2008-11-12November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 12, 2008, at 3:30 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from November 7, 2008.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, County Planner, V. W ayne Cilimberg, Clerk,
Ella W . Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:32 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan (continued from November 5,
2008).
Mr. Tucker reported that staff has a couple of major areas to cover with the Five Year Plan. Mr.
Bill Letteri, Director, Office of Facilities Development, is present to talk about capital projects and what the
County is doing in terms of delaying some of the projects. Ms. Laura Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst, and
Mr. Richard W iggins, Director of Finance, are present to talk about the lockbox and review the
assumptions shared with Board members on November 5th, some changes and initiatives that could be
put back in the Plan.
Mr. Bill Letteri said his presentation will include an overview of the adopted Five Year Plan. His
reference to the Capital Improvements Plan are for the five year period of the five year program, FY 2010-
2014. There have been major impacts to the CIP and there will likely be reductions in transfers to the fund
because of lower assessments. He noted that they have used a three-part formula in the past that has
equated to about 15 cents on the dollar, but that formula may be simplified and a few cents may be
knocked off of the 15 to balance the Five Year model. Mr. Letteri said that as a matter of policy, staff has
tried to maintain a $2.0 million reserve in the capital plan, but these reductions are now having an impact
on the reserve balance. He said that staff is suggesting some solutions in the form of adjustments, and
he would share those today as well as an overview of the upcoming CIP process.
Mr. Letteri stated that when the CIP was adopted a year ago, a certain amount of debt and
revenue was projected. He explained that usually a reserve balance from a prior year and a certain
amount is transferred from the general fund into the capital program – about 15 cents – averaging about
$30.0 million per year for a total of $152.0 million. Mr. Letteri said that the County has to make debt
service payments out of this, based upon accumulated debt to date for both school and government
projects – about $27.0 million for government projects and $80.0 million for school projects.
Mr. Slutzky asked if 15 cents has yielded $150.0 million for projects over the five-year period. Mr.
Letteri responded that this is the starting point, with more revenues to come, based upon asset values and
projections from a year ago.
Mr. Boyd asked if the debt service numbers were trending up or down over the five year period.
Mr. Letteri responded that they are trending up.
Mr. Letteri said that when the debt service is factored out, the County is left with about $50.0
million to go toward projects, but current revenues such as proffers, interest income, grants, state funds,
etc. are added in – about $28.0 million was projected for the five-year period. Mr. Letteri said that the
County also gets funds from borrowing money – about $82.0 million for government and $75.0 million for
schools over the five-year period, and that ratio has changed significantly. He confirmed that this is a
cash model, with both principle and interest included. Mr. Letteri said that there is a total of about $236.0
million projected as being available to fund projects and the adopted plan for the five-year period was
$239.0 million, yielding a negative reserve of about $2.0 million.
Mr. Letteri said that they have factored in a reduction in revenues to the CIP based upon the
economic downturn, reducing the transfer to about $132.0 million and net available for projects now
$216.0 million against the $239.0 million program. That generates a reserve deficit of about $22.0 million.
If the transfer formula is further reduced by two cents, he said, that brings it down to three cents or a total
of $108.0 million for the CIP. He stated that the County went from a deficit of $2.0 million to a deficit of
$46.0 million, and staff has made some project adjustment suggestions to achieve a more reasonable
balance.
Mr. Boyd asked if the changes have gone through the technical review process. Mr. Letteri said
the changes have gone through the review and there is still more refinement to be done. He added that
they have not gone through the Oversight Committee review process.
Mr. Slutzky asked if new assumptions have been reflected for possible reduced construction costs
and possible increases in debt.
Mr. Letteri said that they are not reflected now, but would be when information comes back from
the Technical Review and Oversight Committees. He mentioned that the $239.0 million adopted program
covers large allocations for public safety, transportation and urban infrastructure, libraries, school projects,
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
and community and neighborhood development projects. Mr. Letteri then illustrated how the model would
change given proposed adjustments – a decrease in the general fund transfer down to $108.0 million –
with overall borrowing and debt service payments reduced significantly. He said that there is a $70.0
million reduction in borrowing over the next five years under this scenario, and other current revenue
reductions include reduced interest earnings, reduced proffer revenues, and reduced state funds – about
$10 million less over the five-year period – for a total net change in available funds of $91.0 million less.
He reported that regarding changes in projects, staff proposes reducing projects from $239.0
million to $134.0 million, and explained that this is a combination of bricks and mortar and other projects,
but this does not include any operational funds. Mr. Letteri stated that the two principal court projects
were the Levy and Court Square renovation projects, and staff is recommending delays for those –
perhaps pushing them out of the five-year period.
Ms. Thomas asked if he thought the courts would approve the delays. Mr. Tucker responded that
Mr. Letteri has met with various judges to make them aware of the proposal, and so far there has not been
any significant pushback.
Regarding the public safety allocations, Mr. Letteri said, the two new permanent stations for
Pantops and Ivy were removed entirely from the plan, and a modified plan for smaller facilities requiring
lesser funds was suggested. He stated that staff has included construction of the two facilities so that
when the City’s contract expires the facilities will be ready to be occupied; this program delays the start of
a prior year’s appropriation. Mr. Letteri said that they have not only been delayed for about three years,
but the funds are now being borrowed. He added that the public safety training facility is also suggested to
be delayed beyond the five-year period, and there is a major reduction in the CARS/Seminole Trail station
as there is not a clear commitment on their side to fund one-half the program. Mr. Letteri explained that
the project was initially $11.0 million, with about $5.5 million to be funded by the volunteer group and the
County supporting the other one-half. In public works, he said, the principle reductions are delay of any
more renovations in moving the Fourth Floor and County Attorney’s office, and delay in building any new
recycling centers. He added that the $500,000 contingency for the Keene Landfill closure has been
eliminated as staff has assessed it will probably not be needed based on information gathered from
monitoring wells.
Mr. Letteri reported that in transportation and urban infrastructure, those funds have been
eliminated entirely. He said that the County was at about a $2.1 million funding level per year, so that
reduction is about $10.0 million, and funding levels for neighborhood plan implementation, roadway
landscaping, streetlights, and sidewalk construction have been reduced by about one-half. Mr. Letteri
pointed out that those are cash-funded initiatives and thus have a major impact on reducing the deficit.
Regarding Parks and Recreation, he said that staff has targeted $6.9 million in reductions there – which
involved the elimination of a County athletic field and delay of the park system redesign for four years.
Mr. Rooker asked if a location had been selected for the field. Mr. Letteri replied that nothing
specific had been identified yet. He also said that there were several parks delayed for four years, totaling
about $8.0 million. The YMCA pool funding components have also been delayed - $1.2 million for the
competitive pool eliminated and $2.03 million for the County’s contribution to the YMCA postponed until
year six.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an update from the YMCA about their funding.
Mr. Boyd noted that he is aware that their funding has been stagnated.
Mr. Letteri reported that the $40.0 million in contributions to the Library over five years are slated
for $30.0 million in reductions, primarily a delay in the Crozet Library for two years and a deferral of the
Northern Albemarle Library out beyond the five-year program. He believes they have been able to extend
the County’s lease on the existing site so that this would allow for the delay of the Northern Library. He
said that no changes are intended in the technology program, which were intended for server upgrades
and Access Albemarle. Regarding conservation easements, Mr. Letteri said that they have reduced the
local funding component from $1.2 million to $600,000 per year, leaving the tourism portion alone. He
reported that stormwater management funding has been eliminated for the first two years, with about
$250,000 for the remaining three years of the program – a total of about $4.2 million.
In order to make the program balance, he stated, staff has identified about $24.0 million in
reductions, delays, or adjustments for school projects – specific projects are still being discussed, but the
Support Services Complex is being considered, as is a delay for the second phase of Greer Elementary
School and delay of the Southern Feeder Facility. He pointed out that the Brownsville and Greer School
projects came in about $2.0 million under expectations, and staff is proposing going out to borrow less
based on that. Delaying the second phase of Greer would save about $700,000 in debt service for the
one year of delay.
Mr. Dorrier asked if specific projects under review include Red Hill, Yancey, and Scottsville
Schools. Mr. Letteri said that this scenario does not include projects for those schools.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much is saved by delaying the recycling facilities until FY 2012-13. Mr.
Letteri replied that the costs would be about $750,000 for the centers’ capital costs, and some of that
would go for land acquisition.
Mr. Boyd said that he thought there were some proffered sites.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Mallek commented that there have been several sites sitting idle, and they were told that the
$250,000 was sitting there ready to go after the solid waste study was completed. It was promised in
October and it is still not here.
Mr. Letteri responded that staff is attempting to make adjustments here, and would seek
additional guidance from the Technical Review and Oversight Committees. It would be helpful to staff if
they could get some reaction and guidance from the Board as to whether in general they are heading in
the right direction.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much in Community Development was from transportation savings. Mr.
Letteri responded that the savings was about $10.5 million in projects not yet identified. He said that
about $6.0 million has already been accumulated, and that has not been committed yet.
Mr. Rooker said that he was under the impression some of that was needed for Meadow Creek,
and some was allocated to Georgetown Road.
Mr. Tucker stated that there have been projects identified, but specific amounts have not been
allocated yet.
Mr. Letteri said that the Jarman’s Gap project may become an issue, as the County had intended
to partner with VDOT on the first part of the road but the complexities of securing easements and right-of-
way may mean that that cannot be tied in with the streetscape project. They are still working on that, but it
is not looking as promising as it once did.
Ms. Mallek replied that she thought that was in the bag, and she would mention this at a meeting
with Mr. DeJarnette soon.
