2007-07-11July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 11, 2007,
at 9:00 a.m., in the Lane Auditorium in the County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David
Slutzky, Ms. Sally H. Thomas, and Mr. David C. W yant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, Director of Planning, Wayne Cilimberg, Clerk,
Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Slutzky inquired about a request from IMPACT that the County, City and University of Virginia
form a Housing Advisory Committee. He asked if it would include Board members, stating that it would
be helpful to have one or two on the committee.
Mr. Boyd said that there is a preliminary meeting tomorrow involving City and County
representatives to talk about this, and his understanding is that there would be Board representation.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the County already has a Housing Committee that has followed a
process, and it would not be a good idea to form a new committee that circumvents their work.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the existing Housing Committee needs to be broadened, adding that
IMPACT is bringing new perspectives to the table.
Mr. Rooker commented that one of the Housing Committee members should be on the new
advisory committee. He added that this is the first he has heard of the meeting tomorrow.
Mr. Boyd responded that this group is meeting at the request of the Housing Director.
__________
Mr. Rooker distributed the “U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration,” which a
number of counties have adopted and many others are considering. He noted that Fairfax County has
participated. Mr. Rooker explained that this relates to carbon emissions caps, and he would like to
discuss this in the future for possible adoption. He said if the County is going to be a part of the solution
to global warning, our community needs to act responsibly, recognize that there is a problem, and do
what it can within its financial constraints to help solve that problem.
__________
Mr. Rooker handed out a letter from Betty Black, the County’s representative on the Community
Mobility Committee. He said that she spent some time riding the bus system and has some specific
recommendations in terms of transit and pedestrian facilities that lead up to transit, such as waiting areas.
He provided a copy of the letter Juandiego W ade, Transportation Planner, to review the
recommendations.
__________
Mr. Rooker discussed the use of school buildings for other purposes, such as seniors, noting that
the Jefferson Institute for Life Long Learning (JILL) had addressed the Board regarding expansion of
Albemarle High School to provide space for them during the school’s expansion. He said that the
architect would need $10,000 to incorporate the uses JILL might make, and a second stage would be to
do a concept plan costing an additional $150,000. Mr. Rooker emphasized that they are reaching a stage
in this process for the design where some preliminary decisions need to be made to keep open the
possibility of a multi-use facility. He added that if the high school ever needed that space, they could take
it over.
Mr. Tucker said that he received something in writing from JILL yesterday, and he had already
scheduled the discussion for the August 1st meeting, after the proposal is reviewed.
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked Ann and Dennis Rooker for hosting a dinner at their house when the Italian
contingenc y visited. She also thanked Lee Catlin and County staff for their assistance. She said that the
group would like to have more student and tourism exchanges, including an international golf tournament.
__________
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Thomas said that the Rivanna River Basin Commission and the Historic Preservation
Committee have been working on whether the County needs to look at more ordinances. The ACE
Committee is encouraging Board members to attend the grand opening of a photo exhibit on July 27th.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said that he met with representatives from IMPACT, and they talked about affordable
housing as well as public transit. He stated that he wondered if there is a subcommittee of the Board
working on the issue of public transit.
Ms. Thomas replied that the two board representatives on the MPO were working on that.
Mr. Tucker said that the TJPDC is working with consultants to take a look at some regional
transportation options.
Mr. Rooker added that there is a whole process in place to create a public transit authority, and
there are several interim decisions that would need to be made as well as the creation of the authority
itself.
Mr. Slutzky said that IMPACT’s agenda has been a focus of the MPO.
Mr. Rooker added that IMPACT would be welcome to address the MPO at any meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Susan Pleiss addressed the Board on behalf of IMPACT, regarding Item 6.5 on the Consent
Agenda, the Charlottesville Transit Service recommendation for use of additional transit funding. She
said that this item provides a staff recommendation for expanded transit service for an additional quarter
million allocated in FY08, and one of IMPACT’s priority issues has been to identify service gaps in public
transportation with an emphasis on improving access to employment centers and services. Ms. Pleiss
said that IMPACT fully supports the recommendation to fund Route 2-B, the new service to Southwood
Mobile Home Park, and the County Office Building on 5th Street. She stated that Hispanic ridership from
Southwood is growing, but residents are confused by signage and scheduling, and it would be helpful to
have the bus route printed in the Spanish Language newspaper. Ms. Pleiss also said that residents
would like to see the first bus arrive earlier so they can get to work on time.
Ms. Pleiss said that the second recommendation is to improve service frequency on Route 5 by
adding a bus and having busses run every 30 minutes instead of the current 45 minutes, but this does not
address the existing gap on this route which is lack of evening service. She said that Route 5 currently
runs to 7:00 p.m., and IMPACT has asked for an additional five hours of service to provide access to jobs
at the University of Virginia for people working evening shifts at the medical center and on grounds. Ms.
Pleiss added that there are also lots of retail businesses and nursing homes with evening shifts. She
noted that the IRC settles many families who live in apartment complexes along Route 5 and who work
these evening shifts which end at 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m.
Ms. Pleiss added that the staff recommendations only look at maximizing ridership return. She
emphasized that transit riders on both day and night shifts are from households that do not own an
automobile, about 55 to 60 percent.
__________
Ms. Allison Mitchell addressed the Board, presenting a slide show regarding Gilbert Station Road.
She noted that .4 miles of loose gravel road will be left unpaved between two paved sections of the entire
six miles of Gilbert Station Road. Ms. Mitchell said that the bridge over the creek within the four mile
stretch has pavement on either side of that bridge, and residents have to use automatic traction control or
all wheel drive to get up the hill. She noted that the .4 miles is continuously in a washboard state. She
said that Burnley Road and Burnley Station Road are paved, and they have a steep access ridge which is
similar. Ms. Mitchell said that residents would like the section paved and speed limit signs added. She
stated that if this is not possible, they would like to be on the priority list for a no-plan project with VDOT.
She noted that increased maintenance is needed because of drainage issues. Ms. Mitchell also said that
the Norfolk Southern’s railroad bridge needs to be repaired.
__________
Mr. Tom Twomey addressed the Board on behalf of IMPACT, which is comprised of 25 diverse
church congregations and thousands of members committed to social justice. He said that that they are
focusing on the working poor, who make less than $20,000 a year and who are essential workers in
keeping the community running smoothly. Mr. Twomey said that a recent study showed that there are an
estimated 6,000 families in the planning district who earn less than $20,000 a year. He said for this
population, there is a deficit of 4,000 units of affordable housing, and they must sacrifice other needs or
become homeless, live with other families, or leave the area. Mr. Twomey reported that in 2003, 84
schoolchildren became homeless; in 2004 it was 219; in 2005 it was 284; and in 2007 it was 320. He
said this illustrates the problem of inadequate affordable housing. Mr. Twomey said that IMPACT has
met with many top level business officials in the community, and they are aware of the housing crisis as it
affects their employees and are supportive of IMPACT’s work. He said that the group recommends that
the County form a high level task force with the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. He
also said that the group wants them to develop a plan to add at least 150 affordable housing units over
the next five years for families earning $20,000 or less and that they remain affordable for at least 15
years. Mr. Twomey said that Leonard Sandridge of the University of Virginia has committed a high level
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
representative to the task force, and IMPACT has met individually with each Board of Supervisors
member. He concluded by saying that the Board should provide the strong leadership and necessary
funding for the formation and success of the task force.
__________
Mr. Paul Newland, an officer of the Advance Mills Village Homeowners’ Association, addressed
the Board. He thanked the Board, Juandiego W ade, and Alan Sumpter for their attention to issues
related to the neighborhood. Mr. Newland said that there are only two homes in the area that can be
reasonably expected to represent the area at the turn of the century, as all the other homes, the original
country store, and the mill are gone, destroyed by fire over 60 years ago. He stated that the replacement
store was demolished in the spring of 2007. Mr. Newland said that the bridge under discussion today
was a 20th century, all metal pratt-truss bridge, and was never part of the original community but was
moved here in the 1940s when the original bridge was demolished due to structural failure. He said that
there are 900 bridges like this around the country as they are the most commonly used truss type for
spans under 250 feet. Mr. Newland said this is clearly not a unique bridge. He stated that for the
estimated amount of traffic, there should be a 20 to 30 ton capacity bridge and that would carry all school
busses, fire equipment, and rescue vehicles.
__________
Mr. Bob Overstreet, an Advance Mills resident, addressed the Board to present the concerns of
his neighbor Barbara Stevens, who could not attend today. Mr. Overstreet said that the access to this
area has been hindered for years because of weight restrictions and the bridge closing. He explained
that the biggest issue with busses is that children are riding over Durrett Ridge Road, and Ms. Stevens
has said that this route is the worst in the County. Mr. Overstreet said that the Route 641 and US Route
29 intersection is very unsafe, with numerous accidents; a traffic light was promised but is still not there.
He stated that the postal service has switched to Ruckersville, further excluding this area, and he asked
why this area is not reaping the benefits of their tax dollars. Mr. Overstreet commented that they should
not risk the safety of children just to save an old broken-down bridge that has no real historical value.
__________
Mr. George Ackerman addressed the Board, stating that he lives in Advance Mills and is
concerned about the consequences of the bridge closure on a critical medical emergency in our part of
the County. He said that distances are great enough within the County for vehicles even under optimal
conditions with all roads being open, and the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company in conjunction with the
Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad has a first responder group. Mr. Ackerman stated that they are
among the first to respond to medical emergencies and motor vehicle accidents, and because of
continuing problems with the bridge they are not able to effectively carry out their role in a timely manner
in the northern communities of the County, specifically the section of Advance Mills on the north side of
the bridge. He explained that his family experienced medical emergencies, and the Stony Point crew
responded even though they are three times as far as Earlysville; the responding team the second time
came from the McIntire Road/250 station, which is even further away. Mr. Ackerman emphasized that if
an event had been critical, there is no way the paramedical teams could make up for lost time getting to
an emergency. He said that with a functional bridge, Earlysville could respond in five to ten minutes.
__________
Mr. John Mallard of Advance Mills addressed the Board, stating that there are virtually no
emergency services for the area. He added that the Executive Summary prepared for this meeting points
this out: “the recent bridge closure has had minimal impact on fire rescue service because heavy fire
rescue apparatus, including ambulances, has been unable to cross the bridge for some time.” Mr.
Mallard added that this also affects school bus and police service as well as property values. He stated
that they receive no emergency fire service unless the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department goes to
Airport Road north into Greene, turns by Sheetz onto Route 607, and then travels about five miles to
Advance Mills. Mr. Mallard said that Albemarle’s roads have small bridges that are totally inadequate for
heavy fire equipment. He also noted that there have been dangerous incidents on the roads leading to
Advance Mills.
__________
Mr. Greg Kane addressed the Board, stating that the Advance Mills community is quietly tucked
in the northern part of the County and residents do not ask much from state or local government. He said
that they fund the upkeep of roads, pay for snowplowing, and recognize their obligations to pay for
County services outside of the immediate community. Mr. Kane said that Route 743 north of the bridge
and Durrett Ridge Road is used extensively by cyclists and is very dangerous, yet residents have not
complained about the lack of bike lanes. He reported that in 1999, the bridge weight capacity dropped by
30 percent, down to eight tons, and the County did not replace the bridge at that time. Mr. Kane said that
the 1995 study done on Advance Mills showed the bridge as one of the best preserved metal truss
bridges in the County, and it also lists the bridge under the section of reconstruction of growth (1865-
1917), but it was not installed until 1943. He concluded by saying that the residents want a temporary
bridge installed to meet needs, a 30-ton bridge if necessary, and the community wants to be fully
engaged in both the temporary and long-term solutions.
__________
Mr. Jay Sanderford, Pastor of Blue Ridge Presbyterian Church and a resident of Advance Mills,
addressed the Board. He stated that the bridge closure has had a dramatic and adverse impact on the
development and growth of his congregation, and their board endorses a quick and prompt temporary
and permanent solution to the closure of Route 743 at the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Mr.
Sanderford said that members of the church from Earlysville and Free Union have been cut off from
access to the church as there are no reasonable alternative routes. He stated that this matter devastates
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
the hearts of small and large communities. Mr. Sanderford added that on Durrett Ridge Road, he hauls
horses and is tired of being run off the road into the ditch because somebody will not yield. He
emphasized that the road has two 90-degree blind turns; it is inadequately maintained; and it has a low-
water bridge. Mr. Sanderford concluded that it just does not work.
__________
Mr. Al Dougherty addressed the Board, stating that he lives north of the Route 743 bridge. He
said that the temporary replacement bridge being contemplated could be a structurally sound 20 to 30 ton
bridge that could last easily for ten or more years within the budget and handle all needed fire and rescue
equipment. Mr. Dougherty said that recent discussions with ACRO Bridges, VDOT’s proposed supplier,
indicates the proposed bridge is certified by the Federal Highway W orks Administration at a 20-ton
capacity; they have also similar models served by 25 to 30 tons they would substitute for little or no
additional cost. He said their estimate for the 30-ton bridge is an increase of ten percent for the basic
structure that appears to be less than $40,000. Mr. Dougherty indicated that a six to ten year lifespan
with no maintenance can be easily achieved, and this would allow VDOT adequate time to complete the
final project. He also said that this would accommodate Earlysville fire trucks and school busses, and he
emphasized that the current alternative routes are inadequate and dangerous.
__________
Mr. Steven Meeks addressed the Board, stating that he supports preservation of the Advance
Mills Bridge as staff recommends. He noted that the Department of Historic Resources made the
designation for the bridge after a full documentation of the entire area, and historic districts include not
only the two houses mentioned by the previous speaker, but all the accessory structures, an old
schoolhouse, and the bridge itself.
__________
Mr. John Martin of Free Union addressed the Board, stating that the Moormans River will be the
first casualty in poor planning as the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RW SA) is suggesting that the
pipeline from Ragged Mountain to the South Fork Reservoir not be constructed until 2021 whereas it
needs to be built simultaneously with the dam. He emphasized that it will take all the four boards working
together to protect the river or it would just be pushed out in priority. Mr. Martin also said that the
Meadow Creek interceptor will be rebuilt at a cost of $19.2 million just to accommodate Albemarle Place.
He said that it is time for citizens to go to DEQ and ask for a special condition in the permit to have the
pipeline built simultaneously with the dam.
__________
Ms. Mimi Tornrose, who lives north of the 743 Bridge on Advance Mills Road, addressed the
Board and said she appreciates the deliberation that has to be made in these matters and trusts that
there will be fair deliberation given. She emphasized that this is not a new issue, and the reason for the
problem is because the matter has not been attended to when it should have been. Ms. Tornrose
disagreed with Mr. Tucker’s statement that the detour was reasonable and entailed an additional five
minutes. She said that the detour is extremely dangerous and is quite a bit more than five minutes,
adding that the situation has impacted property values.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that he is
here to speak on historic preservation matters, as the Advance Mills Bridge is listed on the State and
National Registers of Historic Places as a “contributing structure” to the Advance Mills Historic District.
He said that that term is a specific legal name preferred by the Department of Historic Resources as part
of a collection of structures with that designation to comprise a historic district. Mr. Werner stated that he
wants to make clear that it is listed, and there are state and federal regulations that must be followed
when discussing alteration that may have impact on this historic district. He said that VDOT wants this to
go away so perhaps a creative way needs to be established to protect it.
__________
Mr. Dominic Hauslack addressed the Board, stating that he lives in Advance Mills Historic District
in one of the older properties, part of the 30 contributing structures listed. He stated that landowners in
the district unanimously support the preservation of the bridge, and VDOT actually acknowledged the
importance of a similar bridge in Goshen. Mr. Hauslack presented a map showing where residents who
support the bridge preservation live. He said they do speak with a different perspective as people who
have made the commitment to live in that place and have been attracted to the historic village because of
its significance in history and its specific sense of place. Mr. Hauslack concluded by emphasizing that
convenience versus preservation is an important debate, and the Friends of the Advance Mills Historic
District feel that money is best spent on permanent and lasting improvements such as improvements to
Durrett Ridge Road.
__________
Mr. Palmer Birtch of Advance Mills addressed the Board, stating that he supports preservation of
the bridge, and isolation, fear-mongering, convenience, and expediency should play no role in a
thoughtful and deliberate discussion on the preservation and restoration of the nationally recognized
historic district and its irreplaceable historic truss bridge.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. W yant, to approve Items 6.2 through 6.6,
pull Item 6.5 (Charlottesville Transit Service Recommendation for Use of Additional Transit Funding), for
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
separate action, on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was
called, and the motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 6.1. Approval of Minutes. Removed from the agenda.
_______________
Item No. 6.2. FY 2007 Budget Appropriations.
It was noted in 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 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 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 Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
In the past, Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 required a budget amendment public hearing when the
amendment exceeded one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the
sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser. Effective July 1, 2007, this code section was amended removing
the “or the sum of $500,000 whichever is lesser” from this requirement, therefore, a budget amendment
public hearing will only be required after the cumulative appropriations exceed one percent of the
currently adopted budget.
The total of this requested FY 2007 appropriation is $161,375.92. A budget amendment public
hearing will be required if future additional cumulative appropriations exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of two (2) new FY 2007 appropriations as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2007087) totaling $19,865.00 for a Bulletproof Vest Grant; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2007088) totaling $141,510.92 for various school programs and
grants.
Appropriation #2007087 $19,865.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue (Grant) $ 9,932.50
Transfer from General Fund 9,932.50
The Bureau of Justice awards continuous funding towards the purchase of bulletproof vests
to the Albemarle County Police Department, Sheriff’s Office, and Albemarle Charlottesville Regional
Jail. The award funds 50% of the total cost applied for. The local match amounts for each
department comes from their current police supplies budget and will require no additional General
Fund monies.
Appropriation #2007088 $141,510.92
Revenue Source: Local Revenues (Donations/Rentals) $ 29,660.45
State Revenues 70,601.45
Federal Revenues 25,000.00
Other Fund Balances 16,249.02
At its meeting on May 24, 2007 the School Board approved the following appropriation
requests:
“Families in Crisis” is funded under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance
Improvement Act, Title X, Part C of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The program is designed
to identify students eligible under the Act and provide support services needed to assure their
continued success in school. Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY06/07 due to
funds not being used in FY05/06. Other homeless funds were available and had to be used first.
(Emergency Aid Impact funds for displaced Katrina and Rita families)
There is a fund balance retained by the state for FY05/06 in the amount of $25,000 which
may be used for FY06/07. Also there is a local fund balance of $15,187.32 which may be
reappropriated for FY06/07. The funds will be used to provide additional services, including
tutoring for the increasing number of homeless students living in the Albemarle County school
district of being forced to move out of the district because of circumstances beyond their control.
The funds may also be used for emergency needs to include purchasing and delivering items such
as food, water, propane, and other items, and temporary after school fees to assure that students
remain in a safe environment if needed.
The 2002 General Assembly appropriated funds to support the Teacher Mentor Program
for participating school divisions. This program is for beginning and experienced teachers new to
Albemarle County Public Schools to conduct mentor workshops and work with principals so that
mentors can provide teachers with meaningful and individualized induction into the teaching
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
profession. Funding for FY06/07 from the state was increased by $601.45 from the original budget
amount of $9,586. There is also a local fund balance in the amount of $1,061.70 from FY05/06 and
may be reappropriated for FY06/07.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,660.45 from
the Stone Robinson PTO. It has been requested that this donation be used to erect a brick
announcement sign in front of Stone Robinson School.
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,500.00 from Reflex
Offset, Inc. It has been requested that this donation be used to support the Destination Imagination
program at Hollymead Elementary School.
Custodial fees are set by the School Board and are charged to groups as needed to
supervise and maintain our facilities. Custodial fees have not changed for a number of years.
Currently the hourly rate charged for custodial support is $15/hour. The average overtime rate that
our custodians are paid is approximately $25/hour inclusive of FICA. Currently custodial overtime
is impacting the Building Services budget. As groups utilize our facilities, the school division should
be charging users the actual cost of custodial services. Approximately 2,150 hours of custodial
overtime is billed for building rental each year. This appropriation will provide $22,500.00 from
rental income to offset the custodial overtime charged to Building Services.
Albemarle County Schools has been awarded a one-time $70,000.00 expansion grant for
the division’s Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) Program. These funds will be used to purchase
curriculum materials and supplies, computer equipment and software, classroom furniture and
equipment, playground equipment and for staff development expenses.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Appropriation #2007087 and #2007088.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the FY 2007 Appropriations
#2007087 and #2007088.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2007087
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Bulletproof Vest Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1241 33000 330001 GRANT REVENUE-
FEDERAL
J 2 9,932.50
2 1241 51000 510109 TRANSFERS IN J 2 9,932.50
J
1 1241 31013 601000 POLICE - VESTS J 1 16,955.00
1 1241 31020 601000 SHERIFF - VESTS J 1 1,900.00
1 1241 33024 601000 ACRJ - VESTS J 1 1,010.00
J
1241 0501 EST. REVENUE 19,865.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 19,865.00
1 1000 31013 601000 POLICE - POLICE
SUPPLIES
J 1 (8,477.50)
1 1000 21070 601000 SHERIFF- POLICE
SUPPLIES
J 1 (950.00)
1 4000 33024 601000 ACRJ-POLICE
SUPPLIES
J 1 (505.00)
1 1000 31013 930200 POLICE - TRSF TO
GRANTS
J 1 8,477.50
1 1000 21070 930200 SHERIFF-TRSF TO
GRANTS
J 1 950.00
1 4000 33024 930200 ACRJ-TRSF TO
GRANTS
J 1 505.00
TOTAL 39,730.00 19,865.00 19,865.00
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2007088
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Programs and Grants – School Board Meeting 5/24/2007
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 15000 150201 GENERAL PROP.
RENTAL
J 2 22,500.00
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 7,160.45
2 3151 24000 240380 TEACHER MENTOR
PRGRM
J 2 601.45
2 3151 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION -
F/B
J 2 1,061.70
2 3160 24000 240370 REVENUE-MISC
GRANTS
J 2 70,000.00
2 3304 33000 330001 FAMILIES IN CRISIS
AMOUNT
J 2 25,000.00
2 3304 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION -
F/B
J 2 15,187.32
1 2205 61101 550400 TRAVEL-
EDUCATION
J 1 3,500.00
1 2210 64600 380000 PURCHASED
SERVICES
J 1 3,660.45
1 2433 62420 129100 OT WAGES
CUSTODIAL
J 1 22,500.00
1 3151 61311 580500 STAFF
DEVELOPMENT
J 1 1,663.15
1 3160 61101 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE J 1 2,500.00
1 3160 61101 580500 STAFF
DEVELOPMENT
J 1 8,000.00
1 3160 61101 601300 EDUC. & REC.
SUPPLIES
J 1 27,500.00
1 3160 61101 800200 FURNITURE/FIXTUR
ES-ADDL
J 1 4,000.00
1 3160 61101 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 28,000.00
1 3304 61101 111400 SALARIES-OTHER
MGMT
J 1 4,000.00
1 3304 61101 132100 PT/WAGES-
TEACHER
J 1 15,000.00
1 3304 61101 210000 FICA J 1 1,500.00
1 3304 61101 221000 VIRGINIA
RETIREMENT SYS
J 1 1,200.00
1 3304 61101 231000 HEALTH
INSURANCE
J 1 1,400.00
1 3304 61101 232000 DENTAL
INSURANCE
J 1 50.00
1 3304 61101 241000 VRS GROUP
INSURANCE
J 1 100.00
1 3304 61101 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE J 1 2,000.00
1 3304 61101 580500 STAFF
DEVELOPMENT
J 1 4,437.32
1 3304 61101 600200 FOOD J 1 1,000.00
1 3304 61101 601300 EDUC. & REC.
SUPPLIES
J 1 8,000.00
1 3304 61101 601700 COPY SUPPLIES J 1 1,500.00
2000 0501 EST. REVENUE 29,660.45
0701 APPROPRIATION 29,660.45
3151 0501 EST. REVENUE 1,663.15
0701 APPROPRIATION 1,663.15
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
3160 0501 EST. REVENUE 70,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 70,000.00
3304 0501 EST. REVENUE 40,187.32
0701 APPROPRIATION 40,187.32
TOTAL 283,021.84 141,510.92 141,510.92
_______________
Item No. 6.3. FY 2008 Budget Appropriations.
The Executive Summary states 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 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 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 Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
In the past, Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 required a budget amendment public hearing when the
amendment exceeded one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the
sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser. Effective July 1, 2007, this code section was amended removing
the “or the sum of $500,000 whichever is lesser” from this requirement, therefore, a budget amendment
public hearing will only be required after the cumulative appropriations exceed one percent of the
currently adopted budget.
The total of this requested FY 2008 appropriation is $678,810.00. A budget amendment public
hearing will be required if future additional cumulative appropriations exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of five (5) new FY 2008 appropriations as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2008001) totaling $386,460.00 for a Department of Homeland
Security Grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008002) totaling $159,000.00 for a Riparian Buffer Restoration
Grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008003) appropriating $70,000.00 from the Glenmore Proffer
for the Village of Rivanna Development Area Master Plan;
• One (1) appropriation (#2008004) in the amount of $3,350.00 for a Circuit Court Clerk
Records Preservation Grant; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2008005) in the amount of $60,000.00 providing funding to
Habitat for Humanity from the Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund.
