2007-03-14NMarch 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
14, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David
Slutzky, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. W yant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W . Carey, and Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recognition – Proclamation: The Month of the Young Child, April, 2007.
Mr. Boyd read the following proclamation into the record indicating the County would be
recognizing, in conjunction with the Central Virginia Association for the Education of Young Children, the
month of April, 2007, as the month of the Young Child.
THE MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD
APRIL, 2007
WHEREAS, the Central Virginia Association for the Education of Young Children is
celebrating The Month of the Young Child in April, 2007, in conjunction with
the Virginia Association for Early Childhood Education and the National
Association for the Education of Young Children; and
WHEREAS, these organizations are working to improve early learning opportunities, which
are crucial to the growth and development of young children and to building
better futures for everyone in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, all young children and their families across the country and in Albemarle County,
Virginia, deserve access to high-quality early education and care; and
WHEREAS, recognizing and supporting the people, programs, and policies are committed to
high-quality early childhood education is the right choice for children;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim APRIL,
2007, as THE MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD in Albemarle County, and
encourage all citizens to work toward high-quality early childhood development
education for all children in our community.
The Chairman presented the proclamation to Ms. Julia Broom who expressed her appreciation to
the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said the Board would hear the speakers who have signed to speak for about 15 to 20
minutes. Anyone who does not get a chance to speak now can do so at the end of this meeting.
Mr. Michael Matthews, President of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Board,
addressed the Board and introduced staff members Ms. Theresa Tapscott and Ms. Jennifer Jacobs. He
said for 30 years AHIP has provided an essential service to the community helping over 2,500 residents.
He presented the County with a mock check for $90,000 (from the Crozet Crossing Trust Fund) as
repayment of a loan the County extended to AHIP in 2003. He said this loan enabled AHIP to build Camp
Springs, five new single family homes in the Porters-Yancey neighborhood and make other improvements
in the community. The homes are energy efficient and environmentally sustainable, and cost about
$130,000 each. Camp Springs received the Best Housing Development award from the Virginia Housing
Award and was recognized by the General Assembly. The loan helped leverage $750,000 in other
funding and additional volunteer time.
__________
Mr. Steve Gissendanner, President of the Albemarle Education Association, addressed the
Board. He said the Board’s task for the budget next year is harder but he would ask them to support the
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
living wage initiative. He suggested the Board ask developers to pay their fair share, and also ask the
State for other means to raise revenues.
__________
Mr. David Oberg addressed the Board. He said the greatest investment the County can make is
in its children. He emphasized that if seven-cents is cut from the tax rate, the future of children would be
sacrificed and that’s wrong.
__________
Ms. Patty Marbury addressed the Board, stating she is PTO President at Crozet Elementary
School and a mother of two children in County schools. She suggested that without full funding of the
education budget it will be a struggle to achieve a world-class educational system. She said schools do
fundraising to bring more money in, but decreasing the tax rate would mean parents would end up paying
for computers, sports equipment, etc., which not every family can afford. She said teachers might leave
and go to other counties. She noted the 2006 Citizens Survey showed citizens rated education and
safety as the most important items for the County to invest in. Eighty percent also feel the County is
giving them a good return for their tax dollars. More citizens favor increasing tax rates than decreasing
them.
__________
Ms. Margie Shepherd addressed the Board. She said the Board just stated a week ago how
important strategic initiatives are, and now they are contemplating a large tax cut. She suggested they
read the Citizens survey on the things that are important to the area – schools, parks, preservation, safety
– things that bring quality of life to the area. She added that the Board should follow its own priorities,
keep its promises, and fund the Schools budget.
__________
Ms. Janet Webster addressed the Board on behalf of the Henley Middle School PTO. She urged
the Board to fully fund the Schools budget, noting they have encouraged growth in the community while
highlighting the quality school system. In the end it will cost. She stressed that students will become
citizens in the community and should be well-prepared for their careers and lives.
__________
Ms. Tracy W alker addressed the Board, stating she is a lifelong resident of the County and the
mother of a first grader. She said the message sent by cutting the Schools budget is that education is no
longer a priority. This could lead to larger class sizes, outdated textbooks and technology, and shifting
costs onto parents for transportation and supplies.
__________
Ms. Jackie Lombardo addressed the Board, stating she has three children currently in Albemarle
County Schools. She thinks the majority of Albemarle County residents have supported full funding of
education; not doing so sets the County up for failure. She emphasized that fully-funded schools support
the entire community’s future. To properly take care of the children is to properly take care of the future.
__________
Mr. Andy W ojick, a resident of Cismont, addressed the Board, stating that only half of his road is
paved. He said the Board is forgetting the neighbors. Who thinks their taxes are more important than
their neighbors?
__________
Mr. Andy Trevor Przyoski addressed the Board. He believes everyone is here because they love
what they do. He loves to teach but it is getting increasingly hard to do. He said teachers want to be
shown respect for their skills and knowledge. He has a student who has moved around a lot and this
student said Albemarle is the only high school he’s attended where he’s felt loved and supported by
teachers.
__________
Mr. Charlie Trachta addressed the Board, stating his property assessments have increased by
100 percent. The average Albemarle teacher’s salary in 2006-07 was lower than comparative
communities. He said the cost of running schools now is driven largely by the SOLs and the No Child
Left behind Act. People who are already here are being taxed with higher assessments to make it more
affordable for those who may come. He thinks this helps the developers. He said the Planning
Commission just approved a project with 500 more homes and there are several such developments “in
the pipeline.”
__________
Mr. Ken Ferguson addressed the Board, stating he is a teacher and a parent. He emphasized
that there are efforts being made to recruit teachers from the business community. He chose Albemarle
for its support of small class sizes and the young child, and its commitment to teacher training and
education as well as technology. He drives to work from outside the County, and budget cuts will take
away the things that are appealing about Albemarle schools.
__________
Mr. Boyd closed this comment period, but indicated he would reopen it at the end of the meeting.
Mr. Rooker said the School Board had met with legislators to ask them for additional money for
the SOQs. It could mean millions of dollars for the County to offset the high cost of living. Albemarle has
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
been said to have the second highest cost of living in Virginia, but no legislators have agreed to carry this
proposal forward to the General Assembly. Over the years, the percentage of money the State provides
for education has been declining, which means the local share has increased substantially. He urged the
audience to contact their legislators and implore them to include Albemarle County as one of the
designated counties in the State to receive the “cost to compete funds.”
Mr. Boyd said there is to be a joint meeting with the School Board next W ednesday, March 21 at
1:00 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Ms. Thomas moved to approve Item 7.1 on the Consent
Agenda and to accept Item 7.2 as information. Mr. W yant seconded the motion, which passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: July 12 and December 13, 2006.
Mr. Slutzky had read the minutes of December 13, 2006 (Pages 1 to 20 ending at Item No. 8) and
found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of December 13, 2006 (Page 20 beginning at Item No. 8 to the
end and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the minutes which had been read.
__________
Item 7.2. Digital Government Annual Report 2006.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Albemarle County has an active digital government
program encompassing a website, A-mail, E-news service, and podcasting, among other features. This
Annual Report provides an overview of activity related to these initiatives for 2006. It contains statistics
on a variety of functions related to digital government initiatives. Highlights for a few of those functions
are mentioned below. Generally speaking, significant increases in usage have been experienced in all
phases of the County’s online services resulting in improved customer accessibility and convenience and
efficiencies and cost savings to staff.
General statistics provide the best overall picture of website usage which continues to climb in all
major categories.
2005 2006 Percent Change
Average Page Views Per Day* 16,171 25,859 +60%
Average Page Visits Per Day** 2,449 3,830 +56%
Total Number of Files
Downloaded
1,070,802 1,299,831 +21%
Customer Usage Highlights: These data allow staff to see when customers are using the
website. An analysis of the data indicates the website clearly is meeting its primary goal of providing 24-
hour a day, seven-day a week service – providing a true self-service opportunity for users. W eekend
days average about 72 percent of the average traffic for a weekday. More visits occur between 5:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m. than during regular working hours.
Downloaded highlights: This section gives the top 20 downloaded files from the Albemarle
County W ebsite and the number of times they were downloaded. Downloads are important because they
reflect the level of productivity occurring on the website – the downloads reflect visits or phone calls that
did not have to be made to a County facility, and copying and mailing time and expense that staff did not
have to incur as a result of citizens using these download opportunities. A total of 5,000 unique
documents were downloaded at least once. Approximately 200 unique documents were downloaded at
least 1,000 times. Sixty documents were downloaded at least 2,500 times. Master plan documents are
getting significant downloads (Crozet–7,785; Places29–5,101; Pantops–2,345).
A-Mail Highlights: A-mail is a service of Albemarle County's Community Relations Office to notify
the public about the services, programs, and events important to residents, visitors, businesses and the
greater community. Users of this service receive meeting notices, announcements and periodic updates
on major events related to the topics they are most interested in. Subscribers can choose from several
interest groups and only receive A-mails for topics in which they are interested.
2005 2006 Percent Change
Average messages sent per month 6 8 +33.33%
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Average number of subscribers per message 606 800 +32.01%
Total number of subscribers for all lists 1136 2181 +91.99%
This report was received as information only.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: SP-2006-037, Camp W atermarks Amendment (Sign #24).
Proposed: Amend existing special use permit, extending camp sessions allowed from 4 weeks
per year to 16 weeks per year.
Zoning Category/ General Usage: RA--Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Section: 31.2.4.1; 10.2.2.20; 5.1.05.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas-preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: 1145 James River Drive, west of Route 726 and Hatton Ferry Road.
Tax Map/Parcel: TM 136, Parcels 6B, 9D, 9D1, 9E.
Magisterial District: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5,
2007.)
Ms. Joan McDowell, Planner, addressed the Board, stating that in May, 2006 the Board approved
a special use permit for Camp W atermarks allowing for the operation of a faith-based agricultural camp
within an existing farm. After managing a summer of camp sessions, the applicants – Travis and Angela
Critzer – wish to amend the existing permit to be allowed to extend the number of camp sessions from
four to 16 week-long sessions per calendar year. Camp activities and accommodations would remain
unchanged and include nine cabins, a recreation hall/dining facility, basketball and skateboarding areas,
a fishing lake, fire pit, and nearby animal paddock. One of the primary goals of Camp Watermarks is to
provide nature and agricultural experiences for children who normally have limited exposure to outdoor
and/or agricultural environments. The maximum number of children from eight to 18 years old would be
36 to 45 children for each week-long session, and farming/forestry will continue with the primary activity
on the Critzer’s farm and the camp remains a secondary use.
