2007-05-02May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 2
2007, at 9:00 a.m., 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
(arrived at 9:05 a.m.), 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, Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg, Director of Community
Development, Mark Graham, and Chief of Planning, David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4a. Recognitions: Juandiego W ade – 2007 John L. Snook Advocate Award
Recipient.
Mr. Boyd recognized Juandiego W ade as the recipient of the 2007 John L. Snook Child Advocacy
Award for Children, Youth, and Family Services:
“It is my great pleasure on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to recognize Albemarle County
employee Juandiego W ade, who has received the prestigious 2007 John L. Snook Child Advocate
Award from Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS). Juandiego has been employed as a
transportation planner by the County since 1991, and his volunteer contributions to the community
range from intensive support of individual children to high level public policy development and
implementation
W hile the list of his accomplishments is very long, I would like to highlight a few particularly
outstanding achievements. In 1991, Juandiego and several fellow alumni members of the Alpha
Phi Alpha Fraternity created Alpha Journeymen, an intensive mentoring program for local boys.
Juandiego has been the Director and lead mentor since the Journeymen were created. He has
personally mentored five young men for more than twelve years. They are all adults now, either
enrolled in school or working full time. His tireless support of the Journeymen has made a real
difference in their lives – providing young men with strong male role models, productive and
enriching activities, and instilling a sense of hope and pride.
Juandiego also has been a Sunday School teacher and Youth Group leader at Olivet Presbyterian
Church for six years. In this capacity, he has supported the development of dozens of children.
He has lead youth mission trips to Mexico and Ireland, with another trip to Mexico planned for the
coming summer.
In addition to his many hours of service and support to individual children through Alpha
Journeymen and Olivet Church, Juandiego has worked tirelessly to improve conditions for local
children and their families on a broader level. He has served the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Commission on Children and Families in a number of capacities since 1998 – all focused on
improving conditions for children and families at the community level.
Juandiego also serves the community on the Boards of Directors of the United W ay-Thomas
Jefferson Area and Presbyterian Homes and Family Services. He is a member of the NAACP
and the Chair of MACAA’s Men who Cook Fundraiser. All of these activities are indicative of his
commitment to fairness and equity issues.
In May 2006, Juandiego took his support of local children to yet another level when he was
elected to the City of Charlottesville School Board. In that capacity, he provides leadership to
meet his stated priority to increase parent/community involvement in academic achievement for all
students by eliminating the achievement gap and encouraging success for all students.
W hen we as a County say that we value and care about children and families, we could not have
a more powerful ambassador than Juandiego W ade. W hether it is the intimate moments spent
on one-to-one tutoring and mentoring with young boys or the very public venue of School Board
meetings, Juan exudes the kind of genuine caring and compassion that touches lives and truly
makes a difference.
Please join me in expressing our appreciation and congratulations to Juandiego in receiving this
very well-deserved award.”
Mr. W ade thanked the Board for the recognition and also thanked his wife and family.
__________
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4b. Recognitions: Emergency Medical Services W eek Proclamation.
Mr. Boyd proclaimed on behalf of the Board that May 20-26, 2007 would be “Emergency Medical
Services W eek” in honor of emergency medical care personnel and their efforts. He then read the
following proclamation:
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and
WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide
lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
WHEREAS, access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and
recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and
WHEREAS, the emergency medical services system consists of communications officers,
emergency medical technicians, firefighters, law enforcement officers, educators, administrators,
emergency physicians and nurses, and others; and
WHEREAS, the members of emergency medical services teams, career and volunteer,
engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their
lifesaving skills; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of
emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services W eek;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman on behalf of
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
May 20-26, 2007
as
Emergency Medical Services Week
in Albemarle County, Virginia, and encourage the community to observe this week with
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
Chief Eggleston accepted the award on behalf of the 500+ EMS men and women who serve the
county and city.
__________
Mr. Boyd recognized Babs Huckle, Joe Jones, and Bruce Hoge for their service to the community
as representatives on the advisory committee, with Mr. Jones serving almost 25 years and the other two
individuals serving even longer.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas reported that on May 24th there would be a half-day workshop sponsored by people
who work with residents with limited English proficiency. Ms. Thomas said that there are federal laws that
require the County to provide services to people with limited proficiency, and she encouraged attendance
by Board and staff.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Board received a letter on April 24th from the League of W omen
Voters supporting the ASAP proposal to study and work on creating an optimal size community and to
better understand the impacts of long-term population growth. He noted that ASAP brought forth a
proposal to fund a study of this nature several months ago and has developed a way with to move forward
with this with a limited amount of staff time. Mr. Rooker added that the County needs to include $25,000
in the budget to match ASAP funds to undertake this.
Mr. Boyd commented that he has some reservations about this approach and perhaps this should
be an agenda item.
Mr. Tucker said that the Board could discuss this later as it could come from their reserve funds.
Mr. Rooker stated that he noticed in the VML newsletter that state revenues might be lagging, and
he asked for some information on how this might affect localities. He also said that one bulletin mentioned
a JLARC compensation study to include local retirement issues and local government compensation, and
he would like to learn more about the parameters of the study. Mr. Rooker said that he thought it would
be a good idea to provide the Daily Progress and other media outlets with a copy of the letter from Mr.
Boyd to David Brown relating to transportation issues.
Mr. Rooker said that he came across a set of minutes that included discussion of building an
agricultural road near the Franklin subdivision off of Route 20 North that was being built in a way that
“contemplated something other than just a farm road.” He noted that in this type of situation, developers
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
use an exemption to claim the roads are for agricultural use, but instead they are built to higher standards
to accommodate subdivisions.
Mr. Boyd reminded Board members of the upcoming Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission summit to talk about land use and transportation issues. He said that it would be held May
31st from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Comfort Inn on Route 250.
Ms. Thomas added that she and Mr. Dorrier attended the VACO meeting at the Palmyra
Courthouse, noting that it’s interesting to hear what approach other localities are taking.
Mr. Boyd said that he has been working with the Forest Lakes Homeowner’s Association
regarding the siltation problems at Lake Hollymead and Arbor Lake, and he asked for an update.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the Board had discussed it and asked Mr. Tucker to have someone
get back to them with the broader issue of how to deal with these lakes countywide. Mr. Slutzky
commented that he appreciates the effort to get the minutes done more quickly.
Ms. Thomas said that in the ordinances, there is something called an “erosion impact area” that
could be declared to be such by the Director of Community Development, and some controls could be
imposed by virtue of that.
Mr. Rooker stated that several constituents have expressed concern about farm ponds, as they
can create significant environmental impacts without any control measures.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that they had also discussed restructuring the format of the Board for the
Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority and whether elected officials were needed on that. He asked that it
be put on a future agenda, and the Mayor of Charlottesville has agreed to move forward with re-evaluating
that.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. John Martin addressed the Board, stating that this past Saturday was one of RW SA’s
hazardous and bulk waste days at the Ivy Landfill, which is free for citizens but expensive for the
organization. He noted that this program is in jeopardy right now because of the “City’s continued refusal
to pay service contribution fees in support of the solid waste authority’s operating costs.” Mr. Martin said
that at an RW SA meeting last week, Chairman Mike Gaffney addressed citizens at the meeting and said
that for several years a solution to the fee problem has been “very close,” but he can no longer make that
representation to citizens. Mr. Martin said that Mr. Gaffney also said that citizens might raise this matter
with elected officials. Mr. Martin said that he’s passed out some documents showing that the city
presently owes $3,098,675 to the RW SA including $1.8 million in principal and $1.2 million in finance
charges. He indicated that the money that was going to be paid is essentially in general revenues, and he
suggested that the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority may want to hire outside legal counsel to pursue the
matter.
__________
Mr. L. F. W ood addressed the Board on behalf of the North Charlottesville Business Council,
stating that the group felt the need to come up with a position statement regarding problematic areas of
the Places29 plan. He said that they feel it is premature to send the plan to the Planning Commission
now, citing concerns with pedestrian safety, entering and exiting the businesses along 29, and inability to
attain rights-of-way in some areas. Mr. W ood said that another big problem is with the grade-separated
intersections, especially at Rio Road and Route 29, with no on and off ramps and traffic winding through
Albemarle Square. He added that there are also issues with construction of grade-separated intersections
at the corner of Hydraulic Road and Rio Road, noting that you would have to pick up the north and
southbound lanes and set them to the side.
__________
Mr. Chuck Lebo addressed the Board on behalf of the North Charlottesville Business Council,
which is composed of over 70 members – business and property owners along the Route 29 corridor
extending from Hydraulic Road to the Greene County line. Mr. Lebo said that the group is concerned
about all of the overpasses included in the plan, as they want to keep the stretch as a shopping corridor
for the County and City. He noted that the overpasses are expensive and would disrupt businesses.
__________
Mr. Timothy Holbert, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce,
addressed the Board, stating their support for the Board to consider the pace and direction of the
Places29 project. He said that they have participated in the process, and he suggested that the initiative
be “paused” until everyone can reach some common ground.
__________
Mr. Jack Marshall, President of ASAP, addressed the Board. Mr. Marshall said that nine years
ago the Sustainability Council issued their report which stated that there are limits to growth. He said that
ASAP’s goal is to help quantify those limits, adding that they want to work toward a new strategic planning
tool to help define the big picture. Mr. Marshall said that growth beyond a certain point results in a change
in the character of a community, and perhaps land use planning can be used to limit growth. He stated
that their concept is supported by the League of W omen Voters, the Sierra Club, the Rivanna
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Conservation Society, Citizens for Albemarle, numerous neighborhood organizations, etc., and other
groups will also support ASAP as it gets rolling.
__________
Mr. Tom Olivier, Conservation Chair for the Sierra Club – Piedmont Group, addressed the Board,
stating that the group fully supports the ASAP proposal to identify an optimum sustainable population size
for the area. Mr. Olivier said that the Comprehensive Plan contains many very good ideas about things
that are necessary for a good future, and the OSPS that ASAP has proposed in the amendment would
unify the thinking in the plan and put it forth in active decision-making. He said that the Sierra Club
encourages the endorsement of this plan and a way to fund it.
__________
Mr. Jeff W erner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that the
PEC has been working on a project to promote local agriculture, and he presented a list of
growers/producers in the area. Mr. W erner also said that for years they have been talking about an air
quality monitor, and school officials have denied use of the Stony Point Elementary School site.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he can’t fathom why they would not allow the site to be used.
__________
Neil W illiamson with the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, stating that the group
doesn’t feel the County should fund the ASAP study and questions the independence of any such study.
Ms. Thomas asked about having Harrison Rue or staff talk about the Places29 study.
Mr. Rue stated that most of the issues raised by the North Charlottesville Business Council are
being covered in the Places29 plan itself. He said that they have invited Mike McGowan of NCBC to come
present to Places29, but they haven’t yet taken them up on that yet. He added that they would have
visualizations of the Places29 concepts within the next month.
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission was planning on having the presentation later in
May, with the Board having an overview of the process presented to them on June 6th.
Mr. Boyd commented that he has some issue with the way the process has proceeded, adding
that he is concerned that there have been a lot of people who didn’t understand the Crozet master
planning process. He believes they’ll need the landowners and business owners to buy into this, because
they’re going to be needed to finance a lot of it.
Mr. Slutzky said that he’s heard a lot from his constituents about this, and his concerns are that
perhaps the NCBC representatives haven’t had the opportunity to participate. He suggested having staff
draft a memo that outlines how the County has reached out to the public, and the only reasons to delay
the process would be if there hasn’t been an adequate job done of engaging participants in the
development of the Places29 plan or in addressing costs.
Mr. Boyd stated that there was going to be a Places29 work session in the Board’s June meeting.
Mr. Tucker responded that it was intended to be a presentation and process discussion but not
really a work session.
Ms. Catlin explained that they could provide a detailed memo of what the public participation has
been to this point, and there is a plan for eight or more work sessions to discuss the plan and provide
input.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that the first priority on the Planning Commission’s list should be getting the
community to buy into this project, and if they can’t do that then he is not ready to move forward with it.
He added that he doesn’t understand moving forward with a plan that the community hasn’t bought into
yet.
Ms. Catlin said that they haven’t seen what there is to buy into yet, and part of this is an iterative
process.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wants to have the first crack at discussing this without the Planning
Commission doing so first.
Mr. Rooker responded that it would be a mistake not to let the Planning Commission look at it first
and could even slow the process down.
Ms. Thomas commented that there have been offers made for these groups to be involved in the
process, and a lot of businesses may still be in favor of a western bypass. She said that if that is what
they are doing, then people are not going to spend hours walking up and down Route 29 and getting it
right.
Mr. Boyd said that he is not holding out for a western bypass, and maybe it should be called a
western connector.
Mr. Rooker noted that the NCBC representatives left this meeting and did not even stay to hear
Harrison Rue’s comments. He said that many of these business representatives have not even attended
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
meetings that they have been invited to, noting that the NCBC was initially formed for the express purpose
of stopping interchanges at Rio, Hydraulic, and Greenbrier Roads. Mr. Rooker said that every
transportation study that has been done in that area has shown the need for grade-separated
interchanges at a minimum at the intersection of Rio and Hydraulic Roads in order for traffic to flow
reasonably well. He emphasized that grade-separated interchanges are nothing unusual, adding that the
widening of Route 29 was done over the objections of business along the road. He agrees that they need
to make certain that the process is open and participatory and that it enables the segments of the
community that have an interest in this to provide participation, but at the end of the day they have to
make a decision about what goes in the plan and doesn’t go in the plan. He believes that they want to get
all that feedback before they do that.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the process has been very open with lots of meetings and invitations
for smaller meetings, adding that the County has tremendous support from the Commonwealth
Transportation Board and VDOT to do this.