Mr. Boyd asked if this new CIP plan was inflated by 30 percent to cover overrun contingencies.
Mr. Letteri explained that all projects had been going through his department for review to ensure
they were kept within market conditions and a ten percent construction contingency is usually built in, but
not 30 percent.
Mr. Foley said that the County has not used 30 percent in the past.
Mr. Dorrier asked what are the cuts proposed for libraries. Mr. Letteri explained that cuts are
intended for the Crozet Library, the Scottsville Library, the Northern Library, and Central Library
renovations. Mr. Letteri explained that the Northern and Crozet projects are delayed, and Central has
been pushed out beyond the five-year program.
Ms. Thomas asked if he could calculate the difference between a penny or two for the CIP. Mr.
Letteri confirmed that a penny over the five years would equate to about $8.0 million.
Mr. Slutzky asked if he is in a position to provide information on whether it would be more
beneficial to leverage that back into the capital fund while projects are possibly cheaper. Mr. Letteri
responded that staff can provide that information, but if staff were to try to leverage the $8.0 back into the
capital fund, it would want to look at leveraged projects to get the most “bang for the buck”. The Board
then needs to evaluate its priorities to determine where it would like to see that money go.
Mr. Boyd indicated that he and Mr. Dorrier sit on the Oversight Committee and are getting ready to
start a series of meetings, so this information would be helpful.
Mr. Foley said that the County would need to evaluate how much additional debt they could take
on and still stay within their financial policies, and if that were done what projects the Board would want to
include. Currently the County has some debt limits with its policies and that is the analysis that needs to
be done.
Mr. Slutzky noted that Davenport had indicated to the Board what debt to equity ratio they would
need to keep their AAA bond rating, and the Board then set a more conservative threshold. He added that
perhaps that policy needs to be revisited now. Mr. Foley replied that staff can just do an analysis against
the Board’s policy and proceed from there.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that U.Va. use to do a common analysis of what a dollar would multiply
back into in the community, and that would be interesting information to have.
Mr. Slutzky said that there are measurable dollar impacts, as long as they are credible, that could
be reflected in the analysis.
Mr. Rooker added that it would also be helpful to have details from projects included for Board
review, and how the Technical Committee prioritized those projects. Mr. Foley agreed to share that with
the Board before the Oversight Committee reviews it.
Mr. Slutzky said that staff has done an excellent job of coming up with logical project cuts, but he
would also like them to provide options in lieu of those cuts – such as reinstating them because of savings
realized due to the economic climate.
Mr. Boyd added that there should also be a pros and cons section included.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Foley said staff could provide the information with the impact of a penny, two, three, etc. Staff
could provide information on what pot of money it would create. He added that some of the projects, such
as the recycling centers, would not usually be debt-financed. Mr. Foley said there are two ways to get the
$1.6 million – to generate new revenues, or transfer existing revenues to capital.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not think a distinction between the two options needs to be made at this
time. He looks at this as a local stimulus package and taking advantage of current construction costs.
Mr. Boyd commented that several of these projects cannot be looked at in a vacuum of just the
impact on the CIP and ignore the impact on operations. For example, the fire station will generate other
impacts.
Ms. Thomas commented that she wants to make sure the County is “not going to get into any
trouble” by delaying the stormwater projects, and also expressed concern about leaving money on the
table in terms of grants that leverage matching funds.
Mr. Foley explained that those factors were considered in staff’s recommendations for cuts,
adding that two Board members are serving on the Oversight Committee that would be reviewing these
beginning next week. He reminded Board members that this current discussion does not include any
necessary amendments to the CIP that were just submitted a month ago and are under review. He
anticipates that there are some additional projects that there will be an emergency case for or the criteria
set for adding projects in an amendment year.
Mr. Rooker asked what kind of inflation factors are built into projects now. Mr. Letteri answered
that five percent compounded annually has been used, adding that the base year for that was two years
ago.
__________
Ms. Laura Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst, reported that last week both Board Chairs met to
discuss a proposal for use of the lockbox, and she would review that at this meeting. In the current year,
she said, local government would use $500,000 to offset projected State revenue loss in that amount, and
utilize the remaining $1.1 million to increase the County’s undesignated fund balance. Ms. Vinzant said
that the Schools would utilize their $6.6 million fund balance to offset their local revenue loss in FY09.
She explained that the County would retain $500,000 in a rainy day fund in FY10-12, and bump that up to
$600,000 in FY13 and $700,000 in FY14. Ms. Vinzant stated that the long-term goal is to increase that
rainy day fund to the equivalent of one cent on the dollar to be used for local government and School
emergency needs, but in the short term it would be used for covering shortfalls and unfreezing some local
government frozen positions. She indicated that this plan would unfreeze eight of 55 positions planned by
FY10, with some additional positions unfrozen in the out years; she noted that 34 positions are currently
frozen.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Case-Shiller Index shows housing prices to family income, and
that graph has essentially been linear until 2002 when they diverged greatly. He said that that index
predicts a fall of another approximately 20 percent before equilibrium is reached.
Ms. Vinzant then presented the following information the Board reviewed last week and which
already had a presumption that the items discussed today would be cut from the capital fund.
Adjustments Nov. 5 Assumption Current Assumption Pennies in FY10
Tax Rate Move to effective tax rate
based upon residential real
estate reassessment
CY 2009 - 74.5¢ (3.5¢
increase over current rate)
CY 2010 - 75.5¢
No Change
EMS Revenue
Recovery
Not included No Change
Reduced operational
expenditures
Immediate implementation
of $1 million reduction
Reduction carried through
all years of model
No Change 1.9 cents needed to
restore $1 million in
operating reductions
Expanded Hiring
Freeze
By FY10: 55 Frozen
FY11: Unfreeze 2 (53
frozen)
FY13: Unfreeze 4 (49
frozen)
FY14: Unfreeze 8 (41
frozen)
By FY10: 47 Frozen
FY11: Unfreeze 2 (45 frozen)
FY13: Unfreeze 3 (42 frozen)
FY14: Unfreeze 8 (34 frozen)
5.1 cents needed to
restore all 47 frozen
positions
Salary Increase Market + merit increases:
FY10 - 0.00%
FY11 - 3.00%
FY12 - 3.95%
FY13 & FY14 - 4.70%
No Change 3.3 cents needed to fund
recommended 3.93%
market increase
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Increase to Agencies FY10 - 0%
FY11 - 2%
FY12 - 3%
FY13 & FY14 - 4%
No Change 0.8 cents needed to
provide 4% average
increase to agencies
Board-planned 5-Year
Plan programs
Transit funding eliminated -
$200K in FY10 up to
$400K
No Change 0.4 cents
Affordable Housing funding
eliminated - $200K in FY10
up to $400K
No Change 0.4 cents
Environmental initiatives
funding eliminated - $65K
in FY10 up to $80,000
No Change 0.1 cents
$250K per year in other
new initiatives eliminated
No Change 0.5 cents
Includes 2 police officers
per year beginning in FY11
for a total of 8 in the 5-year
period
No Change 0.9 cents needed to fund
4 police officers in FY10
Operating Impact of
Capital Projects
Operating impacts reflect
latest revised capital plan,
including moving Pantops
and Ivy to 2013
No Change
Reduction in Capital
Transfer
3 cent reduction in base
transfer
No Change 3.0 cents
Use of Board Reserve Decrease by $200,000 to
$100,000
No Change
Use of "lockbox"
funds
Funds split 60/40 with
schools
Funds used for "Rainy Day Fund" and to cover local govt.
shortfall and unfreeze positions
Rainy Day Fund for
emergency school
and local government
needs
Not included FY10-FY12: $500K
FY13: $600K
FY14: $700K
Projected Balances FY10 - $51,678
FY11 - $84,494
FY12 - $18,535
FY13 - $22,184
FY14 - $49,325
FY10 - $35,622
FY11 - $66,212
FY12 - $24,229
FY13 - $42,842
FY14 - $33,390
Referring to the salary increase, Mr. Boyd asked if the 3.3 cents needed to fund the
recommended 3.93 percent market increase would also fund future increases. Ms. Vinzant said the 3.3
cents would fund the 3.0 percent in FY11, 3.95 percent in FY12 and the 4.70 percent in FY13 and FY14,
but there would also need to be a small increase to bring the salaries up to market; this is just the pennies
required for FY10. In all these cases, if you are building back up, it would require incremental increases in
pennies in the out years.
Mr. Boyd noted that the 3.5-cent tax increase essentially just keeps residents at their existing tax
bill, and is not a tax increase. Mr. Tucker added that it is the “average”.
Mr. Slutzky commented that it would take Albemarle up to 90 cents to cover all of the things in the
capital program, noting that Charlottesville operates on 99 cents.
Mr. Rooker said that generally speaking, the more urban the area the higher the tax rate.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that it might be helpful to explain to the community the relationship
between falling assessments and tax bills essentially staying the same.
Mr. Boyd said that’s why he wanted to have this discussion on effective tax rate.
Mr. Rooker stated that it can’t really be put out there until the tax rate is set.
Mr. Boyd asked if the one-half year of income from raising the tax rate is factored into the current
year numbers. He commented that usually that money goes into the Fund Balance and is not part of the
60/40 split. Mr. Tucker agreed, adding that it is one time funds.
Mr. Boyd asked if those funds are factored into the CIP. Mr. Tucker responded, “no”; it is in the
County’s overall Fund Balance. He added that it has not been factored in at this time because staff does
not know what the Board plans to do.
Mr. Foley said staff has provided the Board with all the assumptions they have used to reach a
balanced five-year plan, noting that this process is scheduled to be finished December 3rd. He added that
the process involves the Board coming up with their five-year plan. Board members indicated that another
work session is not really necessary.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Slutzky suggested having staff provide a list of options.