Ms. McDowell said the Critzer farm is located on the James River Road west of Hatton Ferry
Road and near the town of Scottsville. The surrounding landscape is comprised of forest, open pasture,
agricultural fields as well as residential and agricultural buildings. Immediately adjacent to the Critzer
property on the west is an Ag/Forestal District. Immediately to the south are the CSX railroad tracks and
the banks of the James River. A notable characteristic of the Critzer property is a deep, wooded ravine
along the eastern boundary of Parcel 136(9E) extending from the eastern edge of the camp facilities to
the James River.
Ms. McDowell said the camp facilities are well integrated into the surrounding landscape. Both
staff and campers will continue to use a bus which picks them up at Effort Baptist Church in Palmyra and
then transports them to the camp. She said staff recommended approval of this special use permit
subject to the 11 conditions listed in the staff’s report (amended from those conditions on SP-2005-34).
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 6, 2007, unanimously recommended approval
subject to those same conditions.
Mr. Boyd asked Board members if they had questions for staff.
Ms. Thomas asked about the lighting. She thinks that originally it was subject to such a condition
in the special use permit. She would like to continue with the original condition which read: “All site
lighting exclusively for camp use must either emit 3,000 lumens or less or be full cut off fixtures. Lighting
issues must be resolved prior to the issuance of a clearance for the commencement of the use.” With the
expansion of the use, she does not know any reason not to continue that condition.
Ms. Amy Arnold, the staff Project Manager, addressed the Board. She went to the Critzer’s Farm
yesterday and did an inventory of the lighting. She showed a slide indicating which lights emit more than
3,000 lumens which is the ordinance cutoff for shielded lighting. Part of the ordinance also says that any
of these lights which have been in place previous to October, 2001, are legally non-conforming. The
applicant has stated that these six fixtures were in place prior to that date. If the Board wishes to place a
condition on these lights, that is possible.
Mr. Davis said the Lighting Ordinance adopted in 2001 would have applied to the fixtures Ms.
Arnold referred to, but because they were there, the Lighting Ordinance did not capture those. However,
for any of the appurtenances on the property that are related to this special use permit, the Board has the
authority to put conditions on granting of the special use permit. If these lights are related to the
proposed use, the Board could condition them including requiring them to retrofit those existing lights.
Ms. Thomas said she does not understand because the Board has a list of the conditions which
were placed on the original special use permit limiting the lights to 3,000 lumens or less. Why were the
lights not already changed to meet the special permit conditions? Ms. Arnold said she understands that
condition was eliminated before the original special use permit was approved. The conditions before the
Board tonight are the conditions associated with the special use permit as approved.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Boyd pointed out that it doesn’t matter because the Board can change the conditions now.
Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. W yant asked if the previous conditions still apply whether they are stated this time or not. Mr.
Davis said he thinks that condition was originally recommended when the Board saw the special use
permit but it was eliminated. There was not a lighting condition imposed on the previous approval,
probably because the Lighting Ordinance had just been adopted and it was felt it was adequate to
address existing and proposed lighting conditions, but it did not capture the nonconforming lights.
With no further questions for staff at this time, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked the
applicants to speak first.
Travis and Angie Critzer, the applicants, addressed the Board. Mr. Critzer said they are asking
for the amendment to operate W atermarks Camp for 16 weeks a year. Now that it is open and operating
the response from the surrounding community is greater than anticipated. He said they are trying to
preserve their land so the generations to come will have it to enjoy. A lot of questions have been raised
about traffic, lighting, noise levels, and other things. Between himself, his wife and adopted father, they
own eight parcels of land totaling over 200 acres. With their current division rights and the 21 acres lots
they could easily sell and/or develop, and 30 building sites would create at least 120 more vehicle trips on
James River Road and that does not include trips to the grocery store, doctor’s visits, schools, etc. The
noise and lighting from 30 more homes and the families living on the properties would cause more
detriment to the community than their groups visiting for a short period of time. He said they could sell
and/or develop the property, but chose to stay in southern Albemarle County. They feel it is their calling
to step forward and make a difference in young people’s lives by creating a place where they can
experience God and express themselves in a loving, caring environment. He asked that the Board
approve this amendment. As to the lights, the property is deeply wooded and they have no neighbors.
The lights have been in place for 15 years, and no one has ever complained about the lights. The
building the lights are on is a farm shop and continues to be a shop when the camp is not operating.
Mr. Kevin Fletcher addressed the Board to express his support for Camp W atermarks. He said it
fits into what the Comprehensive Plan asks for in the rural areas. It helps to preserve the rural lifestyle
and sense of community in Albemarle. He can think of nothing that fits better in the community than a
faith-based camp for children. The Critzers are an asset to the community and the camp is an asset to
the community. He asked that the Board approve the request.
Mr. Scott Morrell addressed the Board, stating that he has been Mr. Critzer’s neighbor since
1979, and the camp has provided no noticeable impact to the surrounding area. He supports what they
are doing for the children.
Mr. Tommy Tapscott addressed the Board, stating he agrees with Mr. Morrell. It is not noticeable
when the camp is or isn’t operating. He notices no change in traffic from the camp, and as to the lighting,
the lights that the power company installs put out more light and can be seen from a further distance. He
said this camp helps the kids.
Mr. Peter W ay addressed the Board, saying he came to support this effort. He said the
community is 100 percent behind this operation. What Mr. Critzer is doing is superior and important for
the welfare of the community and the County. He asked that the Board approve this request, since it is a
good thing for the County.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
was placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis said in reviewing the Board’s minutes, it appears that the Planning Commission had
removed the lighting condition to which Ms. Thomas referred prior to the Board’s vote on the original
special use permit.
Ms. Thomas said her concern about lighting relates more to “dark skies and energy” than it does
to whether a neighbor is concerned about a light. She said they can be full cutoff fixtures which means
the lights can remain powerful if light is needed on the ground, but there is a shield on top so the light
does not go up into the sky. That would be her reason fro wanting to capture wording of the condition
that was dropped, which would be an additional condition and it would read: “All site lighting exclusively
for camp use must either emit 3,000 lumens or less or be full cutoff fixtures.”
Mr. Dorrier said he has been to the site, and the property is located far away from other buildings.
He doesn’t see a useful purpose putting in that condition except to keep the lights from shining on the
Critzer’s dwelling.
Ms. Thomas replied that a full cutoff fixture does not keep the light from the ground, but keeps it
from going up into the sky which helps the County with the dark sky, and helps children all over the
County to be able to see stars. That is quickly disappearing because there is too much light pollution
going up into the sky. She does not think it puts a crimp in the program in any way.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it was a recommended condition at one time.
Mr. Davis said it was a proposed condition at one time, but was eliminated by the Planning
Commission and was not adopted by the Board. It has never been a condition. He said the condition
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
which was proposed by the Commission contained the term “offsite lighting exclusively for camp use.”
The recent site visit by staff revealed that there was only one nonconforming light being used for the
camp. Other lights were for both camp use and agricultural uses on the property, so only one light would
be addressed by Ms. Thomas’ proposed condition. If the Board wants a condition to address the
nonconforming lights, he will suggest some alternative language.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Davis has that language now. Mr. Davis said it could state: “All exterior
lighting fixtures shall be full cutoff lumineers, fully shielded and arranged or directed to reflect away from
adjoining properties and away from adjacent roads.” That is the standard condition that used to be
imposed prior to adoption of the Lighting Ordinance.
Mr. Boyd asked if other Board members are in agreement with Ms. Thomas’ suggestion.
Mr. W yant said this camp is on 89 acres, and the Board is discussing one light. He does not think
the light will make that much difference on this amount of acreage. If they make improvements in the
future, then they can go to the full cutoff fixtures.
Mr. Rooker asked if the condition should say “any added lighting.” Mr. Davis said any future
lighting added on the site would be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. It would not be
grandfathered. The ordinance addresses everything on the site except residential lighting.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Critzer will not be required to change his present lighting. Mr. Davis said that
is correct.
Mr. Dorrier said he will then make a motion to approve the special use permit.
Mr. Slutzky interrupted to say he thinks there needs to be more discussion. Personally, he
supports this use, but over this micro-management issue of the lighting, the Board has adopted an
ordinance which requires that new lighting fixtures be differential to the dark skies issue. This is an
opportunity to take some grandfathered lights and bring them into compliance with the existing ordinance.
He is not sure that is unduly burdensome so he thinks that condition should be added; however, if only
two Board members thinks that is necessary, then the Board can move on and approve the request.
Mr. Boyd said he doesn’t have a problem with the existing lighting, and the ordinance will apply to
any new lighting.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board should apply the condition while it can, or leave it alone.
Mr. Boyd said in this instance, he thinks the Board should leave the lighting as it is. As Mr. Davis
said, any new lighting will be controlled by the ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board adopted the Lighting Ordinance because it felt there was a public good
to be served by imposing that requirement. He asked if Mr. Boyd was saying that in this instance he
would not want to impose that condition.
Mr. Boyd said he was saying that he did not think the Board should go back and impose the
condition on existing fixtures. If it was a new fixture he would agree.
Mr. W yant asked if this special use permit covers all structures on the property, including future
structures.
Mr. Davis said any new construction would have to comply with the ordinance. Any fixtures which
were on the property prior to 2001 when the Lighting Ordinance was adopted are nonconforming and do
not have to comply unless the Board makes it a condition of this special use permit.
Mr. Rooker said they are not judged to be in connection with this use. Mr. Davis said they are
nonconforming fixtures. This use does not require that condition unless the Board imposes it.
Mr. Rooker said he thought it was said earlier that there is only one light among these which
would be covered by the ordinance. Mr. Davis said there is only one light under the old proposed
condition which Ms. Thomas read that said it had to be exclusively for this use. There is only one light
which is exclusively related to this use; there are other lights that are shared by this use and other uses
on the property.
Mr. Rooker said if this use were not being made for the property, the existing lighting would be in
place, and would not be subject to the ordinance. Mr. Davis said he understands that all of this lighting
already exists. One light will be for the part of the property which is to be used for the camp. As to the
other lights, some are used for the camp and also for other purposes. The proposed condition that
existed in 2005 only applied to the lights that were for exclusive use of the camp which is just one light.
Although there are other existing lights, they are not used exclusively for the camp.
Mr. Dorrier moved for approval of SP-2006-037 with the eleven conditions as presented. Mr.
