2006-09-13September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 13, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from September 6, 2006.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth 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, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg,
Chief of Planning, David Benish, and Clerk, Ella W . Carey.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
NonAgenda. Meadow Creek Parkway Funding.
Mr. Rooker noted that before proceeding with the agenda, there are three sheets that have been
distributed to Board members regarding funding of the Meadow Creek Parkway. The first was prepared
for the recent meeting with Legislators regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway deficit and to encourage
additional transportation funding in the upcoming session. He reported that a meeting was called by
Delegate David Toscano, which was attended by Butch Davies of the Commonwealth Transportation
Board, City Mayor David Brown, and VDOT staff to review the project status and schedule, including
city/county funding. Mr. Rooker said that on the first page of updated information, VDOT’s estimate show
that the county’s deficit has increased by $1.6 million, and the city’s deficit has increased to $5.1 million –
based on right of way acquisition, etc.
He indicated that the second page – entitled Albemarle County Funding – shows various six-year
plan projects that will likely need to be delayed unless there is additional state transportation funding in the
current year. The Meadow Creek Parkway is a totally state funded project; it does not have federal funds.
It would be detrimental to the time schedule of the Parkway if it got federal funds and had to go back
through federal compliance. Mr. Rooker added that the county is going to need to find another $4.5
million if the goal is to keep the Parkway on schedule. The last page of the information is a more detailed
explanation of the current costs of the county’s section of the Meadow Creek Parkway and how these
costs breakdown among the various components, i.e., right-of-way acquisition, preliminary engineering,
engineering and construction, etc. He also said that “the long and short of it is we’re going to have to
delay other projects if we’re going to get the Meadow Creek Parkway.”
Mr. Boyd asked if the city seemed to be willing to come up with their part of the additional funding.
Mr. Rooker replied that Mayor Brown has said that the city has indicated their willingness to look at ways
to allocate money to keep the project on schedule. Mr. Rooker added that their deficit might be
overstated, as $2.0 million is allocated for parkway right-of-way acquisition and assuming the city donates
that right-of-way to the project or provide an easement free of charge, that $2.0 million might not be
necessary. Mr. Tucker said that the city is probably going to have to conduct the same evaluative process
as the county to determine how money needs to be moved around to accommodate the Meadow Creek
Parkway project.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that it’s important to move forward collaboratively. Mr. Tucker said county
staff can follow-up with city staff to see what they are planning and their thoughts on how they might make
up that deficit.
Mr. Rooker noted that virtually all revenue-sharing money that has been allocated to projects
could be moved. The county can make a decision on which projects to take the money from in order for
the Parkway to go forward contingent on the city also staying on schedule.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said that the first step for the county would be to act on the
Secondary Road Plan, which staff plans to bring to the Board in November or December. He noted that
staff is trying to keep Jarman’s Gap and Georgetown Road projects on track, as the Board has
recommended those as well as Meadow Creek to move forward.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Phasing & Clustering of Rural Area Subdivisions, Family Divisions; Mountain
Overlay District.
Mr. Rooker opened the discussion by mentioning general statements in the Comprehensive Plan
such as “to be consistent with the guiding principles, the county’s land development policies must be
changed to stop the ongoing trend toward fragmentation and loss of rural character,” adding that there are
a number of statements throughout the Plan that talk about the fact that there is fragmenting occurring,
and phasing and clustering were among recommendations to try and thwart that. He indicated that the
Planning Commission has spent time on the issue, and came back with a recommendation for a joint
program of phasing and clustering; the public had an opportunity to comment on those proposals. He
added that Albemarle has consulted with other localities to gain information on their phasing and
clustering policies. The purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss the proposals and to provide guidance to
staff.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Slutzky stated that he is comfortable voting for all proposed items, as he has been advocating
all along for measures to help stem the tide of development in the rural areas.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Davis about the constitutionality of a phasing ordinance, in response to the
committee report from Neil W illiamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum. Mr. Davis replied that there is an
Attorney General’s opinion that phasing cannot be accomplished under the Subdivision Ordinance, which
he (Mr. Davis) agrees with. This proposal is not based on the Subdivision Ordinance; it is based on the
Zoning Ordinance. He added that there are general provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which allow for
regulation of density and timing of development; and although phasing is not specifically enabled in the
zoning regulations, there is a viable and defendable argument that under the general authorities that are
set forth in the zoning enabling legislation that there is enabling authority for a phasing ordinance. Mr.
Davis added that Rockingham and Madison counties have taken that position and have not been
challenged on that. He commented that there is “devil in the details as the ordinance is drafted.”
Mr. Boyd asked how many counties have phasing. Mr. Davis responded that he believes it is very
limited, but other than the counties Mr. Rooker mentioned, he is not aware of any others in Virginia that
have implemented it. Mr. Rooker said that Madison, Rockingham, Augusta, and Orange have done it.
Mr. Davis noted that the concept is the same, but each of the ordinances is different.
Mr. Dorrier emphasized that the public is not in favor of the proposed ordinance; and nine out of
ten speakers came out against phasing. He does not understand why the Board is considering it when
there is such strong bias and disfavor. He said that it seems discriminatory against older people, and puts
people who put all of their investments into land at risk. If the residents of Albemarle County do not want
phasing, he does not understand why the Board is pushing it.
Mr. Rooker responded that people with an economic interest show up to speak, and there were
about 35 people who spoke out of about 95,000 in the community. If you look at the surveys that have
been taken of our citizens at large, there is huge support for taking additional steps to protect the rural
area and natural resources. He added that he has had about 100 emails, and about 80 percent of those
are in favor of the combination of phasing and clustering as proposed by the Commission.
Mr. Slutzky said that in the most recent election, the three Board members who were up for
election and won took strong positions on supporting additional measures for protection of the rural areas.
He added that he doesn’t think it’s a fair assumption that the majority of the people are against protecting
the rural areas.
Mr. W yant emphasized that he doesn’t think anyone is against protecting the rural areas, but “how
we go about it” is the issue. He indicated that he has received phone calls that are the opposite of what
Mr. Rooker has received. It depends on the constituency and demographics. The W hite Hall, Scottsville
and Samuel Miller District contain more rural area than the other districts. He added that most of the
people who spoke did not understand what the proposal was about.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he is not sure the County needs phasing. There are developments
occurring under current ordinances that complement the County. He questions the proposal for two
development rights in a ten year period which is disadvantageous to elderly people. He noted that some
people are reliant on being able to sell their property in order to get money for medical expenses and other
imperative things.
Mr. Rooker commented that in the Commission’s version of the plan, a landowner could sell as
many as four lots in the first year, and there has been a lot of misinformation circulated about this plan.
He stated that this proposal makes family subdivisions an exception, and it is “not nearly as onerous as a
lot of people seem to [think].”
Ms. Thomas stated that most people she has spoken to have come around to an agreement on
phasing, once they understood it fully, providing it keeps large outside developers from coming in and
tearing up rural land. There are 50,000 potential lots in the rural areas. There are 7,500 dwelling units
currently in the pipeline or have been approved in the development area. Just two days ago, the city
discovered they had 2,600 dwelling units in its pipeline. The County has provided tremendous potential for
development in the development area; and a lot of those people (in the development area) are asking
what we are doing to keep the rural areas rural. Several years ago, the Board decided not to downzone
land in the rural area. At that time the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which included
phasing and clustering. W hat we’re proposing is some way to make sure that the big outside developers
don’t salivate after our rural area and decide that’s exactly where they want to make their purchases and
their buildings, and phasing of some sort – no matter how small a step and how restrictive – is going to be
our best tool for keeping our rural areas lived in and developed by local people. She added that phasing
tied with clustering is going to be our best chance to have the form of development in the rural area that
our voters and citizens have said again and again that they want to see. It is the basis for our whole
growth management that has been occurring since the 1970’s.
Mr. W yant emphasized that any type of phasing implemented decreases property values. He
mentioned a hypothetical situation of a landowner wanting to subdivide to allow for their children to live on
the property. Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas emphasized that family subdivisions are exempt. Mr. W yant
said that that doesn’t hold true for the purchaser. Mr. Rooker stated that there is no evidence in the
places that have adopted phasing that there has been any decline in property values.
Mr. Slutzky indicated that there have been at least four articles he’s read that show property
values as being either neutral or increased based on appraisals.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the only tools the county has are land use mechanisms, as there is
no power to prevent developers from coming in. W e have to try to have land use policies in place where
we end up having the county go in the direction that we want it to go from a land use standpoint. He
added that since 1979, over 95,000 acres of the rural area have been subdivided. Mr. Rooker
emphasized that this greatly fragments the rural area, noting that in 1950 Fairfax County was the greatest
dairy-producing county in the state. Today there are probably not ten cows in Fairfax County.
Mr. Boyd said that it’s the economic engine that changed that area, not placement of subdivisions.
Mr. Rooker noted that there are more and more pressures to subdivide as the price that can be
gained from land sales continues to increase. W hat is it that will slow down the fragmentation of our rural
areas?
Mr. Dorrier said that the county should move in the direction of conservation easements whereby
property owners can voluntarily protect their land. Mr. Rooker responded that there is an ACE program
that encourages this already.
Mr. W yant stated that people don’t want to get involved because of restrictions, adding that it
needs to be established what can attract landowners to the program.
Mr. Boyd mentioned “baggage” and restrictions associated with conservation easements. Mr.
Rooker asked what the baggage is. Mr. Boyd responded that the restrictions on the property, having to
get approval from government officials, etc. Ms. Thomas said that she has tried to track down who those
people are, and has not found any who feel there is “baggage” associated with conservation easements.
Mr. Boyd noted that Albemarle has more area in conservation easements than any other county.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the reasons the county leads the state is that the Piedmont
Environmental Council is located here; there are people who want the tax incentives that conservation
easements bring. W e’ve got 400,000 acres of rural land. And we’re not going to preserve the rural
character of Albemarle County solely through the ACE Program. He added that the county can work with
the PEC, VOF, and Nature Conservancy to try to “make their job easier,” but what the county has the most
direct influence over are “land use policies.” Mr. Rooker said that phasing was a compromise strategy in
lieu of downzoning.
Mr. Dorrier said that putting land in conservation easements allows for compensation and seems
to be a much better way to approach it.
Ms. Thomas stated that she didn’t understand why those would be a better option than not giving
up development rights at all with phasing and clustering.
Mr. Rooker asked for a “straw poll” on phasing.
Mr. Slutzky said that there are fairness issues that trouble him, but the county has committed to
protecting the rural area so he is ultimately willing to support it.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is opposed to phasing, but does want to protect rural areas through
making development attractive in the designated growth areas and through enhancing the conservation
easement program.
Mr. Dorrier said that he is opposed to phasing, but supports the conservation easement program.
Ms. Thomas noted how little the county is doing to support the ACE Program, and asked how
much the Board wants to raise taxes to preserve more acres.
Mr. Boyd said it sounds to him that Albemarle is doing the best job in the state, and finding out
what reservations people have would forward that program even more, along with “easing restrictions” on
conservation easements. Mr. Rooker responded that the county has only preserved 4,500 acres out of
61,000 in the state, as most are done through the agencies so the county has no control over
conservation easement restrictions.
Ms. Thomas said that if the parameters for conservation easements need to be changed, then the
county would have to tackle the IRS.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he had seen a map that showed half of county land in conservation
easements. Ms. Thomas said that that percentage is about 18 percent.
Mr. Rooker said that perhaps what he is viewing is Shenandoah National Park property. W e’ve
got about 80,000 out of 440,000 acres, which is about 18 percent. Mr. W yant asked what number they
want to get to. Mr. Rooker responded that there is a very aggressive conservation easement goal, and
wondered if there were four Board members who were interested in promoting phasing at all.
Mr. Rooker said that since he did not get an adequate indication from four Board members to
move forward with phasing, it should be abandoned as a strategy. Mr. Rooker thanked staff and the
Planning Commission for all of their work on the proposal, even though it would not go forward.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Boyd said that personally supporting the Nature Conservancy and similar organizations would
go a long way to promoting conservation easements and other similar land protection efforts.
Mr. Rooker stated that what was recommended to the Board from the Planning Commission was
something that combined phasing and clustering, and the county currently has a Rural Preservation
Development clustering option that has some discretionary characteristics with it. It’s been reasonably
popular, but it’s not mandatory, and the question is do we want to go down the road of mandatory
clustering as the only way to develop in the rural areas.
Mr. Rooker said that clustering without phasing is a “double-edged sword” that might lead to
quicker development in the rural areas than what’s being experienced now. He added that with clustering
it would make it easier to put a large number of lots in the rural areas instead of in the growth areas.
Mandating clustering would prohibit perhaps a number of innovative approaches to better utilizing rural
resources. He would support the two in combination, but without phasing he does not think we should go
down the road of mandatory clustering. He thinks that we should preserve our Rural Preservation
Development option.
Mr. Rooker again thanked staff and the Planning Commission for all their work on this.
__________
Mr. Rooker reviewed that the Board had appointed a committee two and one-half years ago to
make a recommendation concerning mountain protection that would have broad support from different
segments of the county. He emphasized that the committee had broad and diverse representation, and
made a recommendation to the Board and Commission followed by public information meetings and
public hearings.
Ms. Thomas said that the committee felt their charge was to come up with something effective,
met the charge in the Comprehensive Plan and was adoptable. She indicated that the group started work
on April 5th, 2004 and began reading from Fred Scott’s “Proposed Changes to the Findings and Purpose
of Ordinance” section of the April 7th version of the straw proposal (attached). Ms. Thomas said that the
group had recommended phasing and clustering, and development rights were discussed at great length.
She noted that the group talked about clustering being one of the best ways to use existing measures to
help protect rural areas. Ms. Thomas said that one of the committee’s primary concerns was making sure
that erosion was not increased in the mountain areas.
She explained that the committee viewed clustering, monetary incentives, and zoning as a “three-
legged stool” for the Mountain Protection Ordinance and perhaps the zoning measures were not made
clear enough. Ms. Thomas said that there are a number of monetary incentives such as conservation
easements and the committee formulated a list of many of these. She indicated that there are 1,800
parcels in the Mountain Overlay District and since then 375 of those have been built upon. W e do have
an issue of losing our mountainous areas and she commended the work that the committee did.
Mr. Boyd said that he did not understand the monetary incentives, especially in the case of lost
development rights. Ms. Thomas replied that the committee talked a lot about loss of development rights,
and there are lots of parcels that would not be able to use those because of topographical barriers, but
“we didn’t talk about compensation, but rather, incentives.”
Mr. Boyd asked what was new in the MOD proposal. Ms. Thomas responded that the proposal
includes moving property distance from a minimum of 100 feet to 200 feet from intermittent streams, and
requires a soil erosion plan that is not currently required.
Mr. Rooker said that anything in the books could be argued as being costly to the landowner, and
he noted that he has received a number of complaints from areas that aren’t in the mountains where
people have developed in the rural areas without an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (E&S) and
have created all kinds of erosion problems for their neighbors.
Ms. Thomas stated that most people don’t have land just on the ridge and the critical slopes, and
if they do they probably don’t have a lot of actual development rights. She said that a lot of mountain
properties already have roads built up to them, and there is often another access from a neighboring
property rather than going straight up. Ms. Thomas stated that the committee felt strongly that there
needed to be a sufficient emergency access route for fire and rescue.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board should consider whether these measures should be adopted in the
rural areas in general, not just in the Mountain Overlay District, noting that the recommendations focus on
resource protection and safety. He commented that since the other things have been “put aside,” would
the Board consider taking the recommendations from the committee and applying them to the rural areas
in general.
Mr. Boyd asked if the 200-foot distance from intermittent streams, and wondered if that was as
necessary on flat lands.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the current 100-foot distance was rather “minimalist” to begin with in terms
of protecting natural resources.
Mr. W yant expressed concern about the impact on farmers if the stream buffer is made even
greater. Mr. Davis responded that the existing ordinance only applies a 25-foot buffer to cropland, and
that is not being proposed for change.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Rooker said that the cropland would remain an exception, as the new provisions apply to
residential construction.
Mr. W yant commented that the E&S plan kind of bothers him.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that in Denver, Colorado and Asheville, North Carolina, previously
mountainous areas are now full of subdivisions.
Mr. Boyd asked if Albemarle’s current critical slope ordinance would prevent this from happening.
Ms. Thomas replied that because of state legislation, the county can’t be exclusively concerned with
aesthetic impact, but can consider proposed development based on environmental impacts.
Board members then suggested going through the committee’s recommendations.
Mr. Benish reported that the ordinance is drafted in a way that if the MOD is adopted, the
requirement for erosion and sediment control would have a new threshold of 2,500 square feet that
automatically kicks in.
Mr. Davis noted that the W ater Protection Ordinance already has a provision in it that anticipated
the adoption of the Mountain Overlay District which provides there would be a 2,500 square feet threshold;
if the MOD is adopted, then that goes with it. He added that it is possible to apply that limit to the entire
RA district, but that would require written revisions.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Chesapeake Bay Act requires setback for structures from streams
that ultimately feed into the bay, and the reason for implementing these standards would be to protect
Albemarle County’s own water.
Mr. W yant asked how far upstream they should go, noting the intermittent and perennial stream
differences.
Mr. Davis explained that there are two different areas required under the Bay Act – a resource
protection area has to have 100 feet on each side of a stream or other body of water; and a resource
management area that is a larger area than the resource protection area. He indicated that some
jurisdictions under the Chesapeake Bay Act adopted the resource management restrictions county-wide,
whereas other jurisdictions mapped them based on sensitive soils and other characteristics identified
under the Chesapeake Bay Act. Mr. Davis emphasized that the area could include large or small areas
depending on the approach a locality might want to take and the characteristics of the soil, noting that
Albemarle voluntarily adopted the resource protection area requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Act. It
could be 200 feet, it could be more.
Mr. Boyd asked what the difference between an intermittent stream and a drainage ditch is. Can
people redirect intermittent streams? Mr. W yant responded that the USGS maps define intermittent
stream locations.
Mr. Boyd wondered if it would be possible to direct a stream into a perennial stream. Mr. Davis
replied that the Chesapeake Bay Act prohibits that in protection areas, and the Army Corps of Engineers
also has some oversight into management of watersheds. He added that Albemarle’s regulations in
protection areas are pretty restrictive compared to other localities.
Mr. Benish noted that the Mountain Protection Ordinance also stipulates that driveways would be
subject to critical slope provisions whereas currently they’re not. He added that roads are subject to
certain standards, such as safe access, but there is not a prohibition on roadways on critical slopes
currently. Mr. Benish noted that height restrictions, etc., would also be relevant to an MOD district.
Mr. Davis emphasized that the critical slope regulations that apply to how lots are accessed would
be the most significant change.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s question about grandfathering in lumbering roads, Mr. Benish explained
that the MOD ordinance does provide use for one house and noted that that would be applicable to the
1,800 homes currently captured in the district boundaries.