Mr. W yant commented that they need to move through the process and get to the implementation
phase, noting Crozet as an example.
Mr. Dorrier said that Route 29 North is different from other County roads because it is filled with
commercial entities, and they should be involved in discussions.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he has asked to meet with the consultant, and he hasn’t been given
the opportunity to do that.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Thomas moved to approve Items 6.1 through 6.8 and to accept the remaining items on the
Consent Agenda as information. Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: October 4, 2006 and March 7, 2007.
Mr. Rooker read his portion of the October 4, 2006 minutes and found them to be in order.
Mr. Slutzky read his portion of the October 4, 2006 minutes and found them to be in order.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the minutes which had been read.
__________
Item 7.2. Authorize County Executive to execute Loan Agreement with Stony Point Volunteer Fire
Company, Inc.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that on April 5, 2006, the Board approved a plan to
appropriate funding from the FY06/07 CIP fund balance for a $215,750 no-interest loan to the Stony Point
VFD for various building renovation projects needed to maintain or ensure services. The loan was in
addition to a County grant to Stony Point VFD for $239,736 to repair/replace the fire department’s roof,
parking lot, and HVAC system. Staff recommended that the loan be paid back over twelve years through
an annual payment of $17,980 per year.
On June 7, 2006, the Board adopted a resolution appropriating the funds. Prior to transferring the
loan funds, a Service Agreement is necessary to define the terms and conditions of the loan.
General Services is in the process of implementing the projects associated with the grant funding
and planning work has been completed on the projects associated with the no-interest loan. However,
before the work can proceed on the projects associated with the loan, a service agreement is necessary
to define the terms and conditions of the loan.
Staff prepared the attached Service Agreement which was shared with Stony Point VFD’s chief
and administration staff. The agreement defines the basic terms of the loan: $215,750 no-interest loan,
paid back over twelve years through an annual payment of $17,980 per year. The Agreement was
reviewed and signed by Stony Point VFD’s chief.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the loan agreement on
behalf of the County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the Loan Agreement with the
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
SERVICE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Fire Company agrees to continue to provide valuable fire suppression
services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area
Maps located at the Emergency Communications Center (“Service Area”); and
WHEREAS, the Fire Company desires the County to contribute Two Hundred Fifteen
Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to provide for renovations and
improvements to their building and property located at 3827 Stony Point Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia (County Tax Map 48 Parcel 18D) that are necessary to provide fire suppression services.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated premises, the County
and Fire Company agree, as follows:
1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Company Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand Seven
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($215,750.00) to be used to fund building improvements as
identified in Attachment A of this agreement. The funds shall be allocated from the
County’s Capital Improvements Fund and will be appropriated to a County budget code
dedicated to these projects. The County will work with the Fire Company to procure and
manage the projects as stated in the Volunteer Fire Rescue Building Maintenance
Funding Policy (Attachment B).
2. The Fire Company agrees that the County will withhold Seventeen Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty Dollars ($17,980.00) from the County’s annual appropriation to the Fire
Company’s operating budget beginning July 2006 through July 2016 and Seventeen
Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Dollars ($17,970.00) in July 2017. Thus at the end of
twelve (12) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of $215,750.00 shall be
withheld. The Fire Company agrees that any amount of this repayment that may exceed
the County’s annual appropriation will be remitted to the County no later than July 31 of
each repayment year.
3. The Fire Company agrees that it shall not convey any of the improved property or any
interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written
consent during the term of this Service Agreement. In addition, the Fire Company
agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the
property shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the property
unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such funds.
4. The Fire Company agrees that at such time as it no longer provides volunteer fire
suppression in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that
it shall convey all of its interest in the property to the County at no additional cost to the
County upon the County’s request.
5. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the
County to the Fire Company, at the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to
support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Company.
__________
Item 7.3. Adopt resolution authorizing Chairman to sign revised Darden Towe Park Agreement.
(Note: removed from agenda)
__________
Item 7.4. Authorize County Executive to execute Regional Police Mutual Aid Agreement.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that over the years, it has become evident to law
enforcement leadership that combining regional law enforcement resources is prudent when confronting
disasters and emergency situations. W ith this in mind, the Albemarle County Police Department has
reached out to neighboring jurisdictions in an effort to formalize agreements of mutual aid in accordance
with Va. Code 15.2-1726 and 15.2-1730.1. The attached mutual aid agreement between the County of
Albemarle and the Sheriffs of the Counties of Greene and Fluvanna, and the Town of Gordonsville will
serve to mutually benefit all involved and provide an increased level of public safety. The County Attorney
has reviewed the document and approved it for execution.
This agreement authorizes the participating jurisdictions to share resources and manpower in
emergency situations involving immediate threats to life or public safety. This agreement sets forth
instructions for appropriate measured responses for specific instances and provides safeguards and clear
guidelines to be followed.
The Albemarle County Police Department currently has a regional agreement with the City of
Charlottesville and the UVA Police Department, and feels strongly that a regional agreement needs to be
expanded to bordering counties and towns that we interact with on a regular basis.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the attached
agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the Regional Police Mutual Aid
Agreement below:
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
REGIONAL MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Va. Code §§ 15.2-1726 and 15.2-1730.1 authorize the governing bodies of a
County and Town and Sheriffs to enter into reciprocal agreements for mutual aid for emergency
purposes, for maintenance of peace and good order and for cooperation in the furnishing of police
services;
WHEREAS, the County, Town and the Sheriffs have determined that the provision of
police aid across jurisdictional lines will increase their ability to respond to law enforcement
emergencies involving immediate threats to life or public safety in their respective jurisdictions,
and will assist them in the preservation of public safety and welfare of the entire area;
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to the parties hereto to enter into an
agreement concerning mutual aid and cooperation with regard to law enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire that the terms and conditions of the Regional
Mutual Aid Agreement (the “Agreement”) be established.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived from
this Agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. Each party will endeavor to provide police support to the parties to this Agreement within
the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made and within the
terms of this Agreement.
2. Requests for assistance pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be
initiated by the requesting party’s on-duty commander, bureau commander, their
respective designees or the highest-ranking officer on-duty at the time of the request.
3. To the extent feasible, the requesting party shall be responsible for designating a
communications system for use by the requested party.
4. The personnel of the requested party shall render such assistance under the direction of
the Chief of Police/Sheriff or other principal law enforcement officer of the requested
party, or their designees.
5. Law enforcement support provided pursuant to this Agreement shall include, but not be
limited to, the following resources: uniformed officers, canine officers, forensic support,
plainclothes officers, special operations personnel, and related equipment.
6. The decision whether to provide law enforcement support under this Agreement shall at
all times remain within the discretion of the requested agency. Nothing contained in this
Agreement should in any manner be construed to compel any of the parties hereto to
respond to a request for law enforcement support when the personnel of the party to
whom the request is made are, in the opinion of the requested party, needed or are being
used within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, nor shall any such request compel the
requested party to continue to provide police support to another party when its police
personnel or equipment, in the opinion of the requested party, are needed for other duties
within the boundaries of its own jurisdiction.
7. The responsibility for investigation and subsequent actions within the requesting
jurisdiction shall remain with the law enforcement agency of the requesting party.
Entering law enforcement personnel shall promptly notify the agency of the entered
jurisdiction upon discovery of a crime in the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.
8. Officers acting pursuant to this Agreement shall be granted authority to enforce the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia and to perform the other duties of a law enforcement
officer, such authority shall be in conformance with Va. Code §§ 15.2-1724, 15.2-1726,
15.2-1730 and 15.2-1730.1 as may be applicable; however, law enforcement officers of
any jurisdiction who might be casually present in any other jurisdiction shall have power to
apprehend and make arrests only in such instances where an apparent, immediate threat
to public safety precludes the option of deferring action to the local law enforcement
agency.
9. W hen performing police duties in a requesting jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of
this Agreement, each law enforcement officer, agent, and other employee of the parties
hereto shall have the same police powers, rights and privileges, including the authority to
make arrests, as the officers, agents or employees have in the jurisdiction where they
were appointed.
10. Pursuant to Va. Code § 15.2-1724, the services performed and expenditures made under
this Agreement shall be deemed to be for public and governmental purposes and all
immunities afforded to the requested jurisdiction when acting within its boundaries shall
extend to its participation in rendering assistance outside its boundaries to a requesting
jurisdiction. For the purposes of this Agreement, the requested party that responds to a
request for assistance is rendering aid once it has entered the jurisdictional boundaries of
the requesting party pursuant to the provisions herein.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
11. All immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and regulations, pension,
relief, disability, worker’s compensation, life and health insurance, and other benefits
enjoyed by law enforcement officers, agents and other employees of each party shall
extend to the services they perform under this Agreement outside their respective
jurisdictions. Each party agrees that the provision of these benefits shall remain the
responsibility of the primary employing party.
12. To the extent permitted by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, each party hereto,
in activities involving the rendering of assistance to a requesting party pursuant to this
Agreement, shall (i) waive any and all claims against all other parties to this Agreement
which may arise out of such parties’ activities outside their respective jurisdictions, and (ii)
be responsible for the acts or omissions of its law enforcement officers, agents and other
employees causing harm to persons not a party to this Agreement. Nothing herein shall
be deemed as an expressed or implied waiver of the sovereign immunity of the parties to
this Agreement.
13. The parties to this Agreement shall not be liable to each other for reimbursement for
injuries to personnel or damage to equipment incurred when going to or returning from
another jurisdiction. Neither shall the parties hereto be liable to each other for any other
costs associated with, or arising out of, the rendering of assistance pursuant to this
Agreement, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in advance of the provision of
assistance under this Agreement.
14. This Agreement sets forth the complete agreement relating to the provision of mutual
police services among the parties hereto. However, nothing herein shall affect the
enforceability of separate mutual aid agreements entered into by the County.
15. Any of the parties hereto may withdraw from this Agreement by giving ninety (90) days
written notice to that effect to the other parties.
16. This Agreement is subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the County of
Albemarle and Town of Gordonsville and the Sheriffs of the County of Fluvanna and the
County of Greene.
WHEREBY, the parties hereto have executed this Regional Mutual Aid Agreement, by
their authorized representatives, whose signatures are set forth following below as of the day and
year first set forth above.
__________
Item 7.5. Resolution to accept road(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
(Discussion: Mr. W yant asked if it would be possible to get information on which district certain
roads fall in.
Mr. Tucker agreed to provide that.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the resolution for the incorporation
of roads within the Oak Hill Subdivision.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Oak Hill Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Oak Hill
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 and to §33.1-82, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
__________
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Item 7.6. Resolution to accept road(s) in Logan’s Run Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the resolution for the acceptance of
the Logan’s Run Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Logan’s Run Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on
plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Logan’s
Run Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 2, 2007, to
the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 and to §33.1-82, Code of Virginia,
and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
__________
Item 7.7. Cancel May 9, 2007 Night Board Meeting.
(Discussion: In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question, Mr. Tucker explained that there is an
afternoon work session on May 9th, but there are no public meeting items at night.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board cancelled the May 9, 2007 Night Board
Meeting.
__________
Item 7.8. 2006 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
In a memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, stated
that State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public record
of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The full 2006 BZA annual
report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance and appeals from
decisions of the Zoning Administrator or other administrative officer. These appeals can include
determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals in 2006 decreased by eleven, from thirteen received in 2005 to two in
2006. The two appeals received in 2006 were withdrawn. Three appeals were pending from 2005. Of
these three, one was withdrawn, and two Zoning Administrators' decisions were affirmed by the Board.
The number of variances in 2006 increased by five, from nine in 2005 to fourteen in 2006. Six
variances were approved: one was denied, two were withdrawn, two were void, and three were pending
(as of December 31, 2006). These three pending variances were withdrawn at the April 10, 2007 public
hearing. The number of variance requests related to setbacks was the same in 2006 and 2005.
The number of special use permits for off-site signs increased by four, from zero in 2005 to four in
2006. Three were approved, and one was still pending (as of December 31, 2006). This pending special
use permit was denied at the March 6, 2007 public hearing.
The following court cases are still pending as of December 31, 2006:
1. Barry Schmidt v. Board of Zoning Appeals. Appeal of zoning determination.
2. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood.
3. Scott W . and Caroline F. W atkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals. Appeal of determination of
zoning violation.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked who the legal counsel is for the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Davis replied that the County Attorney’s office has typically represented the Zoning
Administrator, and when there is no conflict of interest between the Zoning Administrator and the Board of
Zoning Appeals, they also represent the BZA. He added that if there is a difference of interest then the
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
BZA would have outside counsel, although that hasn’t occurred since he’s been County Attorney. Mr.
Davis noted that other localities occasionally have outside legal counsel.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the 2006 Annual Report of the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
__________
Item 7.9. Board to Board, Communications report of activities from the Albemarle County School
Board, dated May 2, 2007, was received as information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas commented that it might be helpful to have an update on the Baldridge
process of evaluation as several departments such as Social Services have been through it.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s question about the cost impact, Mr. Tucker replied that it has been done
within existing staff as part of their workload and said it’s the “Senate Productive Quality Assessment”
model that’s being used.)
__________
Item 7.10. FY2007 Third Quarter Financial Report.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the attached Quarterly Financial Report provides
information on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of March 31, 2007. The
Financial Report includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with
data from the previous Fiscal Year.
