval to proceed with the total take acquisition. That is in the process of being approved. Right
now everybody is dealing with the budget. He did see some correspondence at the director level in
Richmond which supported proceeding, but there has been no official word released.
Mr. Boyd asked if there will be delays. Mr. Utterback said the idea is to construct the City portion
of the project (McIntire Road and the Meadow Creek Parkway) at the same time. Clearly the City does not
have flexibility to move any allocations. Based on the budget they are trying to match the Federal
earmark.
Mr. Rooker asked who is trying to match the Federal earmark. Mr. Utterback said the City’s
allocation is urban so they must put that money into Federal projects first. They allocated to Federal
projects but he does not think they allocated anything to the McIntire piece of the project. He thinks the
County has more flexibility because it has a bigger program.
Mr. Rooker said when the budget is finalized, hopefully there will be an uproar throughout the
State. W hat is being seen here is happening everywhere.
Ms. Thomas said she read in the newspaper that the Legislators believe only Northern Virginia
and Tidewater will be hurt. She thinks the Board should discuss this with its area Legislators and let them
know there are impacts in this region from their inability to find increased revenue sources for
transportation. Until they get that message, they have no reason to take any action that might be
politically unpopular.
Mr. Rooker said he sent e-mails to a couple of the Legislators during the regular Session about
this issue and pointed out the projects where there will be problems including the Meadow Creek Parkway.
He asked everybody to call the Legislators they know and pressure them to come to an agreement on
funding for transportation.
Mr. Slutzky suggested holding a press conference on this subject with City Council. He said the
County is in a serious bind.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the time has passed when individual messages will work, so she
suggested discussing this at the end of the meeting today.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Legislature is coming close to a solution.
Mr. Rooker said their solution does not involve transportation. He thinks they will pass a budget in
the next week that will deal with everything except transportation.
Mr. Slutzky said the Legislature is not avoiding the issue, but there is the partisan position of not
wanting to raise taxes.
Mr. Rooker said the County got $3.8 million last year, $4.7 million the year before that, and he saw
a prediction that the County will get only $2.7 million under the new budget. At the same time, the right-of-
way costs for the Meadow Creek Parkway may be $4.0 million more than the last estimate. The inflation
factor on that right-of-way is greater than the County’s entire transportation allocation. Mr. Utterback said
in federalizing projects it is unlikely there will be any State money in the near future.
__________
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Utterback said he had an update on Garth Road which was discussed recently. He drove the
road with someone from Traffic Engineering. They will do an in-depth analysis to see if the lanes can be
drawn in so there can be a bike lane installed.
______________
Agenda Item No. 8c. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. W yant mentioned an issue with a school bus getting stuck on W hite Mountain Road, located
in Batesville, near the Nelson County line. Mr. Utterback said VDOT has paved a couple of the hills but
there is one spot on the road which needs to be fixed to help with the drainage problem.
__________
Mr. W yant said at the last EARL meeting, a request was made to install a larger sign at the
existing roundabout near the Airport. Mr. Slutzky said people told them that the signage is negligible so
they are confused about what to do. Mr. Utterback said VDOT would look at that signage.
__________
Mr. W yant said at that same time, a request was made to consider installing a street light at the
intersection with Route 29. It was noted as being quite dark at night. Mr. Slutzky said he does not find it
that dark, but the request was made at the EARL meeting.
Mr. Rooker said there has been a longstanding request for a street light on Rickey Road; the most
recent estimate for installation was $70,000.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned that a challenge was issued by Scenic Virginia for the VDOT Division that
does the best job in maintaining the visual appearance along the sides of its roads. She suggested this
Residency consider applying.
__________
Mr. Dorrier thanked VDOT for applying dust control to Route 712. He asked if that same dust
control can be applied to Route 713.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked about the status of Rural Rustic Road projects. Mr. Tucker said the Board is
having a work session next week to discuss total transportation efforts. Rural Rustic Roads will be
discussed then. Mr. Davis said there will also be a resolution on that agenda to designate which roads will
be rural rustic road projects.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked for a status report on an entrance to the proposed Gazebo Place site on Route
250 East. Mr. Cilimberg said a site plan is presently being reviewed by Current Development. Mr. Davis
said the site plan has been approved except for the VDOT entrance issue.
Mr. W yant asked the location of this project.
Mr. Rooker said this petition was litigated, and the court ruled against the Planning Commission.
Mr. Davis said the court entered an order saying the petition met site plan requirements except for VDOT
approval of the entrance.
Mr. Rooker said the question is whether or not VDOT is in the process of looking at that entrance.
Mr. Utterback said the entrance did not meet sight distance, so the engineer was looking at alternative
entrances.
Mr. Boyd said people in the Ashcroft community are concerned about the possible closing of the
crossover on Route 250 at that point. Mr. Utterback said he cannot comment on that since it is a major
decision made at the District Office level. As far as he knows, it is not an option being considered at this
time by VDOT.
Mr. Rooker said this whole question goes back to the 1980 rezoning of that property. He does not
believe anybody thinks it is a good use of the property. The Planning Commission denied the site plan
based on technical reasons. That decision was taken to court and the court ruled against the
Commission. From the County’s standpoint, it is an approved project now. W hen speaking about sight
distance, is that on Hansen Road or on Route 250. Mr. Utterback said the entrance to the development
would be on Hansen Road. VDOT has asked the developer to look at other alternatives.
Mr. Boyd asked if VDOT cannot approve an entrance if that will kill the project. Mr. Utterback said
he cannot comment.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant always has the alternative of buying an additional access.
Mr. Boyd said that is not popular either since that access would come through Glenorchy
Subdivision. He asked Mr. Utterback for VDOT’s official stance on this matter so he can pass that
information to the homeowners.
__________
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Slutzky thanked Mr. Utterback for the way VDOT responds to requests from the Board
members. He asked the status of the intersection study for the Rio Road/Northfields Road/Hillsdale Drive
intersection. Mr. Utterback said the study has been submitted to the Traffic Engineer, but he will need to
check its status.
__________
Mr. Slutzky again mentioned the “no right turn on red” sign in the second right-turn lane at the
Hydraulic Road/Route 29 intersection in front of K-mart. He thinks it is an ambiguous, dangerous
situation.
___________
Mr. Boyd said the Ashcroft community made a request to VDOT to look at a delayed right turn.
Mr. Utterback said he has not gotten anything from Traffic Engineering on the initial data submitted.
Initially that was rejected because it was felt it would cause traffic to backup on I-64.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he received a telephone call about overgrown hedge that is encroaching into the
right-of-way on the northwest corner of the intersection of W oodlands Road and Reys Ford Road. Cars
have to get out into the road before they can see oncoming traffic on W oodlands Road which is moving at
a rapid rate.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if VDOT has received any information on the traffic counting/speed signs in the
Solomon Road/Inglewood area.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if the information on Georgetown Road has been synthesized. Mr. Utterback
said his staff went out with the District Traffic Engineer last week to check that road for the possibility of
doing spot improvements. He expects some additional information in the next week or two. Mr. Rooker
asked that Mr. Utterback notify him when it is received so they could discuss the information.
__________
Mr. W yant said he appreciates the way VDOT has been trimming trees and brush and enhancing
the appearance of roads in the western part of the County.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said there is an issue when exiting the Union Bank site at the corner of Route 29/Rio
Road. After leaving the drive-through window, and entering the southbound lane onto Route 29, there is a
large truck being used as a sign and it is obscuring the view. Mr. Tucker said that is a zoning issue and
he will have staff look into it.
Mr. Rooker said that truck (mattress business) has been in place for a number of months and it is
not even parked on their property. Mr. Davis said a zoning text amendment was adopted a year or so
ago, and there are specific requirements that have to be met in order to do that.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said some constituents sent him e-mails with copies to Zoning about similar issues on
Route 29. Zoning staff was very responsive and he appreciates that. Mr. Tucker said staff tries to be
proactive when these cases are brought to their attention.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Update on Sheriff’s Activities, Sheriff Ed Robb. (Removed from agenda.)
(Note: At 10:50 a.m. the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:16 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation of W ater Supply Option re: Ragged Mountain Expansion, Tom
Frederick.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, Rivanna W ater & Sewer Authority (RW SA), was present.
He said this report is the culmination of work by a number of people over many years. He thinks it is a
favorable and strong plan for the community. The Board is being requested to vote today to approve the
Ragged Mountain Reservoir Expansion as the preferred alternative for the 50-year water supply. City
Council received this report last Monday evening. There will be other decisions needed in the future to
support the 50-year plan including the specifics of where environmental impacts will be mitigated. Also,
the City of Charlottesville owns the land on which the Ragged Mountain Reservoir sits. There will need to
be an agreement between the City and the RW SA governing the use of that land. Finally, a phasing and
financing plan is needed for the sequencing of the different steps of the project. Today, they also ask that
the Board support the RW SA submitting a permit support document to the Corps of Engineers with an
application for a joint permit, with the application also going to the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) at the State level.
Mr. Frederick said he will not go into great detail today since he believes the Board members are
quite familiar with the request. Also, there have been multiple opportunities for the public to comment on
the project. This is a complex issue; it is not a matter of local preference. In the 1970s and 1980s the
Federal Government, and then the State Government, passed laws saying those two entities have an
interest in what happens to the rivers of the United States and in Virginia. RW SA is compelled to follow
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
specific regulations and are compelled to obtain permits to build a water supply. A couple of years ago
they realized that some decisions the community considered as preferred alternatives, including the Buck
Mountain Reservoir and a four-foot bladder on the South Fork Rivanna River Dam, could not get a permit
from Federal and State agencies. Now, they are able to provide the Ragged Mountain Reservoir with a
pipeline to the South Fork keeping everything in the local watershed. Because Ragged Mountain is at the
headwaters of the watershed there is a strong argument that it is the least environmentally-damaging
practical alternative. That will be decided by the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Frederick said many agencies have spoken in favor of this option including: the Nature
Conservancy, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Rivanna
Conservation Society, Friends of the Moorman’s River, the Greater Charlottesville Chamber of
Commerce, and various groups that call themselves part of a coalition of interests pertaining to this issue.
He does not know of any group in the community that does not support this alternative. He offered to
answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked how long the Ragged Mountain Reservoir will satisfy the needs of the
community. Mr. Frederick said with a raise of the pool level by 45-feet it is expected to supply the
community’s needs for 50 years.
Mr. Boyd said there has been a lot of speculation in the press recently about the next steps to be
taken, particularly concerning mitigation. He asked the timeline for the next steps. Mr. Frederick said he
hopes the next steps will take a much shorter time. RW SA is currently working with consultants on
conceptual design details for mitigation options. Some of the land involved is publicly-owned and some is
privately-owned. Before making a public presentation of any details, he will ask the RW SA Board about
the parameters of negotiation before discussing it publicly.
Mr. Rooker asked if the application plan will be submitted without a mitigation plan. Mr. Frederick
said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker asked if the mitigation plan can go forward while the application is pending. Mr.
Frederick said RW SA would not be allowed to start construction of the Ragged Mountain alternative
without the agencies approving the mitigation plan. The Corps of Engineers will review the application to
determine if they concur with “least environmentally damaging” based on available information at this time.
In terms of moving forward, it is a significant issue.
Mr. Boyd said it was indicated in the press that City Council will be expecting some remuneration
for the loss of its property. W ill the County be expected to do that, or is it up to the RW SA? Mr. Frederick
said he is not sure. There needs to be further discussion between the RW SA and the City as to whether
there will be conditions placed on the use of that land.
Mr. Davis said the parties normally involved with that would be the RW SA, the City and the
Albemarle County Service Authority under the Four-Party Agreement. It is a decision the Board might
weigh in on, but he does not think any dollars would come from the County’s General Fund under any
circumstances.
Mr. Boyd said these issues have been mentioned in the press and people are asking questions
about how the City would be compensated for the property being used. Mr. Frederick said in the next few
months he will address the cost of the project which will be very expensive. It is definitely going to impact
water rates. He said it is absolutely known that because of dam safety issues the new dam has to be built
first. That is very expensive. There is the question of whether to build the entire dam at one time or if it
can be phased. There is a lot of interest in getting the new pipeline built to the South Fork so the RW SA
can convert and change the way it operates the Sugar Hollow dam, but the pipeline is about 40 percent of
the cost of the entire project. It is clear that the more requirements are tacked onto the front-end of
getting the dam built, the longer it will take to build the pipeline.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the public is anxious for a decision to be made and to have a working plan
in place.
Ms. Thomas asked when the dam will actually be built. Reading through the materials forwarded
to the Board, she became alarmed about the state of the current Ragged Mountain dams which have
been considered substandard for many years. Mr. Frederick said design of the dam would begin in late
2007. The design would be completed by 2008 with construction starting by spring of 2009, with the dam
being completed by 2011. They will try to move that schedule forward if at all possible. He said the Corps
of Engineers has been totally silent on whether they will support the project. He is confident the project
will be approved, but feels it would nice to have a letter from the Corps approving the project before a lot
of money is spent on design.
Ms. Thomas asked if mitigation will need to be settled before that letter is received. Mr. Frederick
said he does not believe so. He wants to do it as quickly as possible because DEQ will not issue its letter
before a mitigation plan is approved. In cases where mitigation issues have not been settled, the Corps
will issue permits but basically the Corps says construction cannot be started without an approved
mitigation plan.
Mr. Rooker said at the beginning of the meeting today the Board recognized that the RW SA
received the 2005 Virginia Excellence in W aterworks Operation award. It recognizes planning,
development and implementation of the South Fork Rivanna water treatment plants environmental
marketing system.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve the Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion as
the preferred alternative future water supply for the Albemarle County and Charlottesville community. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Review of Options for Leachate Treatment at Ivy Landfill, Tom Frederick.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, Rivanna Solid W aste Authority (RSW A), was present. He
said there are a number of elements involved with this issue. He asked if the Board wanted him to simply
summarize the report.
Mr. Tucker said the RSW A is asking for support from this Board so it can move forward with the
option it is recommending (The remedial plan is to install three new horizontally bored wells in Cell 3 Lined
and one new horizontal well in Cell 3 Unlined. These wells will be piped to drain the water in the cells by
gravity to the existing leachate lagoon. The lagoon will be retrofitted with aeration equipment to treat the
intense concentration of biologically degradable material that has been found from sampling this leachate.
The treated liquid that results from this process can be trucked or pumped to the sewer system, or used
as irrigation for plant growth at the Ivy site in a “closed loop” system.).
Mr. Rooker noted Page 3 of the report (Memorandum from Thomas L. Frederick to the Albemarle
County Supervisors dated June 7, 2006) contains cost figures where it says “discussions have been held
with VDOT about combining a project to pump treated landfill liquid to the sewer with the sewer service to
a westbound rest area on I-64. VDOT has been very receptive, though no contracts are executed at this
point. A joint project that would include sharing of some jointly used facilities with VDOT could provide
economies-of-scale to both organizations.” He asked if the preferred option ($1.2 million) is with or
without a contribution from VDOT for the rest area. Mr. Frederick said he thinks it will be with VDOT
although there is no formal contract with them at this time. VDOT does have a budget which would
support what has been identified as their cost.
Mr. Rooker said the cost difference between the “Closed Loop” system and the sewer option with
VDOT would be about $400,000 less from a capital standpoint. Mr. Frederick said there is the possibility
of the RW SA saving some money in operation of the Crozet Interceptor because the leachate could
supply some of the nitrates needed for odor control.
Mr. Tucker said this is not a pipeline that could accommodate other residential tie-ins; it is a very
small line. The leachate, with the exception of VDOT, will diminish over the 20-year lifecycle of this
project. It will be the highest when the line is first opened.
Mr. Slutzky asked the diameter of the pipe. Mr. Frederick said it could be three inches or four
inches. The final size will be determined by the consultant selected for this project.
Mr. Slutzky asked if at some point people might come to the Board asking for service because of
a failed system in their neighborhood. Mr. Davis said the Zoning Administrator has issued an opinion that
this is a transmission line, not a collection line. A transmission line, by definition, cannot become a
collection line without going through an approval process. Transmission lines are owned and operated by
the RW SA. The only two customers are the City and the County Service Authority. They cannot have
additional customers on their lines.
Mr. Slutzky asked if after the leachate level drops in future years, if there is political pressure on
the Board to provide sewer service to the rural areas because of failing systems, could a future board
choose to convert this from a transmission line. Mr. Frederick said if a future County board supported
that, technically it would not be prohibited. The key issue for the Board is how to restrict the use of that
pipeline. If it is made clear in the Board’s approval of this request that the pipeline only be used for the
leachate at the Ivy Landfill and for the westbound rest area, then as long as the County’s position does not
change, there would be no legal way anybody else could tie onto that line.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks the Board at that time probably would not change the County’s position
except for service to existing structures, which is what the Board has done in the past.
Mr. Slutzky said he realizes it will depend on what a future board may choose to do. He just wants
to make it clear that this board did not anticipate this line being used as a sewer line. He wants the Board
to give a clear signal to constituents who might have lobbied for this that it is unrelated to anybody’s desire
to ultimately provide sewer service in the rural areas.
Mr. Rooker said that is a good point.
Ms. Thomas said after this was discussed at an earlier meeting, a consultant came up to her and
said he knew she had a conflicting point of view about this matter. They knew she had just been
appointed to the Local Government Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake Bay and the idea of adding
more nutrients into the discharge from the Moore’s Creek Treatment Plant, which is a secondary
treatment plant at this point, gave her a problem. Yet, the constituents she has heard from almost totally
support the pipeline alternative, and do not want land application. She thinks some people took her public
concerns seriously and she appreciates how the proposal has looked at what can be done to turn the
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
nitrates into nitrogen gas. She said that everybody will be paying in the near future for taking out the
nutrients, and it is expensive. She does believe this is the best option, and the size of the pipeline is the
best.
Mr. Davis said before taking action he wants to be sure the Board understands what endorsing
this option means if RW SA chooses to pursue it. He said that under the Zoning Administrator’s
determination that it is a transmission line, if it is owned and operated by the RW SA, it is a by-right use
and would only require a Comprehensive Plan review by the County to find that the transmission line is in
the right location. That is an action to be taken by the Commission subject to the Board’s review. Other
than going through the land-disturbing permitting process, that would be the only County requirement.
Mr. W yant asked where the line would be run. Mr. Frederick said in the early 1990s this issue
came before the Board. That plan showed the line being tied in at Route 637. Because they will now be
addressing the nutrient issue, to get the maximum reduction of nitrates it will go in the direction of where
the Crozet Pump Station is located near the Lickinghole Creek reservoir. To do that will mean taking a
more westerly path for the pipeline, and they want to keep the pipeline down in the valley. That means
VDOT would have to come west to the line, and they have agreed to that in concept.
Mr. Davis said staff will have to look at the details, but he believes staff considers the VDOT line
as a transmission line only.
Mr. Frederick said he is hearing a couple of things which RW SA will need to address as part of
the Board’s concerns. One is that the pipeline be as small as possible to serve the community, and, the
second is to work closely with the County’s Planning staff on the routing of the pipeline. He said they have
already established regular communications with David Benish to do that.
Mr. Rooker called for a motion.
Mr. Slutzky said to be sure he understands what the Board is proposing he would like to restate
what he understands. He said there is the landfill with some lining in it and some capping over it. It has
been found that there is water in it. As mandated by environmental laws, contaminated water needs to be
removed in order to get that water to where it can be properly treated. He understands that will be done in
two stages. First, some horizontal wells will be drilled into the cell of the landfill with the leachate so it can
be drained into a lagoon using gravity. Once the water is in the lagoon aeration will be installed to
supplement the degradation of the organic contaminant to make it a little cleaner. Then it will be piped
through a transmission line, which will have to be built, to the Moore’s Creek Plant where it will be treated
again and made acceptable for discharge into the waters of the U.S. The cost of building the three
horizontal wells is $1.2 million. He is surprised at that cost. He asked if anything else is included in that
price estimate. Mr. Frederick said there will be four horizontal wells into the cells. There is a large pile of
waste sitting on top of the ground, and there will be drilling into those mounds.
Mr. Slutzky asked the number of linear feet. Mr. Frederick introduced Mr. Phillip McKalits with the
Environmental Standards, Inc., the consultants who will design the horizontal bore well system.
Mr. McKalits said the four wells are in “Cell 3 Lined” and are each about 1,000 feet. The single
well which will be in “Cell 3 Unlined” is approximately 1,200 feet. This is about one mile of wells and it
costs about $175.00/foot.
Mr. Rooker asked where the aeration system is shown in the costs. Mr. Frederick said the
aeration system is in the $2.9 million capital figure. That includes the aeration system for the existing
lagoon. To support that aeration system there must be blowers, electricity, etc. It is not in the figures
shown today, but when they get into the details, they will try to determine if the methane gas from the
landfill can be used to help power the blowers. At the end of the lagoon they will build a very small pump
station and a very small pipeline to tie into the Crozet Interceptor just behind the Lickinghole Creek
Reservoir where there is a pump station. That is all included in the $2.9 million figure. From that point
there are no more capital facilities; they will be using existing facilities.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the transmission pipe will be taken through existing right-of-way. Mr.
Frederick said he mentioned the closest path from Ivy to the pump station. They want to follow public
rights-of-way as much as possible, but there is no direct route. There might be some acquisition required.
Mr. Slutzky said when this leachate was discovered, it was a surprise that there were millions of
gallons accumulated. He asked if there is any chance insurance held by design engineers might be
accessed in order to get some money back because the cell was either designed or constructed
improperly. Mr. Frederick said he would not rule that out if the Board is interested in exploring that
possibility. He said exploring liability with a landfill can be difficult and costly from a legal prospective. The
success rate in getting returns in other communities who have tried that has not been great.
Mr. Slutzky said this sounds like a significant design failure as opposed to bad luck. He hopes
RSW A will look carefully at what E&O coverage might have been held by the company that designed the
system. Mr. Frederick said when this issue came up they looked at the cap on top of the cell. They know
who the designer and contractor for that cap was. They found that the cap is not the problem. At the time
Cell 3 Unlined was built in the 1970s there was no requirement in Virginia to install a leachate collection
system, so it is possible that one was never built.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the landfill was operated by RSW A at that time. Mr. Tucker said it was
operated by the City.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Slutzky asked if that is where the leachate accumulated. Mr. Frederick said leachate is
actually in both cells. The two cells, both called “Cell 3 Lined”, are adjacent to each other and both contain
leachate which needs to be removed.