Mr. Boyd asked if that could be changed to be one road for a cluster. Mr. Benish said that that
would be possible to change in the ordinance, adding that the intent of the MOD is based on the
assumption that greater clustering could be done under the current ordinance, which restricts clustering to
20 lots under RPD provisions. He mentioned that the county has a long history, for example in the
Covesville area that took mountain properties and aggregated clusters of 40 or 50 lots.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the county cannot change that at this point. Mr. Davis replied that if
the county changed it, they would have to come into compliance with all the new state regulations that
would apply to clusters, by-right. One of the main requirements is that it has to be by-right and ministerial
with no review by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that the purpose of the MOD is to enact environmental protection
measures, but there are a lot of ways that the waiver process accommodates the landowner better than
the current ordinance.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Ms. Joan McDowell, Planner, noted that if the road was in place before December 10, 1980, you
could establish your first single-family residence provided you didn’t have a place that you didn’t need to
build on the top.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the limit to one house on a property is kind of restrictive. Ms. Thomas
said that the MOD does not address family subdivisions because it assumes that those rights are there in
Albemarle County.
Mr. Davis noted that family subdivisions currently have to comply with all applicable zoning
regulations except for road/driveway standards, and the assumption was that would continue. It doesn’t
change the VDOT entrance requirements, only the actually construction standards of the roadway itself.
He said that his interpretation is that you could have one house on the mountaintop, and two others below
the ridgeline. Mr. Davis emphasized that if someone has three development rights and wants to do a
family subdivision, they could put three houses on top of a mountain if they meet all zoning requirements;
under this proposal they would be limited to one on top of the mountain.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that that would only apply from a road standard. Mr. Davis agreed,
adding that if a suitable building site can be found and a landowner can meet all the zoning requirements
relating to critical slopes, drainfields, etc. that exist today, they could put three houses on top of the
mountain. Under this proposal, he added, they would be limited to one on top of the mountain if they have
to traverse critical slopes.
Mr. Slutzky noted that there is a waiver process as part of this that is available to landowners.
Mr. W yant asked if the property would comply if there was already a road – such as a logging road
– built on the property. Mr. Slutzky replied that if it was built before 1980, then yes. Mr. Rooker read from
the proposed ordinance: “a ban on construction would not apply to roads built for forestry, agriculture, and
horticultural purposes.” Mr. Davis said that he isn’t sure if it’s been fully worked out by the committee.
Mr. Benish said that he thinks the intent is that an existing road prior to 1980 would be exempt
from that provision of the ordinance, and what kicks in after that would be a waiver procedure for roads.
The next step is looking at those concepts and how you apply those in practical form.
Ms. McDowell said that there is also a section in the critical slopes section that talks about roads
built for agriculture, horticulture or forestry purposes, stating that after they were built after 1980 they
couldn’t be converted for residential.
Mr. Slutzky added, “Except with a waiver.” He emphasized that he wants to make sure the public
is aware of what those details are so there are not misconceptions about exceptions such as family
subdivisions.
Ms. Thomas said that the keeping of roads is a primary concern as there is skepticism about
building them on critical slopes. She indicated that there is also cynicism about holding family
subdivisions for five years before and after they are divided, noting that she did not want to take up any
more staff time unless the Board is sincere about the Mountain Protection Ordinance.
Mr. W yant stated that the concern is in the details of the ordinance.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there are really only four parts to it: protection of critical slopes; an
erosion and sediment control plan for certain amounts of land disturbance; an enhanced stream buffer;
and height restrictions and safe access.
Mr. Boyd asked if the five-year limitations already existed or is part of the MOD.
Ms. McDowell said that it wasn’t connected with the MOD, but was connected with the phasing
and clustering because family subdivisions were going to be exempt from both of those ordinances. She
added that the state is allowing 15 years now.
Mr. Rooker said that that provision means a person has to hold it that long.
Mr. Slutzky commented that there is something to be said for preserving the interest of families
who have been “long-time stewards” of their land.
Mr. Boyd asked how a property owner demonstrates building a second mountaintop structure is
not detrimental.
Mr. Rooker said that if someone complies with critical slopes and stream buffers, a landowner can
build a second home.
Mr. Dorrier commented that people do not want to have to jump through hoops to build on their
property, especially through an arbitrary process.
Mr. Davis explained that it’s not an arbitrary decision, but if it’s a waiver to be granted by the
Planning Commission or staff, an ordinance would have to set forth identifiable standards or criteria to be
measured against the request. The challenging part of an ordinance and a waiver process is coming up
with that criteria, and he thinks it would be challenging in this case to capture fully the criteria that would
affect the intent of the ordinance.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Benish mentioned that clustering was intended to be part of this ordinance to help minimize
building on ridge tops, and without that mandatory clustering there is a vacuum about how to evaluate the
number of units on mountain tops.
Mr. Boyd said that perhaps one reason to grant a waiver would be good voluntary clustering.
Mr. Dorrier asked about transfer of development rights from mountaintop to lowland. Mr. Rooker
replied that in effect, clustering does that. He emphasized that he does not want to pass an ordinance
that encourages even more development in the mountain areas.
Mr. W yant commented that if a section could be put in that communicates the specifics a little
better, it would be easier and more likely to be accepted by the public.
Ms. Thomas expressed concern that if the Board waits to review an ordinance until every detail is
worked out ahead of time, they are criticized for not allowing sufficient public input.
Mr. Rooker said that he might not be willing to accept a proposal that says a building height
cannot exceed the height of an adjacent crest, because in driving around the mountains a lot of the most
hidden sites are on top rather than on the sides. He thinks that we need to certainly consider whether
we’re really achieving anything by that particular prohibition if we protect stream buffers, and if we protect
critical slopes.
Mr. Slutzky noted that that may have been an aesthetically-driven requirement that could be
reworked. He suggested that staff evaluate the current state of rural protection now that other pieces are
not in place (like phasing).
Mr. Rooker said that at the next work session what’s been proposed with respect to the Mountain
Protection Ordinance would be discussed; as well as the fact there is not a mandatory phasing and
clustering provision to go along with it; how it works with family subdivisions; to get a better perspective of
perennial versus intermittent streams; to get a sense of whether these measures might be applicable
throughout the rural areas.
Mr. Tucker noted that the MOD has gotten a “bad rap,” but he understands the Board wants
information on rural area protection as a whole, not just as it relates to mountain areas.
Mr. Dorrier said that he wants to make sure the waiver process is discussed.
At this time it was the consensus of Board members to move forward with an overview of the
proposal for a Mountain Protection Ordinance as discussed above for a work session with the Planning
Commission.
The Board then took a recess at 4:42 p.m., and reconvened at 4:49 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Green Building and Sustainability
Mr. Graham provided an overview of the following executive summary which was forwarded to
Board members:
“Over the past several months, some Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission members
have expressed an interest in reviewing green building and sustainability against existing County policies
and what others are doing in this area. The attached report from Community Development staff
examines sustainability and green design and what steps other localities and organizations have taken.
This includes a review of recent efforts by the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. W ith
this review of green building and sustainability, the Board can determine if additional initiatives in this area
are desired.
Philosophically, the green building movement exists in order to address a wide range of
environmental issues, from protecting forests and habitats to saving energy, reducing toxins, and keeping
materials out of landfills. It seeks to protect the whole planet as well as a building’s occupants. The
buildings created through pursuing these ideals are often healthier to live in, have lowered operational and
maintenance costs, and a have better “feel” to them. As a result, they achieve a broad appeal far beyond
traditional environmentalism.
Checklists are the main tool used to evaluate the effectiveness of a green project. Green rating
systems, whether for buildings or land planning, offer an ala-carte list of options for fulfilling green design.
W hile those are very helpful, underlying those lists is a fundamentally different way of thinking. It’s about
optimizing a building’s relationship with its external environment. It’s about making buildings reflect the
way we use them and it’s about looking at our impacts locally, regionally, nationally, and globally.
Defining green building and planning is challenging because it encompasses many environmental
issues and can be applied on many levels. As green building address a wide range of issues where the
modernized world pushes against protection of natural resources, there are no fixed set of priorities.
Instead, solutions are based on carefully weighing all of the issues and recognizing compromises will be
required. In addition to green building, there are smarter ways of designing neighborhoods and
communities that decrease impacts. This is sometimes referred to as “green planning”.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Green building and green planning is about building with smaller impacts and lower lifecycle costs.
As such, the green building and green planning movements push for a decreased dependence on
energy and other resources by requiring less. By extension, green design responds to our dependence on
the world’s conventional fuel supply and offers hope for resilience in changing market conditions. Green
building techniques and various approaches to landscaping, water consumption, and water collection work
to demand less from the public water supply. As our regional climate has trended toward drought several
of the past eight years, green building and water conservation is an increasingly relevant tool to make
better use of our water resources Though the green building and planning movements began as an effort
to address a wide range of environmental impacts, it is also a method for local government to buffer itself
from the fiscal impacts of a volatile energy market and shifts in climate.
Green Building Rating Program
Green building rating programs have been developed and implemented locally, regionally, and
nationally to provide some measure of effectiveness. Local rating programs, discussed in more detail by
location below, are a locally-developed and administered program that helps to guide local government
and developers toward a more green design. Local rating systems may have particular objectives. For
instance, solar power and water conservation may be more important in New Mexico while sustainable-
harvested building materials and energy efficient heating systems may be more important in Maine.
National rating systems provide a checklist or guidelines to encourage green design and construction with
less weighting of locally important issues. In general, all green rating systems set a standard for what is
green. In some localities, green building checklists are reviewed in conjunction with development
proposals. See Attachment C, D and E for examples of the leading national green building rating system
checklists.
Energy Star – National Program
Energy Star is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Department of Energy to help consumers save money, make energy go farther, and protect the
environment through energy efficient products and practices. Americans, with the help of Energy Star,
saved enough energy in 2005 alone to avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 23
million cars while saving $12 billion on their utility bills. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed in to law last
summer, significantly increases incentives for a wide range of Energy Star programs. See Attachment D
for the Energy Star incentives made available through the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Energy Star qualified homes are at least 15 percent more energy efficient than homes built to the
2006 International Energy Conservation Code. W ith the help of independent Home Energy Raters, Energy
Star builder partners choose the most appropriate energy-saving features for their homes. Additionally,
raters conduct onsite testing and inspections to verify that the homes qualify as Energy Star. However,
other options and incentives exist for utilizing Energy Star-rated products in new and existing commercial
and residential buildings.
The Energy Star program offers tax credits for new construction and renovations for commercial,
institutional, and residential uses. For example, a homeowner who retrofits an existing home with Energy
Star windows and heat pump qualifies for a tax credit of 10 percent of the cost of the windows and 30
percent (up to $300 on a system costing at least $500) of the cost of the heat pump. Home builders are
eligible for a $2,000 tax credit for a new Energy Star-rated home.
Energy Start Tax Deductions for Commercial Buildings
Through Energy Star, a tax deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot is available to owners or
designers of new or existing commercial buildings that save at least 50 percent of the heating and cooling
energy of a building that meets certain standards. Partial deductions of up to $.60 per square foot can be
taken for measures affecting any one of three building systems: the building envelope, lighting, or heating
and cooling systems.
LEED – National Program
The LEED program (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) represents the efforts of a
coalition including the US Green Building Council to establish a nationwide standard for constructing
“green” buildings. Obtaining LEED certification requires compliance with a minimum number of criteria
affecting many aspects of a project, from site selection to the recycled content of building materials.
Projects earn points for criteria that they fulfill; those that earn more points are awarded a higher level of
certification. Thus far, participation in the LEED program has been mostly voluntary. Some government
entities have implemented requirements that publicly funded projects apply for LEED certification.
W hile empirical and projected data vary widely, the American Institute of Architects estimates that
LEED certification will add from one to 15 percent to a project’s construction costs. An analysis of the cost
of LEED certification prepared by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants of W estford,
Massachusetts for The American Chemistry Council of Arlington, Virginia has determined that obtaining
LEED certification adds from four to eleven percent to a project’s construction costs. More than half of
these costs are for “greening” investments in alternative systems, practices, and materials that earn points
under the LEED system. The remaining costs fall outside of the range of construction costs; these are
“soft costs” and they include incremental costs for design, documenting compliance, and verifying
compliance through the commissioning process. The cost impact of LEED certification may decline over
time as a percentage of total construction costs as architects, contractors, and consultants become more
familiar with the process.
Given the County’s objective of fiscal responsibility, a focus on LEED principles short of
certification may allow us to achieve green building goals without some of the soft costs that go along with
certification. This has been done in other localities by using the LEED certification criteria and hiring a
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
LEED-certified architect or designer. However this approach, though intended to recognize the fine
balance local government works to achieve with revenue, would not yield much if it led to only marginally
environmentally-friendly buildings.
Earth Craft – Regional Program
Earth Craft House is a green building program that serves as a model for healthy and comfortable
homes that reduce utility bills and protect the environment. Earth Craft House is a partnership between the
Greater Atlanta Home Builders Association, Southface (a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving
understanding of sustainable building), and other government and industry partners focusing on
residential construction and renovation. Earth Craft Homes are currently being built and certified in
Virginia, including Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
The Southface Institute, the organization that administers the Earth Craft rating, estimates that
energy upgrades on a 1,500 square foot home in the Earth Craft House program would cost only $700
more than a standard ($160,000) home. For example, improvements to the home’s building envelope
(insulation, sheathing, windows) allows for a smaller air conditioner to be installed. Earth Craft design
allows for the cost of green upgrades to be mitigated in some other way. Though the upfront cost is
slightly higher, the long-term costs are lower because the utility costs are much lower.
An Earth Craft home must be certified as Energy Star. A builder must provide verification of
Energy Star certification upon completion of construction. The house must be rated “5 star” by a certified
rater, requiring a blower door and a duct pressurization test plus a certified software rating. This rating
qualifies the developer for a $2,000 Energy Star tax credit as outlined above. The implementation of
Energy Star or Earth Craft certification and associated residential tax credit programs for builders would
provide enough credit to cover certification costs and a portion of the cost of “green” upgrades.
Green Building Programs - Local
Most local-government green building programs are implemented through a formal municipal
process such as comprehensive plan change or ordinance adoption. Mandatory programs are typically
codified through a standard local procedure. In many cases, programs are implemented through a
committee created for this purpose. Many green building programs have no mandatory requirements.
Most green building programs rely on one or more full-time staff members. If a program or rating standard
is created and administered by a locality, trained building inspectors would be needed to provide support
and evaluate a project’s attainment with the established rating system. Additionally, some locations have
offered certification free of charge in support of increasing the number of homes and businesses built
green. Utilizing and augmenting existing green building rating systems, such as LEED, Earth Craft, or
Energy Star to evaluate building performance is normally conducted by a privately-operating trained
inspector. Outreach and education regarding monetary incentives, decreased energy costs, and general
benefits of green building are a critical part of local government green building programs.
Austin, Texas
Austin administers its own voluntary green building program by rating new and remodeled homes
on a scale of 1 to 5 stars in the following areas: energy efficiency, testing, water efficiency, materials
efficiency, health and safety, community. A new or remodeled home in the Austin Energy service area
may be rated if the builder, architect, or designer is a member of the green building program. The Austin
green building program helps developers and homeowners by providing information regarding design and
specification choices.
Boulder, Colorado
Boulder’s Green Points Ordinance created the first mandatory residential green building program
in the United States. Building permit applicants are required to earn Green Points according to a schedule
based on house size. For example, use of certified sustainable-harvested lumber for framing earns 5
points.
Portland, Oregon
Portland’s residential program promotes voluntary green building practices in the general
residential market and sets mandatory requirements for city-funded affordable housing. The residential
program relies heavily of training, outreach, development of materials, and grants. The program grew from
an intensive public process which led to the city council adopting mandatory LEED requirements for city-
funded buildings.
Charlottesville, Virginia
On July 17, 2006, the City of Charlottesville endorsed the U.S. Mayors Global Climate Agreement
which supports policies adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in response to global warming and
climate change. Charlottesville joins at least 202 other cities in endorsing the climate agreement. The
agreement acknowledges the findings of Inter-Governmental
Panel on Climate Change, the international community’s most respected assemblage of
scientists, who have found that climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely
responsible for increased concentration of global warming pollution. Global W arming gasses, based on
data provided by the U.S. EPA and Department of Energy, come from the following sources: automobile:
34 percent; electricity generation: 28 percent; natural gas for heating and cooking: 18 percent; shipment
and processing of goods and waste: 20 percent. The agreement challenges municipalities to inventory
and then work to reduce global warming emissions, adopt and enforce land use policies that reduce
sprawl, purchase only Energy Star-rated equipment, convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel, and increase the
use of clean energy, to name a few. The city of Charlottesville will be developing an action plan in
conjunction with this recent endorsement. To date, the following Virginia cities have signed the climate
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
agreement: Richmond, W illiamsburg, Virginia Beach, and Alexandria. See Attachment D for the U.S.
Mayors Global Climate Agreement.
Charlottesville’s transit center, currently under construction on the east end of the Downtown Mall,
is designed to fulfill the requirements of a LEED certified building. Included in the transit center design are
a geothermal heating and cooling system, recycled and local building materials, water efficient
landscaping, extensive use of natural lighting, and public education displays. This transit center represents
a government project that responds to the U.S. Mayors Global Climate Agreement.
After a charette last spring to explore how the City of Charlottesville may attain a higher level of
energy efficiency and ecological balance, the city formed a green building committee. During a scheduled
review and update of the city’s comprehensive plan this fall, the City of Charlottesville is expected to
include guidelines and objectives prepared by the green building committee in May 2006 to reach the
following goals:
1. Promote the achievement of a 30 percent reduction from current energy use by businesses and
residences through a citywide education, assistance and incentive program.
2. Encourage green building and resource and energy conservation practices in new and existing
buildings through financial incentives.
3. Ensure a consistent citywide policy that promotes green building by ensuing that other city
regulations, practices and guidelines actively allow for and encourage green building practices.
4. Prevent excessive resource use through capturing the ‘embodied energy’ of existing buildings
via adaptive re-use of existing structures to minimize use of ‘virgin’ resources.
Attachment H includes a complete summary of the revisions proposed for the City of
Charlottesville’s Comprehensive Plan.
Arlington County, VA
Arlington County makes use of the LEED green building rating system as a way to measure the
energy and environmental performance of buildings in their county. Arlington is committed to building its
own public facilities using LEED as a guide and the silver LEED certification as the goal. Virginia’s first
Silver LEED certification was awarded to an Arlington school in September 2003. Arlington County
encourages private developers to evaluate the environmental impacts of all site plan projects. In Arlington
County, site plan projects are approved by special exemption of their zoning ordinance. Conditions of
approval for those development applications typically include:
1. LEED Accredited Professional. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that all site plan projects
have a LEED accredited professional on the development team.
2. LEED Scorecard. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that all site plan applications complete
the LEED scorecard with an explanation of each LEED credit, describing how they intend to
achieve the credit, or why they are unable to incorporate the component into the project.
3. LEED Tracking. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that a final number of LEED credits are
identified and the commitment to incorporate them into the project is formalized in a site plan
condition.
4. Construction W aste Management. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that the developer
provide a plan for diverting from landfill disposal the demolition, construction, and land clearing
debris generated by the project.
5. Energy Star Appliances. Approval is conditioned upon agreement that, for multi-family residential
projects, the developer assures that appliances, fixtures, and/or building components used in the
project shall have earned the U.S. EPA's Energy Star label.