Appropriation #2008001 $386,460.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue (Grant) $309,168.00
Transfer from General Fund 77,292.00
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has awarded the Department of Fire Rescue a grant
in the amount of $309,168.00 through the 2006 Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. This grant,
along with $77,292.00 in local matching funds will provide the essential monies needed to outfit all
personnel with safe and compliant personal protective equipment and gear. Currently, 27 percent of
personnel are operating in gear that is non-compliant with national standards and 13 percent of new
recruits are unable to be issued gear because of a lack of compliant gear. The additional funding will
allow the Department to outfit all personnel with NFPA/OSHA/ANSI-compliant personal protective
clothing, ensure proper storage of the equipment, and keep extra gear on hand for new recruits and/or for
use in the event it is needed. The local share, $77,292.00 will be funded through existing appropriated
funds.
Appropriation #2008002 $159,000.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue (Grant) $159,000.00
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has awarded Albemarle
County a Riparian Buffer Restoration Grant in the amount of $159,000.00. This grant will assist in
the establishment and restoration of forested riparian buffers on nonagricultural land. The program
will enable land owners to add new buffer plantings on their property and request a fifty percent
reimbursement for the labor and materials. The County will demonstrate to DCR that land owners
have completed an approved planting project and request grant funds from DCR to reimburse fifty
percent of the land owners’ expense. Local match will be provided with in-kind services by the
County and through the remaining one-half of land owner expenditures.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Appropriation #2008003 $70,000.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Proffer) $ 70,000.00
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) will be providing consulting
and project management services for the Village of Rivanna master plan development. The
contract with TJPDC, in the amount of $85,000.00, will be funded with $70,000.00 in Glenmore
Proffer funds and $15,000.00 from existing appropriated funds for development areas studies in the
Community Development Department’s operating budget.
Appropriation #2008004 $3,350.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue (Grant) $ 3,350.00
The Library of Virginia has awarded the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office a Virginia Circuit Court
Records Preservation grant in the amount of $3,350.00. This grant will provide funding for
approximately 282 hours of overtime allowing the scanning and indexing of order books into the
Clerk’s Office’s electronic records systems. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2008005 $60,000.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 60,000.00
In December 2006, the Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund trustees authorized a request
for proposals to use available funding for eligible affordable housing projects. Two applications
were received. One application from Habitat for Humanity was recommended by staff for funding
and approved by the trustees. The request was for $60,000.00, $30,000.00 for each of two houses
to be built in the County for very low income households with disabled family members living in
substandard conditions. Habitat’s request of $60,000.00 is to help fill a $140,000.00 financing gap
between the property value and other resources received to date. The funding will be secured by
the property through a mutually-agreed upon method which will include an equity-sharing provision.
Funds will be granted to Habitat through a grant agreement that specifies the details of security and
repayment.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2008 Appropriations #2008001, #2008002, #2008003,
#2008004, and #2008005.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the FY 2008 Appropriations
#2008001, #2008002, #2008003, #2008004, and #2008005.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008001
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Department of Homeland Security – Fire/Rescue – Personal Protective
Equipment
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1540 33000 300001 FEDERAL REV -
GRANT
J 2 309,168.00
2 1540 51000 512004 TRANSFER FROM
G/F
J 2 77,292.00
J
1 1540 32015 601104 PERSONAL PROT
EQUIPMENT
J 1 359,460.00
1 1540 32015 800100 STORAGE RACKS J 1 27,000.00
1 1000 32020 601104 TURNOUT GEAR J 1 (77,292.00)
1 1000 32020 930200 TRSF TO GRANT
FUND
J 1 77,292.00
1540 0501 EST. REVENUE 386,460.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 386,460.00
TOTAL 772,920.00 386,460.00 386,460.00
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008002
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Riparian Buffer Restoration Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1410 24000 240207 STATE REV - DEPT
OF CONS
J 2 159,000.00
1 1410 82050 580419 RIPARIAN BUFFER
REIMBUR
J 1 159,000.00
1410 0501 EST. REVENUE 159,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 159,000.00
TOTAL 318,000.00 159,000.00 159,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008003
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Glenmore Proffer - Village of Rivanna Development Area Master Plan
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 8521 51000 510100
APPROPRIATION -
F/B J 2 70,000.00
1 8521 19301 930009 TRANSFER TO G/F J 1 70,000.00
2 1000 51000 512040
TRS. FROM
GLENMORE PROF J 2 70,000.00
1 1000 81022 312342
DEVELOPMENT
AREA STUDY J 1 70,000.00
8521 0501 EST. REVENUE 70,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 70,000.00
1000 0501 EST. REVENUE 70,000.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 70,000.00
TOTAL
280,000.00 140,000.00 140,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008004
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Circuit Court Clerk Grant - Records Preservation
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1216 24000 240802
Va. Circuit Court
Records Pres. J 2 3,350.00
1 1216 21000 120000
Circuit Court -
Overtime Wages J 1 3,112.00
1 1216 21000 210000 Circuit Court - FICA J 1 238.00
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
J
1216 0501 Est. Revenue J 3,350.00
0701 Appropriation J 3,350.00
J
TOTAL 6,700.00 3,350.00 3,350.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008005
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund – Habitat for Humanity
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 8515 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 60,000.00
1 8515 81030 560000 Contribution to Other
Entities
J 1 60,000.00
J
8515 0501 Est. Revenue J 60,000.00
0701 Appropriation J 60,000.00
J
J
TOTAL 120,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00
_______________
Item No. 6.4. CPA-2007-003, Green Building and Sustainability Amendment. (Deferred from
June 6, 2007)
The Executive Summary states that on May 8, 2007 the Planning Commission forwarded
Comprehensive Plan language on green building to the Board with a recommendation for adoption.
During a public hearing on June 6, 2007, the Board of Supervisors determined that some additional minor
revisions were needed to eliminate confusion with the wording as proposed. The Board agreed to
individually review the language and submit changes to staff. Staff received those changes and they are
reflected in Attachment A, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff has also removed
language referring to the establishment of a green building advisory committee. Two Board members
questioned the necessity of such a committee and no other members expressed strong feelings either
way. As mentioned in previous staff reports, the chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to which this
language is proposed to be added is scheduled for a complete update this Fall. If it is determined at that
time that a green building advisory committee is needed, the Comprehensive Plan can reflect that.
Attachment B is the track changes version illustrating the aforementioned revisions.
The following proposal was noted in the Executive Summary: To Amend the Natural Resources
and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by adding more specific language regarding
sustainable design and green building in support of the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Accords,
hereafter, the Accords, as adopted in 1998. To illustrate how the proposed language relates to the
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, that chapter’s introduction is
included verbatim, with the new language found in italics under the heading, “Sustainable Design in
Buildings and Planning” directly after the Sustainability Accords.
In September of 2006, the Board of Supervisors reviewed staff’s presentation on the County’s
successes with sustainability and green building and requested that staff explore strategies to further the
County’s commitment to sustainable practices. In December 2006, the Planning Commission resolved to
amend the Comprehensive Plan in support of green building and sustainability. A February update to the
Board of Supervisors on green building generated a discussion indicating support for stronger
commitments to green building in County facilities so long as financial impacts, short and long-term, are
understood and kept in check. On March 20, the Planning Commission held a work session and reviewed
draft green building language. Staff has prepared the proposed language for the public hearing by making
minor changes and additions based on the Commission’s work session feedback and direction.
Statements that have been added or amended since the work session are indicated with an asterisk. The
public hearing will provide an opportunity to question or express support for any of these statements. As
the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, staff believes this language will work to further establish the County’s
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
commitment to green building and identify priorities in the context of long-range planning and community
development.
Staff recommends adopting the language into the Comprehensive Plan.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following CPA-2007-003, Green
Building and Sustainability Amendment:
Sustainable Design in Buildings and Planning
In September 2006, as a response to interest in green building among Board and Planning
Commission officials, from citizens, and continued pursuits by staff regarding sustainability, the Board
directed Staff to develop strategies to increase sustainability and expand the County’s commitment to
implementing and supporting the Accords.
Nearly ten years old, the Sustainability Accords increase in relevance with the expanded
understanding of the potential local and regional results of global climate change. The Accords are
furthered through applying specific green building objectives and strategies to the construction, planning,
and renovation of County facilities. Increasingly, green buildings are proving to be ideal learning and
productive work environments that generate less airborne carbon associated with climate change.
Decreased utility outlays associated with green buildings allow more revenue to be retained each year to
further the County’s Strategic Plan.
To Implement the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council’s Statements of Accord, to promote
green building and to protect the fiscal and civic health of the community generally, the County
establishes the following Objectives and Strategies for green building, site design, innovation, grants and
incentives, education, and preparedness.
The Strategies support the County’s EnergyStar Courthouse partnership, initiated by the County
Executive in 2006, through reducing daily energy use with technology, awareness, and systematic
elimination of inefficient facilities and systems.
To achieve a high level of knowledge of green building and environmental issues, the strategies
encourage and support citizens and developers toward furthering the Sustainability Accords with
educational support and public outreach. An aligned effort seeks to reduce collective demand and
dependence on costly conventional energy sources that have negative environmental impacts.
INTERNAL OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
Strategy: Participate in the EnergyStar Courthouse Campaign (ESCC) to reduce local government’s
consumption of energy. (Begun 12/06 by County Executive)
Strategy: In keeping with (ESCC), create a policy for County buildings and operations to reduce energy
consumption by 30% in keeping with EnergyStar guidelines.
Strategy: For new County projects, perform energy modeling during the design-development phase to
assess long-term economic benefits of green upgrades.
Strategy: Achieve LEED basic level certification on new public buildings so long as planning and
energy modeling determine that the upfront expense does not unreasonably exceed the long-
term savings.
Strategy: Develop and adopt criteria (e.g. square footage / project cost) for pursuing LEED certification
for new construction.
Strategy: Recognize and respond to the significant role that site characteristics play in sustainable
design.
Strategy: Locate and apply for grants related to improving the energy efficiency and environmental
aspects of existing or proposed County facilities. Actively pursue EnergyStar tax credits.
Strategy: Investigate and pursue the purchase of energy credits for renewable energy.
ADVANCE SUSTAINABILITY WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
Strategy: Offer, facilitate, and/or support green building training for builders and provide information on
programs and organizations which will help facilitate this strategy.
Strategy: Engage Blue Ridge Home Builders Association and other similar local groups in conjunction
with local government legislative issues.
Strategy: Make changes to the Zoning Ordinance to insure it does not create obstacles to green
building.
Strategy: Assist developers in locating and applying for EnergyStar tax credits for energy efficient
projects.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Strategy: Encourage builders and developers to seek LEED, Earthcraft, EnergyStar or other
comparable certifications.
ADVANCE SUSTAINABILITY AMONG RESIDENTS
Strategy: Develop and maintain links and/or pages on the County website that provide information and
strategies to help residents reduce their consumption of resources and resulting pollution.
Strategy: Assist residents in locating and applying for EnergyStar tax credits for energy efficient
projects.
CONTINUE RESEARCH AND UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Strategy: Continue investigating aggressive and viable strategies for green building, energy efficiency,
and the following:
- Recycling
- Alternative Energy
- Local Food Production
- Protection of Water Resources
- More efficient Wastewater Treatment
- Enhanced Transit, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities, Trails and Greenways
_______________
Item No. 6.5. Charlottesville Transit Service Recommendation for Use of Additional Transit
Funding.
The Executive Summary states that the Board of Supervisors allocated an additional $250,000 for
expanded transit service in the FY07/08 budget. Staff is providing the Board of Supervisors a
recommendation on where this expanded transit service should be provided in the County. Typically, staff
provides the Board of Supervisors recommendations on expanded transit service during the departmental
budget submittal process. The Department of Community Development did not make a departmental
request for expanded transit service for FY07/08 due to on-going discussions at that time with the City on
transit cost and expansion in the County. These discussions resulted in undertaking the Regional Transit
Authority Study now underway.
In consultation with Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), staff is recommending that the
additional $250,000 in transit funding in FY07/08 be used to fund: 1) the new Route 2B, serving the Fifth
Street area, and 2) for improving service frequency on Route 5 between Barracks Road Shopping Center
and Wal-Mart from every 45 minutes to every 30 minutes.
Route 2B (Attachment A) has been in service since March 2007. The City has funded this service
since its March start date. This service will cost the County approximately $37,000 annually. This route
provides service to Southwood Mobile Home Park and the COB-Fifth Street where several of the County
service departments are located (including Social Services, Police, and Fire Rescue).
Staff is also recommending providing for increased frequency of service on Route 5 (Attachment
B). CTS completed the Charlottesville Transit Development Plan, July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2011 last year,
and one of the service recommendations in the Plan (TDP) is to add a third bus to the two buses currently
used to provide Route 5 service. Adding a third bus will improve the frequency of service, with buses
running every 30 minutes instead of the current 45 minutes. Greater frequency provides more travel
options to passengers and makes transit service more attractive. Transfers will also be more convenient
because connections between buses at Fashion Square and Barracks Road Shopping Center will be at
consistent times (twice each hour). More transfer opportunities and more consistent transfer times makes
transit service more convenient and more attractive. In FY 2006, Route 5 ridership was 84,374. Staff
believes increasing service frequency will lead to increased ridership on this route. This service will cost
the County approximately $199,000 annually, which includes $144,000 for ongoing expenses and
$55,000 in one time cost for matching funds needed for the purchase of an additional bus.
CTS and County staff believe that these two expansions in service will increase transit ridership
in support of the County’s strategic plan. The cost of these two services total $236,000. If supported by
the Board of Supervisors, the new services will start August 25, 2007.
CTS and County staff considered the possibility of expanding transit opportunities by providing
night service.
Transit service currently stops at 7:00 p.m. Staff did not recommend providing night service at this
time primarily because there will be an opportunity for CTS and the County to apply for a Job Access
Reverse Commute grant in FY08/09, which could pay for 2/3 of the night service (with the County funding
the remaining 1/3 of the service). CTS must apply for this grant in January 2008. Additional information
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
regarding the grant application will be provided to the Board of Supervisors at a later date as CTS does
not have all of the information pertaining to this grant at this time.
The $250,000 was included as part of the adopted FY 2007/08 budget.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the use of the additional $250,000
allocated in the FY07/08 budget for funding 1) Route 2B serving the Fifth Street area, and 2) improving
service frequency on Route 5 from every 45 minutes to every 30 minutes between Barracks Road
Shopping Center and W al-Mart.
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky commented that this is not an item for the consent agenda; it should be
part of the regular agenda for discussion.
Mr. Slutzky said that the issue is how to spend the $250,000 and the IMPACT representatives
have raised a relevant point: it could be spent on having bus intervals shortened or extending service into
evening hours to be able to pick up riders. He said that there would not be a whole lot of riders picked up
at night, but they would be serving a community of riders who do not have a whole lot of other choices.
Mr. Slutzky said that he supports IMPACT’s recommendation for expanded night service, and the issue of
improved headways could be addressed with the broader discussion of the entire transit system.
Mr. Boyd asked about the cost for extending service. Mr. Benish, Chief of Planning, explained
that the County may not be able to cover the evening service anyway with the available funds after the
extension south of town. He added that the other issue is timing with CTS’ need to get their schedule
printed fairly soon so that they can implement the new service by August 25th.
Mr. Rooker commented that he attended a meeting with the Mayor and transportation
representatives where transit improvements were discussed, and their primary recommendation was to
decrease the head time on Route 5. He explained that he has not seen any statistics that there are
income differentials between riders on certain routes. Mr. Rooker noted that the staff report states that
transit service currently stops at 7:00 p.m., and the staff report did not recommend night service because
it provides an opportunity to apply for a job access/reverse commute grant in 2008-09 that would pay for
two thirds of the night service. He said that they should go with staff’s recommendation to reduce head
time and then apply for the grant to go into night service.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that this is the recommendation received from the existing transit authority.
Mr. Slutzky added that they were responding to the Board’s mandate to increase ridership and
thus recommending improving head times.
Mr. Rooker said that they have had consultants come in and interview riders as well as public
officials and analyze routes to recommend changes. He stated that he supports night service, but it
seems there are some timing issues to get this off the ground.
Mr. Slutzky responded that it would be helpful to get data from CTS on the relative benefit
impacts, social equity and ridership, attributable to each of the two options.
Mr. Benish stated that if there is no decision today made on the funding, CTS would probably not
be able to make the new service happen on the 25th as they are hiring drivers and putting their map
together right now.
Mr. Rooker suggested that Mr. Slutzky could gather some additional information and come back
to it at the end of the day.
Ms. Thomas said that the social equity questions might not be able to be answered quickly, but
the specific question is whether the grant application opportunity is threatened by funding the night
service now.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is some information on the socio-economic status of the riders on
the system, and it might be helpful to get that.
Ms. Thomas noted that the times posted do not include stops at Southwood, and there are lots of
ideas that could be implemented such as senior citizens passes. She said that the bus driver said they
had four or five riders there so there is something that is not happening down there.
Mr. Rooker commented that there was night service in prior years on this route, but it had the
lowest ridership per hour of any route in the system and that is why it was eliminated. He emphasized
that there is a consensus on the Board to improve transit, but the City has started routes before and
eliminated them because of inadequate ridership. Mr. Rooker stated that it is important to fund routes
that are likely to be the most successful.
Ms. Thomas said that a major reason people would not use the busses is that the drop-offs are
not necessarily safe, and there is a grant pending for new bus shelters.
Note: The discussion on this item continued during the afternoon portion of the meeting.)
_______________
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Item No. 6.6. Resolution of the Industrial Development Authority authorizing the issuance of
revenue bonds, pursuant to the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, in an amount not to
exceed $18,000,000 for the Jefferson Scholars Foundation.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Jefferson Scholars Foundation (the “Foundation”), a Virginia not-for-profit
corporation (the “Foundation”), has requested the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the “Authority”), to issue its revenue bonds (the “Bonds”), pursuant to the Industrial Development
and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 49, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the “Act”), in an
amount now estimated at $18,000,000; and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds will be used to (1) assist the Foundation in financing or
refinancing the acquisition, construction and equipping of its corporate office headquarters and Graduate
Fellowship Center (the “Project”) to be located at 108, 112, 114 and 124 Maury Avenue and 110 Clarke
Court, Charlottesville, Virginia, and (2) pay costs of issuing the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority, on June 12, 2007, held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds;
and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (the “Code”), and Section
15.2-4906 of the Act require that the governmental unit on behalf of which the Authority will issue the
Bonds approve the issuance of such bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Foundation has requested the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the “Board”), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with Section 15.2-4906 of the Act
and Section 147(f) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority’s resolution of June 12, 2007, approving issuance of the
Bonds, a record of the public hearing and a fiscal impact statement with respect to the issuance of the
Bonds have been filed with the Board; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds to
comply with Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of
the Foundation, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Act.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement of the
Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Foundation. The Bonds shall provide that neither Albemarle County,
Virginia, nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs
incident thereto except from revenues and moneys pledged therefore, and neither the faith and credit nor
the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Albemarle County, Virginia, or the Authority shall be
pledged thereto.
3. All acts and doings of the officers and members of the Board that are in conformity with
the purposes and intent of this resolution shall be, and the same hereby are, in all respects approved and
confirmed.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
_______________
Item No. 6.7. Update on County’s use of U.S. Senate Productivity and Quality Award Program
and the Baldridge National Quality Program’s Criteria for Performance Excellence, was received for
information.
_______________
Item No. 6.8. Copy of letter dated June 12, 2007, from Mr. W illiam D. Fritz, Chief of Zoning, to
Mr. John Griffin, re: LOD 2007-005-OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS– Tax Map 94, Parcel 41A-Scottsville District (Property of Karen S. Johnson) Section 10.3.1,
received for information.
_______________
Item No. 6.9. Copy of letter dated June 14, 2007, from Mr. W illiam D. Fritz, Chief of Zoning, to
Ms. Donna Bennett, re: LOD 2007-006-OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOP-
MENT RIGHTS Tax Map 25, Parcel 21A-W hite Hall District (Property of James or Donna Bennett)
Section 10.3.1, received for information.
_______________
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Item No. 6.10. Copy of letter dated June 22, 2007, from Mr. Ronald L. Higgins, Manager of
Zoning Administration, to Ms. Brenda Beerman Trickey, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP, re: OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION ZONING -- Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 5-Rio District (Property of Branchlands Retirement
Village, Branchlands Drive Development of the W histler House Property [.9892 acres], received for
information.
_______________
Item No. 6.11. Copy of Joint Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company D/B/A/
Dominion Virginia Power and Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company for Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to Construct Facilities (Case No. PUE-2007-00031), received for
information.
_______________
Item No. 6.12. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes of May 8, 2007, received for
information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Advance Mill Bridge (Route 743), Replacement
Bridge Proposal.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that representatives from VDOT advised the Board of
Supervisors at its June 6, 2007 meeting that the Advance Mill Bridge (Rt. 743) will need to be
permanently closed due to its state of disrepair. The bridge has been closed for over a month because of
damage found in several of its steel supports. VDOT also advised the Board that, in the short term, a
temporary bridge could be constructed on the location of the existing bridge as an alternative to the
longer term closure of the road/bridge until the permanent bridge could be constructed. In order to
minimize cost and construction time, the temporary bridge would need to be installed on the existing
bridge piers, requiring the removal of the existing bridge structure, and would require a financial
commitment in the range of $400,000 from the County. The Board generally indicated its support of
VDOT proceeding forward with the next steps of obtaining approval for the installation of a temporary
bridge. However, no formal action was taken by the Board in this regard.
The last “official” action taken by a Board of Supervisors regarding the maintenance of the
Advance Mill Bridge was on July 7, 1999 (see Attachments 1 and 2). The Board adopted the following
statement regarding the bridge:
1) The Advance Mills Bridge should be maintained so that it retains its historic significance;
2) The Advance Mills Historic District should be nominated for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places;
3) If it is determined that a new bridge is required due to maintenance and safety
requirements, the Advance Mills Bridge should be closed to vehicular traffic, maintaining
it for pedestrian traffic. Thoroughly study alternative alignments that will not compromise
the historic or architectural integrity of the Advance Mills Historic District; and,
4) If, for any reason, it is not possible to pursue nomination of the historic district,
nomination of the historic bridge as an individual resource should proceed.
Regarding items 2) and 4) above, the Advance Mills Historic District was listed on the State and
National Register of Historic Places in 2000. The bridge is a contributing structure to this Historic District.
The following is an excerpt from a summary description of the Historic District from the Department of
Historic Resources (DHR):
“…Advance Mills is a small community composed of four houses, a general store, a mill site, a
dam and a metal truss bridge. There are a total of 30 buildings and structures in the village, with
23 of them contributing to the significance of the district. Most of the buildings resulted from a
construction boom time that occurred about 1900, although several of the resources pre-date this
period by several decades. Until their destruction by fire in the 1940s, the most prominent
structures in the district were the Mill and the Advance Mills Supply store; these resources are
contributing sites in the district. Contributing structures include the bridge, the dam and the
millrace. Today the district has a much more rural residential character with the principle
structures being the Gaines Fray (11) and J. M. Fray houses.”
Most of the contributing resources noted in the summary are still present; however, the general
store was recently demolished.
The proposed installation of a temporary bridge in place of the existing bridge structure would be
inconsistent with items 1) and 3) above. Various alignment alternatives will be evaluated as part of the
location and design process for the permanent replacement bridge. To date, no assessment has been
made regarding the feasibility of the County maintaining the existing bridge structure for pedestrian and
historic purposes as recommended in item 3) above.
As the temporary bridge project moves through the environmental review process, County staff
will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed project. The latest “official” action regarding the
Advance Mills Bridge is the Board’s action from 1999. In order for staff to accurately represent the
Board’s position in the environmental review process, an action clarifying the Board’s position on the
temporary bridge project and the maintenance of the existing bridge is desired.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
VDOT staff is continuing to work on the design, scope and review process for the temporary
bridge project. Staff has provided the following facts and information about the conditions in the area
resulting from the bridge closure and other pertinent information regarding the temporary bridge project
that we know of at this time:
• The VDOT staff noted at the June 2007 meeting that the temporary bridge will have a
limited life (approximately 2-3 years). A permanent replacement bridge would not be
constructed until 2010-2011.
• None of the cost for the temporary bridge will contribute to the cost of the permanent
replacement bridge.
• The vehicle weight limit for the temporary bridge is estimated to be in the 15-20 ton range
(VDOT is still researching weight limit information) while Fire Rescue indicates the weight
of apparatus is over 20 tons. That weight limit would not be sufficient to carry important
fire apparatus such as tank trucks and pumper trucks.
• The recent bridge closure has had minimal impact on Fire Rescue service because
heavy fire rescue apparatus, including ambulances, has been unable to cross the bridge
for some time. Response times from either the Earlysville or Hollymead stations do not
meet the recommended rural area response time standards (the Community Facilities
Plan recommended a response time for the Rural Areas is 13 minutes for both fire and
rescue service) because of the bridge capacity. Three recent fire calls to the area
resulted in response times in excess of 20 minutes. The low weight limit on the existing
bridge has created response time issues for the last several years. A temporary
replacement bridge below a 20 ton capacity will not improve this condition.
• Ambulance service from the Hollymead station could reach the area north of the bridge
by using Route 29 and Frays Mill Road within the 13 minute response time. Thus, if the
temporary bridge was not adequate for fire apparatus, the primary value of the temporary
bridge would be in convenience rather than public safety.
• The most recent traffic count on Earlysville Road (Rt. 743) nearest the bridge is 970
(2005). Closure of the bridge affects access to the Earlysville Elementary School. Staff
estimates the detour adds approximately 5 minutes to the school commute by car using
an alternative route that includes a section of unpaved road.