Mr. Rooker asked if the leachate is contained within the liner, or is it underneath the liner. Mr.
Frederick said the leachate is within the liner. W ells can be drilled outside of the waste mass to see what
is going on. The way to measure the function of that liner is by what is going on outside of the waste
mass. Records available to them indicate a collection system was installed for the lined cell. Using
something similar to a roto-rooter for a sewer line, the edge of the auger gets just inside where the waste
starts and then it stops. He said there is a lot of curiosity as to why this happens. They have taken a
camera in as far as possible but were not able to determine the cause of the failure. To make that
determination would require removing the waste mass. The reality is that it may never be known definitely
why this collection system failed.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the City owned and operated the lined cell when it was being designed. Mr.
Davis said it was jointly owned by the City and the County, but the City operated the landfill.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there are any records of the design of that cell. He wonders if a lined cell was
put in at that time to satisfy RICRA or if it was done to invest in state-of-the-art remedial technology. In
either case, he thinks the City/County would have relied on the expertise of a consultant. He said in those
days there were not typically claims-made policies so there may be some coverage. He wonders if all
possibilities have been exhausted because if there is an insurance vehicle available that can save the
taxpayers millions of dollars, he is in favor of looking underneath the stones if that is what it takes. He
thinks it is worth exhausting because it is a little unusual that there would have been a designed cell with a
liner pre-RICRA passage in 1976 unless it relied on an expert’s advice. If it was designed subject to
RICRA requirements then there is likely to be coverage to address design deficiencies. He would like for
the consultants “to poke around in those waters” as much as possible.
Mr. Rooker said if there is a lined cell and an unlined cell next to each other with leachate below
them, is there a way to know which side caused the leachate.
Ms. Thomas said the leachate is in the lined cell.
Ms. Rooker asked if there is anyway the leachate in the unlined cell could migrate to the lined cell.
Mr. Frederick said there is a barrier of impermeable soil between the cells, but that does not necessarily
mean there is not a problem. He does not have a definitive answer to that question.
Ms. W yant said the cap is not tied into the line put in to put the waste in. There is an unseamed
joint around the cap. There is a possibility the cell is performing as it is supposed to perform. The
leachate has been contained on the lined cell part. This is clay soil so the movement of water through it is
very low. That is also helping a little without a synthetic membrane in the unlined cell.
Mr. McKalits said in regard to the comment about the design of the cell, the lined cell was pre-
subtitled “D” for construction so the Virginia regulations were in a state of transition, getting ready for
Subtitle “D”. There was a liner with a very simplified leachate collection system which was not designed to
keep leachate at 30 centimeters above the liner. It appears that it subsequently stopped working. He said
the landfill cell design appears to have been fully compliant.
Mr. Slutzky said that is compliant with regulations. He said if the design is defective, independent
of applicable Federal laws, there might be some responsibility for doing a bad job. He has seen a couple
of cases where there was a poor design on landfill liners in the early days and compensation was actually
obtained from an insurance policy. There is so much money at stake in this case he thinks it is important
not to assume anything. He encourages the consultants to go back and see if there is any possible
recourse.
Mr. Frederick said the records that contain this information might be records RSW A does not
currently have in its possession. They will ask some questions. The RSW A was formed in 1991, but they
need records before that date. The consultant did look at the volume of the water in the cell. If the cap is
tight, how could that much volume of water get in? It leads to a conclusion that the collection system
probably failed early in its life.
Mr. W yant said if he were the designer, the horizontal drains would be the major concern. He said
those drains can get clogged on the end. There are going to be some problems, and he does not think
that can totally be blamed on the design.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. W yant was talking about installing a system to take the leachate out and it
possibly getting clogged.
Mr. W yant said there has to be a pipe in for about 1,000 feet and if the end of that gets clogged,
there is nothing.
Mr. Slutzky said there will be pretreated affluent coming out of the aeration lagoon. It will be sent
down this fairly long run of pipe that is solely for this purpose. Is there any way of doing some kind of bio
remediation supplementation to that feed so by the time it gets to Moores Creek there is no additional
loading into the Chesapeake Bay system? Mr. Frederick said the idea is to minimize it within the total
realm of practicality. The engineer who came up with figures for this system believes it may be operated
sometimes with no impact. They are using conservative assumptions when they say it could be up to five
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
percent. The proposal is to convert nitrates to nitrogen gas in the pipeline. The first calculations showed
that even though the pipe goes for a long distance, it is not long enough to convert all of the nitrates to
nitrogen gas. Now they are talking about putting a small area of that lagoon where they can do
denitrafication. If they do too much at that point there will not be enough nitrates in the pipeline to treat the
odor. This will require some fairly sophisticated operations.
Mr. Rooker said there has been concern expressed that a future board of supervisors might allow
use of the pipeline to expand growth in the rural area, but he does not want to make the pipe so small it
might be difficult to move the effluent out.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with Mr. Slutzky about funding this through insurance proceeds, if
possible. Assuming that cannot be done, how will this be funded? Mr. Frederick said if the RSW A has
some money which was in escrow with DEQ on the Correction Action Plan. If that money can be returned
to RSW A through the Local Government Guarantee, the design can be funded through their reserves, but
they cannot fund the construction costs associated with this project. That means the County/City/RSW A
will have to decide between now and December how that will be done since RSW A is not operating the
landfill at this time and collecting revenues.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the University would be a part of this decision. Mr. Frederick said by law the
University did not participate, but they were cooperative in working with RSW A. They have recognized
that their waste contributed to the landfill so they should bear some responsibility. They negotiated some
terms so their amounts are fixed. Under that agreement, if the landfill can be cleaned up cheaper, they
still pay the fixed sum.
Mr. Slutzky said the cleanup of the landfill contemplated at that time was not taking into account
such an unfortunate eventuality. He thinks it may be appropriate to invite the University into the dialogue.
Mr. Boyd asked if the funding issue will be a separate discussion. Mr. Davis said since this was
not known at the time, it is still within the scope of the environmental costs of the landfill and the split of
costs has already been decided in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Mr. Rooker said it is not known at this time if there will be a cost overrun on the estimate upon
which the University’s contribution is based. He hopes the estimate of the total cost was conservative.
Mr. Tucker said there is the escrowed amount from DEQ. The RSW A is still working with the City on their
escrowed amount.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to offer a motion that this Board agrees with the aerated lagoon
treatment for leachate at the Ivy Landfill followed by pumping the liquid to the Crozet Interceptor in a joint
project with VDOT; and it agrees to allow RSW A to retain an engineer to start the design process,
recognizing that when the RSW A gets its design and site plan they will coordinate the routing of the
pipeline with County staff and will need to come back to the Planning Commission and for further review
by the Board.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he would like to ask a question. During a small group meeting they talked about
tying the Crozet system into the Urban system so some of that capacity could be used if necessary. He
asked if that idea is still being discussed or has it been set aside while looking at the long-range water
supply plan. Mr. Frederick said it is still an option. W hen RW SA does its financing and phasing plan, a
rough cost estimate should be made for that idea. It could have an affect on other phases of the plan in
terms of safe yield.
(Ms. Thomas asked a question which could not be heard.) Mr. Frederick said with no support
from Beaver Creek that was correct. He said there is infrastructure in place now so water can be released
from Beaver Creek through the Moorman’s River to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The question is
how much of that water would reach the South Fork if it were released during a drought. The pipeline
gives the security of having virtually 100 percent of that water get to the South Fork.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that idea should be pursued as a short-term solution.
Mr. W yant said Crozet has been identified as a development area, and a question has been
raised as to whether there is enough water in Beaver Creek for Crozet. In the long-term the two might be
combined. He had asked for a study of Beaver Creek to determine how much water is available.
Mr. Rooker said the estimate made by the engineers during the study for the water supply plan is
that it is almost 600 percent of the current demand. He does not think that tying in the systems to move
water in the case of a drought will in any way endanger Crozet’s needs over the next ten years. By that
time there will be the new Ragged Mountain reservoir. W ater will still be used from Beaver Creek by
sending it down the river. A huge quantity of that water would be lost, so the question is whether there is a
more efficient method of movement of that water.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. W yant said he does not disagree, but houses are being built in this development area, so the
growth in Crozet at the time needs to be taken into account. He said that is a solution until a permanent
water supply is built.
Mr. Frederick said that last week RW SA filed an application with the DEQ for a grant. The plan is
to do a Local W ater Supply Plan under new Virginia legislative requirements. For the urban system, it will
be verbatim what RW SA has just been through, but in that study a safe yield calculation for Beaver Creek
Reservoir will be done, as well as for Totier Creek Reservoir. He said that study did not have in it a
bathymetric study of Beaver Creek which is what ultimately must be done to fully answer the question.
Mr. W yant asked about the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. He asked if eventually that facility will be
taken off line. Mr. Frederick said the plan is to continue operating the Sugar Hollow Reservoir as it is
today until a new pipeline to the South Fork is functional and in operation. At that time, Sugar Hollow will
stay full about 99 percent of the time, meaning what comes in from the Blue Ridge Mountains will spill
over the dam into the Moormans River. The one exception is that the volume in Sugar Hollow has been
calculated as part of the safe yield so that Ragged Mountain does not have to be raised more than 45 feet.
In a drought water would be released to the South Fork and after the drought were over and it started to
rain again, a portion of the water coming down the mountain would be captured (they want to keep the
Moormans River wet) until Sugar Hollow is full again and then it would go back to staying full.
Mr. W yant asked if there is any possibility of putting fire hydrants along the pipe to give better
protection to the rural people. Mr. Frederick said other uses might be considered for the line, but the
pipeline is very old with very poor joint material. There would be no guarantee that the pipe would not fail.
RW SA would have proposed replacing that pipe even if the idea of a South Fork pipeline had not come
up.
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Frederick for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session.
At 12:19 p.m., Mr. Slutzky offered motion to adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees, and
commissions; under subsection (1) to conduct an administrative evaluation; under subsection (3) to
discuss the acquisition of property for a public facility; and under subsection (7) to discuss probable
litigation.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. At 2:00 p.m. the Board reconvened into open
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Boards and Commissions - Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to:
Reappoint Mr. John Knapp to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with said term to expire July
8, 2008.
Reappoint Mr. Peter Maillet to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with said term to expire July
8, 2008.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: FY 2006 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this public
hearing was published in the Daily Progress on May 28, 2006.)
Ms. Laura Vinzant, of the Office of Management and Budget, was present to make the
presentation. She said this budget amendment totals $645,294.20 and is comprised of ten separate
appropriations. Appropriation No. 2006-073 allocated $180,000.00 in additional funding for the Key W est
Dam and was approved by the Board on May 10, 2006. The nine new appropriations are: two
appropriations (No. 2006-071 and No. 2006-076) totaling $15,800.00 for education donations; one
appropriation (No. 2006-072) in the amount of $31,500.00 providing funds to AHIP for three housing
rehabilitation projects; one appropriation (No. 2006-074) transferring $47,510.00 from the Visitor’s Center
Building Fund Contingency to fund building ventilation improvements; two appropriations (No. 2006-075
and No. 2006-078) for Fire/Rescue and Police Department grants totaling $125,387.95; one appropriation
(No. 2006-077) in the amount of $12,386.00 allocating funds to the regional jail from the Alien Assistance
Program; one appropriation (No. 2006-079) providing $455,486.00 in funding for building improvements at
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company; and one appropriation (No. 2006-080) in the amount of $4,734.25
for the Emergency Communications Center.
Ms. Vinzant said staff recommends approval of the FY 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$645,294.20 after holding the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations No. 2006-071, No.
2006-072, No. 2006-074, No. 2006-075, No. 2006-076, No. 2006-077, No. 2006-078, No. 2006-079, and
No. 2006-080 to provide funds for various General Government, School, ECC and Capital Improvement
programs, as noted below.
Appropriation No. 2006-071, $7,700.00. At its meeting on April 20, 2006, the School Board approved
the following appropriation:
• B. F. Yancey Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Fluvanna
Floor Service. It has been requested that this donation be used toward funding a trip to New York.
• Broadus W ood Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $7,200.00 from the
Broadus W ood PTO. It has been requested that this donation be used to purchase three ELMO
document cameras with LCD projectors.
Appropriation No. 2006-072, $31,500.00. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) has
requested that $31,500.00 in available CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) program
income be used to help fund the rehabilitation of three houses. The total of the three jobs is
approximately $205,000.00 with the largest portion coming from the State’s Rural Rehabilitation
Program. The three projects are all CDBG eligible and the funding provided from program income will
be in the form of a deferred loan.
Appropriation No. 2006-074, $47,510.00. The Visitor’s Center Building is jointly owned with the City of
Charlottesville. The Thomas Jefferson Visitor’s Bureau currently leases the building and the rental
income, which was formerly used to pay the building’s debt service, is now available for building
maintenance and improvements. The County has solicited bids to make improvements to the Visitor’s
Center Building’s attic ventilation with the low bid received being $47,510.00. It is requested that this
amount be transferred from the contingency line item in the Visitor’s Center Building Fund to be
expended for this improvement.
Appropriation No. 2006-075, $75,319.95. The Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services has
awarded the Department of Fire/Rescue a grant with a maximum award of $138,340.00. Fire/Rescue
has until December 31, 2006, to complete the expenditures. This project will provide for advanced
medical monitoring equipment upgrades at a cost of $75,319.95. This upgrade includes compatible
receiving equipment to be utilized by the medical control physicians at UVA Hospital and is essential
to completion of a successful EMS cardiac care program. Funding for this equipment is currently
provided in Station 12’s ambulance cost within the Capital Improvements Fund. The $37,659.98 local
match will be funded using these funds.
Appropriation No. 2006-076, $8,100.00. At its meeting on May 25, 2006, the School Board approved
the following appropriation: Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of
$8,100.00 from the Brownsville PTO. They have requested that this money be used to purchase
classroom supplies at Brownsville Elementary School.
Appropriation No. 2006-077, $12,386.00. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
reimburses localities for compensation expenses incurred by correctional officers supervising aliens in
local and regional jail facilities. Reimbursement is given to localities even though the expenses are
incurred by the correctional facility. This was the first year of the program and the actual
reimbursements were delayed. The County received $12,386.00 for FY ‘05. The City of
Charlottesville received $4,480.00 for the same period. Both localities are sending their respective
reimbursements to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail to reimburse it for its expenses.
Appropriation No. 2006-078, $50,068.00. Albemarle County has received grant funds form the
Homeland Security Grant Program in the amount of $50,068.00. These funds will assist in the
preparation of response to incidents involving mass destruction weapons and will be split 50/50
between Fire/Rescue and the Police Department. These funds can be used for equipment related to
domestic preparedness. There is no local match.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Appropriation No. 2006-079, $455,486.00. At the May 3, 2006, Board meeting information was
provided regarding Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department’s request for funds to address their building
renovations and repairs. The proposal consisted of the following projects: Roof replacement,
$20,509; parking lot paving, $199,227; remodel of bunkrooms, $75,000; toilet and laundry facilities,
$13,500; expand/remodel kitchen, $26,250; HVAC replacement/upgrades, $20,000; renovation of
meeting/training room, $26,000; and, storage building, $75,000; for a total of $455,486. Staff
recommended that funding be provided for these renovations and repairs in the form of a $239,736
grant and a $215,750 no-interest loan to Stony Point to be repaid over a twelve-year period. General
Services will work with Stony Point to procure and manage the projects. Funding for both the grant
and loan are provided from the Capital Improvements Fund Balance.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked if by approving this appropriation, the Board will also be approving the
funding format for Stony Point. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.)
Appropriation No. 2006-080, $4,734.25. At its meeting on May 16, 2006, the ECC Management
Board approved the transfer of $4,734.25 from the ECC Fund Balance to provide funding to move and
reinstall EMS backup radio equipment from the Brown’s Mountain site to the site at Carter’s Mountain.
This move has become necessary because the new owners of Brown’s Mountain have requested
that all users of the tower vacate the site. This funding will be used to relocate the equipment and
purchase a new antenna.
The public hearing was opened. W ith no member of the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve the FY 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$645,294.20, and to approve Appropriations No. 2006-071, No. 2006-072, No. 2006-074, No. 2006-075,
No. 2006-076, No. 2006-077, No. 2006-078, No. 2006-079 and No. 2006-080 to provide funds for various
General Government, School, ECC and Capital Improvement Programs.
The motion was seconded by Mr. W yant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-071
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: Education Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 7,700.00
1 2201 61101 601300 Inst /Rec. Supplies J1 7,200.00
1 2213 61101 550400 Travel-Education J1 500.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 7,700.00
0701 Appropriation 7,700.00
TOTAL 15,400.00 7,700.00 7,700.00
___________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-072
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: CDBG Program - AHIP
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1224 19000 199930 Loan Repayments J2 31,500.00
1 1224 81031 563100 AHIP J1 31,500.00
1224 0501 Est. Revenue 31,500.00
0701 Appropriation 31,500.00
TOTAL 63,000.00 31,500.00 31,500.00
___________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-074
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: Funding for Attic Ventilation - Visitor's Center Building
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9800 72050 950198 Attic Ventilation J 1 47,510.00
1 9800 72050 999999 Contingency J 1 (47,510.00) ___________
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-075
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: Fire/Rescue Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1547 24000 240415 EMS Funds J2 37,659.97
2 1547 51000 512031 Transfer from G/F CIP J2 37,659.98
1 1547 32015 800100 Fire/Rescue-Mach & Equip J1 75,319.95
1547 0501 Est. Revenue 75,319.95
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
0701 Appropriation 75,319.95
1 9010 93010 930200 Transfer to Grant Fund J1 37,659.98
1 9010 32017 811203 Station 12 - Ambulance J1 (37,659.98) ___
TOTAL 150,639.90 75,319.95 75,319.95
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-076
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: Education Donation
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 8,100.00
1 2202 61101 601300 Inst/Rec. Supplies J1 8,100.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 8,100.00
0701 Appropriation 8,100.00
TOTAL 16,200.00 8,100.00 8,100.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-077
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 33020 700002 Federal Grants J2 12,386.00
1 1000 33020 700002 Jail Operations J1 12,386.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 12,386.00
0701 Appropriation 12,386.00
TOTAL 24,772.00 12,386.00 12,386.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-078
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: Police Department - Homeland Security Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1548 33000 330001 Federal Grant Revenue J2 50,068.00
1 1548 31091 800100 Mach & Equipment J1 25,034.00
1 1548 31092 800100 Mach & Equipment J1 25,034.00
1548 0501 Est. Revenue 50,068.00
0701 Appropriation 50,068.00
TOTAL 100,136.00 50,068.00 50,068.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-079
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: Funding for improvements at Stony Point Volunteer Fire. Grant and Loan per Policy
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 32020 810610 St/Pt Facility Upgrades J1 455,486.00
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP F/B J2 455,486.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 455,486.00
9010 0701 Appropriation 455,486.00
9010 0375 Loan to St Pt VFD 215,750.00
9010 0903 Reserve for Loan 215,750.00
TOTAL 910,972.00 671,236.00 671,236.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-080
DATE: 06/07/06
EXPLANATION: ECC - Radio Equipment Relocation
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 4100 51000 510100 Appropriation- F/B J2 4,734.25
1 4100 31041 800300 Communications Equip J1 4,734.25
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 4,734.25
0701 Appropriation 4,734.25
TOTAL 9,468.50 4,734.25 4,734.25
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. An ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County
Code, to amend Section 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the compensation of
board of supervisor members by 3.95% effective July 1, 2006 from $13,016.00 per annum to $13,530.00
per annum. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29,
2006.)
Mr. Tucker said several years ago the Board decided to amend its salaries to reflect the same
market adjustment provided to staff. This requires a public hearing by the Board.
Mr. Slutzky asked that staff provide a listing of what other boards of supervisors receive in the way
of compensation. Mr. Tucker said staff will provide the list of about 30 localities designated by this Board
to be used when checking employee salaries. Mr. Davis said what a board of supervisors may be paid is
based on population. Albemarle County is at the top of that range. The Board cannot raise its salary
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
more than five percent a year under the Code. There is an alternative way the Board could pay
themselves which is by adopting an ordinance that cannot be effective until there has been a reelection of
at least one-half of the Board members. That does not have a limit on the amount of compensation.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jason W hitehead asked how many hours a week the Board members work.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said personally he spends in excess of 20 hours a week on County business,
sometimes more depending on the subjects on the Board’s agenda. He said most Board members spend
a lot of time meeting with constituents, responding to constituents, reviewing Board packages, going to
sites where actions are contemplated, and sitting on numerous committees.
Mr. Slutzky said it may be because he is new to the Board, but he is spending about 40 hours per
week on Board business. He hopes this does not persist.
Mr. Dorrier said he spends between 10 and 20 hours per week on County business depending on
what issues are pending. At one time, he had figured that the Board members made about 50 cents per
hour.
Mr. W yant said it is not just the two Board meetings that most people see, but the many hours
also spent in committee meetings.
Ms. Thomas said the last time this was done a member of the public suggested that the salaries
of the Board be raised because if a person is the sole provider for a family it is very hard to hold down a
job and also be a member of the supervisors. She found Mr. Davis’ statement of the legal parameters
interesting.
Mr. Boyd said he will echo everything that has been said. He does not really want to know how
much time he spends on County business.
Mr. Rooker said that some time ago the Board established a policy to say that whatever average
amount was applied to employees generally would apply to the Board as well. Today, what is being
considered is a 3.95 percent increase for FY 2006-07.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter
2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County Of Albemarle, Virginia, by
amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 06-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board
of Supervisors, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be thirteen thousand five hundred thirty
($13,530.00) for each board member effective July 1, 2006. In addition to the regular salary, the
vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting
chaired and the chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars
($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91;
Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-
2(2), 5-1-02; Ord. 03-2(1), 6-4-03; Ord. 04-2(1), 6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1), 6-1-05, Ord. 06-2(1), 6-7-
06)
State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2006.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: ZMA-2005-010, W achovia Bank and Shops at Rio Road
(Signs #39, 41).
Proposal: Rezone 1.836 acres from CO-Commercial Office zoning district which allows 15 units
per acre to C-1, Commercial, zoning district which allows 15 units per acre to allow a partial
redevelopment of the site and accommodate redevelopment of an adjacent parcel (Tax Map 61,
Parcel 122A). No residential uses are proposed with this rezoning.
Proffers: Yes.
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Regional Service (regional scale retail,
wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood One.