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: Financial Report:
1. Revenues:
General Fund revenues are estimated to be $2.221 million, 1.1%, less than
appropriations, a $4.403 million decrease from the last Financial Report. Transfers from
other funds will exceed appropriations by $0.027 million. Total revenue, use of other
funds, and use of fund balance is estimated to be $2.195 million, 1.1%, less than
appropriations.
a) Real Estate Tax revenues are estimated to be $3.958 million, 3.9%, less than
appropriations, a $4.656 million decrease from the last Financial Report. The
decrease is primarily due to the $0.06 reduction in the 2007 tax rate from the
budgeted $0.74 per $100 to the adopted $0.68 per $100 tax rate.
b) Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to exceed appropriations by
$0.393 million, 2.4%, a $0.350 million decrease from the last Financial Report.
The decrease is due to less than anticipated second half tax bills.
c) Sales Tax revenues are estimated to exceed appropriations by $0.100 million,
0.7%, a $0.150 million increase from the last Financial Report. The increase
reflects the continued strong local economy.
d) Business License Tax revenues are estimated to exceed appropriations by
$0.244 million, 2.7%, no change from the last Financial Report.
e) Utility Taxes are estimated to be $0.270 million, 3.5%, less than appropriations, a
$0.029 million decrease from the last Financial Report. The decrease is due to
the continued mild weather conditions. W eather conditions are volatile and can
change unexpectedly, significantly affecting revenues.
f) Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to exceed appropriations by
$0.225 million, 4.4%, a $0.025 million increase over the last Financial Report.
The increase is attributed to the continued growth in convenience food
preparation.
g) Other Local taxes are expected to exceed appropriations by $0.328 million, 3.5%,
a $0.019 million decrease from the last Financial Report. The decrease is due to
the reduced real estate tax rate levied on mobile homes and public service
property.
h) Other Local revenues are expected to exceed appropriations by $0.635 million,
12.8%, a $0.095 million increase from the last Financial Report. The increase is
primarily due to unanticipated interest earnings resulting from greater than
anticipated yields and larger cash balances. This source of revenue will decrease
as real estate revenues are reduced due to the lowered tax rate.
i) State revenues are expected to exceed appropriations by $0.128 million, 0.5%, a
$0.275 million increase over the last Financial Report. The increase is due to
anticipated additional reimbursements for Social Service expenditures.
j) Categories which vary less than $0.100 million are not analyzed in this report.
2. Expenditures:
Total Expenditures, including transfers, are within appropriate levels at 73.0 % for the first
nine months.
a) Departmental expenditures are at 67.6% of appropriations.
b) Revised departmental expenditures are estimated to generate savings of $0.500
million.
c) Jail operations are projected to exceed appropriations by $0.600 million. This
over-expenditure will be absorbed by the available $1.098 million Board reserve
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
for contingencies. This will leave a balance of $0.498 million available in the
Board reserve for contingencies category as well as $0.102 million in other
revenues.
3. Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditure Appropriations:
a) Revised revenues are projected to be $1.695 million less than expenditures
based on the March revenue update adjusted for the adoption of the $0.68 per
$100 tax rate as well as an estimated $0.500 million in departmental savings.
b) Fund Balance available May 02, 2007 is $2.317 million. This is net the proposed
transfer of an estimated $7.225 CIP transfer based on the FY06 surplus and a
$0.465 FY06 CSA over-expenditure transfer that was not made last year. The
original proposed CIP transfer of $9.225 million was reduced by $2.000 million
during the FY08 Budget process.
c) Projected End-of-Year Available Funds are projected to be $0.621 million.
B. Attachment B: Budget Comparison Report:
The bar-chart report tracks changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time.
1. Only two revenue categories, Utility Taxes and Other Local Taxes, project decreases
from FY06 actual.
2. Expenditures in all categories except Non-School Transfers are expected to increase over
FY06 actual.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
1. Has an Audited FY06 Fund Balance of $25.079 million as of June 30, 2006,
2. Appropriated $2.072 million for FY07 projects,
3. Has a remaining FY06 Fund Balance of $23.007 million at March 31, 2007,
4. Reserved $13.000 million for cash flow purposes,
5. Has proposed commitments of $7.690 million, and
6. Has Unobligated Funds Available of $2.317 million at May 2, 2007.
This report is based on audited financial data for FY 06 and nine months of operations for FY
07. The next report, to be presented to the Board in October, 2007, will contain preliminary year-end
information for FY 07.
This report was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report and Agenda Item No. 8b.
Transportation Matters: Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda
Mr. Darin Simpson, Assistant Residency Administrator for VDOT in Charlottesville, addressed the
Board in place of Alan Sumpter.
__________
Mr. Slutzky commented on the new sidewalks on Rio Road, which he is grateful for, adding that
one of the ramps was not built correctly and would likely be a sheet of ice in the winter.
Mr. Simpson agreed to look into it.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that there were trees down in Roslyn Ridge that had hit the guard rails.
__________
In response to Mr. W yant’s question about the Advance Mills Bridge, Mr. Simpson said it would be
closed for a while so that damaged pieces can be retrofitted.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there is no money in the six-year budget for replacement, and if
repairs are going to be so expensive that the bridge would be better off replaced, then the County needs
to move forward with some accelerated funding for the project.
__________
Ms. Thomas and Mr. W yant discussed the paving of W hite Mountain Road, noting that perhaps
seeing an example would allay some citizen concerns. Ms. Thomas said that if VDOT can find a model
for them to look at, they would then hold a community meeting to discuss it.
Mr. Simpson said that this project started out as a spot improvement and just evolved.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked about looking at Route 713 near Keene, stating that is unpaved but has a lot of
pressure from Route 712 and Route 795. He said that a school bus driver mentioned to him that it needs
to be scraped, adding that perhaps the traffic count should be considered as well.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked about Gilbert Station Road, wondering if the Rural Rustic Road program would
complete paving of that road.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Simpson replied that he thinks the developer or homeowners pitched in to pave that road.
Mr. W yant noted that that’s a good example of a road with a combination of paved and unpaved.
__________
Mr. Boyd asked about Rocky Hollow Road. Mr. Simpson said that the recent wind has been
problematic, but it should move fairly rapidly now that the pipe-laying and tree-removal stages are
underway.
__________
Mr. W yant thanked the residency for their work on the Bargamin project to resolve the issues with
homeowners there.
__________
Mr. Rooker commented on the graph that showed the secondary road allocations versus actual
allocations.
Mr. W ade noted that he had asked Ms. Carey to put it in his packet.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that the Roslyn Ridge Road where the church is being built needs to be patched
temporarily.
Mr. Simpson responded that they can make them do that through the permitting process.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: Comcast, Paul Comes, Director of Government & Community
Affairs.
Mr. Paul Combs of Comcast addressed the Board, stating that it has been about nine months
since the company took over the Adelphia franchise, and Comcast is doing an upgrade in the County. He
said that the “Video on Demand” would soon be available, and ninety percent of that programming would
be free. Mr. Combs said that they would continue with the high-speed internet upgrading and the addition
of a digital voice product.
Mr. Combs reported that Comcast is working with the Boys & Girls Club and United W ay and has
sponsored a $1,000 “Leaders & Achievers” scholarship program for seniors in any City or County school.
Mr. Tucker commented that there has already been a very positive difference in communications
since Comcast took over.
In response to Mr. Dorrier’s question, Mr. Combs explained that Comcast runs cable lines through
telephone poles, electric poles, or underground in subdivisions.
Mr. Rooker echoed Mr. Tucker’s comments about the positive service they are receiving from
Comcast.
In response to Ms. Thomas’ question about the ease of customer hook-ups now, Mr. Combs
replied that they are working very hard to provide service wherever possible.
Mr. Slutzky asked about the possibility of having the Board of Supervisors meetings broadcast on
cable without a franchise agreement. Mr. Combs responded that he would look into that possibility.
Other Board members agreed that that would be a good idea.
_______________
The Board took a brief recess at 11:05 a.m. and reconvened at 11:16 a.m. with Mr. W yant serving
as Chair.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation: Development Review Task Force Report.
Mr. Boyd made the presentation, as he chaired this group, and recognized that the project turned
out to be one year long instead of six months as planned. Mr. Boyd acknowledged Michael Barnes,
Valerie Long, Anne Malleck, Marcia Joseph, David W yant, Bruce Dotson, David Bowerman, Michael
Hancocks, Eric Strucko, Bob Tucker, and Bob Sveckman of the Darden School.
He stated that the charge of the committee was to improve the development process, noting that
there is an ongoing effort with staff to look at possible improvements. Mr. Boyd said that the group agreed
that a public survey would be helpful in determining what is necessary in this process and reviewed
current processes.
Mr. Boyd outlined the priorities established by the group: a two-phased ZMA process with the
developer envisioning what he would want the project to look like, and a report back from the Planning
Commission addressing the appropriateness of use for that piece of property, which would save staff a lot
of time. He then detailed the design for a Zoning Map Amendment.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Rooker asked about a process where the Board could call up the report and look at it. Mr.
Boyd responded that the Board would get a copy of it.
Ms. Thomas commented that she thinks developers would likely plow ahead regardless of what
staff says if they feel they can get four votes from the Board. She emphasized the importance of the
Board sticking to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd noted that essentially the intent is for an understanding of what would be accepted
conceptually, not what buildings and amenities would go in. He said that the next priority is to improve the
ARB, Planning Commission, and Board coordination and clarify the roles of each agency and their
interaction with each other. Mr. Boyd said that the group extensively reviewed how the process flows and
the role of each entity in that.
Mr. Rooker commented that it gets tricky with large projects. He said that there needs to be a way
to smoothly handle the problem of the ARB feeling locked in by an approved plan that includes building
locations they wouldn’t have approved.
Mr. Boyd said that the third priority item is to detail the process of documentation and create
consistent application review.
He stated that the fourth priority is to establish staff authority for waivers and modifications in
development areas. The committee clearly felt that there are minor issues that come to the Planning
Commission and Board that could be handled by staff if there were clear definition. Mr. Boyd added that
some of those things might require ordinance changes.
Ms. Thomas noted that the first thing was the public input process, so that every time staff does
things without that process, the impact on the public would be considered. She said that issues like
critical slopes have been the most frustrating for the public because people felt they could use them for
leverage to stop a project. She added that while she is in favor of the general idea, she wanted to know
where the public fits into the process.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that there were four members of the public on the Task Force and agreed
that staff should bring back specific items that could be put through the automatic review process.
Mr. Rooker said that perhaps the Board could provide staff with policy overlays ahead of time so
that they know what the Board would decide anyway.
Mr. Boyd stated that the next priority was to establish a proffer policy that clearly identifies what’s
expected from developers so that they can make a decision from the very beginning whether this project
will work for them.
Mr. Boyd said that another miscellaneous priority was having a website for neighborhood
associations so that contact information can be kept current, and starting a comprehensive citizen's guide
for the development process that would fit into the existing work plan. He added that the group also
discussed expanding the project area for letters of notification with larger projects such as SOCA and
Biscuit Run. Mr. Boyd said that another priority is updating the proffer, code, and development language
on the website.
Mr. Boyd outlined the recommendations of the task force that the Board: direct staff to move
forward with the five highest priorities which are detailed in the packets; address any of those things that
exist in the current work plans; develop performance measures to track the process of the measures;
move forward with the alternate engineering review and public application of County-View; create a project
display area at the COB; and support the Community Engagement position.
He added that other ideas include changing the submission dates for rezoning and special use
permits, and looking into an internship program where an engineer from a private firm in the County would
review plans. Mr. Boyd also said that they looked at guides to connect terminology so that it becomes
more user-friendly, early letters to applicants, and outsourcing to private contractors for engineering
review. He added that they discussed increased use of A-Mail, better coordination with neighborhood
groups, and holding academies on a regular basis on what’s involved in the development process.
Ms. Thomas asked if the group discussed neighborhood input as some associations seem to feel
that they are dropped out of the loop during the review process.
Mr. Tucker said that the group talked about having the developers get involved in communication
in the very early phases so that the neighborhoods don’t feel that a project is already finished by the time
they weigh in on it.
Mr. Graham commented that the County View system is good for expert users but not for novices,
and staff is trying to develop some better documentation on how to use the system. He said that the
County is starting to use it for inspections and for permits.
Mr. Rooker suggested offering a one-hour course at PVCC.
Mr. Graham replied that it might not require that, but some in-house training would be appropriate.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Rooker asked about staff’s recommendations to shorten review times, such as limiting time
for actions, and asked how many of those things ended up in this report.
Mr. Graham replied that that was an attempt to force the issue, but staff didn’t feel that there was
a lot of support for that. He said that the splitting of the process into conceptual issues and project
specifics is a positive step in moving things along more quickly.
Ms. Marcia Joseph commented that one thing that came about from this task force is that work
sessions in the Planning Commission meetings are all open to public comments. She added that a lot of
firms are using engineering certification and want to use it as a marketing tool now, so it seems to be
working.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s question on whether Board members were agreeable to move forward
with the recommendations, it was the consensus that staff move forward with the five highest priority
actions and make minor adjustments in the current Community Development W ork Plan, as follows:
o two phase ZMA process;
o improve ARB/PC/Board coordination, clarify role of ARB;
o detailed process documentation to create consistent application and review;
o establish staff authority for waivers and modifications in development areas; and
o develop a proffer policy to include elements beyond cash amount.
Mr. Boyd thanked Board members for their support.
_______________
(At this point, Mr. Boyd resumed the position of Chair.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation: Proffers Report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee.
Mr. Steve Allshouse, County Fiscal Impact Analyst, addressed the Board. Mr. Allshouse showed
a slide of the three staff members and seven non-staff members of the committee. He reported that the
Board had asked the group to calculate the cash value of proffers, adding that this is only one revenue
source for the County to help fund the future as stated in their Strategic Plan goal #5.