Ms. Thomas said that the smallest item is environmental initiatives funding, and she would like to
look more at those.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not satisfied with 47 frozen positions. He would like to see a budget
proposed with the 5.1 cents, or a smaller number of frozen positions. He does not want staff to take away
from this meeting that all of them unanimously are agreeing that the only thing they are going to possibly
put back in is capital funding because that is not accurate.
Mr. Foley responded that while he understands that, staff is looking for some direction from the
Board as a whole as to where staff should go with more analysis.
Mr. Boyd commented that one problem with this is the School does not have their budget
information or needs available yet.
Mr. Slutzky stated that he wants staff to present a range of options, with a menu that shows what
a penny or two or three, etc., could provide.
Mr. Rooker asked if he was suggesting that the County Executive not recommend a budget but
instead provide a variety of options. The normal process is for Mr. Tucker to put together a recommended
budget. Prior to that occurring, the Board gives him some assumptions they would like to see built into
that recommended budget. He does not think that he is on board to say that Mr. Tucker not have a
recommended budget, that he just have a spreadsheet that shows a variety of things that could be done.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that last year a budget was presented based on static revenues with the
same tax rate. He asked if the Board’s view is that the County Executive’s recommended budget have the
tax rate staying the same.
Mr. Boyd replied that what was presented was a balanced budget. It is not Mr. Tucker’s decision
to recommend a tax increase.
Mr. Slutzky said he disagrees that it is his obligation to recommend a static tax rate.
Mr. Rooker added that Mr. Tucker has asked for guidance on a tax rate to include within his
proposed budget, and the Board does not necessarily have to adopt that rate. He has got to operate on
what the majority of the Board indicates it’s comfortable with.
Mr. Foley said that staff is asking what Board members think the tax rate should be, and what
should stay in the budget or not.
Mr. Tucker stated that staff has tried to present all of the things that are not provided under an
effective tax rate.
Mr. Slutzky asked if adding all of the things in would get the County to the point of where things
were before the financial crisis eroded revenues.
Mr. Tucker replied that those things would basically have met the Board’s five-year plan two years
ago.
Mr. Slutzky said the argument could be that the budget recommendation would reflect those, but
Mr. Tucker would identify each of these items are vulnerable to scaling back due to financial
circumstances.
Mr. Rooker commented that in order to be in that place even last year, the rate would need to be
raised about 20 cents – 16 cents plus about a 3.5 cent increase to equalize the effective rate.
Mr. Foley noted that that would hold through 2010, but in order to increase housing and transit as
planned it would need to be raised even more.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to see it with the three cents transferred to capital still included,
and the .1 cent for environmental initiatives – depending on what they are. She added that the agencies
are going to be hard-hit because most of them depend on contributions, which are falling all across the
board. Ms. Thomas stated that she would like to see the .8 cents put back in to provide a four percent
increase to agencies, as they provide a lot of bang for the buck.
Mr. Tucker noted that usually the County ties that to what the City does.
Mr. Foley said that to put the three cents back there would need to be three cents put back in
revenue, and perhaps the EMS revenue could be considered.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that it does not all have to be driven by the tax-rate side, and not by what
we have promised to provide the community. The County has a Comprehensive Plan and a Five Year
Plan from last year that seems to be going “out the window” and it appears County administration’s need
to have the tax rate stay the same driving the budget recommendation.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Boyd stated that everybody else in the community is going to have to scale back, and it is not
unreasonable for local government to expect the same for the County. These are tough economic times.
He has a serious problem with even putting on the table consideration of a 20 cents tax increase.
Mr. Slutzky said he has a problem with assuming a cut equivalent to 20 cents from what was
promised to people last year. It is starting with a significantly reduced expectation and he thinks that is
just as problematic.
Mr. Boyd said he sees that as being a responsible government that’s saying “look, these are
things we need to do in order to be accountable to our citizenry and not gouge them.”
Mr. Slutzky responded that those cuts could be made during the budget process, but he wants
people to understand that that’s what the Board is doing and not adding initiatives.
Mr. Rooker said that the concept here is to have the starting point be a 3.5-cent tax increase to
have the effective tax be the same as last year.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with that being the basis.
Mr. Slutzky asked what the problem is with having Mr. Tucker present a budget that includes
everything, and then take them away when the budget is discussed.
Mr. Rooker stated that that would effectively mean Mr. Tucker’s budget would be based on a 20-
cent tax increase.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would essentially be bringing forward a budget that shows the same level
of service and several scenarios for reductions. He is saying have the baseline be the higher level and not
the reduced level.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that that would essentially have Mr. Tucker presenting a spreadsheet of
various levels of budget, and the Board would still have to make decisions on cuts.
Mr. Slutzky replied that if the level of service is greatly reduced, that’s an inappropriate place to
start the budget conversation.
Mr. Foley commented that the discussion for December 3rd would be the place for that, as Mr.
Tucker is presenting a balanced plan so that a Five-Year Plan can be adopted in February.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not want Mr. Tucker to come in with a recommended budget that
shows a tax rate with little or no Board support, driving the public in under some expectation that
something is being considered when that is really not the case. He added that he also wants to see how
Schools factor into this equation.
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that whatever it sets the tax rate the Schools get 60 percent
of the amount. He added that if the Board did anything with revenue recovery that would all be local
government’s revenue and not split with the Schools.
Mr. Boyd agreed that the Board needs to be careful about public perception of what’s going to
happen with the tax rate.
Mr. Slutzky acknowledged this and said he is not advocating a 20 cent increase in the tax rate, but
he does not want Mr. Tucker to start with the assumption that his goal for balancing the budget starts with
keeping the tax rate equalized but rather the decline in “promises” also needs to be considered. He then
asked when the resource utilization study would be complete.
Mr. Tucker responded that there will be a draft toward the end of December, with an official
version done at the end of January.
Mr. Foley said that what’s approved in December would also be the direction for Mr. Tucker. He
added that first-quarter revenues are also just being finalized.
Mr. Tucker emphasized that he does not view things as cuts, but just delays, and over time these
items will be accomplished. He added that the County does not have the demand for certain services
right now; he does not have the number of building permits that he had two years ago or three years ago.
Mr. Rooker said that there’s no question that this budget would result in a reduced level of
services from what the Board planned to deliver, but most people have less income now than they did a
year ago so there has to be a “reasonable balance” reached between level of service and taxes paid.
Board members commented that the information and chart provided at the meeting was extremely
helpful and well done.
______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Recess.
At 5:06 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, that the Board go into closed meeting pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to Boards,
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Committees and Commissions; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
specific legal matters requiring legal advice relating to the acquisition of property necessary for a
transportation project.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Call to Order. The meeting was called back to order at 6:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All Board members were present.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Mallek to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed
meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed meeting. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 6. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd suggested Board members discuss their items at the end of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Jeff W erner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Board, distributing the
holiday edition of the “Buy Fresh Buy Local” food guide, which lists sources for locally grown Christmas
trees and decorations, poultry, produce, meat, etc. He said that there is also an online version. Mr.
W erner said that this initiative allows people to buy food from local farmers that they trust, and local food is
fresher and tastes better. He stated that this also keeps dollars circulating in this community and helps
build relationships. According to the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service there is a critical economic
impact from increasing the amount of local food purchased in the area. If each household in the
Charlottesville region spent $10 per week on locally-produced foods and farm products, it would generate
$50.7 million annual dollars of direct economic impact to the region’s economy, farms, families and
community.
Mr. Boyd asked how successful the program has been so far.
Mr. W erner responded that two people in his office have been working on it and have specific
data, but “the response has been fantastic.” He mentioned the “Buy Fresh Buy Local” bumper stickers,
and suggested that it could now be taken to the next level. Mr. W erner agreed that those staff members
could come and provide more detailed information for the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve the Items 9.1 through 9.3 on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items
for information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 9.1. Approval of Minutes: September 5, 2007; and March 10 and March 19, 2008.
Mr. Boyd had read his portion of the minutes of September 5, 2007 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of March 10, 2008 and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of March 19, 2008 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read.
_______________
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Item No. 9.2. Resolution to accept roads in Chestnut Ridge Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 12th day of
November, 2008, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in Chestnut Ridge Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated November 12, 2008, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
W HEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Chestnut Ridge Subdivision, as described
on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated November 12, 2008, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Roberts Lane (State Route 1634) from the intersection of Buck Mountain Road (Route 663)
to the intersection of Cleopatra Court (Route 1635), as shown on plat recorded in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3181, pages 225-246, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 miles.
2) Roberts Lane (State Route 1634) from the intersection of Cleopatra Court (Route 1635) to
the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 3181, pages 225-246, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.28 miles.
3) Cleopatra Court (State Route 1635) from the intersection of Roberts Lane (Route 1634) to
the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 3181, pages 225-246, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.21 miles.
Total Mileage – .60
_______________
Item No. 9.3. Fiscal Year 2009 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local
Government Agreement.
The Executive Summary states that the Virginia Code § 32.1-31 allows local governing bodies to
enter into contracts with the State Board of Health for the operation of local health departments. It also
requires that these contracts specify the services to be provided in addition to those required by law, and
contain such other provisions as the State Board and the governing body may agree on. The County’s
contract specifies both the scope and costs for the services to be provided locally.
The Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of
Health, is the primary provider of public health services and programs for Albemarle County and
surrounding localities. TJHD offers specific health programs targeted at preventing and controlling
infectious diseases, as well as initiatives aimed at improving the health of low income women, children
and infants. In addition, the Health District provides dental services and an inspection and monitoring
program to ensure the safety of food and private well/septic systems.