Green Building Fund
In 2003, Arlington County established a green building fund and a policy for site plan developers
(site plans approved by special exception) who do not commit to achieving a LEED rating to contribute to
the fund. The contribution is calculated at a rate of $0.03 per square foot. The green building fund is used
to provide education and outreach to developers and the community on green building issues. If a project
achieves 26 or more points and the developer receives LEED certification from the USGBC, the Fund
contribution is refunded upon receipt of the final LEED certification.
Green Building Incentive Program
Originally adopted in October 1999, the incentive program was revised and enhanced in
December 2003. The program allows a private developer to apply for additional density if the project
achieves a LEED award from the USGBC. The program applies to all types of building projects (office,
high rise residential, etc.) achieving any one of the four LEED awards. The density bonus ranges from a
minimum of .15 FAR for a LEED Certified project to a maximum of .35 FAR for a platinum project.
Alexandria, Virginia
Alexandria made use of the same funds that assisted Albemarle County with our green roof
project. Their project includes a 9,000 square foot green roof, which serves as an outreach and
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
demonstration project. The city of Alexandria has signed the U.S. Mayor’s Global Climate Agreement. To
date, no green building programs exists in Alexandria.
University of Virginia
The University of Virginia has worked to further identify goals and objectives through the creation
of sustainability guidelines. The guidelines are intended to educate students, staff, and A/E consultants.
The university developed and is utilizing a sustainability assessment tool to identify and analyze current
university activities. Sustainability concepts have been applied to various projects and sustainability goals
have been incorporated into the grounds plan for the university. In terms of green planning, the university
has worked to increase walkability and provide excellent management of storm water runoff in new
construction.
Charlottesville Community Design Center
The design center is one of over 40 community design centers across the country that provides
design assistance and works to identify and solve social, economic, and political problems as they relate
to the built environment. This process promotes change to the built environment from the neighborhood to
regional scale, and aims to meet community needs through participatory decision-making at all levels.
Last spring, the Community Design Center assisted the City of Charlottesville with a public
charette to determine the interest of and collect ideas regarding green building from the people of
Charlottesville.
This fall, the design center will focus on the achievements being made in green building and
sustainability in our area. Through this effort, the recognition, visibility, and understanding of green building
will be enhanced. In discussing green building ideas with design center staff, it has been suggested that
an education and outreach partnership between the City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia, and
Albemarle County would provide information and resources to a wide range of residents and could work to
reduce the area’s energy consumption through simple short-term steps and defining long-term goals for
creating a more sustainable region in general.
Green Building Education and Outreach
Fundamentally, all green building programs rely on outreach, education, technical assistance, and
the individual desire of building users to strike a balance between development and the natural
environment. Significant opportunities exist to provide information and guidance on how residents can
build green or go green with existing structures. This can be as simple as winterizing a home to helping a
homeowner in locating the Energy Star tax credit information.
Similar to the pamphlets the County distributes regarding our urban areas, a pamphlet illustrating
tax credits and resources available, techniques for utilizing resources more efficiently, among others can
work to raise awareness, and help residents to better define their vision of a green and clean community.
However, a more comprehensive outreach partnership with multiple organizations would work to address
green building and local stakeholders as a whole. This partnership would likely require funding, but could
be managed and implemented through an organization such as the Charlottesville Community Design
Center.
Green Planning Rating Programs
LEED – ND (for Neighborhood Development)
The LEED for Neighborhood Developments (LEED-ND) rating system, currently under
development, integrates the principles of smart growth, urbanism, and green building into the national
standard for neighborhood design. LEED-ND is being developed by U. S. Green Building Council in
partnership with the Congress for New Urbanism and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Using the framework of the LEED Green Building Rating System, LEED-ND certification will
recognize development projects that successfully protect and enhance the overall health, natural
environment, and quality of life of our communities. Like other LEED rating systems, LEED-ND will deliver
more efficient energy and water use – especially important in urban areas where infrastructure is often
overtaxed. It will also focus on smart growth and new urbanist best practices, including designing
neighborhoods that reduce vehicle miles traveled and building communities where jobs and services are
accessible by foot or public transit.
The LEED – ND program is finalizing the rating criteria and will be seeking entities interested in
their pilot program sometime this fall. Though the rating system is not finalized, the proposed criteria are
established and could be administered or reviewed versus development proposals regardless of the
LEED-ND timeline.
LID – Low Impact Development
Low impact development is a more environmentally sensitive approach to development than
conventional practices. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering
design approach with a goal of maintaining and enhancing the pre-development hydrologic regime of
urban and developing watersheds. LID primarily focuses on site planning and can be approached in
different ways. This design approach incorporates strategic planning with micro-management techniques
to achieve superior environmental protection, while allowing for development. Techniques used to achieve
LID include pervious pavers, rain gardens and biofilters, sand filters and filter vaults, compensatory
plantings, green roofs, and use of cisterns and rain barrels.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
County Comprehensive Plan
In 1996, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan was amended to include a strategy to
support the accords of the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council. Many of these accords are reflected
in the County’s strategic plan today and others have room for further development.
Some of the accords include striving for a size and distribution of human population that will
preserve the vital resources of the region for future generations; ensuring that water quality and quantity in
the region are sufficient to support the human population and ecosystems; promoting clustering in
residential areas and the integration of business, industry, recreation, residential and open space;
retaining farmland and forest land for the future; promoting the sale of locally produced farm and forest
products in local, national and international markets; developing attractive and economical transportation
alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use; providing educational opportunities open to every member of
the community to encourage greater understanding of sustainability issues as they affect individuals and
the region, using formal and informal education and local media coverage. See Attachment A for the
complete set of the Comprehensive Plan’s sustainability goals.
Local Government and School Efforts
To date, the County has undertaken several efforts toward green building and sustainable design.
The most visible accomplishments are the construction of the Monticello High School and associated
storm water management facilities, the construction of the green roof on the County Office Building, tax
credits for energy efficiency measures, as permitted by law, and the adoption of the Neighborhood Model,
which guides a more sustainable form of development. In addition, in January of 2005, the Board of
Supervisors and School Board officially adopted an Environmental Management Policy that clearly states
a commitment to compliance, pollution prevention, and continual overall environmental improvement.
Both local government and the school system have hired environmental compliance managers to begin
implementation of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) with the responsibility for implementing the
adopted policy throughout our operations. General Services has made “green” qualifications a
consideration when hiring A/E firms to design new buildings or major renovations. For example, the
architect for the Crozet library is LEED certified and General Services intends to incorporate cost effective
green building measures into the design. W ith existing operations, General Services is also replacing light
fixtures with high efficiency bulbs, has purchased and is evaluating the performance of hybrid vehicles, is
improving building and grounds maintenance procedures, and is pursuing Low Impact Development (LID)
and Best Management Practices in storm water management.
The schools division has a broad approach to green building and sustainability. This includes the
use of water efficient toilets and shower heads and use of biofilters to improve the quality of the water that
leaves school sites. New carpet installation will use closed cell foam in carpets, and “green” cleaning and
floor finish supplies are used to improve indoor air quality. All interior paint in new construction and
remodels is required to be low in volatile organic compounds. All new classrooms will have a significant
amount of lighting furnished by the sun through low energy efficient windows and roof monitors. New
construction and renovation will include the installation of high-efficiency heating and cooling systems. To
limit energy usage, cycle equipment, and control hall and exterior lights, all existing controls are being
upgraded with direct digital controls. Roof replacement projects and new construction requires an R-30
insulation rating.
Schools are managing energy by using the strategies listed above. Virtually every school now has
summer school and building rental usage throughout the year, which was not the case five years ago.
Despite this increase in usage, the school division has been able to control energy consumption. For
example, the schools consumed less natural gas and fuel oil, per SF in 2005 than in 2000, and
experienced a modest increase of 1 KW H of electricity, per square foot, during the same time frame. This
was accomplished by using the strategies noted above and with the use of energy audits, which involved
nighttime building inspections and encouraged the building occupants to conserve energy. W ith
everyone’s assistance, the school’s 2005/06 over-all energy consumption was less than in 2004/05, even
though several changes were made to buildings, including constructing a new, large gym at Hollymead, an
addition at Henley and an auxiliary gym at Monticello High School.
The School EMS incorporates compliance and pollution prevention-initiatives into its goals,
objectives, and targets. This includes biodiesel testing in school buses, stormwater pollution prevention
training, rechargeable battery recycling, mercury-containing lamp recycling, hazardous chemical clean-out,
electronic waste recycling, chemical hygiene plan for instructional areas, hazardous waste management,
and refrigerant management program. See Attachment B for a complete summary of our efforts. The
school division has developed and implemented a school-wide Environmental Management System
(EMS) that is recognized by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s Environmental Excellence
Program.
Beyond the Sustainability section of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the County has taken
initiative in demonstrating and integrating green building and sustainability into many of its programs.
Beyond those current efforts, questions have typically fallen into three categories: what obstacles can the
County remove, what can the County require, and what can the County do to encourage green building?
What obstacles can the County remove?
It does not appear there are any significant obstacles in County process to green building.
Numerous structures are being built in the County to green building standards and the County permit
process has not been found to create any obstacles. Additionally, the County has already adopted tax
incentives as allowed. Thus, it appears there are no additional obstacles that the County controls.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
What can the County require?
By the building code, the County cannot require buildings to be built to a different standard than
the code. It does not appear local governments have the authority to require structures be constructed to
a different standard than the building code. It is possible that the County could seek commitments to
green building as part of legislative reviews, which will be discussed under ways to encourage green
building.
What can the County do to encourage green building?
There are several possible measures the County could initiate. The following are some
examples.
1. Similar to the University of Virginia, the County can create sustainability guidelines for all
of its future building activities. Recognizing the vast majority of the County buildings are
schools, it would be best if this effort was coordinated with the School Board.
2. Independent of schools, the County can initiate a policy that all future public buildings
should be designed to one of the above described standards. Recognizing certification
can be both expensive and time consuming, this policy should consider whether it is
sufficient to build to the standard or if certification is also required.
3. The Sustainability section of the Comprehensive Plan can be revised to incorporate green
building and sustainability guidelines. The County could then seek commitments to green
building as part of legislative reviews.
4. The County can develop education materials and work with the development industry in
finding ways to encourage more green building.
Incorporating green principles in building and site design often increases the upfront costs when
compared to conventional construction, with reduced lifecycle costs. These additional upfront costs are
associated with design and green upgrades. Given that the long-term operational costs are reduced,
green buildings are designed to pay for themselves over time. The time it takes for a green building to
recover upfront costs varies depending upon the design, efficiency a building achieves, and interest rates
used for determining payback.
The state of California has conducted extensive research on the cost of green building. Though
some variables, such as the cost of electricity and raw materials by region may vary somewhat, they have
found that integrating green building practices into the construction of buildings is a solid financial
investment. A comprehensive analysis contained in a report titled, “The Costs and Financial Benefits of
Green Buildings: A Report to California's Sustainable Building Task Force” finds that a minimal upfront
investment of about two percent of construction costs typically yields life cycle savings of over ten times
the initial investment. For example, an initial upfront investment of up to $100,000 to incorporate green
building features into a $5 million project would result in a savings of at least $1 million over the life of the
building, assumed conservatively to be 20 years.
Green buildings provide a way to help address a range of challenges with budgetary impacts such
as:
- The high cost of utilities
- W ater shortage and waste disposal issues
- Continued state and federal pressure to cut criteria pollutants
- Growing concern over the cost of global warming
- The rising incidence of allergies and asthma, especially in children
- The health and productivity of employees
- The effect of the physical school environment on children’s abilities to learn
- Increasing expenses of maintaining and operating inefficient County facilities
Local government green building and green planning programs have costs. These costs are
relative to the breadth and nature of the program. Programs focusing on education and outreach have the
lowest costs while locally-administered programs require the most staff support, generating the highest
costs.
Finally, if the Board desired to expand efforts at promoting green buildings, there could be
additional operational costs to support that effort. Until that effort is defined, it is not possible to estimate
those costs.
Staff has presented this information to help the Board understand current efforts at green building
and sustainability, as well as what others are currently doing. Should the Board be interested in
expanding beyond the current effort, staff would develop a recommendation based on the Board’s
guidance and bring this to the Board for consideration.”
__________
Following Mr. Graham’s summary, Mr. Sean Dougherty, Planner, reported that the US Mayors’
Climate Agreement takes CO2 levels to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Mr. Slutzky mentioned that he had planned to bring this up for discussion at the Board’s meeting
later tonight.
Mr. Dougherty presented global warming estimates from the EPA and Department of Energy,
presenting maps showing the polar ice caps in 1979 and 2003. He emphasized that green building began
in the 1970’s with approaches to reduce energy consumption and use better materials. Mr. Dougherty
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
said that there are three leading green building systems – Energy Star, LEED, and Earth Craft House. He
explained that Energy Star is a joint effort between the EPA and Department of Energy to rate homes and
appliances and provide tax credits. Mr. Dougherty said that LEED is the highest standard, and is an effort
led the US Green Building Council, and a LEED certification can provide no more additional cost than a
conventional building. He stated that Earth Craft House was developed in Atlanta to save energy and
stave off the need to develop more power plants, so it is a coalition of energy providers, industry and
homebuilders to basically reduce consumption.
Mr. Dougherty said that green planning is land planning that takes into consideration all of the
things that work to minimize a development’s impact, such as the Neighborhood Model. He explained that
in green planning, there is a development underway for a neighborhood rating system which is expected
to be finalized this fall. Mr. Dougherty noted that the low-impact development is basically an approach to
land planning that protects resources, especially waterflow issues and in general decreases impact. He
said that local green programs work off of a standard checklist or framework established by each locality,
or uses one of the nationally established rating systems as mentioned.
Mr. Dougherty presented a list of localities throughout the U.S. that have implemented green
building programs, noting that some of the implementation considerations are lack of awareness, lack of
financial and/or technical resources, perception of increased building costs, complexity of implementation
and resistance to change. He indicated that Charlottesville has signed the climate agreement, updated
their Comprehensive Plan to include green building, and incorporated some measures in their transit
system, and said that U.Va. has developed sustainability guidelines and a sustainability assessment tool
that they have used in their grounds plan. Mr. Dougherty noted that Arlington has several programs that
they have implemented.
Mr. Rooker asked whether the county’s current accords or the guidelines as mentioned would be
more effectively implemented.
Mr. Dougherty replied that the guidelines are more thorough than the county’s current accords,
and the Board and staff would need to take a closer look to get more detailed information. He said that
the guidelines are essentially an internal tool to be used to evaluate actions and plans being taken. He
said that in 1998 the Comp Plan was updated to include a commitment to review the Jefferson
Sustainability Council Statements of Accord, and presented an abridged set of accords. Mr. Dougherty
reported that the county has constructed Albemarle High School, adopted the Neighborhood Model,
constructed a county green roof, hired an environmental management coordinator, implemented an
environmental management policy for the county and the schools, reduced overall energy use, provided
tax credits for energy-efficient measures, required green-qualifications for AE firms hired by the county,
etc. He noted that staff has not found many obstacles that would keep someone from planning or building
green, and what can be required is nothing in excess of the current building code.
Mr. Davis explained, in response to Mr. Rooker’s question, that Arlington requires that the vast
majority of their site plans go through the special use permit process.
Mr. Dougherty said to encourage green building, Albemarle could adopt sustainability guidelines,
initiate a policy independent of the schools that all future public buildings would be built to some nationally
recognized standard, revise the Comp Plan to incorporate green building and sustainability guidelines and
review development proposals against these guidelines.
Mr. Rooker commented that hopefully the Board is interested in having Albemarle be at the
forefront of green building and both the City and University have already gone down this road. He asked
what would be required in terms of staff time, etc. to change the Comp Plan to incorporate some of the
guidelines mentioned.
Mr. Graham said that it has varied from community to community, and Mr. Slutzky has distributed
information on what Seattle has done, noting that it is a very resource-intensive effort. He added that the
University of Virginia is taking a less intense approach to it and are trying to “feel their way through it,”
noting that the county should discuss how they want to proceed as a locality.
Mr. Dougherty said that many studies show that a fairly small up-front investment by localities
yields anywhere from a five to ten-fold benefit in the end.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern that this could be an expensive undertaking, adding that he is not
opposed to spending it on internal process, but said that he is interested in throwing it back to the
development community and let them come forward if they’re willing to take this on.
Ms. Thomas agreed, and asked if it was necessary to have one full-time person to be a LEED
educator in this process and wondered if they could be shared instead.
Mr. Dougherty said that the locally administered green-building programs that use their own
criteria instead of already established criteria require the most staff time.
Mr. Rooker noted that the city is already considering changes to its Comprehensive Plan and they
have had builders attend, noting that there are builders in the area who are going down this road. He
mentioned the Belvedere development as an example of green building.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Graham suggested that perhaps building inspectors could be trained to become “LEED
inspectors” whereby they would be qualified to perform LEED inspections including the green building
standards.
Mr. Rooker wondered if it would be possible to engage the homebuilders and have the city and
county each put up some money to enable that process, as there are a lot of builders who seem to be
interested in this. He stated that Doug Lowe has indicated that the certification process is costing him
about $5,000 per home because he has to bring in a person from outside.
Mr. Graham said that he would like to gauge the interest of the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to turn it back to the private sector with the county essentially
monitoring it.
Mr. Slutzky said that the county could support and thereby validate the private sector’s interest in
promoting green building that homebuilders have already been involved with. He said that he is in the
process of starting a 501(c)(3) organization focusing on green planning. Mr. Slutzky commented that staff
could put effort in, but might want to look at ways to inventory existing green infrastructure first and then
suggest ways to actually have those components drive land use decisions.
Mr. Rooker asked if that inventory had already been done, stating that when a plan comes in the
environmentally sensitive features are noted.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that he would like the staff to take a deeper look at the green objectives
they would recommend for the county to support, rather than jump in quickly to “claim victory in the green
battles.”
Mr. Bill Edgerton addressed the Board, stating that what could be done without a lot of expense is:
developing an internal standard for Albemarle; encourage the development community through the
rezoning and special use permit processes, noting that the national average shows no additional cost to
provide a LEED-certified building; support the private sector work such as Earthcraft and associated
training for builders; and educate the population of the county about green building.
Mr. Boyd agreed that he is in favor of the county employing green practices and simultaneously
encouraging the private sector to participate.
Mr. W yant noted that it is important to educate the community on these efforts as well, as there
seems to be lack of awareness.
Mr. Rooker mentioned Belvedere again, stating that they are requiring every home to be Energy
Star certified. They (the developer) view it as a marketing advantage, and they are going to promote that.
He added that land use decisions generally should be looked at with an environmental component for
analysis.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that costs should be included early when staff provides updates, so time
is not wasted down the line.
Mr. Rooker noted that these things discussed today would not cost a lot of money, adding that he
is in favor of making sure that the county’s own projects are environmentally sound even if they are more
costly up front.
_______________
Agenda item No. 4. Alternative Engineering Review Pilot Program.
Due to time constraints, the Board agreed to move this discussion to the end of the meeting.