Mr. Allshouse said that they looked at counties such as Greene, Chesterfield, Hanover, Loudoun,
Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Prince W illiam to get a sense of what other localities were doing. He noted
that Chesterfield’s model was very attractive because it is very logical and has survived at least one legal
challenge. Mr. Allshouse said that the County took the Chesterfield model structure and put in
assumptions from Albemarle’s cost revenue impact model (CRIM), which the Board adopted in the mid-
90s.
He added that the dollar amounts do not represent a proffers policy in themselves and that would
be the next step for the Board and staff in conjunction with the committee. Mr. Allshouse noted that the
proffer amounts relate only to the capital costs of residential development because non-residential costs
are not addressed in most proffer models. He said that these do not include dollar amounts for affordable
housing, and the County’s housing office is working on that in a parallel analysis. Mr. Allshouse said that
they also do not take into account water and sewer costs because the Service Authority gets its revenue
from user fees. Mr. Allshouse stated that these dollar amounts are current for this year, but if the
developer would not tender the proffer amount until years later then the amount would have to be adjusted
for inflation per some cost or price index.
Mr. Allshouse reported that the committee took six steps, dividing items into cost and revenue
categories. W ithin the cost category, they divided things into transportation and non-transportation costs.
He said that this takes into account total budgeted costs in transportation at the current time, and the
costs have not been fleshed out yet. Mr. Allshouse said that staff took everything and translated it into a
per-unit cost, with the revenue being looked at to offset capital cost generated by that dwelling unit. He
confirmed that this does not take into account operating costs as they are covered by operating revenues.
Mr. Allshouse said that what is in the CIP project-wise is meant to accommodate ten years of
growth, and staff has projected what the County could expect to gain in that time-period, including
calculations of transportation costs per vehicle trip. He noted that the cost is $3,700 per single-family
dwelling unit detached, $2,200 per single-family townhouse attached, $2,600 per multi-family unit, and a
little over $1,900 per mobile home. Mr. Allshouse said that they used the same methodology on the non-
transportation side, assuming they are serving demand units for things like population and pupils. On the
residential side, there would not be jobs created by residential developments, although that may change
as people work out of their homes more.
Mr. Allshouse said that the way the committee looked at dwelling units was each one being a
bundle of demand units: so many people/so many students. Given what is budgeted, the total cost for
debt-financed, non-transportation projects comes to $18,700 for a single-family detached, $13,200 for a
single-family attached, with $11,148 per multi-family townhouse, and over $18,000 for a mobile home. He
stated that looking at the revenue side, each unit generates an amount for things such as real estate and
personal property taxes.
Mr. Allshouse noted that the capital costs per unit are assumed to be debt-financed with payment
terms equal to twenty years. He said that the underlying assumption for repayment is that certain
revenues would be generated, and ten percent would go toward paying off debt to finance the
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
infrastructure associated with those units, based on the County’s debt-service ceiling. The remaining
ninety percent would go into operating costs. He said that the revenues would accrue over the twenty-
year payment period and that needs to be translated into present dollars - $8,000 for single-family
detached. Mr. Allshouse said that interest rates tend to vary, but the discount rate is usually below five
percent, and the proffer calculation involves taking the net present value of the rolling units revenues and
subtracting those from the gross costs calculated earlier, resulting in the proffer amount per dwelling unit.
Mr. Allshouse explained that the amount derived is approximately $14,200 per single-family
detached residence, $9,400 for single-family attached townhouse (including owner-occupied
condominiums), $11,400 for multi-family units, and $17,700 for mobile homes. He added that there would
likely be fewer mobile homes built because of land costs.
In response to Mr. Rooker’s question about Chesterfield proffer amounts, Mr. Allshouse said that
they were looking at $15,600 per dwelling unit; Hanover was $11,246. He said that many of these figures
have increased per jurisdiction, and Northern Virginia numbers are much higher because they are given
leeway due to transportation costs.
Mr. Davis said that effective July 1, Albemarle will have the option to operate under the same
proffer authority as Northern Virginia.
Given the time, the Board decided to table the remainder of the discussion until later.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session.
At 12:23 p.m., Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board go into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-
3.711 (A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection 1 to consider appointments to boards, committees, and
commissions, under Subsection 3 to consider the acquisition of real property for a potential park facility,
under Subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation related to a real
estate assessment appeal, and under Subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
specific matters requiring legal advice related to an inter-jurisdictional agreement.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session.
At 2:20 p.m., Mr. Slutzky moved that the Board certify by recorded vote that to the best of each
board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed
session were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed session.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments.
Mr. W yant moved to appointment of Mr. Ralph Chester to the Commission on Children and
Families, with said term to expire June 30, 2010. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and
the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: FY 2007 Budget Amendment. ((Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 2, 2007.)
Ms. Laura Vinzant, of the Office of Management and Budget, noted from the Executive Summary
that the Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the
aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted
budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the
currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code
section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Fund, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The proposed increase of this FY 2007 Budget Amendment totals $1,305,573.96. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 9,080.66
Special Revenue Funds $ 656,832.05
School Fund $ 270,833.30
School Program Funds $ 176,652.95
Emergency Communications Center $ 171,841.00
Capital Fund $ 11,000.00
Storm W ater Fund $ 9,334.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 1,305,573.96
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations, Proffers) $ 147,790.00
State Revenue $ 196,517.05
Federal Revenue $ 224,115.48
General Fund Balance $ 466,868.66
Other Fund Balances $ 270,282.77
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 1,305,573.96
The budget amendment is comprised of twenty-two (22) separate appropriations, ten (10) of
which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved March 7, 2007:
• Two (2) appropriations (#2007027 and #2007059) totaling $15,477.05 for grants received by
the Commission on Children and Families;
• Two (2) appropriations (#2007056 and #2007058) totaling $170,809.52 for various Education
programs and grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2007057) provides $50,000.00 for funding of the Regional Transit
Authority Plan from the Board’s contingency;
• One (1) appropriation (#2007060) in the amount of $18,105.00 for a Police Department grant;
and
• One (1) appropriation (#2007061) to refund $2,080.66 insurance proceeds to Stony Point
Volunteer Fire Company
Approved April 4, 2007:
• Two (2) appropriations (#2007062 and #2007064) totaling $15,334.00 appropriating proffered
funds for the 29N Corridor Study and storm water improvements; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2007063) provides $22,993.43 for various education programs and
grants
The twelve (12) new appropriations are as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2007065) provides $253,683.30 in funds for various Education
programs;
• Five (5) appropriations (#2007066, #2007067, #2007068, #2007069 and #2007075) totaling
$174,276.57 for Social Service grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2007070) provides $18,362.00 in funding for a Department of
Criminal Justice Grant for the Commission on Children and Families;
• One (1) appropriation (#2007071) providing $7,000.00 in state funds for Police Department
overtime relating to the Foxfield Races;
• One (1) appropriation (#2007072) transferring unused funds in the amount of $71,121.84 from
the Fire Billing Fund to the General Fund;
• One (1) appropriation (#2007073) providing $464,788.00 in funds for FY05/06 CSA
overexpenditures;
• One (1) appropriation (#2007074) for a $5,000.00 donation from the Meriwether Lewis PTO
for playground equipment replacement; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2007076) totaling $171,841.00 for projects at the Emergency
Communications Center.
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
Ms. Vinzant said staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$1,305,573.96 after the public hearing, and then approval of the requested appropriations as described.
Mr. Boyd expressed surprise over the $200,000 plus in building rental fees for the schools. Ms.
Vinzant explained that when those monies are shown in the next year, they are not included in the original
appropriation, and the comparison is from the original appropriated budget.
Ms. Thomas asked about the federal government stipend for the Childcare Quality Initiative,
noting that the JAG School is given a grant to assist with childcare quality because they are not finding
certified childcare personnel to reimburse.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Rooker asked what percentage of the Foxfield police costs were covered by grants. Mr.
Tucker agreed to get that information.
Public comment was invited. None was offered. The public hearing was closed, and the matter
was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of the proposed FY 2007 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$1,305,573.96, and approval of Appropriations #2007065, #2007066, #2007067, #2007068, #2007069,
#2007070, #2007071, #2007072, #2007073, #2007074, #2007075, and #2007076 to provide funds for
various local government, school, and capital projects and programs as described by staff. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007065
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Education Donations and Use of Fund Balance
School Board Meeting 03/22/07
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 200.00
2 2000 51000 510100 APPROP-FUND BALANCE J 2 253,483.30
1 2201 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 10,135.00
1 2202 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 3,904.00
1 2203 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,606.00
1 2204 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 11,427.80
1 2205 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 4,246.40
1 2206 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 11,499.00
1 2207 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 6,396.00
1 2209 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 5,957.00
1 2210 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 2,074.00
1 2211 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 8,152.00
1 2212 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 11,097.80
1 2213 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 3,788.00
1 2214 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 365.70
1 2215 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 8,983.00
1 2216 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 33.60
1 2217 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 2,649.60
1 2251 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 8,300.20
1 2252 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 18,091.00
1 2253 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 15,750.00
1 2254 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 20,494.40
1 2255 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 31,325.20
1 2301 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 490.40
1 2302 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 9,629.20
1 2303 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 8,447.00
1 2304 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 48,641.00
1 2301 61105 580000 MISCELLANEOUS EXP.J 1 200.00
2000 0501 EST. REVENUE 253,683.30
0701 APPROPRIATION 253,683.30
TOTAL 507,366.60 253,683.30 253,683.30
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007066
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Mental Health and Substance Abuse Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1660 33000 330027 Mental Health Substance J 2 1,500.00
1 1660 53014 332104 Maint. Contract - DP J 1 450.00
1 1660 53014 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 250.00
1 1660 53014 520300 Telecommunications J 1 450.00
1 1660 53014 600100 Office Supplies J 1 350.00
1660 0501 Est. Revenue 1,500.00
0701 Appropriation 1,500.00
TOTAL 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007067
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Child Care Quality Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1561 33000 330001 Federal Grant Revenue J 2 25,127.00
1 1561 53115 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 22,296.33
210000 FICA J 1 1,705.67
312100 Prof. Services - Legal J 1 1,000.00
600100 Office Supplies J 1 125.00
1561 0501 Est. Revenue 25,127.00
0701 Appropriation 25,127.00
TOTAL 50,254.00 25,127.00 25,127.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007068
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Americorps Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1566 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 9,786.28
1 1566 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J 2 1,997.57
1 1566 53156 110000 Salaries J 1 10,900.00
1 1566 53156 210000 FICA J 1 883.85
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
1566 0501 Est. Revenue 11,783.85
0701 Appropriation 11,783.85
1 1000 53013 570600 ADC - Foster Care J 1 (1,997.57)
1 1000 53013 939999 Transfer to Grants J 1 1,997.57
TOTAL 23,567.70 11,783.85 11,783.85
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007069
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Social Services - Child and Family Services Review - Program Improvement
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1568 33000 330020 Administration-Social Serv J 2 54,600.00
2 1568 51000 512004 Trs. Fr. General Fund J 2 13,650.00
1 1568 53013 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 39,890.00
1 1568 53013 210000 FICA J 1 3,052.00
1 1568 53013 221000 VRS J 1 5,170.00
1 1568 53013 231000 Health Insurance J 1 5,860.00
1 1568 53013 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 200.00
1 1568 53013 241000 VRS Life J 1 451.00
1 1568 53013 270000 W orker's Compensation J 1 168.00
1 1568 53013 332104 Maint. Contract - DP Equip J 1 580.00
1 1568 53013 520100 Postal Services J 1 354.00
1 1568 53013 520300 Telecommunications J 1 625.00
1 1568 53013 540200 Lease/Rent-Buildings J 1 1,550.00
1 1568 53013 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 2,500.00
1 1568 53013 600100 Office Supplies J 1 700.00
1 1568 53013 601700 Copy Expenses J 1 650.00
1 1568 53013 800200 Furniture & Fixtures J 1 2,500.00
1 1568 53013 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 4,000.00
1568 0501 Est. Revenue 68,250.00
0701 Appropriation 68,250.00
1 1000 53013 570600 ADC - Foster Care J 1 (13,650.00)
1 1000 53013 939999 Transfer to Other Funds J 1 13,650.00
TOTAL 136,500.00 68,250.00 68,250.00
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007070
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:CCF Grant - DCJS
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1574 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 16,526.00
2 1574 51000 512001 Transfer from Other Funds J 2 1,836.00
1 1574 53161 110000 Salaries J 1 13,355.65
1 1574 53161 210000 FICA J 1 1,106.35
1 1574 53161 550100 Travel/Training J 1 1,750.00
1 1574 53161 800120 Equipment/Materials J 1 2,150.00
1574 0501 Est. Revenue 18,362.00
0701 Appropriation 18,362.00
1 4400 54105 110000 CCF - Salaries J 1 (1,836.00)
1 4400 93010 930200 Transfer to Grant Projects J 1 1,836.00
TOTAL 36,724.00 18,362.00 18,362.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007071
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Police Department Overtime - Foxfield Races
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 24000 240501 State Revenue J 2 7,000.00
1 1000 31013 120310 Overtime/Special Events J 1 6,541.00
210000 FICA J 1 459.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 7,000.00
0701 Appropritaion 7,000.00
TOTAL 14,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007072
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Transfer from Fire Billing Fund to General Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1802 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 71,121.84
1 1802 93010 930009 Transfer to General Fund J 1 71,121.84
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
2 1000 51000 512000 Transfer fr. Other Funds J 2 71,121.84
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 (71,121.84)
1802 0501 Est. Revenue 71,121.84
0701 Appropriation 71,121.84
TOTAL 142,243.68 71,121.84 71,121.84
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007073
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:CSA Overexpenditure
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 464,788.00
1 1000 53013 930206 Transfer to CSA Fund J 1 464,788.00
2 1551 51000 512016 CSA - G/F Transfer J 2 464,788.00
1 1551 53120 999999 Contingency J 1 464,788.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 464,788.00
0701 Appropriation 464,788.00
1551 0501 Est. Revenue 464,788.00
0701 Appropriation 464,788.00
TOTAL 1,859,152.00 929,576.00 929,576.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007074
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Donation - Meriwether Lewis PTO
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 18110 181128 Donation - MWL PTO J 2 5,000.00
1 9010 71000 800949 Parks - Maintenance J 1 5,000.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 5,000.00
0701 Appropriation 5,000.00
TOTAL 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007075
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:Family Treatment Court Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1562 33000 330029 Federal Revenues J 2 55,448.72
2 1562 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J 2 12,167.00
1 1562 53158 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 54,384.33
1 1562 53158 210000 FICA J 1 4,160.31
1 1562 53158 242000 Group Life J 1 430.08
1 1562 53158 332104 Maint. Contract - DP J 1 1,555.00
1 1562 53158 520300 Telecommunications J 1 1,820.00
1 1562 53158 540200 Lease/Rent-Buildings J 1 2,746.68
1 1562 53158 600100 Office Supplies J 1 1,363.32
1 1562 53158 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 1,156.00
1562 0501 Est. Revenue 67,615.72
0701 Appropriation 67,615.72
1 1000 53013 570600 ADC - Foster Care J 1 (12,167.00)
1 1000 53013 939999 Transfer to Other Funds J 1 12,167.00
TOTAL 135,231.44 67,615.72 67,615.72
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2007076
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION:ECC Initiatives
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 4100 24000 240424 State Revenue -911 Wireless J 2 171,841.00
1 4100 31041 331800 ECC-Adm - R/M Building J 1 100,000.00
1 4100 31041 800700 ECC-Adm - ADP Equip J 1 20,000.00
1 4100 31045 600200 ECC-Emerg. Svc-Food SuppliesJ 1 1,841.00
1 4100 31046 312210 ECC Prof. Services J 1 50,000.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 171,841.00
0701 Appropriation 171,841.00
TOTAL 343,682.00 171,841.00 171,841.00 _______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2004-050. Flow Automotive Companies
Sales and Display (Sign #60). PROPOSED: Expansion of the Flow Volkswagen-Audi-Mazda dealership,
including outdoor display and sale of automobiles in the Entrance Corridor. LOCATION: 1307-09 and
1313 Richmond Road, south side of Rt 250 East, approximately 1060' east of Riverbend Drive. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 78/15E and 78/15D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Notice of this public hearing
was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 2007.)