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: 1625 Seminole Trail (W achovia Bank) near the southeastern corner of U.S. Rt 29 and
Rio Road.
Tax Map/Parcel: Tax Map 61, Parcel 122.
Magisterial District: Rio.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29, 2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the petition. He said that presently on these properties are W achovia
Bank and the Rio Road Superette. They will be replaced under this proposal for redevelopment with a
new retail use of restaurant and shops. He pointed to a map and indicated the properties to be rezoned
from CO to C-1. Part of the area is already zoned C-1. There will be a modification of the property line
and the area for the new restaurant will fall under a new property created after the rezoning. He noted a
copy of the plan dated June, 2005 which is the plan seen by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked if there would be ARB requirements applied to that site which have not
previously been applied. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is anticipated that the front of the property will be improved. Mr. Cilimberg
said the applicant has been to the ARB a couple of times and is working toward getting approvals. There
is a combination of uses anticipated for the property. He said staff found factors favorable to this request,
to wit: The placement of the building beside the Entrance Corridor conforms to the Neighborhood Model;
the plan effectively relegates parking; the pedestrian connection to Fashion Square supports the
Neighborhood Model; the proposed stormwater management concepts for the site will provide better
management than currently exists and in excess of what the Stormwater Ordinance requires. A factor
unfavorable to this request was that the applicant had not made a proffered plan for the key features
illustrated on the rezoning plan at the time the request was before the Commission. However, the
Commission recommended approval of the request if the applicant provided that proffer, and the applicant
has now done so.
Mr. Slutzky said there is information in the Board’s packet which indicates that residential
development is not appropriate because the site is close to Route 29. He was troubled by that statement
because as he listens to the public in the Places29 meetings it is clearly being considered that residential
development should be brought closer to the road. The idea of declaring a parcel close to the road as
being unavailable for residential use should be avoided. There may be redevelopment of some of the
older centers in future years and they might change their form. Mr. Cilimberg said this location is not as
well suited to residential as other locations. If there were redevelopment of the parking lots at Fashion
Square, mixed use, including residential, would be more appropriate.
Mr. Slutzky said staff recommended approval if a commitment to the rezoning plan were made.
He asked how the Board supports something contingent upon something else. Mr. Cilimberg said the
proffered plan the Board received as part of its package is the commitment (It was received after the
Commission acted.)
Mr. Slutzky said with the Places29 exercise he understands there is some interest to have the
intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 emerge as a towncenter or a large-scale redevelopment focal
point. There have been questions as to whether there will be a grade-separated interchange at that point
and what that means in terms of moving people around that intersection. Inevitably that leads to the idea
of some kind of circumnavigation route. The consultants are in the process of thinking how that
intersection would be formed over time. He is inclined to vote favorably for this proposal. However, he
wonders if other Board members have an interest in making sure other projects at this intersection stay
related to the overall form of the intersection if it is to become a towncenter.
Mr. Cilimberg said another concept from Places29 is not to have intersections with full
interchanges on Route 29 but to create grade-separated crossings to get to the streets running in each
direction by a parallel street network. As an example, if Fashion Square were redeveloped, its entrance
onto Rio Road might be turned into two streets that would allow the driver to get onto Rio Road for
northbound Route 29 movement rather than by use of a ramp.
Mr. Slutzky said there is also some thought of looking at Rio Road between Fashion Square and
the project north where there is an elevation change to tunnel under Rio. Mr. Cilimberg said that is
another possibility.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Slutzky said the way this particular proposal is oriented, it is okay. It seems to be tucked into
the corner so whatever is done in the future would be more in the Fashion Square property. He wants it
said that the Board is focused on the Places29 dialogue and how it might impact some of the proposals
that will be seen in the near future. Mr. Cilimberg said that hopefully when Places29 is completed, there
will be more specifics.
Ms. Thomas said Places29 has to be put into the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Slutzky said until the Comprehensive Plan is modified he wants to make sure the Board stays
sensitive to the issue. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a discussion staff will want to have with applicants before
Places29 comes to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said if the corner at Rio Road/Route 29 became a standard intersection with ramps it
would be difficult not to take this property for the roadway. There is nothing in the plan at this time
indicating that will take place. He then opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Valerie Long was present for the applicant. She said the ARB reviewed this request two days
ago and granted final approval subject to a few minor staff administrative details. The ARB provided
detailed comments to the applicant when the plan was seen by them earlier this year and they were
pleased with the revised renderings. The applicant has proffered the plan as requested by the
Commission. The proffers are in final form and have been reviewed by staff and the County Attorney’s
Office and they have been signed. The vehicular connection is continuing and a pedestrian connection
into Fashion Square is being added. The W achovia Bank Building was developed prior to the ARB being
in place, so landscaping around that building is not compliant with current ARB landscaping guidelines.
As part of redevelopment of the entire parcel, her client will be replacing and adding to that landscaping
and bringing it into compliance with ARB guidelines. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked how one can get to this site by bus.
Ms. Long said the bus line runs to the mall, and there will be a pedestrian connection from the
back side of the site to the bank. She thinks a bus line runs along Route 29.
Mr. Slutzky said it a challenge to get a bus close to the site because of it being at the corner of
Route 29 and Rio.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks this question should always be asked. She mentioned a disastrous
situation where the County allowed a senior housing development to be created without the possibility of
having bus access. She does not think that was taken into account in this situation, but she is pleased
there will be pedestrian access to the Fashion Square mall.
W ith no further questions for the applicant, the public hearing was opened. W ith no one from the
public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Slutzky immediately moved to approve ZMA-2005-010 as proffered and as recommended by
the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. W yant. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffer is set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: May 26, 2006
ZMA #2005-010 W achovia and Shops at Rio Road
Tax Map Parcel Number(s): 61-122 & 61-122A
1.836 Acres (TMP 61-122) to be rezoned from CO to C-1
and
Proffers to apply to both TMP 61-122 and 61-122A (the “Property”)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owners, or their duly
authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to
the Property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it
is agreed that: (1) the requested rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2)
such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. The Property will be developed in general accord with the plans entitled “Site
Layout for the Shops at Rio Road,” prepared by Hurt & Proffit Incorporated, dated
June 27, 2005 (sheet 2 of 2), a copy of which plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A
(the “Plan”), except that the size of the retail space and the restaurant space
within the proposed 15, 180 square foot building referenced on the Plan may vary
relative to each other, provided that the square footage of the building does not
increase.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Owner of TMP 61-122:
W ACHOVIA BANK, N.A.
By: (Signed) A. Ashley Pierce, III
Printed Name: A Ashley Pierce, III
Title: Vice President
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: ZTA-2005-005. Farm W orker Housing - Amend Section
3.1 (“Definitions”), Section 5 (“Supplementary Regulations”), and Section 10 (“Rural Areas”) of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Section 3.1 by defining certain
terms; Section 5 by adding supplementary regulations for farm worker housing; and, Section 10 by adding
farm worker housing facilities for 20 or fewer occupants and having 5 or fewer sleeping structures as a by-
right use (farm worker housing, Class A), and adding farm worker housing facilities for more than 20
occupants or having 6 or more sleeping structures as a use requiring a special use permit (farm worker
housing, Class B), in the Rural Areas zoning district. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County
Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Notice of this public hearing was published in
the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 31, 2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would include housing of farm
workers in structures intended for temporary, seasonal use as a permitted use in the Rural Areas (RA)
zoning district in support of agricultural activities in the County. He said this amendment is intended to
maintain the rural character and provide the viability of existing future agricultural operations. There has
been a variety of interest in the agricultural community concerning this amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg said this amendment came about when the Zoning Department made a
determination that although this type of housing exists in the rural areas, it is not a permitted use, and it is
not considered as an accessory use to agriculture. That determination affected all forms of seasonal farm
labor housing in the rural areas district. He said that after working with the applicant and representatives
of the farming community, staff presented a proposed text amendment at a Planning Commission work
session on January 17, 2006, to permit farm worker housing. The Commission decided to proceed to a
public hearing with one change to the proposed text and more input from the Building Official. The
Commission identified two issues to be addressed before the public hearing: (1) changing the scale of the
sketch plan to “at a scale of not more than one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet.”, and, (2) establishing that
these structures would be subject to building permit review and not exempt from that review as farm
buildings (those used for residential purposes would be reviewed).
Mr. Cilimberg said that on March 21, 2006, the Commission held a public hearing on this
amendment. The Commission identified several additional areas for changes to the proposed text
including:
• The worker’s must be employed on the farm only. That restriction needed to be very
specifically indicated in the ordinance.
• Individual structures in the facilities could not have all the features of a dwelling unit.
• The facilities could not be permitted to convert to uses not consistent with the ordinance,
which could be done through affidavit.
• Determine a limited number of structures above which it would trigger a requirement for a
special use permit.
• “Seasonal agricultural workers” should be defined more specifically.
• Indicate the types of units that could be either included or excluded.
Mr. Cilimberg said changes reflecting those comments were made at a Commission hearing on
April 18, 2006. The Commission reviewed staff’s proposal and recommended that the proposal be
forwarded to the Board for approval after making several additional changes to the ordinance language
including: how adjacent property owners would be notified; the Commission could be asked to review the
concept plan if asked to do so by the applicant or an adjacent owner; modifying the definition of "seasonal
agricultural worker” to include livestock operations activities by inserting the clause “work related to
keeping livestock and/or poultry”; establishing that up to 20 occupants and five or fewer sleeping
structures would be the point at which the use would be considered by-right, beyond that would require a
special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said with those items addressed, they feel the ordinance as presented today has
satisfied the recommendation of the Commission, and approval of the ordinance is recommended.
Mr. Boyd asked about the following sentence on Page 1 of the staff’s report – “Individual
structures in the facilities cannot have all the features of a dwelling unit.” He asked what that means. Mr.
Cilimberg said the idea was not to create what would otherwise be considered dwelling units that would be
more than allowed by-right in that location.
Mr. Boyd said he does not want substandard housing to be created.
Mr. Slutzky said for him that is the conundrum of this ordinance. On one side is the desire to not
create a higher density in the rural area but also not to put landowners in the position of violating the terms
of their conservation easements. The ordinance goes to some length to be sure the structure will not be
considered a residential unit, but in doing so has created substandard housing for a particular population.
He does not think that conundrum is resolved with this approach. He is concerned that in order to
appease the concern on one side this creates a problem on the other side.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Mr. Rooker said he agrees. This ordinance talks about the ability to build what he views as
dormitories in the rural area. They are not really for seasonal workers because the definition says: “A
person who moves from one seasonal activity to another while employed by the farm to perform
agriculture work is engaged in seasonal agriculture work even though he or she may continue to be
employed by the farm throughout the year.” He does not know how that could be enforced. He thinks it is
a dramatic overkill for a situation that was brought forward by only one or two people in the rural areas.
He understands this is not a general issue in the rural areas and he thinks this opens up a huge situation
that would be impossible to control.
Mr. Dorrier said if someone is not in compliance with the ordinance now, this would at least give
them a way to be in compliance.
Mr. Rooker said he understands there are non-conforming buildings that can be occupied, but
changes cannot be made to those buildings because they are non-conforming, and the owner cannot
create new buildings. He would be more amendable to looking at an amendment which allowed a special
use permit to improve, upgrade an existing building.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board disapproved a campground on the river in the Scottsville District. The
campground had cabins with electricity, but he is not sure if it had water and sewer. The cabins did not
stand alone as residences under other parts of the ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky said in that instance there was a limited period of time per year that the cabins would
be in use. This amendment is designed to accommodate year-round occupancy for what could arguably
be permanent workers. It is a different scenario. He said the other case was truly a campground,
temporary, transient bunkhouse situation. This would create housing and the idea is to position it as
housing units so it is not violating densification of the rural area and conservation easements. Therefore,
it is being defined in the substandard category by limiting what it can contain, but then allowing it to be
available around the year without any meaningful way of enforcement.
Mr. Dorrier said these people are not being hired in January.
Ms. Thomas suggested hearing from the applicant. The Board is talking without an adequate
basis of knowledge about the intent of the request.
Mr. Cilimberg said the amendment was not intended to create substandard housing. Basically
what is in a normal dwelling unit such as a kitchen facility or a bath facility would be located elsewhere.
Mr. Rooker said he reads this amendment as allowing one building to contain a bath room, the
next building could have a kitchen but not a bathroom, and people would move back and forth using the
facilities.
Mr. W yant said the structure could be a tent on a platform.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board should understand the intent of the request, but the Board also has to
evaluate the outcome. If necessary, the Board should give guidance to staff to redraft the amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. John Shepherd with Community Development might wish to speak about
this amendment which began as a zoning matter.
Mr. W yant asked if the Board could hear from the applicant.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board is the applicant. It requested the Planning Commission to study
this issue.
Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, said he would like to speak to the issues
separately. He will say that in the course of studying the situation and working on this draft, staff talked
with Mr. Ken Shaver who is with VEC. He talked about their processes for reviewing and inspecting
migrant labor camps. The living standards are regulated under other ordinances. The VEC works in
conjunction with the Federal Labor Department and the local Building Official all assure the safety of these
facilities. He said the Camp W atermarks plan seen by the Board follows closely the built form of the
camps as they would be built, not existing camps. He said there are bunkhouses and separate bath
houses and a separate dining hall. That form is typical of the modern programs that involve interns who
would work on organic farms learning about sustainable agriculture and organic farming. This is a new
style of agricultural activity and is what the people who came to the County asked for. A lot of the way this
amendment is written envisions that form.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the land has to perk. Mr. Shepherd said “yes.”
Mr. Dorrier asked if each structure is required to have separate water and sewer.
Mr. Shepherd said he would like to clarify the point about dwelling units versus these facilities. He
said any farm with a dwelling on it can provide that dwelling to anyone working on the farm. This
amendment is separate and apart from that. Tenant housing on farms is a traditional housing form and a
traditional way of providing houses for workers.
Mr. Rooker said that is still allowed today.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. W yant asked how many houses can be provided. Mr. Shepherd said it is based on
development rights and number of acres; every farm can have up to five houses. He said facilities holding
more than seven people would not meet the definition of a family, so there could not be that many people
in a dwelling. This amendment permits a large number of people to be on a farm as migrant workers in a
facility that does not meet the definition of a dwelling to be used for migrant workers.
Mr. Boyd asked if what is perceived by this ordinance would be similar to the camp the Board
approved in Scottsville. Mr. Shepherd said that camp would meet the form contemplated on this concept
plan.
Mr. Rooker said that camp was approved by special use permit. The Board was able to attach
appropriate conditions for the circumstances involved. The number of days of use is a limitation on the
use, a couple of weeks during the year. This amendment talks about year-round use.
Mr. Slutzky said it goes to some length to provide for the possibility that somebody can shift from
one seasonal activity to another seasonal activity throughout the year.
Mr. Rooker said he does not understand the language of the amendment.
Mr. Dorrier said if the Board is serious about preserving agriculture and orchards, this is the sort
of thing the farmer needs. He mentioned that Henry Chiles in Crozet probably would need this
amendment in order to hire migrant workers to pick apples in his orchards. He is not the only one who
would need it, but he is the owner of the largest number of orchards in the County. He thinks the Board
needs to support the agricultural needs of the citizens.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Chiles has ever brought this question before the Board. He has been in
operation for a long time without this provision.
Ms. Thomas said it came as a shock to her that this sort of housing was not allowed in the
County’s agriculturally-zoned rural areas. She said this is in response to a new trend in agriculture. This
request did not come from a great number of farmers, but is a response to a creative suggestion of how to
get some real agricultural activities going on in the County. She thinks the Commission tweaked it a lot,
and she thinks the basic intention is something of which the Board should be supportive.
Mr. W yant said these seasonal employees are being housed in other structures that may not have
bath facilities in them. This is something that is temporary like the mobile homes used by the School
Division on its sites. This amendment even allows the use of tents. These facilities will put up workers in
places that are decent. This is going on today whether or not the question is addressed. It is difficult to
monitor. These workers might be in one facility for a few weeks and then move to another location as the
crops change. He thinks this is just temporary housing that would be used for only a certain period of
time.
Mr. Slutzky said he agrees with almost everything said. He hopes this Board is committed to
promoting and supporting various forms of agriculture in the rural area. It sounds to him as if the
ordinance was constructed for a couple of different purposes. One was for use for just a couple of weeks
so interns could be brought to a facility to learn some form of sustainable agriculture. The idea was
similar to the camp analogy that they would be there for a couple of weeks and then they would be gone.
Second, there is the migrant worker who is a critical element of a viable agriculture enterprise. W hereas
they may currently be living in housing that is inadequate or non-compliant, the Board is trying to address
the need for that migrant worker population to be housed in the rural area in appropriate structures. He is
concerned that in an effort to achieve those two objectives, an ordinance may have been constructed that
does more than that and perverts the intent as he just laid it out. He would prefer to see this ordinance
modified in a way to get adequate housing for the migrant workers that is compatible with the conservation
easement challenge and the current rural area ordinances, and which also provides bunks for the camps
where people are being trained. He does not want to empower a landowner to build a permanent
residence structure that is both substandard and is year-round and fully occupied. He is not sure this
ordinance is what the Board needs. He suggested the ordinance be sent back to the Commission for
further refinement.
Mr. Dorrier said the idea is not to produce affordable housing. This would produce housing which
allows someone to hire migrant workers and pay them on an hourly basis. If this is sent back to the
Commission with a request that they include structures, that will defeat the purpose of the ordinance.
Mr. Rooker asked if the intent here could be accomplished by allowing this by special use permit.
There are not a huge number of these applications. Also, would an adjoining property owner want this use
on a neighbor’s property? A special use permit would allow people to create this type of housing and also
allow the Board to consider such requests on a case-by-case basis, and modify conditions according to
what is appropriate given the circumstances.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many complaints had been received about migrant workers in the County.
Mr. Shepherd said he did not know of any zoning complaints.
Ms. Thomas said she understands this had to go through Zoning because they said such housing
is not allowed. Can a special use permit process be attached to a zoning change? Mr. Davis said this
could be made a use by special use permit. As to non-conforming structures, if they wanted to change
them they would have to apply for a special use permit, and any new one would require a special use
permit.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Ms. Thomas said the value of the special use permit is that the Board could look at every
application. She asked if Mr. Rooker felt that to be important.
Mr. Rooker said “yes.” A special use permit process allows the Board to enable migrant worker
accommodations to be built, but it also allows the Board to attach conditions depending on the
circumstances. The camp was a good example. Everyone agreed it was a good use and should be
approved. But, there were conditions attached.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the maximum number of houses allowed in this situation is five. Mr.
Shepherd said that is five by right. Mr. Cilimberg said there could be 20 occupants, all workers, or some
workers with their families.
Mr. W yant asked if that is in addition to the townhouses on the property. Mr. Cilimberg said the
townhouses are part of the by-right housing.
Mr. W yant asked if the townhouses take away from the five by right. Mr. Cilimberg said “no.”
Mr. W yant said a special use permit could have a limited time period. Most people know when
these workers are needed and they have to provide decent basic facilities. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the
Board hear from Mr. Jay Schlothauer, the Building Official, in terms of what would be inspected under this
ordinance. There is a level of requirement in the ordinance for this housing which would cover what Mr.
W yant just mentioned.
Mr. Slutzky summarized what he understands the ordinance to say i.e., there could be up to 20
people living in a structure which is not allowed to have a bathroom, a kitchen and sleeping
accommodations on a year-round basis so long as they move from one functional task on the farm to
another functional task on the farm hence being eligible under the definition of “seasonal agricultural
worker.”
Mr. Slutzky said he does not believe this Board would actually pass an ordinance to make it
possible on a year-round basis for people to live in what he would describe as substandard housing. Mr.
Davis said the other part of the ordinance which is difficult from an enforcement standpoint is that there
has to be a farm worker who lives and works on the farm to qualify, but his immediate family members
don’t have to work on the farm. There could be one person working on the farm, and immediate family
members could live there but they could work anywhere they want to. It is tough to nail down what is
trying to be accomplished.
Mr. W yant said if a time period were set out, they would only be living there for the time of their
need by the farmer.
Mr. Slutzky said the way it is written, that could be year-round.
Mr. W yant said that is not temporary, but year-round use.
Mr. Slutzky said the objective was sound, but he does not think this ordinance meets that
objective.
Mr. Dorrier said farming has a certain cycle and he does not think there will be a lot of these
people on the farm in January and February. Mr. Davis said the Commission heard evidence that there is
a need for these workers during all seasons, and some of these workers might be there for all four
seasons.
Ms. Thomas said there is some greenhouse farming in the County. The reason for greenhouse
farming is so they can stay indoors in the winter season. She suggested that the Board hear from the
public.
Mr. Tucker said this item was scheduled for a public hearing and the next work session is now
delayed 15 minutes.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Schlothauer could speak at this time.
Mr. Schlothauer said he would be happy to answer any questions the Board members might have.
Mr. W yant asked the minimum requirements for a temporary use.
Mr. Schlothauer said there are a couple of differences in what is being discussed. There is a
“dwelling unit” and both the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance share the same definition. It is a
house with a kitchen, bathroom, etc. There is a code which sets out how to build a house. There is a
code which sets out how to build a “dormitory” which does not necessarily have a place to eat, or
bathrooms. It is a place to sleep. There is a code safety standard to build those safely. Then, it is up to
the operator of the facility to provide the sanitation and the food service, or whatever else they want to do,
in other buildings. He said there is a complicated exemption for farm buildings from the State Building
Code, and it could pertain to some of the buildings being talked about, but not all. He then handed to the
Board members a copy of a statement used in the Building Code Office – a verbatim from the State Code
about farm buildings – they use it so the applicant for a permit can read it and sign it saying they are
building a farm building. He said residential uses are not exempt from the Building Code even if they are
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
on a farm. The dormitory would not be exempt from the Code. Permits would be required, and there
would be inspections.
Mr. Schlothauer said an auxiliary building with showers in it for bathing, or even an auxiliary
building with a dining shelter, may be exempt from the Code if it is on a farm and its uses are dedicated to
farm workers. If a food service building is called a restaurant, as defined by the Health Department, then
that building is not included in the farm exemption and a permit is required. He said the exemptions for
farm buildings are very broad, but it does not affect buildings were people sleep. It affects buildings where
people work.
