2006-09-06September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 6, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 241 of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David
Slutzky, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. W yant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Acting Clerk, Diane Mullins, and Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 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. Alexis Ziegler, who represents Charlottesville Peak Oil, an organization concerned about the
peaking of global oil production, addressed the Board. He reviewed a handout he presented, stating that
a well-respected oil geologist (M. King Hubbard) predicted a peak in U.S. oil production in 1970, which did
occur although it was not widely recognized until the 80’s. He said that the U.S. is using about five barrels
of oil for every barrel of oil discovered, adding that Dick Cheney noted the likelihood of a three-percent
natural decline in production from existing reserves each year.
__________
Mr. Glen Short of the same organization addressed the Board. He presented the phrase “Plan
Now or Panic Later,” stating that the underpinning of the global economy revolves around production of
cheap oil, yet demand has increased while production has decreased. He said that the earlier the
community can take action to mitigate the impending crisis, “the milder the shock will be when it comes.”
__________
Mr. Don W ells addressed the Board, stating that he is a retired astronomer. He also represented
Peak Oil. He presented information from the Hirsch Report, stating that it is very sobering because the
warning period needed is 10 years, and there is not that much time. He said that the report predicts
economic disruption because of an oil crisis, adding that the doubling of oil prices between 2003 and 2005
is “not an anomaly, but a picture of the future.” He said that a report given to the Department of Defense
in June 2006 from one of President Bush’s advisors stated that the Saudi reserves have been over-
estimated, and worldwide all large oil fields discovered up until 1970 are “very mature.” He said that the
report indicates that by 2018 the production from the Middle East will be half of what it is now.
__________
Mr. John Martin addressed the Board, stating that after the last TJPED meeting when they went
into executive session, he called Mr. Bob Gibson, Louisa County’s Economic Development Director but he
would not tell him what was discussed. He said that Bob Gibson suggested to Leigh Middleditch that the
prospect list for TJPED be discussed in executive session. He said that there is an air about the TJPED
meetings that the public is not wanted. He said that this is a private sector, free enterprise, business
organization, but government has bought a seat at their table. He doesn’t think government should be
there either, but as long as government is involved there should be procedures which govern the
openness of those meetings so that citizens can know and monitor the affairs of government. He added
that the Board meetings should be “the only table in town” where the people’s business is done. He said
that the next meeting is in Culpeper, and he hopes it will be opened up, stating that it wastes a day for Mr.
Tucker so that they can use him as “a show horse.”
__________
Mr. Sanford W ilcox addressed the Board, stating that he grew up in Crozet and now lives in Ivy.
He said that he owns property in Crozet and is here representing over 75 entities there by presenting a
petition that includes recommendations for preserving downtown. He said that the group would like the
Board to create a new zoning district in downtown Crozet where regulations can be amended to fit an
urban area and “save our town.” He said that Albemarle County has very little experience dealing with
urban areas, and current zoning ordinances do not allow for the urban density shown in the Master Plan.
He added that the Neighborhood Model does not address places like Crozet either because there are
many different property owners and small individually-owned parcels. He said that if commercial
rezonings are allowed outside of the town center first, “you will undermine the ability of the town center to
develop and revitalize.”
Mr. Rooker noted that creation of a Crozet Downtown Overlay zoning district is on the agenda for
1:40 p.m. today.
__________
Mr. Mike Marshall stated that he is present to support Mr. W ilcox’s proposal. He emphasized that
everybody in Crozet “has a selfish interest” in the Downtown Crozet zoning district.
__________
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Jack Marshall, representing Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP),
addressed the Board. He stated that he supported John Martin’s concerns about TJPED, saying that he is
not alone in attempts to attend meetings that ended up closed. He said that the meeting he did attend
was “vague and vacuous” because everything had already been discussed by TJPED in closed session.
He emphasized that the “prospect list,” which discusses business that might come into the area, is the
essence of TJPED, and that discussion should be open.
__________
Mr. Jeff W erner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that the
Board will discuss Rural Areas protection next week, and the RA Plan was adopted in response to the fact
that in the past 25 years, over 95,000 acres in the Rural Areas have been subdivided. He urged the Board
to request monthly updates on the level of development throughout the County, as the numbers do not
support a decline in rural approvals because of growth areas approvals. He reported that between 2003
and the second quarter of 2006, 1,800 residential permits were issued in the growth area, and over 6,000
growth area units were approved by CPAs and ZMAs. He added that rural area subdivision and building
permits did not waiver from their long-term trends, with over 1,000 building permits approved for rural
areas, along with 1,100 new rural lots proposed and 23,000 acres lost to subdivision.
Mr. W erner reported that in the last decade, almost 3,000 building permits were issued for the
rural area, over 51,000 acres in the rural area were subdivided, and almost 9,000 building permits were
issued for the entire County. He asked the Board if they knew how many of those permits were actually
closed out and built upon, and he believes it is important for the Board to receive regular reports on new
development and construction.
__________
Mr. Peter Kleenman addressed the Board, stating that he is present to discuss protection of
parklands, such as Penn Park. He stated that there are several federal programs that fund protection of
parks, in part by providing new parkland when existing parks are taken by highway alignment, as will be
the case with road alignments planned to go through Penn.
__________
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Tucker if he had attended the TJPED meetings. Mr. Tucker responded that
he missed the August meeting because of vacation, but has been to every other meeting. He noted that
he is not on the Executive Committee and therefore he doesn’t go to those particular sessions.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that his vote for the County to join TJPED was based in part on meeting
openness, and he is concerned that Mr. Tucker has not attended all sessions. Mr. Tucker explained that
TJPED appoints the Executive Committee, and he suspects that that would be a rotating responsibility.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Tucker to convey to TJPED that he is not inclined to join in the future
because he wants to make sure there is County representation and openness at all meetings. He added
that he is aware negotiations with specific businesses might need to be kept confidential, but the public
definitely feels left out when they are prohibited from attending. Mr. Tucker stated that he would get the
word back to TJPED, but it would have more impact if the Board would contact the Executive Director.
Mr. Rooker noted that the reason he opposed Albemarle joining TJPED is that they are not a
public body and are not required to advertise their meetings or include the public in all procedures, and
that is just an example of the problem.
Mr. Boyd stated that he disagreed.
Mr. Rooker said that he has asked Mr. Tucker to convey to TJPED that they need to develop
policy for dealing with public matters.
Mr. W yant agreed that this is a concern, and stated that he would like to hear back from TJPED
on this.
Mr. Rooker added that he would like to make sure the County gets as much from the membership
as possible, though.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mr. W yant moved for approval of Items 5.1 through Item
5.5 and Items 5.7 through 5.11 on the Consent Agenda (with the exception of the minutes as mentioned,
and pulling Items 5.6 and 5.12), and to accept the remaining items as information. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: January 11, February 1, March 1 and March 15, 2006.
Mr. W yant and Mr. Dorrier said they needed to pull their minutes. Other Board members stated
they had minor changes that they would give to the clerk.
__________
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 5.2. Green Creek Road “W atch for Child Playing” Sign.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the residents of Green Creek Road (State Route 630)
have requested that “W atch for Child Playing” signs be installed along a section of the road located
between Route 6 and the Nelson County line. There are 10 homes with eight to 10 children living along
this stretch of the road. There is a concentration of homes at the intersection of Route 6 and Green Creek
Road. VDOT requires a resolution supporting the placement of “W atch for Child Playing” signage from
the Board of Supervisors before any signs can be installed.
The County has developed criteria for reviewing a “W atch for Child Playing” sign installation
request. Green Creek Road is in the Secondary Road System (Route 630) and this section of road is
currently unpaved and has a daily traffic count of 60 vehicle trips/day. It is a through road to Nelson
County. There is no organized homeowners’ association on this road, but six of the 10 residents along
this portion of the road signed the petition requesting the installation of the signs. There is no established
child activity area such as a park or tot lot on Green Creek Drive, nor is there any sidewalk or pathway
along this road. Due to these absences, the children that live on this road often have to walk and/or bike
on the road to visit other homes that may have a swing, basketball court or open field for play. The
proposed location of the signs will not conflict with any existing traffic control devices. This request meets
three of the four review criteria.
The cost to install a “W atch for Child Playing” sign is $125. This cost will be paid from the
County’s Six-Year Secondary Road maintenance fund. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a
resolution supporting the installation of “W atch for Child Playing” signs on Green Creek Road (Route 630),
from Route 6 to the Nelson County line.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution To
Authorize the Virginia Department of Transportation to Install Watch For Child Playing Sign on
Green Creek Road (Route 630):
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO INSTALL WATCH FOR CHILD PLAYING SIGN ON
GREEN CREEK ROAD (ROUTE 630)
WHEREAS, the residents of Green Creek Road in Albemarle County are concerned
about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children
that live and play in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, there are numerous children that live and play on Green Creek Road and the
residents believe that a “W atch for Child Playing” sign would help alleviate some of the concerns;
and
WHEREAS, the residents of Green Creek Road have requested that the County take the
necessary steps to have a “W atch for Child Playing” sign installed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby supports the community’s request for VDOT to install the necessary “W atch for Child
Playing” signs on Green Creek Road, from Route 6 to the Nelson County line.
__________
Item 5.3. Route 606, Dickerson Road, Abandonment and Dedication.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (CAAA)
is requesting that the Board of Supervisors abandon the existing right-of-way (and associated drainage
easements) for the old road alignment of Dickerson Road (Route 606). The old Dickerson Road right-of-
way to be abandoned is located at the end of the airport runway (Attachment A) and has not been utilized
for public access since the new alignment of the Dickerson Road was completed and opened to public
use in the Summer of 2004. The completed road relocation project was identified as an improvement in
the Airport’s Master Plan and required to meet Federal Aviation Administration runway safety
requirements.
Abandonment of the old section of Dickerson Road is considered appropriate because it is no
longer needed for the public access now that the new alignment of Dickerson road is now completed and
open for public use. There is no other public road, public access, or other public use identified for this
area that this existing right-of-way might serve. Typically, unneeded rights-of-way revert to adjacent
property owners, in this case the Airport Authority. The Plat showing the right-of-way to be abandoned
and added can be found on Attachment B.
There will be no budget impact. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the
attached resolution (Attachment C) abandoning the right-of-way for the old alignment of Dickerson
Road (Route 606).
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution
Abandoning Portions of State Route 606 and Requesting That Other Portions be Added to the
Secondary System of State Highways:
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
RESOLUTION ABANDONING PORTIONS OF STATE ROUTE 606 AND
REQUESTING THAT OTHER PORTIONS BE ADDED TO THE
SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority has provided this Board with a
plat dated June 7, 2006 (hereinafter, the “plat”) depicting the additions and abandonments
required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of a project to abandon State
Route 606 and dedicate the new roadway, which plat is recorded in Deed Book 818, Page 210
and Deed Book 3215, Page 206 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road
identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those
portions of road depicted on the plat as the right-of-way and drainage easements to be dedicated
for relocated State Route 606 across lands of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the
secondary system of state highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as the existing
right-of-way and sight easements to be abandoned on State Route 606, pursuant to Section 33.1-
155, Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
__________
Item 5.4. Route 649, Airport Road, Abandonment and Dedication.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (CAAA)
is requesting that the Board abandon the existing right-of-way of a portion of the old road alignment of
Airport Road (Route 649). The section to be abandoned is located just south of the Airport Road-
Dickerson Road roundabout. It is the old roadway bed for Airport Road and it has not been utilized for
public access since the summer of 2005 when the new alignment was opened for public use
Abandonment of this section of existing right-of-way is considered appropriate because it is no
longer needed for public access now that the new alignment of Airport Road is completed and open to
public use. There is no other public road, public access, or other public use identified for this area that this
existing right-of-way might serve. Typically, unneeded rights-of-way revert to adjacent property owners, in
this case that is the Airport Authority. The Plat showing the right-of-way to be abandoned and added can
be found on Attachment B (on file).
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution abandoning the remaining right-of-way of the
old alignment of Dickerson Road.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution
Abandoning Portions of State Route 649 and Requesting That Other Portions be Added to the
Secondary System of State Highways:
RESOLUTION ABANDONING PORTIONS OF STATE ROUTE 649 AND
REQUESTING THAT OTHER PORTIONS BE ADDED TO THE
SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority has provided this Board with a
plat dated February 7, 2006 (hereinafter, the “plat”) depicting the additions and abandonments
required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of a project to abandon State
Route 649 and dedicate the new roadway, which plat is recorded in Deed Book 818, Page 210;
Deed Book 1337, Page 52; and Deed Book 2352, Page 643 in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road
identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those
portions of road depicted on the plat as the right-of-way and drainage easements to be dedicated
for relocated State Route 649 across lands of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority,
pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the
secondary system of state highways those portions of road depicted on the plat as the existing
right-of-way and sight easements to be abandoned on State Route 649, pursuant to Section 33.1-
155, Code of Virginia; and
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
__________
Item 5.5. Resolution Concurring with and Approving the Issuance By the Economic Development
Authority of Nelson County, Virginia, of its Revenue Bond in an Amount not to Exceed $7,700,000
Qualified Non-Profit Revenue Bond (Scottsville Road Holdings LLC Project) Series 2006.
The following letter, re: Resolution for Board of Supervisors approving and concurring with the
issuance of up to $7,700,000 revenue bonds to be issued by the Economic Development Authority of
Nelson County, Virginia, had been received:
“Attached is a proposed resolution for the Board of Supervisors to consider at its meeting on
September 6, 2006,approving and concurring with the issuance of up to $7,700,000 revenue
bonds to be issued by the Economic Development Authority of Nelson County, Virginia (the
“Nelson Authority”) for the Kappa Sigma Endowment Fund (the “Endowment”), a Section
501(c)(3) entity formed as an Illinois Trust and Scottsville Road Holdings, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company (the “Company”, together with the Endowment, the “Borrower”), both based in
Albemarle County, Virginia.
The Borrower seeks to finance the acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing of the
Endowment’s new National Headquarters and Museum facility to be located in Albemarle County,
Virginia and known as 1612 Scottsville Road with the issuance of tax exempt bonds in an
approximate amount of up to $7,700,000. The tax exempt bonds are expected to be sold or
placed with a commercial bank. In order for a bank to purchase this type of tax exempt bond and
receive favorable tax treatment, the bond must be “bank qualified” under Section 265(b)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code (the “Tax Code”).
Issuers of “bank qualified” tax exempt bonds are limited to $10 million in bond issuance during
each calendar year. Albemarle County, Virginia (the “HOST LOCALITY”), where the building is
located has exceeded or is expected to exceed its $10 million limit for the year and is not able to
issue “bank qualified” bonds.
In order to issue a “bank qualified” bond, the Borrower must utilize an issuer that is still able to
issue “bank qualified” bonds during this calendar year.
Federal law and Virginia law each allow for a non-profit corporation such as the Borrower to issue
a tax exempt bond through another IDA, different from the HOST LOCALITY, so long as the
governing body of the HOST LOCALITY (the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors) and the
IDA and governing body of the issuer both agree to the issuance. A public hearing must be held
before governmental body approval of the bond issue.
W e have been involved with a number of “bank qualified” bond issues over the last few years
similar to this one. For instance, New Kent County’s IDA issued tax exempt bonds for the non-
profit foundation for Christopher Newport University for dormitories, Essex County’s IDA issued
bonds for a new building for the Virginia Living Museum in Newport News and Lancaster County’s
IDA issued bonds for a gymnasium for Cape Henry Collegiate School in Virginia Beach.
In 2002, the Town of Amherst IDA issued bonds for a VA CLE (Virginia Law Foundation) facility
located in Albemarle County (which also went through this same process with the Albemarle
Authority and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors).