Non-local funding for these programs is provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as
from grants and income from fees charged to individual clients. In addition, the localities served by TJHD
provide matching local funds for the allocations made by the state. Moreover, the County of Albemarle
and City of Charlottesville have historically funded the following programs that are not mandated by the
federal and/or state governments:
• The Jefferson Area Child Health Partnership (CHIP) - An in-depth home visiting program
for at-risk children (ages 0-6) and families provided by public health nurses and family
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
support workers aimed at enhancing awareness and use of community resources to
promote health;
• A dental care program for low-income children.
The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed the proposed contract and has approved it as to form.
The County’s original FY09 appropriation for the Thomas Jefferson Health District totaled
$938,097 of which $262,716 was designated for the Jefferson Area CHIP program. Effective January 1,
2009, this program will be administered through the newly established Jefferson Area CHIP agency. A
separate appropriation request has been submitted to the Board to reallocate $131,358 from the Thomas
Jefferson Health District to the Jefferson Area CHIP. After this reallocation, the FY09 funding for the
Thomas Jefferson Health District will total $806,739. Of this amount:
• $541,223 is for support of federal/state mandated programs;
• $29,340 is to provide supplemental support for the Food Safety/Inspection Program
• $104,818 is for operation of the Children’s Dental Program; and
• $131,358 remains designated for six months of the Jefferson Area CHIP program.
Based on the vital nature of the services provided by the TJHD, staff recommends that the Board
of Supervisors approve the Fiscal Year 2009 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local
Government Agreement and authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2009 County of Albemarle
& State Health Department Local Government Agreement and authorized the County Executive to
execute the following agreement:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
Under this agreement, which is created in satisfaction of the requirements of 32.1-31 of the Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended, the Virginia Department of Health, over the course of one fiscal year, will pay an
amount not to exceed $661,495, from the state general fund to support the cooperative budget in accordance
with appropriations by the General Assembly, and in like time frame, the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County will provide by appropriation and in equal quarterly payments a sum of $806,739 to include
$541,223 as local match and $104,818 in support of the Children’s Dental Program, $29,340 in support of the
Food Program, and $131,358 in support of the Jefferson Area CHIP. These joint funds will be distributed in
timely installments, as services are rendered in the operation of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health
Department, which shall perform public health services to the Commonwealth as indicated in Attachment
A(1.), and will perform services required by local ordinances as indicated in Attachment A(2.). Payments from
the local government are due on the third Monday of each fiscal quarter.
The term of this agreement begins July 1, 2008. This agreement will be automatically extended on a
state fiscal year to year renewal basis under the terms and conditions of the original agreement unless written
notice of termination is provided by either party. Such written notice shall be given at least 60 days prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year in which the termination is to be effective. Any increase or decrease in funding
allocation shall be made by an amendment to this agreement.
The parties agree that:
1. Under this agreement, as set forth in paragraphs A, B, C, and D below, the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Health shall be responsible for providing liability
insurance coverage and will provide legal defense for state employees of the local health
department for acts or occurrences arising from performance of activities conducted pursuant
to state statutes and regulations.
A. The responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health
to provide liability insurance coverage shall be limited to and governed by the Self-
Insured General Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia, established under
2.2-1837 of the Code of Virginia. Such insurance coverage shall extend to the
services specified in Attachments A(1.) and A(2.), unless the locality has opted to
provide coverage for the employee under the Public Officials Liability Self-Insurance
Plan, established under 2.2-1839 of the Code or under a policy procured by the
locality.
B. The Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health will be responsible for
providing legal defense for those acts or occurrences arising from the performance
of those services listed in Attachment A(1.), conducted in the performance of this
contract, as provided for under the Code of Virginia and as provided for under the
terms and conditions of the Self-Insured General Liability Plan for the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
C. Services listed in Attachment A(2.), any services performed pursuant to a local
ordinance, and any services authorized solely by Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia,
when performed by a state employee, are herewith expressly excepted from any
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
requirements of legal defense or representation by the Attorney General or the
Commonwealth. For purposes of assuring the eligibility of a state employee
performing such services for liability coverage under the Self-Insured General
Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General has approved,
pursuant to 2.2-507 of the Code of Virginia and the Self-Insured General Liability
Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the legal representation of said employee by
the city or county attorney, and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
hereby expressly agrees to provide the legal defense or representation at its sole
expense in such cases by its local attorney.
D. In no event shall the Commonwealth or the Virginia Department of Health be
responsible for providing legal defense or insurance coverage for local government
employees.
2. Title to equipment purchased with funds appropriated by the local government and
transferred to the state, either as match for state dollars or as a purchase under appropriated
funds expressly allocated to support the activities of the local health department, will be
retained by the Commonwealth and will be entered into the Virginia Fixed Asset Accounting
and Control System. Local appropriations for equipment to be locally owned and controlled
should not be remitted to the Commonwealth, and the local government's procurement
procedures shall apply in the purchase. The locality assumes the responsibility to maintain
the equipment and all records thereon.
3. Amendments to or modifications of this contract must be agreed to in writing and signed by
both parties.
_____________________________
State Health Commissioner Local authorizing officer signature
Virginia Department of Health ______________________________
Authorizing officer printed name
______________________________
Authorizing officer title
____________________________ ______________________________
Date Date
_______________
Item No. 9.4. Proffer Compliance- State Cash Proffer Survey & First Quarter Cash Proffer
Report, was received for information.
The Executive Summary states that pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.2, the County is required
to provide to the State Commission on Local Government an annual report of all cash proffer revenues and
expenditures as well as the amount of cash proffers accepted in that fiscal year. In addition, staff is in the
second year of providing the Board with a quarterly update of all cash proffer activity. This quarterly report
covers the months of July – September, 2008.
Cash proffers continue to represent a source of revenue that is used to offset the impacts of
development. In the attached report, staff compared prior cash proffer surveys and spreadsheets
(Attachment B) to display the proffer information by year and category (schools, libraries, etc.). The proffer
compliance program continues to evolve. In the near future and with the assistance of the stakeholders, staff
will provide a complete status update for all proffers.
FY 08
During Fiscal Year 08, the County collected $262,743, was pledged $44,169,723 in rezonings, and
expended $1,589,011 in cash proffer funds. The County has never been pledged nor expended as much in
cash proffer funds as it did in FY 08. Of the expended funds, $475,000 was used for roads or other
transportation improvements, $554,850 for Fire & Rescue, $500,000 for affordable housing and $59,161 was
for general capital improvements. (See Attachment A-on file). Attachment B (on file) includes a breakdown of
cash proffer revenue, expenditures and pledged proffers by category and fiscal year for FY 04 – FY 08. Over
the last four years the highest percentage of cash proffer funds collected and approved (through rezonings)
were for the General CIP and the highest percentage of cash proffer funds expended were for road and
transportation improvements. Please see Attachment B for other comparisons.
1st Quarter Report FY 09
Revenue: In July – September of FY 09, the County received $14,404 in cash proffers from the
Hollymead Town Center Area C and Belvedere developments. These proffers are slated for the general
Capital Improvements Program and affordable housing.
Total Obligated Cash Proffer Funds: As of September 2008, the total in pledged cash proffers
(including the applicable inflation adjustment) is $56,758,832 (Attachment C-on file).
Cash proffer funds represent an additional source of revenue to fund capital improvements which
would otherwise need to be funded by taxes. The County employs one planner (to track and manage cash
proffers) who works with other proffer stakeholders.
Staff recommends that the Board review and accept the information provided and inform staff if
additional information would be helpful.
_______________
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Item No. 9.5. 2008 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community
Development, was received for information.
The report states that during the third quarter of 2008, 94 building permits were issued for 94
dwelling units. There were no permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks. There were no permits
issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Abandonment of public right-of-way. Consider abandonment of right-of-
way under Virginia Code § 33.1-164 approximately 0.47 miles in length along the former alignment of
State Route 618, also known as Jefferson Mill Lane. State maintenance of the segment of right-of-way
intended to be abandoned was discontinued in 1971 when State Route 618 was realigned and
reconstructed and, thus, it is not in the state-maintained system of secondary highways. The right-of-way
is located along a portion of the boundary between Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 12300-00-00-017A0
and 12300-00-00-017B0 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. (Reschedule public hearing for January
7, 2009)
Mr. Boyd said no action is necessary from the Board on this request as it has been rescheduled
for public hearing on January 7, 2009.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: ZTA-2005-007. Storage yards. Amend Sections 3.1,
Definitions, 24.2.1, By right, 24.2.2, By special use permit, 25.2.1, By right, 25.2.2, By special use permit,
25A.2.1, By right, 25A.2.2, By special use permit, 27.2.1, By right, 27.2.2, By special use permit, 28.2.1, By
right, 28.2.2, By special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance
would amend Sec. 3.1 by defining “storage yard,” “heavy equipment,” “heavy vehicles,” and “heavy
equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yard”; Sec. 24.2.1 by adding “storage yards” as a by
right use; Sec. 24.2.2 by deleting “contractor’s office and equipment storage yard” as a special use; Sec.
25.2.1 by clarifying the C-1, CO and HC uses permitted by right in the PD-SC district and excepting
“storage yards”; Sec. 25.2.2 by adding “storage yards” as a special use; Sec. 25A.2.1 by clarifying the C-1,
CO and HC uses permitted by right in the PD-MC district and excepting “storage yards”; Sec. 25A.2.2 by
adding “storage yards” as a special use; Sec. 27.2.1 by amending the “contractor’s office and equipment
storage yard” use classification to “storage yards”; Sec. 27.2.2 by adding “heavy equipment and heavy
vehicle parking and storage yards” as a special use; Sec. 28.2.1 by amending the “contractor’s office and
equipment storage yard” use classification to “storage yards”; Sec. 28.2.2 by deleting “storage yards not
elsewhere classified, excluding storage of nuclear products, by-products or wastes,” as a special use.