______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Recess.
At this time (5:31 p.m.), Mr. Rooker called for a recess. The Board reconvened at 6:01 p.m.,
when called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 7. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Alexis Ziegler from Charlottesville Peak Oil addressed the Board, stating that the production of
oil has likely stopped growing. He said that while bio-fuel may be useful in some ways, it takes about four
gallons of oil to produce five gallons of ethanol. Mr. Ziegler stated that while the local and global
agricultural system is strong and healthy, the scale in which we use energy (85 million barrels a day
globally and 20 million barrels a day nationally) causes an enormous amount of damage.
__________
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Don W ells addressed the Board, also on behalf of Charlottesville Peak Oil. He said that when
people are faced with shortages and price increases, people mention that coal and tar-sands can serve as
reserves. Mr. W ells said that the Governor of Montana is pushing to have coal converted into petroleum,
but if that happens to support transportation and other liquid fuel uses there will be even larger
environmental problems than already exist for energy production. He emphasized that the biggest
problem will continue to be the emission of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming. At some point,
we’re going to have to stop emitting that CO2. Mr. W ells said that while coal to liquid might be a
temporary measure, it cannot be a long-term solution. He stated that the tar-sands can have the tar
separated by steam and then converted to liquid fuel to get the hydrogen out of natural gas and that again
will only be a short-term solution.
__________
Mr. David Steinberg addressed the Board on behalf of an informal group that formed after seeing
the Al Gore film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the group agrees this is the most pressing issue of our
lifetime as well as a crucial one faced by society today. He said that they have discussed many ideas for
energy use reduction, including plans for distributing energy-efficient light bulbs and ideas for ride-sharing
in the county. Mr. Steinberg said that one idea is to organize a “competition” with a similar locality to
reduce energy consumption, noting that they would like to ask the Board for leadership and interest on this
issue, as well as help coordinating individual initiatives in the community.
__________
Mr. Jack Marshall addressed the Board on behalf of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle
Population. He noted that population growth is transforming the county into something that people don’t
want. Mr. Marshall said that citizens need to know where the county is heading, and whether the direction
reflects today’s preference or just an “unexamined point in the compass set by leaders a quarter-century
ago.” He mentioned that Charlottesville and Albemarle populations combined total 130,000 and
Albemarle should amend its Comprehensive Plan to include a sustainable optimal population size for the
community. Mr. Marshall suggested that outside consultants be hired to oversee this effort, and no
changes to zoning should be enacted until the population size is set.
__________
Mr. Jeff W erner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that
Albemarle County is not the leader in conservation easements, as Fauquier County has 71,000 acres in
conservation easements, and three other counties actually have more rural area protected when their size
is taken into consideration. He said that 18 percent of Fauquier County is under easement, followed by
Loudoun County with 16 percent, Clarke at 14 percent, and Albemarle at just under 14 percent. Mr.
W erner said that “misinformation and disinformation” have really been effective. Even among some of the
Board members, there is just complete lack of understanding on what a conservation easement does and
does not do. He emphasized that easements are not an impediment to agriculture, adding that he is
“disappointed” that some Board members don’t fully understand conservation easements and their role.
__________
Mr. Ridge Schuyler, Director, Piedmont Program, The Nature Conservancy of Virginia, thanked
the Board for joining the River Basin Commission on July 12th. He said that each locality is asked to
appoint two members to serve on the commission. He asked the Board to go ahead and make the
appointments.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Board would take this up at the end of the meeting tonight.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded
by Mr. W yant.
Roll was called, and the motion carried the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 9.1. Approval of Minutes: February 8, March 15, April 5 and April 12, 2006.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of February 8, 2006 and April 5, 2006 (pages 1-18, ending at
Item No. 12), and found them to be in order.
Mr. W yant had read the minutes of March 15, 2006 and found them to be in order with some
typos.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of April 5, 2006, pages 18, with Item No. 12, to the end, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of April 12, 2006 and found them to be in order.
By the above recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read.
__________
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Item 9.2. Authorize County Executive to Accept Deeds on behalf of the County Conveying Right
of W ay and any Easements Necessary to Improve Right of W ay.
The executive summary states that typically right of way is dedicated to the County in the
approval process for subdivision plats and site plans. However, where right of way has only been
reserved and is desired to be dedicated outside of a plat or plan approval, the right of way must be
dedicated by a Deed of Dedication that must be accepted by the County. In addition, some
transportation projects and road improvement projects require acquisition of right of way by the County
as well as easements necessary for constructing the improvements in the right of way. That right of
way and easements may also be required to be transferred to the County by deed. Currently, the
Board of Supervisors authorizes the County Executive to accept such right of way and easements on a
case by case basis.
The efficiency of County government would be improved by generally delegating the authority
to the County Executive to accept deeds for right of way and any related easements necessary for
improving such right of way. A proposed Resolution authorizing the County Executive to accept such
deeds and easements is attached as Attachment A.
This authorization will streamline the process and minimize staff resource requirements that
would otherwise be required for staff to schedule the authorization for a Board meeting, prepare an
executive summary, and then have the Board of Supervisors act on the authorization. For those
conveyances that are associated with a development application that is contingent upon such a
conveyance by a third party, this authorization would save the applicants 3 to 6 weeks of possible
delay.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to authorize
the County Executive to accept deeds on behalf of the County conveying right of way and any
easements necessary for improving right of way, provided that the deeds are approved as to form and
content by the County Attorney.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to authorize the
County Executive to accept deeds on behalf of the County conveying right of way and any
easements necessary for improving right of way, provided that the deeds are approved as to form
and content by the County Attorney.
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
TO ACCEPT DEEDS CONVEYING RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
NECESSARY TO IMPROVE SUCH RIGHT OF WAY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle may acquire lands for its transportation system through
Deeds conveying right of way and easements necessary to improve right of way; and
WHEREAS, such Deeds set forth the rights and responsibilities of the landowner and the County,
including the County’s rights and obligations to make improvements within the right of way and easement
area; and
WHEREAS, the efficiency of government is improved by delegating the authority to the County
Executive to accept such Deeds on behalf of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
authorizes the County Executive, on behalf of the County, to accept Deeds conveying to the County right
of way and easements necessary to improve right of way, provided that such Deeds are approved as to
form and content by the County Attorney.
__________
Item 9.3. Copy of 2006 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and
Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies, as provided by the Virginia Department of Taxation, was
received for information.
__________
Item 9.4. Copy of certified 2006 Statements of Assessed Value for the electric, gas,
telecommunications, and water companies for the County of Albemarle, as provided by the State
Corporation Commission, was received for information.
__________
Item 9.5. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for July 11, 2006, was received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution: Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond Issue.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and September 4, 2006)
Mr. Tucker reported that FY 06-07 CIP budget was approved with the intent of issuing
approximately $15.465 million in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority and those school-
recommended projects are listed in the staff report. He said that a resolution was adopted by the School
Board on August 10th of this year, and this resolution authorizes issuance of bonds after the public hearing
tonight. Mr. Tucker noted that the FY 07 CIP and debt service budgets anticipated the issuance of
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
$11.775 million in bonds for several school capital projects, but due to the unprecedented escalation of
construction costs, the school division requested a restructuring and reallocation of funding for existing FY
07 school CIP projects. He said that this was approved by the School Board at their August 2nd meeting,
and will require an increase of $3.688 million debt to be issued in FY 07, with an equal reduction in issued
debt in FY 08.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is for work already done, or to be done. Mr. Tucker replied that some of the
projects are underway, but most of them are planned for the future.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was anyone overseeing the costs. Mr. Tucker responded that the School
Board and staff review these projects, and the CIP. They look at the projects when they’re submitted but
not after the costs increase. He said that the architects do value engineering on their proposals.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board saw them all before the costs went up, but there was a 40 percent
cost overrun to where the bids started – including the Cale construction and Monticello auditorium. He
stated that where there are significant cost increases, the CIP committee should take a look at the project
and see if it should move forward.
Mr. Tucker stated that this fits into the budget that the schools have been giving for their CIP, and
they are postponing or reducing other projects in order to fund these, and the School Board had to make
those decisions. He said that if the Board feels they need to come back to the CIP there would need to be
special meetings.
Mr. Boyd commented that when there is such a significant overrun, the projects should be
reviewed. Mr. Tucker noted that these estimates were done several years ago and are not really valid any
more.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that someone at VDOT mentioned to him yesterday that costs were
starting to fall, and perhaps that would be seen in public construction.
Public comment was invited. There being none, the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following Resolution to authorize the
issuance of bonds in the maximum principal amount of $15,465,000 to finance certain capital
improvements for the County’s public schools. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 2006A,
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,465,000
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the
“County”), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow a principal amount not to exceed
$15,465,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing certain capital
projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County has held a public hearing, duly noticed, on September 13, 2006, on the
issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606,
Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution adopted on August 10, 2006,
requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and consented to the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as hereinafter defined) shall indicate that $15,465,000 is the
amount of proceeds requested (the “Proceeds Requested”) from the Virginia Public School Authority (the
“VPSA”) in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the VPSA’s objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in
VPSA’s judgment, reflects the Bonds’ market value (the “VPSA Purchase Price Objective”), taking
consideration of such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds relative to
the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its
bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA’s bonds; and
WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other than par and
consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds that is less than the Proceeds
Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested,
or (ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the Bonds set forth in Section 1 below does not exceed
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
the Proceeds Requested by at least the amount of any discount, the purchase price to be paid to the County,
given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is
advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $15,465,000 (the “Bonds”) for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for
school purposes as described in Exhibit B. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds
in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer
of the VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price, determined by the
VPSA to be fair and accepted by the Chairman of the Board and the County Executive, either of whom may
act that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, except that the Bonds may be sold for a purchase
price not lower than 95 percent of the Proceeds Requested if issuing the Bonds in the maximum principal
amount authorized by Section 1 of this Resolution is insufficient, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective
and market conditions, to generate an amount of proceeds substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested.
The Chairman of the Board and the County Executive, either of whom may act, and such other officer or
officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of the sale date of the VPSA’s bonds (the “Bond Sale
Agreement”), with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA. The Bond Sale Agreement shall
be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved, with such
completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by
the officer executing the Bond Sale Agreement, his execution to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval
of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes.
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the
Bonds; shall be designated “General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2006A”; shall bear interest from the
date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 beginning July 15, 2007 (each
an “Interest Payment Date”), at the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall
mature on July 15 in the years (each a “Principal Payment Date”) and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I
attached hereto (the “Principal Installments”), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County Executive is hereby authorized and
directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate
shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the
corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the “VPSA Bonds”), a portion of
the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the true interest cost of
the Bonds does not exceed five and fifty one-hundredths percent (5.50 %) per annum. The Interest Payment
Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The County Executive
is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments at the request of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not
exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution and provided further that the final maturity of the Bonds
occurs no later than December 31, 2026. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8
hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates
and the Principal Installments requested by the VPSA as having been accepted by the County Executive as
authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten
bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the
Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at, or
before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of
Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date,
Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear
interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) SunTrust Bank (or any successor entity), Richmond, Virginia, is designated as bond registrar
and paying agent for the Bonds (the “Bond Registrar”). The County may, in its sole discretion, replace at any
time the Bond Registrar with another qualified bank or trust company as successor Bond Registrar.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA
coming due on or before July 15, 2016, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may
be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2016, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to
their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15,
2016, and the definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July
15, 2016, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in
whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2016, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
(expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be
redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2016 through July 14, 2017 101%
July 15, 2017 through July 14, 2018 100½
July 15, 2018 and thereafter 100
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their
stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the VPSA or the registered
owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the
registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date
fixed for prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, either of whom may
act, and the Clerk of the Board or any Deputy Clerk, either of whom may act, are authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of and premium, if
any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are
hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied
and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject
to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the
interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be
without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to
the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage. The Chairman of the Board,
the County Executive and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom
may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds
Certificate, each setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing
such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross
income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that
(i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such
Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the
other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of
the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for
Federal income tax purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that it
is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the Director of Finance to participate in the State
Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and
such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized
and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of
proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the
VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this
meeting, which form is hereby approved, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not
inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the officer executing such Proceeds Agreement, his
execution to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and
changes.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and
such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby
authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, substantially in the form attached as
Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and
containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and directed to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the
County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized
and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County.
14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the
County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or
desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is
hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-2006-001. Westhall Phase V (Signs #49,59,64). PROPOSAL:
Rezone 8.957 acres from R-1 Residential (1 unit/acre) to PRD Planned Residential District residential (3 -
34 units/acre). LOCATION: Tax Map 56H Parcel A, located approximately 600 feet east of the end of
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Park Street (SR 1204) in the Community of Crozet. (Deferred from August 2, 2006) (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on August 28 and September 4, 2006)
Mr. Cilimberg said on August 2, 2006, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the
W esthall Phase V rezoning. This rezoning had been recommended for approval by staff because the
applicant had addressed the Planning Commission’s concerns expressed at their July 11, 2006 public
hearing. The Commission had recommended denial because the applicant had proffered to provide
affordable housing for up to 100 percent of the median household income rather than limiting it to 80
percent of the median household income. In addition, the Commission believed that a total cash
proffer of $45,000 for Eastern Avenue was not sufficient to off-set the impacts of the development.
The proffers for the August 2 public hearing reflected a change to provide affordable housing up to 80
percent of the median household income and a doubling of the contribution towards Eastern Avenue
to a total of $90,000.
At the meeting, several Board members expressed satisfaction with the affordable housing
proffer change, but most Board members did not believe that the cash proffers were sufficient to
mitigate public infrastructure impacts including off-site impacts for the transportation system. The
Board voted to defer action on the rezoning pending additional information regarding timing for the
construction of Eastern Avenue.
Since the August 2 Board meeting, the applicant has modified the proffers related to timing of
the contributions for capital improvements. For Eastern Avenue, the owner proffers to provide
$45,000 prior to issuance of the first building permit and $3000 per unit for the second through
sixteenth building permits. For other capital improvements, the applicant proffers $15,000 prior to the
issuance of the first building permit and $1,000 per unit for the 2nd through 16th building permits. W hile
the amount of money has not changed, the timing has changed to allow for half of the capital
improvements contribution to be paid up front. The early contribution makes the cash available for
County use in advance of half of the units being built.
The value of the early contribution is that it provides the County with cash earlier for the
implementation of its capital improvements program. As design/preliminary engineering for Eastern
Avenue has not yet been selected for funding, $5,000 may enable this process to begin earlier.
Providing $15,000 towards other capital improvements earlier in the process may be beneficial if a
currently funded capital improvements project requires additional cash.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended approval of the rezoning on August 2, 1006, when the
Planning Commission’s concerns were satisfied. The Board will need to determine whether this
change in the timing of the cash proffer is sufficient to satisfy concerns related to infrastructure and
the pace of growth in Crozet. If the Board is satisfied that the proffers adequately satisfy these
impacts, staff recommends approval of ZMA 06-01 with the current proffers (Illustration A) and the
amended application plan (Illustration B).
Mr. Cilimberg said staff also recommends approval of a waiver to Sections 4.6.2 and 4.6.3.b. of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the application of setbacks for the affordable dwelling units to be as
shown on the application plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff is in the process of completing an analysis of rezonings in the Crozet
area that includes certificates of occupancy to establish a new baseline number for new development
there. He stated that any new rezonings approved for Crozet will raise the potential number of units in
Crozet beyond what by-right development would have been.
Board members discussed the infrastructure costs, with Mr. Rooker noting that the Board is
challenged with finding an additional $5 million to keep Meadow Creek Parkway on schedule, and one of
the projects to be considered for delay is Jarman’s Gap Road. Mr. Rooker said unless the Board wants to
expand its CIP dramatically, he does not know where this money is coming from.
Mr. Boyd said he understand that, but said it is time for the county to step up and take the lead on
the road building rather than waiting for a developer to do it. Mr. W yant said that if the developers are
building the road, the Lickinghole Bridge is going to be expensive.
The Chairman asked the applicant for comments.
The applicant, Chris Schooley, Director of Land Development for Stonehaus Development,
addressed the Board. He stated that there was almost unanimous support for this development, and
there are six affordable housing units out of 36 and the rest of the home sites are not outrageously
expensive. Mr. Schooley said that proffers in the county need to go up, and this project offers $4,800 per
unit in addition to a park and tot lot in the center of the development.
Mr. Rooker said that when he adds up the totals, he comes up with $120,000 in total cash
proffers. Mr. Schooley replied that the bridge construction for the greenway and the greenway itself were
given value in staff’s analysis.
Mr. Rooker stated that when the proffers per unit are calculated, that amount is $3,300 without
considering the amenities. Mr. Schooley explained that how Stonehaus came up with their contribution for
Eastern Avenue was taking out 4.5 percent of half-frontage and came up with $90,000.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. W yant asked when they would likely get the first building permit. Mr. Schooley responded that
if they get approval tonight, they would be ready to go to construction within seven months.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. David W helan, of Crozet, said that he is a member of the Crozet Community Advisory
Council. He has concerns with the timeframe stipulated to identify a buyer for the affordable housing, as it
may take people longer than 90 to 120 days to get the funds together needed for down payment.
Ms. Barbara W estbrook, of the Crozet Community Advisory Council, said that she spends a lot of
time talking to people within the area and many of them won’t come to Board meetings. She stated that
her biggest concern is the impact on the streets around that area, to get to Route 240, and more effort
should be put into working on Eastern Avenue and delaying some of the traffic that will be using that route.
Mr. Schooley commented that there would be improvements made to the 90-degree intersection
at Park Road, and there were a few drainage improvements including a ditch along Claudius Crozet Park
that the county agreed to, as mentioned in the proffers.
Mr. Rooker asked Ron W hite, Director of Housing, to address the concern raised about having
time to find an affordable housing buyer.
Mr. W hite clarified that the 90 day period is intended to be a period of time when the developer
gives written notice that the unit will be ready for occupancy on or about a certain date. He doesn’t think
that he will get a commitment from people for a home that hasn’t been built yet. He added that if the
period is extended, he’s not sure what the impact on the market would be from holding up that available
unit, adding that 90 days is a good time frame.
Mr. Rooker asked if the 90-day period was acceptable. Mr. W hite said that it would be great to be
able to identify everyone to buy every one of the proffered units, but that is likely not going to be the reality.
He mentioned that Avon Park, which was the first development approved with proffers, got a site plan
approval last March, and the County’s affordable housing office has been looking for occupants since
then.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board was unanimous that the 90-day window was acceptable.
Mr. Rooker said that if it turns out not to work, then that time period could be reevaluated. He
commented that there may be good reasons to approve this development, but the $45,000 proffered to
help with the design is not one of them. W e can do that with money already available in our CIP identified
for transportation; $45,000 is not going to make a difference. Mr. Rooker noted that there was discussion
during the W ickham Pond public hearing about the impact of that development on public infrastructure,
including schools.
Mr. Rooker stated that this proposal is well designed and fits in well with the designation in the
master plan and makes some contribution to infrastructure, but he does not feel that the contributions
being made are adequate to offset the impact of the development on infrastructure in the community. He
added that there are 7,500 units approved in the growth area that are not yet built, and by the time some
decision is reached on an exact amount for cash proffers “the game’s going to be over.” Mr. Rooker said
that 10,000 units would be about a 25-year supply of units for the community.