• The existing bridge is a contributing structure to a State and National Historic District.
Loss of the structure may affect the integrity of the existing historic district.
• The Comprehensive Plan’s Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas states the following:
…Protect the Rural Areas historic, archeological and cultural resources.
Protect and enhance rural quality of life for present and future Rural Area
residents.
Provide levels of service delivery in accord with the Facilities Planning goals of
the Land Use Plan.
The Rural Area Transportation Goals states:
Provide safe and effective transportation options while preserving the character
of the Rural Areas.
VDOT has estimated that the temporary bridge proposal requires the expenditure of
approximately $700,000 for an improvement with a life expectancy of 2 to 4 years, and these costs will
not benefit the ultimate permanent bridge replacement project. VDOT has requested that the County
share in funding the temporary bridge alternative. The total project cost is based on an estimate of
$300,000 for the purchase of the temporary bridge and $400,000 for removal of the existing bridge and
installation of the temporary bridge. VDOT has suggested that the County fund the $400,000 bridge
removal and installation costs. Should the Board agree to participate in funding the project, one source
for the County share of funding would be the CIP Transportation Fund. This fund was established and
intended to be used for high priority/strategic projects focused on the Development Areas, including
Master Plan implementation priorities, and/or regional transportation priorities. Should the Board decide
to proceed with the temporary bridge, staff will need direction regarding the source of funds.
Given a temporary bridge will only serve for 2-3 years, staff recommends deferring construction
until a permanent structure that allows the existing bridge to remain and can fully support emergency
services is constructed. The following were considered key factors in staff’s analysis:
• The existing Historic District and County policy statements related to protection of this
bridge indicate the existing bridge should be preserved if at all possible.
• It appears the temporary bridge would not support essential fire apparatus coming from
the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station or the Hollymead Fire Rescue Station. Ambulance
service, provided from the Hollymead station, can reach points north of the bridge as
quickly by using U.S. 29 to Frays Mill Road. Thus, staff found the temporary bridge did
not appreciably improve Fire/Rescue services.
• There are reasonable alternatives to this bridge available. It was noted this would require
about 5 additional minutes of travel, including travel over an unpaved road and low water
crossing. Staff did not consider those conditions inconsistent with Rural Area policies.
• The new bridge would be a temporary solution and it appears none of those costs could
be recovered with the new permanent bridge.
Should the Board decide to support VDOT proceeding with the next steps of obtaining approval
for the installation of a temporary bridge, staff requests an action clarifying the Board’s position on the
temporary bridge project and the maintenance of the existing bridge with a statement similar to the
following:
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
While it is recognized that the Advance Mills Bridge has historic significance and is a contributing
structure to the Advance Mills Historic District, it has been determined that the deteriorating
condition of the bridge structure requires its permanent closure which, unless replaced, will be
detrimental to public safety and convenience. It has also been determined that a temporary
bridge could be constructed on the location of the existing bridge as an alternative to the longer
term closure of the road/bridge until a new permanent bridge could be constructed. In
consideration of these circumstances, the Board supports the establishment of a temporary
bridge, including the removal of the existing bridge structure if necessary with appropriate
documentation of its historic significance.
Should the Board be inclined to participate in the cost of this project as requested by VDOT, staff
will bring back information as to the potential sources from which funds will be provided and any impacts
that may result on other project funding.
__________
Mr. Benish reiterated from the Executive Summary that VDOT staff had previously advised the
Board that the bridge would need to be permanently closed due to its state of disrepair, and that it would
recommend constructing a temporary bridge as an alternative until a permanent one could be placed. He
said that the Board indicated their approval of moving forward to evaluate that option, but did not take any
formal action. Mr. Benish noted that the last official action taken was on July 7, 1999, when that Board
adopted a statement that generally indicated retaining the bridge for historic purposes and pursuing
alignments on other locations to allow for maintenance of that bridge. He said that it requested historic
designation for the bridge and the area, which did take place in 2000. Mr. Benish added that the
proposed installation of a temporary bridge on the location of the existing bridge would have been
inconsistent with that 1999 decision, and there would be an environmental review process so that staff
can comment. He said that staff would like to have the Board now make an official decision. Mr. Benish
noted that Mr. Sumpter has some additional information to what staff has already provided in their report.
Mr. Benish said that VDOT does intend for the bridge to be temporary, with a life of two to four
years, to be replaced with a permanent structure. He explained that depending on the decision made on
the permanent bridge, the funding used for this existing bridge may not contribute to that permanent
bridge.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that VDOT felt that there was only a small chance that the existing bridge
would be used for a permanent replacement because building a new bridge would require a different
location because of the curvature in the road.
Mr. Benish also added that the weight limit on the temporary bridge would be a greater weight
than the 15 to 20 tons originally thought, and fire service is impacted due to the condition of the bridge.
He stated that fire service with a temporary bridge could impact the ability for larger pumpers and tankers
used for rural service to cross the bridge. Mr. Benish mentioned that ambulance service with the satellite
service now available in Hollymead can provide equivalent service to the northern part of the area as
Earlysville serves the area south at approximately the same level of service. He said regarding Durrett
Ridge Road, traffic volumes in 1995 were at 970 vehicle trips per day that crossed the bridge while it was
open.
Mr. Benish said that staff recommends the permanent bridge as the ultimate solution, and staff
has offered an action for the Board to take in support of the temporary bridge construction.
Mr. Sumpter addressed the Board, acknowledging the debate over this issue. He said that
VDOT’s goal is to provide as much information as possible to encourage an informed decision by the
Board. Mr. Sumpter emphasized that they feel a responsibility for safety, service of citizens that live in
the area and travel those roads, and responsibility to the historical district. He said that for the last
several months, they have been considering the process for permanent replacement for this area, and
there has been a project in the six-year plan for that. Mr. Sumpter stated that the “Alternative C” aligns
along the current path of the existing bridge, and the new alignment ties back into Route 743.
Mr. Sumpter explained that a temporary bridge project would only last two to four years, including
what is expected to get the design and permits to get the project to advertisement. He said that the
existing bridge would be removed and replaced with the temporary bridge to be placed along existing
abutments along with some grade work to tie everything in. Mr. Sumpter said that if that alignment is
chosen, the bridge would remain in its location until the new one was built, then it would have to come out
while the permanent one is constructed. He confirmed that that would effectively close the road for one
year to 18 months.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the temporary bridge could be located next to where the permanent bridge
would be installed.
Mr. Sumpter replied that at that point, you would be talking about a whole new separate project.
He said that VDOT’s internal environmental review staff does not believe that an alignment running
parallel to this one could be accomplished because it would provide even greater impact to the historical
area. Mr. Sumpter explained that if “Alternative A” was chosen, the temporary bridge would be able to
stay in place until the permanent bridge would be completed, then it would be removed.
In response to Mr. W yant’s question about timeframe, Mr. Sumpter confirmed that it would be a
total of five and a half years to completion.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Rooker asked if there were a way to get the process expedited for a permanent bridge given
that it is a hardship to the public.
Mr. Sumpter replied that building a bridge on the existing alignment would be the quickest. He
said that it would be difficult to expedite because it is in the historic district but getting the design and
advertising for the project could probably be sped up.
Mr. Rooker said that the preliminary analysis in removing the bridge should already be done and
be able to be used for the installation of the new bridge. He added that the installation of a temporary
structure seems to add time to the entire process.
Mr. Sumpter stated that they have been working to get a consultant for the design of the
permanent structure, but regardless of what alignment it takes the process will have to have a location
public hearing and a design public hearing because it uses federal funds and is in a historic district.
Mr. W yant said that the two processes are running parallel. He noted that the data collection for
environmental can be used in the permanent, but the permanent goes into a lot more detail.
Mr. Sumpter replied that the only environmental process that is involved with the temporary
bridge is getting approval that the temporary can be removed considering that aspect, and it is exempt
from any stream permit requirements and other environmental permits. He confirmed that it would take
24 months to get a permanent bridge to advertisement, and another 18 months minimum to build it. Mr.
Sumpter said VDOT believes that it would be around 2011 before the permanent bridge would be open.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the permanent routes is not where the current bridge is, so that could
be left up as a historic structure and could possibly be used for bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Boyd replied that that has been evaluated to be a longer process.
Mr. Rooker responded that the law may ultimately dictate where the bridge is placed because of
the historic designation.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much longer it would take to get an alternate structure built on another
alignment.
Mr. Sumpter replied that it would probably add another six to eight months of construction times.
He emphasized that a lot of the elements of the existing alignment, such as grading, would be able to be
used if that option is chosen. Mr. Sumpter noted that there is a projection of $4 million for existing
alignment, and there is $2.8 million set aside now.
Mr. Slutzky asked how feasible it would be to put in a temporary structure designed to last for 40
or 50 years, if the structure were not historic, and defer the permanent solution until later.
Mr. Sumpter replied that those types of bridges have high maintenance costs once they get past
ten years, adding that there are substructure and pier structure issues as well. He said there is some
significant undermining in some of them.
Mr. W yant responded that it is a major issue nationwide, adding that that cannot be done for the
long term. He said a bridge is built for a life time of 50 years.
Mr. Slutzky asked how long the existing abutment could support a temporary bridge.
Ms. Thomas added that she thought it was the piers/supports that were in the worst condition and
that was the reason why there was a citizen who proposed having an additional support coming from the
floor to the creek.
Mr. Sumpter replied that they are both in bad shape, and the truss itself is in as bad or worse
condition. He confirmed that the pier could support another few years but could not support a super-
structure for ten to 20 years.
Mr. Rooker noted that the money allocated in the six-year plan is not easily transferred to other
projects, but it is specified for bridges.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like to see some more information as none of these options are
ideal.
Mr. Sumpter responded that he would report on how long a temporary structure would last on the
current supports. He commented that the weight limit possible on the temporary bridge is going to be
related to the substructure items such as the piers and what they can support, but 18 to 20 tons is likely.
Mr. Sumpter noted that further design work would be needed to see if that could be greater.
Mr. W yant stated that these structures could be used for walking and biking as there are three
spans, and he noted that VDOT has done this in the past.
Mr. Sumpter said that if the current bridge is kept and a new bridge is built in another location,
VDOT does not intend to continue maintenance of the old bridge.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Rooker commented that funding is an issue, and if the temporary structure is $700,000,
VDOT may be looking to the County for $400,000.
Mr. Sumpter said that they were just asking for some discussion as the Board mentioned in 1999
that the County would participate in maintenance to keep the old bridge. He added that VDOT has spent
about $438,000 since that time to make repairs and do inspections.
Ms. Thomas stated that she would like to see time and dollar lines for: a temporary bridge in the
present location followed by a permanent bridge there; a temporary bridge in the present location with a
permanent bridge in a new location; and no temporary bridge and the new bridge in either location.
Mr. Sumpter responded that a temporary bridge in the existing location could be installed by the
end of the calendar year.
Mr. Slutzky interjected that perhaps they could come back in a month, since there is still missing
information on the life cycle of the bridges.
Mr. Rooker said that every month this item is delayed, the bridge itself is delayed.
Mr. Sumpter stated that they will not submit anything to DHR until a decision is made to remove
the old bridge, and they have indicated it would take three to four months before they respond.
Mr. Slutzky responded that he would prefer to defer the item until all the information is available,
such as timeline, cost, and the lifespan of the bridge.
Mr. Sumpter explained that as a normal project, to construct either alignment including the design
process, this would take an average of two years to get it to advertisement. He said that the “Alternative
C” could be constructed in 12 to 18 months, and “Alternative A” would take six to eight months beyond
that because of road grading. Mr. Sumpter mentioned that the temporary bridge, long term, would still
have to go through the environmental process of those two alignments.
Mr. Rooker said that there are two very different environmental analyses that would need to take
place depending on which is chosen.
Mr. Slutzky said that if the piers do not need to be augmented, the permitting process would be
identical to putting in a temporary bridge anyway.
Mr. Rooker commented that if a permanent bridge is put in, reasonable alternatives must be
considered, and part of the temporary bridge analysis is not involving reasonable alternatives.
Mr. Sumpter said that anything that disrupts the aquatic process would require the same type of
review as a brand new project.
Mr. Davis stated that DHR’s requirements must be considered as well.
Mr. Benish said that once it is determined to be temporary, whether it is two, five, or twenty years,
DHR will look at what the permanent solution is going to be. He stated that information is needed from
them as to how they would review a temporary structure as it is fundamental to this bridge and the
permanent options.
Mr. Davis stated that a fundamental issue is whether the old bridge is going to be preserved or
not. He said that the Board could make that decision and plan for an alternate location, and if they do not
want to preserve it, DHR decides in conjunction with VDOT.
Mr. Rooker asked if it really is the County’s decision.
Mr. Davis said that he is not sure what analysis VDOT would bring back if they were instructed to
construct an alternate bridge.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the people of Advance Mills deserve a quick solution to this, and the
sooner a temporary bridge solution can be reached, the better. He added that a permanent solution can
be debated later.
Mr. Rooker noted that there is a connection between revenue and the ability of government to
respond to these situations. He said that people were not advocating to keep the tax rate where it was or
raise it nor were they advocating increasing the gas tax. He said the County’s funds for transportation,
secondary roads – and all these roads are secondary roads – is less this year than it was ten years ago.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the cost for projects has well more than doubled.
Mr. Dorrier said that $700,000 for a temporary bridge is small in the context of road projects.
Mr. W yant said it was important to get more information about the abutments and the
environmental and historical impacts.
Ms. Thomas stated that this is a fragile and subtle historic district, and that is important to her.
She added that no matter what is done, Durrett Ridge Road is going to have increasing amount of traffic
with delays related to bridge construction and will need more frequent maintenance.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Sumpter said that the structure is very low to the water and floods frequently.
Mr. Rooker commented that VDOT has moved projects around for years, and they only have so
many staff to allocate for projects. He said it is naive to think that if you turn VDOT loose on a temporary
solution that it is not going to take some time away from a permanent solution because they have limited
resources. Mr. Rooker added that everyone agrees that a permanent solution must be established, and
that process should go ahead and begin now.
Mr. Slutzky said that he does not really support that.
At this time, Mr. W yant moved to move forward with a permanent solution but also address a
temporary solution that involves analysis of piers and abutments. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas asked for clarification.
Mr. Boyd said that he understands Mr. W yant’s motion to say the County is going to move
forward on both fronts, running the risk that it may come back from DHR and take the County out of the
picture.
Mr. Rooker responded that if they are voting in favor of going ahead with a temporary structure,
that is not what staff recommends. He said that that would not require a motion if it just means having Mr.
Sumpter coming back with more information.
Mr. Sumpter said that he did not understand the motion.
Mr. W yant said that his motion is direction for him to continue to proceed.
Mr. Slutzky commented that if the Board moves forward with a temporary solution, the old bridge
will be gone.
Mr. W yant stated that it could still be used.
Mr. Slutzky added that that would be at County expense.
Mr. Rooker said that the permitting process is the same regardless of whether it is temporary or
permanent, and he suggested that they move forward with analysis on how removing the bridge would
impact the historic designation.
Mr. Sumpter stated that he would contact VDOT district staff and instruct them to move forward
with pursuing permission to remove the bridge and report back if it is possible or not prior to beginning
any work itself. He added that they have initiated the process with a consultant design team to work on
all of the permanent, and they will handle the temporary within internal VDOT resources. Mr. Sumpter
noted that those two processes are totally separate from each other.
Ms. Thomas said that they would have to go to DHR for a temporary structure anyway.
Mr. Boyd said it appears that the consensus of the Board is that VDOT move forward with
pursuing permission to remove the temporary structure, report back to this Board, at which time this
Board will make a decision prior to VDOT beginning any work to remove the structure itself. VDOT is also
directed to bring back a response from DHR regarding the historical significance and implications. Board
members concurred.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas complimented VDOT for their work on White Mountain Road, a neighborhood as
divided as Advance Mills.
Mr. Sumpter replied that VDOT is trying to maintain maintenance on it. Mr. Bill Bushman from the
Research Council has been working on preserving gravel roads without hard surfacing them.
__________
Mr. W yant thanked him for VDOT’s handling of W esley Chapel Road and Pea Ridge as well as
staff’s work on the site distance for Owensville and Garth Roads.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that the pavement on Old Ivy Road is getting in very bad condition due in part to
construction projects there. He also said that there has been a long series of requests to create some
extra width on the shoulder as Garth Road is being repaved.
__________
Mr. Slutzky commented that there is a quarry on Rio Mills Road, and VDOT has explored
accelerating the pavement of that road to accommodate the traffic there. He added that the problem with
this is that the quarry would have 250 trucks per day carrying ten tons of rock, and if the goal was to have
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
them turn left and go up Earlysville Road, they will either go right towards the airport or left towards
development. Mr. Slutzky said that VDOT is evaluating the public safety implications of giving that
entrance permit and has not reached a conclusion yet. He said that VDOT is exploring a route that would
bring traffic to Route 29 instead.
Mr. Rooker commented that he would like to get a staff report on this, but as it is described he is
concerned about heavy truck traffic being added to Earlysville Road.
Mr. Sumpter responded that one of the reasons they were proceeding in the direction they were
is the road is in the six-year plan and was ultimately going to be constructed anyway.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that after all the work on Gilbert Station, he would like to move forward with
improving the .4 miles remaining.
Mr. Sumpter replied that they are going to take a look at it to see if they can do anything. He said
that VDOT is doing inspections on the railroad bridge there.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation: The W ildlife Foundation.
Ms. Jenny W est, Executive Director of the W ildlife Foundation of Virginia, addressed the Board.
She explained that the Foundation owns about 2,000 acres in southern Albemarle near Esmont, which is
managed for public access to outdoor resources. Ms. West said that it is privately owned but is managed
as a State wildlife management area, as far as public access. She explained that their mission is to
assist in the conservation, protection, and enhancement of wildlife and habitat resources throughout
Virginia. Ms. W est said that they go out and look to acquire land either through donation or purchase that
can be used for public outdoor access, such as hunting, fishing, hiking, bird-watching, and horseback
riding, to ensure that people have a place to go to enjoy the outdoors.
Ms. W est reported that she wanted to discuss Cool Springs or Dawson Mill, which was given to
the Foundation in 1997 by Thomas Fore, whose grandfather, Thomas Griffin Herring, served on the
Board of the Virginia Game Commission for 25 years from the early 1930’s until the 1950’s. She
explained that Mr. Fore’s vision for the property was to see it preserved in perpetuity through
conservation easement to provide wildlife habitat for a variety of species in a natural setting. Ms. W est
said that most of the property lies in Esmont on Route 6, and the Foundation owns a few hundred acres
north of Route 6 as well. She noted that there are three occupied tenant dwellings on the property as well
as old barn buildings, the remnants of Dawson Mill, and an old one-room schoolhouse. Ms. West said
that the majority of it is in planted pines, a couple hundred acres are hardwoods, and under 200 acres is
in open fields. She said that they manage the property and control the number of days it can be used for
specific activities, and three types of permits are issued, including hiking/bird-watching, equestrian use,
and hunting permits. Ms. West explained that a deputy sheriff for Albemarle works with them to
implement the public use and wildlife habitat enhancement programs that will be done over the next year.
She noted that they have enrolled the property in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program,
which is designed to protect streams by enhancing streamside buffers. Ms. West said that they are going
to put 70 acres into it, making it the largest in the program in central Virginia. She stated that they also
conduct educational workshops and hunts targeted to non-traditional sportsmen, such as youth, disabled
hunters, and women, to try to grow the sporting base in Virginia. Ms. W est noted that there has been
growth in equestrian and non-hunting use recently as well, and the property can continue to entertain an
increasing number of users. She presented an article on the property that appeared in Virginia Wildlife
magazine after one of the youth hunts.
Ms. Thomas commented that she went to the grand opening several years ago, and the property
is a hidden treasure.
Mr. Boyd suggested putting some information on the County website to help promote use of the
area.
Ms. W est responded that the Foundation’s board would like to raise the funds to restore the
Dawson Mill house at some point so that it could be used as a community asset.
Mr. W yant added that there has been significant work by AHIP on some houses near there.
Mr. Slutzky wondered about a memorandum of understanding between Parks & Recreation and
the Foundation.
Ms. W est agreed, stating that they would also like to make it available for County functions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development Performance
Review.
The Executive Summary states that in February 2006, the Board approved a motion for
Albemarle County to join the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) for the
remainder of FY 05/06 and all of FY 06/07. That motion also called for the Board to reaffirm its decision to
be a member in the TJPED before continuing membership in FY 07/08. The purpose of this executive
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
summary is to provide information to the Board to assist it in its discussion regarding whether to continue
its membership in the TJPED.
During the course of this first year of Albemarle County membership, the TJPED gained one
additional public agency member, Greene County, so that participating localities now include the City of
Charlottesville and Albemarle, Culpeper, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson and Orange Counties. Also,
founding Executive Director, Bob de Mauri, retired from his position. A nationwide search ended with the
TJPED Board selecting Mike Harvey to take over the organization in February 2007. Mr. Harvey has
recently completed his orientation, assessed budget and operations, and developed a new work plan with
considerable input from County representatives. Mr. Harvey has re-aligned his advisory committee to
include leadership from the Central Virginia Small Business Development Center, Virginia-Piedmont
Technology Council/Charlottesville Venture Group, University of Virginia Economic Development Director,
and the partner-County economic development professionals. Recognizing the limitations of TJPED’s
budget, Mr. Harvey has scaled back new business marketing activities and developed a work plan which
places a strong emphasis on several key initiatives: 1) implementing a business retention program
centered around the State’s “ExecutivePulse” computer program, 2) developing a regional workforce
study, and 3) performing an industry cluster analysis of the region to identify desirable business
segments. Mr. Harvey has also taken a co-leadership role with The Piedmont W orkforce Network to
address and help mitigate the regional impacts expected from the expansion of NGIC. The Chairman of
TJPED has also established an Advisory Council made up of a diverse group of interests including the
farming and wine industries, land conservation interests, tourism and other business entities. Ches
Goodall, Manager of our ACE Program, represents Albemarle County government on this council.
To assist in working with TJPED, staff developed a memorandum of understanding, MOU, to
create measurements for evaluating performance against the broader goals stated above. (Attachment A)
The MOU identifies five areas for TJPED to address: 1) Helping existing businesses improve workforce
training and placement of workers affected by downsizing; 2) In accordance with our development area
and rural area policies and strategies, reaching out to new businesses to diversify the tax base and to
encourage local employment, 3) Support County staff and elected officials in communicating with the
community about the regional economy as well as business assistance programs and initiatives; 4) Upon
request, assist County staff with research, including white papers, on key topics such a economic
competitiveness, product development, and under-employment; and 5) Track activity performed on behalf
of Albemarle County.
Culling through notes from his predecessor, TJPED Executive Director Mike Harvey provided a
summary report documenting TJPED’s 2006 calendar-year activity on behalf of Albemarle County.
(Attachment B). According to this report, TJPED staff contacted over 60 local companies and helped
three with major expansions, including one that qualified for $1,000,000 for business expansion/retraining
from the VA Department of Business Assistance. TJPED staff member, Sue Friedman, provided
considerable assistance to the Badger Company’s 94 employees in connecting with employee resources
for re-training and employment networking, following the company’s closing. During this time Ms.
Friedman also served on the Albemarle County Strategic Planning for Economic Vitality Citizen Task
Force, helping to identify solutions for workforce training and metrics for measuring economic vitality over
the time period of the County Strategic Plan.
Even with the change of TJPED’s Executive Director, this last year’s membership has been
beneficial to the County in several ways. TJPED provided significant support in helping Badger
employees - following layoffs - find other jobs and workforce re-training programs in concert with the
Virginia Employment Commission staff. TJPED provided leadership in a citizen’s committee on Economic
Vitality for the County’s Strategic Plan, as well as with regional discussions on addressing impacts from
the expansion of NGIC. TJPED also provided support in working with the State’s Economic Development
Partnership (VEDP) and UVA in helping identify and recruit candidate tenants for the University’s
research parks.
TJPED’s annual membership fee is $12,500. Staff recommends that the Board continue the
County’s membership in the TJPED.
__________
Mr. Tucker noted that staff still supports participation in TJPED, and staff has outlined some
parameters for continued involvement.
Mr. Rooker responded that his objection has been philosophical as he does not want the County
to support organizations that advocate in front of the Board. He also said that he would like a
commitment from TJPED that they will not appear before the Board or the Planning Commission either in
person or in writing in support of or in opposition to any application pending before those bodies.
Mr. Mike Harvey of TJPED addressed the Board, noting that he personally does not have an
objection to that, and there are other groups that serve more of an advocacy role.
Mr. Slutzky pointed out that the County is intending to invest money in ASAP, and he wondered if
there is a difference in joining and contributing.
Mr. Rooker responded that the County is allocating money to ASAP because it will get benefit
from the study, and being on a board of an organization is a different matter.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would like to vote on joining for one year, and he noted that TJPED will
become a significant ally.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Dorrier stated that he views this group much like the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission (TJPDC), and it would tie TJPED’s hands to not allow them to address the Board.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that TJPDC is a state organization bound by the public body
requirements, and TJPED is a private non-profit.
Mr. Davis commented that the law limits what boards a Board of Supervisors can appoint a Board
member to sit on, and TJPED does not fall in that category. He said that the organizations can choose
members to serve on their board rather than them being appointed, and similar organizations to TJPED
have picked supervisors to be on those boards.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would like to have the contingency that TJPED would not come before
the Board to advocate a position.