Ms. Thomas said if it does not affect buildings were people are sleeping, will it affect these
structure which are all by definition where people are sleeping. Mr. Schlothauer said if there is a group of
cabins each containing four people, but another structure is used where they eat breakfast and another
structure is used to take a shower, those two other buildings may be exempt from the Building Code, but
not the buildings where they are actually sleeping.
Mr. Dorrier asked if those buildings are called dormitories. Mr. Schlothauer said the Building
Code includes dormitories and boarding houses in a certain category. It is different than the category
used for dwelling units. It is also different from the category used for hotels and motels.
Mr. Dorrier asked if these are perceived to be permanent structures. Mr. Schlothauer said they
are perceived to be permanent structures.
Mr. Dorrier asked if they are inspected only every so often, not on a regular basis. Mr.
Schlothauer said for a commercial building, when it is completed, his office is finished with that building.
Periodic safety inspections fall under the purview of the County Fire Marshal’s Office. They inspect safety
features regularly to see that those features are maintained.
Ms. Thomas said she looks at this facility as if it were an old-fashioned boarding house.
Mr. Davis said staff had talked with Mr. Schlothauer about tents, which are also permitted under
this amendment. He asked that Mr. Schlothauer explain how they could be regulated under the Building
Code.
Mr. Schlothauer said tents are sometimes regulated by the Building Code. Awnings that often are
seen at car dealerships are not tents and they are not regulated by the Code. A tent must have walls and
a permit is required if it is over 900 square feet and is occupied by more than 50 people. He does not
think that tents where people sleep would ever be in this category which would require a permit.
Mr. Rooker asked if this amendment would permit tents which would not be subject to inspection.
Mr. Schlothauer said that is true.
Mr. Rooker said this amendment allows only up to 20 people so they would never be subject to
inspection. Mr. Schlothauer said there was talk about having tents on platforms, but the platform would
require a building permit. If a concrete slab were poured on grade, that would not require a building
permit.
At this time, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing.
Ms. Marcia Joseph said she had a call from a member of the public who is interested in doing
organic farming and wanted 20 students to come on the property. She had asked for a determination as
to what he might be able to do. The letter of determination was sent to her and it said migrant worker
housing is not allowed in Albemarle County so she appealed that decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
That appeal is still pending. Staff suggested that instead of the appeal, to try and change the Zoning
Ordinance text. The genesis of this was organic farming, as they need workers for an entire season, not
for a couple of weeks. She said in order to get some input, a meeting was held in this building and was
attended by people from many different categories of farming. That is how the extended season came
into this. It was found that there is a need for workers in months other than March through October. She
said the use was not recommended as a special permit use because of the time required to get a permit.
Also, they wanted farmers to feel that agriculture is a prime use in the rural areas.
Ms. Joseph said it has been hoped that the process could be sped up by having massive
supplemental regulations attached. A lot of information is required with the submittal, which is reviewed by
Mr. Schlothauer and his staff. It is reviewed by the Health Department, VDOT, the Fire Marshal, and
Zoning. W hen this was discussed at the Commission meeting, one member was concerned that it was
not a special use permit use, and there was a need to let the neighbors know about the petition. Since
agriculture is to be the prime use in the rural areas, not residential, it was said that adjacent landowners
should be notified that there would be an appeals process whereby they could come to the Commission
and talk about the request.
Mr. Rooker said once this ordinance is passed, he does not see anyway a neighbor would get any
notice. Ms. Joseph said that stipulation was supposed to be in the language of the amendment; neighbors
were to be notified when the request was submitted.
Mr. Rooker asked how the neighbor could have any realistic input. If it is permitted as a matter of
right, how could they stop it? Ms. Joseph said it could be brought to the Commission and there might be
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
an opportunity to tweak it on the site. It would give the adjacent owners an opportunity to talk to staff and
to the applicant about the request.
Mr. Rooker said as a practical matter the applicant could locate the facility wherever they want to.
Notification would just be another example of when people are notified but have no power to influence the
outcome of the situation. Having a notice process and letting people come in with no power over the
decision because it is a matter of right does not seem to be protective of the surrounding property owners.
Ms. Joseph said they were trying to send a signal to the agricultural community that agriculture use is
important enough to allow this use by right with all of the supplemental provisions.
Ms. Thomas said agriculture is primary and people living in the rural areas and not doing
agriculture are supposed to realize that agriculture has priority in that rural area. She said the Board has
often mentioned handing out something to citizens explaining what it means to live in the rural area
including the fact that farmers can drive a tractor at midnight if that is the best time on their schedule. She
said the fact that someone can have agricultural workers in a structure on their property seems to show
that the Board is serious about agriculture; it puts agriculture as primary to residential sprawl.
Mr. Shepherd said in Section 5.1.44.a.5 of the proposed amendment, the Zoning Administrator or
the Commission are both enabled to impose reasonable conditions to mitigate impacts on abutting parcels
arising from the facility. Even if by-right there would be an opportunity to impose conditions on the concept
plan which is a requirement for the overall facility. A zoning clearance is required of the concept plan, and
the plan is a requirement for the overall facility. There is an opportunity for staff to impose conditions
and/or the Commission to impose conditions. It is not completely by-right.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is done, would notice go to surrounding property owners for every
concept plan and every plan then come before the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said it would only come to
the Commission if requested, basically it would be handled as site plans are handled.
Mr. Slutzky said he agrees with Ms. Thomas’ observation that the Board needs to reinforce the
primacy and preferability of agricultural uses in the rural areas. His concern is not with having a good
outcome occur for Ms. Joseph, but he is concerned that this ordinance does things which were not
reflected in the intent. Specifically, it allows up to 20 people to live in a substandard structure on a year-
round basis by-right, and he has a problem with that. He would not want to say that in support of
affordable housing in the growth areas the Board should allow substandard housing to be built.
Ms. Thomas suggested the Board discuss the term “substandard.” She said this is not
substandard in the sense that no one has looked at its safety, livability and strength components. It is
incomplete because it does not have a dining room. She objects to the term “substandard.” It is not a
house and it is incomplete, but she suggests using some other term.
Mr. Rooker asked if tents are something other than substandard to live in year-round. Mr.
Cilimberg said the VEC would not allow it.
Mr. Shepherd said there are regulations in the Building Code about different seasons, i.e. what
would be required for year-round occupancy versus summertime.
Mr. Schlothauer said there is a requirement to provide heat to these occupied structures, but only
in certain months of the year, roughly from October 15 to May 15. It is not required in the summer months
and air-conditioning is never required.
Mr. Davis asked if that only applies to the structures that require a building permit. Mr.
Schlothauer said the heat is for permanent structures that are occupied by anyone.
Mr. Dorrier asked if “heat” refers to a certain type of stove or temperature. Mr. Schlothauer said it
refers to any type of heat, and a temperature of 65 degrees is required.
Mr. Slutzky asked if under the Code a structure is considered substandard if it does not contain a
bathroom and an eating place and a sleeping place. Mr. Schlothauer said in that case it would not be
called a dwelling unit. A dwelling unit is a house and a certificate of occupancy would not be issued if it did
not contain sanitation and cooking elements.
Mr. Slutzky said HUD has spent time defining the term “substandard” to capture the kind of
housing that is not good enough for people to live in year-round as a dwelling unit. He thinks the Board
members are struggling with semantics. He is concerned with the way this ordinance is written allowing a
by-right option to build what he considers to be a substandard dwelling unit because of its ability to be
occupied year-round, by-right for up to 20 people with potentially only one of them working on the farm.
That is an extreme hypothetical, but he does not want to create that option. He would rather have the
ordinance refined to address the concerns that have been talked about today.
Ms. Thomas said in order to not have a place be substandard under Mr. Slutzky’s definition, it
would need to have both an eating and a cooking place.
Mr. Slutzky said if the ordinance allows year-round occupancy he thinks it is talking about dwelling
units. If transient workers occupy it only during certain times and then move on, he would be more
tolerant of the condition he describes as substandard. If there were students learning sustainable
agricultural practices during the summer, then he does not have a problem with that. He is concerned that
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
the Board would permit year-round, by-right substandard dwelling units. He thinks that is where this
ordinance goes beyond its intended purpose and becomes problematic.
Ms. Thomas asked if the year-round part is the problem.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not think the County has had any complaints in the past about this.
Mr. Rooker said it is just not permitted under the current ordinance.
Mr. W yant said it is being done anyway, but it is not substandard. If there is a bath facility outside
of the structure where the worker lives, he does not think that would be considered substandard. He
thinks a special use permit for a limited period of time would not get into the definition of dwelling unit.
Allowing units that are structurally sound, heated if necessary, but can only be used for a certain period of
time, would meet the farmer’s needs.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to speak at this time.
Mr. Jeff W erner from the Piedmont Environmental Council was present. He does not think there
is any question about the intent of this amendment. He thinks Ms. Joseph asked this question almost a
year ago. He asked some colleagues with PEC about it, and it is a difficult issue for communities that are
even more rural than Albemarle. He said this is a loophole that is regularly abused as rental units. At this
time there is a farm operation run by a family that has done good things for Albemarle County. They are
trying to find a way to get their operation working. Instead of focusing on structures and workers, the
Board should be discussing the definition of “farm.” He thinks that agriculture is the key. Maybe there
should be some way to calibrate what the farm operation is. Maybe the land should be in an ag/forest
district in order to be eligible for this use. He would not want to see a place where UVA law students lived
and their farm tasks involved mowing the grass. If this is to be done, it should be something that really
helps folks doing agriculture in the rural area and is not a loop for rental units. He suggested that
standards be set. He thinks this is the right thing to do; he said there is the collective brainpower in this
community to figure it out. He encouraged the Board to do so.
Mr. Neil W illiamson was present for the Free Enterprise Forum. He said his background was in
wine production, so he can say that there is a need for workers to prune the vines in February. There is
also a need for this type of space for interns. He does not want anything chosen by the Board to not
include the intern piece. He liked Ms. Thomas’ remarks about finding a way to make it a by-right use in
order to recognize the importance of agriculture in the rural community. He does not think this proposal
as presented is correct, but he thinks there is a way to do it. He said the Forum would be willing to help.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Joseph if there is any reason this amendment should be approved this
week. She is aware that it is a year since this started.
Ms. Joseph said the Zoning Department told them when this was requested that it could not be
done at that time. A determination had been made that it was not allowed under the ordinance, but if a
zoning text amendment were pursued they would allow them to do it for a year. They did it for that year,
and then extended that approval for another year. The farm that asked this question has been allowed to
proceed. There have been building inspectors looking at the building. One thing discussed was the
situation with rental units. An affidavit is required to be signed by the applicant saying the unit will not be
used for anything other than farm worker housing. This affidavit has to be recorded in the Clerk’s Office,
so it is an official document.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is anything in this ordinance that would prevent a person with 50 acres
from putting up a structure and having eight students live in it because they say the students mow the land
whenever it needs mowing. Ms. Joseph said she does not think so. However, mowing the fields for hay is
a bone fide agricultural use.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that is a huge loophole. To him, it would have to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis as to whether it is a real farm versus someone doing rental housing under the guise of
something else.
Mr. W yant said if someone were coming in just to cut hay, he would set the timeline from May 1 to
the end of September. They do start trimming trees in February and go to the end of harvest time.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board members would be more comfortable if the Commission had to
look at the concept plan. Could the wording be changed so the Commission would look at every plan?
Mr. Rooker said they don’t have the power to deny the plan or attach conditions. If this is a matter
of right, the person files the concept plan and says where the building will be located, and basically that is
it.
Ms. Thomas read “In approving the concept plan, the Commission may impose reasonable
conditions to mitigate impacts on abutting parcels arising from the facility.” She suggested that some
conditions be added to that wording.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like any ordinance passed to serve the valuable purposes that have
been discussed. He does have concerns with respect to this draft of the ordinance. He suggested that it
be sent back to staff or the Commission and ask them to provide the Board with a revised ordinance
which reflects the dialogue today.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Boyd asked how long it typically takes to get a special use permit approved. Mr. Davis said it
takes from 90 to 120 days.
Mr. Rooker said requiring a concept plan might add another 45 days to the process. Once it is in
place, it is permanent.
Mr. Boyd said he is leaning toward the idea of requiring a special use permit but he is also aware
that sometimes these things take a long time to get approved. Mr. Davis said a special use permit
process cannot be created for a by-right use by simply saying conditions can be added. That is not
enabled by law. This amendment probably “stretches the envelope.” Conditions can be added in a by-
right use if there are specific impacts that have to be addressed in a by-right application. If the Board
wants to be able to attach additional conditions, impacts would have to be identified and a waiver process
created that would allow that to happen.
Mr. Rooker said a category can be created in the rural areas where these types of facilities can be
built with a special use permit. Mr. Davis said a special use permit is much easier to enable.
Mr. Rooker said requests could then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and as a matter of
policy the Board could set up some criteria. Mr. Tucker said this particular amendment was advertised for
public hearing. He asked if this question would need to be re-advertised if it were amended to require a
special use permit. Mr. Davis said as long as the ordinance was not more restrictive than the current
advertisement, it could be brought back without an additional public hearing. Making it all by special use
permit would make it more restrictive assuming no other requirements are changed.
Mr. Dorrier asked the maximum number of temporary structures that would be allowed on a farm.
Ms. Thomas said under this ordinance amendment there could be something with 20 occupants
or six or more sleeping structures without a special use permit. If a special use permit were required for
more that might be the way to approach it by changing Section 10.2.2 which defines when one must apply
for a special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said that two classes of farm worker housing would not be needed
any longer.
Ms. Thomas said she and Mr. Dorrier seem to be the most outspoken in favor of this amendment.
She would be amendable to reworking the language.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think the definitions in the draft ordinance are understandable.
Mr. W yant said if these people are staying on the farm to work, he questions whether requiring a
commercial entrance is necessary. Putting on so many restrictions just drives people not to apply.
Mr. Rooker said a special use permit can be a simple provision in the ordinance. In that case, the
people being talked about today would have had a special use permit a year ago. Mr. Davis said if the
Board wants this to be by special use permit, staff can draft a definition of farm worker housing, and figure
out submittal requirements in order to reasonably evaluate the request, and then some of the other
regulatory things would no longer have to be supplemental regulations unless they were wanted simply for
guidance. The ordinance can be simplified. He does think it will be difficult to close all the loopholes. The
fact that there could be family members living in the farm worker housing that could work other places
would be something over which the County would never get regulatory authority to make sure this was
farm worker housing and was not low-income housing so people could work in service industries in
Charlottesville. If that is the way the Board wants to proceed, he thinks staff can draft something and have
it ready in 30 days.
Mr. Rooker said there are always enforcement issues. He asked if the Board members would
agree to this being returned in about a month.
Ms. Thomas said this process has brought forth stakeholders who did not know they were
stakeholders, mainly farmers. She said the words “special use permit” is anathema to the rural
community so she wants to be sure something is not created that will never be used, or will send the
opposite message the Board wants to send, i.e., to encourage agricultural activities. Mr. Davis said if that
is what the Board wants to do it might take a little longer for staff to draft that into the ordinance.
Mr. W yant asked what fees are attached to a special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said there will
need to be a decision on fees, whether they would fall under standard fees, or be a special fee of its own.
Mr. Slutzky said it sounds as if this should be tweaked at every turn to minimize the objectionable
nature of a special use permit. Mr. Davis said the existing fee structure is set up to cover the cost of the
process. He is not sure the Board wants to charge separate fees unless the process is simpler and
requires less review.
Mr. Rooker said once a permit was approved, the applicant would have the right to use it forever.
Mr. Boyd asked if the guidelines have to be in the ordinance, or could they be guidelines in the
application process.
Mr. Cilimberg said he needed some clarification of the Board’s wishes. W hat does the Board
want to be considered standard and required with the application? Supplementary regulations are typical
with special use permits. How much of this needs to be established in the supplementary regulations. He
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
said a lot of special use permits include supplementary regulations which can be varied by the
Commission.
Mr. Rooker said they are not part of the ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said they are actually set out in
Section 5 of the ordinance. W hen an application is filed, the applicant can ask for modification of those
regulations. Mr. Davis said the supplementary regulations set out the expectations. W hen someone files
for a special use permit and they don’t want to meet those expectations they can ask the Commission to
waive them. Those regulations are the starting point of every application.
Mr. Rooker said the Board does not have enough time today to do that. Mr. Cilimberg said those
regulations would be derived from this proposed ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board is most concerned about exploitative rental housing.
Mr. Rooker said if there was no further discussion, this matter would be deferred. Mr. Davis said
this requires a motion to defer and staff should receive some general directions as to what the deferral is.
Ms. Thomas asked if the public hearing would remain open. Mr. Davis said it can be reopened at
the discretion of the Board.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to defer action on ZTA-2005-005, Farm W orker Housing,
for 30 to 60 days to allow staff to develop appropriate regulations. The motion was seconded by Mr.
W yant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
At 3:30 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened in Room 235.
Agenda Item No. 19. W ork Session: Strategic Planning – W ater Resources Priority.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said the Board, at it September 9, 2005,
Strategic Plan retreat, identified a priority to implement additional strategies for natural resource protection
as part of the FY ‘07-FY ‘10 Strategic Plan. At a Strategic Plan work session on April 5, 2006, the Board
established a new objective related to development of an enhanced riparian buffer program. Before
starting on that plan, staff thought it would be best to have an education session first. To facilitate this
discussion, staff will provide a PowerPointe presentation this afternoon. In the fall, staff will present the
Board with a more defined program based on whatever guidance it gets today. He said that Ms. Tamara
Ambler will make the presentation.
Ms. Ambler said because of the multiple benefits of stream buffers, this is where staff’s efforts are
focused. She said stream buffers have many benefits including flood control, providing shade for aquatic
animals, and providing habitat for aquatic and terrestrial animals, and they provide quantifiable nutrient
production benefits. They stimulate nutrients, filter out sediments, and provide stabilization for the running
stream base.
Ms. Ambler showed a picture of a stream buffer. She said in the past they have been associated
with agricultural operations, but now they are being considered for alternate land uses. She said the ideal
buffer should have three tiers of vegetation. It should have tall canopy trees, under-story vegetation and
woody ground cover. This system of components actually reduces pollution. W here there are not buffers
any type of pollutant can run off of the land directly into waterways. People associate this with agriculture,
but it can also be a suburban or residential issue. Often people do not maintain their property with the
woody vegetation so the fertilizers, pet waste and many nutrients in the pollution wash directly into a
stream.
Ms. Ambler said stream buffers have been incorporated into many goals. There is a lot of
information contained in the Executive Summary (on file) about the County’s involvement with the
Chesapeake Bay Program. Stream buffers are an item noted as addressing the sediment and pollution
programs in the Bay. They are also noted as being part of the National Stormwater Program (NPES). In
addition, buffers are used to improve local impairments (in 2004 the following streams were listed as being
impaired by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - parts of the Rivanna River, Hardware
River, Ivy Creek, Totier Creek and Moore's Creek). Streams are considered impaired because of bacteria
associated with animal/human waste (fecal coliform). She said stream buffer restoration is an item that is
always used to improve the health of the watershed. Staff just received a draft of the 2006 impaired
waters report, and about ten more segments of impaired waters have been added.
Ms. Ambler said the actual quantifiable goals in the Chesapeake Bay Program came from the
Tributary Strategy approved in 2005. Virginia has prepared a tributary plan to help improve water quality
in the Chesapeake Bay by calling for a 100-foot buffer of about 30,000 miles. Of that, Albemarle County’s
estimated share is 13,873 acres which equates to 1,146 miles of a 100-foot buffer. She said the County
has less than 2,000 stream miles and currently, with the W ater Protection Ordinance, the number of
stream miles that can be subject to buffers under current requirements is about 1,500. The only issue is
that agricultural activities are excluded. Staff does not know how many stream miles are adjacent to
agricultural lands as opposed to non-agricultural lands.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Rooker said if the agricultural lands are excluded, there may not be enough buffer miles in the
County to meet the goal.
Ms. Ambler said that is correct. The County is divided into three zones. Requirement of stream
buffers depends on where the land is located in the County. For the designated growth areas, the buffer
requirements are the least stringent. They are like the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA)
requirements for 100 feet on either side of all U.S.G.S. perennial steams and contiguous wetlands. In the
rural areas regulations are more stringent. Buffers are 100 feet on either side of perennial streams and
associated wetlands, or if there is a floodplain associated with that stream and it is wider than 100 feet, it
is the wider of the two. In the water supply protection areas where areas drain into the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, the regulations are the most stringent and exceed those in the Bay Act. There is a
requirement there for 100-foot buffers on both perennial and intermittent streams. If there is a floodplain
associated with a stream and the floodplain is wider than 100 feet, then that is the extent of the buffer.
Ms. Ambler said many people live around the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and also around the
Totier Creek Reservoir. That buffer is 200 feet from the edge of the floodplain, so it is a significant buffer.
Lastly, there is the situation in Crozet which is a water supply protection area and a development area.
The more stringent water supply buffer requirements apply there. But, agricultural activities like hay and
pasture are exempt so have no buffer requirements. Agricultural activities involving croplands have
reduced buffer requirements. However, due to a blip in Article III of the W ater Protection Ordinance under
the “Applicability” section the ordinance does not specifically spell out that it is applicable to agricultural
lands so staff has not been able to enforce any buffer zone on croplands.
Mr. Rooker asked the limitation by state law for buffers imposed on agriculture. Ms. Ambler said
the CPBA calls for one hundred foot buffers on all agricultural lands. They can be reduced to 25 feet if
specific pest management and nutrient management plans are implemented. She said the 25 feet
assumes management plans are being implemented.
Mr. Rooker asked about hay and pastureland being exempted under the County’s ordinance. Ms.
Ambler said because the County voluntarily adopted an ordinance it had a little more leeway.
Ms. Thomas asked if Virginia’s Right-To-Farm Act trumps the CBPA or the other way around. Mr.
Davis said east of I-95 the CBPA requires those buffers regardless of any other provisions of State law.
W est of I-95 there is no requirement that the CBPA apply, so the County was able to pick the parts of the
CBPA that it wanted to enforce. W ith regard to agriculture, the County did not restrict those activities
consistent with the CBPA requirements east of I-95.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County wanted to restrict all forms of agriculture to the 100-foot buffer,
would the Board be able to do that legally. Mr. Davis said “yes.” The Board’s decision at that time was not
to do it. Ms. Ambler said she spoke with Mr. David Hirschman, former W atershed Official, and he said
that when some of the CBPA was adopted in 1991, apparently the County required fuller buffers on
croplands and it was up to the Thomas Jefferson Soil & W ater Conservation District (TJSW C) to make
sure people implemented the plans she just mentioned. That was incredibly cumbersome. It was decided
to set those buffers at 25 feet and assume that the plans were being implemented.