The introductory text of the sections cited above other than Sec. 3.1 was also amended to standardize the
text and to correct a typographical error. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 22 and
November 3, 2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that the purpose of this amendment is to allow the scale and intensity of the
activities associated with a storage yard to be appropriately differentiated, to determine what were more
impacting types of activities versus those that are more standard, to define them and then list them as
either by-right or by special use permit in zoning districts they would be expected to occur. In those
districts where only allowed by special use permit, this amendment allows the use to be assessed on a
project by project basis and appropriate conditions to be included when approved. He explained that the
two types of storage yards brought forward by staff are a standard storage yard, and a heavy vehicle and
heavy equipment parking and storage yard. The amendment is intended to separate the very heavy
contractor operations from the more typical contractors based on the nature of the equipment and vehicles
that come to and from the contractor’s office. For the more standard storage yard, staff is not including
the parking, storing and/or maintaining heavy equipment and heavy vehicles, storing explosives, including
blasting caps, storing nuclear products, by-products or wastes, or storing kerosene or other volatile
materials except that which is reasonably necessary to maintain equipment and vehicles. For the heavy
equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yard, there is the opportunity for parking, storing and/or
maintaining heavy equipment and heavy vehicles used off-site (including storing and maintaining heavy
equipment and heavy vehicles within buildings or structures) and storing explosives, including blasting
caps, that are used in the off-site activity; does not include storing nuclear products, by-products or
wastes, or storing kerosene or other volatile materials except that which is reasonably necessary to
maintain equipment and vehicles.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the definition of heavy equipment is “equipment that requires an oversize,
overweight permit from the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles to be transported over public highways,”
and heavy vehicles are “those vehicles that have more than five axles or haul that heavy equipment.” For
the purpose of this definition, axles of tractor trucks and their trailers shall be counted as though they are a
single vehicle. He explained that overweight vehicles have gross weights that exceed weight limits
established by VDoT to be classified as such for use on the roads; oversized vehicles have widths,
heights, or lengths that are greater than established dimensions – which are in the DMV regulations. Mr.
Cilimberg then presented examples of each, noting that there are more standard types of vehicles and
equipment that are not oversized or overweight. He noted that it can also include what is on the trailer
being classified as heavy equipment.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Cilimberg then presented the following chart on existing and proposed provisions:
By Right By Special Use Permit
Existing Regulations – contractor’s
office & equipment storage yard
Light Industry, Heavy
Industry, Planned
Development Industrial
Park I and II
Highway Commercial, Planned
Development Mixed Commercial
Proposed Regulations -
a) storage yard
Highway Commercial,
Light Industry, Heavy
Industry, Planned
Development Industrial
Park I and II
Planned Development
Shopping Center, Planned
Development Mixed Commercial
b) heavy equipment and heavy
vehicle parking and storage yard
Heavy Industry, Planned
Development Industrial
Park II
Light Industry, Planned
Development Industrial Park I
He stated that there are some instances where contractors located in Highway Commercial have
equipment and trucks that serve their business use are considered acceptable. In that case the storage
yard would only be by special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg added that in PID-Park 1 and Light Industrial,
heavy equipment and heavy vehicle parking would also be by special use permit. He said that staff and
the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed zoning text amendment. He added that
the Commission brought up the question of ammunition being allowed under explosives but it would not
be allowed unless they were classified as an explosive.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, noted that for storage yards located on an Entrance
Corridor, a special permit would be required regardless of the zoning.
Mr. Boyd said if he drove a dump truck as a side business and lived in the rural areas, could he
keep that dump truck on his property. Ms. McCulley said that typically falls under a home occupation. Mr.
Boyd asked what if it was a backhoe. Ms. McCulley said it could be permitted, but if it constitutes heavy
equipment it would not fall within a home occupation – oversize, overweight, more than five axles. There
are limitations, Class A versus Class B, visibility, etc.
Mr. Slutzky asked about the impact on a gun owner with a facility storing incidental ammunition.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that this ordinance does not apply to that situation.
Ms. Thomas commented that VDoT regulations seem to prohibit oversized and overweight
equipment on certain roads anyway. Mr. Cilimberg acknowledged that this does seem to be the case.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. W ill Yancey, a County resident, referred to the portion of the staff report which states that: “In
recent years, concern has been expressed by some members of the public and some members of the
Board of Supervisors regarding the potential impact of the Contractor’s Office and Equipment Storage
Yard as a by right use in the LI District. This has been of particular concern as some properties zoned LI
are located in close proximity to primarily residential areas or are located on roads that may not be
adequate to handle the type of traffic that can be associated with such uses.” He is aware of at least one
area in the County that has arterial road access, proximity to I-64, adjacency to utilities, and has very few
neighbors.
Mr. David W yant, resident of W hite Hall District, said that there are nuclear testing devices that
measure the compaction of the soil and aggregate, and perhaps the language could be modified to reflect
this.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Davis about Mr. W yant’s concern.
Mr. Davis responded that the language is intended to cover storage of nuclear material, and it
would likely be interpreted as such, so additional wording is not really needed here.
Mr. Rooker noted that staff did a thoughtful and precise treatment of this issue.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt ZTA-2005-007. Mr. Rooker seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 08-18(6)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 24.2.1 By right
Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 25.2.1 By right
Sec. 25.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 25A.2.1 By right
Sec. 25A.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 27.2.1 By right
Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Sec. 28.2.2 By special use permit
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Regulations
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Heavy equipment. Equipment that requires an oversize/overweight permit from the Virginia Department of
Motor Vehicles to be transported over public highways.
Heavy equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yard: An area used for parking, storing and/or
maintaining heavy equipment and heavy vehicles used off-site in the trade, business or other commercial
or industrial activity of the owner or occupant (collectively, the “off-site activity”), and which may include
storing and maintaining heavy equipment and heavy vehicles within buildings or structures and storing
explosives, including blasting caps, that are used in the off-site activity, and kerosene and other volatile
materials in volumes that are reasonably necessary to maintain equipment and vehicles; but which use
does not include storing nuclear products, by-products or wastes.
Heavy vehicles. Vehicles that have more than five (5) axles or haul heavy equipment. For the purposes
of this definition, the axles of tractor trucks and their trailers shall be counted as though they are a single
vehicle.
Storage yard: An area used for parking, storing and/or maintaining equipment, vehicles and materials
used off-site in the trade, business or other commercial or industrial activity of the owner or occupant, and
which may include storing and maintaining equipment, vehicles and materials within buildings or
structures; but which use does not include parking, storing and/or maintaining heavy equipment and heavy
vehicles, storing explosives, including blasting caps, storing nuclear products, by-products or wastes, or
storing kerosene or other volatile materials except that which is reasonably necessary to maintain
equipment and vehicles.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 24.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of
these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other
appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use
shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of
locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the
zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.
46. Storage yards.
Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the HC district:
Sec. 25.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the PD-SC district:
1. Uses permitted by right in the C-1, CO and HC districts, except for storage yards.
Outdoor storage, sales or display shall be permitted only when enclosed by appropriate
visual screening.
Sec. 25.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the PD-SC district:
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
1. Commercial recreational establishment included but not limited to amusement centers,
bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83)
2. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil
transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange
centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances (reference 5.1.12).
3. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade. (Added 11-7-84)
4. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-
9-92)
5. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). (Added 11- 15-89)
6. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
7. Storage yards.
(§ 20-25.2.2, 12-10-80; 1-1-83; 11-7-84; 11-15-89; 9-9-92; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 25A.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the PD-MC district:
1. Uses permitted by right in the C-1, CO and HC districts, except for storage yards.
Outdoor storage, sales or display shall be permitted only when enclosed by appropriate visual
screening.
. . .
Sec. 25A.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the PD-MC district:
1. Uses permitted by special use permit in the C-1, CO and HC districts.
2. Outdoor amphitheater (reference 5.1.37). (Added 10-9-96)
3. Storage yards.
Sec. 27.2.1 By right
Except as otherwise limited by section 27.2.2.10, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the LI
district: (Amended 2-13-85)
9. Storage yards.
Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the LI district:
18. Heavy equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yards.
Sec. 28.2.1 By right
Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted by right in the HI
district: (Amended 2-13-85)
19. Storage yard.
26. Heavy equipment and heavy vehicle parking and storage yards.
Sec. 28.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the HI district:
. . .