Mr. Boyd said that at the last meeting about this, the Fiscal Impact Committee, which is
discussing proffers, sped up their meeting timeframe to make that determination. He plans to support this
proposal tonight because the developers are “playing by the rules,” and they’ve done what the county
asked them to do. He thinks it’s unfair of us to take this approach especially when we have good
developers. W e need to stick by what we’ve asked them to do.
Mr. Slutzky said that he did not feel that the Board could fairly turn down an applicant who is
proffering $4,800 when there are other applicants who are proffering just around $3,000. Mr. Slutzky
emphasized the importance of what’s expected from the development community, and up to now $3,000
has been acceptable while the issue is being studied. He added that denying an application on the basis
of inadequate public facilities is not acceptable.
Mr. Davis stated that the Attorney General has said that the inadequacy of cash proffers or the
inadequacy of public facilities cannot be the sole basis for denial, but those can be considered in
combination with other factors that can justify denial of a rezoning.
Mr. Slutzky said that when the county master planned Crozet, there was an active public dialogue
relating to density with ranges associated with them, and this proposal is consistent with that range that
was called for. He added that the Board has discussed at length how 12,000 units could be
accommodated, stating that it’s appropriate for them to approve those developments, and limiting
population in Crozet should be done through a Master Plan that limits that number. W hen the Board did
the Master Planning and had ranges that included numbers that were above 12,000, we felt that was
because of the market absorption rate, and the percentage of them that would locate themselves in
Crozet seemed to be around 12,000 is where we’d end.
Mr. Slutzky stated that by making the approval of projects that are consistent with the vision of the
Master Plan – that are within the density range for this location and are consistent with the county’s form
and design criteria – it does not mean that there will be more than 12,000 people in Crozet in less than 20
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
years. They’re not the same thing. If we’re concerned about limiting population in Crozet to a certain
number by a certain date then we ought to go back and do a whole new Master Plan that is designed to
have a carrying capacity of 12,000 people. He added that he thinks we’re running the danger of
undermining the whole point of the master planning exercise, which was to dictate the form and design
and cohesive nature of the entire growth area and then recognize that the market will potentially, at some
point, fill out that deeply; as a practical matter it is not reasonable to expect that it will. There is no
legitimate reason to think that we’re going to get [beyond] 12,000 people within 20 years because we
approved or didn’t approve a particular project in Crozet today. He emphasized that he is not convinced it
is good policy to turn down projects based on inadequate public facilities.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that he did not mean to imply that the sole reason for denying this
proposal would be inadequate public facilities, but he does not know when the county will have the money
to complete Eastern Avenue based on what is in the budget. He also said that he did not see an adequate
contribution from this development to offset the impacts, which is different than inadequate public facilities.
Mr. Rooker noted that there are 1,451 by-right units in existence, and 3,500 additional units have been
approved, making it possible for another 12,000 in population not even counting by-right development that
could happen without any rezonings.
Mr. Rooker said the only power the Board has, that he is aware of, to keep an eye on the pace of
growth in Crozet is to control the rate at which we rezone property. He does not know of any other way.
He emphasized that the Board has told the people of Crozet that they will keep an eye on the population in
the area.
Mr. Slutzky said that the county doesn’t want to control it through having inadequate infrastructure,
but the county could decide when they get to the midpoint in the master plan, no further approvals would
be granted; the Master Plan could be redesigned for a 12,000 buildout maximum capacity; and the market
could be trusted not to over-saturate just because there are approvals any more than the population raises
just because it was master planned.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he feels it is dangerous territory to start capping the number of people
coming to the area, and that should not be a basis by which to turn this proposal down. He is supporting
this project.
Ms. Thomas said that she shares concerns about infrastructure and “stale zoning” by over-zoning
the development area, and the increasing population numbers. But she also stated that there is a fairness
issue here, and in addition a by-right development would put vehicles on this road also. Ms. Thomas
commented that she is pleasantly surprised at VDOT’s agreement to create a road that will not require
traffic-calming measures. She emphasized that a by-right development will provide nothing towards
Eastern Avenue, and would also mean losing out on other things through the developer’s proffers.
Mr. W yant commented that the developer has followed the Master Plan, and the county has no
set number for proffer contributions which sends an “unclear message.” He added that the developer is
designating 17 percent of the units as affordable, is contributing something to Eastern Avenue. Mr. W yant
said that it will take some time to get to 12,000, and working on downtown Crozet is his top priority, with
the Eastern Avenue connector being second. He noted that there is a timing issue with the building of
this, and he is not in favor of it.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky to approve ZMA 06-01 with the current proffers and the
amended application plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Roll was called, and the motion carries by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Mr. W yant.
__________
Motion was then offered by Mr. Slutzky to approve a waiver to Sections 4.6.2 and 4.6.3.b. of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow for the application of setbacks for the affordable dwelling units to be as shown
on the application plan. The motion was seconded Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: The proffer form as adopted is set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date of Proffer Signature 8/34/06
ZMA # 2006-00001
Tax Map 056H0-00-00-000A0,
8.9 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 and R6 to Planned Residential Development (PRD)
In accordance with Application Plan entitled “Westhall Phase V – Application for Zoning
Map Amendment” prepared by WW Associates and dated July 13, 2006
W ith respect to the property described in rezoning application #ZMA-2006-00001 (the “ZMA”), Shiflett
Farms LLC is the fee simple Owner of the following parcels:
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
• TMP 56H -00-00-A
Shiflett Farms LLC shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Owner,” which term shall include any
successors in interest. The parcel listed above is referred to collectively as the “Property.”
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), Owner hereby
voluntary proffers the conditions listed in this Proffer Statement, which shall be applied to the Property if the
ZMA is approved by Albemarle County. These conditions are proffered as part of the ZMA and it is agreed
that: (1) the ZMA itself gives rise to the need for the conditions, and (2) such conditions have a reasonable
relation to the rezoning requested.
1. Capital Improvements
1.1 Eastern Avenue: The Owner shall contribute $3,000 cash for each market rate unit to the
County for the purpose of constructing Eastern Avenue to mitigate traffic impacts from the development. If
Eastern Avenue has not begun construction within ten years of rezoning approval of the property, the cash
proffer shall be reallocated to the County’s Capital Improvement Program for transportation improvements for
the Community of Crozet. The contribution will be paid as follows: $45,000 will be paid prior to the issuance
of the first building permit, the remaining $45,000 will be paid in $3,000 increments prior to the issuance of the
second through sixteenth building permits.
1.2 Capital Impacts: The Owner shall contribute $1,000 cash for each market rate unit to the
County’s capital improvement program for the purpose of mitigating impacts from the development. The cash
contribution shall be used for schools, libraries, fire, rescue, parks or any other public use serving the
Community of Crozet as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The contribution will be paid as follows:
$15,000 will be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the remaining $15,000 will be paid in
$1,000 increments prior to issuance of the second through sixteenth building permits.
1.3 Traffic Impacts on Park Road: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for housing units in
the project, the Owner shall construct the following improvements to the satisfaction of the County Engineer:
Re-grade the ditch/shoulder on the east side of Park Road in front of the townhouses in W esthall
Phase IV (lots 84-89) approximately 180’ to assure proper flow into the pipe crossing Park Road.
1. Install a pipe at the intersection of Adele Street and Alfred Street and regrade the ditch
around the pipe, as necessary.
2. Regrade the ditch/shoulder in front of Claudius Crozet Park (approximately 650’) along the east
side of Park Road extending north from the main entrance to the park to assure a minimum 1.5-foot shoulder
width, and 2-feet from the edge of shoulder to the centerline of the ditch.
Improvements shall be made by the Owner, prior to or at the time of issuance of the first building
permit for any improvements thereon.
2. Affordable Housing.
2.1 Affordable Dwelling Units. Owner proffers to require through the lot sale contracts on the
Property the construction of a minimum of six (6) Affordable Dwelling Units (17% of all units) on the Property
that meet the requirements for a single family dwelling as defined below. Each Affordable Dwelling Unit shall
be on a single parcel and be conveyed fee simple. A home Owner’s association shall be created to maintain
the parking area and sidewalk. Access easements shall be required to access the two provided parking
spaces for each unit.
Affordable units shall be affordable to households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the
area median family income (the “Affordable Unit Qualifying Income”), such that the housing costs consisting of
principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of
the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income.
All purchasers of affordable units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing Office or its
designee. The subsequent Owner/builder shall provide the County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days
to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable unit. The ninety (90)-day period shall
commence upon written notice from the then-current Owner/builder that the unit(s) shall be available for sale.
This notice shall not be given more than sixty (60) days prior to anticipated receipt of the Certificate of
Occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser who executes a contract of
purchase during this ninety (90)-day period, the then-current Owner/builder shall have the right to sell the
unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s), provided, however, that any unit(s)
sold without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of affordable units proffered.
The requirements of this proffer shall apply only to the first sale of each of the affordable units.
3. Open Space and Greenways.
3.1 Temporary Greenway Connection: In conjunction with the Owners of Lickinghole Creek LLC,
the Owner shall grant a temporary access easement for a Class B public greenway as specified in the
County’s Comprehensive Plan, in a form approvable by the County on the property described as TMP 0560-
00-00-05300 prior to the approval of the first building permit for any new construction on the property. The
temporary access easement shall be replaced by the projected 80’ right-of-way required for Eastern Avenue.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
3.2 Trailhead Park: The Owner shall dedicate and convey in fee-simple to Albemarle County,
Open Space, Parcel A, or “Trailhead Park” as shown on the application plan with the first subdivision plat and
grant drainage easements in a form approved by the County Attorney. In conjunction with improvements
approved with the first subdivision plat, the Owner shall construct a 6’ asphalt trail consisting of four (4) inches
of 21-B stonebase material and two (2) inches of SMA-2 asphalt or other specifications approved by the
County Engineer. The trail shall connect five parking spaces to the greenway system, a 2100 +/- square foot
tot lot with a 42” fence, a stormwater management facility and landscaping. The stormwater management
facility shall be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the
adjacent residential lots, the tot lot on the site, and the trailhead elements, to the satisfaction of the
Department of Parks and Recreation. The tot lot shall contain the following elements: a play structure, a small
swing set and a set of two spring mounted riding figures, or other elements approved by the Director of
Planning. Open space areas dedicated to public use shall be for the use and enjoyment of the public,
including the residents of the project.
3.3 Open Space: The Owner shall dedicate and convey to Albemarle County, Open Space,
Parcel C, as shown on the application plan with the first subdivision plat and grant drainage easements in
a form approved by the County Attorney. The Owner shall construct a 6’ asphalt trail consisting of four (4)
inches of 21-B stonebase material and two (2) inches of SMA-2 asphalt or other specifications approved
by the County Engineer and a stormwater management facility. The stormwater management facility shall
be designed such that its shape, placement, and land form (grading) transition between the
adjacent street, greenway, and trails to the satisfaction of the Department of Parks and Recreation and
minimize disturbance of the stream buffer within Parcel C shown on the Application Plan to the satisfaction
of the Program Authority. Open space areas dedicated to public use shall be for the use and enjoyment of
the public, including the residents of the project. The Owner shall make a contribution of $3,000 to the
County to be used by the Parks and Recreation Department for the construction of a pedestrian bridge in
the general location shown on the Application Plan. The contribution shall be payable prior to issuance of
the first building permit for the property. If the bridge is not constructed within 10 (ten) years of rezoning
approval of the property, the contribution shall be reallocated to the County’s Capital Improvement
Program for park improvements for the community of Crozet.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-2005-005 Farm Worker Housing. Ordinance to Amend Section 3.1
(“Definitions”), Section 5 (“Supplementary Regulations”), and 10 (“Rural Areas”) of Chapter 18, Zoning, of
the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Section 3.1 by defining certain terms; Section 5
by adding supplementary regulations for farm worker housing; and Section 10 by adding farm worker
housing facilities for 20 or fewer occupants and having 5 or fewer sleeping structures as a by-right use
(farm worker housing, Class A), and adding farm worker housing facilities for more than 20 occupants or
having 6 or more sleeping structures as a use requiring a special use permit (farm worker housing, Class
B), in the Rural Areas zoning district. (Deferred from June 7, 2006) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 28 and September 4, 2006)
Mr. Cilimberg said in April, 2005, the Zoning Division of Community Development issued a
determination that, while the housing of farm workers in structures intended for temporary, seasonal use
(i.e., not dwelling units as defined in the Zoning Ordinance) has existed for decades in the Rural Areas of
the County, it is not currently a permitted use in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district. The determination
also stated this use is not considered accessory to agriculture. This means that existing farm-worker
housing facilities are non-conforming uses, and cannot be changed or expanded (with a few exceptions)
under Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Further, no new facilities can be created.
The Zoning Division determination was in response to a request regarding the creation of an on-
farm program using seasonal interns who would provide labor while learning about agriculture. However,
the determination affects all forms of seasonal farm-labor housing in the RA district.
The determination was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). On July 6, 2005, the
Board of Supervisors considered a Resolution of Intent to pursue this text amendment. The Board
referred the issue to the Planning Commission rather than adopting a formal motion. The BZA appeal has
been deferred while staff and the applicant have been working on this text amendment as an alternative
method to make this use permissible in the Rural Areas.
After working with the applicant and representatives of the farming community, staff presented a
proposed text amendment to permit farm-worker housing at a Planning Commission work session on
January 17, 2006. The Commission decided to proceed to a public hearing, with one change to the
proposed text and more input from the Building Official (see below).
The Commission identified two issues to be addressed before the public hearing: (1) changing the
scale of the sketch plan to “at a scale of not more than one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet.”; and (2)
establishing that these structures would be subject to building-permit review and not exempt from that
review as farm buildings (those used for residential purposes would be reviewed).
On March 21, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this amendment. The
Commission identified several additional areas for changes to the proposed text:
• The workers must be employed on the farm containing the housing only. The intention
would not be to provide housing for non-farm related workers or to have housing for many farms inside
and outside the area. That restriction needs to be very specifically indicated in this ordinance
• Individual structures in the facilities cannot have all of the features of a dwelling unit. That
needs to be very specifically referenced.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
• Remove “human habitation” as a reference in subsection d. Subsection d. should be
rewritten to permit any use accessory to a primary agricultural use.
• The facilities will not be permitted to convert to uses that are not consistent with the
ordinance, which can be done through the affidavit. The affidavit will be recorded and run with the land.
• Determine a limit to the number of structures. Determine a threshold for the number of
facilities which will trigger a requirement for a special use permit.
• “Seasonal agricultural workers” should be defined more specifically.
• Indicate what types of units (structures, trailers, vehicles, etc.) should be either included
or excluded.
Changes reflecting those comments were made to a version presented at a Commission hearing
on April 18, 2006.
On April 18, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed staff’s proposal and made further
modifications to the proposed ordinance (see below). The following changes were made, as
recommended by the Commission, and presented to the Board on June 7, 2006.
• Notification of adjacent property owners shall be required after the submittal of the
concept plan for temporary farm work housing. Sections 5.1.44(a)(3) and (4) were added to require this
notification process and to specify how adjacent landowners may request Planning Commission review of
the concept plan for the use.
• Modification of the definition of “seasonal agricultural work” to include livestock operations
activities by inserting the clause, “work related to keeping livestock and/or poultry.”
• In subsection e, striking the phrase “farm worker”. That was relating to some additional
language in an earlier draft.
• In 10.2.1 adding to the phrase “up to twenty occupants” (for the by-right) the phrase “and
five or fewer sleeping structures.” This change was intended to help clarify the language for the people
looking at the rural areas regulations.
• In 10.2.2 adding to the phrase “more than twenty occupants” the phrase “or six or more
sleeping structures.”
• In 10.2.2.a. (iii) changed “vehicular access to, and parking for, the facility;” to read,
“Vehicular access and adequacy of travel ways and parking for the facility.” This change was made, but
was moved to section 5.1.44(d)(2)(e), as adequacy is not something to be shown on the plan by the
applicant, but a matter to be judged by the Fire/Rescue department as they review the plan. Subsection
(d)(2)(e) is the appropriate location for review standards.
__________
Mr. Cilimberg then summarized the following executive summary:
On June 7, 2006, the Board considered the proposed amendment as revised by the Planning
Commission. After considering the proposal, the Board decided to defer action so that staff could address
the following items:
• Special use permits:
o Issue: The Board directed staff to change the proposal to require special use permits for
all farm worker housing facilities.
o Solution: The attached version has been changed to remove the by-right “Class A”
facilities and to require special use permits for all facilities.
• Commercial entrances:
o Issue: The Board wanted to avoid requirements for commercial entrances where
possible.
o Solution: Section 5.1.44(d)(2)(b) of the attached amendment specifies that:
Approval of the access to the site from a public street by the Virginia Department of
Transportation; provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to require that a commercial entrance be
constructed unless such an entrance is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
This reflects the Board’s intent that the County not require commercial entrances for these
facilities.
o Remaining Issue: W hile the County would not require commercial entrances for these
facilities, entrance requirements will be set by the Virginia Department of Transportation based on their
standards. County Engineering staff has explained that VDOT would be likely to require an entrance
permit for either new entrances or entrance upgrades that served uses that were commercial or similar in
character to commercial uses (as opposed to single private residences). VDOT would control the type of
entrance to be built.
• Housing quality:
o Issue: The Board wanted to ensure that this ordinance would not encourage the creation
of housing facilities not suited for human habitation.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
o Solution: Housing quality for migrant farm workers is regulated with detailed standards by
the US Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), under regulations
contained in 29 CFR 1910.142. The Virginia Department of Health inspects the facilities to ensure that
they meet those federal standards and any state requirements for camp operation as directed in 12 VAC
5-501-10 et seq. Section 5.1.44(d)(2)(b) of the attached amendment has been changed to require that
applicants submit a “[w]ritten approval of the farm worker housing facility as a migrant labor amp under 12
VAC 5-501-10 et seq.” before receiving a zoning clearance for the use.
In addition, Section 5.1.44(d)(2)(d) of the attached amendment now requires that facilities have
“[w]ritten approval of the adequacy of the structures intended for human habitation by the building official”
before issuance of the zoning clearance.
• Misuse:
o Issue: The Board was concerned that abuses of this ordinance might lead to the creation
of additional housing in the Rural Areas not related to legitimate agricultural uses.
o Solution: Staff has added a new section—5.1.44(a)(3)—that requires that:
The concept plan shall include a written description of the type(s) of seasonal agricultural work to
be performed on the farm by the persons housed in the farm worker housing facility.
Use of the facilities for non-farm worker residents would be violation of the special use permit, and
the Zoning Administrator could require that the violation cease.
o Remaining Issue: If a plan was approved for a certain agricultural use and the landowner
later needed to house workers for different agricultural use, the special use permit would have to be
amended. This would create a burden for landowners.
General Analysis
The Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains the following policies for agricultural
land uses:
GOAL: Protect Albemarle County’s agricultural lands as a resource base for its agricultural
industries and for related benefits they contribute towards the County’s rural character, scenic quality,
natural environment, and fiscal health.
OBJECTIVE: To support agricultural land uses and to create additional markets for agricultural
products through creative economic and land use strategies.
Housing for farm labor is a traditional part of some forms of agriculture in Albemarle County
(especially in orchards), and is expected to be increasingly important in other forms, particularly vineyards.