Mr. Slutzky asked if for the County to get its NPDES permit renewed for Moore’s Creek there was
the option of getting credit for the stream buffer implementation. Ms. Ambler said she would have to
check on that.
Mr. Graham said there is a big distinction between point sources and non-point sources. They did
not want to keep trading credits between them. Ms. Ambler said the first trade was going to be point-to-
point, and once that is exhausted it will be from non-point to non-point. That is years away.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County implemented an ordinance requiring the buffers in agricultural
now, when that trading becomes an option would the County be able to get the credits. If not, that is a
further incentive to delay.
Ms. Ambler said that in terms of enforcement the ordinance is mostly enforced through the
development review process for new development and through complaints. W hat the County’s buffer
ordinance requires is similar to ordinances nationwide. The 25 feet closest to the stream is basically a “no
touch” zone. In the outer 75 feet some silviculture management is allowed to protect trees which are six
inches in diameter. In the whole 100 foot buffer, all grading activities are prohibited. There can be no
septic field, or building or grading in that area.
Ms. Ambler said typically, buffer restoration efforts are required as mitigation for buffer impacts
under the W ater Protection Ordinance. Impacts to stream buffers may be authorized by the County in
specific circumstances provided the applicant mitigates those impacts. Authorized impacts are typically in
situations where crossing or encroaching within the buffer is necessary for an applicant to have
reasonable use of their property. Mitigation takes place by planting new vegetation within an existing
riparian area where inadequate vegetative cover exists. The majority of mitigation has taken place on the
same site where the impacts occurred, although off-site mitigation is allowed if an area can be found that
is in need of buffer restoration.
Ms. Ambler said in order to strengthen the County’s program, staff applied for a grant that would
match money spent in the County’s budget to begin restoring buffers. The Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation has announced it will make $159,000 available to Albemarle County for a
Riparian Buffer Restoration Initiative. State funds will be used to match stream buffer planting performed
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
within the County. Acceptance of this grant will not require any additional funding from the County beyond
its existing programs.
Ms. Ambler said she would mention the options available for enhancing the program. One option
is to make the program more stringent. The agricultural exemption could be removed, 100-foot buffers
could be required on hay and pasture, and buffers could be increased on cropland to 100 feet. She said
this has been talked about at length by County staff. There has been a lot of public input through the
years but staff believes it would be a fairly controversial measure. In addition, staff would need to quantify
how many County miles of stream buffers are adjacent to agricultural lands.
Mr. Rooker asked what happens if that is done. Ms. Ambler said the CBPA does not presume
exclusionary fencing, so it means animals would still have access to that buffer. Basically, it could no
longer be mowed to make hay. To get a credit for that buffer under the Tributary Strategies would require
exclusionary fencing.
Mr. Rooker asked what that credit would do for the County. Ms. Ambler said back in 1998 the
EPA listed the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as impaired. W henever you are listed as impaired, you
must develop a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load). Because the Bay Program was in existence and
there was a cooperative program between Virginia, Maryland and D.C., instead of requiring a TMDL,
which is a legal instrument, they said these entities could try to reach the necessary levels in the
Chesapeake Bay Program to get the Bay removed from the impaired list by 2010. If that is not done, then
there will be a requirement to participate in a mandatory TMDL in 2011. Potentially, beyond what is
happening voluntarily, the EPA could allocate how much nitrogen and phosphorus can come out of
Albemarle County.
Mr. Rooker said with the agricultural exemption, he does not believe the level they would require
could ever be obtained. The County does not have many miles of streams that do not follow along
agricultural areas.
Mr. Slutzky asked if most of the loading comes out of the water treatment facilities. Ms. Ambler
said “no”, there are more point sources.
Ms. Thomas said suburban development is the fastest growing source of nutrients. She said
those participating in the Chesapeake Bay Program have come up with the idea that the localities will
likely lose control and the EPA will say precisely what must be done, but the EPA is under no obligation to
expend any money to do anything. If in the next four years the County can figure out how to get the most
from its efforts, it will be four years ahead. This is actually under a court order now, and it is hoped it and
be delayed a few more years.
Mr. Graham said the question is – if the County does certain things now, will it get credit for those
things or will that be considered as the County’s baseline and allocating will start at that point.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the TMDL is based on actual outputs, or assumed outputs based on
conditions. Ms. Ambler said there is a TMDL called “the Fifth Strategy” which has already been developed
for the Bay Program. She said people want those allocations to be made evenly across political
boundaries. Buffers are just one component of urban nutrient management. There are other things in the
Tributary Strategy that are equally as daunting as the buffers.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a significant strategy to limit the use of fertilizers in those growth
areas, and would the County get credit for doing that. Ms. Ambler said there would have to be a way
found to quantify it. Mr. Graham said staff cannot do that.
Mr. W yant said urban nutrient loadings are the highest, it is not agricultural. W hen the Stream
W atch was conducted, the worse site in the County was on Ivy Creek. The farmers don’t use one-fourth
the amount of fertilizers most people use on their lawns. Ms. Ambler said staff can study these things
further if that is the Board’s wish and figure out the breakdown in the County between riparian areas
adjacent to development areas, etc.
Ms. Ambler said the County could also do a better job of enforcing what is already in County
ordinances, such as increased inspections and enforcement. She said there is not enough staff available
to do proactive inspections and violations do happen. Staff could make regular inspections of the
shoreline along the South Fork Rivanna River or Totier Creek. Also, a program could be implemented like
that used in Henrico County for its wetlands. W henever they have a development proposal, before
construction starts, they require the contractor to actually mark off the wetlands for that development.
Albemarle County could ask that this be done for its buffer areas.
Mr. Rooker asked how difficult it would be to do that. Ms. Ambler said she does not believe it
would be that difficult, but it would put a burden on the inspections staff, so additional staff would be
needed.
Mr. W yant said contractors working for a developer might offer other stuff, so he thinks the County
might use others to help rather than adding staff. He said the Forestry Department monitors the people
who cut timber. In the last several years, they have put more stringent regulations into place. He thinks
the County might take advantage of what they are doing. Ms. Ambler said she has talked with the area
forester and for those localities under the CBPA when she receives a complaint she coordinates that with
the Forestry Department.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Ms. Ambler said the County might also institute some monetary penalty for violations. A unit cost
would have to be developed for replanting buffers, and that cost used as the monetary penalty. Typically,
when there is a violation, the mitigation process is long and drawn out. To determine unit cost, they
would use the 2003 guidance from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. There are some
significant restoration replanting guidelines for reestablishing that three-tier level (canopy, trees,
undergrowth) she spoke about earlier. She did a survey of 25 local and regional landscape companies
and to plant this unit could cost $700 for a 400 square foot unit. That is a significant cost.
Mr. Rooker said if staff responds to violations and then has to set up a mitigation plan, if violations
were minimized in the beginning by marking off the areas, it might save additional staff time. Mr. Graham
said most of the violations are made by people operating without any kind of a permit.
Mr. Rooker said he has received several complaints in the last few months about people who
actually had a permit. He said staff spends a lot of time working on these situations and the contractor will
normally say they did not know they were violating a permit. He thinks it would be interesting to find out
from Henrico County how much time is incrementally added to their staff’s time.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the complaints were from people in the rural area or in the growth area. Ms.
Ambler said during the short period of time she has worked for the County, most violations are in the rural
areas.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a person were using the Land Use Taxation Program and had a violation, is
there any way to say they could not use their right to that program. Mr. Davis said “yes.”
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that when the Board next discusses Land Use taxation, it should
keep this in mind. She said the land use taxation program requires that there must be a certain number of
animals on the property, and if the animals destroy the undercover on a fairly small piece of property they
would end up not having enough land to stay in the program.
Mr. W yant said it is more important to get the buffers replaced to provide protection. Ms. Ambler
said there has never been a state law setting a mitigation requirement. The County, the TJSW CD and the
PREP Program have been able to come up with replacement plans typically using seedlings. This is the
first time the State has allowed smaller areas where better and woodier vegetation can be put in place.
Mr. Davis said under the County’s current ordinance, there is already a provision which allows a
consent order for a mitigation plan plus a civil penalty of up to $2,500. This would have to be part of the
mitigation plan.
Ms. Ambler said between 2002 and 2004, the County made an assessment of all streams in the
development areas. The staff walked the streams to assess them as to the stresses on streams and the
value of streams. A ranking was developed for streams including intermittent streams. The W ater
Protection Ordinance now only requires buffers on intermittent streams in development areas. There is a
ranking for all streams in the development areas. Some streams have been assessed as being high
quality and some streams are already impacted. The County could increase buffer protection in the
development areas by taking the high priority intermittent streams and requiring buffers on them. There is
the capability with GIS to actually look at this on a project level basis.
Ms. Ambler said there is another option that previous staff wanted to do, but it would be resource
intensive. They wanted to develop maps which illustrated the location of required riparian buffers; these
maps could be used by both staff and the public. This would require a significant effort to develop but in
the long term would reduce the burden on staff by reducing citizen inquiries and reducing the need for field
delineations. She said all Tidewater localities already have developed these resource protection maps.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be worthwhile to have staff check the cost of having that baseline
prepared for the County. Mr. Graham said most of the localities that have done this actually contracted
out this service rather than doing it in-house.
Ms. Ambler said there is a need to improve the educational component to include direct mailings
to riparian landowners and to sponsor workshops targeted to homeowners associations and the general
public. Improvement from this effort is anticipated to be difficult to measure but the effort would have a
relatively low cost.
Ms. Ambler said the County could utilize existing State enabling authority in § 58.1-3666 to
provide property tax relief for riparian buffers under easement. Any program considered should not
compete with the existing land use taxation and conservation easement programs. As a policy, the
County could encourage additional buffers as part of stormwater management requirements. The County
could do more demonstration projects on County-owned land. An assessment could be made of how the
County treats riparian areas on County-owned property. That would give an opportunity to improve and
publicize those improvements. Lastly, buffer areas could be purchased to provide permanent protection
either through use of private or County funds, if available.
Ms. Ambler said staff requests today that the Board consider these program enhancement
opportunities and advise which should be explored in greater detail. Based on that guidance, staff will
develop possible implementation strategies and assess the budget impacts for further consideration.
Mr. W yant asked if staff knows where there are critical places on banks. In talking about grant
moneys, he does not know where that money could be applied. He asked if the money can only be used
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
in development areas. Mr. Graham said “no”, but those are the only areas which have been assessed.
He does not think the same effort could be done for the whole county. Ms. Ambler said the funds can be
used anywhere in the County where there is an impaired watershed.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the funds could be used to create the platform for enforcement. Ms. Ambler
said “no.” This grant was competitive. The County was funded for the full amount the first year because
they were going to be get funds for buffers that actually have a quantifiable nutrient reduction possibility.
Mr. Rooker suggested the Board take action on Recommendation No. 2 which is to authorize the
County Executive to sign a grant agreement with the Department of Conservation and Recreation for the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Initiative grant. He said this action will authorize the receipt of the W ater
Quality Improvement Fund Grant funds and authorize staff to administer the existing program as in-kind
match to the grant. No additional County funding is required for this grant.
Ms. Thomas offered motion to authorize the County Executive to sign a grant agreement with the
Department of Conservation and Recreation for the Riparian Buffer Restoration Initiative grant. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if there were a consensus that staff should go ahead with getting an estimate
on the mapping. He thinks that could be important as a working tool and a public information matter.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to see that estimate.
Ms. Thomas asked if this is for intermittent as well as perennial streams in the water protection
area, and just for perennial streams outside of the water protection area. Mr. Graham said that is a good
question. If staff is to look at what falls within the buffer program, a decision can be made later as to
whether to include those streams throughout the County.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Ambler has pointed a number of other things which can be done. He asked
if the Board would like to discuss any of these suggestions further.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks all of the incentive programs should be looked at. They might fit well
with what the “Appalachian Sustainable Forestry” group is trying to do re: a riparian buffer tax credit; it is
also something in which the Mountain Overlay Committee is interested.
Mr. Slutzky said there is the opportunity to send some information out with the tax bills. The
County might also ask some interested organizations if they would proactively disseminate information.
Ms. Thomas referred to the third bullet under No. 2 (The Federal Conservation Reserve Program
and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program offer rental payments to remove land from crop use
and establish buffer utilizing 10 to 15 year contracts.) and said she knows the CREP Program always runs
out of money. There is a big demand for the program already.
Mr. Rooker asked about the Henrico approach that was mentioned earlier. He thinks it would be
helpful if staff got information as to how helpful Henrico felt that program was in preventing violations. He
noted Option No. 3, Opportunities for Enhancing the County Riparian Buffer Program, and asked if there is
anything the Board members felt should be looked at.
Mr. W yant asked if property owners receive anything in the mail to bring these things to their
attention. Ms. Ambler said when a building permit is requested and the person has a buffer requirement,
an informational letter and brochure is mailed.
Mr. W yant asked if these things are recorded so that anyone doing a title search would find them.
The next property owner would then know they were being passed to them. Ms. Ambler said a lot of the
violations on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir have come about because the next owner who wanted a
view violated that buffer to get one.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it is possible to have a disclosure requirement on the transfer of property. Mr.
Davis said it is not specifically enabled.
Mr. Rooker said if the mapping mentioned was done, would there be tax map and parcel numbers
to which the buffers apply which could be used as part of an education program.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it could be requested, if not required, of the surveyor community to reflect a
buffer on their survey. Mr. Davis said the buffers are shown on subdivision plats and site plans. Of
course, a lot of this property is not being subdivided.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board wanted to go forward with the recommendation for prioritizing
conservation easements, at least in part.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Ms. Thomas said she would like to speak about that. W hen the ACE Program was developed it
picked up all the reasons to preserve rural land. A set of points is given for each thing and also to the
value of connecting conservation easements so a continuous piece is formed. It is complex, but
embodies everything in the Comprehensive Plan. Mountain protection is given some priority. This is the
second time in two months that it has been suggested that another group be given a priority. She is leery
of continuing to give things priority. If the Board wants to look at the entire point system to see if it still
reflects the community’s interests, that is fine, but she does not think the Board should pick out riparian
rights and give more priority to them.
Mr. Slutzky said that is a good point, but for him there is the pending doom with the TMDL. He
said the County will have to make forward progress on this issue; the others are preference issues.
Mr. Rooker said Item 3 on the last page of the Executive Summary for “Targeting Conservation
Easements” says: “Target the purchase of conservation easements by the County to existing high quality
riparian buffers to ensure their continued protection and contribution to water quality and habitat
protection. In addition, target the purchase of conservation easements by the County to riparian areas in
need of restoration where multiple water quality and natural resources goals can be achieved through
restoration and permanent protection. Cost of those projects is anticipated to vary on a case-by-case
basis, but it may be possible to obtain State grants for purchase of these properties.” He asked if
everyone agrees the top bullets are something that should be studied. They read: 1) Improve the
educational component to include direct mailings to riparian landowners and sponsor workshops targeted
to homeowners associations and the general public. 2) Utilize existing State enabling authority in § 58.1-
3666 to provide property tax relief for riparian buffers under easement. 3) Encourage increased use of
buffers for nonstructural stormwater management. 4) Initiate demonstration projects on County-owned
land.
Mr. Rooker thanked Ms. Ambler and Mr. Graham for the report.
(Note: At this time, the Board took a short recess.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. North Pointe Rezoning, W ork Session.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, said that on May 10, 2006, the Board held a public hearing
on the North Pointe rezoning request. Approximately 40 people spoke and the Board decided not to take
action at that meeting, but to keep the public hearing open until a work session could be held on June 7 to
discuss the comments received at that public hearing. Staff was asked to provide the following
information for this work session:
1. A chart outlining proffered affordable housing that showed how many of each type of unit would be
provided, affordable unit versus workforce units, timing for delivery of those units, and an analysis
with respect to the total number of residential units.
2. A discussion of workforce housing to include: a definition of “workforce housing”, what income
range that housing would serve, and a summary of past discussions on this type of housing.
3. A copy of the proffers received on May 10 and staff’s review of those proffers with respect to the
outstanding issues. (The applicant has submitted revised proffers dated May 19 and they are
attached to the Executive Summary as Attachment B. They have been reviewed by staff as the
proffers for this work session.)
4. Reconfirmation from the School Division that the location and size of the school lot is acceptable.
Ms. Echols said since that Board meeting, additional information has been requested by Board
members, which includes:
1. Comparison of recently approved proffers, especially Albemarle Place and Hollymead Town
Center, with those for North Pointe.
2. Information on “workforce salaries” for jobs planned to be in the vicinity of North Pointe.
3. Information on what is necessary to make the school walkable and that walk safe.
4. Information on any additional thing that can be done to protect environmental resources,
especially the Rivanna River.
5. How to make the anticipated employment center at NGIC more accessible by bicycle or by
foot.
Ms. Echols said those questions are answered in the Executive Summary. She said Mr. Mark
Graham, Director of Community Development, will explain the transportation proffers which are complex.
He has a graphic showing the phasing of the traffic improvements, what triggers those improvements and
what happens if there is a change in timing of the improvements. After that, Mr. Ron W hite, Housing
Director, is present to talk about his workforce housing report. Staff and the County Attorney have
provided comments on the proffers, so they are ready to talk about the substance or the form of the
proffers.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Graham said he will speak about a number of proffers, specifically 5.3.1, Design and Phasing;
5.3.5, County/VDOT Construction of Improvements; and, 5.3.6, Alternate Schedule for Phase III Road
Improvements. Although there are two signalized intersections in the proposal that could possibly serve
the commercial area, the traffic study shows the need for at least one signalized intersection/crossover on
Route 29. The traffic study showed that at 290,000 square feet of commercial activity, without a second
intersection, the traffic on the first intersection would be so heavy as to make an unacceptable level of
service on Route 29.
Mr. Graham said for Proffer 5.3.1(a), Phase I Road Improvements, on the graphic he has outlined
in green what would be built during the initial phase. Basically, that is to build the middle entrance on
Route 29 (Northside Drive) all the way to their property line, then Leake Road which is the same as North
Pointe Boulevard, down to Proffit Road. He said there is one road in this development which has a couple
of names in a very short distance; within the development it is called North Pointe Boulevard, just outside
of the development it is called Leake Road, and just across Proffit Road it is called W orth Crossing.
Hopefully, at some point in the future, the name issue can be solved. They will build North Pointe
Boulevard and Leake Road all the way to Airport Road. They will also build an additional westbound lane
on Proffit Road from Leake Road to Route 29. They will build a third lane on the northbound side between
Airport Road and Proffit Road and Northwest Passage.
Mr. Graham said they also propose a roundabout at the intersection of Leake Road and Proffit
Road. Also, the proffers call for an eastbound additional lane. He said the proffers specifically call for
these improvements if there is right-of-way available to them. If the right-of-way is not available, the
applicant proposes a cash contribution of $200,000 in the case of the roundabout, and $67,000 for the
eastbound lane. At this time, staff does not know that this amount of money would be sufficient to build
these things, or when they would be built.
Mr. Graham said starting with this initial phase, in 5.3.1(a) the proffer calls for building North
Pointe Boulevard up to Northside Drive, build the Northside Drive connection, a crossover intersection at
what is referred to as the “middle entrance”, and do all the intersection improvements including all left and
right turn lanes as required, and build on the southbound side 1000 feet on each side of the intersection a
third lane. That is a stacking and queuing distance for the signal. As part of doing all that, they will close
the existing crossover at Cypress and shift it down to the crossover at the light with Northside. They will
also build a connection through from Cypress to Northside so that anyone who wanted to turn into
Cypress could turn into Northside and then come over. It would avoid having U-turns at that point. Those
are the Phase I improvements.
Mr. Graham said the next proffer is 5.3.1(b) which deals with the Phase II road improvements or
the southernmost entrance on Route 29. He said this is the entrance for the commercial/retail center.
These improvements are not required until 290,000 square feet of commercial space has been
constructed. At that time, the third lane on the southbound side would be tied into the other improvements
and carried all the way to Airport Road. He thinks this is important because it avoids the issue of having
the road go from two lanes to three lanes and back to two lanes, etc. Staff thought that would create a lot
of problems, and he is not sure VDOT would accept the road if built in that manner.
Mr. Rooker asked how the problem is solved when part of the road is constructed in two different
phases. Mr. Graham said there is still a problem because of the way the proffers are structured at this
time. On the southbound side there would be two lanes, three lanes, two lanes, three lanes, jumping back
and forth, but the difference is that the distance is greater. That has been an issue for quite some time.
Mr. Graham said in the 5.3.1(b) proffer there is an alternative (he pointed to the graphic). In lieu
of building “this” intersection with the initial development, they would not build “this” crossover or “these”
improvements here, but would build “this one.” As a condition of doing that, they would have to do the
same improvements “here” and build North Pointe Boulevard and Northwest Passage out to Route 29.
That is an important concept for staff in that it wants the full loop plus the service “right here” in front of the
commercial space.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is a Phase I improvement. Mr. Graham said it is. That is an alternative;
the applicant is not required to do it. There is not enough definition in the traffic study to say it is
necessary although it is strongly preferred by staff for a number of reasons. It puts the crossover within
the heart of the commercial activity and if there is not a crossover “here” but is “up here”, the people
coming into this shopping center will be driving on Route 29, but when they exit they will have to either
make a U-turn or drive up North Pointe Boulevard and then turn south to come out “this way.” If that
occurs, there is the question of what happens “here”.
Mr. Rooker said the people in Forest Lakes are concerned about not having the southern
entrance constructed in Phase I. Also, if the commercial will be constructed early in the project, the direct
entrance to that commercial from Route 29 is important. Mr. Graham said he would prefer that it be the
first signalized intersection. The way the proffers are structured at this time there is still no timeline as to
when this would be constructed. It is simply based on the amount of square footage of commercial space.
Mr. W yant said if the first entrance is built, time is not as critical on the second. Mr. Graham said
staff does not see that as being critical, but they do think “this” remains important. That goes to the Phase
III Road Improvements, 5.1.3(c). That proffer anticipates (pointing to the graphic) the “green” plus the
“red” or the “green” plus the “pink.” “These” improvements continue the completion of North Pointe
Boulevard and the completion of Northwest Passage would happen through a couple of triggers; the
development on “this” property “here” or if there were 533 residential dwelling units platted, or within five
years of the first certificate of occupancy “down here.” Pointing to the graphic Mr. Graham said the green
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
and red are Phase I, the pink is Phase II, and the dashed pink is the alternative if they switch the middle
entrance and the southern entrance, and then Phase III is the blue.