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARINGS: STA-2008-001. Rural Areas 2-lot street standard;
single point of access. Amend Sections 14-207, Rural subdivisions, 14-404, Lot location to allow access
from lot onto street or shared driveway, 14-412, Standards for private streets only, and 14-434,
Completion of on-site improvements required prior to plat approval, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of
the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 14-207 by making rural subdivisions
subject to Sec. 14-404; Sec. 14-404 by requiring that the first subdivision plat approved for a parcel after
the effective date of this ordinance (the “parent parcel”) must establish a single public or private access
from an existing public or private street outside of the parent parcel to the lots within the subdivision, and
would require that the proposed street provide such access for all future subdivisions within the parent
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
parcel, and would delete the requirement that all subsequent divisions of the residue enter only onto such
streets shown on the approved final plat and have no immediate access onto any public street; Sec. 14-
412 by deleting the standard for residential private streets serving 2 lots and requiring such streets to meet
the standard currently required for streets serving 3 to 5 lots; Sec. 14-434 by deleting the exception for
certain private streets from the requirement that all on-site improvements be completed prior to approval
of the final plat where surety in lieu of completion of the improvements is not authorized. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 22 and November 3, 2008.)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said this proposed amendment has two parts –
establishment of rural area roads standards for private roads serving two lots and requirement for all
subdivision from the adoption date of the ordinance forward share the same entrance. The proposal
would eliminate the current two-lot road standard, which currently requires reasonable access, and would
make the two-lot division subject to the same street requirements as a three to five lot standard, and the
proposed text would also recommend the driveway standard of maximum slope of 16 percent and a clear
zone of 14 feet. Mr. Fritz explained that the purpose of amending the two-lot standard is to improve
emergency access to properties, improve routine access to these properties, and provide better planning
for roads which may be extended in the future to serve other properties.
Mr. Boyd noted that if it were extended in the future, it would have to come under the three-lot
provision and have to be improved anyway. Mr. Fritz responded that there are some cases where the
right of way width is not adequate, and a road extension may require a 50-foot easement. He added that
those issues would have to be dealt with one way or another anyway.
Mr. Fritz said that the Zoning Ordinance currently requires that prior to issuance of a building
permit, that the standards must be met for access to a new dwelling based on access for public safety
vehicles. He noted that the Subdivision Ordinance currently has a road standard for three or more lots,
and the draft ordinance would make it apply to two or more lots. Mr. Fritz said that the Zoning Ordinance
lot access standards are more restrictive than the Subdivision road standards – maximum grade is 16
percent with vertical clearance of 14 feet. He added that the three to five lot road standard says that if
there is more than seven percent grade it must be paved but there is no maximum grade, nor is there a
clear zone requirement.
Mr. Rooker asked if an additional lot is developed off of a current one-lot driveway the current
private drive standard would be applied when that lot was developed. Mr. Fritz affirmed this, adding that it
would be applied when the building permit was applied for, for the second dwelling.
Mr. Rooker added that without this proposed amendment, the driveway would have to meet the
private driveway standard that is now in place. Mr. Fritz responded, ‘yes” for the driveway, but not
necessarily the private street.
Mr. Graham explained that up to the point where the two driveway split, that would be a two-lot
private road rather than a shared driveway. He said that if it were a newly created driveway, the grade
requirement is there so it becomes easier to convert the driveway into a private road.
Mr. Rooker asked if a possible option would be to require a private drive that effectively becomes
a private street to serve two lots to at least meet the private drive standard rather than a three to five lot
road standard.
Ms. Mallek said that the safe and convenient access clause into the Subdivision Ordinance should
cover this.
Mr. Graham agreed, stating that staff is trying to provide consistency between the two
requirements.
Mr. Davis explained that the grade and clearance requirement would have to be put on a two-lot
private road street.
Mr. Fritz said there is an inconsistency here and staff is trying to point out that there could be a
three to five lot road that is 17 percent, but the driveway coming off of that can only be 16 percent. He
added that the street standards for private streets have sight distance requirements which a driveway
does not have.
Ms. Thomas asked him to describe sight distance that is not on the receiving street. Mr. Fritz
replied that this refers to horizontal and vertical curves that are not too sharp, on the road itself.
Mr. Davis noted that there would be sight distance requirements wherever this street intersects
with a VDoT street.
Mr. Fritz explained that the second part of the proposal would be to require all subdivisions of a
property from the effective date of the ordinance forward to share the same point of access (SPOA), with
the purpose of reducing the number of entrances onto a public road and thereby reducing conflict points
for accidents, reduce the number of access points serving the property. The resulting roads would meet a
higher construction standard and the private road maintenance would be shared amongst more
properties.
W hat happens now? Step 1 – Rural subdivision creating two lots, Parcel A and Parcel B, on an
existing public road. Step 2 – Parcel A divides into Parcel A1 and Parcel A2; parcel B divides into Parcel
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
B1 and B2. Result – two entrances on public road and two separate two-lot private roads. Mr. Fritz said
that by doing this in multiple steps, the requirement for all lots to be served by a single point of access
would be avoided.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that none of the proposed changes included in the ordinance affect family
subdivision or development areas shared driveways; this is for the rural areas. He said that the Board
could adopt this is as written, defer for a roundtable discussion, or include additional provisions such as
exemption if commercial sight distance is not available, and use of development rights would be
prohibited, allowing additional entrance based on road frontage or separation, allowing for additional
entrances for factors such as agricultural use or stream crossings.
Mr. Fritz said he has met with some members of the public to discuss how this ordinance would
affect some actual properties and some theoretical issues. He presented an example of a 25 acre
property with five division rights. He also presented an example of a rural subdivision where all lots are
five acres or greater and have 250 feet of frontage; at least one of the lots has to be served by some type
of internal street because of the provision in the ordinance that applies to subdivisions. He said that this
ordinance makes rural divisions subject to the same regulations as subdivisions for purpose of entrance
onto public streets.
Mr. Boyd asked what would happen if they only wanted to divide into two lots. Mr. Fritz responded
that if the 25 acres were divided into two lots, a single point of access would need to serve the lots unless
a waiver were granted, regardless of frontage or size of parcels.
Mr. Rooker said that he interpreted the need for this as a way to address subdivision applications
that intend to provide multiple lots even though they only apply for one at a time.
Ms. Mallek said there has to be a middle ground here besides what they are looking at.
Mr. Fritz said that a timetable for phasing has been discussed by the Board previously.
Ms. Mallek commented that multiple division of the same piece of property is different than
phasing.
Mr. Rooker stated that Mr. Fritz’s example is not really a two-step subdivision, it is a rural
subdivision that is permitted because of the road frontage serving each of the lots.
Mr. Fritz explained that what’s proposed is a single subdivision, but it does have a two-step
component to it because there is one development right remaining that would be allocated to one of these
lots and allow it to be further divided.
Ms. McCulley added that staff discussed having properties with significant road frontage getting
separate entrances.
Mr. Fritz presented a few more examples, including one property that has a conservation
easement. He said that there are 26 parcels in the County that are more than 725 acres – some are
owned by U.Va., the City, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, or Shenandoah National Park. He indicated that
the ordinance allows for a waiver to be granted by the Planning Commission if the property has an
unusual size, topographical challenges, or other conditions such as the proposed road bisecting
agricultural land. Mr. Fritz noted that staff has cited agricultural concerns as an issue favorable to the
granting of a modification.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the administrative waiver could also include ecological systems.
Mr. Fritz replied that the ordinance already includes exceptions for “other unusual circumstances,”
such as endangered species habitat, historic resources, etc.
Ms. McCulley said that it would be helpful to have guidance as far as the waiver.
Mr. Rooker responded that the size of the parcel and size of the frontage makes a difference, and
a division served by driveways may be less disruptive than trying to force a subdivision to take place off of
a single point of access and try to meander a road throughout it to reach the parcels. He said that an
ordinance may have unintended consequences, as it is often “one size fits all.”
Mr. Graham agreed, stating that staff felt this is an example of why waivers should be granted
rather than constructing the road.
Ms. Mallek noted that the impact of conservation easements could be significant also, as
landowners have expressed concern about requiring roads when they have already donated the
easements.
Mr. Graham said that the reasons for single points of access are to improve public safety, to
protect transportation investments, and to assure the County has consistency with proposed VDoT access
management regulations – currently under administrative review but already adopted for major primary
roads. He explained that VDoT’s access management strategy emphasizes the single point of access, as
they are trying to reduce crashes and crash potential. Mr. Graham said that VDoT would also like to
preserve roadway capacity and useful life of roads, decrease travel time and congestion, improve the
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
quality of property access, better coordinate land use and transportation decisions, improve air quality by
reducing pollution through stop and start emissions, and maintaining travel efficiency.
He said that the question that often arises is the private driveway entrance (one or two lot
driveway) versus commercial entrance (three or more lots). VDoT treats the sight distance requirements
at a commercial entrance the same as it would for a road entrance. Mr. Graham explained that the
stopping distance is the same for a private driveway serving two lots as an entrance serving 100 lots, and
the amount of time for that person to recognize that a car coming out is the same regardless of how many
vehicles are coming out. He said that private driveways do have a reduced sight distance requirement,
but that is a risk-management strategy and is not a difference in the stopping distances. Mr. Graham said
that VDoT is essentially saying that an increased risk with a small private drive is accepted in order to
balance the property owner’s use of their property against the access management strategies. He added
that in an ideal world, there would be no private driveways coming off of these roads. Reducing the
number of private entrances reduces the risk which is the heart of what VDoT is doing with their access
management strategy.
Mr. Graham reported that he visited the Reas Ford/W oodlands Road area and found that if you
are coming from Reas Ford and going onto W oodlands, it meets the safety standards from VDoT’s
perspective. He then presented photos of the private entrance versus what you would be required for a
commercial entrance.
Mr. Graham summarized the differences between the existing ordinance and the proposed
ordinance, stating that the current provisions maximize the property owner’s ability to develop, and
minimizes consideration of area transportation impacts and public safety. The proposed ordinance
improves the considerations for the area transportation impacts and public safety but restrict the property
owner’s development in certain circumstances.
Mr. Graham said this is something that the Board has to balance. It is a policy decision – public
safety versus the property owner’s interest. The question to ask is “are there additional compromises”.
Mr. Graham suggested that one compromise might be to limit this to primary highways and high-volume
secondary roads – any road that has an average daily traffic count of 4,000 vehicles or more. Another is
to establish a minimum separation between driveways, e.g. 500 feet between private driveways if more
than one on property. Another is consideration is automatically allowing additional private entrances for
properties where VDoT indicates no commercial entrance exists along frontage.