The procedure in this situation requires the issuing IDA to hold a public hearing, after public
notice, followed by approval from the governing body (within 60 days of the IDA hearing).
Additionally, the HOST LOCALITY governing body (in this case the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors) must also approve and concur in the issuance by the IDA.
The Nelson Authority approved the plan of financing for the Facility and the issuance of the Bonds
following a public hearing at its meeting on August 3rd, 2006. The Board of Supervisors of Nelson
County, Virginia will approve the plan of financing for the Facility and issuance of the Bonds at its
meeting on September 12, 2006. Both the Nelson Authority and the Board of Supervisors of
Nelson County, Virginia approving resolutions are contingent upon approval by the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia.
On August 10th, 2006, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, after
public hearing, will adopt its resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia approve of, and concur with the issuance of the Bonds by the Nelson Authority as
required by Section 147(f) of the Tax Code and Sections 15.2-4905 and 15.2-4906 of the Virginia
Code.
I have enclosed a Certificate of Public Hearing for the records of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia.
If any members of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia or Albemarle County
officials need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me using e-mail
(Dsiegel@SandsAnderson.com) or through our toll-free number (800) 296-1636.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
W ith best regards,
Daniel M. Siegel”
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Nelson County, Virginia (the
“Nelson Authority”) has considered, at a public hearing held on August 3, 2006, the application
of Kappa Sigma Endowment Fund (the “Endowment”), a Section 501I(3) entity formed as an
Illinois Trust and Scottsville Road Holdings, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (the
“Company”, together with the Endowment, the “Borrower”), both exempt from taxation under
Section 501I(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), both based in
Albemarle County, Virginia and each having its principal place of business at P.O. Box 5643, 2020
Avon Court, Suite 29, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22905 in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Nelson Authority issue its revenue
bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed $7,700,000 (the “Bonds”) pursuant to the Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 49 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended (the “Act”) the proceeds from which Bonds will be used to assist the Borrower in
financing the acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing of the Endowment’s new National
Headquarters and Museum facility of approximately 22,000 square feet and 3 stories to be located
on approximately 8.356 acres, more or less (the “Facility”) in Albemarle County, Virginia to be
known as 1612 Scottsville Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, fronting on the W est Side of State Route
20 approximately 2 miles from the intersection with I-64 and Route 20 across the highway from
Carter’s Mountain, in Albemarle County, Virginia and to pay costs of issuance; and
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
“Albemarle Authority”) has, after a public hearing held on August 10, 2006, considered the
request of the Borrower for the Albemarle Authority to recommend to the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Board of Supervisors”) its approval of and concurrence with
the issuance of the Bonds by the Nelson Authority under the Act, in such amounts as may be
necessary to finance the cost of the Facility; and
WHEREAS, the Facility will also benefit Albemarle County, Virginia (the “County”) and
the Borrower has described the benefits to Albemarle County at such public hearing and the
Albemarle Authority has recommended that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
approve of and concur with the issuance of the Bonds by the Nelson Authority under the Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code provides that both the governmental unit having
jurisdiction over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds
is located and the governmental unit on behalf of which such bonds are issued must approve the
issuance of the bonds after public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4905 of the Act provides that if a locality has created an
industrial development authority, no industrial development authority created by a second locality
may finance a facility located in the first locality unless the governing body of such first locality
concurs with the inducement resolution adopted by the industrial development authority created by
the second locality; and
WHEREAS, the Facility to be financed through the issuance of the Bonds is located in
Albemarle County and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County constitutes the highest
elected governmental unit of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has created the Albemarle
Authority pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors Nelson County, Virginia (“Nelson County”)
constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of Nelson County;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County has created the Nelson Authority
pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County will approve on September 12,
2006, the plan of financing for the Facility and the issuance of the Bonds for the benefit of the
Borrower and has designated the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” under Section
265(b) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the approving resolutions of the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County and
the Nelson Authority are each contingent upon the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
approval of, and concurrence with, the issuance of the Bonds by the Nelson Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
1. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby approves and concurs with the
financing of the Facility and the issuance of the Bonds by the Nelson Authority for the benefit
of the Borrower, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Sections 15.2-4905 and 15.2-
4906 of the Act, to permit the Nelson Authority to assist in the financing of the Facility.
2. The approval of and concurrence with the issuance of the Bonds, as required by said Section
147(f) of the Code and Sections 15.2-4905 and 15.2-4906 of the Act, do not constitute an
endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that
the Facility possesses any economic viability. As required by the Act, the issuance of the
Bonds as requested by the Borrower will not constitute a debt or pledge of the faith and credit
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Nelson County, Virginia or Albemarle County, Virginia.
Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the
Nelson Authority, Nelson County, Virginia or Albemarle County, Virginia shall be obligated to
pay the Bonds, or the interest thereon, or other costs incident thereto, except from the
revenues and monies pledged therefore, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power
of the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the Nelson
Authority, Nelson County, Virginia and Albemarle County, Virginia, will be pledged to payment
of principal of such Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incidental thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item 5.6. Set Public Hearing on Ordinance to amend County Code Sec 10-107, Firearms -
Discharging within residential districts, and Sec 10-109, Standing or walking with loaded rifle or shotgun.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that due to a recent shooting incident in a rural
subdivision and at the request of the Commonwealth’s Attorney, the Board asked staff to review
existing County ordinances and enabling authority to determine if additional appropriate restrictions
could be placed on shooting firearms in areas where it creates a danger to public safety and to assure
that the County Code was in compliance with enabling legislation.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1209 enables counties to prohibit the outdoor shooting of firearms or
arrows from bows in areas of the County which are in the opinion of the governing body so heavily
populated as to make such conduct dangerous to the inhabitants thereof. Pursuant to this authority
Albemarle County has existing County Code § 10-107 restricting the discharge of firearms in
subdivisions that are within residential zoning districts. This Code section does not restrict the
discharge of a firearm in a rural areas subdivision or within any non-residential zoning district.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1209.1 enables counties to prohibit any person from carrying or having in
his possession a loaded firearm while on any part of a public highway within the County. Pursuant to
this authority, Albemarle County has existing County Code § 10-109 restricting such conduct.
However, a 2004 amendment to the enabling authority now requires an exemption in any local
ordinance for persons authorized to hunt on the private property on both sides of the highway along
which he is standing or walking. County Code § 10-109 currently does not contain this required
exemption.
The Virginia Code also enables counties to adopt ordinances regulating the transporting of a
loaded rifle or shotgun in a vehicle on public roads, hunting within fifty feet of any primary or
secondary highway and shooting in or across any road or within the right of way. County Code §§ 10-
108, 10-110, and 10-111 exist which establish these restrictions consistent with state law.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1209 enables the governing body to determine which areas of a county
are so heavily populated so as to make shooting of firearms or arrows dangerous to the inhabitants
thereof. Pursuant to this authority, localities such as Chesterfield, Hanover, Fauquier and Prince
W illiam have restricted the shooting of firearms in close proximity to certain dwellings or structures.
The Chesterfield ordinance, for example, restricts discharging any firearm within 200 yards of a
dwelling of another, a business establishment, a public building, a public gathering, or a public
meeting place. This approach designates areas of the County where discharging a firearm may
reasonably endanger people who have a legitimate expectation to be safe from such activities.
Staff recommends the Chesterfield approach. The draft ordinance (on file) to amend County
Code § 10-107 continues the existing restriction on discharging firearms within residentially-zoned
subdivisions but, in addition, restricts discharging a firearm anywhere in the County within 200 yards of
a dwelling of another, a business establishment, a public building, a public gathering, or a public
meeting place. This restriction would address shooting in close proximity to dwellings of others
located in the RA district and also address discharging of firearms in other non-residential districts.
The proposed ordinance would also amend the definition of residential district to include the
Neighborhood Model District. In addition, the ordinance includes an exception, now required by State
law, to permit shooting deer on five acre lots zoned for agricultural use when the shooting is
authorized by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The proposed ordinance does not
address the shooting of arrows.
As a housekeeping measure, the proposed ordinance also amends County Code § 10-109 to
include the exception to the prohibition of carrying a loaded firearm on a public highway if the person
carrying the firearm is authorized to hunt on the private property on both sides of the highway along
which he is standing or walking. The exception is required by State enabling authority. Staff
recommends that the proposed ordinance be set for public hearing on October 4, 2006.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
(Ms. Thomas asked that this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. She
would like to discuss it before a public hearing is scheduled. No action was taken on this item when the
vote was taken on the Consent Agenda. More discussion will follow at the end of these minutes.)
__________
Item 5.7. Police Department Support Staff.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Police Department currently has two and a half
Office Associate positions to support 149 employees. The five division commanders and other
supervisory positions are without this support, which results in their time being spent performing clerical
duties. An additional part-time Office Associate III position to provide support services has been among
the top strategic initiatives of the Police Department for the past two years, but has not been
recommended due to the priority placed on the addition of new Police Officers.
The recent retirement of an employee within the Police Department with many years of
experience has resulted in a savings in personnel costs because the retiring employee has been replaced
with staff at a lower salary. Due to these changes, the Police Department wishes to utilize the savings to
establish an additional permanent part-time Office Associate position. The Police Department currently
has two and a half Office Associates. The two full-time associates are assigned to supporting the
records/communication section and the fiscal management section respectively. The part-time Associate
provides support to the Investigation Division for transcribing interviews and creating case files that assist
the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office in prosecuting offenders. The requested additional part-time
position is needed to provide clerical services to the five Division commanders and to be trained in several
payroll/finance functions as a backup to the current Police Assistant in her absence.
No additional funding will be needed. The expense of this position can be covered on an annual
basis through the salary savings resulting from the retiring employee who was replaced with staff at a
lower salary. Staff recommends that the Board authorize an additional permanent part-time Office
Associate III position for the Police Department to be paid for with funds currently available within the
Police Department budget.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized an additional permanent part-
time Office Associate III position for the Police Department to be paid for with funding currently
available within the Police Department budget.
__________
Item 5.8. Resolution: Disaster Declaration Due to Drought Conditions.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Mr. Peter W arren, Virginia Cooperative Extension
Agent, has requested in a letter dated August 14 that the Board adopt a resolution requesting a Year 2006
Disaster Declaration for Albemarle County due to the severe drought conditions currently being
experienced by local farmers. In his letter, he indicates that farmers are reporting anywhere from 35
percent to 50 percent losses on corn, hay and pasture crops and that hay and water are also in short
supply for livestock.
A resolution requesting that Albemarle County be declared a disaster area for purposes of the
Virginia Farmer Major Drought, Flood and Hurricane Disaster Act, due to the drought conditions was
forwarded for the Board’s approval. This resolution will be submitted to the Governor and if Albemarle
County is declared an agricultural drought disaster area, local farmers who have suffered monetary losses
due to the drought conditions will be able to secure government loans at a reduced interest rate.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution requesting that Albemarle County be declared
a disaster area for purposes of the Virginia Farmer Major Drought, Flood and Hurricane Disaster
Act due to the drought conditions.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution
requesting that Albemarle County Be Declared an Agricultural Disaster Area Due to Drought
conditions:
Resolution Requesting that Albemarle County
Be Declared an Agricultural Disaster Area
Due to Drought Conditions
WHEREAS, the drought conditions in the County of Albemarle have severely affected
farmers; and
WHEREAS, during the growing season of this year the County of Albemarle has received
considerably less rain than normal while experiencing unseasonably high temperatures; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle/Charlottesville Extension Agent of the Virginia Cooperative
Extension has reported that corn, hay and pasture crops have suffered between 35% and 50%
losses and that water is in short supply for livestock.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby requests that the County of Albemarle, Virginia be declared a drought disaster
area as recommended by the Virginia Cooperative Extension in accordance with the Virginia
Farmer Major Drought, Flood and Hurricane Disaster Act due to drought conditions.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Executive forward this Resolution to the
Governor of Virginia with a request that he takes all necessary steps to effect the disaster
declaration.
__________
Item 5.9. ZMA-2006-001 - W esthall Phase V. Request to rezone 8.957 acres from R-1
Residential to PRD Planned Residential District. Tax Map 56H, Parcel A, located approximately 600 feet
east of the end of Park Street (SR 1204) in the Community of Crozet. W hite Hall District. Applicant
requests that this petition be deferred to September 13, 2006.
At the request of the applicant, and by the above recorded vote, this petition was deferred
to September 13, 2006.
__________
Item 5.10. Resolution to accept roads in Redfields Subdivision, Phase 4A, into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Staff, the Board adopted the following
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in Redfields Subdivision, Phase 4A, described on the
attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated September 6, 2006, fully incorporated herein by
reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
W HEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Redfields Subdivision,
Phase 4A, as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated September 6, 2006, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Redfields Road (State Route 1270) from the intersection of Route 1285 and
Route 1286 to the end of state maintenance .15 miles north of Route 1285 and
Route 1286, as shown on plat recorded 12/14/2001 in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2126, page 72, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.15 miles.
2) Courtyard Drive (State Route 1283) from the intersection of Route 1285
(Pebble Court to the intersection of Route 1287 (Heritage Court), as shown on
plat recorded 12/14/2001 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2126, page 72, with a 50-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.08 miles.
3) Courtyard Drive (State Route 1283) from the intersection of Route 1287
(Heritage Court) to the end of state maintenance .09 miles north of Route 1287
(Heritage Court), as shown on plat recorded 12/14/2001 in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2126, page 72, with a 44-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
4) Heritage Court (State Route 1287) from the intersection of Route 1283
(Courtyard Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 12/14/2001 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2126,
page 72, with a 44-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.15 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.47
__________
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Item 5.11. Resolution to accept roads in Redfields Subdivision, Phase 4B, into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Staff the Board adopted the following
Resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in Redfields Subdivision, Phase 4B, described on the
attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated September 6, 2006, fully incorporated herein by
reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
W HEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Redfields Subdivision,
Phase 4B, as described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) dated September 6, 2006, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Redfields Road (State Route 1270) from the end of state maintenance .15 miles
north of Route 1285 and Route 1286 to the intersection of Route 1288
(Cedarwood Court), as shown on plat recorded 05/13/2003 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2456, page 743, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 miles.
2) Redfields Road (State Route 1270) from the intersection of Route 1288
(Cedarwood Court) to the intersection of Route 1283 (Courtyard Drive), as shown
on plat recorded 05/13/2003 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2456, page 743, with a 44-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.11 miles.
3) Cedarwood Court (State Route 1288) from the intersection of Route 1270
(Redfields Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 05/13/2003 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2456,
page 743, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
4) Courtyard Drive (State Route 1283) from .09 miles north of the intersection of
Route 1287 (Heritage Court) to the intersection of Route 1270 (Redfields Road),
as shown on plat recorded 05/13/2003 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2456, page 743, with a 44-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.05 miles.
5) Courtyard Drive (State Route 1283) from the intersection of Route 1270
(Redfields Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 05/13/2003 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2456,
page 743, with a 44-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.41
__________
Item 5.12. Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office Position Request.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the State Compensation Board has approved an
additional support staff position for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. This request is before the
Board of Supervisors today to 1) approve and establish the position, and 2) appropriate the necessary
funding if approved.
The workload of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office has increased significantly. The existing
paralegals are called upon increasingly to assist with reception duties because of the increased volume of
telephone calls, walk-in citizens, and requests from defense attorneys, police officers and probation
officers. The paralegals are relied on heavily to relieve the out-of-court and sometimes in-court workload
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
for the attorneys and cannot function to full capacity in being timely and accurate due to the added
disruptions. This additional position is the most cost-effective way of dealing with this issue.
The Compensation Board has approved funding for this position, including salary and benefit
costs. The start-up costs for this position will be funded by revenues from seized asset forfeiture funds;
however, there will be a recurring County cost of $949 associated with operating costs for this position.