Mr. Graham said there are two other proffers he would like to mention. First is 5.3.5,
County/VDOT Construction of Improvements. He said this is an attempt to address staff concerns about
not completing the third southbound lane, and not having a timeline. If they do not build more than
290,000 square feet within ten years of the first certificate of occupancy, the County could build this
improvement at its own cost. Then, whenever the applicant built more than 290,000 square feet, they
would reimburse the County for 75 percent of the cost. He said working with a timeline of ten years after
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (realistically the first would not be issued until 2008), would
put the year at 2018. If the County were going to build the road, there is an incentive not to do so until
2018, and realistically the third lane would probably not be completed until 2020 taking into account time
needed for road design.
Mr. Rooker said speaking personally that is totally unacceptable.
Mr. Graham said there is another question which has not been answered. He said one of the
reasons the applicant has been hesitant about building “this” improvement (the vertical alignment of the
road “here”) is due to the need for sight distance at the crossover. If there is not a signalized intersection
at “this” point, and the improvement is done, it is questionable as to whether VDOT and/or the County
would correct that vertical alignment. If there is not a signalized intersection, there is not the demand to
correct that road. If VDOT came in and did that without correcting that alignment and the applicant came
back to build the signalized intersection, it would have to be corrected. At that point all the improvements
would have to be torn out and a three-lane detour built and it could cost the applicant and the County more
money.
Mr. Slutzky said he believes the southbound lane and the crossover should be constructed as
early as possible, ideally within the first few years. He understands that southbound lane was proffered
previously by the UVA Real Estate Foundation but their obligation to build that lane is contingent upon
them reaching certain build-out points and they are not close to those points at this time. He said this
applicant is in a tough bargaining position, and if he ends up building what is the University’s proffer, the
County should not create a windfall for the University. He thinks this road should be built in a timely
fashion.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a timeline for the University to build this improvement.
Mr. Rooker said there was not a time limit put on it, and it has gone way beyond what was
expected, and they are still not close.
Ms. Thomas said when UREF reaches that trigger point and the road has already been built,
would they have to pay for it? Mr. Graham said there is a presumption that they are building it. It is an
issue because this applicant is proffering to do these improvements and UREF has also proffered to
complete them. There is no question that the work is necessary for the signalized intersection “here.”
Staff questions whether North Pointe will develop more than 290,000 square feet of commercial in the
next 20 years.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to have that southbound lane built and the southern crossover
constructed. He thinks people in Forest Lakes would probably prefer that and yet a prior action by this
Board has made it more difficult for the applicant to proffer what is needed. He does not know what to do
about it other than make it clear that it was not the Board’s intent to make a windfall for the University.
Mr. Dorrier said the Chairman meets quarterly with people from the University.
Mr. Rooker said it is UREF (which is a separate entity), and not the University, but the issue can
be raised with them. He agrees it creates a dilemma, but it is necessary with respect to this project. It is
unfortunate if the Foundation will not participate in some monetary way to help the applicant pay for this
proffer.
Ms. Thomas said NGIC will be creating a thousand new jobs in the year 2011. That creates the
probability that the residential section of this development will build out because it will be an attractive
living location for people working in the area. Since it will cause a major traffic impact on Route 29, when
the northernmost road and the intersection are built is important. This development will profit in a
roundabout way because all those new jobs are coming in just as this development is built. If this
development has to pick up a share of that roadway construction it does not seem totally fair because
some of it will be caused by NGIC’s growth. It balances out in a way that would not have happened before
NGIC came up with the 1000 jobs.
Mr. Graham said the last proffer being questioned is 5.3.6, Alternative Schedule for Phase III
Road Improvements. He said the applicant may have an interest in developing some of the residential
early in the process before doing anything else down “here”. In that case, they would build Northwest
Passage to provide access and at such time as “this” does develop they would use the completion of
North Pointe Boulevard to connect down to the other improvements. Even if “this” came first, there might
be some period of time when there was not a road connection “here”, but as “this” starts to develop, there
would be a road connection. Staff is not concerned with that proffer as an alternative. The traffic study for
the improvements “down here” are driven by the commercial/retail activity. The residential generates a
use, but even at ten trips per day, that is a maximum of 8000 trips, the retail will really generate the traffic.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Davis said he wanted to correct something Mr. Graham said earlier about the Leake Road
proffer and the roundabout. There is no longer a proffer for $200,000. That was taken out of the proffers.
Mr. Graham said the left turn movements are important “here” not only for North Pointe but for the
existing businesses in the neighborhood now.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, said she had a similar graphic that might help with
understanding the proffers. She said everything for Phase I on her drawing is shown in lavender.
Mr. Rooker asked if it shows the southern entrance as a Phase I improvement. Mr. Graham said
it is shown as right in, right out, but not as a signalized entrance. Ms. Long said that is correct. The actual
intersection is shown in red as a Phase II improvement which is signalization of the southern entrance and
the southbound lane from “here” to Airport Road. Phase III is the completion of Northwest Passage and
“this” segment of North Pointe Boulevard. As an alterative, if the southern and middle intersections were
swapped and the southern intersection were built first, everything in lavender would become a Phase I
improvement including the southbound lane from “this” point. The red shows the Phase II improvements,
and Phase III shows a few minor turn lanes up “here.” She said that is a simpler way to understand the
two alternatives and what impact swapping the order in which the two signalized intersections are
constructed might have on the rest of the proffers.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the applicant proffered the southern entrance, not the crossover. Mr. Graham
said the southern entrance was not proffered at all.
Mr. Rooker said it was indicated that the lavender was Phase I. Mr. Graham said they did not
proffer to do “this.” They said it is their intent to do it, but it is not a proffer.
Mr. Rooker asked about the map posted above that drawing. Ms. Long said they proffered to
build as a Phase I improvement at least one of the two signalized intersections. Most likely it would be the
middle entrance first. In addition, at a minimum, there would be a right-in and a right-out option. It would
not be signalized or offer a controlled crossover at this point. But, if the order in which the intersections
are built, “this” would be the scenario. There would be immediate construction of the signalized southern
intersection and then “this” becomes a signalized intersection as well as a Phase II improvement.
Mr. Rooker said the southbound lane is a Phase II improvement under that scenario. Ms. Long
said “this” segment is a Phase II; “this” segment becomes a Phase I and she thinks that includes the
vertical curve. The most critical and expensive segment of this southbound improvement becomes a
Phase I.
Ms. Thomas asked about the roundabout.
Ms. Long said after they received the comments and analysis of staff of the roundabout and the
issue of right-of-way, they modified the proffer to remove the $200,000 language and intended to remove
the language that said “within the VDOT right-of-way.” They are committed to do that and are working
with the adjacent landowners. They have determined that there is almost enough right-of-way to complete
the roundabout. Also, as to the additional work on the eastbound portion of Proffit Road, there is a
question as to whether there is enough right-of-way to complete that work. She thinks Mr. Graham may
have looked into that issue for them.
Mr. Slutzky asked if they intend to proffer that they will build the roundabout and build that
eastbound lane. Ms. Long said definitely with regards to the roundabout. W ith regard to the eastbound
segment of Proffit Road, most likely they will confirm with Mr. Graham that his initial calculations or
measurements regarding the amount of right-of-way are correct. If they are, then they are willing to
commit to that.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, the applicant, said they have put simpler language in the proffers to what exists
in other approved proffers; if there is a problem in acquiring any needed right-of-way, the County could
acquire the property and be reimbursed. He said they want the northbound and the southbound road
improvements to go in all at one time and all within the next 24 to 36 months. These improvements are
very expensive. They will work with staff in the next couple of days to try and make this a little simpler and
will include a time certain. He had never thought about the fact that it might not be until 2020 when the
County and VDOT could exercise their right to build the southbound lane if they or UREF did not do so,
and they would still “be on the hook” for reimbursement. He said that language will be fixed because that
was not the intent.
Mr. Slutzky said given the lack of road funds, he is wary of any proffer that would require the
County to pay for the improvements and then be reimbursed by the applicant at some future time. He said
the County does not have funds to use for that purpose.
Ms. Long said if there is a commitment to a date certain for the southbound lane that provision
may be moot.
Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant’s reaction to UREF being a part of this.
Mr. Rotgin said the University understands the issue. They have discussed this with them. The
bottom line is that he thinks everyone would prefer to have all of that work done between their entrance to
the Research Park and Airport Road at one time; it would less expensive to do it that way.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Rooker asked how far the UREF Park is from having the square footage that would require
these improvements. Mr. Rotgin said the requirement is for 1.5 million square feet and they are probably
only at 400,000 square feet at this time. But, he feels they will be able to work something out. Their
proffers will be fixed, and then they can take the next step. Ms. Long said they have not said they will not
cooperate. Mr. Rotgin said Mr. Leonard Sandridge at the University said the biggest problem in hiring staff
is due to lack of opportunity for spousal employment, and then housing. North Pointe will be able to
provide the housing. He said one reason for relocating the crossover from “here” to “here” is that
Northside Drive touches the University Research Park and it could be another access into the Park.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone had other questions about transportation.
Mr. W yant said he was bothered by the statement that people in Forest Lakes are concerned
about traffic on Proffit Road and the roundabout. Mr. Graham said their concern is that under “this”
scenario the traffic from the regional shopping area will be coming in “this way” but when they exit they
either have to “go up here” to “come down” or they have to turn out “here” and go up and do a U-turn on
Route 29 or they “come down here.” He said people are like cows and when one car goes in “this”
direction, other cars will follow. Then, like cows, when the cars are stacked up “here”, they will follow
around and use W orth Crossing.
Mr. W yant asked if that was eliminated in Phase I. Mr. Graham said “this” alternative takes care
of the issue. Mr. W yant said that still takes traffic to Proffit Road. Mr. Graham said “yes” but there is a
crossover there. Mr. W yant said that is what he thought would happen. They would be coming to that
roundabout, so he thinks they need to be directed to Route 29 to relieve stress on Proffit Road.
Mr. Slutzky said the crossover cannot be installed until the road is straightened, so the
southbound lane has to be installed.
Mr. Boyd asked that the two options be explained again. Ms. Long said both options are possible
under the current proffers.
Mr. Rooker said that at the present, they are the options of the applicant. Ms. Long said that is
correct.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is any definite timeframe for completion of the improvements. Mr. Rotgin
said whatever the Phase I improvements are they have to be finished at the earlier of 15 months after the
issuance of the permit, or by the time the first certificate of occupancy is issued. All the Phase I
improvements, whether they are the southbound or the middle entrance have to be in place prior to the
opening of the first store or within 15 months of the applicant getting them permitted, whichever is the
sooner. On the second phase there is no timeframe at this point, but the applicant will address that.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks it is important to get the southbound lane and the southern crossover in
within five years of approval. Mr. Rooker agreed. Mr. Boyd also agreed.
__________
Mr. Graham said Mr. Ron W hite, Housing Director, will now address the affordable housing issue.
Mr. Rooker referred to the Affordable Housing Table on Page 2 of the Staff’s report and in
Attachment “A”. He asked how 15 percent of the units compare to the requirement. He said the chart
indicates there are 28 affordable units proffered, but he thinks the requirement would be for 130. Mr.
Graham said there are 24 “for sale” affordable units and 44 “rental” affordable units.
Mr. W hite handed to the Board members an analysis based on a conversation he had with Mr.
Rotgin this morning that the applicant will increase the number of rental units from 40 to 60. The analysis
is based on a proffer which has not been reduced to writing yet. He said 15 percent of the build-out would
be 134 units, and with the additional 20, there would be 64 affordable rental units including four accessory
units, with the balance in more of a traditional rental environment. He said there will be 16 moderate-
priced for sale units which they have been calling “workforce” units.
Mr. W hite said this brings the gross number to 104 if the moderate units are included. If a credit
for moderate is included as he proposes in his report that 16 would be eight making a net of 96 affordable
units or 11 percent of the total proposed build-out.
Ms. Thomas said she did not understand how the number got from 104 to 96. Mr. W hite said for
the 16 moderate for-sale units, they were given only a half credit.
Mr. Rooker said the half credit seems to be a reasonable proposal.
Ms. Thomas said the public seemed to think this would be moderate, for-sale housing that would
benefit many of the people who spoke in favor at the public hearing. So there are 16 units. Mr. W hite said
he thinks all 104 units are workforce housing, but they are priced at price points that will be affordable to
various levels of the population.
Mr. Slutzky said the County does not currently have a policy specifically acknowledging the value
the community is putting on this extra strata of housing. He thinks the Board might choose to give it some
credit and this might the time to decide what that credit might be.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Rooker said the current policy is 15 percent or comparable. In the past, the Board looked at
different circumstances and tried to decide what “comparable” means. Mr. W hite said this proposal does
not get to the 15 percent, but the $300,000 upfront cash offer has been taken into consideration.
Mr. Rooker asked the timeframe for receiving that cash. Mr. W hite said it would be within a
certain number of days after the first site plan is approved. He said making a simple evaluation of that
cash and looking at a ten-year time period, that $300,000 could be worth about $447,000.
Mr. Rooker asked where the time of ten years came from. Mr. W hite said for a large project with
a possible 20-year build-out, he took 10 years as a midpoint in order to give value to the fact that the cash
will be received upfront.
Ms. Thomas said $1700 has been proposed, but the Board has not accepted that. Mr. W hite said
that may be a moot point. If the $447,000 value of the $300,000 payment is accepted, that is over the 15
percent affordable unit or comparable requirement. Ms. Thomas said that is true only if the comparable
requirement is the $1700. Mr. W hite said it is true regardless of the $1700. The paragraph to achieve the
15 percent cash or cash equivalent contribution totaling $431,000 would be needed in addition to the 96
units to meet the 15 percent.
Ms. Thomas said she was simply repeating the last sentence in Mr. W hite’s analysis that the
formula for $1700 has not been adopted. Mr. W hite said that is true; it is in the report mainly for an
illustration if the cash proffer is used.
Mr. Rooker said in the past the Board has considered a cash contribution to the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund in lieu of a unit. Mr. W hite said that would be $16,500 per affordable unit. That works
out to be a little over $2400 per unit. He referred the Board to the second page of his analysis which
shows a $2400 per unit proffer which is what has been received in a couple of proffers. He said the $2400
was for projects which did not include any affordable housing. That is an important distinction.
Mr. W yant said the project is about 38 units short, and the $300,000 works out to about $7900.
Looking to a future value it is $11,700+, so subtracting the $16,500 leaves about $4000 short times the 38
units totaling about $150,000. Mr. W hite said that works out to be about $168 per unit based on the 893
units. He did calculations on the Belvidere project for guidance because it included some affordable
housing although it was all in accessory units. In that case, the cash contribution from North Pointe would
have been calculated at $140,000 less than the present value of what is proposed. He said there are
some distinctions. One, the $16,500 per unit was in a case where no affordable housing was proposed.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is better to look at it from the standpoint of the $16,500 rather than
applying it to all units. That way, if the project is short one unit it is $16,500, and if it is two units short it
would be twice that amount. It is easier to make the comparison that way rather than comparing two
different projects based upon cash applied to all the units.
Ms. Thomas asked how the figure of $16,500 was derived.
Mr. Rooker said it was done by taking 15 times the number of units in the project as the target. If
they are required to have 60 units, and there are 50 affordable units, you then multiply the $16,500 by 10
and that is the cash component. There are two prongs to the system, one is to create affordable housing
and the second is to build a Trust Fund in order to take advantage of the affordable housing.
Mr. Cilimberg said last night the Planning Commission in lieu of any one affordable unit being
provided, looked at the $16,500 as providing the down payment assistance the County would not cover
through its own funds. Mr. W hite said that is the maximum down payment the Housing Office will provide
through the County’s Housing Trust Fund.
Mr. W yant asked where the money came from on previous petitions. Mr. W hite said there is a
proposal coming to the Board soon which proposes 28 units and the first payment of $16,500 will come
with the seventh unit, the second payment with the fourteenth, etc.
Mr. W yant said for North Pointe the first payment is proposed to occur with approval of the first
site plan. Mr. W hite said that is correct. He said staff can do more planning on how to deploy that money
if they know when it will come in. His last statement in the analysis is that “with this analysis and the
additional 20 units today, making the assumptions he made, it looks like this proposal closely meets the
intent and the goals of the Affordable Housing Policy.”
Mr. Rooker said he does not understand Mr. W hite’s statement that “this proposal” is $300,000
plus 96 units. He does not see how that gets to the 134 units. He said if you subtract 96 from 134, that
leaves 38 units. Multiply 38 by $16,500 and that gives a cash contribution of $627,000, but a present
value credit is given so the number you are trying to arrive at is the number that gives you a present value
of $627,000. Ms. Echols said that has not been done for other developments where they did the $16,500;
no present or future value was calculated for that amount.
Mr. Rooker said he personally would prefer that the cash contributions all be done upfront. The
question is whether to require the cash payment upfront without applying any discount or is the enhanced
value recognized. If units are to be provided, they will be done over some time period; not provided
immediately. The rationale for allowing an interest factor is that what they are providing in lieu of units
could be provided over that same time period and instead of that they are providing cash upfront so they
should receive some kind of present value credit; to him that is reasonable. Mr. Greg Kamptner said the
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
proffer restricts the life of the cash proffer. It has to be fully expended within five years of the date of
contribution.
Mr. Rooker said the County is not limited to what project the cash is spent on. He asked Mr.
W hite if that is a problem in terms of utilization of the funds. Mr. W hite said the Housing Office has spent
that amount in eight months. Mr. Rooker asked how the Housing Office will keep track of the money from
North Pointe if there are multiple cash proffers in the Housing Trust.
Mr. Slutzky said he finds that part of the proffer to be problematic.
Ms. Long said it was originally three years, but staff recently asked that it be raised to five years.
She said the ten-year present/future calculation was determined assuming a twenty-year build-out. If the
funds were coming in at the permit stage in lieu of being paid upfront, then it might take ten years before
the County received the full $300,000. She does not think there is a relation between the five-year sunset
provision and the ten-year future value calculation.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the five years be eliminated. He asked if money comes from various
sources, how it is determined which money is being spent. Ms. Long said there is a requirement in the
Code of Virginia that a sunset provision be set on all cash proffers. Mr. Davis said you must address how
the funds would be used afterwards. The County would not have to give the money back. Mr. W hite said
they will be making loans with this money so it will continue to be an asset to the Housing Fund. He would
say it would be “deployed to projects” rather than “spent.”
Mr. Slutzky asked if the proffer can state that the money is put in a fund and there would be no
timing issue.
Mr. Rooker said if that is legally acceptable, he would suggest that the five years be removed. Mr.
Davis said the Code actually requires that the proffer money be tracked and reported how it has been
used. Once the money is appropriated to a budget year and expended, it has been used. That is how it
would be reported.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks there are two issues which should be resolved. One, if the Board
acknowledges the near term benefit of having the cash proffers paid on the front end, he thinks the Board
would need to agree it would do the same thing for future applications. Also, he thinks in calculating that
benefit a decision would be needed on the rate of interest used.
Ms. Thomas asked what percent Mr. W hite had used. Mr. W hite said he used four percent. W ith
the Federal fund rate that is a little conservative now.
Mr. Slutzky said he had done some calculations using four and one-half percent. W hatever the
Board decides, he thinks it might give some consideration to that in the policy. Second, the Board needs
to decide if it will give no credit, a half credit, or a full credit for the so-called workforce housing. He is
inclined to accept workforce housing up to a certain percentage of the 15 percent affordable housing and
give a full credit but only up to a certain percentage of that 15 percent.
Ms. Thomas said that is an issue she thinks should go to the Housing Committee for study. She
does not want to short circuit a citizens’ committee which was set up just for this purpose. She thinks it is
a great idea and the Board may want to arrive at some conclusion for this project that does not pin it down
to doing the exact same thing for all projects.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board can specify specific amounts for proffers.
Mr. Rooker said the Board can let people know what it is willing to accept for a project and what it
thinks would satisfy the Comprehensive Plan which is 15 percent or comparable. The question is, what is
comparable? He thinks Mr. W hite’s idea of a 50 percent credit or at some point going to a sliding scale is
worthy of consideration.
Ms. Thomas said she thought Mr. Slutzky made a good point about having the credit be a certain
portion.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. W hite’s proposal is for more than a half credit for moderate-priced units. Mr.
W hite said the Housing Committee is an advocate of affordable housing and is trying to reach down to
lower incomes. Should a benefit not be given to a developer that can come in with $140,000?
Mr. Cilimberg said that ultimately this would need to be amended into the Comprehensive Plan.
Right now there is just the 15 percent figure and it is rather general. However the scale might work, it
should be amended into the Comprehensive Plan as part of the guidelines for the Affordable Housing
Policy. Originally, there was discussion about requiring $1,725 or $1,750 per unit, but the Commission did
not favor that approach.
Ms. Echols said it is important that it be done in a timely manner. She has other rezonings
pending where the applicant wants to do the same thing. It is relevant and important.
Mr. Slutzky said he is comfortable with taking the 100 percent credit on this one, but only so long
as it is a fairly limited number of units. He is biased in favor of having the workforce housing issue
addressed in addition to the other. He was not a member of the Board when it decided on the 15 percent,
and he might have argued there should be 15 percent inclusive of a larger universe.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Ms. Thomas said it is always easier to build a more expensive house, so if the Board allows the
15 percent to be filled with the higher priced house, that will likely be achieved. But, the harder goal is the
lower priced units.
Mr. Slutzky said Ms. Thomas is right but this is eight or 16 units out of 134. It is a small
percentage of the project. He is not sure the Board needs to be as focused on that in this instance as it
needs to be on the overall issue of whether it has addressed the equivalent of 15 percent. If not, what
does it take?
Mr. Rooker said he will agree with the recommendation by the Housing Director that the Board
give a certain percentage for housing that is moderate priced and give full credit for things that are
affordable.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board is agreeing with Mr. W hite’s analysis that this package in its current
form, based on his discussions with the applicant, meets the 15 percent. Mr. W hite said based on the
$16,500 it is about $180,000 off.