Wyant seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The improvements, and the scale and location of the improvements authorized by Special
Use Permit 2006-37 Camp Watermarks, shall be in general accord with the concept
application plan dated February 22, 2006, prepared by Angela and Travis Critzer, and
titled Watermarks Christian Ministries Camp (Attachment D). However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept application plan to allow compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Compliance with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code shall be verified by the Fire
Marshall prior to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance and the commencement of
the special use;
3. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding minimum septic
requirements shall be required prior to the commencement of the special use;
4. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding kitchen and food
service approvals shall be verified by the Health Department prior to clearance and the
commencement of the special use permit;
5. Total number of staff (in addition to the applicant and their family) on site at one time shall
be limited to ten (10);
6. Camp sessions shall be limited to a maximum of sixteen (16), each one (1) week long,
overnight sessions per year;
7. The maximum number of children per session shall be limited to forty-five (45);
8. The maximum number of bus or van trips (round trips) to and from the camp, each
session shall be six (6). Bus or van trips shall be the primary means of transportation for
the children;
9. Outdoor amplified sounds or bull horns shall be prohibited;
10. Compliance with VDOT requirements for the entrance shall be verified prior to the
issuance of a zoning compliance clearance for the commencement of the special use;
and
11. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply shall be
verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning compliance clearance and
the commencement of the special use.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: SP-2006-038, Montessori Community School –
Amendment (Signs #49 & 50).
Proposed: Amend existing special use permit for a private school to allow for replacement of
modular trailers with permanent buildings for 40,700 square feet of total building area on a 6.71
acre site.
Zoning Category/General Usage: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and
service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre).
Section: 23.2.2.9 Private School.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses in Neighborhood 3 (Pantops) Development Area.
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: 305 Rolkin Road, adjacent to the NW of the intersection of Rolkin Road and Richmond
Road (Route 250).
Tax Map/Parcel: TMP 78-12A and 12A1.
Magisterial District: Rivanna.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5,
2007.)
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s
Office with the permanent records of the Board. She said this request is to replace existing modular
trailers onsite with permanent buildings and a revised layout at the existing school; there is no increase in
enrollment. She said the school is located on Route 250 East and the zoning on the property is C-1.
Under the proposed plan the old 1924 house on the site would remain but an old carriage house on the
site would be moved. The new facility will have a number of buildings with the same footprint, although
they will be two and three stories, with new playgrounds, additional parking and an amphitheatre.
Ms. Echols showed the concept plan to the Board. To the rear of the parking lot there is a large
amount of green space which is to remain although the Planning Commission granted waivers for
disturbance of that area which will then be replanted. She said the school wants to build the buildings
into the topography a little better. Staff believes the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan which
designates this area as Urban Density Residential, and this is a use which supports residential uses in
that category.
Ms. Echols said the Planning Commission discussed a number of issues, including a zoning
violation caused by construction of the fence. There is abatement of that violation going on now. The
ARB has asked for replacement of the fence by August, 2008 in conjunction with Phase One
improvements, and the other ARB conditions listed in the staff’s report. She said the buffer to the
residential uses to the rear of the property was discussed. It is 20 feet in one place, but is wider in most
areas. Re-vegetation would take place and path and interpretative areas would be allowed. There was a
discussion about LEED certification, and the applicant would not commit to that because their philosophy
is one that teaches sustainability, and they believe their site design will reflect that.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Ms. Echols said staff found favorable factors to the request which include the school continuing to
provide expanded opportunities to the community; the land use plan supports the use; and, the new plan
will be sensitive to the topography. Staff found no detrimental impacts or unfavorable factors so
recommended approval of the special use permit with conditions which replace those on the existing
permit. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20, 2007, unanimously recommended
approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
Ms. Thomas said the site is up on a hill and there’s nothing in the conditions to address lighting.
Ms. Echols said the lighting has to conform to lighting regulations, and the ARB will carefully consider that
when reviewing the plan. Mr. Davis said the regulations require that the lights be shielded and reflected
away from adjoining properties, and have no spillover onto adjacent properties more than one-half foot
candle. Those regulations will deal with most of the issues Ms. Thomas is concerned about.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
speak first.
Mr. Neal Deputy, the Concept Plan Architect and the applicant for the school, spoke. He thanked
County staff, the ARB, and the Planning Commission for their guidance and support of this application.
He said the school began in 1985 and moved to the current site in 1991. It currently occupies 6.7 acres
of CO property operating as a private educational institution under a special use permit. He said this
request is for an amendment to that permit to allow for construction of permanent structures to replace
the aging modular trailers. This has been a six-month process resulting in the plans presented tonight
which emphasize retaining the current historic structure, replacing the trailers with new sustainable,
environmentally-friendly structures, placement of structures that work with the topography, consolidation
of new structures to ease access between buildings, connection of buildings with colonnades creating
outdoor spaces, relegating parking to the rear of the site, and reforesting a large portion of the site to
encourage the health and vigor of native wildlife.
Mr. Deputy said this has been a wonderful project for him as an architect to work on. It is a great
project for the County and the greater Pantops area and it has been judged to be in conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan. There were no unfavorable factors cited in the staff’s report, and there are several
favorable factors cited, and it is in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. He said there are
members of the Montessori School’s Buildings and Grounds Committee present tonight along with some
faculty members and representatives of McKee, Carson. He offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. W yant moved for approval of SP-2006-038 with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Maximum enrollment shall be three hundred (300) students;
2. The site shall be developed in general accord with the plan entitled Montessori Pantops
Mountain Community School Sheets SP01-SP-03, prepared by Neal R. Deputy,
Architecture & Master Planning, last revised January 16, 2007;
3. Fencing shall be provided at a minimum around the perimeter of the Central Lawn, Lower
Elementary Playground, and Children’s House Playground, or at other locations as
required by the County to ensure safety of children adjacent to Route 250 and Rolkin
Road. Final design of the fence shall be subject to review and approval by the
Architectural Review Board. However, to address safety concerns, the fence details shall
include:
• At least forty-eight (48) inches tall;
• No more than a two (2) inch gap under the fence;
• Openings shall be small enough a four (4) inch sphere will not pass
through;
• No ornamental indentations can be used as a ladder;
• Maximum mesh size for chain link fences is two and one-quarter (2-1/4)
inches; and
• Maximum mesh size for diagonal lattice fences is one and three-quarter
(1-3/4) inches.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: SP-2006-039, Pantops Veterinary Hospital Signs #54 &
55).
Proposed: Special Use Permit (SP) request for Veterinary Hospital at Rivers Edge Offices in a
6,600 total square foot building on a 1.32 acre parcel.
Zoning Category/General Usage: C-1 Commercial - retail sales and service uses; and residential
use by special use permit (15 units/acre).
Section: 22.2.2(5) and 5.1.11.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale,
business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 3
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
(Pantops) Development Area.
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: W est side of Stony Point Road (Route 20), 0.1 miles north of its intersection with
Richmond Road (Route 250).
Tax Map/Parcel: TMP 78-58G3.
Magisterial District: Rivanna.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5,
2007.)
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, said this request is to allow for a portion of a building that’s
under construction to be used as a veterinary hospital. She said this is a new building in the River’s Edge
Office Complex. This use is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan since it is a regional service
designation. Staff looked at some issues that might be related to a veterinary use, i.e., noise and conflicts
with pedestrians. As to any noise problems, there are no outdoor kennels proposed; all activity will be
inside the building. The building is located near an active commercial area and is located more than 200
feet from any adjoining residences. She noted the building is two stories, and the ground level is where
the veterinary office will be located. It will also have a separate entrance at the back of the structure and
a dog walking area in the floodplain away from other buildings. There is no outdoor exercise area.
Ms. Echols said staff feels the land use plan supports this use because the vet will be located on
the ground level of the building separated from the other uses. They found no detrimental impacts on
surrounding properties. Staff recommended a number of conditions which were also recommended by
the Planning Commission. She said the applicant requested a change in Condition No. 1 because he
wanted it to be clear that the special use permit and all the conditions affect just the 3,300 square foot
portion of the building for the veterinary clinic. That condition will be changed from: “The plan
shows the building to be 3,300 square feet. Any additional square footage for the veterinary office and
hospital use will require an amendment to this Special Use Permit (SP-2006-039).” to “The plan
shows the total floor area of the building to be used for the veterinary office and hospital as 3,300 square
feet. Any additional square footage for the veterinary office and hospital use will require an amendment
to this Special Use Permit (SP-2006-039).”
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any visibility impact from the River side that should be taken into
consideration. Ms. Echols said the building is already under construction as a by-right use. Staff did not
look at the site itself counting on County regulations to deal with individual site development issues. The
only thing that might be visible from the River would be the dog walking area.
Mr. W yant asked the different between a “dog walking area” and an “exercise area.” Ms. Echols
said a lot of veterinarians have fenced areas where they let the animals loose in those areas. That is not
allowed under this permit.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
speak first.
Dr. Helda Stuart, a practicing veterinarian, addressed the Board. She asked that the Board
support her application for a veterinary hospital. She offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of SP-2006-039 with the six conditions recommended by the
Commission with the change in
Condition No. 1 as stated by staff this evening. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion, which passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The plan shows the total floor area of the building to be used for the veterinary office
and hospital as three thousand three hundred (3,300) square feet. Any additional square
footage for the veterinary office and hospital use will require an amendment to this
Special Use Permit (SP-2006-0039);
2. No overnight boarding use, other than for those animals under medical care shall take
place at the veterinary hospital;
3. The building shall be sound-proofed and air-conditioned;
4. The outside area for walking of animals shall be limited to the flood plain area adjacent to
the building as identified in Attachment F;
5. A separate entrance and exit shall be provided for the clinic in accordance with Section
5.1.11d; and
6. No outdoor exercise area shall be permitted.
_______________
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: SP-2006-041, Gray Television (Signs #62 & 64).
Proposed: Amendment to conditions of SP-2005-014 in order to allow placement of one
additional antenna on an existing tower and to allow greater flexibility for future anticipated
changes.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA, Rural Area - Agriculture, Single Family (incl. modular
homes).
Section: 10.2.2 (6) Special Use Permit, which allows for Electrical power substations,
transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances, unmanned telephone exchange centers; microwave and radio-wave transmission
and relay towers, substations and appurtenances.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4.
Location: Tax Map 91, Parcel 28I, located on Carter's Mountain Trail [private], approximately 1
mile south of its intersection with the Thomas Jefferson Parkway [State Route 53].
Magisterial District: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5,
2007.)