Staff recommends approval of this position and the appropriate appropriation.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked for additional information on budget items. Mr. Tucker responded
that there is $949 associated with operating costs with a specific paralegal position, and staff would need
to evaluate the total position cost and bring it back to the Board next month. He added that it can’t move
forward until it is appropriated.
Ms. Thomas expressed concern that the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office frequently requests
money off of the budget cycle.
Mr. Rooker replied that in this case, they just got their state appropriation amount, and that’s why
the request is coming forth now. He said that the State Compensation Board determines staffing at those
offices based upon caseload, population, and other factors. He said that the County has agreed to
supplement salaries here and in the sheriff’s office to make sure the pay levels are adequate.
Mr. Slutzky said that he is just wondering why it is being requested now instead of next spring.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the State Compensation Board doesn’t necessarily approve salary
and budget levels at the same time as the County.
Mr. Boyd stated that he simply needs more information. Mr. Tom Foley said that staff could bring
it back next week.)
Note: This item was discussed further under other matters at the end of the agenda.
__________
Item 5.13. 2007 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Legislative Preliminary Draft
Program, was received as information.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked when the appropriate time would be to discuss the TJPDC
legislative agenda. Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas indicated that they also had items to discuss. Mr. Tucker
said that it could be discussed at the end of the meeting or with Mr. Blount next month. Board members
agreed to discuss it next month when Mr. Blount is present.)
__________
Item 5.14. Letter Dated July 11, 2006, from the Auditor of Public Accounts addressed to The
Honorable Shelby J. Marshall concerning audited cash receipts and disbursements of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006, was received for information.)
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd expressed concern about the audit of the Clerk of Court office, that their
report indicates the audit had been “more limited” than expected.)
__________
Item 5.15. 2006 Second Quarter Building Report from the Community Development Department,
was received for information.
__________
Item 5.16. Copy of letter dated August 17, 2006, from Joseph H. Maroon, Director, Department of
Conservation and Recreation, to Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, Parks and Recreation, concerning tentative
approval of Land and W ater Conservation Fund grant in support of Mint Springs Fishing Accessibility
Project at Mint Springs Valley Park, was received for information.
__________
Item 5.17. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for July 11 and August 8, 2006, received
as information.
__________
Item 5.18. Crozet Community Advisory Council Resolutions were received as follows:
5.18a. Resolution regarding adoption of Proffer Guidelines,
Crozet Community Advisory Council
Resolution to Board of Supervisors
Regarding Adoption of Proffer Guidelines
Passed August 17, 2006
W HEREAS, the Crozet Community is growing at a rapid rate; and
W HEREAS, the infrastructure costs associated therewith, for example transportation and
school construction have, and continue to increase; and
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
W HEREAS, the funding for the requisite improvements in transportation, (to cite one
example), has declined; and
W HEREAS, in light of the increased costs associated with such growth, the funding vehicles
for which are often not identified or do not currently exist, be it, and it hereby is,
RESOLVED, that the Crozet Community Advisory Council supports and endorses the Board of
Supervisors’ prompt adoption of guidelines regarding proffers incident to all future rezonings in the Crozet
area, and be it and it hereby is,
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Crozet Community Advisory Council requests that any funds
generated thereby should be designated for use and promptly allocated to the Crozet Community to defray
the costs associated with such rezonings.
Members of the Crozet Community Advisory Council Present: Ed Adam, Tonya Brockett, Beverly
Ergenbright, Gloria Johnson, Mike Marshall, Jo Ann Z. Perkins, Mary Rice, Jimmy Stork, Terry Tereskerz,
Tim Tolson, Maria W arnock, Barbara W estbrook
5.18b. Resolution regarding retention of Crozet Downtown Consultant.
Crozet Community Advisory Council
Resolution to Board of Supervisors
Regarding Retention of Crozet Downtown Consultant
Passed August 17, 2006
Be it, and it hereby is
RESOLVED, that the Crozet Community Advisory Council endorses the retention by the County of
Albemarle of a consultant for the purpose of reviewing, and assisting in revising, as appropriate, the
zoning code for downtown Crozet, so as to facilitate the goals and purposes of the Master Plan.
Members of the Crozet Advisory Council Present: Ed Adam, Tonya Brockett, Beverly Ergenbright,
Gloria Johnson, Mike Marshall, Jo Ann Z. Perkins, Mary Rice, Jimmy Stork, Terry Tereskerz, Tim Tolson,
Maria W arnock, Barbara W estbrook
(Mr. Wyant noted that this item would be discussed later in the meeting as part of the
Crozet Overlay District discussion.)
__________
Item 5.19. Copies of notices of Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Virginia Power)
filed with the State Corporation Commission were received as follows for information:
a. Petition for certain initial determinations with regard to Virginia Code Sec 56-585(G), Case No.
PUE-2006-00075, and the July 13, 2006 Order for Notice and Hearing.
b. Application to revise its market prices for generation and resulting wires charges for the period
January 1, 207 until July 7, 2007, Case No. PUE-2001-00306.
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky expressed concern that this implies the Board supports nuclear and
coal-fired power plants, and he would like for the County to issue support for alternative fuels. Mr. Dorrier
said that the Board could spend a lot of time looking at energy policy. Mr. Slutzky agreed, but said from
his viewpoint this is a mistake to imply to utilities that the County supports conventional energy sources.
Mr. Rooker stated that the proposed plant would be in W ise County. Mr. Slutzky agreed, but
stated that the impact would be felt in other places.
Ms. Thomas said that the power plant would be put where the coal is, and this is a new plant that
would have to meet new regulations.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the plant was being designed to meet 1990 Clean Air Act standards, noting
that the SELC is objecting to how the current administration has treated those regulations.
Mr. Rooker said that there are not a whole lot of facts addressed in what’s been presented, and
there would be more information forthcoming, if the Board chooses to participate.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he would follow up on this and come back to the Board with additional
information.
Mr. W yant said that he and Ms. Thomas are aware of this through the PDC, but he doesn’t recall
this specific project.
Mr. Rooker stated that the difference here is the plant is being proposed for W ise County.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Recognition: Dr. Susan L. McLeod.
Mr. Tucker recognized Dr. Susan McLeod, who has been serving as Director of the Thomas
Jefferson Health District since 1987. He said that during her service she was Acting Deputy
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Commissioner of the VDH during “a very challenging time in state government,” and has been responsible
for many community initiatives for uninsured and low-income citizens.
On behalf of Albemarle County local government,
I would like to recognize
Susan L. McLeod, MD, MPH
for her invaluable contributions to the Albemarle County community
as Thomas Jefferson District Health Director since 1987.
W e are grateful for the skill, compassion, dedication, and commitment Dr. McLeod has
demonstrated to improve the health of the citizens of Albemarle County, her contribution to
statewide initiatives of the Virginia Department of Health and her mentoring of an entire
generation of staff and peers in VDH.
During her service to VDH, she was Acting Deputy Commissioner at a very challenging time
in state government. Dr. McLeod’s tenure as Deputy coincided with difficult decisions surrounding
implementation of the W orkforce Transition Act and leading a task force to develop a better
approach to allocation of state funds to districts throughout Virginia. VDH was successful largely
because Dr. McLeod’s approach was well-reasoned, fair, and sensitive to local needs.
Dr. McLeod’s greatest legacy to Albemarle County includes:
• Dr. McLeod’s early recognition, strong support, and innovative approach to partnering
with the public schools to reduce childhood obesity.
• Dr. McLeod was a strong community coalition initiator and supporter for providing free
health care services for the uninsured, low income worker and envisioned the
cooperative effort that established a sharing of operations with the Charlottesville
Free Clinic at the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department facility.
• W hen interest grew in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area in replicating a child
health and family support program called CHIP, Dr. McLeod embraced and promoted
the health department's participation with the Monticello Area Community Action
Agency in creating what is now called Jefferson Area CHIP. Since that time, the
program has spread to incorporate Fluvanna and Louisa counties, benefiting large
numbers of area children and families.
W e, as a community, are strengthened and uplifted by those who step forward to support
improving the quality of life of our residents. W e offer our sincere appreciation to Dr. McLeod for
her dedication, professionalism and recognize her publicly for her expertise and preventive
medicine skills while serving Albemarle County.
Dr. McLeod thanked the County for the recognition, and stated she wanted to move on to other
opportunities in the County as a volunteer.
__________
Agenda Item No. 6b. Introduction, Dr. Lilian Peake, Health Director.
Dr. McLeod then introduced her replacement, Dr. Lillian Peake, stating that she is a graduate of
the University of Virginia Medical School and has a Master’s in public health from Johns Hopkins, and has
served as the Rappahanock-Rapidan Health District for three years.
__________
Agenda Item No. 6c. Recognition: Tactical Team – Albemarle County Police Department.
Mr. Rooker said that the team was formed in 1984 by Chief Johnstone, and was originally
comprised of volunteers responding to critical incidents. In 1988, he reported, the Tactical Team
developed a formal process to evaluate and select qualified officers for the position of tactical operator.
He said that all current operators are veteran police officers who demonstrate unique abilities that have
enabled them to be selected. He stated that the team is considered to be part-time, as all officers have
primary assignments with other divisions in the agency. He said that their primary mission is to provide a
highly trained and skilled response to high-risk incidences, life-threatening situations, and complex crises.
He noted that the team currently consists of 12 operators, three tactical medics, and one team
commander. He said that the team participated in the regional squad competition on May 9, 2006 in
Harrisonburg, which was the sixth annual competition and included 13 teams, including teams from the
U.S. Army and the Virginia State Police. He stated that the Albemarle Team placed first or second in four
out of the six events held, and the County finished first overall for the first time ever.
Mr. Rooker congratulated the team, and thanked them for the critical role they play in the safety of
the community. He recognized Capt. George Noteman, Lt. Ernie Allen (the new commander), Sgt. Peter
Mainzer, Sgt. Scott Cox, Sgt. James Larkin, Sgt. Timothy Sites, Cprl. Sean Hackney, Cprl. Michael Hence,
Cprl. Steven W ilkins, Officer Miller Stoddard, Officer David W allace, Detective Sean Reyes, Officer Mike
Ballou, Officer Mike Easton, Officer Aaron Hill, Cpt. Edward Fisher, Cpt. Jeff Snead.
Capt. Noteman addressed the Board, stating that he was one of the original members in 1984,
and this is a culmination highlight of his career.
__________
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Agenda Item No. 6d. Recognition: Ron Slaughter, 51-Year Volunteer Firefighter.
Mr. Rooker stated that Chief Slaughter retired on July 10th from the Seminole Trail fire station,
following 51 years of service as a volunteer fireman for the community. He said that Chief Slaughter is a
native resident whose career has many highlights, including serving as Assistant Chief in 1972 when he
became president of the Jefferson Country Fireman’s Association. He said that in 1976, Chief Slaughter
was asked to form a volunteer fire station in the urban part of the county, and he became a charter
member at that time. Mr. Rooker thanked him for his leadership and untiring devotion to safety in the
community.
Chief Slaughter stepped forward and received a plaque honoring his service. He said that he is
“indeed honored” and thanked everyone. Mr. Slaughter commented that the success of the volunteer fire
and rescue service has been due to the support and encouragement of the Board of Supervisors, the
County Executive and his staff, and Dan Eggleston and the Fire and Rescue Department in the County.
Chief Eggleston said he is proud to be here today to recognize Chief Slaughter. Chief Eggleston
introduced Chief Smythers of Seminole Trail Fire Department, who also thanked Chief Slaughter for his
service and mentoring. Chief Lee Brown also expressed his appreciation. In addition, Mr. Slaughter’s
sister recognized her brother’s service, as did others in attendance. Sherry Iachetta, of the City
Registrar’s office, recognized Mr. Slaughter for working on elections in Charlottesville for the last 20 years
also.
On behalf of the citizens, local government staff and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, we would like to recognize
Ronald (Ron) P. Slaughter
for his tireless efforts in serving the citizens of the County as a volunteer with the Charlottesville
Volunteer Fire Company (CVFC) since July 1955.
As a volunteer, Ron served on numerous committees and took on many roles as a volunteer. He:
• served as Assistant Chief of CVFC;
• was placed on the CVFC Honor Roll;
• was President of the Jefferson Country Fireman’s Association;
• was instrumental in forming the volunteer fire stations in the urban areas o f the
County; and
• served as a charter member and founding “father” of the Seminole Trail Volunteer
Fire Department (STVFD), including serving on the Board of Directors, Assistant
Chief and Chief, Vice President of the Board and as a life member;
W e are grateful for the time, energy and dedication Ron
has committed to protecting the citizens of Albemarle County.
W e as a community are strengthened and uplifted by those who step forward to volunteer their
services in support of improving the quality of life of our residents. W e offer our sincere
appreciation to Ron for his dedication and recognize him for his service to Albemarle County and
the community.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Board-to-Board Presentation - School Board Chairman.
Ms. Sue Friedman, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, addressed the Board. She
said that the schools continue to look for ways to enhance teacher/staff development. She reported the
School Board recently met with five legislators to discuss issues of particular importance to the school
division, and Albemarle will hopefully be eligible for additional state funding in the near future. She also
added that the School Board emphasizes the importance of closing the achievement gap and helping
students become more successful learners.
Ms. Thomas stated that she recently attended the National Association of Counties meeting, and
asked if school board members attend the National School Board Association conferences. Ms. Friedman
responded that they have recently attended, and have found them very valuable for information-sharing as
well as networking. Ms. Friedman discussed how students who get in trouble are referred out and helped.
Mr. Slutzky noted that his daughter felt that the probability of being kicked off of sports teams due
to drinking was a definite deterrent, and kept her from drinking alcohol.
Ms. Friedman stated that the schools encourage abstention from drugs and alcohol so that
students remain healthy and maintain good learning habits. “W e certainly don’t want to become the
parents… [but] we want students to learn.” She said that teacher retention has also gotten stronger, and
teachers indicate that the salary range increases have kept them in the system.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Pandemic Flu Update – Dr. Lilian Peake, Thomas Jefferson Health District.
Dr. Lillian Peake addressed the Board, stating that she is looking forward to strengthening public
health in the community. She explained that a pandemic is an occurrence of a new disease that occurs all
over the world at the same time, makes a lot of people sick, and can cause many deaths. She said that
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
the most worrisome flu pandemic occurred in September of 1918, starting in Boston and spreading
throughout the U.S. in three weeks. She stated that over 35 percent of people were affected globally, and
it led to 20 to 100 million deaths worldwide, or 2.5 percent of those who contracted the illness. She said
that the disease affected a lot of working adults, and 71 percent of pregnant women who had the disease
died. She said that there were also flu pandemics in 1957 and 1968, which caused more deaths than
influenza typically does.
Dr. Peake said that the U.S. is currently preparing to deal with avian flu, but the disease has
mutated and circulated to other parts of Asia, Europe, Africa, and seven other countries. She reported
that 241 people in 10 countries so far have contracted the illness, and about 50 percent are dying. She
said there is a significant mortality rate, and that is why people are very worried and watching it closely.
Mr. Rooker asked why the mortality rate was so much higher.
Dr. Peake replied that the way the virus attaches to the lower respiratory tract causes severe
pneumonias, very similar to the way the flu in 1918 did. In response to Mr. Boyd’s question, she noted
that those people affected do have access to proper medical care, and this is a new subtype of flu virus.
She said that the disease has only made people sick because of contact with birds, and it is impossible to
predict where and when pandemics will hit.
Dr. Peake stated that while pandemics can’t be predicted, the health community can be prepared.
She said that the time between when you get infected to the time when you become sick is short. She
says every year influenza viruses make 5 to 20 percent of U.S. residents ill, leading to 200,000
hospitalizations and 36,000 deaths. She added that the flu vaccine can help reduce these numbers, but it
is a difficult and time-consuming process. She said that Tamiflu, which impedes progress of the disease,
is not widely available. She noted that these viruses can become drug resistant, rendering the drugs
ineffective. She said that influenza surveillance is being done in Virginia, and volunteer public health corps
are being built to aid with response.