Ms. Long said it also depends on the interest rate used. If a five percent interest rate were used,
it would be $494,000 which is the present Treasury bond rate.
Mr. Rotgin asked to speak. He said he will usurp Ms. Long on this because affordable housing is
a passion of his. It is not something that just came up. He said the North Pointe rezoning application
predates any discussion about affordable housing. From the very beginning affordable housing has been
part of this development.
Mr. Rooker said the Board was discussing technical issues, and the conversation should be
directed toward those issues.
Mr. Rotgin said he would like to have three minutes to talk. This conversation has been going on
for about 45 minutes so far. He said they spent a lot of time working on the proffers to bring forward a mix
of housing and cash which they think meets the Comprehensive Plan requirement, and may go beyond.
They are concerned about the mixture of housing units. He directed the Board’s attention to Ms. Long’s
rendering of the development. They are going to build the Charleston units; that has been proffered.
“This” whole section has been designed with the Charleston, South Carolina, design. The builders with
whom they work have designed it, and it is the workforce housing which will sell for $238,000 and will be
mixed into a neighborhood of houses selling for $350,000+ and you would never know it.
Mr. Rotgin said during the last two years while they have talked about the affordable housing
issue, they have converted 1,500+ units to condominiums all of which are affordable. Of the 500 proffered
units, basically all of them are condominiums or carriage houses. They have tried to come up with an
overall housing strategy which meets the market. That is why the workforce housing is critically important.
He thinks they are entitled to a full credit.
Mr. Rotgin said they had just handed out some information showing the Treasury at five percent
and he thinks they should be allowed five percent on the value of their money. He divided it by $15,000 a
unit and came up 15.34 percent on affordable housing. He would like to know why that does not work.
Mr. Rooker said speaking only for himself, he thinks giving some percentage credit such as the 50
percent Mr. W hite proposed is reasonable for a house that sells for $238,000 versus a house that sells for
$190,000. He cannot see the same credit being given for both houses.
Mr. Rotgin said he was advised by Ms. Long several months ago to forget all of this, to give the 15
percent and he would get the attached houses, the condominiums and some apartments, but that is not
what he wanted to do and he does not think that should be the policy of the Board. He thinks it should be
creative and each applicant should be treated as a stake in a Federal system. It should figure out how to
make this system work for a broad spectrum of people.
Mr. Rooker said this would be the first application given a credit for housing that is priced at a
higher price point than $190,000. He thinks it is a good idea, and Mr. W hite has suggested looking at a
sliding scale. The Board is trying to deal with that issue.
Ms. Thomas suggested the Board members look at Mr. W hite’s report at a page showing “W ages
for Various Job Classifications.” He has said there is no one listed on that page that could afford a house
costing $238,000. She said there is a disconnect between workforce housing and these job
classifications. She said most households have two wage earners and that is how they manage to get
housing. This page reinforces her interest in having the lower cost house still be the Board’s primary
purpose. For the moderate price, getting a half credit seems to be fair and in the long run there needs to
be a limit on how many of those units are approved.
Ms. Long said the families who would qualify for the moderately-priced housing units would most
likely not need down payment assistance. She thinks the $16,500 should be factored in as well. Mr.
W hite said they would not be eligible for the County’s down payment assistance.
Mr. Graham said a twenty-year build-out has been mentioned and he wanted to be sure everyone
is aware of Proffer 8.2(e) which calls for three affordable units to be constructed per year, with a possible
build-out of 34 units.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Mr. W hite said there is still a gap in meeting the 15 percent goal based on using $16,500 as the
calculation.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to offer a compromise. He would be willing to go with the five percent
credit which seems to be an acceptable rate based on the $16,500 calculation. Mr. W hite said that puts
the gap at $130,000.
Mr. Rooker said to be reasonable he thinks the twenty-year Treasury rate could be used which is
about five percent at this time. He feels it would make sense to tie the rate to something.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board would like to discuss residential phasing next.
Ms. Echols directed the Board’s attention to Page 5 of the Staff’s Report where there is the
following table concerning timing.
Timing
Amount of Commercial/
Hotel/and Office Square
Footage to be allowed by
Building Permit
% of Total
Commercial/
Hotel and
Office
Number of
Residential
Building Permits
to be Issued
% of Total
Residential
Units
Within 90 days of
issuing the first
building permit for
the first commercial
building
24 2.7%
Before more than 142,000 square feet 21.0% 36 4.0%
Before more than 220,000 square feet 32.6% 60 6.7%
Before more than 290,000 square feet 43.0% 138 15.4%
Ms. Echols said one of the differences staff has with the applicant on the special use permit
concerns timing. Before more than 290,000 square feet of footage could be permitted, they would need to
have had 138 building permits issued for residential units. Staff does not think this gets to the number of
residential units it thinks should be built at the same time.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to know how someone derived this number. It is somewhat
subjective. Mr. Graham said it is not based on any subjective data. At another meeting, some Board
members indicated an interest in a stronger commitment to accelerating the residential development and
he threw out a response to that issue. He does not know if it addresses the Board’s concern.
Mr. Rooker said the part of this development which appeals to him from the County’s perspective
is the northern end. It provides a substantial amount of residential opportunity in the growth area
surrounding a school site. In the southern part of the development he sees no need for any additional
retail in the same way he sees the need for residential. Therefore, it seems appropriate for the Board to
make certain the part of the development which is most important to the County is done on some kind of
timely basis. The Board made a requirement for Old Trail regarding the commercial as compared to the
residential. In that case, all of the commercial can be built with only two-thirds of the residential.
Otherwise, there might be a shopping center with only a few houses built.
Mr. Boyd said he understands Mr. Rooker’s philosophy but wonders why he chose one set of
numbers as opposed to another. Is it because one development calls for more housing than the other? It
is not based on market predictions or anything like that.
Mr. Rooker said it comes down subjectively to what the Board decides makes this a proposal
which in the community’s interest.
Mr. Dorrier said the applicant needs to put in infrastructure and he needs to be able to pay for that
infrastructure. It makes sense that the Board let the businessman go with the best business practices in
order to get sufficient money to build the infrastructure.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is not trying to slow down his commercial component, only saying he
needs to bring along the residential at a reasonable pace with that commercial.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it is possible for a compromise here.
Mr. Rooker said everyone has to look at it based on what they think is best for the County. In his
view, he wants to make sure the attractive part of this development, which would be an asset to the
community, comes along at a reasonable pace with the commercial.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates Mr. Rooker’s remarks, but does not think this development will be of
value to anybody if this project fails by the Board forcing the developer into something he will fail at.
Mr. Rooker agreed. He said the developer in his presentation talked about the need for the
residential with NGIC coming along and the UREF Park. That was a good selling point for this property.
He is simply holding the applicant to his word on this. Based on what the Board has seen recently, the
residential may have an opportunity of moving ahead of the commercial from a market demand
standpoint.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board may lock the developer into that because as Mr. Dorrier just
said, the infrastructure that is needed will be driven by the commercial. On one hand, the Board is saying
it wants more infrastructure and on the other hand is saying it is going to tie the developer’s hands.
Ms. Thomas said the need for the road improvements are almost entirely tied to demands from
the retail space. The only reason for some of the road improvements is because of the retail.
Mr. Boyd said the Board is saying it wants the road improvements long before the project reaches
the threshold when VDOT says those improvements will be required based on traffic studies. They were
agreeable to 290,000 square feet before some of the improvements the County wants sooner.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board needs to listen to the developer and see if he has a reasonable plan.
Mr. Rotgin asked Ms. Long to comment.
Ms. Long said Mr. Boyd was starting to explain the dilemma facing the applicant. They think the
residential component will be successful. Mr. Boyd had asked staff where the number of 224 units came
from and if it is based on any data. It sounds like it is not, but is staff’s analysis of what would be an
appropriate number. By comparison, the applicant’s proposal is actually based on some data; how many
units they can reliably deliver in a certain amount of time. They have committed to providing at least 138
dwelling units, mostly single-family units, not apartments or condominiums. She said they have physically
counted the dwelling units in each phase to determine the number of units they can deliver because they
do not want to over promise.
Mr. Rooker asked for Ms. Long’s definition of “phase.”
Ms. Long said the first phase of commercial is the first 290,000 square feet. She said the real
dilemma is the interrelationship between the deadline by which they would have to complete the
southbound lane, the ability to start the second phase of the commercial which pays for the southbound
lane, and the restriction on the number of residential units which would have to be completed before they
could start the second phase of retail. They have said they will commit to a date certain for completing the
southbound lane but do not know what that date is yet. At a minimum there will be a date certain by which
the southbound lane will be completed, and regardless of that date certain they will still have to build the
southbound lane before they can start Phase II of the commercial. It might be one or two years before the
southbound lane is built. If they are to build that southbound lane, they must have the Phase II
commercial to pay for it. If in year two they are ready to build that infrastructure but they have only sold 60
residential units (which is the number the builders say the market can bear) they may not have the
revenue to pay for that.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Ms. Long was saying that if the Board agreed to their staging, the southbound
lane could be done in three to five years. Ms. Long said they could do it within seven years of the first
commercial certificate of occupancy. She said Mr. Graham has indicated that the first commercial
Certificate of Occupancy probably would not be issued until 2008. They have predicted that it will be two
full years before the first commercial building will be built. Before any store can be opened for business,
they have to do all the Phase I traffic improvements. At a minimum that includes all of the northbound
lane and the parallel road network through the property.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has indicated that the graphic on the “bottom” probably would not work.
Mr. Slutzky said he would prefer to see not just the top one, but also the southbound lane.
Ms. Long said that regardless of which alternative they use, there is a lot of work that goes into
having a store opened for business. The road plans have to be drafted and reviewed by VDOT and
County staff, and construction take place. A site plan must be prepared, reviewed and approved. There
has to be permitting by the DEQ and the Corps of Engineers. All of those things can be done
concurrently, but they are estimating a 24-month period in which that will occur.
Mr. Rooker asked how that relates to marketing residential. Mr. Rotgin said they have been told
by W illiamsburg Environmental that they can bifurcate the permitting process and then they would likely
have a quicker permitting process on “this” area because there is already a crossing there. They thought
they could work on “these” 50 units and have “those” lots ready for spring of next year.
Ms. Long said it sometimes takes a long time to get a subdivision plat approved, so she thinks it
will take much longer.
Mr. Rooker said it will probably be ahead of the commercial. Ms. Long agreed.
Mr. Graham said from what he has heard from the applicant today, he would like to make a
suggestion for the framework for this condition. If the applicant thinks they can deliver 50 units per year
that might be an acceptable condition. He agrees there might be a market for that number of units if they
can bring them on line each year.
Mr. Rooker asked if that might be a more acceptable approach. Mr. Rotgin said it might be. He
said that for the last few years the number of single-family dwelling units in the growth areas has been at
about 250 a year. He said they are 25 percent of the market, so if they got 60 units per year that would be
significant. However, if the apartment market all of a sudden gets good, they have no problem with the
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
224. The apartment market is not that good now and they are building a single-family product. If they are
lucky they might get as many as 80 later on. He said they started with nothing while staff started at 224.
He went to 138 and they have recounted and can go to 168, but those are all single-family units; no
apartments are included in that number. That is about 50 percent of all the single-family product in North
Pointe.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks staff can come back with some solution on that.
Ms. Thomas said she thought there was a tremendous need for more housing and 60 a year does
not sound like a lot.
Mr. Rooker said that is the number they can build; the number the market will bear. Mr. Tucker
said that is just in North Pointe. There are 5300 countywide.
Ms. Long said one issue raised in the staff report and at the last public hearing was the buffer
along the Route 29 corridor in front of the property. She said Ms. Echols has clarified that all along the
ARB has been asking for 25 feet and not 50 feet. From the beginning the applicant has proffered to
provide a 25-foot buffer. The only issue of disagreement between the proffers and staff was whether all
25 feet were to be located entirely on the North Pointe property or if the VDOT right-of-way might be
utilized for a portion of that buffer. The applicant has always provided the width of the buffer that the ARB
requested. There is a very wide VDOT right-of-way in that area so the applicant is willing to actually
double the width of that buffer along the Entrance Corridor; they will commit in the proffers to 50 feet along
the entire length of the property in the portions that Great Eastern controls. In some areas, a significant
amount of that 50 feet will be within the VDOT right-of-way. They understand that in the future VDOT
could come along and add more lanes to Route 29 on the northbound side. At that time, the applicant
would have to make up that buffer on North Pointe’s property. If that happened, there would always be a
minimum of 40 feet of buffer on North Pointe property.
Mr. Slutzky said VDOT would have to erode 30 feet or more of their 40 feet of right-of-way. Mr.
Rotgin said VDOT has 60 feet in most of the areas along there. They would have to widen that road to six
lanes in both directions to use all of that right-of-way.
Mr. Rooker said he was the one who raised that issue and what Mr. Rotgin has said satisfies him.
He asked if the applicant would guarantee a 40-foot planted buffer at all times, with it starting at 50 feet
and never being reduced below 40; it could be made up on the applicant’s own property. Ms. Long asked
if the Board is comfortable with that 40/50 feet being on the VDOT right-of-way. Mr. Rooker said as long
as the applicant is committed to making it up if that right-of-way disappears. Ms. Long said the proffers
already say that although they do not have the 40 and 50 feet numbers.
Mr. Rotgin said he and Ms. Long want to thank staff for their report and for the tone of the staff
report. It is much, much better. There are still areas where they don’t agree, but it is much better and
they appreciate it.
__________
Ms. Long said the bio-filters are another easy issue. She said the proffers commit that 20 percent
of the required areas of the parking lots that have to be landscaped would be in bio-filters. She does not
think they can do much more than that, but know they can do 33 percent of that. It is possible that when
the site plan is actually designed and prepared the number could exceed that, but the engineers are
comfortable with saying a third is a good number to commit to.
Ms. Thomas asked that this be explained again. Ms. Long said the site plan required that of the
parking lots in the commercial areas, five percent of the parking lot areas have to be landscaped. They
are saying that of that landscaped area in the parking lots, 33 percent, or a third of that landscaped area
will consist of bio-filters.
Mr. Slutzky said it cannot be 100 percent because some of the locations of the landscaping based
on the details of the ordinance are put in a place where there is no water runoff which would benefit from a
bio-filter. Ms. Long said that is correct.
Mr. Slutzky asked if they will do as much in bio-filters as the runoff would validate. Mr. Rotgin said
there cannot be more than 10 parking spaces in a row without having an island. They have not shown all
of the islands on the graphic being used today, but once the topography and the engineering work is
finalized, they will. The bio-filters run north/south in “here” and in “here” because that is the way the water
flows; in sheets. They now have more than one-third shown as bio-filters. There will have to be a final
calculation on the size of the pond to be sure it takes care of not only stormwater detention, but also water
quality. Some of the water quality will be taken care of in the parking lots with the bio-filters. Once that
calculation is determined, it must be put aside. Then, they must make sure there are landscaped/tree
islands in all appropriate places in the parking lots. They could end up with 40 or 50 percent if they can
get the required islands and landscaping in the other areas of the parking lots.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Thomas raised this issue initially.
Ms. Thomas said she is impressed. She does not think it will require the same extensive
excavation as was required at Monticello High School.
Mr. Slutzky said with dense clays there is an engineering challenge to make them effective. Mr.
Rotgin said they will not likely have any problem because they are actually filling most of these places.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
Ms. Thomas said the total impact and the total treatment are mentioned so she does not know the
difference between 33 percent of five percent or whether that triggers an okay. She has just learned
about a project in another county that had a proffer from a developer to monitor the water over a 15-year
period so one could see what was coming off of the property and the impact of that. To her mind, seeing
what is being created both while the project is underway and afterwards would be good. Mr. Rotgin said
they will know whether the bio-filters are working because they have to be maintained.
Mr. W yant said the whole island might be a bio-filter because you are dealing with canopy cover
and the tree could be bigger than the island. Mr. Graham said in parking lot landscaping the area of the
ground and not the area of the trees is used. He said five percent of the parking lot is required to be
landscaped. Of that five percent, the applicant has said 20 percent, so one percent of the parking lot
would be in bio-filters. By changing to the 33 percent, 1.67 percent of the parking lot area would be bio-
filters.
Mr. W yant said not every landscaped area will be a bio-filter.
Mr. Rooker said it is a reasonable total of the planted area, but not that high of a percentage of the
total.
Ms. Long said there may be more landscaping in the parking lot than is required by Code.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the numbers include the grass plot areas. Mr. Rotgin said they do not.
There will be grass plot areas in addition to the landscaping.
Mr. Rooker asked if that acts as a bio-filter. Mr. Graham said just putting in pavers is not enough
unless the under drain system is included. Bio-filters fail in this area because of the clay soils.
Mr. Keeney said the way they set this up with Mr. Graham, their drainage swale is at the back of
the parking lot so if that space had to be taken out and converted to landscaping, the drainage for the
parking lot would be in place. That means the grass plot would not receive much water except for what
actually falls on it and it can’t be used as a bio-filter because it is uphill.
Ms. Thomas said there is a huge amount of impermeable surface and the goal is to have it dealt
with in terms of water quality and quantity as well as possible. Bio-filters are one demonstration of
concern, but will probably not have a great amount of impact. That will show up if there can be some
ongoing monitoring of the parking lots.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is looking for a way to go beyond the percentage proposed. He asked
if it is realistic to go with the 33 percent.
Ms. Thomas said that is actually five percent.
Mr. Rooker asked if Ms. Thomas wants a proffer dealing with some ongoing monitoring.
Mr. W yant said monitoring has to be done during construction or it is usually not very successful.
It has to be on the front-end to get the results wanted.
Ms. Thomas asked what you would do with what is learned.
Mr. Slutzky said you would learn from your mistakes or successes on the next one.
Ms. Thomas said there are some requirements for TMDL’s. Mr. Graham said there are some in-
the-pipe requirements for testing that do not fit these circumstances. The County has built a number of
bio-filters at Monticello High School and other places, and they have been tested. He said it is hard to say
the applicant’s data is not good, but he is not sure how much value that data will provide to the County.
Ms. Thomas said she gathers from the comment that because it is only 1.67 percent of the
commercial area that he does to think it has much of an effect. Mr. Graham said it is a small area. His
whole rule of thumb is the five percent.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a sizeable geographical domain that feeds that bio-filter in the form of
runoff. The entrapment of the filter will be small by definition but it is filtering the water coming from a
much larger surface.
Ms. Long said the stormwater management facility, the large lake, is an oversized facility and the
proffers commit the project to take care of a large area of offsite stormwater that is currently not being
treated.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone had anymore guidance at this point. There were no comments.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about the question of overlot grading. Ms. Long said that has been resolved.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about the school walkability issue. Ms. Long said they do not believe there is
an issue. Mr. Rotgin said Ms. Echols brought up that issue a couple of years ago. He said Mr. Ron
Keeney designed the bike paths and the sidewalks in the area of the school to accommodate both bikes
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
and people. Ms. Long said the bike path was moved out of the street in the front of the school so that
during school events there could be parallel parking along North Pointe Boulevard in “this” area. The
sidewalk is wider and it is called a multipurpose path at that point. It is a bike path and sidewalk together
to accommodate the children who might ride their bikes to school. It keeps them out of the street. Mr.
Keeney said the real reason for that is that it is not legal to parallel park in a bike lane, but it is legal to
parallel park along the roadway where there is room for two cars to pass. Ms. Long said during school
events there could be parallel parking along “this” portion of North Pointe Boulevard where otherwise you
could not park.
Ms. Echols said the point was well taken about the crosswalks, but she wants to be sure that as
the site plan process goes through that is something everyone is aware of.
Ms. Thomas said you would not want the school to be on the far side of the parking lot in terms of
a walkable school because walking across a parking lot could be one of the most dangerous things kids
do. She does not believe that has to be settled at this stage of the process. Ms. Echols said staff looked
to the Schools for advice on this subject. They were less keen on having the school building out near the
road. She said that will have to be worked on with School staff during site plan review. She said the
location of the school is not tied to this plan.
Mr. Boyd said that site plan process would be with the School System and not with Great Eastern.
Ms. Echols said that is correct.
Mr. Keeney said from Al Reaser’s position, he has a security issue. They want a single entrance
and exit out of that site. They want the busses to come in and they want the walkers to come in from the
same entrances. They cannot reverse it and have the kids coming in from the back of the school and the
busses come in from the other side.
__________
Mr. Rooker said there was the issue of potentially moving some of the buildings and the form of
design.
Mr. Rotgin posted a graphic on the wall. He said that “in this area” they took “this” building and
“this” building and moved it 60 feet to the north so it lines up with what could be considered a corner. In
“this” area they introduced some two-story buildings that hide “this” parking and provide a sense of place.
He does not know what will happen “up here” but there are some people who are looking at redeveloping
that area. That would create more single-family and residential housing as it would connect with “this.”
Given what they have coming in from Forest Lakes, they hope to get some people from the area east
along Proffit Road, so they feel comfortable introducing some mixed-use right “there.” It is not a lot, but it
creates more landscaping in that area.
Mr. Rotgin said they have talked about “these” buildings “in here” and whether they could come up
to North Pointe Boulevard. He said North Pointe Boulevard is a bypass; it is not a residential street. He
knows the Chairman tried to put a four-lane highway down through there when this was discussed
previously. He said it is not any kind of a mixed-use area. They ended up creating a bypass through
“here.” Their main street is down “this” way. Market Street is up “here” and North Pointe Boulevard. That
is one of the changes.
Mr. Rotgin said the other change recommended to them was in “this” area. He said they had
some challenges after Ms. Echols designated what the conservation area was going to be in “that” area. It
made it difficult for them to put in the buildings. Someone who has an interest in what they are doing has
come up with “this” concept where they bring “this” road which connects the southern area with “this”
middle commercial area, and bring it behind the buildings, below grade, and then bring it up to tie in with
the entrance to the road that goes into “this” property if it is ever developed. There is no more square
footage.
Mr. Slutzky said it appears that more buildings have been placed along the main street. Mr.
Rotgin said they did right “here.” It was all parking, and they took one building off of “this” section and
added a building “there” to create another corner. He said there is only one little area “there” that creates
a checkerboard effect. He said “this” parking lot and “this” parking lot are designed so that if at some
future time the demand presents itself, they can put structured parking “there.”
Ms. Echols asked the uses of the new buildings along the corner. Mr. Rotgin said they will be
small retail shops and above they will be residential or office.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Slutzky had wanted to see a change in the form of the development. He
asked if what has been presented is satisfactory.