Ms. Thomas commented that traffic volume is not a good one to use, as traffic would likely
increase over time and the driveways will already be in place. The others look like they have some
possibilities. She added that one thing that has led her to have more concern about rural road safety is
that some statistics show more fatal accidents occur there than on interstates and primary roads. Ms.
Thomas also noted that the Secretary of Transportation has indicated that there wouldn’t be any State
money for improving rural roads and safety measures there.
Mr. Graham pointed out that with suburban forms of development, you quickly overwhelm the
secondary roads and better access management might help delay or avoid the need to upgrade those
roads.
Ms. Mallek added that they should also consider the paving requirements, as maintaining them is
a lot more difficult and requires a huge investment. She also expressed concern about the seven percent
grade being a trigger for more stringent road requirements.
Mr. Graham replied that the seven percent was a judgment call, but at some point the erosive
velocities get high enough from the grade that the sediment is washed away and moves downstream.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is a private road standard that applies for developments of
three or more lots, and this ordinance considers moving it down to two-lot subdivisions.
Ms. Mallek noted that she has not heard any complaints about the existing three to five lot
subdivisions.
Mr. Graham said staff fully supports looking at some alternatives if it can be assured that it will not
cause an environmental problem because of erosive velocities from a steeper grade.
Mr. Rooker said that there are lots of private drives with the erosion issues, and that is separate
from the issue of allowing a two-step process that circumvents the existing ordinance. He stated that
there is the issue of safety and the number of entrances onto roads, and issues of environmental aspects,
but this process was not started because of a desire to apply private road standards to a two-lot
subdivision if the two-step process were done away with. He suggested coming up with something that
takes those issues into consideration these things in a common-sense way. Mr. Rooker said that there is
a lot more subdivision in the rural areas now than there was 20 years ago, and that would likely increase in
the future and further impact safety on roads.
Mr. Graham mentioned that slowly, one driveway at a time, conditions on those roads worsen.
The Chairman then opened the public hearing.
Mr. David van Rojien said it appears to him the Board is trying to encompass too many restrictions
into one ordinance. If the County wants to restrict the number of driveways, then that should be done, but
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
putting all of the issues into one provision is a lot like the attempted Mountain Protection Ordinance. He
believes that staff needs to start over and focus on just one issue. It needs to be kept simple.
Mr. Brian Ray said he is a land surveyor and County resident. He appreciates staff’s discussion
points to generate public comment, including loss or restriction of development rights, longer roads, and
environmental impacts of paved driveways and longer interconnected roads. He added that there should
be more time to discuss these issues with the public. He asked that the Board not take action on this
proposal tonight.
Ms. Linda McRaven said this is just another proposal that assaults property rights. She said that it
is much safer having people access onto a smaller road. It is a more reasonable approach when there
are road frontage and sight distance. Ms. McRaven commented that when you start looking for other
reasons to deny people access you are eliminating the ability for them to use their division rights. She
does not mind having a gravel driveway. It should be a personal preference for someone to pave or not
pave their driveway. She maintains her long driveway with gravel and has no problem with doing that.
She also mentioned that audience members are having difficulty hearing Board members speak.
Mr. Morris Foster said he is a land surveyor and land planner. He has seen a lot of proposed and
amended ordinances. He said that the only bad point about the existing ordinance is possible abuse of
the two-step process. Abuse can be handled by requiring a time limit on the second division. Regarding
the safety issues, he would like to have staff investigate with VDoT and the Police Department how many
accidents are caused by people pulling out of their driveways. Mr. Foster stated that this new ordinance
would have negative environmental impacts and would hinder property owners’ abilities to use their
property, and would likely generate many waiver requests. He asked the Board to take another look at the
entire process, address the current problems and leave the good parts of the ordinance alone.
Mr. Carl Tinder, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, expressed concern on behalf of
County landowners that this may impede their ability to sell as it would force them to map out their entire
parcel for development rather than one or two parcels to save the whole.
Mr. Roger Ray said he has been a land surveyor and land planner in the area for many years. He
came to this meeting well prepared as he felt he thoroughly studied the proposed amendment, but now he
is totally confused. Mr. Ray said that the additional data needs to be assessed and reviewed. The
consequences of the new ordinance are not favorable to the environment or landowner. He also agreed
that a roundtable discussion would be a good idea – with a Planning Commission member, Board
member, staff, and others in the community to iron out the issues. He asked the Board to not take action
on the proposed amendment at this time.
Mr. David Carr said that his family owns property in western Albemarle. He objects to the
proposed amendment. The proposed change would make it difficult and expensive for a rural landowner
to sell a lot in the event of financial difficulty. As it is now, a purchaser can use an existing driveway to
access a lot, but this new ordinance would be “overkill” for one additional house. For years existing
driveways have served their purpose and continue to do so. There is no need to require a larger and
improved road for one additional house. He thinks there is a better way to address the issue.
Mr. Joe Jones, of W hite Hall, said this ordinance is the equivalent of rezoning a large portion of
the County and would make it difficult for landowners to sell one parcel of their property. There needs to
be further discussions on this proposal and he thinks the Board needs to defer taking action. He also
added that landowners should be notified by writing of potential changes such as this. If you want public
information, he thinks the County needs to notify all the landowners that would be affected in writing.
Ms. Clarabelle W heeler, of Stony Point Road, agreed with Mr. Jones that landowners should be
notified in writing before making any changes to their property. She said that no country in the world has
ever succeeded when they restrict individual freedoms. She emphasized that no one can foresee what
their future financial demands will be, and land enables people to feed and shelter their families. Ms.
W heeler commented that most people with gravel roads like them that way, and, in her opinion, paved
roads are an “environmental abomination” in a rural area. She asked the Board to not take any action to
further restrict property owners land use.
Mr. Corky Shackleford, of Stony Point, said he also support previous comments made by Ms.
McRaven. He senses in all this discussion an assumption that most larger landowners are just waiting to
subdivide all of their land as profitably and quickly as possible. That is a mistake and if they wanted to do
it, it would have been done a long time ago. Most landowners who own considerable acreage are not
eager to sell, but want to keep it the way it is. He said that proposals such as this will encourage more
development, which will mean additional traffic on the roads. The idea of traffic safety may not be as valid
as it sounds.
Ms. Elizabeth Gibson Goss, a resident of the W hite Hall District, said that she lives on a 37-acre
farm and is surrounded by four other farms that comprise over 700 acres. Ms. Goss explained that at one
point all of these parcels were together. The County has already made her five division rights not useful to
her because of stream crossings and other barriers. She said that she bought her property under
conditions that were established by this Board’s predecessors, adding that her property is in land use and
is all that she has. Ms. Goss stated that the County is putting landowners in a position where they have
limited choices, and encouraging them to subdivide. She also agreed with the concept of a roundtable
discussion, adding that there is no “conflict” between people and safety. Ms. Goss suggested that to
address the safety issue, setting mailboxes further back would be helpful. There is a lot more that can be
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
done with safety other than adding laborious and expensive rules. There needs to be additional statistics
to justify a limitation on the number of driveways.
Ms. Sarah Henley, of Crozet, commented that this looks like a back-door downzoning. She hopes
this is not a way for the Board to try to decide how it can keep landowners from exercising their property
rights as opposed to a real safety issue. She also hopes the waivers and the process for deciding on
them are applicable to the growth area as well as the rural area. In addition, speed limits have an impact
on safety on rural roads. Developing a commercial driveway for two lots would effectively force her to
develop five lots in order to pay for it. The Board should represent landowners’ interests as opposed to
how they should divide their property.
Mr. David W yant, a resident of W hite Hall, said that having a lot of vehicle trips coming out of a
subdivision can create a “major safety issue” on a roadway that has a large amount of traffic. He said that
designing an internal road is a major expenditure, as is maintenance once it is built and paved. If a paved
road is not properly maintained, it becomes a major issue. Mr. W yant encouraged Board members to
separate the issues when evaluating them, and perhaps some clear guidelines can be achieved in other
ways.
Mr. Jeff W erner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, said that there is a cause and effect of
having driveways come out onto major roads. He said that he discussed with Rex Linville, as Mr. Graham
referred to, the possibility of differentiating between major and minor roads. Mr. W erner said that the
access management is an important issue, but there is a way to address it and still accommodate those
who are doing estate planning. He supports further discussion on this issue.
Mr. Bill Ledbetter, a local land surveyor, said this proposal is unnecessary and has multiple layers
of rules and regulations, and if the Board wants to eliminate the two-step process they should just do that.
This proposal would end of forcing VDoT state road standards into the rural areas. He agreed with the
roundtable concept, and suggested getting input from staff, design professionals, and private citizens.
Ms. Rose Scarlett Myers, a landowner in the Earlysville areas, said this is a bad piece of
legislation. She does not think the Board should approve it. She has not heard anything that convinces
here there is something major wrong. She has never seen or heard of anyone in her area having an
accident coming out of their driveways. Ms. Myers said that if she were to develop her 91 acres, she
would have to sell it off to developers under this scenario. She also added that having to put in the
possibility for many waivers indicates it’s a flawed proposal to begin with.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Boyd said that the initial intent of this was to solve the simple problem of the two-step process,
and this takes it further. He stated that this should be kicked back to staff for further discussion with the
public in a roundtable to resolve the specific issue related to the two-step.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the statistics she provided earlier were specific to Albemarle, but did
not include information about how many of these were related to driveways coming onto roads. The worst
accidents are likely related to driving on windy roads and drinking.