Mr. David Pennock addressed the Board, stating this proposal is for three amendments to the
conditions of SP-2005-014. He said In 2004, a special use permit was approved to allow the replacement
of an existing tower with a larger tower, which at the time was intended to accommodate two broadcast
antennas and some smaller equipment; it was modified in 2005 (SP-2005-014) to allow the addition of a
third antenna and to change out some of the smaller equipment. Since that time, the FCC has pushed
forward with requirements for all analog signals to be replaced by January, 2009 with digital signals, and
that’s the impetus for this application. The first amendment is to Condition No. 1 to allow a change to the
configuration of the antennae on the tower. The second is an amendment to Condition No. 1 to provide
more flexibility for future modifications as changes in technology necessitate. Finally, the applicant
requests an amendment to Condition No. 10 in order to extend the period of time to August 1, 2007, for
the Channel 27 antenna to remain on the PBS tower. The lease area for the tower is within Tax Map 91,
Parcel 28, a 234.16 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. It is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District
on Carters Mountain Trail, one mile south of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (U.S. Route 53) at the top of
the mountain.
For further clarification, the staff report states: “SP-2004-003 approved installation of a new 149-
foot tall tower with a 40-1/2 foot tall antenna rod extending from its top as a replacement of an
existing tower. At that time, the proposed configuration was for the top-mounted antenna
(Channel 19, CBS), a side-mounted antenna rod (Channel 16, ABC), five dishes, and two YAGI
antennae. Subsequently, SP-2005-014 was approved as an amendment to allow the relocation
of a FOX antenna (Channel 27) from an adjacent tower (known as the PBS tower), for a total of
one top-mounted antenna and two side-mounted antennae. Due to technical difficulties and a
delay with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) permitting, the applicant delayed the
relocation of this FOX antenna, and instead added an additional Channel 16 antenna in its place
in order to facilitate a transfer from analog to digital broadcast. The FCC has moved forward with
a requirement that all television stations broadcast using only a digital signal by January 1, 2009.
The applicant still intends to pursue the original purpose of SP-2005-014 which was to
accommodate the relocation of the FOX antenna. Thus, this proposal requests an amendment to
Condition No. 1 of SP-2005-014 in order to substitute a new drawing in place of the schematic
drawings initialed YQA and dated June 16, 2005. The new configuration would reflect a very
similar configuration. However, the previously approved Channel 27 antenna (FOX analog
broadcast) will be replaced with the already installed digital Channel 16 antenna. In addition, the
Channel 16 analog antenna will be replaced with a Channel 40 digital antenna (the FOX digital
broadcast). At no time will more than three antennae (one top-mounted and two side-mounted)
be in place. In addition, one previously approved dish antenna will be removed and a tower cam
will be located.
Changes in legislation and technology continually necessitate changes in equipment. Thus, the
applicant also proposes to add a statement to Condition No. 1 in order to facilitate small changes
without the need to amend the special permit each time. The proposed new condition is ”The
facility including the tower and its attachments (and ground equipment) building shall be sized,
located and built in general accord with the tower elevations and antenna schematic drawing
dated October 20, 2006, except as may be modified by like or similar antenna and other
equipment, which such antenna and other equipment may be smaller in size, and provided no
additional antenna or other equipment (other than the existing Channel 19 antenna) is mounted
above the top of the tower.”
The last proposed change is to Condition No. 10 of SP-2005-041. The previously approved
language require that “The existing Gray TV antenna on the PBS tower located on Tax Map 91,
Parcel 28E, shall be removed within 90 days after the new antenna authorized by this special use
permit is operational.” Due to the requirement for digital broadcasting, the applicant no longer
intends to relocate the FOX analog antenna that is currently located on the PBS tower. Instead,
they will be replacing it with a digital antenna on the new tower. Thus, the change would allow
the operation of both antennae temporarily. The proposed language is “The existing Gray TV
antenna on the PBS tower located on Tax Map 91, Parcel 28E, shall be removed on or before
August 1, 2007.”
Mr. Pennock offered to answer questions.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Thomas said she has her usual question about lighting. She knows that on cell phone towers
the Board attached a condition saying there could be no lighting except during periods of repairing. She
asked staff why that condition was not included on this request, and was informed it had not been done in
the past on TV antennas, only on cell phone antennas. She is not certain it’s necessary to put a condition
on related to lighting that is close to the ground. She asked if this has been an issue in the past. Mr.
Pennock responded it hasn’t been an issue before.
Mr. Davis said it is a supplemental condition now for wireless facilities, so it is a legal requirement
for all of them at this time. He thinks the County’s Lighting Ordinance applies to this type of structure,
which would require that the facility meet those requirements with some exceptions required by Federal
law. There may be some FAA requirements which would be exempt from the Ordinance, and it also
exempts security lighting which is on for only 15 minutes or less. It exempts temporary lighting for
repairs. He thinks those regulations cover Ms. Thomas’ question.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
speak.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board on behalf of the Gray Television Group. She said Mr.
Pennock had adequately summarized the request, noting that they are not adding any antennas or
lighting to the top of the tower. There is no light on the top of the tower now. In 2005, the FAA said there
was no need for a light at the height they proposed. She offered to answer questions.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said the Board’s biggest concern is with the visual impact of towers, so he is glad this
won’t add to what’s visible in this tower structure.
Mr. Dorrier immediately moved to approve SP-2006-041 with the ten conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The facility including the tower, its attachments and the ground equipment building shall
be sized, located and built in general accord with the construction plans and schematic
drawings initialed SBW and dated May 5, 2004, and revised tower elevations and
antenna schematic drawing dated October 20, 2006, and initialed DEP, subject to
maximum height and width restrictions in conditions three (3) and five (5), except as may
be modified by like or similar antenna and other equipment, which such antenna and
other equipment may be of equal or smaller size (except as may be approved by the
Zoning Administrator), and provided no additional antenna or other equipment (other than
the existing Channel 19 antenna and lightning rod) is mounted above the top of the
tower);
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of
site drawings construction of the facility. Planning staff shall review the revised plans to
ensure all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed;
3. The height of the tower structure shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet and the top
of the antenna, including the lightning rod, shall not exceed one hundred ninety (190) feet
above ground level. No equipment, with the exception of any FAA required flight safety
lighting, shall extend higher than the tallest portion of the top-mounted antenna;
4. Antennas supporting services other than television broadcasting shall not be attached to
extend above a total height of the tower itself;
5. The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed fifty (50) inches in width;
6. The existing guyed tower that currently supports this facility shall be removed within sixty
(60) days of the completion of the new tower; (This condition has been met as of
6/28/05)
7. The short existing tower, owned by Adelphia Cable Company shall be removed within
ninety (90) days of the discontinuance of its use and in any case no later than October 31,
2004; (This condition has been met as of 6/28/05)
8. The new ground equipment building shall be painted a natural, dark brown color, and
screened on its eastern and western sides with evergreens or a mixture of trees deemed
acceptable by the County’s Landscape Planner; (This condition has been met as of
11/28/06)
9. No building permit for additional antenna installation or modification shall be issued until
the unauthorized microwave dish is removed; (This condition has been met as of
11/28/06) and
10. The existing Gray TV antenna on the PBS tower located on Tax Map 91, Parcel 28E shall
be removed on or before February, 2009.
_______________
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: SP-2006-042, Charlottesville Day School (Sign #76).
Proposed: Request for special use permit to increase number of students at existing school from
85 to 250.
Zoning Category/General Usage: Planned Unit Development - residential (3-34 units/acre),
commercial, and industrial uses. SECTION: 20.4.2(i) private school.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Urban Density Residential - residential (6-34 units/acre)
and supportive uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in
Neighborhood 1.
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: 200 Four Seasons Drive, approximately 1450 feet from intersection of Four Seasons
Drive and Rio Road West.
Tax Map/Parcel: 061X2-4D, 061X1-4A, 061X2-4B.
Magisterial District: Rio.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5,
2007.)
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, said this special use permit request is to increase the
number of students in this school from 85 to 250. The school is located within the Four Seasons
development. She said this is a unique facility in a unique area. The building contains a number of
different uses, including a commercial recreational use which has a long history in the neighborhood. It
seems to be a successful use in this location although there are periodical conflicts with neighbors. Staff
found that the property is designated as Urban Density Residential and the use is in general conformity
with the Comprehensive Plan. There were some potential problems relating to increased traffic, but it
was determined that parents tend to park and walk their children to school; a traffic study done by the
applicant indicated there are plenty of parking spaces so the traffic impacts will not be that much in this
particular neighborhood. She qualified that statement because there is a lot of activity at this location.
There is a water park, a summer camp, an after-school program, a number of different activities taking
place here. She said this use probably has the least of the impacts except as the neighbors indicated
with noise during recess in the daytime.
Ms. Echols said when the Planning Commission reviewed this request, they asked that the
neighbors present at the public hearing and the applicant get together to see if they could alleviate some
of their concerns. The neighbors who spoke at the public hearing were mostly concerned with all of the
other uses ACAC has. She indicated they did meet and the applicant, Chris Craytor, wrote the Board a
letter dated March 6, 2007, which is part of the Board’s packet of materials tonight.
Ms. Echols explained that favorable factors to this request are: It provides opportunities for
additional students to be enrolled in the school. Unfavorable factors include: Concern was expressed by
owners of nearby properties that there may be additional noise; staff believes the request is comparable
to the number of students that have previously been approved for the site. She said staff recommended
approval subject to conditions, and the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 20, 2007,
recommended approval subject to only two conditions. “The maximum enrollment will be increased to
250 students”, and “the normal hours of operation would be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with occasional
evening and weekend use.”
Mr. Rooker asked the definition of “occasional use” and wondered if that is an enforceable
condition. Mr. Davis said he does know of a “hard and fast” definition; it would be subject to the Zoning
Administrator’s interpretation.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there should be a numerical limit on occasional uses so the condition is
enforceable.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Rooker what that limit might be.
Mr. Rooker suggested hearing from the applicant and letting him indicate how many evening and
weekend uses are expected, and then the Board might fashion a numerical limit agreeable to the
applicant, but which might help the neighbors know there wouldn’t be uses going on all the time.
Mr. W yant asked if there are enough parking places for all the activities. Ms. Echols said for this
particular use, “yes.” The hours of operation are opposite from many of the uses in that area. During the
summer, the school is not in session, and during the school year, the other uses like the swimming pool
and the after-school program, and the day camp are not in session. She said there are problems related
to overuse of the parking lot that do not relate to the school, but relate to ACAC uses on the site. She
thinks most of that conflict occurs when there are swim meets.