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that Flow Automotive is expanding their facilities on Route 250 East and
would have an outdoor display that requires a special use permit under the ordinance for sales and display
in the Entrance Corridor. He showed a diagram of the existing building and where the new building would
go on the adjacent property to the west as well as placement of vehicle display and parking. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that this is a by-right use, and the ARB has recommended approval provided the conditions are
included as part of the action. He said that staff and the Planning Commission have recommended
approval with six conditions as noted in the revised staff report.
Mr. Rooker asked if this affected the service area. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the service area is
not incorporated in the plan.
Mr. Slutzky asked whether Flow had full cut-off lights, noting the glow on Pantops Ridge. Mr.
Cilimberg noted that the original approval for the dealership preceded the lighting ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be appropriate to put a condition requiring re-doing the lighting. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that the site plan is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan and that will entail all of
the area covered by the plan. He said that would be addressed as part of the plan approval with the
condition that the area in the rear would be left as part of the old approval.
Mr. Davis said that this special use permit only includes outdoor storage, so the conditions must
reasonably relate to that aspect of the plan.
Mr. Slutzky stated that it could be argued that this results in a net increase in the total lumens from
the site. Mr. Davis said that he doesn’t know if staff has analyzed that.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the ARB would evaluate the site plan, but planning staff is only looking at
the outdoor display that is part of this specific request.
Mr. Rooker agreed that the area adjoining Route 250 is subject to this application, stating that it
seems the entire area along that road has the most lights.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Condition #6 was intended to apply to the entire front that is covered by
the site plan.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Mr. Peter Sheeran, the architect representing Flow, addressed the Board. Mr.
Sheeran said that the existing lighting is being removed, and all new site-lighting is being installed with a
foot-candle level of thirty or less for the field area and no more than half foot-candle on all the boundaries.
He confirmed that they are all full cut-off, adding that the lighting in the back maintenance area is actually
limited to some lights that are mounted on the building itself. Mr. Sheeran added that VDOT has
requested twelve feet for a deceleration lane along Route 250 and that has been granted; he said that
Flow has upgraded the landscaping to exceed ARB requirements.
There being no other public comment, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas asked about getting full cut-off lighting in the service area. Mr. Davis responded that
it would be a stretch given the parameters of this application.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be possible to have Mr. Davis do an evaluation of whether that type of
demand could be made with future applications. Mr. Davis replied that it would depend on the type of
application – if it was a rezoning or a special use permit for the entire use there is much more flexibility;
when it is an SP just for outdoor storage, it is going to be fact-specific to that request.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the rear service parcel is a separate parcel.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of SP 2004-0050 with the conditions recommended by staff and
approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions for approval are set out below.)
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the site plan entitled “Flow
Automotive,” prepared by the Collins Engineering, dated April 2, 2007.
3. Display parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces as identified on this plan.
4. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with the site
plan). Landscaping shown on the plan may be required to be in excess of the minimum
requirements of ARB guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for the negative visual
impact of the proposed use, particularly regarding the retaining wall on the west side of the
property.
5. Final site plan approval is subject to the recordation of easements for ingress/egress, as well as
the installation, maintenance and use of parking spaces, planter islands, and landscaping on
adjacent parcels (Tax Map 78, Parcels 15D and 15E).
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
6. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (which shall be submitted
with the site plan). Maximum light levels on site shall not exceed 30 foot candles. Maximum
spillover lighting requirements must also be met.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP 2007-009. Little Keswick School
Amendment (Signs #101&102). PROPOSED: Amend SP-06-13 to increase the size of the New Dorm
from 45' X 90' to 56'8" X 100'. No additional students or staff would result. LOCATION: 505 Little Keswick
Lane; Rt 731 1/10th of a mile SE of Rt 22. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 80 Parcels 110, 110A, 110A2, 112,
117A, 118, 119. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the school had an approval last year that specified a particular size for a
two-story dorm at 45 feet by 95 feet, and the applicant is requesting an amendment which would allow the
footprint to be larger. He said that they anticipate needing an additional 500 square feet, but the height of
the dorm would stay the same so it applies to conditions that relate to the dorm’s overall square footage
and footprint.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the location on a diagram and said that one neighbor has expressed
concern about the visibility of activities at the school from his property. Mr. Cilimberg noted that because
of that, the Planning Commission recommended modifications of the conditions, deleting any dorm size
restrictions on the new dorm but adding conditions regarding things such as landscaping and screening
along the boundary of the school property along the neighbor’s property. He said that the applicants have
all met onsite and have come up with a mutual agreement as referenced in the report, and they have
generated two new conditions that reflect the screening on the school property.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff believes conditions five and six below, in addition to staff’s four original
conditions contained in its staff report, address the Planning Commission’s direction and, therefore,
recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2006-13 2007-09 shall be limited to the construction use of a maximum
two-story 45' by 95' residential facility the "New Dorm" for students enrolled in the Little
Keswick School and for the conversion of the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-residential uses,
such as office, recreational, storage, meeting area, or other similar uses. The "New Dorm"
shall be located and developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick
School, Concept Plan" (Attachment A.) and dated June 22, 2006 February 16, 2007 (last
revision date) (the “Concept Plan”). However, the Zoning Administrator may approve
revisions to the c Concept p Plan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in enrollment
shall require an amendment to this special use permit and may require entrance
improvements subject to Virginia Department of Transportation requirements.
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be subject
to review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any other use.
4. Construction shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of the special use
permit SP-2006-013 SP 2007-09.
5. Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-118 and TMP 80-114A (the adjacent neighbor),
between the soccer field and the fence, a planting material screen of approximately one
hundred twenty four (124) feet in length and seventeen (17) feet in width shall be established
and maintained on TMP 80-118. The planting materials shall consist of a minimum of
seventeen (17) Leyland Cypress, each a minimum of eight (8) feet in height, and shall be
planted approximately six (6) feet on center.
6. Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-110, TMP 80-110A and TMP 80-114A (the
adjacent neighbor), a plant material screen of approximately three hundred forty (340) feet in
length and forty (40) feet in width between the existing gym building and TMP 80-110A shall
be established and maintained on TMP 80-110 and a portion of TMP 80-110A. Starting at the
gym and proceeding toward TMP 80-110A, the first two hundred sixty (260) feet in length shall
be planted with a minimum of forty-five (45) Juniperus virginiana, each a minimum of eight (8)
feet in height, and shall be planted approximately six (6) feet on center. The remaining eighty
(80) feet in length shall be planted with a minimum of thirteen (13) Leyland Cypress, each a
minimum of six (6) feet in height, and shall be planted approximately six (6) feet on center.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many students would live here. Mr. Cilimberg responded that they are
approved for thirty-five and are not asking for an increase in enrollment.
In response to Mr. W yant’s question about whether the footprint includes porches, Mr. Cilimberg
responded that they do not get into details of measuring in that way but just are deciding on the
dimensions and site location. Mr. Cilimberg added that there are no longer dimensions mentioned as part
of the conditions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing, and asked the applicant to come forward.
The applicant Mr. Mark Columbus, Headmaster of the school, addressed the Board. Mr.
Columbus said that the building plan went from a 45’ x 95’ structure to a 56.8’ x 100’ structure. He stated
that there is a small front porch and amending to reflect that square footage would be helpful.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission’s recommendation is for approval of a two-story
structure in general accord with the concept plan.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Columbus said that they have already planted cypress trees along the soccer field side so
there would essentially be a double layer of buffering.
Mr. Davis said that the Zoning Administrator has more flexibility with the language “in general
accord with the concept plan.”
Mr. Columbus noted that the State Department of Education has approved the plans as well.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of SP 2007-009 Little Keswick School with the conditions as
presented. Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Special Use Permit 2007-09 shall be limited to the use of a maximum two (2)-story residential
facility the "New Dorm" for students enrolled in the Little Keswick School and for the conversion of
the existing "Barn Dorm" to non-residential uses, such as office, recreational, storage, meeting
area, or other similar uses. The "New Dorm" shall be located and developed in general accord
with the concept plan, titled, "Little Keswick School, Concept Plan" (Attachment A-copy on file in
Clerk’s office) dated February 16, 2007 (last revision date) (the “Concept Plan”). However, the
Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the Concept Plan to allow compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. Maximum enrollment of students shall be limited to thirty-five (35). Any increase in enrollment
shall require an amendment to this special use permit and may require entrance improvements
subject to Virginia Department of Transportation requirements;
3. The existing dorm, labeled "Barn Dorm" on the concept plan (Attachment A) shall be subject to
review by the Building Official prior to conversion of the existing use to any other use;
4. Construction shall commence within five (5) years of the date of approval of SP-2007-09;
5. Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-118 and TMP 80-114A (the adjacent neighbor),
between the soccer field and the fence, a planting material screen of approximately one hundred
twenty-four (124) feet in length and seventeen (17) feet in width shall be established and
maintained on TMP 80-118. The planting materials shall consist of a minimum of seventeen (17)
Leyland Cypress, each a minimum of eight (8) feet in height, and shall be planted approximately
six (6) feet on center; and
6. Along the shared property line of Tax Map 80-110, TMP 80-110A and TMP 80-114A (the adjacent
neighbor), a plant material screen of approximately three hundred forty (340) feet in length and
forty (40) feet in width between the existing gym building and TMP 80-110A shall be established
and maintained on TMP 80-110 and a portion of TMP 80-110A. Starting at the gym and
proceeding toward TMP 80-110A, the first two hundred sixty (260) feet in length shall be planted
with a minimum of forty-five (45) Juniperus Virginiana, each a minimum of eight (8) feet in height,
and shall be planted approximately six (6) feet on center. The remaining eighty (80) feet in length
shall be planted with a minimum of thirteen (13) Leyland Cypress, each a minimum of six (6) feet
in height, and shall be planted approximately six (6) feet on center.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: SP-2006-043. Field School (Signs #35,36&39).
PROPOSED: Middle School for boys of approximately 70 students max to be located in the existing
community building at Claudius Crozet Park. LOCATION: 22 acre parcel at Claudius Crozet Park, north
side of Park St, 1500 feet east of High Street. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 56A2-01-72 and 72A. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: W hite Hall. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and
April 23, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this would utilize an existing building at Claudius Crozet Park as a
middle school for up to seventy students. He said that the area in the request is the existing community
building, and there would be parking provided to accommodate the school’s activities. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that initially there would be sixteen students in grades five and six, with an addition of grades
seven and eight in the following two years of operation for a maximum school size of seventy. He said
that the school would use existing athletic fields for recess and sports, and no construction is proposed
except for minor alterations in the building’s interior. Mr. Cilimberg noted that potential traffic impacts to
Park Road were considered as part of this review but given the limited size of the school and use of the
busses limit those impacts.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that favorable factors include the provision of additional educational
opportunities in a developing area near residential areas. He said that the unfavorable factor was
expressed by a nearby resident that the school use would deter from public use of the park and that
became part of the Planning Commission’s review. Mr. Cilimberg stated that three new conditions were
added with the recommendation for approval: ensure compliance with the covenants and restrictions for
Crozet Park; permit valid only until June 30, 2009 to allow the school to operate and have the County
evaluate impacts; and shuttle-bus service shall be provided each school day. He also said that the
Commission recommended a maximum enrollment of forty-eight students and restrictions on hours of
operation.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. W yant asked what the school calendar would be.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the application could confirm this, but the August to June calendar is
likely.