Ms. Thomas responded that it would likely not be well-received, given the discussions here. She
also said that she would like something that emphasizes employment that meets the needs of people in
poverty and language that addresses traffic strategies for new employers.
Mr. Rooker noted that there could be something in the staff memorandum of agreement that they
would not appear before the Board in a specific advocacy position related to a project.
Mr. Harvey added that it aligns with their goals.
Mr. Harvey noted that their budget this year would be $385,000 and if they receive public funding
they will be open with their books.
At this time, Mr. Slutzky moved for approval of the County joining TJPED for one year; as part of
the Memorandum of Understanding, under the section for “New Businesses, modify Bullet #2 to read:
“Encourage the employment of local workers rather than the hiring and relocating people from outside the
region with an emphasis on jobs that meet poverty-related needs.” Modify Bullet #5 to read: “Assist
County staff in formulating mechanisms that help implement the County’s Comprehensive Plan, as well
as its Master Plans, Strategic Plan and traffic management strategies.” In addition, approval is contingent
upon TJPED not appearing before the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission either in person,
or in writing, in support or in opposition of any application pending before those bodies. Mr. W yant
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
Thomas Jefferson Partnership Support of
Albemarle County’s Economic Development Objectives
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) will work with Albemarle
County in a number of areas that are designed to support the accomplishment of its economic
development objectives. The stated areas of activity are not intended to limit the work done on the
County’s behalf, but merely attempts to identify those key initiatives that will complement and augment
what is being done or what is desired to be done by staff.
Two major areas of engagement will be with existing businesses in the county and with those
designated businesses currently outside the county that can satisfy their operational needs in appropriate,
pre-determined county locations identified in the Comprehensive Plan. TJPED will not appear before the
Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission either in person, or in writing, in support or in
opposition of any application pending before those bodies.
Existing Businesses
Help establish connections with Albemarle County businesses and County staff to build and
strengthen those relationships that will more effectively address identified needs in such areas as:
• Workforce training and continuing education
• Improving job and wage opportunities
• Placement and retraining of workers affected by downsizing or relocations
• Resolution of those issues associated with expansion or relocation within the County.
New Businesses
By first becoming familiar with both the development area and rural area policies of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan, along with the opportunities available for potential new businesses in these areas,
strategies will be developed and prospects will be identified/assisted that, if located, would become
suitable additions to the county’s land-use mix. TJPED will recognize, via resolution, the comprehensive
plan of each participating jurisdiction, and align the promotion of new business in accordance with stated
goals
• Promote the establishment of a diversity of businesses that require a variety of job skills and
educational levels, as well as broaden the local tax base
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
• Encourage the employment of local workers rather than the hiring and relocating people from
outside the region and include an emphasis on jobs that meet poverty-related needs
• Represent the county’s business opportunities in the context of the regional economy to
prospective companies
• Work with County staff to identify environmentally sustainable businesses, including those that
are technology/knowledge based, that will help expand employment opportunities in the
development areas and support agricultural and forest management activities
• Assist County staff in formulating mechanisms that help implement the County’s Comprehensive
Plan, as well as its Master Plans, Strategic Plan and traffic management strategies
Community Relations/Communication
Additional support will be provided by joining with County staff/elected officials in meetings with residents
and local businesses. Upon request, information will be shared about:
• The regional economy
• Available assistance programs
• Selected components of the business development program
• TJPED will continue its practice of website postings of events and meeting schedules, ensuring
accessibility and availability of information to the Albemarle County residents
General Economic Development Resource
TJPED will be available to County staff/elected officials to provide information on subjects related
to economic development. Upon request, white papers will be prepared, data will be made available and
issues will be identified in such areas as:
• Economic competitiveness
• Product development
• Plan implementation
• Under-employment
• Sustainable agricultural trends
Tracking Activity Performed on Behalf of Albemarle County
• Employers Contacted ______
• Employers Assisted ______
• Workforce Training Referrals Made ______
• New Business Inquiries Assisted ______
• Presentations/Appearances with County Staff ______
• Support Provided for County Initiatives ______
• Requested Papers Prepared/Information Provided ______
• New Businesses Located (to include jobs/investment) ______
• Existing Business Expansions (to include jobs/investment) ______
______________
Agenda Item No. 10. 2008 Legislative Priorities.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in July 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved the
County’s 2007 Legislative Priorities that were then submitted to the Virginia Association of Counties
(VACo) and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). In October 2006, the Board
approved the TJPDC’s legislative program that incorporated the County’s 2007 Legislative Priorities. The
General Assembly convened in January 2007 and completed its session in April. Staff is providing this
executive summary to receive the Board’s input and approval before submitting the proposed 2008
Legislative Priorities (Attachment A) to the TJPDC and VACo.
For information on how the County’s 2007 Legislative Priorities fared in the legislature, please
see the “2007 Legislative Priorities Report (Attachment B).” The report details any action taken on
priorities, an assessment of what priorities should be continued in the future and links to the final
legislative reports of the TJPDC, VACo and Virginia Municipal League (VML).
For the 2008 Legislative Priorities, a statement has been added at the Board’s request asking for
the County to be included in the “Cost to Compete Pay Differential” that will provide additional
compensation from the state for teachers. Staff is not proposing any priorities beyond the “Cost to
Complete Pay Differential” and the continued or modified 2007 priorities.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
After the Board’s input and approval, staff will submit the adopted priorities to VACo and the
TJPDC for consideration into their respective legislative programs. The Board may request legislation or
other priorities at anytime after this date; however, in submitting priorities to VACo, now is the optimal
time for consideration of any proposal. The 2007 TJPDC Legislative Program will return to the Board in
the fall for further input and approval.
Should the state provide additional funding for the County’s “Child Care for Low Income W orking
Families” priority, a local match will be required. Beyond that priority, there are no specific, identifiable
budget impacts, although the County’s legislative priorities seek to ensure the state adequately funds its
mandated responsibilities and does not jeopardize the County’s ability to effectively and efficiently
implement the policies (including fiscal) and programs that it deems necessary.
Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed 2008 Legislative Priorities (Attachment A),
and any additions it feels are appropriate, for submission to VACo and the TJPDC.
__________
Mr. Tucker reported that staff is asking that the County be included in the “Cost to Compete Pay
Differential Program” that would bring additional funds for teachers, and staff is not proposing any
priorities beyond that, but continuing those modified in the 2007 priorities. He said in addition, staff noted
that another budget impact would be the State funding child care for low-income working families as there
would need to be a local match for that. Mr. Tucker stated that staff would recommend that the Board
approve the 2008 legislative priorities as presented, with any additions they feel are appropriate, to be
forwarded to VACo and TJPDC.
Mr. Boyd asked about the scenic protection and tourism enhancement clause.
Ms. Thomas responded that it arose out of a study done by a legislative committee in which
Albemarle participated, and the County felt they would be the one county that would put something like
that into effect although it has never gotten very far. She noted that Delegate Creigh Deeds proposed
something last year, but it has not gone anywhere.
Mr. Boyd noted that this request is a specific request for Albemarle County.
Ms. Thomas replied that it was a pilot project that also did not get anywhere.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not support this language.
Ms. Thomas responded that it is the same language that enables the County to have an
Architectural Review Board on the Entrance Corridor, and it says that if there is an area of the County that
is particularly important to tourism then the locality can have review of appearance of structures. She
explained that it came about from a local issue related to visibility in mountains as you enter the area and
Monticello’s viewshed. Ms. Thomas emphasized that it does not prevent building, but it does allow for
compatibility of structures and design. She said, “Right now we can’t do any of that.”
Mr. Rooker commented that in York County, they call it the “Tourist Enhancement Overlay
District.”
Mr. Slutzky noted that this is just the enabling legislation, and it is up to local officials to decide
how it would be applied.
In response to Mr. Dorrier’s question about the method, Mr. Davis explained that this was
intended so that a locality has an ability to have an overlay district that would allow regulation of
aesthetics, which could be done administratively or by the ARB. Mr. Davis said that it was designed
primarily for mountain overlay districts so that there would be earth tone colors that blend into the
landscape.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that this just provides an opportunity for enabling legislation.
Mr. Boyd replied that there is an awful lot of intrusion of government that started with the “camel’s
nose under the tent”.
Ms. Thomas commented that it is allowed in most other states, and Virginia is one exception.
She noted that it really addresses aesthetics.
Mr. Davis said that it would not do more than what Entrance Corridors do, but it would allow them
to do it in mountainsides and other attractive areas in the County.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that this simply provides enabling legislation, but any actions would be
subject to future decisions from the Board. He also said that he would like to add something under Health
and Human Services that says “fully fund Social Service positions at levels consistent with state and
federal guidelines.”
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved for approval of the 2008 Legislative Priorities for submission to
VACo, and the TJPDC. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion, noting that there is a full funding of State
mandates provision. He commented that it is sad that it needs to be stated in a legislative agenda as a
request that the legislature not pass legislation that preempts or circumnavigates local authority to
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
regulate land uses. Mr. Boyd expressed his support of the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
Albemarle County 2008 Legislative Priorities - Adopted
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
• Local Authority: Request that the legislature further facilitate the HB 3202 legislation recently
signed into law through: 1) Modifying the transportation impact fee authority to allow for its more
effective implementation; 2) Strengthening localities’ authority by enabling them to
utilize adequate public facilities ordinances and other impact fees in addition to transportation;
and 3) Not passing legislation that preempts or circumvents existing local authority to regulate
land use.
• Conservation Easements: Request the legislature support and augment local efforts in natural
resource protection through 1) Continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation
(VLCF) for locally established and funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE
Program in Albemarle County); 2) Retaining current provisions in transient occupancy tax
legislation so that funds can continue to be used to protect open-space and resources of
historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value that attract tourism; and 3) Increase incentives for
citizens to create conservation easements
• Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement: Request enabling legislation for an Albemarle
County pilot program to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district.
As the County pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic
resource, this legislation would provide the County with a method to ensure full consideration of
visual resources and scenic areas when the County or state makes land use decisions in
designated areas.
• Transportation Funding: Request the legislature 1) Establish stable and consistent state
revenues for Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 2) direct funding efforts at all
transportation modes; 3) Coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of
local Comprehensive and regional Transportation Plans when planning transportation systems
within a locality; and 4) Not shift transportation responsibilities, including maintenance, to
localities.
Health and Human Services
• Comprehensive Services Act (CSA): Request the legislature assist localities’ implementation of
CSA in a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) Fully funding the state pool for CSA with
allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local expenditures for
serving a child through CSA; 2) Enhancing state funding for grants to localities to create
community-based alternatives for children served in CSA; 3) Establishing state contracts with
CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management process, improve vendor
accountability and control costs; and 4) Encouraging the state to be proactive in making service
providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing
among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
• Child Care for Low Income Working Families: Request the legislature provide additional funds
to local governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. This funding
helps working-class parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts for families
to become self-sufficient.
Local Government Administration / Laws
• Full Funding of State Mandates: Request the state provide full funding for its mandates in all
areas of local government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs), positions approved by the
Compensation Board and costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers.
• Local Control of Local Revenues: Request the legislature take no action to restrict or limit the
existing local control of local revenues so that local government leaders can take appropriate
measures to generate sufficient revenues to sustain and improve services
Cost to Compete Pay Differential: Due to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle
County, request the legislature include Albemarle County Schools in the “Cost to Compete Pay
Differential” so that the County may reach and maintain competitive compensation to help recruit, develop
and retain a highly qualified and diverse teacher workforce.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Appeal: SDP 2006-071 Gillispie – Preliminary Site Plan – Critical
Slopes Waiver/Curb and Gutter Request, (Tax Map 61K, Parcels 10-0A and 10-0A2). Request for
Preliminary Site Plan to allow the construction of two (2) residential condominium units totaling 16,023 sf,
and 7 total dwelling units on 1.71 acres, and is zoned R4 (Residential). The property is described as Tax
Map 61K, Parcels 10-0A and 10-0A2, and is located at the end of Inglewood Drive, near its intersection
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
with Hydraulic Road (Route 631). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood
Density in Urban Area 7. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
The Executive Summary states that the applicant is appealing the Planning Commission’s May 8,
2007 denial of a critical slopes waiver sought in conjunction with a site plan for a 7-unit condominium
project. The property is identified as Tax Map 61K, Section 10, Parcels A and A2 and is located at the
end of Inglewood Drive in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The property site is 1.71 acres in size and
is zoned R-4, Residential.
This project was before the Board on an appeal once before on February 7, 2007. At that time,
the issues on appeal were the Planning Commission’s denial of a critical slopes waiver and denial of a
waiver from the requirement for curb and gutter. Related to these waivers, there was concern by the
Planning Commission, County staff, and the public that drainage from the property would adversely
impact a downstream property. At the February 7, 2007 meeting, the Board deferred action on the
appeal upon the applicant’s agreement to revise the plan to address the concerns expressed by County
staff.
On March 15, 2007, the applicant submitted a revised plan which provided curb and gutter
meeting the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and directed drainage through the proposed entrance
of the property and into an existing public drainage system. These revisions eliminated the need for the
waiver from the curb and gutter requirement and resolved the concern that drainage would adversely
impact a downstream property. The plan was also revised to reconfigure the original two buildings into
one, thereby decreasing the amount of critical slopes and providing adequate area for the installation of
erosion and sediment control measures. The existing swale to the rear of the building will not be
channelized into a pipe and staff determined that improvements to the existing swale should be enough to
ensure adequate channels for the downstream property.
On May 8, 2007, the Planning Commission denied the applicant’s revised request for a critical
slopes waiver (See Attachments B, C, D) as provided below:
The Planning Commission’s denial was based on the grounds that the three findings set forth in
Section 4.2.5(b) could not be made as follows: (The ordinance sections are provided below in Italics)
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the
developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or (Added 11-15-89)
The first finding could not be made, as noted in the staff report, because there were no proposed
alternatives presented by the developer that would satisfy the purpose of Section 4.2 to at least
an equivalent degree.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other
unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of section 4.2
would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent proper ties. Such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be
contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11-15-89)
Regarding the second finding, the Commission was unable to make that finding for the reason
that the degradation of the area would be overreaching for the area and that they could reduce
the size of the disturbed area. This proposal is developing the project to the maximum extent
possible under the R-4 zoning. Therefore, the applicant could scale back the scope of the project.
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2.
Regarding the third finding, the Commission could not find any immediately identifiable reasons
that would be considered of greater import in granting the waiver, as noted in the staff report.
In its report to the Planning Commission (Attachment A), staff recommended approval of the
critical slopes waiver because the request was consistent with the criteria in Section 4.2.5(a) (Attachment
E) for the granting of such a waiver and also sound engineering practices. Staff continues to recommend
approval because:
• The area of land disturbance has been reduced since the original plan. Critical slopes
cover approximately 0.65 acres (approximately 36.3%) of the project site; approximately
0.34 acres (approximately 20% of the project site and 52% of the critical slopes) of the
project site would be disturbed by the proposed development. The original plan
proposed to disturb approximately 0.41 acres (approximately 24% of the project site and
63% of the critical slopes).
• Current Development Engineering staff finds that four of the criteria in Section 4.2.5(a)
are either inapplicable or can be addressed in the erosion and sediment control and
stormwater management plan stages, and the fifth (loss of an aesthetic resource) is
unavoidable to the extent that wooded areas would be lost. The Current Development
Planning staff found that the disturbance of the critical slopes would not be a potential
loss of a critical aesthetic resource.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Staff was not able to make findings under Sections 4.2.5(b)(1) or 4.2.5(b)(2) to support the waiver
request. There are no proposed alternatives presented by the developer that would satisfy the
purpose of Section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree. Furthermore, while the strict application
of 4.2 would not unreasonably restrict the use of the property, it would result in significant
redesign and loss of density. Staff recommends that the Board can make the required finding
under Section 4.2.5(b)(3) (Attachment E and set forth above) because the proposed project is an
infill project within the development areas as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, proposes a
density that is consistent with the property’s Neighborhood Density (3-6 dwelling units per acre)
designation in the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the urban character desired for
Neighborhood 7 in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s opinion is that approving the critical slopes
waiver to allow the development as proposed promotes these public policies.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the requested waiver.
__________
Mr. Shepherd reported that this is an appeal from the Planning Commission’s May 8, 2007 denial
of a critical slopes waiver sought in conjunction with a site plan for a seven-unit condominium project
located at the end of Inglewood Drive in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District and is zoned R-4. He
explained that this project was before the Board on an appeal on February 7th, and the Board deferred
action on the applicant’s agreement to revise the plan and address concerns that were raised by the staff
and the public. Mr. Shepherd said that the applicant did submit a revised plan that provided curb and
gutter which eliminated the need for a waiver, and the plan combined the two buildings as one, decreased
the critical slope disturbance, and reconsidered the drainage. He stated that with these revisions, staff is
able to recommend approval of the critical slopes waivers. Mr. Shepherd said that the engineering staff
was able to make a recommendation based on sound engineering practices reflected in the plan, and
planning staff was able to make a positive recommendation based on the criteria of providing infill
development of three to six dwelling units per acre, consistent with Neighborhood Seven. He said that
the Planning Commission denied the request, indicating in their opinion that none of the three findings
had been made.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission’s recommendation for denial was based on sections
under 4.2.5.B of the ordinance, believing that there was no proposed alternative presented by the
developer under the section to at least an equivalent degree, and that the degradation of the area would
be overreaching for the area and the applicant could reduce the project size and scale it back. Mr.
Cilimberg also said that the Commission did not find any immediately identifiable reasons that would be
considered of greater importance in granting the waiver, such as opportunity for infill.
Mr. Bill Daggett addressed the Board as the project architect, stating that they addressed the
drainage issue, and the Commission could not make any of the findings in their deliberations. He stated
that they are erroneous in all of that because they did provide an alternative, including replacing the
building and road positions so that the building was built in the non-critical slopes areas and the road was
built in the critical slopes area. Mr. Daggett read from the land use plan, noting that it recognizes physical
development limitations and provides guidance for development that will be harmonious to the natural
and manmade environments and consistent with the County’s growth management goals, which are to
channel development into designated development areas while conserving the balance of the County as
rural areas. He continued to read from the plan, emphasizing that it encourages higher density building
as infill of vacant land in the designated development areas.
Mr. Daggett emphasized that they would like to use the density bonus for affordable housing
units.
Mr. Rooker said that there had been discussion between the applicant and the neighborhood, and
he saw a copy of an e-mail agreement to change the plan. He asked if that had been done.
Mr. Daggett replied that the only issue that would change the plan, as he is aware, would include
separation of the building into two smaller buildings and move it somewhat on the site.
Mr. Davis noted that he is not sure that staff has evaluated the critical slopes issue in regards to
the buildings being separated.
Mr. Shepherd added that staff is asking for the Board to approve the critical slopes waiver that
shows the disturbance as shown on this preliminary plan, so if a revision would additionally disturb slopes
than this waiver would not apply.
Mr. Davis agreed that this is a moot point if there are two buildings as there would be additional
critical slopes waivers.
At this time the Chairman asked for public comments.
Ms. Margaret Van Engle addressed the Board, stating that her property abuts this vacant lot. She
said that the neighbors have met with Mr. Gillespie, realizing that the lot is going to be developed and
making requests as to what they would like to see. Ms. Van Engle said that they have objected to the
density and hearing there may be nine units, is rather alarming.
Mr. Rooker noted that the applicant is reading from certain sections of the Comp. Plan and is
seeking the maximum density allowed on the lot. He said that there are substantial critical slopes here,
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
and if the Board is to buy the architect’s argument, that would mean that every parcel and lot in the
County would be built to the highest end.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved to sustain the Planning Commission’s decision not to permit this.
He noted that reducing this by one unit would result in less building and disturbance on critical slopes.
Ms. Thomas commented that that would allow this to be considered without changing the plan.
Mr. Daggett asked for clarification of the motion.
Mr. Davis responded that the critical slopes waiver for this site plan is before the Board, and they
could approve it with the middle unit removed, but without staff review of that option he would be hesitant
to recommend that approach as it may change the dynamics on the site. He suggested having it deferred
and brought back before the Board in August.
Ms. Thomas commented that she could not see that removing a unit would make it worse.
Mr. Allan Schuck of the Engineering Department addressed the Board, stating that removing the
middle building would not affect the critical slopes disturbance proposed with this plan. He added that by
eliminating the middle unit the development would not increase or decrease the critical slopes
disturbance.
Mr. Tucker asked if there were other engineering concerns, and Mr. Schuck replied that the
applicant has redesigned the drainage as it is routed towards the front of the property anyway. Mr.
Schuck said that it would affect the storm water management plan because of additional impervious area.
Mr. Davis noted that staff’s basis for approval was the balance of disturbing critical slopes versus
the public purpose of greater infill. He said that the waiver could be acted upon with a condition that one
of the central units be eliminated from the site plan.
Mr. Rooker then restated his motion to move approval of the critical slopes waiver with a
condition that one of the central units be eliminated from the site plan. Ms. Thomas seconded the
motion.
Mr. Daggett clarified that he cannot act on behalf of Mr. Gillespie, but he can act on the Board’s
decision accordingly.
Mr. Davis noted that he does not have to build on this site plan; he can come back and propose
something else.
Mr. Shepherd noted that the building footprint could actually get smaller with the removal of a
central unit.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session.
At 1:02 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board adjourn into closed session
pursuant to Section 2.2-3.711.A of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to conduct an administrative
evaluation and appointments to boards, committees, and commissions; under Subsection (7) to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding specific matters requiring legal advice related to an information
technology agreement; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
pending litigation regarding a law enforcement incident.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:46
p.m.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Slutzky that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in motion authorizing
the closed session were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. W yant. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. W yant moved to:
Appoint Bradford Cogan to the Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee, with said term to
expire April 17, 2011.
Appoint Dave Callihan to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee, to fill the
unexpired term of Jay Fennell, with said term to expire on August 1, 2009.
Appoint Jeff Werner to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with said term to expire July 8,
2009.
Appoint Donald Byers, as the joint City/County appointee to the Jail Authority, with said term to
expire on June 30, 2010, subject to approval by City Council.
Appoint Richard Jennings to the Pantops Community Advisory Council.
Reappoint Edith (Winx) Lawrence to the Commission on Children and Families, as the University
of Virginia Representative.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item 6.5. Charlottesville Transit Service Recommendation for Use of Additional Transit
Funding. (Resumption of Discussion).
Mr. Benish reported that the funding is available for the evening service for Route 5 or enhanced
service on that route but not both. He explained that City Council is not aware of the County’s interest in
evening service, but only the enhanced headways, and says it is not a decision solely for CTS to make.
Mr. Slutzky said that IMPACT recommended that. He reported that CTS staff said that funding
the evening route would not affect the County’s position for the Job Access Reverse Commute grant, but
funding expended for that service incurred in advance would not likely be reimbursable.
Mr. Benish stated that there is not socio-economic data available that is specific to these
alternative services, according to Bill W atterson, but there is some general information that has been
developed. He said that staff feels it would be best to enhance headways on Route 5 and pursue the
grant opportunities in January to begin the evening service next year.
Mr. Slutzky said that if he had to choose, he would prefer to expand to evening service.
Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Rooker commented that it would be helpful to have socio-economic data to support that, but a
lot of people use day service on Route 5 to get to and from work.
Mr. Slutzky noted that IMPACT did a lot of work to gather information.
Ms. Thomas replied that they also said Southwood needed service and that has not been
successful.
Mr. Rooker suggested funding the recommendation by CTS.
Mr. W yant and Mr. Boyd agreed. Mr. Boyd added that the study was done by CTS and that was
their recommendation.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved to adopt staff’s recommendations for the expenditure of $250,000
allocated in the FY 2007/08 budget for funding 1) Route 2B serving the Fifth Street area, and 2) improving
service frequency on Route 5 from every 45 minutes to every 30 minutes between Barracks Road
Shopping Center and W al-Mart; and requested staff to pursue the Job Access Reverse Commute grant
which may enable the County to provide night service later in the year. Mr. W yant seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 15. Appeal: SDP-2006-081. Black Cat Road Service Station Preliminary
Site Plan Waiver Requests. (Tax Map 94, Parcels 38 and 39). (Deferred from April 4, 2007)
(Applicant requests deferral).
Mr. Boyd noted that the item had been requested to be deferred, but he agreed to take comments
from those in attendance. At this time the Chairman asked for public comments.
Mr. Bill Johnson addressed the Board, asking how many times the item could be deferred and
stating that the neighbors are held hostage somewhat to this decision.
Mr. Davis explained that the waiver request was denied by the Planning Commission. He further
explained that there is no rule in play as to how many deferrals can be granted, and that is up to the
Board. Mr. Davis said that there has been one previous deferral granted in April.
Ms. Thomas asked about having the applicant pay the expenses of sending the letters to all the
affected landowners.
Mr. Davis replied that there is no legal requirement to send letters to them.
Mr. Tucker said that the permit fee discussion in September might be the time to discuss this as
there are other costs incurred that are of concern.
Mr. Davis suggested having an indefinite deferral and having the staff contact the applicant to see
whether or not they want to go forward with this and if there is an agreed upon date. He added that there
might be some information related to well and septic capacity that had not been received by Zoning, but
he is not sure if that led to this deferral or not.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved to defer indefinitely the appeal of SDP-2006-081. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: Amendment to Lewis and Clark Center Lease
Agreement. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2, 2007).