Mr. Boyd said the swim events would happen even if the school were not there. Ms. Echols said
that is true. The school is a function on its own, and the ACAC activities function on their own. The
school leases from ACAC because the space is not used. When ACAC has its programs in operation,
the school is not operating.
Ms. Thomas asked if time limits are ever put on special use permits. Mr. Davis said that is rarely
done. The Board may have the authority to do that, but usually in situations where people are making
substantial improvements that is not recommended. In a situation where there are existing facilities and
there is not a substantial investment, he thinks it could be a reasonable condition.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Thomas said she is not sure it is reasonable, and suggested that the applicant address her
question. She was impressed that it took something like this request to get the applicant and ACAC and
the neighbors all talking and dealing with issues that have been around for a while.
With no further questions for staff at this time, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked the
applicant to speak first.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. Also present was Ms. Stacy
Burns, the head of the Charlottesville Day School and several parents of current students, as well as Mr.
Joe W allace, a traffic engineer from Dominion Services. She said Mr. Chris Craytor, the representative of
the property owner, was not able to be here today. He met with representatives of the homeowner’s
association since the Planning Commission’s meeting and the lines of communication are more open now
than they were in the past. One of the first things they did after that meeting was to move some of the
buses that are used, not for the day school, but for the after-school program that ACAC operates. The
buses were very close to residences and it was made clear that it was a problem. The parking issues
that arise mostly during some of the large events like the swim teams were also discussed. ACAC has
leased a parking lot across from Four Seasons Drive to use for overflow parking, but it appears that might
not be enough. Some of the participants were parking on the homeowner’s association property, so the
property owners will be posting “no parking” signs, and will have additional security monitor parking and
directing people to the appropriate parking locations.
Ms. Long said they worked with the association and extended an invitation to host its periodic
meetings on ACAC property. Hopefully this will help keep the lines of communication open. ACAC was
not even aware of some of these issues, and only found about them at the Commission meeting. She
offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd said what Ms. Long just talked about has nothing to do with operation of the school. He
thinks the parking related to the swim meets has been an ongoing situation with the existing use. Ms.
Long said those uses have been going on for several years. The school has only been in operation for
less than a year. The vast majority of the issues raised at the Commission meeting were unrelated to the
school, but they wanted to address them as best as they could. There were comments about noise from
the children during recess, so they are trying to address that issue. They are also talking with the
neighbors about planting some evergreen trees along the border between the edge of the playground and
some nearby residences. She does not know how much sound mutation that will provide, but it will
provide some visual screening.
Mr. Rooker said there is no amplified sound from the school. Ms. Long said that is correct. There
is an amplification system at the water park for the swim meets. That was another issue raised by the
neighbors. She said to respond to the question about what constitutes occasional use, they would be
happy to agree to a condition that sets a limit. She spoke with Ms. Burns and asked for some examples
of types of evening uses they have in mind, and there are things like a graduation ceremony, school-wide
sing-alongs, all-school circle parties, a pool party at the beginning and end of each school year, parties
for the parents, holiday events, etc. She suggested that the limit might be set at 12 per year which would
be about one per month.
Mr. Boyd said if the Board puts such a condition on the permit and the school needs more, they
would have to come back for an amendment to the permit. Mr. Long said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd said he is not concerned about that given the nature of the school. He is surprised that
there have been problems with ACAC and the neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker said he does not know what the condition means if there is no numeric limit. That is
why he asked the applicant to make a recommendation. If 12 sounds like a reasonable number, he
hopes it will be incorporated into the condition. Mr. Davis pointed out that this application does run with
the land. Another school could replace this school and take advantage of this special permit.
Mr. Rooker said the original idea was that the school would operate between 7:30 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., and he has no problem with that, or the occasional use, but he does think there needs to be some
reasonable number in the condition so it is enforceable. If 12 is a reasonable number, then he is
agreeable.
Mr. Boyd asked if the number should be increased. Ms. Long said the applicant would prefer the
maximum amount of flexibility; 20 per year is far more than necessary, but they don’t want to have to
come back and ask for an additional number. Maybe there could be language included which would
allow the Zoning Administrator additional discretion.
Mr. Boyd suggested that it be 20.
Mr. Rooker said 20 is fine with him.
Mr. W yant also agreed to 20.
Mr. Sliwinski Kvzysztof said he represents the Four Seasons Learning Center. He said that in
order to save time, he had written everything down and he handed to the Board his written remarks (Copy
on file).
Mr. Lance W ysant addressed the Board. He has two children who attend the school. He said
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
that last year he had his children in the same facility, but it was a Montessori School at the time. He has
been on the playground many times with the students, and he can’t tell the difference in the laughs, etc.
of the children in the two schools.
Ms. Stacy Burns said she is the head of the Charlottesville Day School. She said the school has
children from two years old through second grade. They are adding a grade per year to get to fifth grade,
possibly through eighth grade. This increase to 250 will be over a period of time. At this time, they will be
adding just the next grade level and siblings. They look forward to serving the community better.
Mr. Keith Roots said he has a son at the school. They chose CDS based on the strength of their
proposed mission and the school has exceeded their expectations. There has been tremendous
intellectual and emotional growth in their three-year old. They are so pleased that they will be moving
their five-year old child from another facility to this school next year.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Slutzky immediately moved for approval of SP-2006-042 including the two conditions
recommended by the Commission, with Condition No. 2 being modified to define “occasional use” as no
more than 20 times per year. Mr. Davis suggested adding to the end of that sentence “not to exceed 20
per year.” He thinks that will be adequate.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
1. Maximum enrollment will be two hundred fifty (250) students; and
2. Normal hours of operation for school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with occasional
uses in the evenings and weekends, not to exceed twenty (20) per year.
(Note: The Board recessed at 7:56 p.m., and reconvened at 8:06 p.m.)
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Boyd said that at this time the Board would hear more comments under the
item listed as “Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda from the Public.”
Ms. Mary Dobmeier addressed the Board, stating she is a first-year teacher at Henley Middle
School. She chose to teach in Albemarle because she loves the area and because of the caliber of
students, parents, administrators and staff; and, also because of the commitment to success, not only in
words and mission statements but in actions that support the fundamental principles that are the basis of
education. She said the County’s mission statement emphasizes rigor, relevance, and relationships.
This has impacted her experience in the County. Experienced teachers in the building offer guidance,
support and advice that cannot be found in any new teacher textbooks or training sessions. These
teachers have helped her learn and grow and will be some of the most influential people she will meet in
her career. She said her strengths come in the form of extensive training using technology. She thinks
new and younger teachers choose Albemarle County because of its commitment to technology. She said
energy, time and money have been placed into the new teacher recruitment and retention programs. If
the schools are not adequately funded, new teachers will look elsewhere to find a school system that
supports the kind of education they have trained to and want to offer students. It is imperative that
Albemarle County Schools remain on the cutting edge to allow the rigor that new and seasoned teachers
have the energy to provide. The caliber of the students in Albemarle County is above average; shouldn’t
the staff and education offered be as well? (Time expired) She asked the Board to fully fund the School
budget as an investment in the future. She asked those present who support full funding of the budget to
stand.
Mr. Billy Haun, principal of Monticello High School, addressed the Board. He emphasized that
County schools offer many programs that go beyond the traditional educational offerings for students that
help them compete in the global market. He said enrichment opportunities better prepare students for life
beyond school. These programs are funded from either special funding assistance from the School
Board or directly from the Monticello High School operating budget. W ithout funds these programs will
not exist and students will not have an avenue to display these talents. He said there are many programs
which are unique to Monticello High School. Every school in the County has enrichment programs which
serve the needs of many students to extend their education beyond the minimum standards of the “No
Child Left behind Act.” He said that Act has affected the Albemarle County School System just as it has
all school systems in the country. Even though he may disagree with some of its regulations and
procedures, he agrees with the intent of the Federal law. The Schools should be held responsible for
educating all students. He said the County Schools are doing a great job of meeting or exceeding in
certain areas the “No Child Left Behind” regulations and accreditation standards. (Time Expired) He said
not all of the students have been reached yet. There is much work left to be done to meet those
standards.
Ms. Kimberleigh W ells addressed the Board, indicating she is a member of the IMPACT
Executive Committee. She said it has come to IMPACT’s attention that the Board decided to send only
two of its members to participate at IMPACT’s meeting tomorrow night. She understands there is a
concern about the Freedom of Information Act which necessitates that a public meeting be called
whenever more than two officials engage in public business. She said IMPACT originally planned to
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
adhere to the law by escorting only two Supervisors into the meeting at one time. Is has been suggested
that although this may technically meet the letter of the law, it still violates the spirit of the law. Members
of IMPACT believe the true spirit of the FOIA is to keep public officials from conducting public business in
private without including the public in the discussion. They do not believe the spirit of the Act is to prevent
public officials from engaging with the gathered people, especially when the invitation is made by the
people themselves. If there is any break in the Act, they believe it is caused by the Board’s decision not
to call a public meeting. IMPACT is concerned that the FOIA is being used contrary to its true spirit to
prevent public engagement. She said IMPACT sent all Board members an e-mail on Monday evening
saying they would adjust their format to allow each Board member to speak regardless of the answer. A
third concern heard was that if the Board called a public meeting, it would have set a precedent. She said
if any organization spends six months doing research and then mobilizes the support of 1000+
constituents, they think the Board has a civic duty to respond. There should be no fear of setting a
precedent for listening to and responding (Time Expired) to people when they are gathered as a collective
body.
Mr. Presley Thach addressed the Board, stating he is a member of the IMPACT Committee and
would deliver comments left by Mr. Michael Kelly who could not remain at the meeting. He cares deeply
about issues that affect the County and its lifestyle, and issues of social justice. They were disappointed
that the Supervisors would only send two representatives to the IMPACT meeting tomorrow night. The
meeting will consist of over 1000 area residents who will gather to speak and listen to issues they think
are important to the functioning of Albemarle County. Their solution is to invite all Supervisors to attend
that portion of the meeting to share the information that has been derived over six months of intensive
research including meetings with most of the Supervisors. He thinks the Board’s constituents need to see
them receive the information, listen to them and take them seriously. Prior to the discussion section of
the IMPACT meeting, the Supervisors who are present only to listen to the research will be escorted from
the room by somebody in the IMPACT group. While not a perfect solution, from IMPACT’s perspective it
is a realistic way to handle the restrictions imposed on the Supervisors by itself. They hope to see all
members present at the meeting tomorrow night in some capacity. (Time expired) They also hope the
Board will support their proposals.