Mr. Slutzky said he was unhappy with the earlier form and fussed about it. He is impressed today
because making a connection point between the W illiamsburg/Charleston section of the town and the
main street provide a sense of transition which is comfortable. There was a need to create a street
experience of human scale, and they have redefined that end of the complex and it is far more compatible
with the Neighborhood Model than it was before. Mr. Rotgin said in order to make that work they had to
flip “this” building. The entrance used to be “here” but it has been moved to “there.”
Ms. Thomas asked where the bus will stop. Mr. Rotgin said there are ten bus stops. Mr. Keeney
explained the locations which are every two blocks in that area. Mr. Rotgin said he can foresee in that
area a connection between Forest Lakes, North Pointe, UREF and Hollymead. He said that would be an
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
ideal place to run a “jitney” in the commercial areas rather than the big busses, but he does not know if it
would work.
Ms. Thomas said Albemarle Place proffered something like that running between Barracks Road
and Seminole Square. She supports that concept. Mr. Cilimberg said the concept in Places29 is to run a
circulator bus in the oval of these development areas, and run VRT up Route 29. Mr. Rotgin said they
proffered $25,000 a year for bus service. Ms. Long said that is $250,000 total. Ms. Thomas said the
concept of shuttle busses or something similar is a workable concept. Mr. Rotgin said the big issue with
busses for them is that they are used mainly by employees.
Mr. Rooker asked if everyone considers the form change to be positive.
Ms. Thomas agreed.
__________
Mr. Rooker said another issue had to do with the big box stores.
Ms. Long said the largest building is “here.” The present language in the proffer says it will be a
certain amount of square footage maximum, but in addition it says it has the potential to fluctuate by up to
10 percent. Staff said that is not consistent with prior understandings or expectations of the Board. If this
building were expanded by ten percent it could be up to 97,000 square feet, although at the present it is
shown at 85,000 square feet. Staff agrees “this” building could not start out at 97,000 square feet. It
could only expand to be that size. If it were to expand, “this” is the area it would expand into. The issue is
that the proposed tenant they hope to get does not need 97,000 square feet of space at this time, but has
said that in order to commit to that space, they need to know they would have the ability to expand if their
business is strong. They could agree to do that and the obvious location would be “here.”
Mr. Rotgin said this is genuinely an area of misunderstanding. W hen they went through the ad-
hoc committee process, they said they would limit the big box to 88,500 square feet. Ms. Echols came to
them shortly thereafter and said they needed more flexibility since this is a site plan. They needed the
ability to move buildings about ten percent. He thinks everyone realizes that if they increase the building
by ten percent, they have to take that square footage out of something else. He said it may always be
88,500 square feet but if that tenant wants the ability to expand, they would like to give them that
opportunity. Also, they are going through the Architectural Review Board so the building will not be a
monolithic building.
Ms. Echols said that is different from what is in the proffers now. They start at 88,500 square feet
and go up to 97,000 square feet; that is what Mr. Rotgin said they are willing to do. It could only expand to
be that large; it could not be at 97,000 square feet initially.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Rotgin will proffer a period of time delay like “no sooner than.” Ms. Long
said in reality there would be some time difference in when they wanted to do that.
Mr. Slutzky said it would just be a way of clarifying intentions.
Ms. Echols said if the Board is okay with what has been presented, she thinks the comment about
expanding “up here” is important.
Mr. Rooker asked if there would be an entrance to the building on “that” street. Ms. Echols said it
makes sense.
Mr. Rooker said it does not make sense to him to expand the building forward to the street without
an entrance.
Ms. Thomas said it has been found that in order to make a place walkable, people avoid a
sidewalk next to a blank wall. If this is to be a walkable situation there need to be store fronts and things
for people to look at while walking. The big box mentality is that people are driving by in a car so it does
not matter what is on three sides of the building. There is a real science to making a place walkable.
___________
Mr. Rooker asked if it is understood that the eastbound lane of Proffit Road would be done.
Mr. Slutzky said it was said that if it is determined that there is sufficient right-of-way then they are
willing to commit to building that road without limitation.
Ms. Long said that is true other than the language that if for some reason there is not enough
right-of-way and some must be acquired, the County will work with them
__________
Mr. Rooker said he had discussed with the County Attorney the idea of creating a service district
running all the way down Route 29 so money from a CDA could be used anywhere in the corridor. He
wanted Mr. Rotgin to be aware that this is being considered by the County.
__________
Ms. Echols said there are several things the Board has not discussed today. They are: the green
roof proffers, the protection of environmental resources, especially the Rivanna River, and accessibility to
NGIC by bicycle or foot. Also, within the proffers there are proffers that have sunset dates where money
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
that is contributed would be returned to the applicant. The Board has said it would rather have that money
go to the County. That may be a substantial issue, and the Board many not want to comment on the other
issues.
Mr. Rotgin said Ms. Echols is only referring to three cash proffers. The first is $35,000 to
synchronize all the traffic signals along Route 29. That money is to go to VDOT and the money has to be
used for that purpose.
Mr. Rooker asked the sunset provision. Mr. Rotgin said it is three years after the Phase III
construction is finished.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is felt the $35,000 will pay for that synchronization. Mr. Graham said it will
synchronize the three lights in the area plus the additional light at Lewis & Clarke. The sum of $35,000
was requested by VDOT.
Mr. Rotgin said the second is the $100,000 for the Route 29 North Corridor Study. He assumes
that if this request is approved, they will be getting a letter asking for that amount.
Mr. Rooker asked the time period on that one. Mr. Graham said it is three years. Ms. Long said
that one is also payable upon request. It could be requested the day after the rezoning were approved.
Mr. Rotgin said the third one is for the $300,000 for the affordable housing. He assumes that
when that trigger is met, the County will request the money immediately.
Mr. Rooker said the Board asked staff to look at that sunset issue regarding the affordable
housing to make certain the funds can be utilized in that time period. Mr. Rotgin said the purpose of it was
to fund down payment assistance for the proffered units they will be building. There needs to be sufficient
money to provide the assistance needed. Mr. Rooker said that once it goes into the Housing Trust Fund,
the money cannot be used for other purposes.
Mr. Boyd said the Board had a request from the Housing Committee for an additional $250,000,
and it was not funded, so they are anticipating a shortfall next year.
Ms. Long said there are Code requirements for how the money can be spent if it is not spent for
the purpose stated in the proffer. In order to know whether the money is used or not, there must be some
sort of a sunset provision. That is why she has used a timeframe. They are not trying to tie the County’s
hands, or get credit for the cash and keep the timeframe so short that the money cannot be spent. They
put a lot of thought into making these provisions adequately long while at the same time being sure
proffers are made to mitigate impacts. To that extent, they want to make sure the County works with them
and uses those funds specifically for the purposes the money was proffered for. That is the rational; a
kind of cooperative incentive.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is required that all three lights be synchronized with the $35,000. He is
concerned that within a few years that amount will be $100,000. Mr. Rotgin said it is done with radio
waves and it will probably cost $25,000.
Ms. Long said they had also added a clause in several of the provisions so if for some reason the
sunset clause were fast approaching, and the County was not able to use the funds right before the
deadline. They are not trying to put the County in a situation where they want to use the funds, but can’t.
Mr. Kamptner said that on the $35,000 cash proffer it is possible for the Phase III road
improvements to be constructed first so there could be the northernmost intersection built and not the
southernmost in the middle. There could be a timing problem. Ms. Long said it is the later of the end of
2010 or three years after completion of the Phase III improvements. Mr. Davis said they could build
Phase III and not build anything else and just have one traffic light. Ms. Long said the intention is for it to
be three years after completion of all the road improvements.
Mr. Rotgin suggested the proffer provide that if for some reason the money is not used for that it
be used for some other road improvements in the Route 29 corridor adjacent to the property. Mr. Rotgin
said they need those three lights. Ms. Long said they will make sure it is at the end of all of the road
improvements being built.
__________
Mr. Rotgin asked about the river protection issue.
Ms. Thomas said there was a question of how the Albemarle County Service Authority will get
sewer service to this area and what impact that will have on the northern part of the development. She
said Mr. Keeney had pointed out that they may have to have a pipeline that goes over the Rivanna River.
That ties in with her interest in having a bicycle/pedestrian-way to get to NGIC. She asked if anyone has
anything new on this issue.
Mr. Keeney said he has inquired of the Service Authority about the elevation for that pipe because
they would be pumping to Camelot. He said this is far enough away in time that it is difficult for them to
say when that pipe would be there. In the meantime, they may be able to look at the possibility of doing
something off of the edge of the highway bridge coming out to Route 29 but having a linkage below the
bridge level suspended from the bridge across the river. He said all of this is contingent on how they get
past the end of the bridge.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Ms. Thomas said there will be conversations with people at NGIC about a number of impacts,
traffic management being one. Mr. Keeney said they did work out with them some roads in the way of
being able to go on the pedestrian trails, being able to go “down here” and go under the bridge and come
back up to get to the Research Park without crossing Route 29.
Mr. Rotgin said that is a suggestion in Places29. Apparently the grade is okay on “this” side and
also on “this” side.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is being proffered. Mr. Rotgin said they do not own that property. The
County will own the property because they are conveying everything in “this” area to the County. Mr.
Keeney said there is a desire from the County to establish a trail along the river. He believes you would
be able to get down to it, use that trail under the bridge and then come back up.
Ms. Thomas said that is to be a signalized intersection. She said most serious bicycle commuters
will probably stay on the road. Mr. Graham said that is an important clarification. That may not be a
signalized intersection for some period of time. Ms. Long said they have proffered to build it if it has not
been built by the time the VDOT signal has been installed.
Ms. Thomas said staff is satisfied that everything that can reasonably be done to protect the water
quality has been done. Mr. Graham said it is not perfect and he does not think it is possible to make it
perfect. They will be pushing a lot of dirt around and there will be impacts.
Ms. Echols said the only thing that could be done differently is less development and that is not
something the Board has said it wanted. Less development would certainly be more protection, but it is in
the development areas and staff is trying to do what it can to balance the resources with the density
desires.
Mr. Rooker said there was discussion of creating conservation easements and having the
Thomas Jefferson Soil & W ater Conservation District manage the easement areas along the river. Ms.
Echols said the greenway area is being dedicated to the County.
Mr. Rooker said the long-term management of that property and its effect on the river is really in
the hands of the County. Ms. Echols said that is true.
Ms. Thomas said that can be a major expense. She found out last month that the S&W CD does
not accept easements unless they come with an endowment. Ms. Echols said the Parks & Recreation
Department feels strongly about the need for that greenway and they are ready to take over that
responsibility. They do not expect it to be used much, but there are a few trails to the river that they want
to build because they want to be sure they are done in an environmentally-sensitive way.
Mr. Slutzky said the County will need to be sure the homeowners know that vegetation on the
critical slope should not be disturbed in any way. Having it in the County’s ownership seems to be the
optimal position over control of the future of that land.
Mr. Keeney said there has been a request about getting a vehicle down to the river in the case of
a spill or something else upstream. A couple of paths were set up with Mr. Dan Mahon hat are wide
enough so an ambulance, or a similar vehicle, could get to the river.
Mr. Rooker asked the minimum width of the area that would be given to the County. Ms. Echols
said it is at least 100 feet.
Mr. Slutzky said he is confused. He thought the proffer was for the wetlands at the lower levels to
go to the County and that the critical slopes going up from the wetlands were to be dedicated to the
ownership of the homeowners association. Ms. Long said she probably misspoke on that account. Mr.
Keeney said there are two layers. He said the area from the floodplain to the river is being given to the
County. The area from “there” to the edge of “this” is that greenway area that would be owned privately by
the neighborhood association.
Mr. Slutzky said he is then right.
Mr. Rotgin asked if Mr. Slutzky wanted the whole area dedicated.
Mr. Slutzky said he would rather for the County to have control of it.
Mr. Rooker asked if the widest area is 250 feet.
Mr. Keeney said it is 200 feet across “there.”
Mr. Slutzky asked if the area between the yards and the floodplains are going to the County or the
homeowners’ association. Mr. Keeney said he did not know. Ms. Echols said Condition No. 7 on the
special use permit is “The owner shall reserve for dedication to public use a greenway along the boundary
of the project adjacent to the Rivanna River between the floodplain
line and the preservation areas as shown on Sheet G.”
Mr. Rooker said that needs to be changed. Ms. Echols said it should be clarified with the
applicant. She understood it was to be dedicated if the County wanted it. Mr. Rotgin said they are fine.
Ms. Echols said that for all of the conservation areas and the floodplain the desire is to dedicate that if the
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
County wants it, up to “here”. It is actually shown on one of the pages of the Application Plan. Staff can
work that one out.
Ms. Thomas said where Ms. Echols pointed to on the graphic excludes an area that is still a
sensitive area. Ms. Echols said there are conditions in the special use permit which limit what can happen
in these areas.
Mr. Slutzky said his concern has to do with who will manage that area. If the homeowners start to
think that is their prerogative and start messing with it, there would be disruption of the vegetation on the
critical slopes. Ms. Echols said there are two areas. “This” one was the expectation that it would be the
County’s. “This” one was the expectation, because these would not be public paths through “here”, that
they would be the homeowners’ association. It is not so much the slopes but a stream valley as it goes
down to “here” and it is a sensitive area because of the stream but it is not of the same importance as
“these” slopes “here.” The expectation was that the only service allowed in “here” for trails, there would be
no service for utilities. The sewers are going in the streets. Staff worked hard with the Service Authority
because it does not want any sewers on the slopes. “Here” in this area that is a different story. Even
though these are the streams that go to the Rivanna there is the potential that the sewer line would have
to go in that area. Staff expects that sewer may not be able to be provided other than through disturbance
of the area of Flat Branch “here.” It has more flat areas in it. It is not like the steep slope that goes now to
the river.
Mr. Slutzky said he wants staff to be satisfied that there are sufficient protections designed into
the proffers to ensure there is no likelihood of the critical slope areas or other sensitive areas being
disturbed. Ms. Long said that technically that is not in the proffers but in the special permit conditions.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if there were other issues. Ms. Echols said there is the issue of the green roof.
Mr. Rooker said the green roof as presented is unlikely to occur. Mr. Rotgin said there was a
misunderstanding about this one. It is not a little thing. The Library Board told them they want 20,000
square feet on one floor. If they get a 20,000 square foot footprint in the proffers, Ms. Echols gave them
the language to put in 3.2 where the County has the ability to exceed a ten percent adjustment in that
building. If they have a 20,000 square foot footprint it will be a 40,000 square foot building. They did not
think the County would use more than 5,000 square feet worth of government services, so someone has
to pick up the rest of the 15,000 square feet. They think it will not be just them having 2,500 square feet or
10 percent of the building; they are likely to have one-third of it.
Ms. Thomas said the Board had discussed the Crozet Library many times, and she thinks the
Board’s interests and the Library Board’s interests might be slightly different. The Board is not wed to a
single-story library building as the Library Board is. She thinks as the Board looks at the Neighborhood
Model and a downtown type of area with the old suburban model all on one floor that is something that
may have to change. Ms. Long said they acknowledge that and the proffers provide for flexibility so the
County has the discretion to decide what that building footprint size is. If the County wants multiple stories
they will do whatever the County wants.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board is comfortable with the proffer for the site. The site is of a
size that will accommodate a library. It is not of a size that would accommodate a 20,000 square foot
library building. Mr. Graham said there is the ability to create a bigger building pad using the parkland
adjacent which has been offered for dedication to the County.
Mr. Rooker said the issue of a green roof is something that came up “late in the game.” There
was some expressed desire to possibly have a green roof on the building and the applicant has proposed
that if the County does not use all of the building and the applicant ends up with part of the building, they
would make a pro rata contribution for the green roof. Ms. Long said there is no harm in accepting that
proffer. The County has total control over whether it takes advantage of the proffer. At least the
opportunity is there. Mr. Davis said the way the proffer is structured, the applicant has no obligation to
create or own part of that building; only if they do and the County makes it available to them would it
happen. There is no obligation on either part.
Mr. Rotgin said if the County needed 25,000 square feet and there was a 40,000 square foot
building, the applicant would own the other 15,000 square feet. Ms. Long said that could be proffered, it
was not their intent to create a loophole. Mr. Davis said the proffer says if the applicant owns it, then they
would do it. Ms. Long said they will address that. They were trying to say that if the County did not need
all of its space.
Mr. Rooker said he understands they are committing to take part of the building the County does
not want to use in the event that case arises. In that event they would pay a pro rata share. Ms. Long
said they can say that if there is left over space they will own it, if that will help.
Mr. Rooker said there have been a number of things dealt with today that are currently not in the
proffers including a change in the form of the development. He said the applicant needs to refine the
proffers. The Board needs to refine the special use permit conditions. There need to be submissions of
those documents. At that point, the Board needs to be advised if staff is in agreement with all of these
issues that have been dealt with and then a public hearing can be set.
_______________
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said the Development Review Process Task Force has begun its work. He said the
Delphi Technique is a methodology used to prioritize development and it will be used by the facilitator.
They will try to establish priorities based on the 102 criteria the County uses for development. He said
there will be three groups participating in a survey, the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission
and senior County staff. The idea is take all of the criteria and derive a formula to provide directions for
staff.
__________
Mr. W yant expressed appreciation to the members of the Planning and Zoning staff who had
worked with representatives from PRO Distribution because they were having difficulty understanding the
County’s process.
__________
Mr. W yant mentioned the remarks made at the beginning of the meeting by Mr. Tom Loach
regarding the Crozet Master Plan and the build-out figures in that plan. Mr. Cilimberg said he had talked
about this at a meeting last month. He said there is obviously a different interpretation of what that Plan
states in the way of population. He thinks Mr. Loach mentioned bringing his concerns to the Crozet
Advisory Committee. At this point, staff will do what the Board decided to do last January.
Ms. Thomas said at the beginning of the Crozet Master Plan there is a statement that 12,000 is
the 20-year build-out figure. She said there are different issues involved. The issue of whether the 12,000
was an open number or whether it is a 20 year number is very clear in the Master Plan. The issue of how
to deal with building permits and zoning is a completely separate issue; being puzzled by some of that is
legitimate. She was surprised to see how clearly it is stated in the Master Plan.
Ms. Thomas said she was recently on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and there are several
villages there which had doubled in size, similar to what Crozet is looking at. She said some of those
villages doubled in size in the last five years, some of it through annexation which was then built out
similar to what is proposed for Old Trail. She feels staff should talk with people in those villages to see
how they have managed that sudden growth.
Mr. Cilimberg said he has read about the village of Easton, Maryland. He said staff is trying to
keep the Board informed of what proposals are “in the pipeline” for Crozet, and what has already been
approved. The combination of that and tracking Certificates of Occupancy is part of what the Board needs
to know. He said the five-year review of the Master Plan will come up sooner than expected and
important decisions will be needed at that time. He thinks that information will be critical to what kind of
changes, or adjustments will be needed.
Mr. Tucker said the community was advised that the five-year review of that Master Plan is not
that far away, and although a lot of plans have been approved, they will not be built tomorrow. Old Trail
has already revised their build-out to 30 years. He said once the actual building activity in Crozet over the
five-year period is seen, it will be known whether the 20-year projection will be reached.
Mr. W yant said the Crozet Advisory Committee is thinking about coming before the Board and
making a report. They have now elected a chair and a vice-chair.
Mr. Rooker said if the 12,000 number were considered as the total build-out for Crozet, that would
mean the Board could never rezone a piece of property to match the Master Plan. In its existing condition,
Crozet is already zoned for a capacity that would exceed 12,000.
Mr. Cilimberg said one thing that caused the confusion is that in conversations about Crozet
during development of the Master Plan, there was a tag of the 20-year plan to by-right development. In
reality, in the existing Comprehensive Plan there is a fairly wide range of development in Crozet that would
have brought the population close to 20,000. That was not discussed as it should have been at that time.
Planning in the Crozet Master Plan needs to be similar to planning in the existing Comprehensive Plan,
but with a form and arrangement of land uses that is an improvement over what could result from the ’96
Land Use Plan.
Mr. Rooker said part of Old Trail developed as a matter of right on land that was designated for
six to 12 units per acre and they developed it at two units per acre. That eliminated about 100 potential
units under the Master Plan and that happens all the time.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board should make a statement admitting it was wrong in the use of
terminology.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has been having these conversations, but there is hardly anyone else
ever present in the room. She thinks saying something like that in a semi-official way would be useful.
Mr. Slutzky suggested adopting a resolution of intent saying that during the first 20 years it is not
the expectation that the population will grow beyond 12,000, and, in any event, the Board intends to honor
the Master Plan. That would show intent about changing the rules.
June 7, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
Mr. Rooker said this problem will not be solved tonight. He suggested that after the next Crozet
Advisory Committee meeting the Board receives a report and set aside time on an agenda to follow up on
the discussion the Board has had tonight.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he had sent the Board members by e-mail a copy of the New Kent County
General Traffic Management Analysis. He suggested that staff look at it to see if some of those strategies
could be used by Albemarle.
__________
Mr. Slutzky asked if Board members were interested in scheduling a press conference to make a
statement regarding the General Assembly’s inability to adopt a State budget or take action on a
transportation budget.
Mr. Boyd said the ultimate decision actually lies in the hands of a very few legislators who are
members of the conference committee. He said those are the only people who will have any say over
what is going on.
Ms. Thomas said none of the local legislators are on the conference committee. She was told by
representatives of VACo and other people in Richmond that it actually helps to talk with people who are
not on the conference committee. Initially she was thinking along the same lines as Mr. Boyd, but that is
not the message she has gotten in the last week.
Mr. Rooker said it is clear they are not going to do anything about transportation in this budget.
That is not even on the table any longer. He said there are two plans on the table, the Senate’s plan and
the Governor’s plan. He does not know what this Board could do other than to say it embraces one of
those plans. He thinks the time to hold a press conference might be after a budget is approved and there
is paper evidence of what it does to Albemarle’s transportation plan. Mr. Davis said he thinks there will be
an adopted budget within the next two days.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the consensus is that the Board will discuss this again after it sees what the
Legislature does with the budget. All agreed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn to June 14, 2006, at 3:00 p.m.
At 8:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. W yant, seconded by Mr. Slutzky, to adjourn this meeting
until June 14, 2006, 3:00 p.m. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board of
County Supervisors
Date: 03/07/2007
Initials: MH