Mr. Davis noted that covenants specified for the park were negotiated in 1997 when the County
funded some improvements there, and while they do not expressly allow this type of school they do state
that other uses could be allowed if they are jointly agreed to by the County and Crozet Park. He added
that he initially felt it would be better to amend the covenants, but the Planning Commission’s approval is
temporary. Mr. Davis said he feels that it would be better just to strike an agreement and remove the word
“expressly” from the covenants.
Mr. Slutzky said that he is torn because he wants to support educational opportunities, but he is
concerned about the precedent set by the County providing a school site as such.
Mr. Rooker replied that the County does not own the park and has only provided limited funding
for repairs there. He said the Park Board owns it and could actually gain rental money for the use of the
building, which is currently under-used and in disrepair.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he has had constituents who have expressed concern about the County’s
provision of the site (or its repairs).
Mr. Todd Barnett addressed the Board, noting that he is opening a boys’ middle school inspired by
the Village School model for girls, with sixteen students each in grades five through eight starting in 2007
and adding more over the next two years. He commented that the Village School has been very
successful with their program, and his efforts with the Field School have been inspired by parents who
have encouraged him to start it. Mr. Barnett said that the school will focus on developing well-rounded
boys of character and accomplishment and thanked supporters for coming to the meeting.
Mr. Barnett explained that the park site is beneficial because it is a private community
organization open to the public under the approval of the Crozet Park Board. He said that the Board liked
his proposal when he presented it in the fall, and the students would volunteer at the Arts & Crafts festival,
help maintain the park, and provide a year-round presence there. Mr. Barnett said that the fee would be
well below many schools in the area, and they would also provide scholarships. He said that they would
add a laminate floor and eco-friendly skylights. Mr. Barnett said that the school would start with twenty
students next year and cap out at seventy, with an average of about forty-two students per year if
enrollment increases at the same pace as the Village School’s enrollment has. Mr. Barnett said that the
school day is 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. He stated that Brian Campbell, who is responsible for the building rental,
could not recall a building rental during these times over the last six years. Mr. Barnett said that the Field
School space would be available on weekends, and students would ride a shuttle bus in and out of school.
He added that he has run “Field Camp” in Free Union every summer since 2000, and about three-fourths
of those participants use the shuttle. Mr. Barnett said that their classrooms will be able to be broken down
when the building is used for community events, and the Park Board and the school have agreed to review
the arrangement every year. He added that his plan is for a future permanent space, and this location
would only be temporary. Mr. Barnett said that the Planning Commission approved the plan with a
condition for reapplication of the special use permit in two years.
Mr. Barnett stated that he has made an effort to get in touch with people through two community
meetings and information in the Crozet Gazette. He said that he plans to use the connections he has
developed through Field Camp as well, and he wants to be a good neighbor on the park site.
Mr. Amil Groth addressed the Board, stating that he has also sent letters and emails expressing
details and concerns about the approval of this facility. He emphasized his concerns about the legality of
the arrangements, adding that the covenants are in perpetuity, and this is the only facility in the area that
provides this type of space.
Mr. Kelly Strickland, a member of the Claudius Crozet Park Board, addressed the Board. He said
that initially his board was extremely hesitant to accept Mr. Barnett’s proposal, citing concerns about
maintenance and use of the building. But Mr. Strickland stated that they came around to the Field School
idea, and the permit which would still allow for the grounds to be open to the community with the building
still available for rentals. He noted that they have been very impressed with Mr. Barnett’s presentation.
He said that the current middle school in Crozet is getting ready to expand to one thousand students so a
smaller school is a good option to have. Mr. Strickland noted that the school would be located in the
center of the growth area and would be a walkable distance.
Ms. Thomas asked about insurance changes needed to accommodate the school.
Mr. Strickland responded that the park would cover liability insurance, and the school would deal
with the operations of the school.
Ms. Thomas also said that it is important for them to work out an agreement for any structural
impact from school operations.
Mr. Strickland said that they spend about $5,000 a year for building repairs and get very little in
return, so they are looking for ways to make the park more self-sufficient. He added that they would make
sure that whatever repair work done is done properly.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
In response to Ms. Thomas’ question about water and sewer to the site, Pat Mullaney said that the
Park Board needs to dedicate the line to the service authority and that is in the works with the park
attorney. Mr. Mullaney also said that he does not feel that the school would significantly impact the playing
fields and create additional expense. He added that any money that comes into the Crozet Park Board
might not have to come from the County anymore. Mr. Mullaney also said that they considered the public
use of the park, and the Park Board weighed that decision carefully determining that the public would still
have full use. He said that he feels like there is plenty of space to accommodate this use and the general
public use. He added that the school can not use the facility on weekends or after 4:00 p.m. on
weekdays.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he admires Mr. Barnett and his project and that it looks like a win-win
situation for the community.
In response to Mr. W yant’s question about condition #8, Mr. Davis said that he recommends
striking the word “expressly” so that the covenants do not have to be changed. Mr. Davis also said that it
is good that this is a temporary use and within the scope of the covenant.
Ms. Thomas agreed that having the permit be temporary has persuaded her to support it.
Mr. W yant noted that he worked at Camp Albemarle on the grounds, and he is very impressed
with Mr. Barnett.
Mr. W yant moved for approval of SP 2006-043 with the change in condition #8 to strike the word
“expressly.” Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions for approval are set out below.)
1. Maximum enrollment shall be forty-eight students.
2. Hours of operation for the school shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
3. The school is limited to existing buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan
(Attachment C). Any additional building or site changes for the school use will require an
amendment to this Special Use Permit (SP-2006-043).
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the private school use, water line dedications to the
satisfaction of the Albemarle County Service Authority are required.
5. The playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception of the Community Building, will remain
open and available for public use during the hours of school operation.
6. The athletic fields at the park shall not be available for the school’s use after 4 p.m. on weekdays
and shall not be available on weekends.
7. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks
and Recreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled
use is authorized by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
8. The school use may begin and continue only if the Crozet Park covenants and restrictions
expressly allow the use.
9. Special Use Permit 2006-043 shall be valid until June 30, 2009.
10. Shuttle bus service for students to and from school shall be provided each school day.
(Note: At this time, the Board went back to Agenda Item # 11: Proffers Report.)
Mr. Slutzky asked if the transportation impacts are rooted in what the County has decided to put in
the CIP.
Mr. Allshouse replied that they are, and the committee is fully aware of increasing transportation
costs as final numbers become available.
Mr. Boyd added that it is also impacted by strategic planning numbers.
Mr. Davis said that the number being used consists of local dollars to be used for roads, adding
that cash proffers are a potential source of revenue. He added that the CIP number would be driven
higher because additional projects are contemplated as proffer monies are estimated. Mr. Davis stated
that the Board revisits the CIP every two years in a substantial way and adopts it every year so there is an
opportunity to revisit that issue.
Mr. Rooker noted that it could be amended at any time.
Mr. Slutzky said that he wants to make sure that the cart does not come before the horse, and
perhaps he would support putting this forward to referendum. He added that the policy could be revisited.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Board has been passing rezoning after rezoning with inadequate
contributions to public infrastructure. He said that there are numbers proposed here that have gone
through a sound methodology, and the CIP component will, of course, change. He believes that if
anything that number is going to get higher, not lower. He added that the current level of contributions is
woefully inadequate.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Slutzky said that he feels that a work session would be helpful in looking at the assumptions,
and perhaps the CIP could be adjusted to reflect the increased costs.
Mr. Boyd said that the committee recognizes the CIP changes every year, and the new numbers
would be automatically calculated in a spreadsheet-type format with variables changed as needed. He
said that what they really want to get approved is the formula with the methodology and to recognize the
fact that they would change.
Mr. Allshouse stated that they are looking for approval for the methodology, and the numbers
presented are the logical end of that process. In response to Mr. Dorrier’s question, he explained that
mobile homes assume that you bring in as many students into schools but do not provide as much in tax
revenue.
Mr. Boyd noted that the proffer policies across the state do not apply to mobile homes.
Mr. Rooker said that they could fall under affordable homes which hopefully would be exempt.
Ms. Thomas expressed concern that there should not be a perception that the proffers would
cover all of the transportation costs. She also said that there should be some recognition of transit, and if
a developer today wants to proffer a bus route, that is one way to deal with transportation and could be
reflected in their impact fee.
Mr. Allshouse said that mass transit would have to become a part of the CIP for it to be included.
Mr. Davis clarified that it would have to be based on real projects, but there is flexibility in how it is
looked at under the enabling legislation. In response to Ms. Thomas’ question about why specific projects
are not in the CIP, Mr. Davis explained that they are not because they are anticipated to be funded by
state dollars. He said that the system is somewhat in a state of flux and is flawed at this point. He added
that the new enabling authority effective July 1st would no longer expressly limit localities to things in the
CIP, and the County could develop reasonable conditions to reflect development impacts.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to move forward with that amendment to the ordinance. He
also said that cash proffers are only going to be available on rezoned property. He noted that in a way it is
unfair because it only takes from certain units in the community.
Mr. Davis stated that there is a state law that specifically prohibits a locality from accepting a
proffer that has any escalating factor greater than the cost of living as determined by two indexes.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that the point of this part of the meeting today is approval of the
methodology.
Mr. Dorrier commented that developers have to put proffers forward and this seems like a reverse
with the County making requirements.
Mr. Davis responded that proffers have to be voluntary, but there can be a policy established to
assign a cost to per-unit impact to capital facilities to the county over a period of time.
Mr. Dorrier said that the Board had this discussion several years ago, and he was under the
impression that the developer made the proffers.
Mr. Rooker replied that one reason a development can be rejected is that you do not think it is
making adequate contributions to offset its impact on infrastructure. He emphasized that it is important to
go through an objective approach that has withstood legal challenge to determine what that number is.
Mr. W yant said that this is really a guide and helps developers understand what is expected.
Mr. Rooker noted that the County did not have cash proffers until five years ago or so with places
like Hollymead or Old Trail. He said that the Board discussed it and sent it to the Fiscal Impact Committee
and that is what is before them today.
Mr. Boyd said that this could be the basis for moving onto the next step.
In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question about increasing costs, Mr. Foley said that all of the
numbers have been adjusted up by that thirty (30) percent increase and made the assumption that they
would increase by the five (5) percent moving forward. Mr. Foley said that the Board is having a CIP
meeting next week and could address the numbers then.
Ms. Thomas commented that there has been quite a change going on in which the RW SA
Director has said he is interested in having water and sewer costs be the subject of proffers. She said
that she was under the assumption that hook-up fees were covering the costs, but new requirements and
crumbling infrastructure are causing that to no longer be the case.
Mr. Graham noted that water and sewer is one of the few areas where you can actually recover
capital costs through impact fees and that is a better mechanism than the proffers
Ms. Thomas said that she does not want to create the impression that new development is going
to fully pay its way.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Allshouse replied that they are looking at capital costs.
Mr. Rooker stated that there could be an assumption that there is no net revenue stream, and
using the CRIM model you can determine whether that house contributes positively to operating so that
there is not the ten (10) percent excess that drops out that can be applied to capital. He added that in the
best case scenario, a house breaks even, and perhaps that number should be zero. Mr. Rooker also said
that residential is the loser from an operating standpoint, and commercial is a net positive. He said that
fiscal impact analysis shows that to be the case every time.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the more expensive dwelling units are going to be by-right in the rural
area and not subject to the proffer policy and thus would not contribute to the CIP.
Mr. W yant said that a sensitivity analysis could be done where variables are changed to note their
effect, to help provide more accuracy.
Mr. Allshouse said that you could eliminate that ten (10) percent assumption and that would show
the new proffer amount.
Mr. Rooker stated that that number would be closer to peer communities. He said that they are
trying to get the most accurate depiction of what the actual cost of the unit is. He said that for policy
reasons they may decide that they do not look for that full number or they give credit for certain things that
they are trying to accomplish that are policy directions.
Mr. Slutzky added that Chesterfield is a great model as far as methodology, but other localities
such as Stafford and Spotsylvania are higher.
Mr. Rooker said that he would support this methodology without the ten (10) percent.
Mr. Allshouse noted that the numbers would apply to this year.
Mr. Slutzky said that his recommendation would be that between now and proffer policy adoption,
the Board hold a work session to address the CIP as it relates to proffers.
Mr. Davis said that the adoption of what is presented would allow for a fiscal impact number
based on a typical housing unit, and even without the policy it is a tool that can be looked at with analysis
done on a case by case basis. He emphasized that jurisdictions create an expectation in the policy of how
the analysis would be undertaken, the maximum amount expected of a developer to come in and address
the impacts, and a known cost that the developers could use to build their financial model as well as a
locality having that figure to use when a rezoning comes forward. He said that in the meantime, you have
a number that addresses impacts that you do not have to disregard when rezoning applications come
forward; it is a starting point to analyze the impacts.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the proffers methodology presented today and the resulting proffer
values without the ten percent revenue credit, that are contained in the memorandum to direct staff to
begin the process of developing a complete proffer policy. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the ten percent was.
Mr. Rooker replied that it was a revenue credit number that presumes a unit of housing would be
profitable from an operating standpoint to the extent of ten percent of its tax revenues. He indicated that it
is not the case as illustrated by fiscal impact analyses, and he would like that component to come out. Mr.
Rooker noted that affordable homes would not be subject to this. He said that they have to have a starting
point, and a starting point would be to adopt a methodology and some numbers that they can then overlay
on other policy decisions they make.