Ms. Barbara Edwards said she is the principal of Broadus W ood Elementary School. She said
Albemarle Schools are built on their strengths – students and personnel – and this locality is the best of
the three in which she has worked. She said the initiatives for languages, technology, K-2 teacher
support, literacy, and the additional programs included in the Superintendent’s proposed budget are an
integral part of making the students the best in the State. This strength comes from the support the
budget affords the students, and this support system shouldn’t be weakened for the students, much less
the teachers. She said that maintaining smaller classes and teacher salaries that come close to the
competitive market salary is just as essential to the educational program as the cement is to the
foundation of the buildings. She asked that the Board support the Superintendent’s proposed budget.
Ms. Amy Morris said she has been a first grade teacher at Broadus Wood for seven years. She
urged the Supervisors to fully fund the Superintendent’s proposed budget because it’s good for the
children, it’s good for the community, and it’s the right thing to do. She said this will ensure that many
vital and enriching programs remain intact. Children need to be exposed to art, music, PE, and other
languages in order to explore their interests and boost their creativity. It will ensure that the County is
able to attract and retain the highest quality teachers because the quality of the teacher in the classroom
impacts a child’s success and overall experience in school. She thinks full funding of the
Superintendent’s budget is good for the community since successful students become a successful and
educated citizenry who contribute to the community in positive ways. She urged the Supervisors to fully
fund the Superintendent’s budget because it is the right thing to do.
Ms. Chris Lombardi said she is representing the Student Assistance Program in the high schools
in Albemarle County. She said this program began in 1982 to help kids deal with prevention issues on
substance abuse. Over the years, the program has grown and expanded to include gang-related
violence prevention, bullying, self-harming behaviors, teen suicide and other destructive behaviors. She
said a budget cut would impact their program and maybe even eliminate it from the high schools. She
asked that the Supervisors support the Superintendent’s budget proposal.
Mr. Jeff Werner said he feels obligated to speak tonight. He is a member of the St. Mark
Lutheran Church council. He does not speak for the council, but wanted to offer support to the
Supervisors for their decision as to how to handle IMPACT’s request. He is involved in advocacy work in
the community, and if there is anything that Albemarle County does well, it is to deliberate issues openly.
The Supervisors rely on staff input and the Planning Commission, and public input, and often rely on
lengthy public discussion before making decisions. That makes this a special community. He is allowed
three minutes to speak, and that is about 500 words which go quickly. He is disappointed that IMPACT is
providing each of the Supervisors one minute to respond to each of their questions. He knows from
experience that it is a struggle to get something down to three minutes. If there is to be an open and
honest deliberation in the community by elected officials, he suggests that happen, but that is not what he
sees in this meeting. He has expressed his concern to his church council. He thinks these are huge
issues and issues which the community needs to tackle. But, this is not the way to do it. He knows what
Albemarle County has done in the way of affordable housing, and he applauds the Supervisor’s effort.
He does not see that reflected in IMPACT’s research. He is troubled by that. As one person tonight
swimming against a huge tide he offers his support for the Supervisor’s decision and encourages them to
engage in the discussion, but he encourages them to participate in a format that allows them as elected
officials to debate the issues and not be thrust into a “yes” or “no” situation with a single minute to
ineffectively and inappropriately state a position.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Jim Honeycutt read some statements from an essay by David Bradley who works for the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in W ashington, D.C. The title of the article is Property Taxes and
Perspective. He said property taxes grow because the economy grows causing new buildings to be built
and increasing the value of existing buildings. Economic growth leads to income growth. It is far more
appropriate to consider property tax levels as a percent of income, not as nominal dollars if the
information is to be conveyed to the public. Property tax collections as a share of national income are still
low by historical standards in the last half century. Property taxes through 2000 nationwide are still lower
than they were in the 60s, 70s, 90s and just slightly higher than in the 80s. One reason property tax
collections rose recently was that the underlying value of residential and business property has risen. As
a result, many local governments have been able to realize increased revenue from property taxes
without raising taxes. The data presented do not support claims of current property tax crisis. The recent
uptick in property tax collections may temp anti-tax interests, voter initiative sponsors, and/or
policymakers in some states into stroking voter resentment against property taxes with the aim of
sweeping cuts or caps on local property taxes. But, the facts are at odds with tax revolt rhetoric since
property tax collections as a share of income are well below levels in previous decades, and since historic
patterns suggest that property taxes are likely to decline again as economic recovery gains strength.
Property taxes remain the single most significant source of revenue for most local governments;
therefore, a crucial source of funding for local services like K-12 education, police, fire and human
services. If policymakers or sponsors of voter initiatives overreact to recent short-term changes in
property tax levels by endorsing sweeping, permanent cuts in property taxes, the results are likely to be a
reduction in those services, increased burden in taxes, or both. He encouraged that as the Supervisors
consider the budget, it look at longer term historical property tax trends and that property taxes not be cut
at this time. He said property taxes are an investment and he has made a wonderful investment in
Albemarle County. He has spent about $15,000 in property taxes and reaped $150,000 in property
equity. He just turned that over to reinvest in Albemarle County. If the Supervisors were going to cut
services in taxes he would rather reinvest that money somewhere where the return would be greater. He
said the County’s Mission Statement says there should be prudent use of public funds. “Prudent” means
good judgment, not frugality.
Ms. Rhonda Miska said she is the Social Justice Minister and the Hispanic Minister at the Church
of the Incarnation. She is also on the Executive Committee of IMPACT. She said there was some
erroneous information given tonight by another speaker. She said there have been multiple meetings
where the members of the Supervisors have had an opportunity to speak as long as they wanted, and to
deliberate among themselves. She said IMPACT has modified its process in order to allow the members
to speak tomorrow night at the IMPACT meeting. She said they included County staff members in their
research process, and it was that staff who said the County’s Affordable Housing Program is not looking
at the group IMPACT is looking at which is that of 0% – 30% of the area median income. She said
IMPACT considered many groups in their research which has been lengthy. She invited Mr. W erner to
speak to IMPACT’s Executive Committee in order to clarify their process and respond to his concerns.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Boyd asked if any Board member had a matter to address which was not a part of today’s
agenda.
Mr. Slutzky said he had nothing other than an interest in talking about the IMPACT issue. He has
said from the beginning that he would like to attend their meeting, and he intends to do so. He will honor
the discussion held the other day, but if there is any desire on the part of any Board member other than
Mr. Boyd and himself to attend, there may be a strategic reason why the Board would reconvene
tomorrow night as a process matter. He asked if anybody had changed their thinking about whether they
want to go tomorrow in light of the Board’s discussions.
Mr. Rooker said he will address this issue based on what other people say. He has been
straight-forward with the IMPACT group every time he has met with them. He has been consistent in
what he has said about process. He thinks the issues they are addressing are important. His concern is
in letting third party groups call Board meetings. If the Board goes down that road, many groups could
ask this Board to appear before them and give them a “yes” or “no” answer on their series of important
issues. In his mind, that is not the way the Board has dealt with issues over the years, and he does not
think it is a wise way to govern. The issues raised are serious issues. The Board has spent many hours
in meetings about affordable housing. There is a County Housing Committee and they were asked to
review initiatives on housing. Those issues bubble up through a process, and most of the members of
the Committee are citizens in the community who know more about housing than he does. He respects
their opinion.
Mr. Rooker said his concern is getting into a forum where public officials are making decisions on
matters without deliberation, without staff reports, without committee input, and without the opportunity of
other citizens to have input on those issues. As Mr. Werner said, the Board could be invited to
Taxpayers’ for Rate Reductions or the Blue Ridge Homebuilders’ and asked to say “yes” or “no” on their
list of issues. He said the Board could get in a mode of making decisions on important public issues
involving millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money without any deliberation. He does not think it is wise to
get caught up in a process that operates like that. He said he handed out something to the IMPACT
Committee stating this position, so it is no surprise to them. He said the transit issue is one the Board
has been working on. At least half of their proposal is something which most of the Board members
would support putting into effect. The other half is something that would be considered after it had a staff
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
report giving some indication of support, but it would have to be judged against other potential transit
solutions in the community.
Mr. Rooker said if four members of the Board plan to go to this meeting the wisest course would
be to adjourn this meeting to the IMPACT meeting. He does not think the Board should do that because
he does not think four people should go. If four people go, it is a Board meeting. After talking to Mr.
Davis, the Board’s counsel, he feels that violates the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, so he does
not think the Board should go into a situation where it violates the spirit of the FOIA. But, if four people
decide they want to go to meeting, the proper route is to adjourn this meeting to tomorrow night at Martin
Luther King Center at seven o’clock. Then, whoever wants to go can go and participate in that forum.
Mr. W yant said he thinks these are all important issues. He said the Board has a process it
follows, and he supports staying with that process. He would entertain having an open forum and having
a discussion with IMPACT coming in at some time. Also, there are other groups working on these issues
in the community. He said those in the region have to come together to work on these issues. A lot of
times the Board asks for staff reports because staff does the research. There is no staff report on this at
this time. He has other commitments for tomorrow night so he will not be able to attend.
Ms. Thomas said she feels weary because she had her arm twisted so long by IMPACT
yesterday she is surprised it is still in its socket. She said IMPACT is a new development in the
community getting 26 congregations involved in taking up major social issues and having committees and
doing research, and she thinks 20 of them have never taken up social issues before. She does not want
this Board to pour cold water on that aspect. She usually goes to everything to which she is invited,
whether it is a bunch of Brownie Scouts who want to tell her something, or whatever; she always goes
and listens. She would be glad to go tomorrow night and listen, but she is not happy to be put in a
position where four of the Board members are asked to make some commitment. There are so many
aspects to every decision the Board makes even when there is well-intentioned or well-done research.
They would be hearing the collective opinion of one group of 26 congregations.