In response to Ms. Thomas’s question about masks helping to limit the spread of the flu, Dr.
Peake said that healthcare and EMS professionals need to wear them, but not the public at large. Mr.
Tucker added that staff would be bringing back policies for the Board to consider that would affect County
employees.
Ms. Lee Catlin stated that the County is involved with the community-wide task force, and there
will be a series of educational sessions relating to the flu and personal preparedness. She said that the
trainings would cover other issues and challenges, with the flu being one of them.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report for September, 2006, and
Agenda Item No. 9b. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Darin Simpson, Assistant Resident Administrator, addressed the Board. He reported that the
broken pavement situation in the Claymont subdivision has been addressed. He also said that they have
received environmental clearance to pave the ditches on W hite Mountain Road. He indicated that crews
are trying to get out to Owensville Road to deal with the sight distance issues there, but the obstruction is
out of the VDOT right-of-way. He said that VDOT has obtained right of entry from two private property
owners and they have approval to clear underbrush to help improve line of sight. They plan to clear as
soon as weather permits.
Mr. Simpson reported that the TAMS contractor would be starting on October 1st, and would be
managing the I-64 operations and routine maintenance from Staunton to near Goochland. He said that
they have an incident response plan to include how they would handle each interchange, and it’s best to
see what their response plan is before making local plans. He reported that the study to reduce the speed
on Route 20 was sent to Traffic Engineering on August 18, which usually takes 30 to 60 days.
Mr. Dorrier noted that he received comments from Reverend and Nancy Luck regarding a ditch
that they’d been trying for 30 years to get fixed, and they said VDOT did an excellent job repairing it.
Mr. Simpson stated that the question was posed about building a multi-use trail if the Meadow
Creek Parkway were significantly delayed, but he said that he would only recommend that if the project
were going to be delayed by 20 years or so.
Mr. Rooker clarified that Route 631 in VDOT’s Monthly report is actually the Meadow Creek
Parkway.
Mr. W yant asked if the Jarman’s Gap advertisement date has been moved, and Mr. Simpson
responded that he would get that clarified.
Mr. Simpson said that the Total Asset Management Contract will start on October 21st, and they
will manage I-64 from Staunton to Goochland. Part of the requirement is that they have an incident
response plan. This will allow a better job of signing for I-64 in the event of a closure.
Mr. Simpson stated that VDoT preformed an initial field review for the speed limit reduction
request on Route 20. VDoT agrees it should be sent to traffic engineering. The study was initiated on
8/18, and has a 30-60 day turnover.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Simpson said that the “left turn will yield on green” sign has been put up at the intersection of
Rio and Northfields Roads.
Mr. Simpson stated that VDoT spoke with the signal technicians in relation to Hydraulic Road and
Route 29 to make the right turn movements in the dual right hand turn lanes less confusing. He said they
are trying to ensure that there are two arrows, and that he will push for a solution.
Mr. Simpson added that the Meadow Creek Parkway is on schedule, and there will not be a bike
trail due to the extra steps that it would cause in the process.
Mr. Simpson confirmed that Mr. Rooker received the e-mail on the update of the Parkway from
Mr. Utterback.
Mr. Simpson also noted that Roslyn Ridge Road has been patched.
Mr. Dorrier asked about getting a copy of the Biscuit Run transportation plan. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that it has not been completed or submitted yet, but when it is it will come to the staff and they can
make the Board aware. “It will be voluminous.”
Mr. Dorrier said he would like VDoT to look at Dawson Lane, because of its rutted condition. The
gravel washes off, and the stream that is under the bridge sometimes goes over the road. Mr. Simpson
said he will address the issue.
Mr. Rooker added that perhaps the Executive Summary would be shared, and the entire report
would be available for anyone wanting to see it. Mr. Cilimberg said that the City, County and VDOT staff
got together with the applicant and defined the scope before the work started, and the Planning
Commission reviewed it beforehand.
Ms. Thomas commented that she received a compliant from a constituent regarding the Boar’s
Head Inn meeting pavilion, as there is only one road in and out of all of Boar’s Head. She indicated that
this has some validity, and the citizen suggested an emergency alternate access road. Mr. Boyd agreed,
and said that he also had a call about that situation.
Mr. Boyd asked what needs to be done to see if Stony Point Pass qualifies as a rural rustic road.
He has a petition, and would like to know what the next step is to see if the road qualifies. Mr. Simpson
said he will relay the request to Mr. Joel DeNunzio to make sure it meets the requirements.
Mr. Boyd said that everyone on the road has signed a petition to do so, adding that they had also
indicated an interest in having some dust control measures put on the road. He also asked about the
opening of the Proffit Road Bridge. Mr. Simpson responded that he’s been involved with that project since
the beginning, and the bridge should be opened by the end of September.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9c. Downtown Scottsville Streetscape Plan Request.
Mr. Tucker reported that the Mayor and Town Council members are in attendance, and the town
would like to make a request to the Board. He indicated that staff has not had time to review the request,
as it was just received from the town today.
The mayor, Mr. Stephen Phipps, addressed the Board, stating that the town’s annual operating
budget is just over $0.5 million per year, and their main sources of revenue are from BPOL and meals
taxes. He said that it’s important for them to concentrate on tourism, and over the last six years they have
received some T-21 grants to enhance the town. W ith those grants, he said, they have built a River
History Transportation Park, a levee walk for people to see the river and town, and a parking lot. Mr.
Phipps said that the streetscape project would allow for burial of power lines, construction of period lights,
and new trees. He said that costs have meant the town can not finish the project at this time, and part of
this is due to delays from VDOT and utility companies. Mr. Phipps said they have enough funds to do
Valley Street (Route 20) right now, but the town needs about $0.5 million for East Main Street up to the
museum. He stated that officials in other localities have indicated it enhances their town and adds to the
economic infrastructure.
Mr. Phipps then introduced Jack Hodge of Volkert & Associates, who has overseen the project
from the beginning, adding that Mr. Hodge was formerly the Chief Engineer at VDOT.
Mr. Hodge addressed the Board, stating that there were sufficient funds for Valley Street initially,
and putting in the storm drains was a cooperative effort of VDOT and the enhancement funds. He said
that to make it viable, it was forced into a construction project, and the utility companies have to follow
those policies for betterment. Mr. Hodge said that the price has increased over time, but they have been
able to completely fund Valley Street and the storm drainage could be eliminated from Main Street. He
added that they have a contract with Albemarle W ater Authority to put in those lines while the street is
being torn up.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the timetable for this project. Mr. Hodge replied that there is a contractor
in place and VDOT has agreed, and they should be able to start very shortly once the funding is there. He
noted that the town has to put up 20 percent, and some of the enhancement money can be used to do the
match for construction.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Phipps pointed out that they have raised over $300,000 from private citizens over six years,
including the Perry Foundation.
Mr. Rooker stated that staff would get this item on the agenda as soon as possible for
consideration.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Charlottesville Transit System (CTS) Transit Development Plan (TDP) –
Presentation, Frank Spielberg.
Mr. Frank Spielberg addressed the Board, stating that this was a follow-up to what was presented
to City Council 16 months ago. He noted that this project was funded entirely through the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation, and the report has been through their approval process.
Mr. Spielberg stated that there have been two public meetings which resulted in some changes that are
reflected in the final plan. He noted that the Route 5 connection now goes to W al-Mart, and the Route 7
connection goes to Fashion Square Mall. Mr. Spielberg said that Route 10 was also extended to serve
some new destinations as part of this plan, but that increased the service from every 30 minutes to every
hour. He stated that the trolley on W est Main and the U.Va. Grounds was having trouble making its
schedule, so more trolleys were added. Mr. Spielberg explained that there is information in the report to
consider expanding service in Pantops to improve the service for the transit Route 10 so that it runs more
frequently.
Mr. Spielberg indicated that the Places29 study team recommends a bus rapid transit spine that
would operate from the airport area down through Route 29 onto the grounds, as well as two circulators –
an inner circulator that would serve the area between Hydraulic and Rio Roads, and an outer circulator
that would serve the Hollymead area. He added that they might be longer term considerations, depending
on the Board’s actions. Mr. Spielberg noted that if the highest level of service were implemented for all of
these things, it would equal the cost of the current Charlottesville Transit System today. In response to
Mr. Rooker’s question, he said they do not have ridership figures at this time.
Mr. Rooker noted that part of the County’s difficulty has been how to cover the roughly 700 square
miles the County encompasses.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the Board also needs to look at how to get people out of their cars
and onto mass transit, and there are lots of incentives to look at this in light of the earlier comments on
peak oil production.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation: Creciendo Juntos, Peter Loach.
Mr. Peter Loach addressed the Board, presenting U.S. Census data from 1990 in Charlottesville
and Albemarle, showing a little over one percent of the population in Virginia is Latino. He stated that that
is to be expected for that time, but that number became 2.5 percent in 2000, and that number climbed to
4.25 percent in the area for 2005. He emphasized that there are more Latinos in Albemarle than
Charlottesville, adding that the local increase might be do to low unemployment rates in the area and the
state. He said that it is not a huge surprise that there be an influx of workers. He mentioned that the
service and construction industries are strong in Albemarle, which tends to draw more of that population.
Mr. Loach reported that the Hispanic/Latino household income is just below the TJPD median,
which in 2004 was just under $52,000. He noted that the Hispanic buying power is growing at three times
the national rate, projected to be over $1 trillion by 2010; the number of prosperous Latino homes and the
growth of the number of Hispanic businesses is four times faster than all U.S. firms. He explained that
PHA came up with the idea for Creciendo Juntos to help the Hispanic population, and the organization is a
collaborative effort of several agencies.
Mr. Rooker asked if he knew the percentage of the Spanish population that can not speak English
at all, or speak it well. Mr. Loach responded that he is not certain, but often the children are the first
generation born in the U.S., and there is a lot of effort with the schools to try to help families break the
language barrier. He agreed to bring back more data on those numbers, adding that there is also the
question of cultural translation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation: Community Land Trust, Bill Edgerton.
Mr. Bill Edgerton addressed the Board, stating that he and Frazier Bell have explored the
possibility of setting up a land trust similar to that in Burlington, Vermont. He explained that the land trust
has several key features: it is a non-profit tax entity and contributions are tax-deductible; the land trust
owns the land and improvements (buildings) are sold to individual homeowners, affordable housing
organizations, or non-profit rental developers; the land is leased and is taken out of the purchase price of
the housing; the owner of the land (the land trust) has a responsibility to maintain the property; it’s
community-based and operates within the physical boundaries of a targeted locality; a portfolio of land
could be assimilated to provide affordable housing; and there are 135 land trusts around the country that
can be used for a variety of different scenarios.
Mr. Edgerton explained that the first step would be to decide whether to work with an existing
affordable housing organization, or create a new one. The second would be to form the land trust and
have an administrator who would solely administer the trust; initially an existing organization would be
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
used. The land trust would work with planning staff and developers to identify lots throughout a proposed
development that would be donated to the land trust as a rezoning proffer The lots would be scattered to
promote the principles of the neighborhood model. The land trust would agree to build the dwelling units
that would adhere to the architectural covenants of the development and integrate the affordable units.
The land lease would perpetually be providing affordable housing. The developer would proffer, for
example, 15 lots, that would then be donated to the CLT, which would provide the developer with $1.875
million in tax deductions based on $125,000 lot value. Homeowners would realize appreciation, but a
share of it would be returned to the land trust. The CLT would handle future sales and ensure that the
homes remain affordable.
Mr. Davis pointed out that anything proffered through a rezoning application generally cannot
qualify for a tax deduction under the IRS.
Mr. Boyd asked them to get input from the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association.
Mr. Edgerton said that they have spoken informally with some developers, but he is going to meet
on a more formal basis with them in the near future.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, John
Lowry. (Note: This item was skipped and will be heard in the afternoon.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session.
At 12:15 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board adjourn into closed session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions; and, under Subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of property for
a public facility.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session. At 1:40 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 passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
Mr. W yant offered motion to:
appoint Leslie Durr to the MACAA Board with no specified length of term.
appoint Duane Zobrist to represent the W hite Hall District on the Planning Commission, to fill out
the term of Ms. Jo Higgins, with said term to expire on December 31, 2007.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, John
Lowry.
Mr. John Lowry, Chairman, of the Industrial Development Authority, addressed the Board, stating
that the Albemarle’s IDA is one of many in Virginia, and he would like to provide some basic information
on the role of the organization. He said that they are a conduit between a lender and a borrower. He
noted that the IDA will take any application, but they have to qualify according to Virginia statutes.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a cap on the amount. Mr. Davis said that the IDA can issue as
much debt as they want, but there is a bank-qualified limit of $10 million.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Thomas asked if the Comprehensive Plan comes into play. She asked whether the Authority
makes sure that whatever they are planning to build fits in with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lowry said
he does not know. Mr. Davis said he does not think the Authority factors that into the discussion.
Mr. Bowling said the Authority assumes the property has the proper zoning and is qualified
already.
Ms. Thomas said the questionnaire asks a question as to whether the facility will create pollutants
or toxic or hazardous substances. She thinks that is out of date. Today, when Albemarle County itself
puts up buildings or makes addition, like the wing that housed the Police, a green roof is put on. She
thinks the County is looking more toward people having EnergyStar which means it is efficient in using
energy. “LEED” certification is the gold standard and most people can’t get that totally, but she thinks the
County has slightly higher standards. It is not just making sure you are not doing any damage, but how
you are helping the community to be more efficient.
Mr. Lowry said the Authority can address that in its questionnaire.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees. The County is looking at ways to be more active in the green building
area of the community and has participated in a number of forums.
Mr. Tucker said Community Development staff can help with those questions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Creation of Crozet Downtown Zoning District or Zoning Overlay District.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, summarized the following executive
summary which was forwarded to Board members:
The Crozet community and staff are requesting action to allow Crozet’s downtown to develop in
accordance with the Crozet Master Plan. The Master Plan calls for “County initiated rezoning” a
downtown zoning overlay district, changes to the zoning code, and a modified review process (pages 24-
26), in balance with historic preservation. Crozet business owners met in May, 2006 to discuss the Master
Plan recommendations. At the end of the meeting they called for a County-led initiative to address current
zoning constraints. The business owners met again in July to discuss zoning research and findings,
prepared in advance by a sub-committee of business-owners. On July 20th the Crozet Community
Advisory Council met to review the business-owner recommendations and asked the County to make this
project a priority for Crozet.
It is staff’s opinion that it is important to implement the Master Plan’s recommendations for
downtown Crozet now, with the help of a consultant, to allow downtown Crozet to be developed and
redeveloped in a manner consistent with the Master Plan, and to protect the downtown from the
increasing pressures of competing development in fringe areas. Most downtown properties cannot be
developed or redeveloped consistent with the Master Plan under the existing zoning. In addition, most of
downtown Crozet could not even be built to its present form under the existing zoning. Existing zoning
districts in downtown Crozet impose constraints on mixed-uses, parking, outdoor displays and activities,
and building locations.
To achieve the form of development or redevelopment called for in the Master Plan, the
downtown area will need either a new zoning district or a new zoning overlay district with regulations
specifically tailored for downtown Crozet. The key elements of the proposed zoning district would include
identifying uses allowed by right and by special use permit, including mixed-use developments and
outdoor displays and activities, maximum building height, building location (setbacks), parking,
landscaping and tree canopy, and exterior lighting. It is staff’s opinion that rezoning the downtown to the
Neighborhood Model District (NMD) would put a burden on small business owners and require
considerable coordination among many property owners. Under either the existing zoning regulations or
an NMD, downtown business owners cannot practically expand and new businesses will have great
difficulty being added. W ith these constraints, greenfield development outside of downtown is more
economical and feasible. The proposed zoning district regulations would allow more compact, infill
development in downtown permitting a mix of uses and better utilized parking.