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in 2003, the City and County, as co-owners of
Darden Towe Park, entered into a lease agreement with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of
Virginia, Inc. to allow the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center to be located in the northeast corner of
Towe Park. On January 4, 2006, the Board unanimously approved a special use permit for the Center.
The special use permit review process with the Planning Commission and Board, as well as more defined
plans by representatives of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, has necessitated proposed
amendments to the 2003 lease agreement. Any amended lease agreement must be approved by the
Board of Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council, as co-owners of the Darden Towe Park. On
February 21, 2007, the Darden Towe Park Committee discussed the proposed amended agreement, and
recommended its approval. State law requires that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing prior to
the authorization of a lease of County property.
The proposed agreement would amend the original agreement as follows:
Section 2.1.1 -- More clearly identifies the boundary of the leased area and includes the existing
barn and the immediate surrounding area through October 31, 2011.
Section 2.1.2 -- Allows for the relocation of a portion of the dog run if necessary for the entrance
road construction.
Section 2.2 -- Allows for the construction of a 20 foot wide internal access road as opposed to the
originally envisioned access directly off of Route 20 and allows for relocation of the cross country
trail.
Section 2.6 -- Adds a pre-approval requirement by the City and County should the Rivanna
Watershed Center wish to locate on the leased area.
Section 2.7 -- Adds “festival” to overflow parking requirements – There are different overflow
parking standards for "special events" than for "festivals." As a result, at the suggestion of
County staff, references in the Overflow Parking Section to "special event" have been changed to
"special event or festival."
Section 5.1 -- Permits use as “historical center” – The County's zoning ordinance was recently
amended to include special provisions for "historical centers." As a result, again at the
suggestion of County staff, the proposed lease references the relevant zoning ordinance.
Section 7.1 -- Allows the Center to furnish, maintain, and pay for its own food service equipment.
Section 7.1 -- Also requires the Center to abide by any duly-adopted policies, present or future,
governing the use of pesticides, cleaners or other products at Darden Towe Park
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Article XII and Article II Section 2.5 -- Both provide that property can be withdrawn from the
leased area for any public transportation purpose with no compensation due the tenant.
The proposed amended lease has been reviewed and approved as to form by the County
Attorney’s Office. The City is expected to consider the approval of the amended lease no later than at its
August, 2007 meeting.
The amended agreement has no budget impact on the County.
Following the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to
sign on behalf of the County an amended lease agreement with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center
substantially in accord with the attached lease agreement and approved by the County Attorney.
__________
Mr. Tucker stated that the Darden Towe Park Committee has recommended this, and a public
hearing is required under state law. He said that staff recommends approval to authorize him to sign an
amendment for the lease agreement.
At this time the Chairman asked for public comments.
Ms. Anne Hemenway, Vice President of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Board,
addressed the Board. She recommended approval of the amended lease, stating that it is very similar to
the original lease, but it allows the Center to use the barn area as part of the lease for five years. Ms.
Hemenway also noted that the entrance will be within the park itself.
There being no other comments, Mr. Boyd closed the public comment period.
Ms. Thomas noted that she is on the Center’s board, but there is no official conflict of interest as it
is not a paid position.
At this time, Ms. Thomas moved that the amended lease be adopted as presented and that the
Board authorize the County Executive to sign, on behalf of the County, an amended lease agreement
with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center substantially in accord with the attached lease agreement
and approved by the County Attorney. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
AMENDED AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS AMENDED LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of the ____ day of ____________, 2007, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, (“the County”), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, (“the City”) a municipal corporation (“County and
City”) and THE LEWIS & CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA, INC. (“Tenant”).
W I T N E S S E T H :
ARTICLE I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
Section 1.1. The Lewis & Clark Expedition, one of America’s greatest adventures, began in
Charlottesville-Albemarle at Monticello, where President Thomas Jefferson and Meriwether Lewis
planned the trip west.
Section 1.2. Both Thomas Jefferson and Meriwether Lewis are Albemarle natives; W illiam
Clark and his family were Central Virginians who had lived in Albemarle, where his older brother and
mentor George Rogers Clark was born.
Section 1.3. Jefferson’s homeland of Charlottesville-Albemarle County is uniquely suited for
visitors to explore and discover the Corps of Discovery and Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and also the
geography, plants, wildlife and Native American cultures that comprised the nation at the beginning of the
19th Century.
Section 1.4. Tenant is a Virginia non-stock corporation.
Section 1.5. The northern end of Darden Towe Park along the Rivanna River, which connects
with the George Rogers Clark birthplace, is uniquely situated to provide a premier site for the Facility.
Section 1.6. The property at the northern end of Darden Towe is also located along the
Southwest Mountains and historic Route 20, which connect the homes of Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison and James Monroe, as well as other early Virginia explorers such as Dr. Thomas Walker.
Section 1.7. The Facility will complement the visitor experience at Monticello, the University of
Virginia, Ashlawn-Highland and other important Central Virginia attractions and enhance our
communities’ connection with the Rivanna River. It will also commemorate both the Lewis & Clark
Expedition and George Rogers Clark, the conqueror of the old Northwest Territory.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Section 1.8. The Facility will be designed in a manner that is environmentally and esthetically
sensitive and developed in a manner to enhance the natural beauty of both the Rivanna River and
Darden Towe Park.
Section 1.9. This Amended Agreement of Lease shall supersede the Agreement of Lease among
the parties dated July 1, 2003.
ARTICLE II. PREMISES.
Section 2.1. Premises. In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth, the
County and City hereby lease to the Tenant, and the Tenant hereby rents from the County and City, the
property shown as cross-hatched on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof together with
any and all improvements thereon (the "Leased Premises").
Section 2.1.1. Lease Boundary Line. The boundary line between the Leased premises and the
remainder of Darden Towe Park shall be as shown on Schedule A. Through October 31, 2011, the
Leased Premises shall include the barn and the area immediately surrounding (the ‘Barn Area,’ as shown
on the attached Schedule A). During such time, the County and the City shall have the continued right to
store equipment and materials in the left bay of the barn and at the rear of the barn, and the right to
access these areas. Thereafter, the Leased Premises shall no longer include the Barn Area.
Section 2.1.2 Dog Run. Tenant shall, at its expense, relocate and or replace the dog run fencing
on the County and City property as approved by the County Director of Parks and Recreation to maintain
the same overall square footage should the entrance road require such relocations.
Section 2.2. Tenant Access. Vehicular access to the Leased Premises shall be along and
across a new 20-foot wide road as shown on Schedule A. Tenant shall be responsible for construction of
the new road, as well as any improvements required by the County to be made to the existing road.
Tenant’s use of the 20-foot road shall be limited to times when Darden Towe Park is open, except as
otherwise agreed with the Darden Towe Park staff.
Tenant shall construct and maintain the 20-foot road in its entirety, and any fencing, in
compliance with County of Albemarle Special Use Permit No. SP-2004-004. For purposes of this
instrument, Tenant’s maintenance obligation includes the maintenance of the private streets or alleys,
and all curbs, curbs and gutters, drainage facilities, utilities, dams, bridges, and other private street
improvements, and the prompt removal of snow, water, debris, or any other obstruction so as to keep the
private street or alley reasonably open for usage by all vehicles, including emergency services vehicles.
The Tenant shall install between the 20-foot road and any playing field a fence, which shall be a board
fence forty-two inches (42”) high with evenly spaced horizontal boards each of six inches (6”) of nominal
width.
Tenant shall also construct all new sections of the relocated cross-country trail on the Leased
Premises as shown on Schedule A with the final exact location to be approved by County Director of
Parks and Recreation.
Section 2.3. County and City access. The Tenant grants to the County and the City
reasonable access for ingress and egress across and through the Leased Premises.
Section 2.4. Greenway Trail. The County and City reserve to themselves access to a
variable-width strip along the Rivanna River for a pedestrian greenway trail which includes the right to
connect such trail to a pedestrian bridge crossing the Rivanna River from the Leased Premises.
Section 2.5. Construction of a State Highway or Other Public Transportation Purpose. The
County and City reserve the right to withdraw a portion of the Leased Premises without compensation to
the Tenant, as necessary for the construction of a state highway or for any other public transportation
purpose. The County and City further reserve the right to withdraw any portion of the Leased Premises
not improved as of July 1, 2008, or used in support of then-existing improvements.
Section 2.6. Rivanna W atershed Center The Tenant agrees to provide a portion of the
Leased Premises for use by the Rivanna W atershed Center subject to pre approval by the county and
city. Any costs associated by said use to be borne by the Rivanna Watershed Center.
Section 2.7 Overflow Parking. Any parking constructed on the leased Premises shall be
available for users of Darden Towe Park, unless the Tenant is holding a designated special event or
festival for which it may reasonably reserve parking. The County, the City, and the Tenant shall work
cooperatively in managing parking issues during a special event or festival.
ARTICLE III. TERM.
The term of this lease shall commence as of 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2003 (the "Date of
Commencement") and shall expire at 12:00 midnight on June 30, 2043, unless sooner terminated or
extended as provided herein. The term "Lease Year" as used herein shall mean the period from July 1of
any year to June 30 of the following year.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
ARTICLE IV. RENT.
Commencing July 1, 2003, the Tenant agrees to pay to the County and City "Annual Rent" of
$10.00 per lease year payable annually on or about July 1 of each year.
ARTICLE V. USE OF PROPERTY.
Section 5.1. Permitted Use. The Tenant shall have the right to use the Leased Premises as a
‘Historical Center’ as defined in Albemarle County Code §18-5.1.42, and for no other purposes without
the County’s and City's consent.
Section 5.2. Commercial Promotion and Advertising. The Tenant shall not promote
commercial businesses or corporations in outside signage on the Leased Premises or in advertising
circulated to the general public except with prior written consent of the County and the City.
ARTICLE VI. DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVEMENTS AND SIGNAGE.
Section 6.1. Development by Tenant. No improvements of any kind, including roadways and
parking areas, shall be made to the Leased Premises except with the County and City’s prior written
consent both as to the improvements and as to the contractors and subcontractors performing the work.
Section 6.2. Compliance with County, State and Federal Law. No improvements shall be
undertaken on the Leased Premises unless and until the Tenant shall have obtained any and all local,
state and federal governmental approvals and permits, and all such improvement shall be undertaken in
strict compliance with all County, state and federal rules, regulations and laws.
Section 6.3 Removal of Improvements. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease,
the County and City shall have the option (exercisable upon sixty (60) days notice to the Tenant except in
the case of a termination of this Lease due to a default by the Tenant, in which case no such notice shall
be required) to require the Tenant to remove, at Tenant’s sole cost and expense, any and all
improvements made by the Tenant to the Leased Premises which have not been made with the County
and City's consent or approval, in violation of Section 6.1 hereof, or to elect to keep such improvements
as the County and City’s property. In the event the Tenant is required to remove any improvements, (i)
the Tenant shall be responsible for the restoration of the Leased Premises to their prior condition, and (ii)
if the Tenant fails to properly restore the Leased Premises, the County and City may perform the same at
the Tenant’s cost and expense.
Section 6.4 No Liens. The Tenant shall permit no mechanic's liens, materialmen's liens or
other statutory liens to attach to the Leased Premises as a result of any alterations, improvements,
additions or repairs performed by the Tenant or at the Tenant’s direction. If any such lien or notice of lien
rights shall be filed with respect to the Leased Premises, the Tenant shall immediately take such steps as
may be necessary to have such lien released, and shall permit no further work to be performed at the
Leased Premises until such release has been accomplished.
Section 6.5. Bond for Improvements. The County and City may require the Tenant to provide a
bond, surety or other security prior to the commencement of any work on any improvements to the
Leased Premises to assure that any such improvements are completed in a timely and workmanlike
manner.
Section 6.6. Signage. The Tenant shall have the right to place signs on the interior or exterior
of the Leased Premises only in conformity with all local regulations and with the prior written approval of
the County and City that shall not be unreasonably withheld. Signs in existence on the date of this Lease
are approved.
ARTICLE VII. MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES.
Section 7.1. Maintenance by Tenant. The Tenant shall, at its own cost and expense during
the term of this Lease, maintain and keep in good order and repair the entire Leased Premises, whether
improved or unimproved, including but not limited to any roadways, trails, and water courses, the exterior
and interior of the Facility, including but not limited to, roof, doors, windows, all plumbing fixtures,
mechanical and electrical systems and any additional improvements placed upon the Leased Premises,
including the parking lot, and covenants to keep the same in good condition and to return the Leased
Premises to the Lessors at the termination of this Lease in as good condition after the improvement
thereof by the Tenant, ordinary wear and acts of God not customarily insurable excepted. It is clearly
understood and agreed that during the term of this Lease, the Tenant at its own expense shall furnish and
maintain to meet its requirements, all fixtures and equipment (including all food service equipment and
heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment) for the Leased Premises. As part of its duty to
maintain and keep the premises in good repair, the Tenant shall protect the water pipes in the Leased
Premises from freezing and the drain pipes from becoming clogged, and shall bear the cost of repairs
arising from the misuse or negligence of those using them, and that it shall replace all glass, including
plate glass, broken during said term. The Tenant agrees to abide by any duly-adopted policies, present or
future, governing the use of pesticides, cleaners or other products at Darden Towe Park.
Section 7.2. Fire Protection. As part of its maintenance responsibilities, the Tenant agrees to
comply fully with any and all City, County and other applicable governmental laws, regulations and
ordinances, limiting and regulating the use, occupancy or enjoyment of said Leased Premises; to comply
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Codes (BOCA) and the Virginia State Fire Safety regulations;
and to maintain appropriate fire extinguishers on the Leased Premises.
Section 7.3. Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby created, the
Tenant shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys for the Facility to the County and City at the
place then fixed for the payment of rent and shall inform the County and City of all combinations on locks,
safes and vaults, if any, which the County and City has granted permission to have left in the Leased
Premises. At such time, the Facility shall be broom clean and in good condition and repair,
commensurate with its age. If the Tenant leaves any of its personal property in the Leased Premises, the
County and City, at their option, may remove and store any or all of such property at the Tenant’s
expense or may deem the same abandoned and, in such event, the property deemed abandoned shall
become the property of the County and City.
Section 7.4. Condition of Premises on Date of Commencement. The Tenant accepts the
Leased Premises "as is" on the effective date hereof. The County and City make no representations or
indemnities as to the condition of the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE VIII. IMPOSITIONS, UTILITIES AND INSURANCE.
Section 8.1. Impositions. The Tenant shall pay, as additional rent, during the term of this
lease, commencing with Tenant’s obligation to pay rent hereunder, one hundred percent (100%) of the
amount of all Impositions, as hereinafter defined, levied or imposed on the Leased Premises during any
Lease Year. The term "Impositions" means all taxes, assessments, and governmental charges, federal,
state, county, municipal, district or otherwise, which ordinarily and regularly are levied on or charged
against real property and improvements thereto or activities conducted by Tenant thereon. Impositions
for any fraction of a tax year at the commencement of the Tenant’s obligation to pay rent or the expiration
of the term shall be prorated between the parties hereto upon the basis that the number of days in such
fractional tax year bears to three hundred sixty-five (365).
Section 8.2. Utilities and Services. The Tenant shall pay for all gas, heat, light, water, sewage
service, power, telephone, janitorial, garbage disposal service and all other utilities supplied to the Leased
Premises as the same may be reflected on meters at the Leased Premises, and to the extent such
services are provided to the Facility at the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY.
Section 9.1. Liability Insurance of Tenant. Tenant covenants and agrees that it will, at all
times during the term of this Lease, keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability and property
damage insurance with respect to the Leased Premises and the business operated by the Tenant on the
Leased Premises in which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and property damage shall not be
less than One Million and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident, combined single limit. The policy
shall name the County and City and any mortgagees of the County and City as additional insureds. The
policy shall provide that the insurance thereunder shall not be canceled without thirty (30) days written
notice thereof to all named insureds, including the County and City. The Tenant shall also obtain a
tenant’s property insurance policy insuring the Tenant’s personal and business property on the Leased
Premises.
Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coverages. The Tenant agrees that it will, during the term of
this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of the County and City and its respective successors
in interest, all of the building and improvements on the Leased Premises, or any portion thereof then in
being not covered by the fire and extended casualty insurance. Such policy shall contain coverage
against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other hazards as are covered and protected against,
at standard rates under policies of insurance commonly referred to and known as "extended coverage,"
as the same may exist from time to time.
Section 9.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of the
insurers) for insurance required to be maintained by the Tenant and the County and City pursuant to
Sections 9.1 and 9.2 shall be delivered by the Tenant to the County and City, upon the issuance of such
insurance and thereafter not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dates thereof.
Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. The County and City and the Tenant each hereby
release the others from any and all liability or responsibility to itself or anyone claiming through or under it
by way of subrogation or otherwise for any loss or damage to property caused by fire or any of the
extended coverage or supplementary contract casualties, even if such fire or other casualty results from
the negligence of itself or anyone for whom it may be responsible, provided, however, that this release
shall be applicable and in full force and effect only with respect to loss or damage occurring during such
time as any such release shall not adversely affect or impair the releasor's policies or insurance or
prejudice the right of the releasor to recover thereunder.
ARTICLE X. WASTE, NUISANCE; COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL
REGULATIONS.
Section 10.1. Waste and Nuisance. The Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed any
waste or any nuisance upon the Leased Premises.
Section 10.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this Lease, the Tenant shall, at its
sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all City, County, state, federal and other
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
applicable governmental authorities, now in force, pertaining to the Leased Premises or the Tenant’s use
and occupancy thereof.
ARTICLE XI. FIRE AND OTHER CASUALTY.
If the Facility shall be damaged so as to render 80% or more of the Facility untenantable by fire or
other casualty, Tenant shall be solely responsible for any repairs and for restoration of the Leased
Premises to good condition. If any damage or destruction from any cause whatsoever has not been
repaired and such repairs have not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date thereof,
either party may, as its exclusive remedy, terminate this Lease upon thirty (30) days written notice to all
other parties.
ARTICLE XII. CONDEMNATION/HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION.
If the whole or any part of the Leased Premises shall be taken under the power of eminent
domain or otherwise for construction of a state highway or any public transportation purpose, then this
Lease shall terminate with no compensation due the tenant as to the part so taken on the day when the
Tenant is required to yield possession thereof. If the portion of the Leased Premises so taken is such as
to impair substantially the usefulness of the Leased Premises for the purposes for which the same are
hereby leased, then either party shall have the option to terminate this Lease with no compensation due
the tenant as of the date when the Tenant is required to yield possession.
ARTICLE XIII. DEFAULT OF TENANT.
Section 13.1. Insolvenc y or Bankruptcy, Corporate Dissolution, Loss of Tax Exempt Status.
The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material breach of this Lease by the
Tenant (“Material Breach”):
(a) The appointment of a receiver or trustee to take possession of all or substantially
all of the assets of the Tenant; or
(b) A general assignment by the Tenant for the benefit of creditors; or
(c) Any action or proceeding commenced by or against the Tenant under any
insolvency or bankruptcy act, or under any other statute or regulation having as its purpose the protection
of creditors and not discharged within ninety (90) days after the date of commencement; shall constitute a
breach of this Lease by the Tenant. Upon the happening of any such event, this Lease shall, at the
County and City's option terminate ten (10) days after written notice of termination from the County and
City to the Tenant; or
(d) Dissolution of the Tenant’s corporate status which continues for ninety (90) days;
or
(e) Loss of Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c) (3) tax exempt status by the
Tenant which loss continues for ninety (90) days; or
(f) Discontinuation of the Tenant’s presence on the Leased Premises for a period
exceeding 365 consecutive days, which period commences on or after July 1, 2008, during which period
an interpretive historical center opened to the public commemorating the Lewis and Clark Expedition
and/or George Rogers Clerk is not in operation.
Section 13.2. Events of Default. Abandonment of the Leased Premises, a default of ten (10)
days in payment of rent, or breach of any of the covenants or conditions of this Lease involving any
Material Breach continuing for more than fifteen (15) days after notice thereof from the County and City,
shall each constitute an event of default hereunder. No failure of the County and City to enforce any
remedy available to it as a result thereof shall invalidate such covenant or provision or any other
covenant, condition or provision hereof, or affect the right of the County and City to enforce the same in
the event of a subsequent breach or default.
Section 13.3. Remedies. Upon the occurrence of any event of default, the County and City shall
have the right, at their election, then or any time thereafter while such event of default shall continue,
either to give the Tenant written notice of their intention to terminate this lease on the date of such notice
or on any later date specified therein, and on the date specified in such notice the Tenant’s right to
possession of the Leased Premises shall cease, and this Lease shall thereupon be terminated; or without
demand or notice, to re-enter and take possession of the Leased Premises or any part thereof, and
repossess the same as of the County and City's former estate and expel the Tenant and those claiming
through or under the Tenant and remove the effects of both or either, either by summary proceedings, or
by action of law or in equity, or otherwise, without being deemed guilty of any manner of trespass and
without prejudice to any remedies for arrearages of rent or breach of covenant. If the County and City
elect to re-enter, the County and City may terminate this Lease or, from time to time, without terminating
this Lease may relet the Leased Premises, or any part thereof, as agent for the Tenant for such term or
terms and at such rental or rentals and upon such other terms and conditions as the County and City may
deem advisable, with the right to make alterations and repairs to the Leased Premises. No such re-entry
or taking of possession of the Leased Premises by County and City shall be construed as an election on
the County and City's part to terminate this Lease unless a written notice of such intention is given as
aforesaid, or unless the termination thereof be decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction at the
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
instance of the County and City. The Tenant waives any right to the service of any notice of the County
and City's intention to re-enter provided for by any present or future law.
ARTICLE XIV. SUCCESSORS.
Section 14.1. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the
respective parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
permitted assigns of the parties. The County and City shall be automatically released of all liability under
this Lease from and after the date of any sale by the County and City of the Leased Premises. All
covenants, representations and agreements of the Tenant shall be deemed the covenants,
representations and agreements of the occupant or occupants of the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE XV. MISCELLANEOUS.
Section 15.1. W aiver. The waiver by the County and City or the Tenant of any breach of any
term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant,
or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained
herein. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by the County and City respectively shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any breach by the Tenant or the County and City, respectively, of any term,
covenant or condition of this Lease regardless of knowledge of such breach at the time of acceptance or
payment of such rent. No covenant, term or condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been
waived by the Tenant or the County and City unless the waiver be in writing signed by the party to be
charged thereby.
Section 15.2 Entire Agreement. This Lease, and the exhibits attached hereto and forming a part
of hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings, between the
County and City and the Tenant concerning the Leased Premises and there are no covenants, promises,
agreements conditions or understandings, either oral or written, between them other than as herein set
forth. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to
this Lease shall be binding upon the County and City or the Tenant unless reduced in writing and signed
by them.
Section 15.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, or other instrument which may be, or are
required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by United States
certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed as follows:
If to the County: Larry W . Davis, County Attorney
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
If to the City: S. Craig Brown, City Attorney
605 East Main Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
If to the Tenant: ___________________________
___________________________
or at such other address as designated by written notice of a party.
Section 15.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions, section numbers, and table of
contents appearing in this Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit,
construe, or describe the scope or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way do they affect this
Lease.
Section 15.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the application
thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable the remainder of
this Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or condition to persons or circumstances other than
those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term,
covenant, or condition of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 15.6. Recording. Upon request of any party, a Memorandum of Lease will be executed
and recorded. Such Memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease that either party requests
except for the provisions of Article IV that shall not be included. The cost of recording such Memorandum
of Lease or a short form hereof shall be borne by the party requesting such recordation.
Section 15.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 15.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously or in three or
more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
Section 15.9. Rules and Regulations. The County and City may adopt such rules and regulations
as the County and City deem appropriate for the safe and efficient use of the Leased Premises, which
rules and regulations shall be effective after five days notice to the Tenant.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
ARTICLE XVI. BROKER'S FEES.
The Tenant and the County and City hereby warrant that there are no brokerage commissions
due to any person in connection with this Lease.
ARTICLE XVII. NO ASSIGNMENT.
The Tenant shall not assign this Lease or subject all or any portion of the Leased Premises to any
sublease, either directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of the County and City, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. A merger, consolidation, sale, transfer or assignment by
operation of law or a transfer or sale of, in the aggregate, a majority of the stock of the corporation, if the
Tenant is a corporation, or a sale or transfer of any of the partnership interests, if the Tenant is a
partnership, shall be considered an assignment for purposes of this section. No assignment, sublease or
transfer of this Lease by the Tenant shall (i) be effective unless and until the assignee, subtenant or
transferee expressly assumes in writing the Tenant’s obligations under this Lease, or (ii) relieve the
Tenant of its obligations hereunder, and the Tenant shall thereafter remain liable for its obligations under
this Lease whether arising before or after such assignment, sublease or transfer.
ARTICLE XVIII. RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS.
The County and City hereby reserve to themselves, their successors and assigns, while this
Lease is in effect, the non-exclusive right and easement to use the supporting structural elements of the
Facility for lateral and subjacent support, including party walls and supporting columns, for any adjacent
property owned by the County and City.
ARTICLE XIX. INDEMNIFICATION.
The Tenant agrees to indemnify, defend, and save the County and City harmless from and
against any and all claims, actions, damages, liability and expense in connection with loss of life, bodily
injury and damage to property caused in whole or in part by any act or omission of the Tenant, its agents,
employees, guests or invitees, or arising from or out of any occurrence on or about the Leased Premises
or the occupancy thereof by the Tenant. In the event the County and City shall, without fault on its part,
be made a party to any litigation commenced by or against the Tenant arising therefrom, then the Tenant
shall indemnify, defend and save the County and City harmless and shall pay all costs, expenses and
reasonable attorney's fees incurred or paid by the County and City in connection with such litigation.