W hile the Zoning determination regarding farm-worker housing established that this use is not currently
permitted by ordinance, allowing it to continue is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies.
As the Board considers proceeding with this issue, staff wanted to raise several issues for
consideration, which have also been raised by the Farm Bureau. The proposed ordinance (Attachment A)
would create additional restrictions and difficulties for landowners hoping to upgrade existing facilities or to
build new ones. Even for small facilities, farm worker housing, which supports a preferred use in the Rural
Areas, would be subject to more review and regulation than many other uses in the Rural Areas that do
not support agriculture, forestry, or conservation. Due to the requirements proposed in this ordinance
such as, restricting work location to the farm in which the housing is located and provisions contained in
the definition (no waivers possible) requiring separate structures from sleeping for eating, food preparation
and sanitation (bathing and or toilets), the risk for abuse through the unintended creation of new
residential units is significantly reduced. These concerns are shared by the Farm Bureau, which partici-
pated in the development of the first proposed ordinance. In summary, the Farm Bureau’s concerns (see
their comments in Attachment B) are:
o Increased expense and time delays due to the requirement for special use permit
approval. (During discussions with staff, Farm Bureau representatives agreed that special use permits
were appropriate if more than 20 workers would be housed.)
o Concerns over potential misuse as dwelling units should be sufficiently addressed by the
requirement that no single structure include all the facilities typical for dwelling units.
o The relative importance of supporting agriculture compared to controlling any potential
misuses, which could be controlled through monitoring and enforcement.
Mr. Cilimberg said based on the Board’s original direction, the Board would need to approve
the proposed ordinance (attachment A) for public hearing. However, if the Board shares the concerns
noted above, staff recommends that the Board consider revisions to the proposed ordinance that would
make facilities with 20 or fewer workers by right in the Rural Areas zoning district, while requiring a
Special Use Permit for facilities with more than 20 workers.
Mr. Rooker asked if the designation could be kept reasonably broad. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it
could be, and would be subject to the approval of a special use permit if that were acceptable. They just
need to anticipate the variety of things they want to do. He said that staff noted that housing for farm labor
is part of traditional agricultural forms in Albemarle County, and is expected to be increasingly important in
other forms in the future such as vineyards. Mr. Cilimberg noted that even though it has been a zoning
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
determination that this is not a permitted use, staff feels that allowing it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Farm Bureau raised concerns regarding this being part of a special
use permitting process, specifically increased time and costs associated with the approval requirements,
but their representatives have agreed that it is appropriate if more than 20 workers would be housed, and
the Planning Commission essentially recommended that as well. He added that they also had concerns
about misuse of dwelling units but felt that this would be addressed by the requirement that no single
structure include all the facilities typical for dwelling units, and the relative importance of supporting
agriculture compared to controlling any potential misuses would be controlled through monitoring and
enforcement.
He concluded by stating that staff has brought forth an amendment, but if the Board decided to go
back to requiring permits for facilities with more than 20 workers only, that would require another
advertising of public hearing and another amendment.
Mr. W yant noted that the entrance is a concern to him, as that is in VDOT’s hands. He asked how
much leeway the county had here, as the permit might be held hostage by requirements for commercial
entrances.
Mr. Cilimberg acknowledged that the commercial entrance requirements of VDOT are based on
volume of activity at the entrance, and they will judge it based on whether the improvement associated
with a use necessitates the need for a commercial entrance. He added that the Board has often tried not
to require entrance improvements for rural area activities that might need site distance clearance unless
there are safety considerations.
Mr. W yant pointed out that most of these workers would be traveling within the farm, but
occasionally might have to leave to go to another part of the farm or orchard.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like to figure out a way to accommodate the farm operators to have
workers on site, but the standard allowing human habitation is a pretty low benchmark, and he is
concerned about creating “substandard housing” even if it meets basic federal requirements. Mr. Slutzky
asked if it would be possible to require the structures to be built in a more traditional way and be able to
meaningfully enforce the conditions of the special use permit or the conditions of the by-right provisions for
20 people or less. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Board could certainly accomplish the intent, but it might
be difficult to enforce because essentially additional dwelling units would be created. Mr. Davis said that
that would be the same as creating dwelling units requiring development rights, and that is contrary to the
intent of this ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there could be part of the ordinance that would require that anyone living in
the dwelling units to work on the said farm. Mr. Davis replied that you could create those “carve-outs,” but
for the last 25 years there have intentionally not been those.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that she would be strongly opposed to having additional rural dwelling
units be the unintentional outcome of this ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said that you can have bathing or eating in a building and the OSHA requirements
for adequacy of habitation are applicable.
Mr. Scott Clark, Planner, addressed the Board, stating that there are four elements that are
considered – sleeping, eating, food preparation and sanitation – and three out of four can be in any
structure.
Mr. Slutzky said that he just wants to make sure that the county is not enabling substandard
housing for a certain part of the population, but he also wants to make sure that rural areas uses continue
to operate as they have.
Mr. Rooker replied that he shares those concerns, and that was part of the Board’s original
debate. He added that he would like to ensure that rental units are not created in the rural areas that are
basically apartment houses.
Mr. Davis said that each case would need to be evaluated individually, adding that this ordinance
requires every situation to require special use permit whereas the original ordinance had 20 or less
workers allowed by-right.
Mr. W yant contemplated the time frame involved in applying for a special use permit. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that an applicant must allow at least 90 days from application to approval.
Ms. Thomas said that she would be interested in hearing about a number smaller than 20, as that
seems to be a bit high. She stated that having just a few interns or workers is a different matter.
Mr. W yant said that he has spoken with several farm owners that only need a handful of workers
for a short period of time.
Mr. Davis noted that the original ordinance dealt with persons, not farm workers, and this housing
could include families. That’s where the zoning enforcement issue becomes very complicated.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Rooker agreed, stating that “the problem is trying to come up with a one size fits all that
doesn’t allow for significant abuse.”
Mr. Slutzky said that it is uncertain how many applicants there will be, and he tends to favor
having a special use permit required regardless of number of employees.
Mr. Davis added that the Zoning Administrator can cite someone for violation, but only the Board
can revoke the permit. He said that if there were a willful violation, the permit could be revoked and a
penalty could be imposed.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Marcia Joseph addressed the Board. She presented information on organizations that
support sustainable agriculture and farming, including their use of labor. Ms. Joseph mentioned that this
is a “movement that is growing,” and there are several already in Albemarle. She indicated that the intent
is not to create dwelling units, but farming such as organic does require a lot of intensive labor. Ms.
Joseph asked the Board not to require a special use permit for everyone, and wondered if some number
could be agreed upon. She indicated that she had spoken with a farmer about this, and he expressed
interest in a number such as 10. Ms. Joseph expressed concern that the special use permitting process
might take more than 90 days, and having more than 20 workers is really more of an agribusiness
situation. She pleaded with the Board to look at a number that is a little less since some of these places
are asking for three or four or five.
Ms. Thomas asked if it were to be amended to accommodate some by-right usage, would they
even know to come in once their employee number crept higher. Ms. Joseph replied that they would have
to come in and work with staff, and supplemental regulations would apply to everyone. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that adjacent landowners are notified.
Mr. Davis mentioned that there are supplemental regulations that exist that are required before a
zoning clearance could be issued, but that doesn’t give staff or the Planning Commission the right to
impose additional conditions.
Mr. Rooker said that part of his original concern is that you could have people that live there
forever and there would be no reasonable way for the Zoning Administrator to assess whether they
worked or didn’t work on the property, and they could keep their families there as well. The problem is
enforcement of things that go beyond [work].
Ms. Joseph responded that a time limitation was set for March through October, and some of the
internships are limited in time.
Mr. Rooker stated that this is not geared toward internships; it is geared towards a lot of other
circumstances that might arise.
Mr. Davis added that the ordinance doesn’t address workers, but speaks generally to numbers of
people. He noted that the original ordinance said persons, not workers.
Ms. Thomas said that the new ordinance stipulates farm workers, not just people in general
[families].
Mr. Davis noted that the original ordinance said persons and their immediate families.
Mr. Boyd commented that there is bound to be some lead-time, and asked Ms. Joseph why she
objected to a special use permit process. Ms. Joseph replied that the committee felt there should be
some regulation from the county, but a farmer wouldn’t have to go through a burdensome legislative
process.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the fact that the county is creating an opportunity for this dwelling to exist is
a pretty strong gesture of support for the agricultural sector. Ms. Joseph reminded the Board that there
was a determination made that this was not permitted in Albemarle County, and that is why the matter
arose.
Mr. Corky Shackelford addressed the Board, echoing what Ms. Joseph said regarding
encouraging agricultural use in the rural areas. He said that farmers have to ask for permission to “do this
and that wherever they go.” Mr. Shackelford added that seasonal workers are becoming more and more
important, and the 20 limit – whether it’s persons or workers – is a good benchmark. He said that small
ventures should be allowed by-right and not through special use permitting.
Mr. Jeff W erner said that the PEC has a grant from BAMA W orks to develop a directory of some
of the farm operations going on – such as pick your own and organic farms. He noted that Tim Beatley
did a report that referenced community-supported agriculture (CSA), and this number is growing, with
several operations like this already in operation in Albemarle. Mr. W erner said that there are some good
things in the county, and he hopes to be able to report soon on progress with the directory.
Mr. Slutzky noted that there is a thriving CSA business in the Shenandoah Valley that has brought
produce to Albemarle, and this should be mentioned to TJPED so that they can help promote it.
Mr. Boyd commented that he feels these programs support rural areas and protect property rights
by supporting agribusiness, which TJPED already promotes. He said that he would like to see staff
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
prepare an ordinance with by-right for the first 20, and special use permits required for any number
beyond that.
Mr. Rooker said that his concern remains that the situations might not remain temporary, and his
understanding is that people could be living there year-round in up to five different structures without any
action by the Planning Commission or the Board. To him that just opens up a gigantic loophole. He said
that saying 10 in two structures without a permit would be acceptable, but five structures for year-round
use are just too much.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he feels a special use permit is needed regardless as to whether that
number is 10 or 20.
Mr. Davis responded that it is a zoning nightmare to actually make that determination. He said
that it is very difficult to enforce whether it’s 10 or 11, family members or not. The Board needs to
understand that the enforcement of that will be next to impossible.
Mr. Rooker said that that would be true with or without a special use permit. Mr. Davis said that a
permit would be reviewed, and whether or not that is overkill is the Board’s decision.
Mr. W yant commented that the concern seems to be with the special use permit time.
Ms. Thomas said that the concern is having to go through legislative bodies just to get three
people to help out even if it is for a small operation.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the ordinance now states that the number of such structures designed and
arranged for sleeping does not exceed five, and Mr. Rooker is saying it is not to exceed two.
Mr. W yant said that a lot of time the permit is signed and the applicant is not always aware of what
the conditions are, so it needs to be spelled out in a user-friendly fashion.
Mr. Slutzky stated that one of his constituents had to go before the Planning Commission just to
get more than seven piano students for a Home Occupation. He added that he would be more
comfortable, however, doing all of the farms by special use permit.
Mr. Boyd said he would agree with 10 people in two structures.
Ms. Thomas commented that she really wants to be supportive, and would rather err on the side
of not being nit-picky when it comes to agricultural work.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the county’s rural area staff and Susan Stimart does try to do some
work with the Farm Bureau. There is an additional position scheduled for a rural areas person specifically
in next year’s budget.
At this time, it was the consensus of the Board to direct staff to readvertise ZTA-2005-005 to
allow as a by-right use “up to ten occupants/persons” in two dwelling structures, and anything beyond
that requiring a special use permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-2005-018. Wickham Pond Phase II (Sign # 7). PROPOSAL:
Rezone 19.69 acres from RA - Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (.05
unit/acre) to NMD Neighborhood Model District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial,
service and industrial uses. Maximum number proposed residential units: Approximately 106.
Approximately 16,000 sq ft commercial uses. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE/DENSITY: Corridor General (CT4) - mixed residential and commercial uses (net 4.5 units per
acre for SFD, sfa & duplexes) (net 12 units per acre for townhouses and apartments) (net 18 units per
acre for mixed use). Urban Edge (CT3) - supports center with predominately residential uses, especially
single-family detached (net 3.5-4.5 units per acre) (net 6.5 units per acre if accessory apartments are
added for 50% of the residential stock). Development Area Reserve (CT2) and Preserve (CT1) -
development area open space preserve or reserve with very low residential density (net 1 unit per 20
acres). LOCATION: Between Route 240 and the C & O railroad. Approximately 2,200 feet from
intersection of Route 240 and Highlands Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56/91. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:
Yes. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: W hite Hall. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and
September 4, 2006)
Mr. Cilimberg said on July 11, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
rezoning request and the parking waiver for on-street parking. Staff recommended approval and the
Commission unanimously recommended approval with the following changes:
1. Revision of proffers relative to transportation impacts to include Eastern Avenue as a capital
improvements project to which they could apply.
2. Addition of screening for adjacent parcels on the General Development Plan and Code of
Development.
3. Minor revisions to the Code of Development, Application Plan, and to the proffers relative to
form.
4. Pull Building A back to 20 feet and add more landscape buffer.
5. Cut off lighting shall be added in the Code of Development.
6. Setbacks are to be addressed on the plan.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
The Commission also unanimously recommended approval of the parking waiver for on-street
parking.
New proffers were submitted on August 25, 2006 and modified on September 5, 2006 which are
included as Attachment A. All of the changes requested by the Planning Commission have been
completed and, in addition, the applicant has increased the amount of cash proffers from $213,300
($2,370 per unit for 90 units) to $405,000 ($4,500 per unit for 90 units) as shown in the current proffers.
Revisions to the code of development and plan have been reviewed to the satisfaction of the
Architectural Review Board (ARB). The proffers have been revised per the recommendations of the
County Attorney. Attachment B contains the General Development Plan revised August 25, 2006 and
Attachment C contains the Code of Development dated August 25, 2006.
The Planning Commission’s requested changes have been satisfied. The Board will need to
determine whether the proffers are sufficient to satisfy concerns related to infrastructure and the pace of
growth in Crozet. If the Board is satisfied that the proffers adequately satisfy the impacts, staff
recommends approval of ZMA 2005-00018 with the current proffers (Attachment A), the amended
General Development Plan (Attachment B) and the amended Code of Development (Attachment C).
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends approval of a waiver to Section 4.12.9 (a) of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for the on-street parking to be provided for the purpose of meeting minimum parking
requirements on lots that do not necessarily abut the lot that the spaces serve.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this proposal is for rezoning from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Model
district, and the property is 20 acres adjacent to the previously approved W ickham Pond I. He explained
that this new development would include 106 dwelling units, 16 of which would be affordable with a mix of
housing types and an average of about 8.7 dwelling units per acre net, and approximately 16,000 square
feet of non-residential neighborhood service uses. Mr. Cilimberg added that there is also a parking waiver
being requested. He said that this is part of the Crozet Master Plan area, and Block I is the area that
encompasses the CT3 designation, and consists of 48 single-family detached residences, 8 affordable
apartment units that would be located in a single structure similar to the other units. Mr. Cilimberg added
that there is also greenspace and pedestrian path, some of which attaches to W ickham Pond Phase I
located in this particular block that is the back two-third of the project; Block II is four buildings offering a
mix of residential and commercial uses, two will be solely residential and the others will have both.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there will also be a plaza area, greenspace, tot lot, and community garden;
the access will be to Route 240 with interconnection to W ickham Pond Phase I, and that road will also
show future interconnection to adjacent property to the west. He added that staff has evaluated the
project using a number of criteria, and the Planning Commission has held several work sessions on this
and has recommended approval with certain provisions being met. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff discussed
the question of density, as this project bumps up against the maximums for this designation, adding that
there is no residential development being proposed in the CT1 and CT2 areas. In the CT3 area, he said,
there are 56 units proposed with a maximum in that area of 57 units; in the CT4 area, there are 50 units
recommended with a maximum there of 61.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in the CT3 area, the county is dealing with what the Master Plan has said
in terms of allowable density – which stipulates 3.5 and 4.5 units per acre as a minimum/middle range,
with up to 6.5 units per acre with apartments adding to the residential component. He noted that the
wording is not particularly clear, and staff has applied the 50 percent to the additional two units per acre of
density and said at least half of that should be affordable. Mr. Cilimberg said that in their consideration of
the Liberty Hall proposal, the Board interpreted that as a literal 50 percent of total residential housing stock
to get up to the maximum density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre. He indicated that the Planning
Commission considered that as well in their deliberation of the W ickham Pond proposal, and the
appropriate density for the CT3 section would be different depending on which interpretation is applied.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant has committed to restricting the certificate of occupancy for
residential units in buildings C & D in Block II at no earlier than the three-year anniversary of the county’s
approval of the first site plan, so they are staggering the development a bit. He added that they are also
putting a restriction applying to the certificate of occupancy to not allow the issuance earlier than five years
of the county’s approval of the final site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that the project positively addresses
elements of the Neighborhood Model and includes affordable housing as well as including a neighborhood
center; the density as interpreted by staff is in keeping with the Crozet Master Plan. He indicated that the
Planning Commission recommended approval based on changes that they anticipated to be made
regarding proffers and the code of development before this public hearing; the applicant has addressed all
items identified by the Commission.
Mr. Boyd asked about the “moratorium” on commercial and retail development. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that in Block II, regarding the non-residential on the first floor – which is all the commercial for
this project – they are proffering to delay that development by five years.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Master Plan was taken literally, how many units would be approved. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that that would mean 39 units, and they are proposing 56; the other block stays
within range as it is mixed with commercial. He explained that the literal interpretation is 50 percent of the
total to be affordable, which would mean 28 out of 56. Ms. Thomas noted that the other interpretation is
that it would be 50 percent of the new structures.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Rooker asked if it could be read any other way but literally. Mr. Davis responded that it is up
to the Board how they interpret it, as the Comprehensive Plan is a guide.
Mr. Rooker noted that with Liberty Hall, the bonus was not allowed because they did not meet
those criteria. He said that a bonus density should be triggered by something significantly beyond the
stipulated standard, and the 50 percent should be looked at in this proposal against the total number of
units, not adding the affordable in before you do the 50 percent. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the CT3
area of this project suggests that the mid-range upper end would be 39 units, and basically what Mr.
Rooker is saying that the 18 or 19 units would be affordable and added onto the 39 to get the total
allowed.
Mr. Rooker said that was reasonable, adding that otherwise there is a density bonus granted
simply for meeting the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker added that if it were 19 of those 39 that totals 58 instead of 56 as the applicant
proposes (but with only 8 affordable). He said that as he understands the proffer, there is no guarantee
that any affordable units be sold; they could be rented, and the maximum period they’re proffered to be
affordable is five years. Mr. Rooker emphasized that the five-year question was raised with North Pointe,
and a number of Board members expressed concern with that.
Ms. Thomas noted that the Board has determined the need for affordable rental units.
Mr. Rooker said that in Old Trail, that provision escaped the Board’s review, and in this situation
all of the affordable units could essentially disappear.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he expressed concern with this during the North Pointe review, and even
though he might support this particular proposal in spite of the five-year “out clause,” there needs to be
more attention paid to that in the future.