Given Community Development staff is fully allocated on other projects and the interest in starting
this project now, staff plans to use a consultant to expedite this work. The County will issue an RFQ for a
consultant to start with the community’s recommendations in preparing a zoning text amendment, and
possibly a zoning map amendment to either replace the zoning or establish an overlay zoning district
within Crozet’s downtown. Staff anticipates the consultant will work with staff and the CCAD to refine the
sub-committee’s recommendations to meet legal standards and verify stakeholder support.
Consultant fees are not expected to exceed $75,000 and staff time is expected to be less than 6
months of work. Staff intends to fund this through the reappropriation process and is requesting that the
Board agree to fund this study in advance from unspent funds from last fiscal year’s Community
Development budget. Reappropriation requests will be on the Board’s agenda at next month’s Board
meeting.
Staff recommends that the Board:
1. Adopt the attached resolution of intent to initiate the zoning text amendment discussed
herein;
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
2. Direct staff to proceed with hiring a consultant to assist in the creation of a Crozet
downtown zoning district or zoning overlay district and to develop a zoning text
amendment proposal in cooperation with the Crozet community;
3. Approve the use of FY 05/06 unspent funding from Planning and Community
Development through the reappropriation process to fund the study.
Mr. Graham stated that there is a resolution from the Crozet Advisory Council before the Board.
He explained that this is really the outcome of an effort of the County’s Business Development Facilitator
(Susan Stimart) working with area residents and businesses to determine what will make a viable
downtown. He said that those efforts have included a downtown library, Crozet Avenue streetscape
improvements, a main street and the formation of a downtown business association. He noted that current
zoning districts do not fit well with a downtown. They have issues with parking, building setbacks, and
things of that nature. He indicated that staff feels it is necessary to bring a consultant on at this point in
the zoning overlay district process. Mr. Graham noted that while staff is presenting these
recommendations, they are really from the Crozet Community Advisory Council and the downtown
property owners. Staff is hoping this is the first of many partnerships envisioned under the Crozet Master
Plan, and looks forward to supporting more in the future.
Mr. W yant asked about the difference in a zoning district in Crozet and an overlay district. Mr.
Graham said staff is looking at several options. One approach is an overlay district. Another is a separate
zoning classification and let the properties come forward and be rezoned to the new classification, or
possibly doing some sort of overall rezoning for a downtown district. A lot of careful thought needs to be
given to how they go about this process. He is estimating this will take about six months.
Mr. W yant asked if there are any projects in the pipeline that could be affected by this proposal.
Mr. Graham replied that the Crozet Station is probably the most affected. In that case, the applicant is
trying to move forward with a neighborhood model type district which would be given the same type of
flexibility that they might receive under this downtown district.
Mr. W yant commented he is concerned about what could happen in the interim. It seems to him
that this process may take nine months before it even gets to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said the proposed ordinance is more permissive, less restrictive. This in fact provides
more flexibility with what can happen downtown. He does not think the Board will see applicants rushing
forward trying to get something approved.
Mr. W yant commented that this is the critical element in what needs to occur in Crozet. He also
said that the Advisory Committee needs to be involved with any new standards that are developed.
Mr. Davis said people proposing neighborhood model districts probably can accomplish what
these zoning district regulations will ultimately accomplish because they can basically write their own code
of development. Staff hopes to accomplish, with either the overlay or zoning district, the establishment of
those rules so that applicants may not have to go through a legislative process.
Ms. Thomas suggested that the ARB work with Crozet to develop guidelines that would apply to
development. Mr. Graham said if that is the Board’s interest that can be done. Mr. Rooker said it seems
to him the ARB could develop a different look for the Crozet community without requiring legislative action.
Mr. Davis said the ARB probably needs to develop some guidelines that need to be ratified by this
Board. Their current guidelines were ratified by the Board about a year ago; those guidelines are primarily
tailored to Route 29 and the urban area, outside of Crozet, and are more specific than they use to be.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that the committee work with the ARB to develop a standard that is
applicable only to Crozet.
Mr. Boyd commented that some ARB members are under the impression that all buildings are
supposed to back up directly to roads, such as those at the Hollymead Town Center.
Ms. Thomas said that one of the reasons staff didn’t recommend that project is because the
buildings were too close to the road and there was insufficient setback.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ARB staff is fully consumed with building approvals right now, and
there hasn’t been time to work on guidelines, even though their review is called for in the work program.
He added that there is always going to be a staff component in developing guidelines, and he does not
know where that resource is going to come from. He said that perhaps the consultant hired as Mr.
Graham discussed could help out, and they will also be working with the community.
Mr. Foley commented that staff is going to work towards what’s been suggested, but the burden
cannot fall squarely on the ARB.
Mr. Rooker added that ultimately the Board would need to approve the guidelines anyway.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern that consultants were already hired as part of the Master Planning
process, yet they did not do any of this work. It was certainly known at that time that the downtown
development was pending.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Rooker said that the Master Plan wasn’t approved at that time, so it wasn’t feasible that the
planning for downtown would occur. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that each master plan has zoning changes
identified, and there is no way to anticipate them. They are going to cost more money to do that work at
that time; there is a need to see what is adopted before doing the zoning provisions.
Mr. Boyd said that with the amount of money and time spent on master plans, perhaps more
should be expected from consultants.
Mr. Rooker stated that detailed plans were not identified during the Master Planning process. Mr.
Davis noted that up to now, consultants have not been used to draft current development ordinances, but
it is a way to advance the work program faster.
Mr. Boyd said that retail is required with the Neighborhood Model plan, and it doesn’t always work
with the development. Mr. Cilimberg replied that retail is associated more with the centers.
Mr. Slutzky noted that no phasing analysis was done with the Crozet Master Plan, and if the Board
is not happy with how that went then they should change it for future plans. He said that in the future, the
Board might want to develop an implementation strategy so that there is not the “awkward spot” there is
now.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that when the Crozet Master Plan was adopted, everyone was aware that
there would be underlying individual rezonings. Mr. Dorrier commented that he did not feel phasing was
appropriate here.
At this time, Mr. Slutzky moved to proceed with staff’s recommendation to adopt the Resolution of
Intent to initiate the proposed zoning text amendment; to direct staff to proceed with hiring a consultant to
assist in the creation of a Crozet downtown zoning district or zoning overlay district and to develop a
zoning text amendment proposal in cooperation with the Crozet community; and to approve the use of
FY05/06 unspent funding from Planning and Community Development through the reappropriation
process to fund the study. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Crozet Master Plan describes downtown Crozet as the historical focal
point for cultural and commercial activities in Crozet and the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, one of the findings and recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan is to
focus on the redevelopment and invigoration of the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, the lands within downtown Crozet are currently within various zoning districts,
and the regulations within those districts have been identified as imposing a number of
impediments to the development and redevelopment of downtown Crozet in a manner consistent
with the Crozet Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, two of the strategies recommended in the Crozet Master Plan to implement
the Plan are to establish a zoning district specific to downtown Crozet having regulations
specifically designed to be consistent with the Crozet Master Plan or to establish a zoning overlay
district establishing regulations in addition to those imposed in the underlying zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the specific zoning regulations desired for downtown Crozet would include,
but not be limited to, delineation of the uses allowed by right and by special use permit, including
mixed-use developments and outdoor displays and activities, and establish regulations pertaining
to maximum building height, building locations (including setbacks), parking, outdoor lighting and
other issues deemed to be appropriate; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to establish a
downtown Crozet zoning district or zoning overlay district as described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts
a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to achieve the purposes
described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________
Mr. Foley mentioned that staff has been working on researching different approaches, as Mr.
Slutzky has said, and those decisions come forward with discussions in policy changes – which are slated
to come before the Board in an October work session.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Thomas noted that she asked about the Crozet Master Plan situation during the National
Association of Counties meeting, and they suggested appointing a group like the Crozet Advisory
Committee immediately after the plan is done to avoid a “trough” situation after a long period of intense
public involvement.
Mr. Tucker said that the County has learned from that experience, and in the future would appoint
that type of group more quickly.
Mr. Rooker asked for a map of the broader master plan area with notations as to where the
overlay district area is.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: FY 2006 Budget Amendments. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27, 2006.
Ms. Laura Vinzant addressed the Board, stating that the amendment totals $1,055,758.90 and
includes two appropriations which were approved on August 2, 2006. Appropriation No. 2006-091 totaling
$3,340.00 for a donation to the Crozet Greenway Program; and Appropriation No. 2006-092 totaling
$126,320.70 for various education programs. The new appropriation is Appropriation No. 2006-093
totaling $926,098.20 for education donations and programs.
The description of Appropriation No. 2006-093, $926,098.20, follows.
At its meeting on July 13, 2006, the School Board approved the following appropriation:
Meriwether Lewis received a donation in the amount of $8,774.47 from the Meriwether Lewis
PTO. This donation will be used to cover staffing for the 2005-06 school year.
Janelle Catlett, classroom teacher at W oodbrook Elementary and Shannon Grant recipient has
received a grant donation in the amount of $200.00 from Luck Stone’s Architectural Stone Center
in Ruckersville, Virginia. These funds will be used as additional support for Mrs. Catlett’s
Shannon Grant entitled “It’s a Rock Party.”
The W al-Mart Foundation awarded Albemarle County Public Schools a grant in the amount of
$375.00. June Smith, Community Engagement Department, will coordinate exact use of the
funds for community service opportunities or service learning projects.
Old Dominion University awarded Greer Elementary School with an Effective School W ide
Discipline mini grant in the amount of $500.00. These funds will be used to develop and
implement a school wide discipline system that is based specifically on the individual school’s
needs. Emphasis will be placed on consistency; the entire school staff is expected to adopt
strategies that will be uniformly implemented.
W illiam Glasser, M.D., Inc. awarded Murray High School with a grant in the amount of $800.00.
This grant award assisted in funding a trip for one teacher and two students to the International
Youth At-Risk Conference, held March, 2006 in Savannah, Georgia. The group was asked to
make a presentation on the ideas of Choice Theory and Quality Schools.
Albemarle County and Charlottesville City Public Schools partnered with the University of Virginia
to implement a Carnegie Foundation Incentive Grant, “Teachers for a New Era.” The key goal of
the TNE program is to “perfect a model teacher education program that attracts some of our most
promising young men and women and transforms them into superb teachers, capable of eliciting
the highest possible achievement from their students over the course of their careers.” To
accomplish that goal, University staff currently is partnered with School Division staff over a three-
year grant period to develop and implement a series of initiatives designed to recruit, train and
retain teachers within the profession. One component of the larger TNE grant initiative is the
allocation of funds to partnering school divisions so they can develop best practice mentorship
programs within schools.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB Act), Public Law 107-110, authorized the Title II, Part A, as a
Federal grant program that combines the Eisenhower Professional Development, School
Renovation, and Class Size Reduction Grants into a Teacher Quality grant program focusing on
preparing, training and recruiting high-quality teachers, principals and paraprofessionals.
Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY ’05-06 due to an increase in stipends paid for
more teachers to participate in Curriculum Assessment Instruction (CAI), and paying .50 FTE for
a Literacy Coordinating teacher. There is a fund balance retained by the State in the amount of
$116,367.23 from FY ’04-05 which may be reappropriated for FY ’05-06.
The School Bus Replacement Fund has a fund balance of $1,365,894.00. These funds were
accumulated to meet the needs of bus replacement in years that have large numbers of buses
needing replacement. This action will appropriate $597,359.00 of fund balance from the School
Bus Replacement Fund for FY ’05-06 purchases.
Ms. Vinzant said staff recommends approval of the FY 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$1,055,758.90 after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriation No. 2006-093 to provide funds
for various School programs as described above.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Slutzky stated that if the County looks at an overall public transportation system, perhaps they
should be “a little bit miserly” in purchasing equipment, especially in the growth area.
Mr. Boyd noted that there is a mileage and year process that goes along with school bus
purchasing, and there are safety concerns if those vehicles are not replaced.
Mr. Tucker said that this is done every year, and Mr. Slutzky would have the opportunity to weigh
in at that time.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. W ith no one from the
public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Ms. Thomas moved for approval of the 2006 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$1,055,758.90, and to adopt the following Resolution of Appropriation. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion,
which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2006-093
DATE: 09/06/06
EXPLANATION: Appropriation - Education
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 8,774.47
2 3104 18000 189900 Misc. Revenues J2 375.00
2 3104 18000 189919 Misc. Revenues J2 500.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Misc. Revenues J2 800.00
2 3156 18120 189900 Rev - TNA Grant J2 201,722.50
2 3203 33000 330105 Title II, Part A J2 116,367.23
2 3502 18000 181223 Shannon Grant-Rev J2 200.00
2 3905 51000 510100 Appr.-Fund Balance J2 597,359.00
1 2206 61101 115000 W ages-Ofc. Clerical J1 3,694.00
1 2206 61101 210000 FICA J1 306.00
1 2206 62221 113100 W ages-Hlth.Clinic J1 3,727.66
1 2206 62221 232000 Dental J1 27.60
1 2206 62221 210000 FICA J1 210.51
1 2206 62221 231000 Health J1 808.70
1 3502 60606 601300 Ed & Rec. Supplies J1 200.00
1 3104 61101 601300 Ed & Rec. Supplies J1 375.00
1 3104 60204 601300 Ed & Rec. Supplies J1 500.00
1 3104 61101 420100 Field Trips J1 800.00
1 3156 61101 112100 Salaries - Teacher J1 150,555.80
1 3156 61101 210000 FICA J1 10,848.00
1 3156 61101 221000 VA Retirement Sys J1 17,168.90
1 3156 61101 231000 Health Insurance J1 16,583.80
1 3156 61101 232000 Dental Insurance J1 566.00
1 3156 61101 580000 Misc. Expenses J1 6,000.00
1 3203 61311 112100 Salaries - Teacher J1 29,500.00
1 3203 61311 160300 Stipnd-Stf/Cur Dev J1 72,650.00
1 3203 61311 210000 FICA J1 7,820.00
1 3203 61311 221000 VRS J1 3,367.23
1 3203 61311 231000 Health Insurance J1 2,930.00
1 3203 61311 232000 Dental Insurance J1 100.00
1 3905 62320 800506 School Bus Repl J1 597,359.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 8,774.47
0701 Appropriation 8,774.47
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 1,675.00
0701 Appropriation 1,675.00
3156 0501 Est. Revenue 201,722.50
0701 Appropriation 201,722.50
3203 0501 Est. Revenue 116,367.23
0701 Appropriation 116,367.23
3502 0501 Est. Revenue 200.00
0701 Appropriation 200.00
3905 0501 Est. Revenue 597,359.00
0701 Appropriation 597,359.00
TOTAL 1,852,196.40 926,098.20 926,098.20
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: FY 2007 Budget Amendments. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27, 2006.