Ms. Thomas noted that this plugs in transportation and works through a lot more elements, and it
is better than what is in place now.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not like using the higher number as a starting point, and he would like
to have a conversation about that before an applicant comes forward.
Mr. Tucker commented that taking transportation into account is going to require a much broader
review, adding that these things just have not been adopted as a Board policy yet.
Mr. Slutzky recommended that he would like to adopt a proffer policy with a methodology that is
based on the CIP, even though it understates the transportation infrastructure.
Mr. Foley noted that anything added to the CIP has to fall within policy guidelines, and financials
have to be run.
Mr. Slutzky said that as the CIP is revisited in the fall, the Board should be prepared to seriously
consider what projects will or will not be funded by the State.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is reluctant to put millions of dollars in projects on the backs of
property owners.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Dorrier stated that he supports proffers but not this formula because he is not sure it’s the
correct one.
Mr. Rooker said that the Fiscal Impact Committee had six months to come back and make a
recommendation at the Board’s request.
Mr. Slutzky noted that homeowners’ associations were a part of this discussion.
Mr. Boyd stated that Mr. Rooker’s motion changes a key component, the ten percent.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that he wants the methodology to be accurate.
Mr. W yant said that he would like something to support the ten percent removal.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Allshouse if residential developments brought forward a deficit when using
the CRIM model.
Mr. Allshouse confirmed that it is the case, adding that the Chesterfield model says that the
revenue might not pay for the debt associated with the development but that ten percent would go toward
debt repayment.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it is revenue allocation.
Mr. Slutzky noted that they asked the Fiscal Impact Committee to form to analyze the existing
methodologies in other places, and to recommend to the Board one to use for the purpose of providing as
accurate a number as possible. He said that several components have inherent inaccuracies, and it is
acceptable to refine those policies.
Mr. Boyd stated that the numbers have to be based on actual CIP projects.
Mr. Davis clarified that the assumption under what Mr. Allshouse has presented is that ten percent
of the tax revenue would be applied to capital projects as being part of debt service operating expenses,
and the argument on the other side is that there is not ten percent of revenue generated from residential
uses that is left to apply to those capital projects so it should not be a discount. He said that he thinks it
can be looked at either way.
Mr. Slutzky asked for staff to come back with an opinion as to whether that ten percent figure is
accurate.
Ms. Thomas replied that if they have been looking at the CRIM reports with the developments
presented, then the answer is there.
Mr. Allshouse noted that the ten percent is based on the ceiling for debt service.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is no reason to assume that residential makes a positive
contribution to debt service.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is not going to vote for this, but he is a hundred percent behind
having growth pay for itself.
Ms. Thomas asked what he would prefer.
Mr. Boyd stated that he never would have supported the affordable housing policy because there
was no description on what that meant.
Mr. Rooker responded that the policy has produced six hundred units of affordable housing.
Mr. Boyd said that there is no affordable housing policy.
Mr. Rooker disagreed.
Mr. Tucker stated that there are a lot of issues related to policy, and staff would not have all the
information pulled together for these issues by next W ednesday.
Mr. Rooker said that they have to have a place to start.
Mr. Slutzky said that it was brought to them by Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd said that there has been no rational explanation for the higher proffer number.
Mr. Rooker replied that it is the number that is derived without the ten percent figure for
residential.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that there is a Fiscal Impact Committee recommendation in front of the
Board tonight.
Mr. W yant asked how the ten percent was arrived at.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Allshouse replied that it is the ceiling the Board has placed on debt service payments and the
Chesterfield proffer calculation model.
Mr. Rooker said that it assumes that a residential unit generates ten percent of its tax revenue
over and above its operating costs. He said that they know that is not the case from their own fiscal
impact reports. He also said that the ten percent number was high to start with, as six percent is the
current level of debt service.
Mr. Slutzky added that the proffers are only supposed to cover residential impacts and not be
subsidized by the commercial side.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s comments, Mr. Rooker explained that CRIM includes revenues from
households for sales tax and other revenue sources that are spinoffs from that house. He added that
there is commercial property that is profitable unto itself.
Mr. W yant asked about using the six percent figure.
Ms. Thomas said that it still assumes a net profit from a new residential unit, and CRIM has been
telling the Board for many years that that is not the case.
Mr. Tucker stated that if the Board settles on a number, the development community will submit
that as a proffer amount even if there is not a policy in place. He said that the policy will be coming forward
and that number may change because all of the things such as credits will be fleshed out.
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. W yant, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
Mr. Rooker then moved to adopt the proffers methodology and the resulting proffer values based
on a debt service level of six percent that are contained in the memorandum and directed staff to begin
the process of developing a complete proffer policy. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Board members then briefly discussed three issues to be addressed in future discussions:
whether proffers are expected on an affordable unit, whether additional credit is given for affordable units,
and what constitutes an affordable unit.
Mr. Tucker said that staff could come back with a recommendation for another date in May to hold
a work session.
Mr. Slutzky said that they might get through a lot of this in the meeting.
(Note: The Board took a brief recess at 4:54 p.m. and reconvened at 5:03 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. W ork Session: CPA 2005-009. Southern Urban Area B Study Amendment
and CPA 2005-005, Granger Tract CPA.
Mr. Benish noted from the Executive Summary that the purpose of the work session is to receive
comment from the Board on the above noted Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Planning
Commission has held three work sessions and a public hearing on these proposals, recommending
approval of the draft amendment language and land use map originally included as Attachments A, B and
C of the March 13, 2007 staff report. That report and its attachments are included with this Executive
Summary. Page 2 of the March 13th report provides an overview of the subsequent attachments. Please
note that Attachments D and E are staff reports from earlier Planning Commission work sessions. Also
enclosed are copies of the “Southern Urban Area B Study” and the applicant’s proposal (booklet) for the
Granger Tract CPA.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission recommended approval with the following
comments/ direction. The status of staff’s response to this direction is included after each comment.
1. Remove the reference/recommendation to develop the Stadium Road connection pending
further discussion with PACC representatives regarding the form and specificity of that
recommendation.
Concern was raised by the University at the Planning Commission public hearing regarding the
specificity of the recommendation calling for the construction of the Stadium Road Connector and its
consistency with the intent of the Area B Study. The Commission recommended deleting the
language from the draft amendment at this time to allow PACC representatives (County, City, and
University) to further discuss consistent and acceptable language for this concept.
Staff is in the process of working with PACC representatives from the City and University to develop
alternative language for this recommendation. The Executive Committee of the PACC Technical
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Committee has discussed some of the issues of concern and is currently working on alternative
language for a recommendation regarding the Stadium Road Connector. The direction at this time
focuses on revised language calling for a future study of a possible stadium road connector concept,
recognizing the need for more analysis of the need, benefit and impact of such a concept and to
consider possible design concepts and alternatives. Once completed, the proposed revision may be
forwarded to the PACC Technical and/or Policy Board for discussion and comment. At this time the
previously recommended language has been deleted (strikethrough type) as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
2. Provide more clarification on water and sewer.
The Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority is in the process of completing an assessment of water and,
more specifically, sewer infrastructure needs. Final information is not available at this time. Staff will
provide additional amendment language utility needs and recommendations as information becomes
available.
3. Provide for the specific road improvements that are the minimum necessary for the timing
and the capacity expectations.
The Commission has recommended amendment language related to the Granger Tract and Fontaine
Research Park that states:
Any rezoning approval and/or development of the site should be timed with the construction of
recommended/planned or necessary improvements to the road network which provide an
adequate level of service to support development in this area.
There was a desire to provide more specificity regarding what would be considered an adequate level
of service for the road network, what roads were expected to meet this LOS, and what improvements
were expected to address road network LOS. The following language has been added to the
proposed amendment to address this issue. (Other specific road improvements were already
identified in the draft amendment language):
Adequate level of service (LOS) is considered D or better (or the LOS acceptable to VDOT) for
network roads in the County and City, including Fontaine Avenue, the Fontaine Avenue/U.S. 29
Bypass interchange, Sunset Avenue, Old Lynchburg Road, and Fifth Street.
The changes made to the proposed amendment language in response to the Commission’s
direction are highlighted in red and italic type in Attachments A and C.
Mr. Benish said the purpose of this work session is to receive comment from the Board on
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. No action is necessary at this work session. The
next step in the process would be to schedule a Public Hearing to receive public comment on the
proposed amendments.
Mr. Benish also said that the Granger Tract has made an impact on the recommendations, and
the City is considering incorporating the recommendations as they update their Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Benish said that the study area consists of Jefferson Park Avenue, the Frye Springs area in the City, with
the Redfields boundary creating the southern boundary; over to the west it includes Fontaine, the
Buckingham Circle area, Birdwood, and Bellair.
Mr. Rooker asked what traffic modeling is available to show the impact of Granger being built out
and Fontaine being expanded with and without the Stadium Road connector.
Mr. Benish replied that the Area B study actually has some numbers that show the implications of
Stadium Road, and those modeling numbers go back to at least 2002. They showed 4,000 to 6,000
vehicle trips per day on Stadium Road depending on options. He said that the city has been generally
supportive of that road concept although U.Va. has expressed concerns about its impact on the
neighborhoods there.
Ms. Thomas said that none of these are taking into account Biscuit Run.
Mr. Benish said that the analysis used in the Area B study was based on the regional
transportation model which included impacts of growth for the traffic zones. He said that the Biscuit Run
developers have submitted some numbers as a revision to their model that included the Fontaine-Sunset
connector road, but staff has not completed analysis of it yet. Mr. Benish stated that the Area B Study did
not assume a significant level of growth in that area, but it would have been based on the Comprehensive
Plan designations. He added that the other two recommendations from the Commission included the
need for more detail in the amendment language reflecting the utility needs in the neighborhoods and the
Service Authority to complete their work on the analysis of the regional sewer system. Mr. Benish said
that staff did the recommendation for the Granger Tract and Fontaine Research Park, which addressed
timing the development with improvements needing to be provided. He stated that the County Attorney
and Commission felt more specificity was needed in that language.
Ms. Thomas asked if that is where some concern about transit ought to be.
Mr. Benish said that it did not recommend specific standards of service, but there are
recommendations in the Neighborhood Six conditions for service to the Research Park.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a definition of “transit-ready.”
Mr. Benish responded that there are some fairly standard planning practices that cover that now.
Mr. Rooker replied that there is not a one-size-fits-all situation, and staff would need to provide
input into layout and features that accommodate transit in the community. He added that a combination of
certain components makes it work, and the Comprehensive Plan needs to be somewhat general in nature.
Mr. W yant commented that if these developments to the south had a transit lane it might
encourage people to use it rather than driving. He said that much of the traffic is going towards the
University, and he would encourage something along those lines.
Ms. Thomas said that she would also support transit-using roads, because if it is not put in the
plan it is less likely to be done.
Mr. Benish stated that the Avon Street connector road is intended to be two lanes, and the CTS
has expressed concern about circular routes in those neighborhoods. He said that Fontaine Avenue is a
road that is failing and that is what makes the other connections in transit so important to making that
system work.
Mr. Boyd asked what the next steps are.
Mr. Benish replied that the schedule for the public hearing is in mid-August.
Ms. Thomas noted that there will be a walkway from the Fontaine Townhouses to the Research
Park, and it is a model for what the County would like to have. She said that it would be helpful to get safe
walkways in places where there will be bus service.
Mr. Rooker said that it is clear from the language that was added that approval of new land-use
decisions in this area is contingent upon the traffic system being capable of having them, having the
improvements necessary for those to occur, and ensuring at least a “D” level of service. He said that he
would not support this without those things in it.
Mr. Benish said that there is a caveat from VDOT that roads would need to be a level “C”.
Ms. Thomas stated that it would be good if they could reach as many of the neighborhoods in this
area as possible before the public hearing on August 2nd.
Mr. Benish suggested something such as an open house at COB-South.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. W ork Session: Rural Areas Resource Protection.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Executive Summary states that following the Mountain Overlay
District (MOD) Committee’s presentation of their proposal, the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission held two public input meetings and three work sessions to discuss issues related to those
recommendations (See Attachments A & B). As a result of the public input received, the Board requested
that staff present an alternative proposal that would apply some provisions of the MOD Committee’s
proposal to the entire Rural Areas. That alternative proposal was discussed with the Board at December
13th and January 10th work sessions (Attachments C & D). At the conclusion of the January 10th work
session, the Board directed staff to prepare a summary of the Board’s preference with respect to a
proposal. This work session is to verify the Board’s position, allowing ordinance amendments in support
of that position to move forward.
This discussion will present a summary of staff’s understanding of each element with respect to
the proposal. The term “Rural Areas Resource Protection” was suggested to replace Mountain Overlay
District, recognizing the proposal now encompasses the entire Rural Areas. The Board also directed staff
to add the extension of ownership requirements of family divisions as an issue to include in the review.
Therefore, the discussion has been expanded to include all of the Rural Areas land use designation and
Family Divisions.
1. Critical Slopes – The Board agreed to reduce the impact on natural resources from Rural Areas
development by removing the exemption for access ways (roads and driveways) across critical
slopes. W aivers, as described below, would be available to prevent property owners from being
denied reasonable use of their property. This provision would be implemented by amending §4.2.
of the Zoning Ordinance to remove the access ways exemption from critical slope requirements.
Staff believes the administrative burden of this provision can be minimal for the County and
applicants by providing digital maps depicting critical slopes in the Rural Areas. This mapping has
already been prepared and made available to the public using the GIS W eb.