Mr. Boyd asked how the percentages were deduced for affordable housing. Mr. Cilimberg replied
that staff had to start somewhere, and used the 50 percent applied to the difference between mid and
max, adding that the math works that you get 15 percent of the total as affordable.
Ms. Thomas noted that the bonus never got utilized, but then without reconsidering it the Board
and staff set it as a Comp Plan policy at 15 percent.
Mr. Davis said that the density bonus that has been in the ordinance for 20 years is not in play in
this particular application; this bonus is specific to the CT3 designation in the Crozet Master Plan.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that this is not what was done in Liberty Hall. Mr. Cilimberg replied that in
Liberty Hall, the Board decided that unless the applicant provided more affordable units there would be no
density bonus. He said that staff needs some guidance, as the Board interpretation seems to differ from
staff’s.
Mr. Rooker said to him it would make sense to take 50 percent of the original number.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant is meeting the 15 percent of the total, but using Mr.
Rooker’s calculations that number would be 19 instead of 16. He added that in the past, there has been a
liberal interpretation of providing affordable housing in the CT3 area.
Mr. W yant noted that it could be a distribution within the total project.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that the county dealt with the exact same issue with Liberty Hall and did not
support the density bonus. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that with Liberty Hall, no affordable housing was being
proposed within the CT3, but they were within the project.
Mr. Rooker said that he doesn’t have any problem with it being spread across other units, but the
question is at what point you qualify for a density bonus. He interprets this application as the proposal
being three affordable units short, noting also that these are not accessory apartments.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that accessory apartments do not count towards density under the current
zoning ordinance. They are actually units within a larger unit that is a second living space. They were not
created expressly for affordable housing purposes. He mentioned that the Crozet Master Plan says that
these “granny flats” could take a number of forms, and the bonus density is specific to this particular plan
which is why it didn’t appear in North Pointe. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that there would be five units
available were this developed by-right, and the cash proffers are applied just to the market rate units.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Vito Cetta of W eatherhill Homes, addressed the Board. He stated that the growth
area of the county is very small, presenting a map showing the proportion of growth area to the entire
county area. Mr. Cetta showed what areas would be built out, and what the Crozet Master Plan shows,
commenting that his plan for this “infill property” is in accordance with the Master Plan. He mentioned that
the idea is to include a restaurant and grocery in the midst of residential that would comprise a village
center.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Rooker asked what the price point would be for these homes. Mr. Cetta responded that the
homes would be in the low $400s to high $500s, adding that he would be happy to make the affordable
units for sale, not just for rent. He emphasized that the Master Plan says that you can have 4.5 to 6.5
acres, with the high end being allowed if there are half of the units having accessory affordable
apartments. Mr. Cetta said that an accessory unit wasn’t counted as a unit, but essentially 90 units would
be allowed here, and the number he is presenting now is more than acceptable to the Planning
Commission. He reviewed the positive aspects of his proposed development, stating it is “exactly what
the Master Plan had in mind.” Mr. Cetta commented that lots are expensive, and having an over-supply of
lots is a good thing to keep prices stable.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board, stating that the project complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the Neighborhood Model: it is pedestrian-oriented; there is a significant network of walking
trails, sidewalks, neighborhood-friendly streets, interconnectivity, vast areas of open space, and a mixture
of uses.
Mr. Rooker asked what the recreational amenities are with this project. Ms. Long replied that
there is an outdoor plaza, space for a ballfield, walking spaces, a pond with green space around it, a tot
lot, etc. She explained that Block I has rear-loading garages, and Block II has underground relegated
parking.
In response to Ms. Thomas’ question about parking, Ms. Long explained that all four of the
buildings have underground parking, but there would also be street parking for people coming to use the
commercial/retail facilities.
Ms. Long emphasized that the site plan respects the terrain, and there is no grading proposed in
the CT1 and CT2 areas, and there is a clear boundary with the rural area along Route 240. She said that
there is a network of pedestrian trails, 35 percent green space, community garden, playground, and
outdoor dining space. Ms. Long explained the “phasing plan,” showing the 48 single-family homes and 8
affordable units. She said that the proffers provide that they could not request a certificate of occupancy
for any of those structures in Block I until April 2008, and it would be built out in April 2011. Ms. Long
explained that there are a total of 30 residential units in Block II, and the proffers provide that they would
not request certificate of occupancy until three years after approval of the first site plan – estimated as
June 2010.
She concluded by stating that the two remaining (mixed-use) buildings with ground floor retail and
second and third-story residential would not obtain a certificate of occupancy until five years after the first
site plan is approved, approximately June 2012. Ms. Long said that the first site plan would probably be
approved in June 2007. They are talking about a six-year delay until those commercial spaces could be
developed. She noted that it totals about 16,000 square feet and is moved further back from Route 240
than the Master Plan initially contemplated. She added that it is a logical phasing also because the
W ickham I and W ickham II developments need residents to support the commercial/residential phases.
Mr. Rooker asked about the status of W ickham I. Ms. Long noted that the site plans were
approved a few weeks ago.
Ms. Long talked about the three projects W eatherhill Homes has in Crozet, and what they provide
in terms of cash proffers, noting that Liberty Hall, W ickham I, and W ickham II would proffer $842,600
total. She noted that they are flexible as the county has the option of using that money for whatever it
wants to, and if it chose to use the funds for the Eastern Avenue road and bridge, it would equate to 10.5
percent of those costs, and that share increases if those costs end up being less.
Mr. Boyd asked how long it would take the county to collect that. Ms. Long responded that on
Phase I, the county could ask for $216,000 in funds in $50,000 blocks up front, except for W ickham I,
starting with the first building permit. She mentioned that there seems to be a perception that there has
been a tremendous amount of housing approved in Crozet, but in reality – aside from Old Trail – the only
other projects are the W ickham projects and Liberty Hall.
Mr. Rooker asked about the timing of the amounts beyond the $216,000. Ms. Long replied that
the $216,000 is the amount of proffers that would be contributed for all of the 48 single-family detached
houses, and the remaining proffers are obtained through the residential units that are in the mixed-use
areas, and the cash for those proffers would be contributed at the time of each building permit issuance.
She added that W eatherhill would be pursing approximately 30 building permits per year, based on build-
out levels, absorption rates, etc., adding that the company has already reduced the density originally
planned for this site.
Ms. Thomas asked about the “stub out” noted on the top of the plan. Ms. Long replied that the
railroad is there, but the land is reserved for future dedication if necessary. She showed a picture of
Colonel W ickham, who was President of the C&O Railway in the late 1800’s, and named the whistle-stop
in honor of Claudius Crozet, who engineered the tunnel. She added that staff’s analysis of density,
affordable housing, and density bonuses, was excellent.
Mr. Rooker noted that there are no single-family detached affordable units. Ms. Long stated that it
is extremely difficult to provide those, noting that only North Pointe has accomplished this so far. She said
that the staff’s analysis in the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission was “very clear and very
sound” and furthers the Comprehensive Plan goals.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Rooker said that he does not see the sense in providing a 50 percent bonus density for
providing 15 percent affordable housing on the total of the project. He stated that the bonus was intended
for providing additional affordable units. To him, that is not logical. Ms. Long said that it provides a
disincentive to applicants. Mr. Rooker disagreed, stating that you end up with more market-rate units, as
you end up with more affordable and market-rate units. Ms. Long said that there is not sufficient space for
more open units. Mr. Rooker responded that that is not the suggestion here.
Mr. Cetta stated that there has to be some incentive for developers to build affordable units,
adding that the county has already limited the developable area to 80 percent. Mr. Rooker responded that
there has to be 20 percent left anyway for stormwater treatment, some amenities for residents, etc.
Mr. Cetta reiterated that there must be some incentive to provide affordable housing. He
emphasized that the density is needed in this area. Mr. Cetta also emphasized that there are 106 units
total, and 15 percent of them would be 16 units designated affordable.
Mr. Rooker said that the question is how 106 become allowed, and you get there through some
credit for affordable housing. Ms. Long added that they are under density in Block II, and the staff’s
interpretation makes sense.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Barbara W estbrook said she is concerned about the merchants downtown and those in the
area are worried that they will go out of business because they won’t be able to stay in “Crozet Station,”
and there is new competition for them with 16,000 square feet of retail created with the new W ickham
development. She added that she is also concerned about the lighting that this project will bring, adding
that most people would like the library to be located at the old Crozet school site.
Mr. Morgan Butler, Director of SELC’s Charlottesville-Albemarle Initiative, addressed the Board,
stating that the group works to support smarter growth and more sustainable transportation for the region.
He is neither supporting nor objecting to the W ickham development, but has concerns about the
population increase overall in the county in light of infrastructure issues. Mr. Butler stated that the county
needs to be more proactive than just waiting for market forces to work things out, adding that the SELC
has opposed several recent massive rezoning proposals because they will harm the character of the
community, dramatically increase traffic congestion, and harm the environment. He said that W ickham II
is a smaller development, with positive features such as the underground parking for mixed-use buildings,
the network of pedestrian paths, the proposed roadway connections to adjacent properties, and mixes of
uses within the neighborhood. Mr. Butler said that the additional buffer along Route 240 and the
stormwater runoff into a rain garden and biofilter are also positive aspects of this design “that captures
many aspects of the Neighborhood Model.” He stated that the SELC hopes that other developers will
follow W eatherhill’s lead.
Mr. Butler said that when Mr. Rooker’s interpretation of the affordable housing units is used, it is
possible that just 15 percent would be achieved, and for the sake of simplicity staff’s interpretation could
be used. He suggested taking the difference between the lower limit and the density and take half of that,
but concentrate all of those in the CT3 areas.
Mr. Jeff W erner addressed the Board, stating that the affordable housing shortage has been
blamed in part on the county for delaying projects while costs go up, and the bigger question is why the
builders aren’t building the units as they are being approved. If they are not building them and their
response is ‘well because the market’s not there,’ then he is confused.
Ms. Long mentioned that all of the residential fixtures would be full cut-off fixtures. She also said
that none of the projects with affordable housing have been completed yet, but they are being built and
this takes time.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. W yant commented that the applicant has provided a delay with developing the commercial
aspects of the project, and he appreciates that.
Mr. Dorrier said that this is a textbook Neighborhood Model project, and the developer should be
commended for doing a project that the Board has consistently asked for.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a traffic study that has been done for this project. Mr. Rooker said
that there has been, and the traffic at Route 250 and Route 240 would be over capacity with or without the
project, but this adds another 1,000 vehicle trips per day with half going to this intersection. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that the traffic study was actually built from the W ickham I development.
Mr. W yant noted that this project is on the north side of the railroad tracks, so the Eastern
Connector wouldn’t really help. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the idea is that some of that traffic would be
diverted away from Route 250 and Route 240.
Mr. Slutzky noted that he is inclined to support the proposal as it is in keeping with the Master
Plan, but the affordable housing proffers and density bonus need to be clarified.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that what he is hearing is that the Board didn’t agree with staff’s
calculations for the density bonus.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Rooker emphasized that with Liberty Hall, the Board did not agree with that method of
calculation. He thought the Board provided some guidance at that point about whether or not you could
exceed the density for a project that would normally be allowed under the Crozet Master Plan, what you
had to do by way of affordable units in order to in effect acquire bonus density to go beyond what the
Crozet Master Plan recommends for density in that area. He clarified that what is being said here is that
the county is allowing a greater density than the plan calls for simply because the affordable housing
criteria has been met.
Mr. Slutzky responded that while he agrees with that interpretation, there is a market challenge
presented with that. He thinks we need to give clarity so we do not have a moving target. Mr. Cilimberg
agreed that staff needs that too.
Mr. Rooker said that this project will have a $30 million sale value, so we are talking about a
development that has a lot of high-priced housing that can help carry some affordable units. He added
that three more affordable units is not a “huge undertaking” in an area that has a lot of $500,000 homes.
Mr. Rooker said that with the infrastructure contemplated by staff as part of this and other rezonings in the
area, the county is facing about $40 million in infrastructure improvements. He indicated that given
approved units, there is currently a greater than 12,000 population approved, and the county must find a
way to capture more per unit to offset those costs. W e have got a huge amount of approved projects
where we are not getting in his view anywhere near significant contributions to infrastructure.
Mr. Rooker added that he will not support this project because it does not meet the density
stipulated for the Master Plan, and this project increases by-right density by over 2,000 percent. Mr.
Rooker said that the rezoning does add value, but should give more to infrastructure, and the county has
assured the people in Crozet that things don’t usually build out to maximum density, and this even
exceeds that. He acknowledged that the phasing does help protect downtown Crozet, but regardless he
cannot support this.
Mr. W yant asked how many units it would be if the applicant followed the Master Plan. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that it would mean a total of 39 units if the CT3 mid-range were followed, plus 61 for
CT4, for a total of 100 units.
Mr. Rooker said that the maximum density without a bonus would be 100 units, and this is the
second or third rezoning where an applicant has come in at maximum – and this one exceeds it.
Mr. Slutzky stated that staff interpreted the density bonus differently.
Mr. Rooker noted that this is the same applicant who came in with the Liberty Hall proposal.
Mr. W yant said that the applicant might be confused by the interpretation, and asked if the Liberty
Hall standard is what should be used. He asked what is meant by that statement.
Mr. Slutzky responded that his approach would be to look at the overall design, and to the extent
that there are discrepancies, it would not be fair to hold the applicant to undefined standards.
Ms. Long said that she felt strongly that the density for Liberty Hall was reduced between the
Planning Commission hearing and the Board review. They were not looking for density bonus provisions
at Liberty Hall. She added that it is ultimately the Board’s decision, but the applicant looked to staff for
guidance. They do not exceed the overall maximum density. Ms. Long noted that it is very difficult to
provide affordable units already.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Liberty Hall was acted on while this project and Haden Place were already
being worked on. Staff actually constructed its’ report to acknowledge what happened in Liberty Hall in the
middle of doing a review [with the applicant] before it went to the Planning Commission. He stated that
staff explained that predicament to the Commission related to CT3 and affordable housing. It has all
come along during concurrent reviews.
Mr. Rooker asked if this project without the density bonus is beyond the upper limits allowed
through the CT3. Mr. Cilimberg said that the maximum allowed would be granted in CT3 (39) and in CT4
(61) because the CT4 is mixed use.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he does not have any problem with how staff has interpreted this.
Mr. Tucker said that if there is a majority of the Board who agree with Mr. Rooker, then the plan
could be approved with that used instead.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he hasn’t had time to think through the impact on the market.
Ms. Thomas commented that there are some very good aspects to this, and five years has to be
enough to encourage development in downtown Crozet. She also is pleased with the cutoff lighting and
hopes that sets a precedent for future proposals. Ms. Thomas stated that she agrees with the SELC’s
assessment of positive aspects of this plan, including interconnectivity, and she is contemplating whether
the additional units should be permitted to bring the total to 106 instead of 100 given citizen concerns.
She suggested that the applicant come back with a deferral and come back with 100 units.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Rooker noted that the other way to look at it would be to add three affordable units to get the
number up to 106. He would support a proposal with those elements, noting some of the previously
mentioned positive factors. Mr. Rooker stated that he does not agree that the $4,800 is at all adequate for
public infrastructure, but on balance the project is positive.
Mr. Slutzky commented that this is a very good project, and he is not sure how much better it will
be to hold the applicant to standards that staff didn’t really even agree with.
Mr. W yant said that he is committed to making downtown Crozet work, and he is concerned about
five-years delay for new commercial not being enough time.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much time would be enough. Mr. W yant stated that the infrastructure is
vital in making the downtown work.
Ms. Thomas said that she does not want this to be turned down.
Mr. Rooker said that this is in Mr. W yant’s district, and his opinion counts regarding downtown and
supporting infrastructure. He said that this would likely be a three-to-three vote if it were to happen right
now.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is 100 percent committed to this approach to development, and he feels it
is wrong to turn this down.
Mr. W yant asked for clarification of the density bonus. Mr. Rooker responded that the current
figure is 100 if the maximum density is taken into account.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that a six-lot difference is not enough for him to send a message that the
Board is not committed to this type of good development.
Ms. Thomas noted that the perceptions among Crozet residents are equally important.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant would have to come back if this meant a difference of just a few
units.
Mr. Davis explained that the Board has no obligation to vote on it and can defer as they see fit. If
the applicant chooses to amend the proffers, that would constitute a material change under state law and
would require another public hearing to be advertised. He added that they would also have to make
changes to the code of development, and all of that could come back in October.
Mr. Rooker said that those changes would be relatively minor.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it seems this applicant is treated differently than other applicants.
Mr. Boyd said that it is unfair to nit-pick this applicant.
Mr. Slutzky responded that it is not nit-picking, but just following the plan. He said that this is an
excellent project, and turning it down sends a bad message.
Mr. Dorrier added that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this
project.
Ms. Thomas said that she would agree to the project on face so that the applicant would not have
to go through the entire process again just to add three affordable units.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve ZMA 2005-018 W ickham Pond Phase II with
the current proffers, the amended General Development Plan, and the amended Code of Development.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier,
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Mr. W yant.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier for approval of a waiver to Section 4.12.9 (a) of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for the on-street parking to be provided for the purpose of meeting minimum parking
requirements on lots that do not necessarily abut the lot that the spaces serve. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Boyd.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Original Proffer X
PROFFER FORM
Date of Proffer Signature: Sept 5, 2006,
ZMA # 2005-00018 W ickham Pond 2
Tax Map 56 Parcel Number 91
19.69 Acres to be rezoned from RA to NMD (Neighborhood Model Development)
in accordance with the Code of Development (dated August 25, 2006)
and Application Plan (dated August 25, 2006)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized
agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned with the offered plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of
the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. The Owner shall contribute $405,000 cash ($4,500 per unit for 90 units) to the County for the
purpose of mitigating impacts from this development. The cash contribution shall be used for
transportation improvements, schools, libraries, fire and rescue, parks or any other public use
serving the Community of Crozet as identified in the Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter, “Capital
Improvement Project”). Contributions for Block 1 shall be payable under one of the following
methods, which shall be designated by the County: (1) ninety (90) days after receipt of written
notice by the Owner from the County identifying a Capital Improvement Project within the
Community of Crozet for which the cash would be applied, provided that contributions for a
Capital Improvement Project shall not exceed $50,000 during any sixty (60) day period, said
request is after the County’s approval of the first building permit within the Project, and the
aggregate amount of said requests does not exceed $216,000 (48 detached units at $4,500
per unit), or (2) in increments of $4,500 cash per unit, for any market-rate condominium or new
detached single family dwelling unit prior to or at the time of issuance of a building permit for
any such dwelling unit. Contributions for Block 2 shall be payable in increments of $4,500 cash
per unit for any market rate condominium unit prior to or at the time of issuance of building
permit for any such dwelling unit. If the cash contribution has not been exhausted by the
County for the stated purpose within (10) ten years from the date of the County’s receipt of the
final contribution, all unexpended funds shall be applied to a Capital Improvements Project for
the Community of Crozet.
2. Detached single family units within Block 1 as identified on the Application Plan shall have the
following restriction: The Owner shall not request that the County issue certificates of
occupancy for residential units earlier than April 1, 2008.