Ms. Vinzant reported that this amendment totals $2,152,656.22 and includes five appropriations
that were approved at the August 2nd Board meeting (Appropriation No. 2007-003) established the budget
for two maintenance worker positions; Appropriation No. 2007-004) provided $11,350.00 in additional
funding for JAUNT; Appropriation 2007-005 provided $42,000.00 in funds for a storage facility lease;
Appropriation No. 2007-006 transferred $26,427.50 in funds from the Visitor’s Center contingency for
paving work; and Appropriation No. 2007-007 totaled $21,347.00 for the Emergency Communications
Center. There were six new appropriations totaling $2,132,309.22: Appropriation No. 2007-008 allocating
$130,534.00 in additional grant funding to OAR and Central Virginia Regional Jail; Appropriation No. 2007-
009 totaling $700,000.00 for school bus replacements; Appropriation No. 2007-010 reappropriating
$373,113.27 in funds for seven public safety grants; Appropriation No. 2007-011 reappropriating
$283,991.52 for outstanding FY 2006 purchase orders; Appropriation No. 2007-012 transferring
$193,800.00 from the General Fund to the Motor Vehicle Replacement Fund; and Appropriation No. 2007-
013 reappropriating $644,670.43 for uncompleted FY 2006 projects. She mentioned that the largest items
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
are the school bus replacement costs and outstanding purchase orders to complete existing projects, as
well as funds to complete public safety projects. All appropriations are described below:
Appropriation No. 2007-008, $130,534.00. The Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded
the County $130,534.00 in additional funding for its community corrections grant. The grant is
managed by the Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) with the County serving as fiscal agent.
This additional money will be used to fund two additional positions, one at OAR and one at the
Central Virginia Regional Jail. There is no local match.
Appropriation No. 2007-009, $700,000.00. At its meeting on July 13, 2006, the School Board
approved the request to transfer $700,000.00 from the School Bus Replacement Fund Balance to
fund bus purchases in FY 2007.
Appropriation No. 2007-010, $373,113.27. The following public safety grants have not expended
all funding as of June 30, 2006, and will require reappropriation. No additional local funding is
required.
The U.S. Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant in the amount of $26,235.00 in FY 2006 to assist in the funding of overtime hours in
an effort to reduce crime and improve safety with more “community policing”. The
remaining amount of funds for FY 2007 is $8,152.78.
The U.S. Department of Justice awarded Albemarle County a grant in the amount of
$66,000.00 (50% local match) in FY 2006 to update the video monitoring system for
Albemarle High School. This includes cameras, recorders, a viewing monitor and
antennas. The School Resource Officer will share responsibility for the system with the
school administration. This new system will serve as a deterrent, a monitor for immediate
response, and a record of people and events for use in enhancing future safety. These
funds will need to be re-appropriated for use in FY 2007.
The Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the Albemarle County Police
Department a grant in the amount of $199,245.00 in FY 2006 to assist in the training of
public safety officials as well as educating the public in matters concerning terrorism. The
remaining amount of funds for FY 2007 is $145,322.97.
The Division of Motor Vehicles awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant
in the amount of $3,000.00 in FY 2006 to assist in the education of bicycle safety as well
as coverage in “non-vehicle” events. The remaining amount of funds for FY 2007 is
$1,263.09.
In FY 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police
Department and the Fire Rescue Department an additional $50,068.00 for the 2005
Homeland Security Grant. These funds will need to be reappropriated for use in FY 2007.
The U.S. Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department and
Fire Rescue Department a grant in the amount of $88,370.00 in FY 2006 to assist in the
preparation of response to incidents involving mass destruction weapons. The remaining
amount of funds, $44,225.48, will require reappropriation for use in FY 2007.
The Department of Homeland Security awarded the Albemarle County Fire Rescue
Department a grant in the amount of $430,484.00 in FY 2005 of which $58,080.95
remains unexpended. These funds will require reappropriation for use in FY 2007.
Appropriation No. 2007-011, $283,991.52. Several departments had funding for projects
approved in FY 2006 that had not been completed as of June 30, 2006. This request
reappropriates the remaining balances for the uncompleted projects for which purchase orders
were outstanding as of June 30, 2006.
Appropriation No. 2007-012, $193,800.00. Several departments had funds appropriated in their
operating budget for the purchase of additional motor vehicles that were a result of approved FY
2007 initiatives. To streamline and simplify the purchasing process, this appropriation will transfer
these funds from the General Fund to the Motor Vehicle Replacement Fund.
Appropriation No. 2007-013, $644,670.43. The following departments had FY 2006 funds for
specific projects that were uncompleted at June 30, 2006, and will require reappropriation for use
in FY 2007:
• County Executive - $8,579.43 for strategic planning;
• Office of Management and Budget - $12,000.00 for a financial forecasting model;
• Finance - $9,500.00 for fixed asset management software;
• Information Technology - $24,000.00 for data processing consulting;
• Magistrate - $5,150.00 for FY 2006 expenses that were not billed by June 30, 2006;
• Fire Rescue - $74,458.55 for the Fire Consolidation Study;
• Fire Rescue - $1,755.27 in donated funds for the Car Safety Seat Program;
• General Services - $450,000.00 for the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority contribution;
• Community Development/Planning - $16,510.18 for a Development Area study;
• Community Development/Planning - $2,717.00 for the Southern Urban Area B;
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
• Community Development/Zoning - $20,000.00 for consulting services; and
• CTS – for a transit study - $20,000.00.
Ms. Vinzant said staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$2,152,656.22 after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations No. 2007-008, No. 2007-009,
No. 2007-010, No. 2007-011, No. 2007-012, and No. 2007-013 to provide funds for various local
government and school projects as described above.
Mr. Boyd asked about carrying funds over that go into the general fund, and wondered if this
would be included in that amount. Mr. Tucker replied that this would be included in the 2007 amount, but
the full amount would not come before the Board until their next meeting. He said that this is not included
in the discretionary amount.
Ms. Thomas noted that Albemarle would be getting $88,000.00 to prepare for having mass
destruction weapons come through the area, and that she believes the public should take note of the fact
that the county needs that kind of money.
Mr. Slutzky asked about the $450,000.00 for the solid waste authority. Ms. Vinzant confirmed that
this is not new money, and it represents the County’s contribution. She also noted that the $20,000.00 for
the CTS study was already appropriated and just not spent.
Mr. Slutzky said that perhaps this money might need to be reappropriated if it is not needed for the
study.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. W ith no one from the
public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of the FY 2007 Budget Amendment in the amount of $2,152,656.22
and adoption of the following Resolutions of Appropriations for Nos. 2007-008 through 2007-013. Mr.
Dorrier seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-008
DATE: 09/06/06
EXPLANATION: Additional Funding for OAR and CVRJ from Criminal Justice Services
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1520 24000 240440 DCJS - Community Cor J2 130,534.00
1 1520 29406 566120 OAR J1 82,922.00
1 1520 29406 566140 CVRJ J1 47,612.00
1520 0501 Est. Revenue 130,534.00
0701 Appropriation 130,534.00
TOTAL 261,068.00 130,534.00 130,534.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-009
DATE: 09/06/06
EXPLANATION: Appropriation - Education
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3905 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J2 700,000.00
1 3905 62320 800506 School Bus Replacement J1 700,000.00
3905 0501 Est. Revenue 700,000.00
0701 Appropriation 700,000.00
TOTAL 1,400,000.00 700,000.00 700,000.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-010
DATE: 09/06/06
EXPLANATION: Public Safety Grants - Reappropriations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1536 33000 300001 Federal DMV Grants J2 8,152.78
1 1536 31013 120000 Overtime J1 7,529.09
1 1536 31013 210000 FICA J1 623.69
1536 0501 Est. Revenue 8,152.78
0701 Appropriation 8,152.78
2 1549 33000 330001 Federal Grant Revenue J2 33,000.00
2 1549 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J2 33,000.00
1 1549 62420 800101 Mach. & Equip. J1 66,000.00
1549 0501 Est. Revenue 66,000.00
0701 Appropriation 66,000.00
2 1523 33000 300001 Federal Grant Revenue J2 145,322.97
1 1523 31013 550403 Training J1 13,000.00
1 1523 31013 800100 Mach. & Equip. J1 48,916.00
1 1523 31013 800700 ADP Equipment J1 83,406.97
1523 0501 Est. Revenue 145,322.97
0701 Appropriation 145,322.97
2 1532 33000 330001 Federal DMV Grants J2 1,263.09
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
1 1532 31013 120000 Overtime J1 1,166.46
1 1532 31013 210000 FICA J1 96.63
1532 0501 Est. Revenue 1,263.09
0701 Appropriation 1,263.09
2 1548 33000 330001 Federal Grant Revenue J2 50,068.00
1 1548 31091 800100 Mach. & Equip. J1 25,034.00
1 1548 31092 800100 Mach. & Equip. J1 25,034.00
1548 0501 Est. Revenue 50,068.00
0701 Appropriation 50,068.00
2 1546 33000 330001 Federal Grant Revenue J2 44,225.48
1 1546 31091 800100 Mach. & Equipment J1 40.48
1 1546 31092 800100 Mach. & Equipment J1 44,185.00
1546 0501 Est. Revenue 44,225.48
0701 Appropriation 44,225.48
2 1567 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J2 58,080.95
1 1567 32015 392000 Contractual Services J1 14,500.00
1 1567 32015 600000 Materials & Supplies 14,080.95
1 1567 32015 601100 Uniforms & Apparel 4,500.00
1 1567 32015 800100 Mach. & Equipment 25,000.00
1567 0501 Est. Revenue 58,080.95
0701 Appropriation 58,080.95
TOTAL 746,226.54 373,113.27 373,113.27
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-011
DATE: 09/06/06
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of Outstanding FY ‘06 Purchase Orders
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
See Attached Details County Executive J1 36,700.00
Circuit Court J1 1,312.00
General District Court J1 2,628.84
Clerk of Circuit Court J1 2,152.50
Police Department J1 23,690.47
Fire Rescue-Prevention J1 53.00
Fire Rescue - Operations J1 15,618.40
Fire Rescue -Monticello J1 203.96
General Services-Maint J1 68,176.18
Social Services-Benefits J1 276.61
Social Services-Services J1 276.61
Parks-Maintenance J1 1,950.00
Planning - CD J1 130,215.20
Zoning J1 737.75
2 1000 51000 510100 Approp. - F/B J2 283,991.52
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 283,991.52
0701 Appropriation 283,991.52
TOTAL 567,983.04 283,991.52 283,991.52
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-012
DATE: 09/06/06
EXPLANATION: Transfer of Appropriation for additional motor vehicles from
General Fund to Motor Vehicle Replacement Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 31013 800500 Police J1 (106,500.00)
1 1000 32015 800500 Fire Rescue J1 (35,000.00)
1 1000 43001 800500 General Services J1 (13,000.00)
1 1000 71012 800500 Parks & Rec J1 (20,000.00)
1 1000 81023 800500 E911/Planning J1 (19,300.00)
1 9200 31013 800500 Police J1 106,500.00
1 9200 32013 800500 Fire Rescue J1 35,000.00
1 9200 43002 800500 General Services J1 13,000.00
1 9200 71012 800500 Parks & Rec J1 20,000.00
1 9200 81023 800500 E911/Planning J1 19,300.00
1 1000 93010 939999 Transfer to Other Funds J1 193,800.00
2 9200 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J2 193,800.00
9200 0501 Est. Revenue 193,800.00
0701 Appropriation 193,800.00
TOTAL 387,600.00 193,800.00 193,800.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2007-013
DATE: 09/06/06
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of uncompleted projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12010 312390 County Exec. -Strategic Plan J1 8,579.43
1 1000 12015 301200 OMB - Contract Services J1 12,000.00
1 1000 12141 800712 Finance-Software Upgrade J1 9,500.00
1 1000 12200 312701 IT - Data Process Consultant J1 24,000.00
1 1000 21030 700003 Magistrate J1 5,150.00
1 1000 32011 312760 Fire Consolidation Study J1 74,458.55
1 1000 32015 561415 Car Safety Seat Program J1 1,755.27
1 1000 42040 999851 RSW A Service Contr. J1 450,000.00
1 1000 81022 312342 Development Area Study J1 16,510.18
1 1000 81022 312344 Southern Urban Area B J1 2,717.00
1 1000 81024 312105 Zoning-Consulting Ser. J1 20,000.00
1 1000 89000 580418 CTS - Transit Study J1 20,000.00
2 1000 19000 190245 City Share-Urban Area B J2 2,715.00
2 1000 19000 190247 City Share-F/R Study J2 37,500.00
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
2 1000 51000 510900 Appropriation - F/B J2 604,455.43
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 644,670.43
0701 Appropriation 644,670.43
TOTAL 1,289,340.86 644,670.43 644,670.43
(Note: Mr. W yant left the meeting at 2:44 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: SP-2006-009, Birchwood Place (Sign #10).
Proposed: One three-story office building totaling 19,500 square feet and a one-story bank of
3,090 square feet on 3.66 acres.
Zoning Category/General Usage: C-1 Commercial - administrative, professional office and
financial institution; EC Entrance Corridor overlay.
Section: 22.2.2(10) Special Use Permit, which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated
with permitted uses.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use: Crozet Community - CT-6, Urban Core and CT-1, Development
Area Preserve.
Location: Tax Map Parcel 56A2-1-30, located on Three Notch'd Road (Rte. 240) approximately
0.17 miles east of its intersection with Crozet Avenue (Rte. 810).
Magisterial District: W hite Hall.
Concurrent Application: SDP-2006-00029.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28,
2006.)
Mr. David Pennock, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that this request is for four
drive-through lanes associated with a bank that is part of Birchwood Place’s site plan, located in the W hite
Hall Magisterial District off of Three Notched Road east of its intersection with Crozet Avenue. He said
that the area has a proposed site plan for a three-story office building and a bank that is closer to the road
frontage. He mentioned that the project went before the Planning Commission on August 8th, and staff
recommended denial at that time because of circulation issues and appropriateness of this use in the
Entrance Corridor. He said that the circulation issue has been resolved, but the EC issue has not been
addressed by the ARB; it is scheduled for their September 18th meeting. He stated that the Planning
Commission was able to recommend approval of the project, as they felt the ARB could deal with the
design aspects of the property.
Mr. Rooker asked him to clarify what staff’s objections are. Mr. Pennock replied that there were
several incomplete submittals to the ARB because not all buildings were shown, but the site plan itself was
complete.
Ms. Thomas expressed concern about the parking lots not joining. Mr. Pennock responded that
that has now been resolved and they are connected.
Mr. Boyd asked about the use of the word “appropriateness,” and wondered what that meant as it
pertains to this application.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the bank use is by-right, but the drive-through windows need a special
use permit. Mr. Pennock said that drive-through windows can change the character of the area, and the
visibility for motorists.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the ARB will consider traffic flow in looking at a drive-through window
situation. He said that whether the location of this bank is appropriate in a downtown zoning district is up
to the Board to decide.
Mr. Pennock stated that the use itself is not as significant as the visual impacts of the use and
character of the area.
Mr. Fritz said that staff is trying to provide information to the Board on the impact on the character
of the area, but there is no information yet from the ARB on impact to the Entrance Corridor district.
Mr. Rooker commented that the ARB is not comfortable saying that a use is not appropriate. Mr.
Fritz stated that they have come out with opinions on drive-throughs on Route 29, and they simply make
recommendations as to whether it should be approved or not.
Mr. Slutzky noted that that information is not available yet.
Mr. Rooker stated that perhaps the ARB would recommend additional screening, but it is
uncertain until they review the proposal.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to speak.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before
the Board.
Mr. Slutzky moved for deferral of SP-2006-009 until the Board’s first October meeting. Mr. Boyd
seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. W yant.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: SP-2006-012, Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building
(Sign #29).
Proposed: New building (80' x 50'), mission ministry/storage; additional driveway/parking/planting.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Section: Section 10.2.2.35, Special Use Permit, church building.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: 4218 Richmond Road.
Tax Map/Parcel: 94/46.
Magisterial District: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28,
2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the congregation of the church is proposing construction of a new
mission building to house a print shop and storage space. He stated that there is no plan for additional
staff to be added to work in the facility or an increase in the size of the congregation. He stated that staff
recommends approval, along with a recommendation that the Planning Commission allow five years for
the permit to be initiated rather than the usual two years. He said that the Commission recommended
removal of the second condition as it is covered with other County review processes.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to speak.