Ms. Thomas said that is why she was happy with the response the Board decided on two days
ago, which was to have two members go and freely discuss as much as they want and bring whatever
information they want since they would not be making a decision for the whole Board because they
cannot. That did not make the people from IMPACT who talked to her happy. They want to have four
Board members present so they could make a commitment. She thinks that is a poor way to carry out the
Board’s responsibility to the citizens. If sitting in the audience and listening to the presentation, which is
what she would do to almost any group, were possible, she might find it an educational evening and she
would learn something from their research. She said Mr. Dorrier still has to speak, and there may be four
people who want to be in the room, but she thinks the original idea of having only two people speak and
carry on a dialogue is the right way to go. If there were four Board members present, maybe it should be
called a special meeting, which is what City Council is going to do. She said it is a learning curve for both
IMPACT and the Board. It has not been faced with this type of request before.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the meeting has been mischaracterized. He sees it as a meeting with
people who have worked on an issue and come up with some recommendations based on facts and
figures. He said it is not often the Board has a chance to talk with 1,000 people on a subject of any
importance. He thinks the Board needs to reach out to people who want to talk about issues and help
solve them. He sees this group as a group of well-meaning citizens. He sees the law as having blinders
on. The law says the Board is not to do the public’s business in secret, and he agrees with that. He does
not think the Board would be doing the public’s business in secret. If the Board were there with 1,000
people anything said would be completely open to the press and everybody else. If the Board is
prevented from speaking because of the FOIA Act, that is discouraging democracy not encouraging it.
He said if the Board members were speaking individually, they could go out before 1,000 people and be
questioned about any subject at any time. If more than two people are going tomorrow night from this
Board, it is prevented and precluded from saying anything. It does not seem right. This is an election
year, and he wants to meet with as many people as he can, wherever he can. He is not willing to just
stay away. At first he thought it was a good idea, but the more he thinks about it, the more he thinks it is
a bad idea to stay away and let IMPACT think he is stonewalling because he does not show up, but he is
really trying to obey the law because the County Attorney says the Board members should not go. It
seems to him the whole thing has gotten out of hand, and the best solution is to go and stand up in public
and say what you think and reserve the right to change your mind if you learn something different later. If
you don’t want to say anything, then you don’t have to say anything, but at least you are there, and not
hiding. That is the way he feels.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Dorrier intends to go to the IMPACT meeting.
Mr. Dorrier said “yes”, he does.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has a process, and it is not a process started six months ago or a year
ago, but something the Board has been building on for years. At one time he and Mr. Dorrier attended a
meeting with over 400 people of the Glenmore Association at their firehouse, and that was sufficient for
them. That was a dialogue. They did not ask them to vote. They asked them to come and talk about
issues which are of concern to them. He said Ms. Thomas and Mr. W yant went to a similar large
association meeting in Crozet. They were two representatives of the Board present.
Mr. Boyd said this is not something the Board is making up to accommodate the IMPACT group,
this is a policy, a procedure, the way the Board has done business for many years before this group came
together. He said the IMPACT group is of interest to him because he thinks it is a showing of people
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
coming together and bringing things to the attention of public officials. His problem is not the FOIA
because there is a simple solution to that. The Board would only need to adjourn to the meeting
tomorrow night, and any or all of the Board members could attend.
Mr. Boyd said the first time he met with the IMPACT group and was asked to attend this meeting
he said he would come if his calendar allowed it. He was not asked if he would come and participate in a
Board of Supervisors’ meeting called upon IMPACT’s behalf. He was asked if he would come to a
meeting, so he said “yes”. At the second meeting, he had a little more information, and he was asked if
he would convene a meeting and he said “no”. His point is that he has never been disingenuous with the
group. He said he would come when he thought there was going to be a presentation or some dialogue
with the Board members. Subsequently, in the second meeting he had with the group he asked for an
agenda and a list of the questions. He was given a copy of the questions, and at that time he was told he
could say “yes” or “no”. In essence, with four members present, it would be taken as a vote on something
the Board would do.
Mr. Boyd said he is concerned IMPACT is trying to disguise the real agenda. He said IMPACT is
asking that the Board attend and at best give members one minute to explain some of the most difficult
challenges in the community. The Board cannot study things in a vacuum like that. As other members
have said, when the Board takes on an issue, it must consider funding for transportation and funding for
affordable housing along with a large group of people who spoke tonight who are worried about funding
for schools.
Mr. Boyd said this was talked about when he met with the group. He asked where the County
would get the money. He said the Board could get together another large group called taxpayers who
want their taxes reduced. He said these might be good ideas, but as a body, as a board, it has to come
together, it has to get staff reports, it has to know the impact of these things on the budget, the impacts on
the long-range planning of the County, and then it has to talk about it, it has to have public meetings that
are publicized to everybody so people can come and speak. That is the way the Board does business in
this County. He is not in favor of reconvening in the IMPACT meeting tomorrow night, and if some other
Board member would rather go, he will step down and not go. He believes in the process, it has always
been two people.
Mr. Boyd said there have been occasions where more than two have shown up to a public
meeting, and that is fine because it was not called for the purpose of conducting County business. It was
called for the purpose of information. If that was the intent of the IMPACT meeting the Board would not
have any problems with the FOIA. He said he is repeating himself because some have already heard
this, and some have not because Board members met individually with members of the IMPACT group.
He is not in favor of reconvening tomorrow night based on the agenda IMPACT has, and since it is not
going to be a dialogue or a presentation, but just a minute to talk.
Mr. Boyd said as chair of this Board he thought it was appropriate he be one of the people who
attend, but he will gladly step down to allow the Board’s process to work, which is to have two people
attend these meetings. He said if he comes tomorrow night, he will not stand on the stage and say he will
vote “yes” or “no” for any item. He will say what he thinks about affordable housing, and what the County
is doing. He will tell the proper process and procedure to be followed in order to get the Board’s attention
to get the issues on the table, and get them collectively looked at with all the other things the Board faces,
in order to work within the process and not outside of the process for IMPACT’s initiatives. That being
said, he does not know where the Board is going with this because if he is overruled then three people
can go.
Mr. Slutzky asked for a clarification. He knows the Board members are torn in different ways over
this because it embraces the public enthusiasm, but each has regard for process. If the Board were to
reconvene, or adjourn the meeting until tomorrow night so four members could be present in the room, he
is in favor of attending this thing. He has said he intends to go and the other Board members have been
kind in allowing him to do that. Nobody has asked him not to attend. He wants to go in order to hear
what they have to say, but also because he is not uncomfortable saying how he views the proposals
being brought forward. He would not intend to vote on anything tomorrow. That would be inconsistent
with the Board’s normal practice. He would not have a sufficient basis by the end of the evening to know
for sure because the complexities of the proposals would require more investigation on his part. He might
react to a proposal by saying he is strongly inclined that way or he is sympathetic with their objectives.
There are a number of things that accurately reflect his personal views, but he does not intend under any
circumstances, even if the Board adjourned to that event to vote on anything. As a legal matter, he was
going to ask if the County Attorney could speak to that. If there were four Board members present and
these members were asked whether or not they were going to support something and they expressed a
view, would they have in effect voted? He wanted to make sure he was not unintentionally putting the
rest of the Board in a bad spot.
Mr. Davis said the Board would not be voting on anything, only discussing, not technically voting
unless there is a proper motion in front of the Board that has been seconded. That is how the Board
conducts its business.
Ms. Thomas said there is a difference between making a commitment, which is what she thinks
the Board would be asked to do, and using the word “vote” which is kind of shorthand for that term. It
would be possible for four Board members to get together in a special called meeting and vote. City
Council deals with that by simply having a policy saying they will not do that, but by law they could make
motions and vote in a special called meeting. She believes what this Board is being asked for is a
commitment so when the time comes to vote, it will vote for a specific route for buses, for example. That
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
is what she expects would be asked rather than turning it into a public meeting, but it could become a
public meeting if the Board were not careful.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not see it as a vote at all. He thinks it is purely a tactic to get a politician
to say something on the record one way or another that is not wishy-washy and trying to get the Board
members to say what they mean, and mean what they say. He does not see it as a way to trick the
Board members into voting for something they are against. He thought it was a way to bring the City
together with the County to have a dialogue about the issues of affordable housing and public transit.
Mr. Boyd said that is not the way it was explained to him. They said there were two questions
which would be asked, and there was to be a “yes” or “no” answer. Since then they have modified and
said the Board member could speak to the “no” answer. He was told a “no” answer is anything other than
“yes” so the person speaking cannot say “I support public housing, but I don’t know that this is the right
proposal.” He said asking Board members questions and forcing them to give their opinions (not forcing
but asking for a straight-forward honest answer) is fair game. People can ask politicians for their opinion
at any point in time. To try and get this Board to convene a meeting at IMPACT’s meeting is what he
considers not to be fair game. He said every time the Board sits together, anybody can call on them. He
has been to two meetings with IMPACT’s executive group and he told them what he thinks. He will not
say anything different to their congregation because he supports the spirit of their two agenda items. He
thinks some of their data is not accurate. They do not have information on all of the things the County is
doing at the present.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board would get input for the future on an issue such as affordable housing.
He may know more tomorrow than he knows today, so he may reserve the right to change his mind. As
information comes along and new issues come along, he may take a different stand on an issue. He
does not think this group could lock the Board into something it may say tomorrow night and make it true
six months from now.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think so either, and is not worried about that. He is worried about the
precedent of the Board convening a meeting, which is required for four people to attend, at someone
else’s request other than this body. He does not know where that would stop. He was asked some
months ago to speak at an ASAP meeting tomorrow night. He backed out of that so he could go to this
group’s meeting. ASAP could ask four Board members to come to their meeting and speak. They have
never asked that it be done but if the Board sets a precedent, it could find itself all over the place. ASAP
claims they can put together 300+ people.
Mr. Dorrier asked about a candidate’s forum where there are a lot of people running for office.
Mr. Boyd said it is usually only two people, and not always two elected officials. Mr. Davis said a
candidate’s forum is actually exempted from the FOIA.
Mr. Slutzky asked whether the IMPACT people raised the issue of the Board convening a
meeting. He might want the Board to convene a meeting in order to be insulated from anybody coming
after him with FOIA recriminations when all he is trying to do is hear what these people have to say and
share with them what he believes. He said if more than two Board members are going to attend the
meeting he will request that the Board adjourn until tomorrow to protect him. For the record, he has not
spoken with people at IMPACT about this, but he expects he will be allowed to speak for more than a
minute in order to meaningfully answer the questions they ask. He thinks the one minute response issue
may be something the Board is focusing on and it may not be in play.