2. Stream Buffers – The Board agreed to reduce the impact on natural resources from Rural Areas
development by providing uniform stream buffer standards throughout the entire Rural Areas and
expanded buffers in the MOD. This would be accomplished by having stream buffers that extend
100’ on each side of all streams within the Rural Areas and 200’ on each side of all streams in the
MOD. Rural Areas property within the W ater Supply Areas already have all stream protected by
100’ buffers. Thus, this change would simply apply the same standard to all Rural Areas property
outside of the MOD and provide an expanded stream buffer in the MOD. The Board expressed
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
interest in hearing from Stream W atch or others on the potential benefit of this buffer standard or
even greater buffers. John Murphy, Director of Stream W atch, and Ridge Schuyler, Director of
The Nature Conservancy Piedmont Program and a contributor to the Rivanna River Commission,
have expressed support of the proposed buffer regulations (Attachments E and F). This provision
would be implemented by amending §17-301, §17-302, and §17-317 of the W ater Protection
Ordinance. Staff believes this change would reduce the administrative burden by applying the
same standard to all Rural Areas property.
3. Safe and Convenient Access – To assure public safety, the Board agreed that safe and
convenient access, as currently required by the Zoning Ordinance, would include assuring fire and
rescue vehicles could safely access the residence. As a requirement for safe and convenient
access already exists in the Zoning Ordinance, this simply requires an affirmation by the Board
that this access requirement should include emergency vehicles and staff can rely on Fire/Rescue
to define what they believe is needed with their vehicles.
4. Erosion and Sediment Control – To assure the three provisions described above were enforced,
the Board agreed that Erosion and Sediment Control plans, rather than Agreements in Lieu of a
Plan, would be required for all new single family houses in the Rural Areas. This plan would allow
staff to verify that critical slopes and stream buffers are not being disturbed as well as assuring
the driveway is properly designed. Staff believes this provision could require applicants to spend
upwards of an additional $1,000 per new house for preparation of plans and an increased permit
fee. This change would require an additional Erosion Control Inspector/Reviewer to manage the
increased workload.
5. Waivers and/or Modifications - The ability to waive or modify the above requirements would be
necessary for circumstances where no alternatives are available for a reasonable use of the
property. To simplify the administration of this process, the Board agreed that waivers or
modifications could be granted through a staff administered process with appeals to the Planning
Commission. This process was part of the original MOD Committee’s recommendation.
6. Family Divisions – W hile outside of the original MOD recommendation, the Board asked that this
be brought back for review. The length of ownership (both before and after family division) was
an issue discussed with the RA clustering and phasing initiatives as family divisions would have
been exempted from those regulations. Staff believes the Board consensus supported ownership
for five years before and after the family division. The Commonwealth of Virginia has enabled
localities to require family ownership of parcels fifteen years before and after the division.
7. MOD recommendations not being pursued - The Board agreed not to further consider the
recommendations related to height of buildings related to the ridgeline and clustering with Rural
Preservation Development.
8. MOD recommendations pursued outside of ordinance changes - Through its Strategic Plan,
the Board has an objective of adding at least thirty thousand acres in conservation easements or
qualified parkland and agreed to increase the budget for the Acquisition of Conservation
Easements program.
Staff does not anticipate this proposal would impact property assessments, but some Rural Areas
property may become more difficult to subdivide. Staff has determined the primary fiscal impact of this
proposal would be associated with the required Erosion and Sediment Control plan and the need for an
additional Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector / Plan Reviewer to support this change. That position
would have a first year expense of approximately $78,000 and subsequent year expenses of
approximately $58,000. That cost could be offset by additional fees. By switching from Agreements in
Lieu of a Plan to Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, the current fees would increase by approximately
$29,000 (assuming an average of two hundred ninety (290) new houses per year in the Rural Areas). The
Erosion Control Permit fee for a single family house would need to be raised from the current $130 to
$205 for the new position to be fully supported by fees. It should be noted that the currently used
Agreements in Lieu of a Plan requires a fee of only $30 while staff estimates the administrative cost of this
permit is several times higher than the fee. Thus, this fee change could eliminate some General Tax
support for administration of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors review the discussion
summary and, if no changes to the direction are required, adopt the attached Resolutions of Intent for the
Zoning and Subdivision text amendments that will allow staff to bring forward the ordinance amendments.
The amendments to the W ater Protection Ordinance do not require a Resolution of Intent.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that all of this has been discussed at length in work sessions.
Mr. Davis noted that in order to adopt the stream buffers in the Mountain Overlay District, the
district itself would need to be adopted.
Mr. Slutzky said that he recalled having that discussion previously anyway.
Mr. Rooker stated that hopefully the Board can agree on these general principles, and he would
like to move forward without the process of creating a separate zoning district.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is starting to get some feedback, and the question is whether to take
this to the ordinance phase and then take it to public hearing or not.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Slutzky said that it is probably safe to move forward with the ordinance and take it to public
hearing.
Mr. Davis stated that the stream buffer process would be simpler without the Zoning Map
Amendment because those restrictions are actually in the water protection ordinance. He said that the
Zoning Ordinance would require property owner notification.
Mr. Rooker noted that each component here has an adoption requirement, and they are really just
amendments of existing ordinances, making it a shorter process.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the fifteen-year restrictions on the family subdivisions seem irrelevant
for homesteads.
Mr. Boyd said that he would support going to fifteen years afterwards and leaving beforehand
where it is.
Mr. Slutzky said that he is fine with that.
Mr. Rooker commented that the back end restrictions are most important as they discourage
someone from using the family subdivision provisions and then selling off all of the lots.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that family subdivisions are already an exception as they are not
technically allowed under the letter of the ordinance. She stated that it is a privilege that is being handed
out to a family so she thinks that it is fair to require something of them. She added that you do have to
think of the ways that the exception can be abused, as it has happened in the past.
Mr. W yant said that he still does not see the need for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,
unless there is a situation where there is a critical slopes waiver.
Ms. Thomas responded that there is no other way to verify that erosion and sediment control are
being done. It is a verification tool.
Mr. Rooker said that it is the only way these other things can be implemented because otherwise
you do not have the information to base the judgment.
Mr. Graham said that the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is the only thing that would show the
actual grading performed on site and that is the only way staff knows that critical slopes are being
disturbed. He said that perhaps it could be modified just to show grading and erosion and sediment
control measures, and that is within staff’s purview.
Mr. Graham explained that an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has existing and proposed
elevation contours on it showing where they are deviating from each other. He said that they do not get
that information with an agreement. He added that things included in a full plan that might not be critical
are things such as narratives on construction techniques. Mr. Graham noted that MS-19 is “Minimum
Standard 19”, a list of twenty benchmarks that must be met. He said that with an agreement there is no
requirement to demonstrate how you are going to accomplish them, just that you will.
Mr. Rooker added that he would be supportive of administratively having staff develop a plan that
eliminates things they do not really need to see.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the proposed Resolution of Intent in Attachment G-1 for the critical
slopes. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purposes of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, of the Zoning Ordinance are to
direct development away from critical slopes to more suitable terrain in order to protect and conserve
critical slopes, public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas, and to reduce soil erosion,
sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the disturbance of critical
slopes; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2 establishes minimum requirements for the location of improvements
and delineates several exemptions, including an exemption in Section 4.2.6 for accessways
(driveways and roads) where no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.2.5 allows modifications and waivers to be granted from the critical
slopes requirements under prescribed circumstances, subject to reasonable conditions designed to
mitigate the adverse impacts otherwise resulting from the disturbance of critical slopes; and
WHEREAS, in order to better achieve the purposes of Section 4.2, it is desired to allow the
disturbance of critical slopes to establish an accessway only if the landowner obtains a modification or
waiver, with reasonable conditions, rather than an exemption.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4 and any other regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the proposed Resolution of Intent in Attachment G-2 for safe and
convenient access requirements. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, although the Zoning Ordinance requires safe and convenient access for
developments subject to a site plan (Section 32) and parking lots (Section 4.12), and the Subdivision
Ordinance imposes minimum design standards for public and private streets to allow safe travel,
there are no such minimum standards for driveways to residences in the Rural Areas zoning district;
and
WHEREAS, in order to better protect the public safety, it is desired to require that driveways
in the Rural Areas zoning district be designed and constructed to assure that fire and rescue vehicles
can safely access a residence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4 and any other regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance as described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the proposed Resolution of Intent in Attachment G-3 for family
subdivision requirements with the length of time a family member must hold property after subdivision is
for 15 years. Mr. Davis clarified that the resolution is written with flexibility to allow for 15 years required
on the back end and none on the front end. Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant, and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, one of the key purposes of the family subdivision regulations is to promote the
cohesiveness of the family; and
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas Plan (the “Plan”) was adopted by the Board of Supervisors as
part of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan on March 2, 2005, and it states that one way to
discourage the transfer of lots created by a family subdivision to someone who is not a member of the
immediate family is to increase the period the parcel to be subdivided must be owned by the family
member before it may be subdivided, and to increase the period each family subdivision lot must be
owned by the grantee of a lot created by a family subdivision before it may be transferred to someone
who is not a member of the immediate family; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 14-212 requires that the grantee of a lot created by a
family subdivision not transfer the lot to someone who is not a member of the immediate family for
two years from the date of recordation of the plat; and
WHEREAS, in order to better promote the purposes of the family subdivision regulations and
to discourage their abuse, it is desired to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to establish a period by
which a landowner must own a parcel before it may be subdivided by family subdivision, to extend the
period prohibiting the transfer of a lot created by family subdivision to someone who is not a member
of the immediate family beyond the current two-year period, and to adopt such other regulations to
assure that these requirements are satisfied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend Albemarle County Code § 14-212 and any other regulations of
the Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________
Mr. Cilimberg said the other two issues requiring Board direction is proceeding with amendments
to the W ater Protection Ordinance for stream buffers. That may require the staff coming back with a
resolution of intent for the overlay district for the different buffers in the mountain area.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has determined that it is in agreement with moving forward with the
100 foot setback from all perennial and intermittent streams in the rural areas.
Mr. Davis clarified that the erosion and sediment control measure could be handled
administratively and that the Board would need to authorize a public hearing for the W ater Protection
Ordinance to address the stream buffer item.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the ASAP proposal looks at the ability of ecological infrastructure to support
population plus three other elements, but he is not sure if the Board wants to get bogged down in them
now. He said that he supports what they propose but would prefer to support it in a more narrow fashion
that focuses specifically on population. He commented that traditional land-use planning activity starts
with intention for accommodation of human activity and that is how master planning is done, with density
coming out of that plan. Mr. Slutzky said that what is evolving now in the urban planning community is first
starting with an inventory of the ecological systems that provide service value to the community. Next, they
identify what specific places on the map are particularly sensitive to the encroachment of human activity,
and then they calibrate the maximum sustainable population that could be absorbed before ecosystem
service values start to decline. He said that it is ultimately based on ecological or environmental
considerations and not on social science issues such as how many people they want to have.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be important to the community to get that done, as that is the most
important component and would be objectively based.
Mr. Slutzky noted that a lot of the raw data already exists because of the work of the Natural
Heritage Committee. He said that there is a lot of discussion around the country about the upper bounds,
and there are places that are just starting to do this although none have actually done it yet.
Ms. Thomas asked if he is talking about ecological considerations or broader environmental
factors.
Mr. Slutzky responded that there would be natural resource sensitive spots identified through this
initiative and that would in turn show the ecological systems and how building would impact them.
Mr. Rooker said that impacts on air quality and water quality would also be important to know.
Ms. Thomas commented that you could support any population as long as you were willing to deal
with the cost. She said that it is a good idea to remove the social costs as they tend to be the most
subjective.
Mr. W yant stated that there are areas in the County where he would not approve development
because of the water situation, such as the Keswick area where the soils are very rocky.
Mr. Rooker noted that if it is done right there can be a lot of information gathered from it.
Mr. Slutzky said that there is a lot of cutting-edge methodology available although it is not the
easiest thing to implement and extrapolate information from. He mentioned that there are tradeoff
decisions, such as those related to nitrogen emissions, that need to be made, but they can not be made
without information about the impact of human activities on ecological disturbance. He said that it is not
just about picking a number out of the sky.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern about staff time being spent on this.
Mr. Graham said that the staff support for this would primarily be providing maps and copies of
the GIS database.
Mr. Tucker stated that he can not imagine how this would only cost ASAP $25,000 or $50,000.
Mr. Rooker noted that they will have to come back with bids from consultants.
__________
Seeing that Mr. Bryan W heeler, a School Board member was present, Mr. Slutzky asked for
clarification about the School Board turning down the Stony Point site for air quality monitoring.
Mr. W heeler responded that as far as he knows, this has never come before the School Board.
May 2, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Slutzky said he believes that DEQ should work with County staff to find a proper location.
_________
Mr. W yant said that committee on emergency transport has met twice, and it is proceeding along.
They had an emergency transport consultant come in from Virginia Beach to discuss the services they
provide.
__________
Ms. Thomas suggested that Board members read the TJPDC’s Summary of Activities.
__________
Ms. Thomas commented that the Rivanna River Commission had its first meeting and adopted a
charter.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that the Historic Preservation Committee will be coming to the Board soon with
a report.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the ACE Committee is coming to the Board with a report on the point system to
reflect changes the Board has suggested.
__________
Ms. Thomas said on May 10th, there will be a “light” dinner at Sage Moon which will include
information about the AIDS services group.
__________
Mr. Dorrier mentioned the recently sponsored VACO meeting at the Fluvanna Courthouse, noting
that things such as affordable housing, assessments, and budgets were discussed, making it a very
fruitful meeting.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that the Mayor has contacted him about participating with the Emergency Services
Task Force, and they are discussing what the make-up of that group would be.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. W yant has been representing the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn to May 9, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.
At 6:26 p.m., Mr. Slutzky moved to adjourn the meeting to May 9, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in this
location. Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date
Initials