Mr. Ed Leake, representing the church, addressed the Board. His only comment is that he has
made several requests for information from Fire and Rescue, but they have not responded.
Ms. Thomas said that the fire marshal is requesting that a water source be identified that is
sufficient for firemen to use.
Mr. Davis noted that that is a fire code or building code requirement, not a zoning requirement.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before
the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved for approval of-2006-012, Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building, with the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. W yant.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Special Use Permit 2006-12 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan
dated May 23, 2006, prepared by SL Key Inc., and titled “Conceptual Plan Colonial Baptist
Church Missions and Storage Building” (Attachment A). Important elements of the
concept plan include the following:
• The establishment and maintenance of the twenty (20) foot buffer along
the western parcel boundary;
• The preservation of the existing tree line outside the limits of construction
as defined on the concept plan;
• The complete tree line outside the limits of construction shall be retained;
and
• The inclusion of tree protection details from the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook.
2. A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be established and maintained along the western boundary
of the parcel. There shall be no disturbance within that buffer. Tree protection/limits of
construction shall be included on the site development plan as shown on the concept
plan. Tree protection shall be provided prior to any site disturbance and in accordance
with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook;
3. Print shop and mailing service shall be limited to the distribution of church related items;
4. Operators of the print shop shall be limited to a maximum of four (4);
5. Hours of operation of the print shop shall be limited to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday
through Friday;
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
6. Number of monthly deliveries by truck shall be limited to a maximum of twelve (12); and
7. Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or the addition of day care and other non-worship
uses, will require amendment to this petition.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. SP-2006-013. Little Keswick School Dorm Amendment (Signs #23, 24).
Proposed: Construct building for dorm; use existing dorm for offices.
Zoning Category/General Usage: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0 .5 unit/acre).
Section: 10.2.2(5) Private School.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: RA - Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: 500 Little Keswick Lane; Rt. 731, 1/20th of a mile south of Rt. 22.
Tax Map/Parcel: TM 80, Parcels 110A, 110A2, 112, 117A, 118, 119.
Magisterial District: Rivanna.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28,
2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request is for a new two-story dorm to house 13 students at the
private school; the existing dorm would be used for storage or office area, and the applicant is not
requesting approval for additional staff or students. He explained that the proposed site for the dorm
would be at a lower elevation than the adjacent property not owned by the school, thereby reducing its
visibility.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated that staff found favorable factors to be: the minimal visual impact from the
adjacent property, compliance with State Department of Education standards, and no increase in
enrollment or number of staff. He said that there were no unfavorable factors found, and staff
recommends approval with the Planning Commission’s four conditions.
W ith no questions for staff, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
speak.
The applicant, Mark Columbus, the headmaster of the school, addressed the Board and
confirmed that they are seeking to have a new location for their dorm. He said that they would like some
flexibility in moving the dorm a little bit forward or back depending on what is found when the construction
begins.
Mr. Boyd asked if that would be acceptable to staff. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Planning
Commission found no problem with that as long as it meets setback and site plan requirements.
Mr. Davis clarified that it has to be in general accord with the site plan and that gives the Zoning
Administrator the authority to decide whether it is or not.
Mr. Columbus noted on the plan that there would be 72 parking spaces, and there are only 32
people on staff during the day, with 8 employees there at night. He said that there are 31 students
enrolled in the school. Mr. Columbus stated that Little Keswick is a therapeutic special education school,
with boarding facilities.
Mr. Boyd asked if the conditions would make it more restrictive for the school. Mr. Cilimberg said
that the conditions follow what is currently at the school.
Ms. Thomas suggested that it be a little more flexible in case another student or two were added.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Columbus responded that that would be fine for future plans, but ultimately the school is
limited by the state on enrollment. He also said that VDOT came out to review the entrance, and the
school took steps to move the fence back 15 feet to improve visibility, and VDOT marked a crosswalk as
well. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is no need for entrance improvements if the enrollment was
increasing because there are no day students coming in and out.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that additional students would mean additional dorm space, and that might
necessitate a review of the entrance by VDOT.
Mr. John Grady addressed the Board, stating that there is no place to put a new entrance without
massive regrading.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of SP-2006-013 with the four conditions as presented, changing
condition #2 to limiting enrollment to 35 students. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion, which passed by the
following recorded vote:
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. W yant.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Special Use Permit 2006-13 shall be limited to the construction of a maximum two (2)-
story forty-five (45) foot by ninety-five (95) foot residential facility "New Dorm" for students
enrolled in the Little Keswick School and for the conversion of the existing "Barn Dorm" to
non-residential uses, such as office, recreational, storage, meeting area, or other similar
uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located and developed in general accord with the
concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan" (Attachment A) and dated
June 22, 2006 (last revision date). However, the Zoning Administrator may approve
revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in
enrollment shall require an amendment to this special use permit and may require
entrance improvements subject to Virginia Department of Transportation requirements;
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be
subject to review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any
other use; and
4. Construction of the dorm shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of
the special use permit, SP-2006-013.
_______________
(Note: The following two items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 23. SP-2006-014, SOCA Club Offices at South Fork Soccer Park (Sign #27).
Proposed: Amendment to SP-1998-018, which permitted creation of a club facility for soccer
fields, to add temporary office facilities.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH-Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection
from flooding.
Section: 10.2.2.2: Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: Polo Grounds Road, approximately 1.1 miles east of US 29.
Tax Map/Parcel: 46-26C1.
Magisterial District: Rivanna.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28,
2006.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 24. SOCA Club Offices: request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority Jurisdictional Area Limited Service designation to provide sewer service to new structure on Tax
Map 46, Parcel 26c1, located within the SOCA sports facility on Polo Grounds Road. Magisterial District:
Rivanna. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28,
2006.)
__________
Mr. Cilimberg explained that SOCA needs an office at this location using a trailer and an existing
building, and the office would accommodate nine staff members – seven of whom have daily duties at the
site. He said that the office expects very few visits, and this proposal would allow the organization to have
their offices and playing fields in the same location, minimizing travel between sites. He stated that staff
found this application to be favorable, as expansion can be increased without significant impact to
adjacent properties, roads, or natural resources. He added that expansion would require change to the
limited service designation for sewer service, and that is also a public hearing item.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has recommended approval of the proposed office, as well as the
limited service designation to provide service to the office on site.
Mr. Slutzky asked him to explain the limited service designation. Mr. Cilimberg said that with
regular service, the whole parcel will have the service available to it for any kind of development for the
site, and limited service addresses only specific buildings and not larger development that might occur.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the structure was being placed in a floodplain. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
it is not, and the plan is to move into a different permanent facility in the future.
Mr. Rooker asked about pavement plans for the road. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was the Zoning
Department’s advice not to remove that condition regarding the upgrade in the event that there was further
need in association with increased onsite activity.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to speak first
Mr. Bill Mueller, Executive Director of SOCA, addressed the Board. He stated that SOCA is in its
fifth year of operating their facility, and it has become a “tremendous community asset.” He stated that the
facility would enable them to become more efficient and effective and improve delivery of services. He
said that the organization would have about 9,000 registrations this year, and their program is year-round.
He said that anything that is no longer applicable to their operations has been removed from the proposal.
Mr. Steve Von Storch addressed the Board, noting that staff agreed there was no need to strike
any conditions. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there were two conditions struck, leaving 13 out of the original
15.
Ms. Thomas noted that there is a salamander migration one day each March, and she would just
like to see that respected, obviously not in a condition. She suggested that they talk to Jim and Bess
Murray about this.
Mr. Von Storch noted that there is no deception intended by putting this item before their
expansion request.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of SP-2006-014 with the 13 conditions as presented. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. W yant.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Special Use Permit 2006-14 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan,
titled ‘SOCA at South Fork New Offices at Existing South Fork Soccer Park’ (Attachment
A) and dated August 4, 2006. However, the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions
to the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. No exterior lighting shall be installed;
3. No loudspeakers or public address system shall be permitted;
4. No portion of any athletic field shall be located closer than seventy-five (75) feet to any lot
line;
5. Compliance with the provisions of 5.1.16;
6. The vehicular entrance to the site shall be gated to prevent use of the site after hours and
during flood events;
7. W ater quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to
pre-development conditions, subject to the approval of the W ater Resources Manager;
8. Route 643, Polo Grounds Road, shall be upgraded with a minimum of 1.5 inches of SM-
2A from Route 29 to the entrance of the soccer fields. This work shall be completed prior
to the applicant making use of both SP-98-18/SP-98-22 [Soccer Fields] and SP 90-35
[Church]. The applicant may make use of one of the special use permits without the need
to upgrade Route 643, Polo Grounds Roads;
9. The owner shall reserve a one hundred (100) foot wide strip of land the length of the
property abutting the northern side of the Rivanna River for the Rivanna Greenway. The
width of the reserved area shall be measured from the edge of the Rivanna River at its
normal flow level. W hen the County decides to establish a public area or park, including
canoe access, the owner shall dedicate the reserved area to the County and such
property necessary for ingress and egress to the reserved area;
10. The applicant shall cooperate with the University of Virginia Department of Anthropology
regarding development and further archaeological study of the site, specifically, the
Applicant shall grant the Department permission to collect artifacts from any plowing or
other soil disturbance of the site, and allow the Department to be present for the
excavation of the French Drain on the western edge of the soccer field;
11. The use of the buildings shall be limited to restrooms, equipment storage, a concession
counter, and offices for the soccer organization. The interior area of the new office
structure shown on the concept plan shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet;
12. The concession counter shall be open only during use of the soccer fields; and
13. A tot lot shall be provided.
__________
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Boyd then moved to approve an amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area to provide limited sewer service to a new structure on Tax Map 46, Parcel 26(C-1)
located within the SOCA sports facility on Polo Ground Road, and that sewer service to be provided to the
South Fork Soccer complex only as approved under SP-2006-014. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion,
which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. W yant.
__________
Mr. Slutzky asked Ms. Thomas to share with the Board when the salamander migration occurs.
She agreed to do so.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. SP-2006-015, Monticello Memorial Gardens (Signs #33, 38).
Proposed: Expansion of existing, operating cemetery: additional road network; demolish four
existing cottages.
Zoning Category/ General Usage: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Section: 31.2.4.1; 10.2.2 (32); Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: Jefferson Lake Drive off Thomas Jefferson Memorial Parkway (Route 53).
Tax Map/Parcel: TM 77, Parcels 37, 34, 38C, 37A, 36, 36A, 36B, 35, 32A, 32B and 33.
Magisterial District: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 21 and August 28,
2006.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this would allow the expansion of the existing cemetery with an
additional road network and construction of a maintenance shed and demolition of four existing cottages.
He said that it is a phased expansion, gradually increasing from 15 interments per month to 30 per month
by 2016; they are also proposing extending their weekday hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days a
week. He stated that they are proposing to add four additional employees, two maintenance staff, and two
sales persons.
He indicated that there were only comments by staff related to engineering and site development;
the County Engineer had recommended the closing of Jefferson Lake Drive onto Route 53 to reduce a
point of conflict along a sharp curve on 53. Mr. Cilimberg said that Jefferson Lake Drive provides the only
access to an adjacent parcel – Tax Map 77, Parcel 32. He said that it was clarified in the hearing with the
Planning Commission that the other parcel identified in the staff report would no longer have access from
the parcel, adding that the applicant has requested an alternative that would close the cemetery access to
the entrance by removing the connected paving, leaving the resident of TM 77-32 as the sole user of this
access. He said that the County Engineer also noted that the proposed internal access ways have been
aligned to avoid or minimize impacts to critical slope areas with the exception of two locations as noted.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval with a substitute
condition #10 which allows the Jefferson Lake entrance to remain only for TM 77-32 and removes the
pavement connecting to the cemetery. He said that the Commission essentially followed the applicant’s
suggestion.
Ms. Thomas asked if the 50-foot interstate buffer has been addressed. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that the applicant felt the wide right of way provided an adequate additional buffer in addition to the 25
feet, and the Commission went with 50 feet as the ARB recommended.
Mr. Rooker said that cemeteries are usually nicely kept green areas, and he is not sure why
additional setback would be imposed on a visually nice area. Mr. Cilimberg said that the ARB was
addressing visibility purposes, and there was no guarantee that the VDOT buffer would be maintained. He
noted on the map provided the location of the VDOT right of way, and the location of the buffer.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to speak.
Mr. Eric W ilke, addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. He explained that they did not
think it was fair to have the neighbor drive through the cemetery to get to her house, and the Planning
Commission agreed. He also said that the ARB did not have the topography when they reviewed the
proposal, and he has worked hard to ensure that the proposal minimizes visual impact. He said that if the
additional 25 feet is needed for the buffer, it would mean losing over an acre of land, which would mean
quite a few burial sites would be lost. He pointed out where the entrance would be located, which would
include raising the roadbed and closing down Jefferson Lake Drive.
Mr. Keith Johnstone, VP for Business Administration at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation,
addressed the Board and indicated that they are selling this property to the cemetery – which will
ultimately help the Foundation retire all their debt on Mt Alto property. He stated that they could have sold
it for development but chose the cemetery instead.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Cilimberg said that it was the ARB that identified the 50-foot buffer, but they didn’t have the
elevations at the time, so he is not sure how their review of this as a site plan might affect the Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Mr. Davis said that changing this to 25 feet now would still leave the door open for the ARB to
move it to 50 feet; that can then be appealed back to the Board.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved for approval of SP-2006-015 with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, but changing Condition #5 to a 25-foot setback. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion,
which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. W yant.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Special Use Permit 2006-15 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan
revised July 12, 2006, prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. and titled
“Monticello Memorial Gardens Expansion Concept Plan” (Attachment A) in conjunction
with Attachments A.1, A.2, and A.3;
2. The operating hours of the cemetery shall be limited to 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. seven (7)
days a week;
3. Employees shall be limited to eleven (11);
4. A minimum of eleven (11) parking spaces shall be provided for employees;
5. A twenty-five (25) foot wooded buffer shall be maintained on the property along the full
length of I-64 that abuts the property. The twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall consist of
existing wooded areas, which shall remain without disturbance, and currently unwooded
areas that shall be planted with a mix of evergreen screening trees, staggered at fifteen
(15) feet on center, minimum six (6) feet in height at planting;
6. There shall be no disturbance of critical slopes;
7. All indigenous trees twelve (12) inch caliper and above shall remain only within the areas
of critical slopes defined by the shaded (cross hatched) areas in Attachment 2. Tree
protection, as defined by the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, shall be in
place before any disturbance of the site adjacent to an area of critical slopes;
8. All exterior parcel boundaries shall include a twenty-five (25) foot setback for internment
areas;
9. The entrance improvements shall be included as described in Attachment 3, pages 1 and
2, with the first phase of construction;
10. The driveway pavement in the area labeled, "section of pavement to be removed" on the
concept plan (Attachment A) on Jefferson Lake Drive between the access road for TMP
77-22 and the cemetery shall be removed with the beginning of the first phase of
development and replaced with topsoil and seeded with grass or turf grass;
11. All internal access ways shall be designed according to the minimum standards listed
below:
Primary Access way Minor Access way
Pavement W idth: 18 ft. 14 ft. (2-way), ft. (1-way)
Shoulder W idth: 4 ft. 4 ft.
Grade: less than 12% preferred, 16% max.
less than 12% preferred, 6% max.
Design Speed: 20 mph 10 mph
Centerline Radius: 120 ft. 50 ft. or more (usually dictated
by sight distance)
Sight Distance: Stopping: 125 ft.
Intersection: 200 ft.
Stopping: 85 ft.
Intersection: 100 ft.
12. County approval of a plat consolidating all parcels into one when the use begins.
(Note: Mr. Slutzky said the ARB should know the Board is comfortable with the 25-foot setback.)