ARTICLE XX. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE.
This Lease and all rights of the Tenant hereunder are and shall be subject and subordinate in all
respects to (1) all mortgages, deeds of trust and building loan agreements affecting the Leased Premises
or the property described in Exhibit A, including any and all renewals, replacements, modifications,
substitutions, supplements and extensions thereof, and (2) each advance made or to be made
thereunder. In confirmation of such subordination, the Tenant shall promptly upon the request of the
County and City, execute and deliver an instrument in recordable form satisfactory to the County and City
evidencing such subordination; and if the Tenant fails to execute, acknowledge or deliver any such
instrument within ten (10) days after request therefore, the Tenant hereby irrevocably constitutes and
appoints the County and City as the Tenant’s attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, to execute,
acknowledge and deliver any such instruments on behalf of the Tenant. The Tenant further agrees that in
the event any such mortgagee or lender requests reasonable modifications to this Lease as a condition of
such financing, the Tenant shall not withhold or delay its consent thereto.
ARTICLE XXI. NONRECOURSE.
Notwithstanding any breach by the County and City of any of the terms of this Lease, or any claim
by the Tenant arising hereunder, in no event shall the County and City or any of their officers, officials,
employees or trustees of the County and City have any personal liability hereunder and the Tenant’s only
remedy in the event of such breach, default or claim shall be to proceed against the County and City's
interest in the Leased Premises.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and City and the Tenant have signed and sealed this
Lease as of the date first above written.
The County and City: The Tenant:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY THE LEW IS & CLARK EXPLORATORY
CENTER OF VIRGINIA, INC.
By:________________________________ By:__________________________
Its: __________________________
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By: ________________________________
Gary B. O’Connell, City Manager
_______________
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: To consider granting to the City of Charlottesville Gas
Division a gas line easement on North Berkshire Road Extended. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on July 2, 2007).
The Executive Summary states that the segment of North Berkshire Road north of its
intersection with Solomon Road (hereinafter, “North Berkshire Road extended”) has been an
unimproved public right-of-way since it was dedicated to the County in 1960 as part of the
Barterbrook Subdivision off of Hydraulic Road in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The natural gas
line, along with the improved North Berkshire Road extended, will serve a townhouse development
under construction on Tax Map and Parcel Number 60A1-34.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveying an
interest in County-owned real property. The proposed 15-foot-wide natural gas line easement would
allow the City of Charlottesville to install a natural gas line to serve a townhouse development under
construction on Tax Map and Parcel Number 60A1-34. The easement is located within the County-
owned right-of-way. However, it will not prevent North Berkshire Road extended from being accepted
into the state system of secondary highways when its construction is completed.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that there is no budget impact.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed easement and
authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County.
__________
Mr. Tucker reported that the Code requires that the County hold a public hearing before
conveying an interest in County owned real estate. He noted that this is a proposed 15-foot wide natural
gas line easement that will allow the City of Charlottesville to install a natural gas line to serve the
townhouse development under construction on the tax map noted. Mr. Tucker said that the easement is
in the County-owned right of way and after the public hearing staff is recommending approval and
authorizing Mr. Tucker to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County.
Mr. Davis mentioned that there are two minor changes: one allowing the gas line to be located in
a greater area of the right of way as long as it was not under the pavement, and a clarification on the
continuing obligations of the City. He said that if the County reacquires ownership of this road after
VDOT, the City would have to pay for any relocation of the gas line if that was necessitated by some
future project.
Public comment was invited. There being none, the matter was placed before he Board.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved for approval of the granting of the easement as presented, and
the execution of the deed of easement in the form presented by the County Executive. Mr. W yant
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
Tax Map 60A1 (North Berkshire Road right-of-way)
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code §§ 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4).
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made and entered into on this _______ day of _______________,
2007, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEM ARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal
corporation, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY to
the Grantee, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the permanent easement of right of way
(hereinafter, the “Easement”) to construct, maintain, operate, alter, repair, inspect, protect, remove, and
replace certain natural gas line improvements, upon and across the public right of way known as North
Berkshire Road in Albemarle County, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
Permanent natural gas line easement in the public right of way known as North Berkshire
road, located off Solomon Road in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on the attached
plat made by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated December 2, 2005, last
revised March 15, 2007, and identified as “New 15' Gasline Easement”; said roadway
being dedicated to the public by recordation of a plat dated December 1960, of record in
the Albemarle County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 373, page 99.
This Easement shall be subject to the following:
1. The Grantee shall install the natural gas line improvements (hereinafter, the
“Improvements”) within the Easement. The Improvements shall be underground, outside of the travel
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
lanes of North Berkshire Road, and within five (5) feet of the outer boundary of the North Berkshire Road
right-of-way.
2. The Grantee shall obtain all permits required by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (hereinafter, “VDOT”) to authorize the Improvements to exist or remain within the North
Berkshire Road right-of-way (hereinafter, the “Permits”) and shall comply with all applicable requirements
of VDOT.
3. Until the Grantee quitclaims its interest in the Easement to VDOT or the Grantor as
required in conjunction with VDOT’s acceptance of North Berkshire Road into the state system of
secondary highways, the Grantee, at its sole expense, shall, promptly alter, change, adjust, relocate or
remove the Improvements from the North Berkshire Road right-of-way if VDOT determines that such
alteration, change, adjustment, relocation or removal is required in order for VDOT to accept North
Berkshire Road into the state system of secondary highways. Neither the Grantor, VDOT, nor any other
public entity shall be responsible or liable to the Grantee or its successors or assigns for any costs
associated with such alteration, change, adjustment, relocation or removal of the then-existing
Improvements. In addition, neither the Grantor, VDOT, nor any other public entity shall be obligated to
compensate or reimburse the Grantee or its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased cost or
value associated with either the Improvements or North Berkshire Road resulting from such alteration,
change, adjustment, relocation or removal.
4. After VDOT has issued the Permits, the Grantee shall be subject to the following
conditions, notwithstanding any quit claim of its interests to VDOT, and these conditions shall be
covenants running with the land:
a. The Grantee, to the extent authorized by law, shall at all times indemnify and
save harmless the Grantor, its employees, agents, officers, assigns, and successors in interest from any
claim whatsoever arising from the Grantee’s exercise of rights or privileges stated herein.
b. In the event that the Grantor or a public entity other than VDOT (hereinafter,
“such other public entity”) becomes responsible for the maintenance of North Berkshire Road and the
Grantor or such other entity requires, for its purposes, that the Grantee alter, change, adjust, or relocate
the Improvements, across or under North Berkshire Road, the cost to alter, change, adjust, or relocate
the Improvements shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. Neither the Grantor nor such other
public entity shall be responsible or liable to the Grantee or its successors or assigns for any costs
associated with altering, changing, adjusting or relocating the then-existing Improvements as may be
required herein. In addition, neither the Grantor nor such other public entity shall be obligated to
compensate or reimburse the Grantee or its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased cost or
value associated with either the Improvements resulting from such alteration, change, adjustment or
relocation. The requirements of this paragraph 4(c) shall not apply if the Grantor, VDOT, or such other
public entity is either required by law to pay for such costs or is authorized and elects to pay for such
costs
The Grantor, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by action of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on July 11, 2007, does hereby convey the interest in real estate
made by this deed.
The Grantee, acting by and through its City Attorney, the City official designated by the City Manager
pursuant to authority granted by resolution of the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, does hereby
accept the conveyance of this easement, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the City
Attorney’s signature hereto and the City’s recordation of this deed.
WITNESS the following signatures.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: SP-2007-11. Oak Ridge Church Picnic Pavilion
(Sign # 103).
PROPOSED: Construction: 20' x 40' picnic pavilion.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery.
LOCATION: 7734 Old Dominion Road, off Green Creek Road, Schuyler.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 126, Parcel 21A.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2,
2007).
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Planning Commission held a public
hearing for this project on June 12, 2007. At that meeting the Planning Commission directed staff
to draft conditions of approval addressing the legally non-confirming status of Oak Ridge Church.
The Commission requested the conditions establish the size of the existing sanctuary, indicate
any day care or preschool held at the church would require a special use permit, and allow for a
period of five years from approval to the commencement of the use.
Planning and zoning staff have researched previous standard conditions for legally non-
conforming churches. Such standard conditions have been added to the conditions for this
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
special use permit originally recommended in the staff report. Staff contacted the applicant to
confirm the capacity of the existing sanctuary and review the additional conditions of approval.
With the addition of conditions 3, 4, and 5 to address the Commissions request, staff and
the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP 2007-11 Oak Ridge Church Picnic Pavilion
with the following conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2007-11 shall be developed in general accord with the
concept application plan and building details, provided by the applicant and
received February 26, 2007 (Attachment A.) However, the Zoning Administrator
may approve revisions to the concept application plan to allow compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. The picnic pavilion shall be limited to 800 square feet and shall not include
bathroom facilities or vehicular access.
3. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 195 seat sanctuary;
occasional church gatherings beyond the normal capacity of the sanctuary shall be
permitted.
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a
separate special use permit.
5. Construction of the 800 square foot picnic pavilion shall commence within 5 years or
this special use permit shall expire.
__________
Ms. Amy Arnold addressed the Board, stating that the church congregation is requesting a
special use permit to allow for construction of an 800 square-foot picnic pavilion on the portion of the
parcel that is located across the street from the main church building and the fellowship hall. She said
that construction would require clearing a small portion of the edge of the adjacent forest, and staff
expects the impacts to the forest would be minimal. Ms. Arnold said that because the proposed pavilion
would support local community life at a rural scale by providing an outdoor gathering space, it should not
impact the historic context of the church and schoolhouse, and because it supports the viability of Old
Dominion as a crossroads community, staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the
conditions included in the staff report. She mentioned that the conditions were amended to reflect that
Oak Ridge is currently a legally nonconforming building and site.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it has been pretty standard for the Board to include conditions that
address the existing facilities when dealing with a new feature so that it establishes a benchmark to
evaluate further changes.
Mr. Davis said that if the Board did not do that, the applicant could make any changes they
wanted as it would not be restricted.
Public comment was invited. There being none, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved to approve SP-2007-011 with the five conditions as presented. Mr. W yant
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Special Use Permit 2007-11 shall be developed in general accord with the concept application
plan and building details, provided by the applicant and received February 26, 2007 (Attachment
A). However, the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept application plan to
allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The picnic pavilion shall be limited to eight hundred (800) square feet and shall not include
bathroom facilities or vehicular access;
3. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum one hundred ninety-five (195) seat
sanctuary; occasional church gatherings beyond the normal capacity of the sanctuary shall be
permitted;
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit; and
5. Construction of the eight hundred (800) square foot picnic pavilion shall commence within five (5)
years or this special use permit shall expire.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: SP-2007-16. Mt. Alto Church Amendment (Sign #
109).
PROPOSED: Expansion of church alter area, additional choir space.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery.
LOCATION: 4330 Mt. Alto Road, off Howardsville Turnpike, Esmont.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 133, Parcel 16.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2007).
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
The Executive Summary states that the Planning Commission held a public hearing for
this project on June 12, 2007. At that meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to draft
conditions of approval addressing the legally non-confirming status of Mt. Alto Church. The
Commission requested the conditions establish the size of the existing sanctuary, indicate any
day care or preschool held at the church would require a special use permit, and allow for a
period of five years from approval to the commencement of the use.
Planning and zoning staff have researched previous standard conditions for legally non-
conforming churches. Such standard conditions have been added to the conditions for this
special use permit originally recommended in the staff report. Staff contacted the applicant to
confirm the capacity of the existing sanctuary and review the additional conditions of approval.
With the addition of conditions 3, 4, and 5 to address the Commissions request staff and
the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP 2007-16 Mt. Alto Church Addition with the
following conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2007-16 shall be developed in general accord with the concept
application plan, provided by the applicant and received February 26, 2007
(Attachment A.) However, the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the
concept application plan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The addition shall be limited to 320 square feet.
3. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum 175 seat sanctuary; occasional
church gatherings beyond the normal capacity of the sanctuary shall be permitted.
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a
separate special use permit.
5. Construction of the 320 square foot addition shall commence within 5 years or this
special use permit shall expire.
__________
Ms. Arnold reported that the congregation for Mount Alto Church is requesting a special use
permit to expand the church altar area, providing additional space totaling 320 square feet for the choir to
stand during services as well as extra space for the choir room and a study for the pastor. She explained
that because the proposed addition will minimally impact the existing character of the church building
while helping sustain the continuing presence of a rural scale community church and enhancing the
quality of life of its congregation, staff is recommending approval of the proposed addition with the
conditions included in the staff report. Ms. Arnold said that the Planning Commission had the same
concerns when staff brought it to them last month, and they have added similar conditions for the church
as well as it is also nonconforming.
Public comment was invited. There being none, and the matter was placed before the Board.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier moved for approval of SP-2007-16 Mount Alto Church Amendment
subject to the five conditions recommended. Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Special Use Permit 2007-16 shall be developed in general accord with the concept application
plan, provided by the applicant and received February 26, 2007 (Attachment A). However, the
Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept application plan to allow compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The addition shall be limited to three hundred twenty (320) square feet;
3. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum one hundred seventy-five (175) seat
sanctuary; occasional church gatherings beyond the normal capacity of the sanctuary shall be
permitted;
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit; and
5. Construction of the three hundred twenty (320) square foot addition shall commence within five
(5) years or this special use permit shall expire.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: SP-2007-10. Cutright - Development Right (Signs
#111, 112).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to acquire two additional development rights.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre). SECTION: 10.2.2 (28) Divisions of land as provided in
Section 10.5.2.1 and Section 10.5.2.1 where permitted by Special Use Permit.
LOCATION: 3544 Red Hill School Road; southeast corner of Red Hill School Road (RT. 760)
and Monacan Trail Road (RT 29) - North Garden.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 88-6A1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2,
2007).
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Ms. Joan McDowell reported that this is for two additional development rights on a property in the
rural area, located on Route 29 on the corner of Red Hill School Road. She said that Mrs. Cutright has
requested that Parcel A be subdivided off and two additional parcels be subdivided so that she can build
her own house on Parcel B and donate Parcel C to the fire department. Ms. McDowell explained that the
property is cleared with a few trees, and it is surrounded by residential and farming. She said that the
Planning Commission heard this application and decided to vote for denial, unanimously, but also asked
that staff provide the Board with additional information concerning the assessment. Ms. McDowell
reported that the assessment now is the house, 1,600 square feet, and the land which totals $471,000 for
the house and nine acres. She said that if the applicant subdivided, it would be Parcel A as the house
and the land would be reduced to $138,400, for a total of $352,000, the parcel she would sell; Parcel B is
where the applicant intends to build her house, and the land would be assessed at $120,000; and Parcel
C which is to be donated to the fire department with no building would be assessed at $71,600 for four
acres. Ms. McDowell said that if Ms. Cutright builds a new house on Parcel B then the difference in land
taxes alone is $638 dollars per year, and she said that staff recommends denial of this application.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was anything in the process that legally obligates the applicant to
convey Parcel C to the fire department.
Mr. Davis replied that there is not. He noted that there would have to be a reasonable
relationship of the condition to address an impact to the application, and it is unclear as to whether that
can be demonstrated. Mr. Davis said that may be a condition that would be very hard to enforce in a
court.
Ms. McDowell explained that the applicant had two additional development rights, but she has
sold them over a period of years.
Mr. Davis noted that they want two additional development rights on this nine-acre parcel.
Mr. Rooker said that she could grant the fire department use of the lot through an easement, but
this request is for two additional lots.
In response to Ms. Thomas’ question about granting an easement, Mr. Davis indicated that the
County could hold and enforce the easement if it were given to the fire department.
Mr. Davis said that they could transfer the property to a public entity, put a deed restriction in
favor of a public entity, or grant an easement to a public entity. He emphasized that those things could
probably not be required as a condition of a special use permit.
Mr. W yant noted that if the volunteer fire department goes under, it becomes County property.
Mr. Davis responded that fire department companies can hold their own property, they can share
it with the County, or the County can hold it entirely.
At this time the Chairman asked for public comments.
Ms. Pat Cutright addressed the Board, stating that her intent is to give more than half of it to the
fire company.
Her neighbor, Catherine Russell, addressed the Board. She read a statement written by Ms.
Cutright that indicates her need for more affordable housing as taxes have risen tremendously over the
last several years. Ms. Cutright’s statement said that she essentially would have to pay Albemarle
County $40,000 in real estate taxes over the next ten years, and this is not practical as a single widow on
a fixed income. The statement indicated that she wants a two-acre lot to build a more affordable house
so she can stay in North Garden as she has lived there 57 years, and she and her husband had wanted
to give the land to the fire department.
Speaking for herself, Ms. Russell indicated that no neighbors oppose this, and they are all
anxious for this to happen. She emphasized that this special use permit would have no negative
consequences and would enable Ms. Cutright to live her life out in her neighborhood and continue what
has essentially been a public park.
Mr. George Stevens, Chief of North Garden Volunteer Fire Department, addressed the Board.
He said that they are very pleased that Ms. Cutright wants to make the donation of property as it
underscores the fact she has allowed them to use it without compensation for the last 30 years. Mr.
Stevens said that it is a unique situation in that she is willing to donate about 50 percent of what she is
dividing to public use, and she has already been paying the taxes on it. He emphasized that there is a
dry hydrant there, and if she was forced to sell it there is nothing to ensure it would stay there or that they
would have permission to put multiple trucks there for fire operations. Mr. Stevens emphasized that is the
only type of water supply available in the southern part of Albemarle County, and the hydrant is essential
to the fire department’s operations. He confirmed that this is the most accessible dry hydrant, and it is
used at all times of the day and night, emphasizing that there is no means to fill at the station.
Mr. W ayne Russell addressed the Board, stating that he went to the Commission meeting when
this was discussed. He read Mr. Cilimberg’s report on criteria for granting a special use permit: a finding
by the Board that the use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property; character of the district
will not be changed thereby; use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance; and it
will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. Mr. Russell added that a unique
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
circumstance would be that the property is going to the fire department which will preserve it without a
structure in perpetuity, and this would provide a unique water source.
There being no other comments, Mr. Boyd closed the public comment period.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that decisions do not go with the individual but go with the land,
regardless of the applicant’s intention. She said if we are inclined to do it at all, we have to figure out how
to do it without setting a precedent, but definitely in a way that assures it’s going to happen in the way that
it’s been talked about here. Ms. Thomas added that it needs to go with the land and be definite in its
intent as the Board would be granting two additional development rights that could essentially just be two
more houses. She added that a lot of people in the County are finding themselves with high taxes, and
the solution is not creating more development rights in the rural area. Ms. Thomas said the Board just
has not done this in the past. She noted that the Board last granted this to Habitat for Humanity 14 years
ago.
Mr. Rooker said that sometimes it seems cold to an applicant, and everyone is appreciative of the
use this property has had for the public good. He asked if the applicant could enter into a contract with
the fire department to convey the property to them for a small amount of money, contingent on the
Board’s approval of her proposal. Mr. Rooker said that while he does not want to set a precedent, this is
something that could be well distinguished in the future, and he would support it if the pieces could be put
together.
Mr. Davis noted that there could be a contract between Ms. Cutright and the fire department or
anyone else that says they could sell the property contingent on the granting of the special use permit.
He added that you could grant the development right and put a restriction on it that it could not be used
for residential use. Mr. Davis said that it is not very plausible to create affordable housing here within the
County’s parameter, given the value of the land.
Mr. W yant stated that this brings up the larger issue of how people are going to afford to stay in
the rural areas.
Ms. Thomas commented that people are very eager and willing to have the easement and dry
hydrant because it means they will have better fire protection. She said that she thinks the applicant and
fire department should enter into a firm agreement, and perhaps the item could be deferred so that the
Board is not faced with setting a precedent right now.
Ms. Cutright responded that perhaps they could grant the permit on the condition that the fire
department gets the property.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board can not act solely on good intentions.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the Board would be more inclined to approve it if the contract were
in effect.
Ms. Cutright agreed that she would get an attorney and move forward with the contract.
Ms. Thomas stated that this is not business as usual as the Board would be taking a serious step.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Ms. Cutright have her attorney correspond with Mr. Davis.
Mr. Slutzky said that she has already established her generosity, and this is different than
someone coming in and saying that they have future plans.
At this time, Ms. Thomas moved to defer indefinitely the appeal of SDP-2006-081. Mr. W yant
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: SP-2007-014. The Rocks Subdivision (Lot 1) (Signs
#107,108).
PROPOSED: Amend special use permit for Rural Preservation Development with more
than 20 development lots to change condition of approval regarding location of development
lots in relation to Ivy Creek. Proposed change would prevent development between Ivy Creek
and Dick Woods Road.
LOCATION: Dick Woods Road (Route 637), approximately 500 feet west of intersection
with on-ramp to Route 64 East.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 74 Parcel 18D.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2007).
Mr. Scott Clark reported that this is an amendment request for a special use permit for The Rocks
rural preservation development, which is located on Dick W oods Road, Parcel 74-18D, 106 acres, but not
the preservation tract of the RPD. He said that in 2004, the Board approved SP 2003-79 which amended
several aspects of the development. Mr. Clark stated that some unused development rights that had not
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
been allocated during the original subdivision were given to this parcel in question; it now has four total
rights within the 106 acres. He explained that during that review, it was proposed that two of those lots
would be located adjacent to Dick W oods Road along the floodplain of Ivy Creek separate from all the
other development lots in the RPD. Mr. Clark said staff, however, felt it was inappropriate due to the
design standards for RPDs that would require that all lots be confined to one area. He stated that in order
to avoid the possibility of that particular design in reviewing the subdivision plan, a condition was drafted
and approved that would require all lots farmed out of Lot 1 to be located east of the floodplain of Ivy
Creek.
Mr. Clark said that the proper orientation is north and that up and east of the floodplain becomes
a small area because the creek is running east and the literal interpretation would require that. He said
that there was not any reason established to limit development to that area to the east, and the idea was
to avoid the area between the creek and Dick Woods Road. Mr. Clark explained that staff therefore
recommends approval of the amendment changing the condition to say that the drawings and
development lots would not be located in the floodplain of Ivy Creek or between the creek and the road.
He said that the Planning Commission recommended approval with that change and with a change to
Condition #3 which would require that any new lots or dwellings out of Lot 1 would require the application
plan to come back to the Commission to be approved before it could go forward.
Ms. Thomas asked about the area that the applicant wants to develop, noting that the piece to the
east is a long piece of property. She asked how much acreage is there.
Mr. Clark responded that the area indicated on his map for development is 106 acres.
Ms. Thomas also noted that the applicant would have to go across the floodplain, and ordinances
do not encourage people to cross that kind of tributary.
Mr. Clark replied that the applicants felt it was more accurate to indicate that no specific site has
been firmly established yet for the development.
Mr. Shepherd noted that near the southern portion of the floodplain area there is a strip of land
outside the floodplain area that could accommodate a road. He does not know if the subdivision would
be subject to the covenants and restrictions of The Rock Subdivision Homeowners’ Association.
Mr. Davis replied that that is not something the County usually gets involved in unless there is a
specific purpose, such as private roads or facilities that need to be maintained. He said he was not aware
that that’s an issue in this particular application.
Mr. Rooker commented that the road placement is still uncertain as well.
Mr. Clark mentioned that they are private roads so if new lots were created it would go back to
the Planning Commission for review.
Representing the applicant, Mr. Chris Halstead addressed the Board and indicated that the
applicant paid for the development rights after Condition #5 stipulated restricted development between
Dick Woods Road and Ivy Creek. He mentioned that the applicant did not have any intention to develop
that portion now, and he could place three lots now alongside of the existing road. Mr. Halstead added
that there is a location for the road without crossing the floodplain but that site might be in the buffer, and
it would require some mitigation.
At this time the Chairman asked for public comments.
Dr. Lucius Sinks addressed the Board, as President of The Rocks Homeowners’ Association. Dr.
Sinks reported that Albemarle County purchased a conservation easement for the Rock Mill Farm, which
is located between Rosemont and this property. He said that he believes it was purchased to keep this
area rural, and this application seems to go against the intent of that easement.
Mr. Roger Briney addressed the Board on behalf of The Rocks Homeowners’ Association. He
said that the members of the association do not dispute the applicants’ rights to develop on that property.
Mr. Briney noted, however, that when they subdivide Lot 1 they will become subject to the terms and
conditions of the declaration that contains the covenants and restrictions for the other 39 lots in the
Rocks, and they will have to obtain approval of building and siting plans from the ARB prior to any
construction. He stated that they would like to have a condition referencing that restriction to ensure
those lots would be subject to that requirement. Mr. Briney reported that the SP was initially required for
the Rocks because of the number of lots and proposed activity within the floodplain. He said that the first
concerns were expressed then regarding impacts on Ivy Creek as well as the effects on the natural
landscape vistas from I-64 and the public roads. Mr. Briney stated that there is no way to build out this lot
without some visual impact to the area, and the association recommends having Condition #5 stand as is,
with development occurring on the I-64 side of Rocks Farm Drive.
There being no other comments, Mr. Boyd closed the public comment period.