3. Buildings C and D within Block 2 as identified on the Application Plan shall have the following
restrictions: The Owner shall not request that the County issue certificates of occupancy for
residential units earlier than the three-year anniversary of the County’s approval of the first final
site plan; The Owner shall not request that the County issue certificates of occupancy for
ground floor commercial/retail space earlier than the five-year anniversary of the County’s
approval of the first final site plan.
4. The Owner shall install a landscape buffer along the eastern property line of Block 2 if the units
immediately adjacent to Block 2 on the adjoining property are not constructed with a façade
(facing Block 2) that is evocative to a typical front entry elevation and as approved by the
County’s Director of Planning.
5. The Owner shall provide sixteen (16) units of affordable housing as identified on the
Application Plan produced by Timmons Group, dated August 25, 2006, entitled “Application
Plan — Figure 2”; eight (8) units to be built within Block 1 (for sale or rent), and eight (8) units
to be built within Block 2 (for rent or sale). The Owner shall convey the responsibility of
constructing the affordable units to any subsequent purchaser of the subject property. The
current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create units affordable to households with incomes
less than 80% of the area median income, such that housing costs consisting of principal,
interest, real estate taxes and homeowner’s insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the gross
household income.
A. For-Sale Affordable Units - All purchasers of for-sale affordable units shall be
approved by the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee. The Owner shall
provide the County or its designee a period of 180 days to identify and pre-qualify an
eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The 180-day period shall commence upon
written notice from the Owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall
not be given more than 120 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of
occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during
this period, the Owner shall have the right to sell the unit(s) without any restriction on
sales price or income of purchaser(s). If these units are sold, this proffer shall apply
only to the first sale of each unit.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
B. For-Rent Affordable Units
i. Rental Rates - The initial net rent for each for-rent affordable unit shall not
exceed the then-current and applicable maximum net rent rate approved by
the County Housing Office. In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly
net rent for each for-rent affordable unit may be increased up to three percent
(3%). For purposes of this proffer statement, the term “net rent” means that
the rent does not include tenant-paid utilities. The requirement that the rents
for such for-rent affordable units may not exceed the maximum rents
established in this paragraph 5B shall apply for a period of five (5) years
following the date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for
each for-rent affordable unit, or until the units are sold as low or moderate
cost units qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing Development
Authority, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban
Development, Section 8, whichever comes first (the “Affordable Term”).
ii. Conveyance of Interest - All deeds conveying any interest in the for-rent
affordable units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting
that such unit is subject to the terms of this paragraph 5. In addition, all
contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for- rent affordable unit, or any
part thereof, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full
disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this paragraph 5B. At
least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest in any for-rent
affordable unit during the Affordable Term, the then-current owner shall notify
the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and
telephone number of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of
this paragraph 5B(ii) have been satisfied.
iii. Reporting of Rental Rates - During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days
of each rental or lease term for each for-rent affordable unit, the then-current
owner shall provide to the Albemarle County Housing Office a copy of the
rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows the rental rate
for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during
the Affordable Term, the then-current Owner shall provide to the County, if
requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data
pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
6. Overlot Grading Plan - Subdivision Plats: The Owner shall submit an over-lot grading plan
(hereinafter, the “Plan”) meeting the requirements of Proffer 6 with the application for each
subdivision of the Property into single family detached lots and single family attached dwelling
units shown on the General Development Plan. The Plan shall show existing and proposed
topographic features to be considered in the development of the proposed subdivision. The
Plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to final approval of the site plan or
subdivision plat. The Property within the subdivision shall be graded as shown on the approved
Plan. The Owner shall not request that the County issue a certificate of occupancy for any
dwelling on a lot where the County Engineer has determined the lot grading is not consistent
with the approved grading Plan. The Plan shall satisfy the following:
A. The Plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, setbacks, surface drainage,
driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to
verify that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer.
B. The Plan shall be drawn to a scale not greater than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet.
C. All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2)
feet. All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the
proposed grading. All proposed grading shall be designed to assure that surface
drainage can provide adequate relief from the flooding of dwellings in the event a
storm sewer fails.
D. Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not
exceed a gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of
vertical rise or fall (3:1). Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance
vegetation as determined to be appropriate by the County’s program authority in its
approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity. These
steeper slopes shall not exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for
each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1), unless the County Engineer finds that the
grading recommendations for steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts.
E. Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm
sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots.
F. No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one-half (1/2) acre
of land draining to it.
G. All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point
beyond the rear of the building site.
H. The Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least five (5) feet in width, or to the lot line
if it is less than five (5) feet, from the portion of the structure facing the street, has
grades no steeper than ten (10) percent adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings
that will not be served by a stairway. This graded area also shall extend from the
entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street.
I. Any requirement of this proffer may be waived by the County Engineer by submitting a
waiver request with the preliminary plat. If such a request is made, it shall include: (i) a
justification for the request contained in a certified engineer’s report; (ii) a vicinity map
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals six
hundred (600) feet; (iii) a conceptual Plan at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch
equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property; (iv)
topography of the property at five (5) foot intervals for the property being subdivided
and on abutting lands to a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the boundary line
or a lesser distance determined to be sufficient by the agent; (v) the locations of
streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; and (vi) the
proposed layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as
applicable. In reviewing a waiver request, the County Engineer shall consider whether
the alternative proposed by the Owner satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be
waived to at least an equivalent degree. In approving a waiver, the County Engineer
shall find that requiring compliance with the requirement of this condition would not
forward the purposes of the County’s Subdivision and Water Protection Ordinances or
otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the Project, and to
the land adjacent thereto.
J. The Owner may request that the Plan be amended at any time. All amendments shall
be subject to the review and approval by the County Engineer.
K. In the event that the County adopts overlot grading regulations after the date ZMA
2005-018 is approved, any requirement of those regulations that is less restrictive than
any requirement of Proffer 6 shall supersede the corresponding requirement of this
paragraph, subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Community
Development.
Charlotte Dammann Barnes-Crozet LLC September 5, 2006
Barnes-Crozet, LLC Printed Names of All Owners Date
by: Charlotte Dammann, Member
______________
(At this time the Board went back to Agenda Item No. 4.)
Agenda item No. 4. Alternative Engineering Review Pilot Program.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board had requested last month that the Development Review Task Force
take time to review this pilot program, which they did over the course of three meetings. He explained that
it is a pilot study for two years, and the task force wants to build in an evaluation process with six months
of review at the final stage (not the beginning) of the process. Mr. Boyd noted that Mr. Graham’s staff has
felt confident with the plan, and there are a number of checks and balances that will remain.
Mr. Rooker asked when the checklist for review gets created. Mr. Graham replied that staff has
already drafted a checklist, which has already turned out to be 14 pages long with 25 pages of
attachments. He said that one of the concerns heard from the task force was that it is narrowing the field
of judgment as it relates to engineering.
Mr. Boyd noted that the engineer would have the option at that time to pull the project out of the
process and take the long route.
Mr. Graham confirmed that this would only apply to final site plans, and there is currently a
backlog of five or six weeks with site plan reviews. He said that there are mandatory review requirements
that go to the top of the list, and the final site plans fall in the gaps. Mr. Graham said that typically final site
plans only go to the Commission when during a review of the preliminary the Planning Commission has
requested that the final come back to them. He added that if it is called up, it would not be allowed to go
through this abbreviated process and would get a full staff review.
Mr. Boyd noted that routine engineering matters would likely fall into this category, and more
complicated items would be reviewed in more detail.
Mr. Graham said that if an engineer wants to do something different than the checklist process,
then they would need to come in to one of the group’s Thursday meetings and get agreement that it’s OK
to skip that step. He explained that every plan would still get an abbreviated review with focus on
problems that are most likely to occur with that project, where the consequences of an error are the most
severe. Mr. Graham noted that the engineers have not had time to get out in the field and look at projects,
and a number of plans are not being built as approved which holds up the certificate of occupancy.
Ms. Thomas acknowledged that engineering staff is less than what Mr. Graham wanted, and
asked if he had a full staff if he would still recommend using this method of review. Mr. Graham replied
that he would, as even with a full staff there is not enough time for detailed review of preliminary site plans.
He emphasized the importance of evaluating the actual ‘buildability’ of projects.
Mr. Boyd reported that the online and paper survey for developers would be issued Monday, and
encouraged developers in attendance to participate. Mr. Graham said that Community Development is
also providing paper copies and the link to the online form.
Ms. Thomas asked who would be compiling the surveys. Ms. Catlin replied that an intern from
U.Va. would be responsible for compiling the data.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve the Alternate Engineering Review pilot program for
two years as set out below. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Alternative Engineering Review
Pilot Program
Purpose/Outcome: The program’s goal is to require fewer reviews with equal or better plan quality
through use of detailed checklists, while making submitting design professionals more responsible for
quality control of their plans. This effort will also allow County staff to focus more time on preliminary
plans and plats, documentation of processes and training private engineers on County processes, and
field inspections to verify proper construction.
Length of pilot program: 2 years pilot study, with 6 month reports to the Board on number of plans
submitted for the pilot program, number of plans not included in the pilot program, number of plans pulled
from the pilot program due to noted problems, and number of mistakes found in the field. At end of 2 year
pilot program, there will be a decision by the Board on whether to continue the program as part of the plan
review process.
Eligibility for pilot program: Design professionals holding a current Virginia license. (Architects,
Engineers, Landscape Architects, and 3B Surveyors)
Staff’s Obligations with Process:
• Collect data on number of plans using the process, number of plans not using the process,
number of plans pulled from the process for noted problems, and number of problems found
in the field after approval for both plans using the process and those not using the process.
• Prepare and distribute detailed checklists for engineers using the process (as well as those
not using the process)
• Cursory reviews of certified plans to verify work complies with checklists. Plans found to not
comply with checklists may be removed from the pilot program at staff’s discretion.
• Prepare reports to the Board on the pilot program status at six month intervals.
• Staff will assure design professional are notified of eligibility to submit under the pilot program
with approval of preliminary plans or plats. Staff will also provide a list of requirements for
final approval, checklists for final approval, and submittal forms for final approval as part of
the preliminary approval.
Design Professional’s Obligation with Process:
• Familiarize themselves with County ordinances, design standards and checklists.
• Submit plans that fully comply with checklists. W henever questions arise as to complying with
the checklist, the design professional will seek guidance from staff and incorporate their
recommendations into submitted plans.
• Assure owner understands improvements must be built as shown on approved plans and
changes from the approved plan must be approved by the County.
Property Owner’s Obligation with Process:
• Assure design professional is given adequate time to assure quality of certified plans.
• Construct improvements as shown on the approved plans.
* * * * * * *
How will the program work?
A: Staff will provide certification forms and courtesy checklists at the front desk and through the
department’s web page. Engineers will review their plans against the items on the applicable certification
statement and when they are confident they have addressed all of the items, place the certification on the
plan. W hen a plan is submitted, staff will see if a certification is on the plan. If so, staff will give the plan
a quick check to verify selected items. If staff doesn’t find significant issues with this check, the plan will
be approved. If staff finds significant issues have not been addressed, the plan will be put in the review
queue and receive the normal review in the order received. In the latter case, the engineer will be notified
their plan is receiving the normal review. W ith this process, the engineer who properly prepares a
certified plan can expect approval in about a week. Conversely, the plan that follows the normal process
will receive the same review as currently done. A resubmitted plan may also use the certification process,
provided the engineering reviewer finds the number and extent of changes is not excessive.
What plans are eligible for this program?
A: Certifications are available for engineering plans associated with final site plans (where a
preliminary plan has been approved), private road plans (where a preliminary plat has been approved),
stormwater management plans, erosion control (grading) plans, and mitigation plans.
What plans are not eligible for this program?
A: Preliminary plans and plats will not be eligible for this program. Public road plans will not be
eligible for this program, as VDOT approval of those plans is necessary. W aiver requests will not be
eligible for this program. Special plans, such as an early grading plan in a planned development, will be
considered on a case by case basis.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
What happens if the engineer is uncertain of an ordinance or policy requirement?
A: County staff will still be available to assist designers with any questions they may have prior to
certifying a submission. As many of you already know, the engineering reviewers have a regularly
scheduled time on Thursday afternoons, starting at 2:00pm, when designers and developers can discuss
applications and reviews. Staff does ask that the engineer call and set up an appointment in advance of
the meeting.
What happens if errors are found after approval?
A: Staff will treat errors the same as currently happens when errors are found after approval or
we find the project has not been built to the approved plan. In those cases, staff will review and determine
what corrections are needed to comply with County ordinances. As part of this pilot program, staff will
report all errors and resolutions to the County Board.
What happens if you find the process needs to be changed?
A: As this process is totally administrative, staff can easily modify the program or even abandon
the process if it doesn’t work. If there are major program changes, we will send out a notice similar to this
notice. For minor changes, we anticipate keeping an email list of engineers using this program and they
will be notified of those changes.
______________
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. Thomas reminded the Board that the Rivanna River Basin Commission would like two
members from the Board as representatives. She said that she would be interested in serving. Mr.
Rooker said that the meetings would likely be frequent in the beginning, but would taper off. Mr. Dorrier
said he would also serve. Ms. Thomas said that there is a major U.Va. grant due in early November, so
the group wants to get off the ground as soon as possible.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to appoint Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier to represent the Board
on the Rivanna River Basin Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. W yant. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Thomas indicated that she had brought some books and other information back from the
NACo annual meeting, and they are available upstairs in the Board office. She noted that there are some
good pictures available of the plastic recycling containers used by other localities for public events.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned that there is a transportation conference scheduled for November.
__________
Ms. Thomas said on September 18th and 19th, she would also be attending the Governor’s Natural
Resource Leadership summit at Hungry Mother State Park, which would include about 60 people from
around the state.
__________
Mr. Boyd said Board members have been provided with a copy of a resolution approving
acquisition of property in Crozet. He would like to make a motion to adopt the resolution.
Mr. W yant commented that the news release issued by Ms. Catlin gives this property as a
downtown option for the library. It does not mean the decision has been made.
Mr. Davis mentioned that the resolution references that the purchase is subject to the
contingencies in the contract, one of which is the Board chooses the property for a library site, and if they
don’t then the sellers won’t sell and the contract won’t go forward.
Mr. Tucker noted that the County will hold some public meetings on a proposed location after
which it will come back to the Board for a decision.
Mr. Davis again said the resolution does not obligate the Board to construct the library on this site.
In fact, if that site is not used the contract will not be completed. Mr. Rooker clarified that this is for the
property at 1171 Crozet Avenue in Crozet.
The motion was seconded by Mr. W yant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to acquire certain property within the County in the
community of Crozet for the purpose of providing public space for library facilities and other public
improvements; and
WHEREAS, an agreement for the acquisition of such property owned by Thomas Amato and Martha
B. Amato located at 1171 Crozet Avenue in Crozet has been negotiated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the County Executive’s execution of the Sales Contract dated September 1, 2006 between Thomas
Amato and Martha B. Amato for the purchase of approximately .9 acres of property and the improvements
thereon located at 1171 Crozet Avenue, Crozet, Virginia, (Albemarle County tax parcel 056A2010001800) and
authorizes the County Executive to execute the deed and all other documents approved by the County
Attorney necessary to purchase and accept the property on behalf of the County upon a determination that all
the contingencies in the Sales Contract have been satisfied.
__________
Mr. Boyd noted that there is a United Land development project adjacent to Hollymead Town
Center that is being held up pending Places29, and he would like for it to get back into the system, as it
would help get Berkmar Drive Extended built.
Mr. Rooker noted that this would require a Comprehensive Plan change.
Mr. Graham said that this is a CPA, not a rezoning, and the idea was to incorporate that change
into the master planning process.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to see those go on parallel tracks at this point. Mr. Graham
said that the Planning Commission was not willing to proceed without the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment ahead of Places 29.
Mr. Rooker stated that when you’re talking about increasing the growth area, it is a significant
undertaking, well beyond a typical rezoning. He added that he would like to see what comes out of the
Places 29 process.
Mr. Boyd said that the county might be losing an opportunity.
Mr. Rooker stated that he is not aware of what the developer is offering or not offering, but
building a piece of that road within his development to serve his own development “is not a big deal.” He
indicated that the bridge is $25 to $30 million, and he is not aware of any developer willing to offer that
kind of money. Mr. Rooker said that the developer came in to meet with him a couple years ago and there
was no offer to build the bridge. He would be very hesitant to vote to increase the growth area and adopt
a Comprehensive Plan change without knowing what would be on the table. Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but
we are not allowing the developer to get anything on the table.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that it seems like the wrong approach to allow a CPA change just to
accommodate this developer.
Mr. Graham said it is on the table right now in terms of Places29; they are proposing that land use
change as part of the process. It is part of the Places29 process as opposed to a separate
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Boyd commented that it would take until next year.
Mr. Davis responded that it would take that long anyway, adding that a Comprehensive Plan
change would take staff review, Planning Commission review, work sessions, and Board review.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that if it gets approved as part of the master plan, it becomes part of the
Comprehensive Plan for that area.
Mr. Boyd complained that a developer came forward a year or more ago to pursue a
Comprehensive Plan change, and it hasn’t gone anywhere.
Mr. Graham clarified that the Planning Commission said they were not interested in pursuing the
amendment, but they said they were interested in pursuing it as part of Places29. The Comprehensive
Plan Amendment died. He emphasized that the Commission wanted it to be considered as part of
Places29.
Mr. Boyd responded that the developer decided not to appeal it. Mr. Davis explained that there is
no appeal process, as there is no requirement to act on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. W yant commented that Places29 is the “quickest route” available.
Mr. Boyd asked when anything would come back from Places29. Mr. Graham responded that the
draft plan would be taken to the public in January or February, then the Planning Commission will get it
and start considering the master plan.
September 13 (Afternoon and Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. W yant commented that it won’t get to this Board until sometime next summer possibly.
Mr. Boyd commented that it takes years to get anything approved. It is always interesting to him
how it takes it so long to do this; it is forever.
Mr. Rooker said there is a presumption that you know what needs to be done; what is it we’re
trying to get done here? Mr. Boyd responded that Berkmar Drive Extended has been discussed for years
and years. Mr. Rooker stated that the developer put in a proposal just a year ago when the Places29
process had already begun.
Mr. Boyd commented that businesses don’t wait forever, and would move onto other locations.
Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle doesn’t seem to have any problem attracting businesses to the
county, so apparently we are doing something right. He added that it seems the county is grappling with
trying to deal with all of the applications coming in here, not trying to drum up more business.
__________
Mr. Slutzky mentioned that at the last meeting Mr. John Martin asked the Board to address
TJPED openness, and Mr. Tucker has now been invited to join the Executive Committee and will be able
to attend all meetings and share those discussions as appropriate.
Mr. Tucker said that any closed session would not be open to the public and discussed, and he
will now be in on those.
___________
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board to bring their notebooks for Friday’s Strategic Planning session.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn to September 15, 2006, 9:00 a.m. (Zehmer Hall) for the Board’s
Annual Retreat, “Funding the Future”.
At 10:55 p.m., with nothing further to come before the Board, Mr. W yant offered motion,
seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn to September 15, at 9:00 a.m. (Zehmer Hall) for the Board’s Annual
Retreat, “Funding the Future”.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. W yant, Mr. Slutzky, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 02/14/2007
Initials: EW C