_______________
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Agenda Item No. 26. Report on 800 MHz Radio System.
Mr. Tom Hanson, ECC Director, addressed the Board to update them on the radio system. He
explained that the system was cut over live on April 2, 2006 and passed a 30-day system reliability test
that was concluded on May 2nd without any errors or failures. He noted that the system had passed a 30-
day coverage acceptance test in the areas predicted by Motorola as required by the contract. He said that
this test required Motorola to provide on-street portable coverage in the predicted County areas, and light
to medium in-building coverage in the city and in the urban area outside the city along Route 29. He
indicated that based on successful results of this testing, RCC consultants and the project manager
recommended issuance of the final system acceptance to Motorola, and since the system acceptance
ECC has been evaluating and analyzing those areas of the County that were not part of the required
coverage area.
He said that they have identified that some of the areas outside of the guaranteed coverage area
– such as Howardsville and Schuyler – will require the installation of additional equipment to provide
improvements to coverage in those areas. He noted that he would soon be presenting a complete report
to the ECC management board with recommendations, costs, solutions, and prioritization of changes. He
also mentioned in testing, it was discovered that portions of the town of Scottsville have spotty portable
radio coverage, and they have identified some solutions to enhance coverage in town. He said that the
new system is doing exactly what they expected it to do at this point.
Ms. Thomas said that Board members had received a letter from the Scottsville mayor stating that
during July 4th, police and fire were having significant difficulty communicating with the portable radios.
Mr. Hanson said that this has been addressed, and some of the problem is coverage in the area,
but some of it is also due to misuse. He indicated that Fan Mountain is the primary tower location serving
that area. He said that what they are looking at for Scottsville is a “talk group extender,” which enhances
the signal. He also noted that there was $2.0 million in the budget for in-building coverage, but it was
decided to take that money out of the budget to see how the system worked first.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Tucker brought up the Consent Agenda item for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office
additional employee.
Ms. Brenda Neitz from the Office of Management and Budget addressed the Board, stating that
the salary and benefits are going to be reimbursed by the State Compensation Board, and the $21,934
budgeted salary does not include fringe benefits. She said that the recurring costs include approximately
$605 for internal service maintenance such as computers and printers, $144 for additional telephone lines
and $200 for office expenses – as estimated by Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office staff.
Mr. Slutzky said he has heard from constituents that this office pursued a disproportionate number
of prosecutions based on population, which might be generating the need for this position. He agreed that
this could be dealt with at budget time when requests come in from this office.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of Item 5.12, from the Consent Agenda, to approve the position
request and associated appropriation. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. W yant.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007016
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Additional Staff Position in Commonwealth Attorney's Office
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 22010 110000 Salaries J 1 17,083.00
1 1000 22010 210000 FICA J 1 1,307.00
1 1000 22010 221000 VRS J 1 2,214.00
1 1000 22010 231000 Health Insurance J 1 5,033.00
1 1000 22010 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 178.00
1 1000 22010 241000 Life Insurance J 1 208.00
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
1 1000 22010 270000 Workers Compensation J 1 20.00
2 1000 23000 230101 State Compensation Bd J 2 26,043.00
1 1234 22010 520300 Telecommunications J 1 750.00
1 1000 22010 600100 Office Supplies J 1 200.00
1 1234 22010 800200 Furniture & Fixtures J 1 1,600.00
1 1234 22010 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 1,350.00
2 1234 51010 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 3,900.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 26,043.00
0701 Appropriation 26,043.00
1234 0501 Est. Revenue 3,900.00
0701 Appropriation 3,900.00
TOTAL 59,886.00 29,943.00 29,943.00 __________
Mr. Rooker said that item 5.6, regarding discharge of firearms, was also pulled from the Consent
Agenda. He asked if the Board would like to discuss that item further or should it be deferred until
representatives from the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and Police Department can attend. He noted
that this item came to the Board at the request of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. Board members
agreed with the suggestion. Ms. Thomas said that perhaps the County could prohibit rifles, but allow
shotguns.
Mr. Davis stated that there is a difference between restricting hunting and restricting shooting, and
there is different enabling legislation for each. He added that in discharging firearms ordinances, there is
not a requirement that it actually be posted, as there is with hunting. He said that it is easier to limit
distance from houses than it would be to post the entire County.
Mr. Rooker said that the point of this resolution is to change the current situations – which allows
for unlimited shooting until somebody hits something.
Mr. Davis stated that it is illegal in residential areas, but not in the rural areas or Neighborhood
Model areas. In response to Mr. Boyd’s comment about the Rivanna Rifle Club, Mr. Davis said that
policies affecting specific shooting clubs would need to be part of the discussion.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that he has been tracking development in the County, in response to Mr. W erner’s
earlier comment. He also wanted to further discuss Board participation in other organizations like TJPED.
Mr. Rooker said that his personal opinion is that any organization the Board participates in – by
funding and providing a Board member to serve – should have a policy for how they permit public
comment, how they advertise the meetings, and how they go into executive session.
Mr. Boyd stated that perhaps the County should not impose Freedom of Information Act
guidelines for all of these organizations, adding that he is comfortable with Mr. Tucker monitoring those
meetings.
Mr. Rooker said that he is not suggesting imposing FOI regulations, but simply encouraging the
organization to develop some kind of public policy.
Mr. Slutzky said that the Board was told by TJPED that their meetings were open, and he read
from the minutes related to his decision for the County to join: “It’s my understanding that when TJPED
holds meetings related to its mission, they are open to the public. I will ask our representative to inform
the public as to the time and place of such meetings, and I will also request that our representative provide
briefings to the Board of Supervisors regarding what was discussed, and I intend to share that information
with the public.” He added that what might be discussed in private meetings may be of a sensitive nature,
however, he plans to discuss with Leigh Middleditch the need to have Mr. Tucker present at all of those
meetings. He said that in some cases, TJPED decided to have the meetings earlier than originally
scheduled, and much of what seems to be being discussed is being discussed in executive session. He
believes that it stops being appropriate when a county representative is not there.
Mr. Rooker said that he read through the minutes of TJPED before voting on membership, and it
was clear that most of the organization’s business is done by the executive committee not by the general
board. He noted that the board meets quarterly, whereas the committee meets monthly, adding that the
County needs to be aware of where the business is being done.
Mr. Boyd said that TJPED is not a governing body.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Rooker stated that most of TJPED’s business is done by staff, so most of the executive
committee’s dealings should be open to the public. They can establish what those guidelines are, I’m not
trying to dictate what their guidelines are. Mr. Tucker agreed, stating that they just need to make them
known.
Mr. Slutzky said that TJPED told the County when they joined that their meetings would be
advertised and open to the public. Mr. Davis stated that TJPED is the only organization he can think of
that the County is involved in that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. He said that JABA’s
public board is subject to FOI, but their non-profit side is probably not.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is a big difference between giving money to a charity and
serving on their board and appearing on their letterhead. Mr. Davis said that TJPED is the only
organization the County has representation on that is not subject to FOI.
Ms. Thomas stated that she has suggested that TJPED follow along the lines of what TJPDC has
implemented in terms of public relations.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern with Albemarle dictating that they have a seat on the executive
committee.
Mr. Slutzky responded that he is concerned about so many of those meetings being closed.
Mr. Rooker said that when the executive committee meets, attendance is open to observers, but
when they go into closed session, the meeting is not.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he will tell TJPED that he would like to come meet with the executive
committee. Mr. Davis said that there is no legal reason he can not do that.
Mr. Rooker suggested that what’s been discussed at this meeting be shared with the organization.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that perhaps a regional focus group should be formed on how localities are dealing
with emergency situations. Mr. Tucker stated that he and Mr. Hanson have agreed that some forum is
needed to talk about these things, even though there is an emergency operations plan in place, adding
that the public might not know about this policy.
Mr. Rooker noted that there is a group of City, County and University safety officials that gets
together periodically to run through simulated disaster drills.
Ms. Thomas said that perhaps it should be opened up to all of the TJPDC. Mr. Davis noted that
there is not a plan for TJPDC. Mr. Tucker said that the County is trying to train the people who are
providing emergency response locally.
Mr. Rooker commented that because planning is limited to Charlottesville, Albemarle, and U.Va.,
the best use of resources might be to try to get the word out about what those responses are. He also
emphasized that the area needs to focus on disasters that will most likely affect this area. He said that it
is more likely to have a Lake Anna nuclear accident than there is to have a flood that causes the area to
be submerged.
__________
Ms. Thomas shared a PowerPoint presentation of her trip to the NACo meeting. She mentioned
that other County officials in some areas are dealing with issues such as methamphetamine abuse, child
exploitation, railroad construction, Indian affairs, and such that Albemarle doesn’t really have. She stated
that she learned a lot about what other regions have to deal with. She also presented information on bags
given for trash at public events, to encourage people to separate out trash and recyclables. She reported
that there is a great website associated with NaCo that covers lots of significant issues, such as land use,
retiree health care plans, etc.
__________
Ms. Thomas noted that the County has been working with Crutchfield to recycle electronics when
you come in to buy an item, or pay a small charge for recycling it if you don’t make a purchase. Mr.
Rooker said that it should be publicized more, perhaps with a link from Albemarle’s site to Crutchfield’s.
She mentioned the EnergyStar program out west to encourage environmentally friendly design.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about environmentally-friendly construction practices for the Juvenile Court
building. Mr. Davis replied that it has already been bid.
Ms. Thomas said that the County’s next chance might be the Crozet library. She said that
Albemarle used to rank third in the “Digital Counties” contest, but now the County is number nine. Ms.
Thomas added that next year the NACo annual meeting will be held in Richmond, Virginia, and perhaps
County IT staff could participate, as Ms. Catlin has suggested. Ms. Thomas said that next year the
attendees can be enticed to come to Charlottesville if the County can get itself worked into the program,
noting that there will be busses going to Jamestown.
__________
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Slutzky discussed the recent Al Gore movie, and said he will be bringing to the Board next
week a resolution to consider endorsing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agendas. He and a group of
constituents saw the Al Gore movie and “were shocked into wanting to be proactive.” He said that he
would be encouraging the Board to adopt a resolution – which has already been adopted by Charlottesville
and 135 other localities around the U.S. to support the objectives of the Kyoto Accords. He said that there
are numerous things the County could be doing to reduce CO2 emissions.
Mr. Rooker said that what was distributed to mayors should be shared with Board members, to
determine whether or not there is support.
Mr. Boyd said that if there are budget implications, it should be discussed.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky responded that those things would be discussed.
Ms. Thomas said that she would rather discuss it when there is sufficient time to really give it its
due, as next week’s agenda looks very busy.
Mr. Rooker agreed to move the discussion to October.
__________
In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question about the $200,000 allocation in additional money for the
health insurance gap for public safety officials, Mr. Tucker said that the Board made no motion on the item
after staff presented information to them.
Mr. Davis said that he believes Human Resources staff is going to come back at budget time with
a discussion of a deferred compensation program.
Mr. Rooker noted that the joint meeting with the School Board on compensation in October or
November was the agreed-upon time to discuss this, as they would have more employees affected by
this. He added that it would become problematic to deal with a small group separately.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the stress level of public safety professions can lead to more illness
and disease among those workers.
Mr. Rooker added that they already get $900 more per month than any other retired employees
get. He said that the Board had decided to bring the entire retirement healthcare concept up at the joint
compensation meeting with the School Board.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that the SELC had sent each Board member a letter regarding the Meadow
Creek Parkway, indicating that VDOT couldn’t be trusted to follow plans that the consultant had laid out.
She indicated that it took a fairly well-trained eye to see the differences, and W ill Rieley helped her
understand the differences in design.
Mr. Rooker stated that it might be helpful, since Mr. Slutzky is going to be chair of the MPO, to
have that item put on the next MPO meeting agenda. It may be helpful to put this on an agenda for an
update by VDoT and the City on the design process, how it is going, and get their input.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern that this would impact federal funding for the parkway interchange.
Ms. Thomas said that she was only using that as an example.
Mr. Rooker said that back when there were grade-separated interchanges at Hydraulic,
Greenbrier, and Rio, VDOT designed a “gargantuan” interchange, and it took all kinds of businesses out.
He stated that later the designer told him that VDOT had asked for something bigger, regardless of what
had initially been requested.
___________
Mr. Rooker said that he had sent out an e-mail regarding another county’s website that includes a
link to affordable housing opportunities in the community. He also said that Ron W hite, during North
Pointe, came to the Board with a proposed policy of a sliding scale for credit for the 15 percent of houses
that might sell at different amounts. North Pointe was approved for credit for workforce housing. He has
been getting questions from developers whether the proposed policy is acceptable. The Board informally
adopted a policy that a $16,500 contribution counts for a unit because they have been approving
development proposals that have that in them. The question is on this concept of housing set at a price of
more than $190,000 but less than $250,000, does the Board want to adopt that sliding scale. He
suggested that the Board take some action on Mr. W hite’s proposal.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the Board had given direction that the Housing Committee discuss the
proposal, forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission and then it come back to the Board.
Mr. Davis said the Housing Committee is currently working with the Planning Commission.
In response to comments Ms. Thomas made about what is going on in Montgomery County
Maryland, Mr. Rooker commented that the County’s policy in the Comprehensive Plan is 15 percent of the
units or a comparable contribution to affordable housing. It does not say “and we are going to require ten
percent of something else”. He thinks the issue is what is comparable.
September 6, 2006 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Tucker said the Housing Committee has supported the proposal and it is going to the
Commission. Mr. Rooker said the sooner we are able to firm up a policy, the better so that we can provide
reasonable guidelines for people who are bringing plans forward.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board will be having a work session with the Housing Committee to give
some guidance.
Mr. Rooker said there is a process with the Housing Committee. He is concerned about getting
into the mode of this Board meeting with committees. He does not know where it would stop. This Board
ultimately adopts policy. They take the recommendations from the committee and accept or reject them.
Board members have the option of attending any committee meetings.
Mr. Slutzky wondered if there should be a committee formed to evaluate this, stating that there
does not seem to be a sufficient link with the Board to the Affordable Housing Committee.
Mr. Rooker said that anyone can attend the Housing Committee meetings and provide input. He
also suggested that Mr. Slutzky sit down with Ron W hite, adding that Mr. Slutzky can raise issues with this
Board that can be conveyed to Mr. W hite who will share them with the committee.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the County has come a long way in its efforts to support affordable
housing, although there is more to be done.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would probably attend their meeting, but will make sure that he does not
speak on behalf of the Board; his comments will be his own views. Mr. Rooker said that no one has any
problem with him sharing his ideas.
Mr. Tucker stated that Board members just need to be careful not to become the “driver” in the
situation so that the committee feels it has to act on those suggestions.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked about the status of the Preddy Creek property being turned into a County park.
Mr. Tucker responded that staff has met with neighbors out there, who have a “passive” plan, and there
have been several ideas discussed – including an equestrian course because the trails are there. He
added that there needs to be a Comp Plan amendment for that to be a park.
Mr. Davis said that one challenge has been trying to find an entrance, and that is an important first
step to be accomplished. Also, there needs to be a finding that it is consistent with the Comp Plan –
which should not be a huge hurdle.
Ms. Thomas asked about the land that had been donated to the County for a park in W hite Hall.
Mr. Davis responded that it has been very complicated and the County has had to acquire property for
parking, but it is well underway and should work. Mr. Tucker said that the landowners’ siblings have made
it more difficult than anticipated, but it is still a good site for a park.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked when the Board will begin to meet in the new auditorium. Mr. Tucker responded
that it will be ready soon.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 28. At 5:35 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion
was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting to 2:30 p.m. on September 13,
2006, Room 235.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier
NAYS: None.
_______________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 09/05/2007
Initials: EWJ