Mr. Rooker said the one minute was noted in the IMPACT agenda originally provided. He would
be happy to be one of the two people attending, but Mr. Slutzky expressed a strong desire that he be
person. He has no problem as an individual going before this group. He did go with Mr. W yant before
400+ citizens in Crozet, and about two-thirds of them were angry. He has no problem going to this
meeting as one of two Board representatives as originally proposed. If the Board is going to do it that
way, it has to select who the two will be. Obviously, the Chair is the person who should go, if he can. If
four people want to go, he does not think it is wise to do it without adjourning this meeting because he
thinks it would violate the FOIA. His reason for not thinking this is a good idea is much like Mr. Boyd’s,
but if four people are going, then the meeting needs to be adjourned to that date in order not to violate the
spirit of the FOIA.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but still feels strongly about this. He will not vote for an adjournment
motion, nor will he attend if more people want to go. It is not that he does not want to attend, but he is not
in agreement with what is going on. He will not vote for it, or attend if more than two people go.
Mr. Slutzky said he respects Mr. Boyd’s candor. He is going to attend the meeting and has said
so all along. He asked Mr. Dorrier if he intends on going.
Mr. Dorrier said he intends to go. He considered not speaking because of the problems the
Board has, but if the Board is going to call a meeting he needs to say something. If there is going to be a
meeting there, he is duty bound to at least give his views.
Mr. Boyd said anybody can make a motion to adjourn. That is the way the Board works; the
majority rules.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Boyd would defer to Mr. Dorrier attending.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Boyd said “sure”.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Slutzky want to go. He asked Ms. Thomas her feelings
about this matter.
Ms. Thomas said she was going to respond favorably to the proposal that she simply go and sit in
the audience. She is always interested in receiving more information. With the concern expressed Board
members might be asked to make commitments, she would not be interested in speaking up because she
would not make a commitment. She does not think they want to hear her opinions if she is not going to
make a commitment. She argued with them yesterday that two members attending was actually a more
responsive proposal because with two they could have a real dialogue. That did not suit the people she
talked to. She thinks it is a responsive proposal for two members to attend and speak and have an open
and forthright dialogue. She will go or not go as this discussion ends, but she is not insistent on being
one of the two. She likes Mr. Boyd’s approach and she thinks he would do a great job as one of the two.
She would be sorry if he does not go.
Mr. Dorrier said he sees it as a chance to learn as much as to discuss the issue. He is going to
learn as much as to speak, and he thinks Mr. Boyd should come and be a spokesman for the Board since
he is now the leader of the Board. He is not trying to push Mr. Boyd out of the way. As a public official,
you can’t freeze and say nothing because you are a human being and you listen and you absorb what is
said and you have to respond.
Mr. W yant said he would offer an alternative. IMPACT should come to a Board meeting and
provide information because the Board’s meetings are public meetings. Other folks could come and hear
and learn what research has been done by this group. To him, he does not like some of the suggestions
occurring because it looks as if there are three or more Board members attending and that is kind of a
commitment. That is a majority of the Board, and it would not go and take a vote on anything, but he
thinks it would commit the Board even though it would be making decisions outside of a Board meeting.
He encourages IMPACT to come and have a work session. He thinks this is of vital importance to all, but
he does not like the forum and the approach being taken.
Mr. Boyd said if the Board were to entertain the proposals IMPACT is putting forth, the Board
would first get staff reports, and then send it through the Planning Commission, and it would come back
to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said it would be the Housing Committee who would consider it.
Mr. Boyd said normally an issue does not start with the Board, but with staff and that is why he is
worried. It is the principle involved.
Mr. W yant said this involves housing and transportation, but there needs to be appropriate people
present with the Board in order to have a work session. It may not be the Planning Commission; it is not
like dealing with an ordinance change or a site plan, or some of the bigger projects. He said information
could be put together on these problems in the community.
Mr. Dorrier said the IMPACT Committee already has the forum scheduled for tomorrow night, and
it is now 9:10 p.m. on the night before. If the Board says it is not going to go Thursday night, it will
sabotage the 1,000 people who are meeting and maybe they won’t volunteer for anything in the future.
When there are 1,000 people who are willing to tackle an issue, he says “let’s go for it”. Perhaps it is not
a perfect scenario, but some good can come out of the situation.
Mr. Boyd said if Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Slutzky want to go, that is two members, and it would not
break any Board procedures or policies, so he is willing to go along with that. It is an election year for him
also. It is tough, but he will do it.
Mr. Slutzky said it sounds like he and Mr. Dorrier are going. He asked if anybody else is planning
to go.
Mr. Rooker said if this meeting were adjourned to tomorrow night, he would go. If only two
people went, he would go, but he has the same process issues Mr. Boyd has. He will respect the
decision of this Board whatever that decision is.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has discussed this matter enough. If somebody wants to make a motion
that the Board adjourn to tomorrow night, they can do that.
Mr. Slutzky said there is no need to do that unless a third person intends to be there.
Ms. Thomas said she is the likely third person, and she would rather follow the Board’s procedure
which is a very responsive procedure. She would not be uncomfortable sitting in the audience and
getting all the information available because she thinks IMPACT has done a lot of research. The two who
go will have to bring back some good information and not just go for themselves. She was happy with
what she thought was a responsive idea when it was discussed for 45 minutes the first time. That was to
have two members go, and feel free to discuss freely. She thinks staff has some information the ones
who attend could share with the group.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Davis if two people sat in the audience, and two people participated, if that
still constitutes a meeting.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Davis said if three or more Board members are at the meeting, and Board members
participate in discussion of public business, under the FOIA that is a meeting. If all six Board members
were present and did not participate, that would not be a meeting. If three Board members were in
attendance and before there was any discussion or participation one left the meeting that would probably
not be in violation of the FOIA. But, if three members were present and there was discussion, then the
Board would need to have a proper public meeting.
Mr. Boyd said City Council is also involved.
Mr. Davis said he understands City Council has called a special meeting which limits them to only
discussing the items which were noticed in the notice for the special meeting. Therefore, they are having
a Council meeting there tomorrow night for the limited purpose for which it was noticed.
Ms. Thomas asked if those notices have to be sent further in advance of a meeting.
Mr. Davis said there is a legal process. It has to be done in writing, and must be called by the
chair or the vice-chair. Notice has to be delivered to all members and the County Executive and the
County Attorney, and unless everyone is present, the Board would be limited to what the meeting was
called for unless a written waiver was signed by all the members. Since everyone is not planning to
attend, that waiver would be required unless it was specified exactly what would be discussed. It can be
done, but the easier way to deal with the issue, as has often been done with this Board, is to adjourn to a
meeting rather than calling a special meeting just because of the “hoops you have to jump through” to do
it.
Ms. Thomas asked if in Mr. Boyd’s view adjourning to such a meeting is contrary to the Board’s
policy.
Mr. Boyd said “yes”. But if he was outvoted, the Board could still adjourn to it. He will not vote for
it.
Mr. Rooker said one question concerns IMPACT’s agenda. Mr. Davis said he does not know the
order of their agenda, but if there will be a presentation of some kind before they involve public officials in
the discussion, then he thinks whoever wanted to attend could attend, listen to that presentation, and
leave before that component of the meeting started. If that were the case, he could attend part of the
meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he would attend part. His problem is with adjourning a special meeting there.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone knows what IMPACT’s agenda involves.
Ms. Thomas said it was explained to her over the telephone that they would take up each item
separately, that is, they would discuss their research and their conclusions and then have the public
officials respond. That is why they talked in terms of escorting the Board members out because they
pictured them coming back for the second topic. Since there is another public meeting going on that
same night, she pictured herself going until the public discussion started and then leaving and not staying
on the grounds hovering about, so she would miss half of the meeting, but she would hear half of their
research results.
Mr. Rooker said the people at IMPACT know there is another very important meeting that night
on the maximum daily loads allowed in streams, and potential legislation that would impose significant
costs on this County and other counties because of the need to satisfy the requirements of the
Chesapeake Bay Act.
Ms. Thomas said this Board had nothing to do with setting that meeting date. This conflict could
have been avoided if anyone had asked, but DEQ sets its meetings as they want to.
Mr. Rooker said he would be happy to attend a component of their meeting before that part starts
to show support for what their group is doing.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Dorrier would be leaving the meeting at the point they start to have a
discussion with the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Boyd to explain.
Mr. Boyd said Ms. Thomas had said she would go for the presentation part and so as not to
violate the FOIA leave at the time they started the discussion with Board members. Then, Mr. Slutzky
and he would stay for part of the meeting. In that case the Board would not need to convene a special
meeting.
Mr. Dorrier said he is not sure that is a good idea. Rather than sit in the audience and not say
anything and then leave, he would be interested in what Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Boyd said.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is trying to reach a middle ground here under which the people who
would like to attend can attend and not violate the FOIA or violate the procedure problems Mr. Boyd and
Mr. Slutzky and he have expressed. This means before part of the meeting started all but two
Supervisors would need to leave.
March 14, 2007 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Dorrier said he would go along with that.
Mr. Rooker said he wants to show support for what this group is doing.
Mr. Boyd said all the Board members want to do that. He is going to break with the Board’s
tradition and ask Dr. Massey if he would like to come up for a minute. He has heard what this Board has
discussed and he wants to see if is acceptable to IMPACT.
Mr. Slutzky said he would be thrilled if the Board would be allowed to shuffle the agenda so Board
members could sit in the audience and hear the entirety of the discussion before having to saunter off.
Ms. Thomas said that would be the entirety of the presentation.
Dr. Massey said IMPACT is willing to work the agenda in a way so as many of the Board
members as possible can be present and stay within the confines of what it needs to do. It would be
optimal for them if the Board adjourned this meeting to IMPACT’s meeting. If all the Board members
attend and full information is given on the two issues, and then at some point all except two members
leave, there would be more than one minute to speak depending on how many people are there.
Mr. Boyd said the Board understands time constraints.
Dr. Massey said they can get this to work.
Mr. Slutzky said hopefully they will be kind and differential to the fact that this Board is choosing
to operate this way and not “beat up on” the members who leave.
Dr. Massey said the entire process is meant to honor the Board members who show up. Nobody
will get any withering criticism at all. In fact, they really want to know what the Board feels about these
issues.
Mr. Rooker said when he attended the last IMPACT meeting he told them exactly what he
thought about all of the issues.
Mr. Boyd said if it will be formatted so the presentation can be made with all Board members
there, then Mr. Slutzky and he will stay for the interaction part of it. He is excited about what this group is
doing, and the Board is trying to work with the group, but has to do so within its own constraints.
Dr. Massey said they are excited about the Board members being at the meeting. After having
individual conversations, they knew the members wanted to attend, so they are glad this could be worked
out. It has been a puzzle for them, but they are happy.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to March 19, 2007, 1:00 p.m.
At 9:23 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Wyant, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until March 19, 2007, at 1:00 p.m.
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.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 09/05/2007
Initials: EWJ