Ms. Thomas said that she is sorry there was an orientation problem but that is an uncommon
mistake, and she appreciates staff finding it. She commented that it is going to be difficult to get a road
up to the knoll, and there is concern about steep slopes and protecting floodplains. Ms. Thomas
emphasized that there is a parcel available that would not require those impacts.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Ms. Thomas then moved for approval of SP-2007-014 with changes as approved by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Except as otherwise provided herein development of The Rocks shall be in accord with the
“Special Use Permit Plan…” prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc. dated April 2,
2004. For purposes of these conditions the plan shall heretofore be referred to as “The
Application Plan;”
2. Except for minor boundary adjustments, (as determined by the Agent), the boundaries of Tax
Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 may be modified only as shown on “The Application
Plan;”
3. Within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1, there shall be allowed a total of four (4) dwelling units or
four (4) lots. Before a building permit is issued for a second dwelling unit, or before a subdivision
plat is approved creating a new lot(s) within the boundaries of Lot 1, a new application plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission authorizing the dwelling units or lots. For
purposes of these conditions the term “subdivision” shall also mean family divisions;
4. All subdivisions within the boundaries of Revised Lot 1 shall meet the design standards and
special provisions set forth in Section 10.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. This includes the
requirement that it be demonstrated that the additional lots combined with the other approved lots
do not exceed the actual number of lots that could have been achieved by conventional
development of the total property;
5. No dwellings or development lots within the boundaries of Lot 1 shall be located in the floodplain
of Ivy Creek or between Ivy Creek and Dick W oods Road;
6. All future development lots subdivided from Lot 1 shall be no larger than 3.26 acres in area, shall
be located in a manner consistent with, and be integrated into the overall design of the other
development lots in The Rocks;
7. A minimum of ten (10) trees per acre shall be provided on the development lots, including those
permitted by condition three (3), in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for
the purpose of providing screening from Interstate 64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed
within two (2) planting seasons of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
dwelling on the lots;
8. Clearing of land shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of access
roads, dwellings, and septic fields;
9. Building siding and trim shall be of colors and materials that blend with the surrounding natural
environment as determined by the Director of Planning. Highly reflective colors or surfaces, or
light colored roofs, as determined by the Director of Planning, are prohibited;
10. Concrete driveways visible from off-site shall be darkened to blend with the surrounding natural
environment as determined by the Director of Planning;
11. The bridge shall not be constructed until the approvals in conditions twelve (12) through fifteen
(15) have been obtained;
12. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion and sediment control permit;
13. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design;
14. Department of Engineering approval of hydro geologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure
compliance with Section 30.3. of the Zoning Ordinance;
15. Department of Engineering approval of private road plans and drainage calculations. Private
roads shall be designed to Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous terrain standards.
This condition is only applicable to the private roads constructed to access and provide frontage
to all the lots in the Rocks development except the Rural Preservation Tract and revised Tax Map
74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2 and 18C3 as shown on “The Application Plan;”
16. The extension of Newcomb Mountain Lane as a private road is subject to Planning Commission
approval. The Planning Commission shall establish the standard of the private road extension at
the time of review;
17. The existing road, shown entering from Rocks Farm Drive, parallel to Interstate 64 and
meandering through the Preservation Tract shall not be improved or widened except for
agricultural and/or forestry purposes. The need for such improvements shall be reviewed by the
Public Recreational Facilities Authority. If the Public Recreational Facilities Authority deems that
the improvements are warranted, construction shall not commence until a road plan and an
erosion and sediment control plan has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer;
18. Prior to the approval of any plat modifying the boundaries of the Rural Preservation Tract, the
rural preservation easement shall be amended to allow the modification; amendment to the
easement is subject to the review and approval of the County and the Albemarle County Public
Recreational Facilities Authority. Approval of this special use permit in no way implies or
guarantees approval of a modified easement by the County or the Albemarle County Public
Recreational Facilities Authority;
19. Prior to the approval of any plat providing access to Newcomb Mountain Lane an amended road
maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. This agreement
shall be recorded with the plat; and
20. Provide evidence to the County that the Rosemont Homeowner’s Association consents to the
Newcomb Mountain Lane extension to serve as access to Tax Map 74, Parcels 18C, 18C1, 18C2
and 18C3.
_______________
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: ZTA-2007-002 – Proffers. Amend Sections 2.3,
Conflicting Ordinances; 3.1, Definitions; and 33.3, Proffer of Conditions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the references to the state enabling authority
for conditional zoning, amend the definition of “proffer,” and would change the state enabling authority
under which the County accepts proffers from Virginia Code § 15.2-2298 to Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2007).
The Executive Summary states that as a high growth locality, Albemarle County currently is
enabled to accept proffers under Virginia Code § 15.2-2298. Effective July 1, 2007, high growth
localities such as Albemarle County will be enabled to accept proffers under Virginia Code § 15.2-
2303. On May 22, 2007, the Planning Commission passed a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to accept proffers under the enabling authority of Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 rather than
under the currently utilized authority of Virginia Code § 15.2-2298. (See Attachment
A).
The key distinctions between Virginia Code § 15.2-2298 and Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 are
that under Virginia Code § 15.2-2298, proffers must be voluntary, the rezoning itself must give rise to
the need for the proffers, and the proffers must be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Although these prerequisites do not exist under Virginia Code § 15.2-2303, the County’s authority
under Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 would not be unlimited. Like Virginia Code § 15.2-2298, Virginia
Code § 15.2-2303 requires that the proffers be reasonable conditions, and one component of
reasonableness requires that there be some nexus between the rezoning and a proffer.
However, it is staff’s opinion that Virginia Code § 15.2-2303 would provide the County with
much stronger authority to require particular proffers (such as cash proffers under a cash proffer
policy) to address the impacts from a rezoning, and would allow the County to better address a broad
range of issues such affordable housing and LEED (and similar programs) certified buildings.
The attached table (Attachment B) provides a complete comparison of a locality’s authority
under Virginia Code § 15.2-2298 and Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.
Staff recommends approval of the attached amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance (Attachment C) which will enable the County to accept proffers under Virginia Code § 15.2-
2303.
__________
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to be able to
exercise the most recent changes to the Virginia State Code that allow the County to fall under provisions
regarding proffers that are more liberal than current regulations. He said this would enable the Board to
accept proffers under Virginia Code Section 15.2-23.03, rather than 15.2-22.98, and it gives the County
more flexibility in how they accept proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said that the change would allow how the
County accepts cash proffers to address impacts from rezoning, allowing it to better address a broad
range of issues such as affordable housing and the LEED certified building ideas, but still retain the
necessity of a reasonable condition that has a reasonable relationship to the proposed development. He
said that staff has recommended approval as has the Planning Commission.
At this time the Chairman asked for public comments.
Mr. Jay W iller of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association addressed the Board, stating that the
idea of cash proffers is to specifically address needs associated with new development. He encouraged
the Board to reject this option as this pending action is less about mitigating real impacts and perhaps
more about the cash. Mr. Weller said that these costs will be passed onto the homeowner.
There being no other comments, Mr. Boyd closed the public comment period.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the new enabling authority eliminates the term “voluntary” from the
statute, but the case law is clear that the proffer still needs to be offered by the developer and cannot be
imposed by the Board. He said that this authority does create greater flexibility for both the Board and
developers to mitigate impacts.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the defense of any action because of legal challenges to proffer
policies is enhanced by adopting this ordinance rather than the old ordinance.
Mr. Davis agreed.
Mr. Rooker stated that this does not dictate what the County does, just enables them to take
action as necessary.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved to accept the recommendation in ZTA 2007-002 from staff as
presented in Attachment C of the staff report and to adopt the attached Ordinance which will enable the
County to accept proffers under Virginia Code Sec 15.2-2303. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Ms. Thomas suggested sending a note to General Assembly representatives to inform them of
the vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS,
AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2.3 Conflicting ordinances
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 33.3 Proffer of conditions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article 1. General Provisions
Sec. 2.3 Regulations conflicting with other local or state or federal laws
Whenever provisions within this chapter conflict with any local, state or federal statute or
regulation with respect to requirements or standards, the most severe or stringent requirement or
standard shall prevail.
For purposes of this section, any proffer heretofore accepted by the board of supervisors in
accordance with Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2296 et seq., shall be continued in effect and shall be construed
to be a “local regulation” until amended or varied by the board of supervisors in accordance with law,
regardless of the repeal of any previous zoning ordinance.
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Proffer: A written condition offered by the owner of land who has applied for a zoning map amendment
that imposes a regulation or requirement that is in addition to the regulations otherwise applicable to the
land under this chapter. (Added 10-3-01)
. . .
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 33.3 Proffer of conditions
Prior to the public hearing before the board of supervisors on a rezoning application required by
Virginia Code § 15.2-2285, the owner of the land that is the subject of the rezoning may proffer, in writing,
reasonable conditions to be applied to such rezoning as part thereof. Such conditions are authorized by,
and shall comply with, Virginia Code § 15.2-2303; provided that the proffering thereof by the owner shall
be deemed prima facie evidence of such compliance. (Amended 4-4-90)
_______________
Agenda Item No 23. Public Hearing: AFD-2007-001. An ordinance to amend section 3-215,
Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide
Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County. The proposed
ordinance would add Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 135-14B and 136-2A to the District. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2007).
Ms. Amy Arnold reported that the applicants request approval of the addition of two parcels
totaling just over 90 acres to the Hatton Agricultural Forestal District, and the parcels are currently actively
farmed for the production of cattle and hay. She said that the proposed addition increases the total
acreage from 641.417 acres to 732.474 acres, providing additional protection for natural and agricultural
resources as well as contributing to the community’s ground and surface water quality through the
preservation of this acreage. Ms. Arnold said that the Planning Commission, the Agricultural Forestal
District Advisory Committee, and staff recommend incorporating the parcels offered by the applicants.
Public comment was invited. There being none, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas commended the applicants on making this contribution to the
district.
Mr. Davis noted that there was an ordinance distributed to the Board to amend Section 3-215
Hatton Agricultural Forestal District dated 6/15/07, and the motion would be to approve that ordinance.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier moved to approve AFD-2007-001and adopted the attached Ordinance .
Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 07-03(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEW IDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION
2, DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2,
Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
Chapter 3. Agricultural and Forestal Districts
Article II. Districts of Statewide Significance
Division 2. Districts
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 14B, 15, 15A, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A, 30 (part); tax map
136, parcels 2A, 9B. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed
on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 07-3(1), 7-11-07)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Public Hearing: CPA-2005-02, Growth Management Policy Update.
Amend the Land Use Plan component of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by revising the
Growth Management and Public Facilities sections to be consistent with the more-recently adopted
Rural Areas component of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendment would change policy identifying
agriculture and forestry as priority uses in the Rural Areas to a policy identifying multiple important
aspects of the Rural Areas to be protected. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2007).
The Executive Summary states that at a work session on April 24, 2007, the Planning
Commission reviewed this proposal, which is intended to make existing policies regarding the Rural
Areas consistent with those adopted in the Rural Areas Plan. The background for the proposed changes
is given in Attachment D. The Commission recommended adoption of three amendments—to the Growth
Management section of the Land Use Plan (Attachment A); the Community Facilities section of the Land
Use Plan (Attachment B), and the introduction to the Rural Areas Plan (Attachment C).
On June 6, 2007, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this item, but deferred
consideration of the proposal in order to give the public an opportunity to review more complete
information.
In addition to the two original sections to be amended, staff is providing additional changes to the
Introduction of the Rural Areas section (see Attachment A). This revision should be more appropriate to
an Introduction, and removes language that was adapted from older policy statements.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission.
__________
Mr. Benish reported that in March 2005, the Board adopted a new Rural Areas section of the
Comprehensive Plan, which included new guiding principles that established features for the Rural Areas
and emphasized that all features are equivalent in value. He noted that this is a change in the prior
growth management policy, which implied that the resources were of a higher priority. Mr. Benish said
that this is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to bring sections of the plan into consistency with
that policy that was adopted in 2005, and staff has suggested amendments to the growth management
policy, to the Community Facilities Plan, and one section of the Rural Areas component of the
Comprehensive Plan to provide for that consistent language.
Public comment was invited. There being none, the matter was placed before the Board.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier moved to adopt CPA-2005-002 as presented. Mr. Rooker seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
Growth Management
GOAL: Protect and efficiently utilize County resources by:
A. Protecting the elements that define the Rural Area:
1) Agricultural resources
2) Forestry resources
3) Land preservation
4) Land conservation
5) Water supply resources
6) Natural resources
7) Scenic resources
8) Historical, archaeological, and cultural resources
B. Promoting the Development Areas as the place where a variety of land uses, facilities, and
services exist and are planned to support the County’s future growth, with emphasis placed on infill
development.
Introduction
(As Amended July 10, 2002)
The County's primary growth management goal directs development into designated areas and
conserves the balance of the County for rural areas and resource protection. Resource protection is the
basic theme behind the County's growth management approach. This ongoing theme is complemented
by an emphasis on intelligent use of Development Areas, public facilities and resources. Thus, planning
efforts aim to channel growth into designated areas to facilitate economical service delivery in those
areas, to promote a sense of neighborhood-style development as the preferred design in those areas,
and to conserve the Rural Areas.
Planning efforts also focus on means to discourage development in the Rural Areas and support activities
consistent with the character of the Rural Areas. This is accomplished through education, incentives, and
voluntary and regulatory measures. These measures should focus on protecting the “defining principles”
of the Rural Areas listed in the Guiding Principles of the Rural Areas Plan. Residential development is
inconsistent with the protection of those defining principles and should be prevented where possible.
Limited service delivery—prevention of public water and sewer connections, and provision of public
services at a rural rather than urban scale—is a key policy for limiting the potential for rural residential
development. Where development cannot be avoided, its impacts should be reduced through improved
design requirements.
It is important that this and future Comprehensive Plans make adjustments that can influence
development patterns to better meet the growth management goals. Such adjustments can include more
active County support of Development Areas development, adjustments to location and/or holding
capacity, and additional protective or support measures for the Rural Areas. This plan emphasizes the
County's role in providing necessary new and amended ordinances, regulations, support services and
infrastructure for development, and more efficient use of Development Areas, including more urban and
pedestrian oriented development styles. It must be recognized that the desired increased densities in the
Development Areas will also require an increased commitment by the County for public infrastructure
improvements.
* * * * *
Community Facilities Plan
(As amended September 1, 2004)
INTRODUCTION
Community facilities provide a location for necessary and desired services for County residents and are
important components in supporting and enhancing the quality of life in Albemarle County. The facilities
covered within this plan include police, fire and rescue protection services, schools, libraries, parks and
recreation, government administration services, and solid waste facilities. Highway and transportation
facilities and sewer and water utilities are not covered in this plan. Separate planning processes are
already in place for these facilities.
The provision of community facilities can influence where and when development will occur; therefore,
they are important tools for managing growth. The importance of the provision of public services and
facilities is recognized in the Facilities Planning section of this Plan:
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
“Emphasis is placed on providing a level of public service delivery that will support
development in, and direct development to, designated Development Areas. To
accomplish this, service and facilities will be provided at a much higher level in the
Development Areas than in the Rural Areas. Those persons living in the Rural Areas
should not anticipate levels of public service delivery equal to services provided in the
Development Areas.”
Community facilities are provided to residents in the County in a number of different ways. Some
facilities/services are provided entirely by the County (schools, police), some are volunteer stations, while
others are a combination of County and volunteer (fire). Some are regional in scope (libraries), while still
others are provided jointly by the County and City (solid waste disposal facilities). In the case of Parks
and Recreation facilities, separate facilities are provided by the City and County, but are made available
for use by all residents in the entire area, including outlying Counties. Some park facilities are also
provided jointly by the City and County (Darden Towe Park and Ivy Creek Natural Park).
Because of the high cost involved in providing community facilities and the potential impact to the
County's growth pattern, it is important to have a comprehensive and systematic planning process. This
process should promote an efficient provision of services and facilities that is consistent with current
needs and with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for future development. This plan will serve as a
framework for community facility development decisions. It will permit a better evaluation of service and
facility performance and needs, and a more objective review of competing demands for new and
expanded facilities so that the resources are used in areas of highest need. It is to be used to assist
agency administrators and elected officials in determining the capital project needs and priorities, and
timing for facility development. It establishes what the County determines to be the adequate level of
service for community facilities. "Level of service" defines what County residents consider as necessary
and desirable. To do this, service objectives and standards for provision of facilities are established. This
Plan is an element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and, like the Comprehensive Plan, will be
reviewed on a regular basis.
The County’s Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the County's role in providing necessary new and
amended ordinances, regulations, support services and infrastructure for development, and more efficient
use of Development Areas, including more urban and pedestrian oriented development styles. It must be
recognized that the desired increase in density and more urban model for development recommended in
the Development Areas will also require an increased commitment by the County for public infrastructure
improvements and community facilities and services.
_______________
(Note: The Board took a brief recess at 4:31 p.m., and then reconvened at 4:40 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. W ork Session: ZMA-2005-17. Biscuit Run.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that on March 27, 2007, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the request and recommended denial of ZMA-2005-00017, Biscuit Run, based on a
number of unresolved issues raised by staff in its report and by the Planning Commission. (See
Attachment A)
At the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 4, 2007 the Board referred its previously scheduled
April 11th work session on the application back to the Planning Commission for the applicant to address
the unresolved issues with the Commission. The Board also requested that the Commission look at
transit funding/usage, and suggested the applicant look at how they may do something for their own
locally generated transit system. On May 29, 2007, the Planning Commission held a second public
hearing on the application. The Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2005-000017, Biscuit Run,
inclusive of revised proffers, code of development and application plan, provided that the remaining
outstanding issues identified in the staff report on page 9 (See Attachment B) and those discussed by the
Planning Commission at the public hearing are addressed as recommended prior to the Board of
Supervisor’s meeting. Each of these issues is noted in the following with the expectation of the Planning
Commission in bold print and the current status in italics.
Application Plan, Code of Development and Proffers.
Technical matters need to be addressed and fixed. An inflation factor for cash
proffers needs to be included.
While the applicant has addressed some of the technical matters, there are several
that remain to be addressed. Staff has provided the applicant a letter referencing
these matters. The applicant has proffered an annual adjustment in cash proffer in
proffer 13 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, United
States City Average. The Board has indicated its preference for such annual
adjustments to be based on the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index.
Location of Mill Creek South connection.
The connection needs to be in a location that provides acceptable design for
vehicular access and proper intersection with Stoney Creek Drive. The general
concept is that it be for pedestrian, bike and emergency access with the
proviso that it is available for full public road access at the decision of the
Board of Supervisors rather than the discretion of Community Development
and that the time period within which this discretion could be exercised be 20
to 25 years rather than 15 years.
The revised plans do not show a change in location for the Mill Creek South
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
connection. However, the applicant has since submitted additional follow-up
information regarding this connection to the County Engineer. This additional
information is being reviewed by the engineer and can be further discussed during
the Board’s work session. Proffer 6. E. has been changed to reflect that the right-of-
way shall be used for bicycle, pedestrian and emergency access to Biscuit Run until
such time that the Board of Supervisors determines vehicular connection is required.
The time period within which this discretion could be exercised is now 25 years.
Plan to phase or sequence the development so as to understand the order of
development and the timing and location of Southwood Connector Road.
Phases A and D along with the Southwood Connector and the park access
should be done first. The remaining phases can be sequenced such that no
more than 2 phases are underway at one time and a third phase could be
started when one of the first two phases are 80 percent complete. There also
needs to be some flexibility as to where the road will be located off-site.
The phasing aspect requested by the Planning Commission has been addressed in
the Code of Development. However, staff feels the wording is confusing regarding
the sequencing of phases. Staff has requested that wording in the code be clarified to
specifically state the request of the Planning Commission. Proffer 6.D. includes
wording that provides flexibility regarding location of this road off-site, but this
wording may need to be further clarified.
Further commitment regarding identification and protection of archeological and
cultural resources.
There will be a Phase I Study of all areas to be disturbed before any
disturbance can take place.
Proffer 10 addresses this statement.
Commitments to grading at least equivalent to those made for North Pointe.
Language provided by the County Engineer shall be used to include an erosion
control plan for each phase and the accommodation of drainage out fall on
adjacent properties through easements.
Proffer 5 does not address the accommodation of drainage outfall on adjacent
properties through easements.
Sewer agreement.
Agreements were approved on May 24th and execution of documents with
ACSA has been completed.
Staff has received a copy of the final executed document.
There shall be one general transportation fund proffered on a per unit basis for
all County transportation improvements inclusive of the Sunset/Fontaine
connector. ITS and Old Lynchburg Road improvements in the City and Transit
will be in separate funds. ITS and Old Lynchburg Road improvements in the
City will be provided on a per unit basis.
This has been addressed in Proffers 6 C, 6 F, 6 G, and 7A.
The Transit Fund will be proffered with 1 million dollars available up front for at
least 18 months as an incentive to provide funding for a regional Transit
Authority. The applicant’s local transit service shall be permanent rather than
a 10 year commitment.
This has been addressed in Proffers 7A and 7E.
The Commission specifically requests that the inflation component be included
in the proffers.
The applicant has provided proffer 13 in order to address this. The applicant has
proffered an annual adjustment in cash proffer in proffer 13 based on the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers. United States City Average. The Board has
indicated its preference for such annual adjustments to be based on the Marshall and
Swift Building Cost Index.
The Planning Commission also approved waivers for parking and loading study and for lot layout.
Section 20A.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a parking and loading study be completed for a
Neighborhood Model District application. This study provides parking details for the development. Due to
the large size of the proposed Biscuit Run development, the applicant requested a waiver for the
completion of these details until the site plan process. Section 20A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires
preliminary lot lay-out for Neighborhood Model District applications. Due to the large size of the proposed
development, the applicant also requested a waiver of providing the details of lot layout for this
development until the site plan process. The applicant also submitted a request for waiver of need for
required parking to abut lot it serves, dated June 13, 2007. The timing of this request is awkward, since
the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval with conditions to the Board of
Supervisors, for this rezoning request and waivers on May 29th. Staff recommends the applicant request
this waiver during the site plan process.
Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendations, staff feels a good part of what is still
pending with the applicant is clarifying language in the proffers to appropriately convey and
accomplish the Commission’s intent. However, there still remain several substantive matters to be
resolved:
• The location of the Mill Creek connection, as previously mentioned, is still a work in progress. The
applicant has provided additional information. This is currently under review with the County
Engineer. Finding a location for the connection that is appropriate and feasible remains an open
issue.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
• The applicant has included in proffers 2 A2, 2C1 and 2C2 cash contributions towards affordable
housing in the amount of $16,500 for each affordable unit not provided in the project. The Board
of Supervisors has recently concluded that $19,100 should be provided in lieu of each affordable
unit. The discrepancy in the amount of contribution provided will need to be addressed.
• Staff supports proffer 6 G: Improvements to Old Lynchburg Road (City Section), but recommends
that if the funds are not utilized with ten years that these funds be available to the City for a
project identified in the southern City neighborhoods.
• The applicant has submitted three special use permits for stream crossings, which are currently
under review by staff.
• The applicant has proffered an annual adjustment in cash proffers based on the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers, United States Average, and the Board has indicated its
preference for the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index.
• Since the Commission’s public hearing on Biscuit Run, the Board of Supervisors has further
clarified its intent for a Cash Proffer Policy and passed a Resolution of Intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. In doing so, the Board has accepted the Fiscal Impact Committee’s
methodology to determine the cash impact of residential development by dwelling unit type.
Rounded off, the resulting calculated impacts that the Board has also accepted are $17,500 per
single family detached unit, $12,400 per apartment unit and $11,900 per townhouse/
condominium unit. It was the consensus of the Board that, with the exception of affordable
dwelling units, all new re-zonings will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as determined by
the cash proffer calculations applied to the accepted per unit rates. The Board also indicated that
the only credits against the cash proffer expectations that will be accepted are for land or
improvements related to schools, parks, libraries, public safety and transportation projects
identified in the Capital Improvements Program, the Comprehensive Plan and/or a Master Plan
and that other proffers are to be considered outside the cash proffer expectations. The Board
further agreed that when the number of unit types is not specified in a re-zoning, the single family
detached rate should be used per total number of dwelling units.
The following information describes the status of proffers for this project based on the current
Board proffer policy intent:
Cash Proffer Policy Expectation = $35, 546,500 (3,100 units of various types less 465
(15%) on-site affordable units X cash proffer by unit type) to $48,825,000 (3,100 units less 310
(10%) on-units X $17,500)
Value of Current Proffers = $18,144,691
Additional Cash Expectation = $17,401,809 to $30,680,309
Among the credits the applicant has claimed that are outside the cash proffer policy expectations
indicated by the Board to date are:
$5,345,600 for a district park
$200,000 for district park master plan
$2,500,000 for stream crossing to district park
$1,000,000 for Habitat for Humanity
$2,293,050 for 15% of the East/West. Southwood Connector
$375,000 for 15% of the stream crossing for the East/West. Southwood Connector
$1,000,000 for Transit
$12,713,650 not counted as credits
Generally speaking, the applicant’s cash, land and improvement proffers that are consistent with
the Board expectations are not initiated until the 500th Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The
Board’s indications have been that per unit cash proffers should begin with the first residential building
permit.
As noted above, there is a difference of approximately $17.4 to $30.7 million between the
applicant’s proffers meeting the Board’s expectations and the project’s cash impact. The applicant has
made other quantitative and qualitative commitments to the project and the County, including the district
park, the road connecting Rt. 20 and Old Lynchburg Rd. (Rt. 631), cash for Habitat for Humanity, transit,
LEED certified buildings and Neighborhood Model design that should be considered outside the cash
proffer expectations.
Staff and the applicant need the Board’s guidance as to the adequacy of the applicant’s proffers
as discussed above.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this project with the expectation that
issues identified by staff and the Planning Commission at the time of the Commission’s last public hearing
would be addressed by the applicant. While the applicant has addressed a number of those issues, the
following are still outstanding:
• Acceptable location of the Mill Creek connection.
• Provision of $19,100 cash in lieu of each affordable unit not provided in the project.
• Provision of annual adjustment in cash proffers based on the Marshall and Swift Building Cost
Index.
• Provision of cash proffers that meet the Board’s expectations that new re-zonings will pay for the
equivalent of their full impact, including provision at the time of the first residential building permit
rather than the 500th Certificate of Occupancy.
• Adequacy of other quantitative and qualitative commitments made on the project that enhance
this development and this part of the County and should be considered outside the cash proffer
expectations. At the time of the Planning Commission’s public hearing these were generally
found to appropriately supplement the cash being proffered.
• Further technical fixes to proffer language to meet expectations of the Commission, including
clarifying language regarding archeological work and commitments to grading, erosion control
and drainage.
__________
Ms. Claudette Grant reported that the applicant proposes to rezone approximately 828 acres from
R-1 and R-2 residential to Neighborhood Model district; the property is located between the east side of
Old Lynchburg Road and the west side of Route 20, adjacent and to the south of the Mill Creek
subdivision, adjacent and to the west of the intersection of Avon Street Extended and Route 20, and
includes 981 Old Lynchburg Road. She said that the applicant has proposed a development with up to
3100 residential units; 150,000 square feet of commercial and office uses, primarily located in a
neighborhood center; a 12-acre school site; and a 402-acre district park located south of the project area
in an adjacent area zoned rural. Ms. Grant explained that this rural area is not part of the rezoning
request.
Ms. Grant noted that over the last year and a half, the Planning Commission has held 13
information and work sessions for the Biscuit Run project and two public hearings. She said at the last
public hearing on May 29th, the Commission recommended approval of the Biscuit Run project inclusive
of revised requested information and that remaining outstanding issues be addressed prior to the Board
of Supervisors meeting. Ms. Grant said that the applicant has addressed a number of the outstanding
issues, and staff feels there needs to be clarification on substantive matters: the location of the Mill Creek
Connection that is appropriate and feasible; cash contributions of $16,500 per unit of affordable housing
for each unit not provided in the project and $19,100 is what the Board had agreed upon; and
improvements to Old Lynchburg Road in the City, as staff recommends if those funds are not utilized
within ten years they be made available to the City for a project identified in the southern City
neighborhoods. She reported that the applicant has submitted three special use permits for stream
crossings, which are currently under review by staff. Ms. Grant also reported that the applicant has
proffered an annual adjustment in cash proffers based on the CPI for all urban consumers, US average;
the Board has indicated its preference for the Marshall & Swift building cost index.
Ms. Grant said that since the Commission’s public hearing on the project, the Board has further
clarified its intent for a cash proffer policy and has passed a resolution of intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan, so there is an additional cash expectation from the applicant. She said that the
applicant has provided over $12 million in cash proffers that are not counted as credits based on the
proposed proffer policy. Ms. Grant indicated that LEED certified buildings and the Neighborhood Model
design should be considered outside the cash proffer expectations, and staff needs Board guidance as to
the adequacy of the proffers, citing a difference between $17 and $30 million for cash proffers. She said
that the Planning Commission has recommended approval with an expectation that the issues identified
by staff and the Planning Commission at the last public hearing would be addressed by the applicant. Ms.
Grant stated that the outstanding issues are still in need of resolution, and staff needs guidance. She
presented photos from the Biscuit Run site.
Mr. Rooker asked for clarification of the proffer differential.
Ms. Grant replied that staff has taken the Board’s cash proffer expectation, which is $35 million
including 15 percent of affordable units on site, and the difference of the higher number is if the applicant
uses ten percent of onsite affordable units. She said then various items are subtracted that are not being
credited.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the $35 million is a mix of unit types that were provided by the applicant
when the traffic study was underway so the calculation has the 15 percent onsite affordable units using
different rates by type of dwelling unit.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the applicant, Forest Lodge LLC, addressed the Board. He
explained that staff and Planning Commission’s recommendations cover the legal findings so he would
like to focus on the proffers. Mr. Blaine asked if it was appropriate to apply the policy to this application
and that is a threshold question. He suggested that taking the stakeholders’ opinions into account was
important in addressing impacts. Mr. Blaine said that the stakeholders restate the strategic importance of
this project from the beginning: its close proximity to the City and to existing and possible transit routes,
and its proximity to major transportation corridors as well as roads such as Avon Street Extended and
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Route 20. He indicated that unless the proffered improvements are identified in the CIP, the Comprehen-
sive Plan, or the Master Plan, the credits are not available. Mr. Blaine stated that the connector road, that
is, the East/W est Connector or Southwood Connector, could approach $5 million in proffers for the $1
million paid for the right of way access across Southwood as well as stream crossings that would not
otherwise be required. He presented a list of proffers and whether they are in the form of cash, land
dedication, or construction, and staff and VDOT have agreed to their value.
Mr. Blaine also said that the other elements permitted under the policy would be dedication of a
402-acre district park, including $200,000 in planning study costs provided in cash, as well as a stream
crossing worth $2.5 million. He noted that while it is not in the Comprehensive Plan, a park in this area of
the County was identified as an important improvement. Mr. Blaine also said that the applicant proffered
$1 million towards transit, and the CIP could be interpreted as contemplating that type of improvement as
it purports shifting road funds to mass transit.
Mr. Slutzky noted that there is also the 7-F operating cost which is not included as a credit in their
figure. He added that there would also be a private transit system made available to homeowners until a
public system is put in place. Mr. Slutzky said that the $1 million would be proffered in a lump sum, and
the benchmarks are tied to the need of a particular improvement.
Mr. Rooker said that he would prefer that they be paid incrementally to reflect inflation
adjustments, a pay-as-you-go on a per-unit basis.
Mr. Blaine commented that you might get payment sooner in a lump sum.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the proffer increments were intended by staff to be for per-unit to be paid
after the 500th certificate of occupancy is granted.
Mr. Blaine mentioned that the applicant has also made proffers that are included in the City, such
as signal improvements valued at $150,000, the Sunset/Fontaine connector contribution at $1.5 million,
and the Old Lynchburg Road within the City limits at $1.5 million, for a total of $3.2 million not credited in
the County application.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that those improvements are included in the $18 million value of proffers
recognized by staff.
Mr. Rooker noted that the transportation proffers are coming out of the cash unit proffers. He
commented that the cash proffers for transportation are coming out of the per-unit credits.
Mr. Boyd asked if anyone has gone back and calculated the revenue-sharing with the City for this
project.
Mr. Blaine replied that the calculations have been upward of $14 million, and the applicants’
inducement is to give a kick-start to the improvements in the southern area.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the applicant would need to provide values for real estate built and
improved at various stages of the development, and then it is easy to calculate revenue for revenue
sharing based on ten cents on $100.
Mr. Slutzky commented that it needs to be calculated on the value of the homes themselves
when they are built out.
Mr. Blaine maintained that the policy can be used as a relative measure rather than a rigid
application.
Mr. Boyd said that he recalled agreeing to evaluate proffers on a case by case basis.
Ms. Thomas noted that there was a memo sent in May to Juandiego W ade that talked about a
pro-rata share of almost $13 million just for the Route 20 corridor traffic needs because this development
should be responsible for 45 percent of any improvement costs to the corridor. She asked how that figure
on Route 20 should be $12.97 million and now is itemized as general transportation fund contributions of
$7.75 million.
Mr. Blaine responded that VDOT was trying to ensure the widening of Route 20, and there is not
necessarily a consensus to widen that road from Route 53 down to the frontage of the development. He
said that their project is not precipitating the need for that improvement. Mr. Blaine said that they spent
11 months on a traffic study recommending various improvements. He noted that the VDOT memo
provides a planning tool and a suggestion, and the applicant disagrees that their share is $14 million.
Mr. Rooker commented that the reason the Board implemented a cash proffer policy was to avoid
arguments over particular impacts in particular developments, but instead use an average number per
unit.
Ms. Thomas agreed, but she said that this is a fairly major distinction between a general amount
of money as it is just one portion of the traffic impacts.
Mr. Davis noted that staff understand the per-unit amount to address the impacts on
transportation, education, parks and recreation, libraries, and public safety, and those are addressed by
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
policy through the cash proffer policy; impacts outside of those areas are still fair game for the developer
to demonstrate he is addressing those impacts.
Mr. Rooker stated that it is going to take a long time to go through the items that are not cash
proffers and agree upon what it is the County is willing to give credit for and which items do not count as
credit. He cited the park being proffered as an example as well as access to the park.
Mr. Slutzky suggested looking at this item by item with consideration for whether the substance of
the proffer item is appropriate for a credit and then finding out what the basis for the calculation is.
Mr. Pat Mullaney addressed the Board, stating that in FY 13-15 there is money programmed to
meet park needs in the southern urban area, either to purchase property for a smaller community park or
used to develop a larger park with Biscuit Run. He said that the original plan was for 90 acres so the
additional acreage would not show up in the CIP, and this gives the opportunity to meet a future need.
Mr. Mullaney mentioned that Biscuit Run would have about 10,000 people, and about three-quarters of
them would use a public park and some would also use nature trails. He said that the experience with
Walnut Creek would be very different if residents of Biscuit Run use it, which they likely will. Mr. Mullaney
added that accepting the parkland is directly in line with the Strategic Plan objective to increase total
combined acreage or qualifying public parkland. He said it is one of the best things they can do for the
quality of life for our citizens in the future.
Mr. Blaine noted that based on raw acreage, there would be 24 by-right development rights
retired as a result of the parkland.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that there is also a soccer field site set aside.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that that was reflected in staff’s analysis.
Mr. Dorrier commented that the park should be accepted as a proffer.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff did confirm the value of this land with real estate, and the $12.8
million unit value was confirmed.
Mr. Graham stated that there is no way to know what the crossing will cost, but it seems
extremely high to value that at $2.5 million. He said it could appear to be an amenity of the development,
because that is how you access the park. Mr. Graham added that there is also a stream buffer and
wetlands and a special use permit associated with that crossing.
Mr. John Atkinson, the applicant, indicated that he would be more than happy to give cash and
have the County build that crossing. He said it is solely to serve the park, and they (the applicant) would
just as soon not build it. Mr. Atkinson added that there is more of an advantage to him to give cash and
hold onto the land.
Mr. Rooker asked for clarification of access to the park.
Mr. Slutzky asked why credit should be given in the amount of $2.5 million.
Mr. W yant asked staff to address the costs associated with dealing with other agencies to get
across wetlands.
Mr. Blaine replied that the costs are chiefly the span of the bridge because of the topography and
wetland associated with the stream, adding that they state in the proffers what they intend to construct.
Mr. Rooker said that staff needs to look at this item a little more carefully as Mr. Graham has
indicated that he needs more information to assess this.
Mr. Graham agreed, stating that some preliminary engineering would be needed to make that
assessment.
Ms. Thomas said that she did not want to get into a mode that when the value is questioned, the
applicant takes it away.
Mr. Atkinson stated that he wants to do what is best.
Mr. Graham noted that they could not ask for dedication of the park before the 500th certificate of
occupancy.
Mr. Blaine said that the park could be dedicated immediately, but if there is not cash for the
access and a road to get there, the point is kind of moot.
Ms. Thomas commented that staff is saying that $7.75 million is an adequate number for general
fund transportation contribution, but the VDOT letter suggests that just the Route 20 corridor costs would
approach $13 million.
Mr. Rooker noted that the total cost allocated to transportation is $17.888 million.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Ms. Thomas added that she thinks that the general transportation fund contribution is an
inadequate figure.
Mr. Rooker stated that a cash proffer policy does not anticipate that a development of this size
would make a $7.5 to $8 million contribution to parks.
Ms. Thomas said that taxpayers are going to be paying the difference in what the applicant gives
for Route 20 and what the costs for improvements end up being, and while the park proffer can be
perceived to offset that in the amount of $5 million, the road costs will still be there.
Mr. Boyd noted that the Fiscal Impact Committee did not make the assumption that all roads in
the County would be paid for by County tax dollars without a penny from VDOT.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that he and Ms. Thomas had been in favor of a higher number associated
with the cash proffers, but there was not a consensus on that. He noted that would have provided more
money for transportation or whatever else we decided to allocate it to that might be in our CIP.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board was prepared to move forward with the $12 million as staff has
indicated.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there was a double-counting of the district park master planning as the
park was credited at $5.3456 million, and the applicant’s estimate is $5.1456 million.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board has not had a lot of time to review the proffers and the associated
values.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the figures have been confirmed by staff for greenways and playfields.
Mr. Blaine suggested going to the seven items listed in the staff report on Page 4, and the costs
shown have been worked through with staff and VDOT. He said that land values have been based on tax
assessments, and perhaps the Board could focus on the seven items that have been discussed.
Mr. Rooker added that the million for Habitat for Humanity is for acquisition of the property from
them so that acquisition can be obtained for Old Lynchburg Road.
Mr. Atkinson indicated that Habitat approached him about buying Southwood Mobile Home Park
and was told they did not have the resources. He said that it was meant to give them the down payment,
and it was much broader than just the right of way.
Mr. Boyd said that he looks at that as leveraging that proffer money to partner with them and build
affordable housing.
Mr. Rooker noted that the applicant could increase the cash proffers instead of doing this.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the 15 percent is a reasonable percentage for diverting traffic from existing
road systems. He stated that with the stream crossing, the cost would really be dependent on the
engineering of that crossing so it is 15 percent of an amount that is not as definitive, much like the park
access.
Mr. Graham said that a question arose as to whether the Southwood connector would eliminate
the need for a southern parkway. He explained that in the end, staff decided it really could not so it was
not really offsetting anything in the CIP and built into the cash proffer policy.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are indirect connections between Route 20 and Old Lynchburg
Road that are occurring otherwise on site so the connection through Southwood is an additional road
being built as more of a through road rather than having people get from Route 20 to Route 631 entirely
within the project.
Mr. Dorrier said that the developer is putting in a Neighborhood Model in the development area
and wants to connect Avon Street with Old Lynchburg Road even though it will be limited access.
Mr. Rooker stated that the question is what credit is given against cash proffers, and an east-west
connector is needed for a development this size. He noted, however, that his question is whether the
applicant should get credit for that when it essentially serves the development.
Ms. Thomas commented that staff is saying credit should not be given, and the conversation is
related to whether those items should be added back in.
Mr. Blaine said that the road design is intended to accommodate regional area traffic, and the
volumes for that are taken into account. He noted that it can accommodate 15,000 vehicle trips per day
and that the 15 percent was agreed upon by VDOT. Mr. Blaine said that the applicant agrees it is not a
substitute for the Southern Parkway, but it will serve a purpose in the short term until that is built.
Mr. Slutzky noted that he hoped the cash would go to the RTA, and if that is not up and running
within 18 months, that money goes to the County for general transportation needs.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like it moved through the County.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Rooker asked when it would be paid.
Mr. Blaine responded that it would be paid at the site plan stage.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the applicant’s estimate is $30,858,000 for those items mentioned,
plus the items already given credit for; that compares to the calculation of $35.5 million and $48.8 million
used with a per-unit amount.
Mr. Rooker said that the $30.8 million should be calculated against the unit and determined the
deficit on a per-unit basis, which seems to be several thousand per unit, based on the credits deemed to
be appropriate, that is, $11,711 per unit. He noted that the average based on the proffer policy is closer
to $14,000.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the applicant is asking for some additional credits for the LEED and
Neighborhood Model compliance.
Mr. Blaine said that they used the figures of $17,500 for single family, $11,900 for single family
attached townhouse, and $12,400 for multi-family. He commented that the simplest way would be to
have a single proffer amount per unit.
Mr. Rooker stated that the applicant is not proposing to build 15 percent affordable units so the
cash proffer approach is to be done based on non-affordable units.
Mr. Blaine said that there would not be any incentive to do offsite improvements.
Mr. Rooker commented that what cash proffers are paid on is the number of non-affordable units
built in the community.
Mr. Boyd asked where the LEED and Neighborhood Model credits came from.
Mr. Blaine replied that the applicant intends to have ten percent LEED units, and there may be
room for more if they are market successful. He explained that the $13,900 is the average of the proffer
per unit as it reflects the increased cost. Mr. Blaine clarified that this is an incentive, and if a policy is
adopted that recognizes this it might encourage other LEED-certified developments.
Ms. Thomas said that she would be willing to do this in the first five years, but after that it will
likely be a market standard. She added that that she would be willing to give credit for transportation
because that is the only way to move traffic effectively through this area once the development is built.
Mr. Dorrier said that he has met with the Mill Creek residents regarding their concerns.
Mr. Gary Fern addressed the Board, noting that the Service Authority feels that there is water
available. He said that on the wastewater side, the Service Authority has entered into an agreement with
the applicant regarding the upgrade of the Biscuit Run trunk sewer so that when it gets to 80 percent of
the projected peak flow prior to rezoning, the applicant has agreed to pay 100 percent of the costs to
upgrade the Biscuit Run trunk sewer. Mr. Fern also said that there has been a question as to whether or
not the Moore’s Creek interceptor would need to be upgraded, and RWSA is assessing its needs as far
as all of its interceptors, which is expected to be complete by this fall. He said that the applicant agreed
through a memorandum of agreement to pay his fair share of charges for the interceptor, and on the
Service Authority side they would come up with a fair way to pass those charges onto all developers in
the jurisdictional agreement.
Mr. Boyd noted that the agreement is not binding.
Mr. Fern replied that they can always withhold service so they ca not move forward with the
development. He said that the Service Authority would continue to assess fees fairly, and it would have
to look at the entire jurisdictional area. Mr. Fern said that the Service Authority is confident that this
applicant will assume costs associated with the impact of his development. He also said that once it is
known what is involved to upgrade the Moore’s Creek or Powell’s Creek interceptors, the hook-up fee
costs can be assessed. Mr. Fern said that people are going to have to pay something to maintain the
size of the sewer pipe upgrade. He noted that the agreement is really just an agreement that when there
is known data as to what is needed to upgrade the interceptor, the Service Authority will establish what
costs are associated with the development.
Mr. Boyd said that he hopes RW SA has been escrowing fee income in anticipation of pipe
upgrades.
Mr. Rooker noted that the cost would likely exceed what is needed to improve the interceptors
and sewers.
Mr. Fern said that the Service Authority has an agreement with developers of Old Trail for the
Crozet interceptor, and they have almost reached a point of having to upgrade with any more
development.
Mr. Graham pointed out that the greenway dedication will be in the floodplain, and that is where
the sewer lines will be put in, so the County will control that.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. W yant asked if there was adequate water for fire service based on calculations. Mr. Fern
assured him that it had been established as acceptable.
Mr. Dorrier asked about connection points. Mr. Fern said that Ragged Mountain and South Fork
would be useable.
Mr. Dorrier also asked about the intersecting roads connecting Mill Creek and Biscuit Run.
Mr. Blaine said that he provided to staff an alternative in response to engineering’s suggestion
which aligns with topography.
Ms. Thomas noted that one of the developer’s staff had presented a rough design that came to a
T-intersection to make it clear it was a way for Mill Creek residents get into Biscuit Run as opposed to
having Biscuit Run people use Mill Creek for a way out. She indicated that in her visit to Chapel Hill, the
developer had a similar situation. Ms. Thomas said that she is thinking that the connection here should
not be made until certain things happen, but if the connection exists early on it will seem like a shortcut
through Mill Creek.
Mr. Dorrier said that he is in favor of the bicycle and pedestrian approach through Mill Creek.
Mr. Rooker commented that it would be a mistake not to make a vehicle connection, although it
would start as a bicycle and pedestrian route. He added that he can not imagine a whole lot of people
cutting through Mill Creek as you have to wind through the neighborhood.
Mr. Blaine said that the proffer provides exactly that flexibility, and residents of Mill Creek
perceive that their road will be used as a cut-through.
Mr. Rooker noted that you could always use it just for school busses, and he used the example of
the connection between Carrsbrook and W oodbrook never being made.
Mr. Dorrier said that the Mill Creek South residents wanted to make sure that the drainage
problems along the edge of the development are worked out with the storm water system approved by
the County.
Ms. Thomas referenced a letter Board members received.
Mr. W yant commented that that is often addressed at the site plan stage.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that offsite impacts were a general concern of the Planning Commission, and
Mill Creek is actually higher than Biscuit Run.
Mr. Dorrier said that there is an issue with buffer as well.
Mr. Boyd stated that he thought that had been worked out with the Mill Creek homeowners.
Mr. Blaine responded that they would like for it to remain in preservation, and they have existing
problems because of the early drainage design there. He said that the width would be a minimum of 300
feet from the nearest dwelling, and that has been presented to residents.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that there is some confusion about the difference between a conservation
area and a preservation area, with conservation areas accommodating things like greenways, and
preservation areas remaining intact. She noted that people within the environmental community have
offered their assistance in establishing the preservation areas.
Mr. Dorrier said that he would like to see the entrance from Route 20 addressed as well as the
entrance from Avon Street to Biscuit Run and on into the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Rooker noted that VDOT could come in and recommend offsite improvements, but he is not
sure how this would be impacted.
Ms. Thomas responded that these are not offsite impacts, such as Old Lynchburg Road as it
borders the development as well as the Southwood entrance.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff had the applicant leave the Southwood item alone because it is
uncertain where it might go given Habitat’s intention for that property. He emphasized that it might not be
resolved in this application, and Habitat would like the route to come to Sunset Avenue. Mr. Cilimberg
said that staff wanted it to be resolved at a later date and would prefer not to be pinned into a corner by a
proffer.
Mr. Blaine said that there are several points that could be changed now, such as using the
Marshall & Swift index, and he suggested using the Chesterfield model for that. He noted that increasing
the cash in lieu would provide a disincentive to contribute to Habitat.
Mr. Rooker responded that that is the County’s policy on affordable housing, and it is up to the
applicant whether they want to make the contribution or build an affordable unit.
Mr. Boyd said that he thought the cash in lieu reduced the contribution per dwelling unit.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Board members emphasized that it does not.
Mr. Slutzky explained that this cash in lieu replaces the $16,500 to go into the down payment
assistance program as a way of satisfying the 15 percent affordable housing requirement.
Mr. Rooker said that they agreed not to charge cash proffers on affordable units, and the
applicant is only going to pay cash proffers against non-affordable units that are built in the community.
Mr. Slutzky noted that there are two separate issues: paying $17,000 for the 85 percent of units
that are not in the affordable category, and the remaining 15 percent either need to be affordable or
compensated with additional cash of $19,200 if they are not.
Mr. Blaine said that the applicant concedes that, but he emphasized that the Planning
Commission has worked issues including transportation but could not come to consensus on the proffers.
Ms. Thomas stated that she appreciates the applicant’s willingness to take this back to the
Commission for additional time.
Mr. Rooker commented that this has been a much better process than North Pointe was.
Mr. Boyd suggested having the Board make written comments and questions and forwarding
them to Mr. Cilimberg.
Mr. Tucker said that there could be another work session on August 8th as long as they would be
willing to start the meeting early as there is a work session already scheduled.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he needs questions by next Wednesday, and staff would also go
through the items discussed today.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Committee Reports.
Mr. Rooker reported that the Board has received a copy of a proposed resolution to set the Fiscal
Year 2008 compensation and benefits for the County Executive.
At this time, Mr. Rooker moved to approve the attached Resolution to set FY 2008
Compensation and Benefits for the County Executive. Mr. W yant seconded the motion. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. W yant.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO SET FY 08
COMPENSATION & BENEFITS FOR
THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle operates under the County Executive Form of Government;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors determines the compensation and benefits to be paid to
the County Executive for the performance of his duties and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
finds that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, shall receive the following compensation and benefits
for FY 08, beginning July 1, 2007:
1) Annual salary of $169,500.
2) Annual vehicle allowance of $9,650.
3) Deferred Compensation paid by the County in the amount of $23,500.
4) Benefits provided to all County employees in the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual.
5) VERIPlus benefits to consist of the VERIP benefits provided to County employees under
the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual with the following additions and modifications:
a) VERIPlus benefits shall extend for a period of 10 years from the date of
retirement regardless of age;
b) VERIPlus benefits shall be equal to the base VERIP benefits plus on the
following vesting dates the Virginia Retirement System (hereinafter “VRS”) component of the benefits
shall increase to the designated percentages of the base VERIP benefits:
June 30, 2007 111%
June 30, 2008 123%
June 30, 2009 136%
June 30, 2010 150%
The vesting percentage shall be set at the designated percentage as of June 30th prior to
the date of retirement if retirement occurs before the next vesting date. Attachment A provides an
example of the possible VRS component of the VERIPlus benefits.
July 11, 2007 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
c) The retirement requirement for VERIPlus will be met if retirement is approved
under any of the retirement plans of the VRS, including any disability retirement provision.
d) VERIPlus benefits shall accrue to the benefit of a designated survivor, as
designated for purposes of VRS, if death should occur prior to receiving ten years of VERIPlus benefits.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn. At 7:18 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the Board
of County Supervisors
Date: 12/12/2007
Initials: EWJ