Mr. Rooker said that there was some mention today that existing and new driveways would need
to be paved, and that is not the case. He stated that all that is being considered here is the two-lot
situation where the existing requirements are dodged by landowners coming in and pursuing a two-step
process. Mr. Rooker commented that perhaps the situation of too many driveways coming out too close
together could be addressed by spacing requirements on entrances.
Mr. Dorrier expressed concern about the cost of roads, and gravel roads are typical in the rural
area. He said that asphalt roads create runoff, and the rural rustic road that the Highway Department
recommends is more of what is needed in the rural area. He does not think the Board is ready to deal
with this ordinance tonight; it needs to deal with simplicity.
Mr. Slutzky agreed, stating that public comments reinforced that, and perhaps staff could be
directed to address the items stated in the three bullets in the staff report. He also said that holding a
roundtable discussion seems to have consensus, and hopefully that will generate some clear explanation
of what is intended to be accomplished. He thinks there is a lot of confusion on what the Board was
attempting to accomplish by this ordinance. Mr. Slutzky added that he would like to investigate why the
sound system is not working well.
Mr. Boyd added that requesting waivers should be an exception, not a frequent occurrence.
Mr. Rooker responded that in the case of critical slopes, waivers are given very frequently, and
essentially that encourages engineering measures to be put in place. He said that perhaps it needs to be
conveyed to staff what is intended to be accomplished with this ordinance. One of the issues is
inconsistency between private road and driveway standards. Mr. Rooker said that if a private road
standard is not applied to a two-lot subdivision, then the private drive serving the second home should at
least meet the private drive standards. He also mentioned the issue of driveways being located too close
to one another.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Slutzky agreed, adding that waivers are only a bad idea if the eligibility for a waiver is unclear.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to defer STA-2008-01 until staff brings back another
version of the ordinance.
Mr. Davis noted that if the ordinance changes dramatically, it may have to go back to the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Mallek offered to attend the roundtable discussions. Board members supported her
participation in the roundtable.
Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Slutzky asked about the rules for placement of mailboxes.
Mr. Graham responded that that is totally out of the County’s hands and confirmed that the
Federal government regulates that.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the issue of distinguishing between types of roads was brought up,
and said that she had an interest in that.
Mr. Rooker agreed it was a good point of consideration and said it should be accounted for. The
interest of VDoT in preserving the capacity of roads is more acute on roads like Route 250, Route 20,
Route 29, etc.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ZTA-2006-001. Country Stores. Amend Sections
3.1, Definitions, 6.4, Nonconforming lots, 10.2.1, By right, 10.2.2, By special use permit, and 10.4, area
and bulk regulations, and add Section 5.1.45, Country store and non-country store uses in historic country
store buildings, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend
Section 3.1 by defining certain terms related to country stores; Section 6.4 by adding regulations
pertaining to country stores on nonconforming lots; Section 10.2.1, by adding Country stores, Class A, as
a by right use in the Rural Areas zoning district; Section 10.2.2, by adding Country stores, Class B
(replacing “Country stores” as a special use), non-country store uses in historic country store buildings,
and the sale of gasoline and other fuels in conjunction with a country store, Class A or B, as uses allowed
by special use permit; and Section 10.4, by adding an introductory statement. This ordinance also would
add Section 5.1.45 to establish supplementary regulations for country stores, Classes A and B, and non-
country store uses in historic country store buildings. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 22 and
November 3, 2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that this zoning text amendment generated out of the Comprehensive Plan with
the rural areas section that focused on crossroads communities and alternative uses for rural properties,
as well as the interest of the Historic Preservation Committee. Country stores are a particular use typical
of crossroads communities with potential alternative uses because stores have been struggling to survive
and are often threatened by demolition. He said that the Planning Commission held a work session and
made a recommendation to the Board, which was discussed on September 3, 2008. Mr. Cilimberg said
that staff is in the process of compiling a catalog of existing country stores. The ordinance makes a
distinction between Class A stores – those that are 50 years or older – allowed by-right in the RA district,
and Class B stores – those that are less than 50 years old and would be allowed by special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and National Register of Historic
Places uses the 50-year criteria to define what are considered to be historic properties.
The size would have a maximum of 4,000 square feet or whatever size an existing store is. The
primary use would need to be a country store with a secondary use of residence or offices. Food service
would not be limited in preparation, but seating allowed inside and outside would be up to 20 percent of
total gross square footage. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there are exemptions for the Class A historic
country stores regarding some of the site development regulations that would not permit those stores to
be rehabilitated or reopened. Expanded or new Class B stores would be required to comply with most
regulations. He said that there would be VDoT review for sight distance at entrances, a special use permit
for limited gasoline sales, and the opportunity for historic country stores located on very small lots to have
non-conventional sewage disposal systems if they meet a tier of ordinance criteria. Mr. Cilimberg added
that accessory uses would be allowed to use that system only if it is required by the country store use
itself.
At the Board’s work session, they gave direction regarding the added restrictions for canopies
over gasoline fuel dispensers, and what has been brought back is the restriction that existing canopies
can be removed, reduced in size or retained as is, but cannot be enlarged. New canopies can only be
allowed for the Class B stores subject to a special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the adoption date would be today, and staff has further clarified the section
pertaining to pre-existing stores. He added that there is a chance that there would be additional
applications as this essentially liberalizes country store provisions. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Commission recommends approval, as do staff, and it has been amended to reflect the Board’s direction
offered at the September 3rd work session.
Ms. Mallek asked how the balance of a large canopy associated with new gas stations would be
addressed. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the special use permit process would allow that review to take
place, and the number of dispensers for gasoline is limited. The area for coverage is not the same as that
found at an urban gas station.
Mr. Slutzky asked why we would encourage additional petroleum tanks in the rural areas? He
expressed concern about the problems caused by gas pumps, and he is not sure why the County would
want to do anything to facilitate installation of new fuel facilities in the rural areas. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that that has been a consideration for country store owners who are hoping to bring customers
locally by offering gas at their stores.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the state and EPA address the fuel issues.
Mr. Slutzky said that the regulations do not always prevent contamination. There are people in the
area who drink water that may be impacted by this. He added that there are 47 already identified Class A
country store locations that would be grandfathered. He asked if the Board wants to stimulate new stores
with gas pumps with this ordinance.
Mr. Rooker replied that this is allowing use and reuse and adaptable use of existing structures.
The gas pumps have not always been regulated. He also said that the galvanized tanks frequently used
in the past are the ones that have created problems over the years, and today’s tanks are much safer. Mr.
Rooker emphasized that there is a significant benefit to having gas available at these locations so the
owner can reasonably attract customers and those customers do not have to drive away to get gas.
Mr. Slutzky expressed concern about opening up these stores to all kinds of other uses. Today
gas regulations are very good but tanks still leak.
Ms. Mallek said that she likes the idea of variety offered at these stores.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Davis if there is any risk for unintended consequences by using the phrase
“country store” to define the use. Mr. Davis responded that the definition of country store says the store
offers a “wide variety of retail merchandise.”
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are also size limitations to the stores along with the types of Class
A and Class B.
Ms. Thomas asked about the sewage disposal systems, and suggested changing the language
from “may require that the applicant maintain the system as recommended by the Department of Health or
required by law” to “shall…” or “must….”
Mr. Davis explained that that is almost a redundant requirement as maintenance is a condition of
the Health Department for a non-conventional system.
Ms. Thomas said she still likes the double enforcement.
Ms. Mallek concurred.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joe Jones, a resident of W hite Hall, said that in 1999 the Federal requirement went in to
replace steel fuel tanks, and now they are double-wall, noncorrosive fiberglass that has to be pressure-
tested every few years. He said that store owners have to pay to have water removed from their tanks to
accommodate ethanol products, and also have to post a bond or letter of credit in case there is a spill –
both expenses that take time to recover.
Mr. Boyd asked him if there was anything about this ordinance he did not like.
Mr. Jones replied that many of these country stores have reinvented themselves, and perhaps
increasing the allowed size from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in the event a storeowner might want to
accommodate antiques or other large items.
Ms. McCulley said that she could address that specific concern later in the meeting.
Ms. Margaret Maupin read a letter (copy on file) that she had emailed to the Board earlier in the
day. She said that her husband co-owns with his father Maupin Brothers Grocery in Free Union, which
has been serving the community since 1928 and has remained a family-owned and operated business
during that time. Ms. Maupin said that in 1961, the store moved into the current building, making it three
years shy of the 50-year designation. She noted that under this provision, Class B stores have fewer
opportunities than Class A to make changes – such as septic systems. She asked that their store not be
unduly restricted as they attempt to make a living and provide a service that community members have
come to trust. They need to have options available. She asked that consideration be given to their
business.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Jeff W erner said that perhaps the 50-year date could be a floating date as those structures
will be eligible for historic designation as they age. He encouraged the Board to provide some flexibility,
and expressed his excitement about the ordinance.
Mr. David W yant said he is the fourth generation owner of his store. His store is like a community
gathering place. He is committed to the country store. He confirmed that the tanks are inspected
frequently. He said that they do not sell much gas each week, but people do not want to go into town
every time they need some. Mr. W yant said that special use permits require a fee. He hopes that he
would be able to rebuild his store if necessary.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. McCulley noted that the 4,000 square foot limit is in the definition and currently someone
cannot seek a modification of this limit. Staff moved it out of the definition and into the supplemental
regulations so that the Board and Planning Commission could modify it and expand it through the by-right
or special use permit process.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the Planning Commission had wanted to include a date in time that
reflected the historic nature of stores that the ordinance was trying to address, but staff is aware that other
stores are going to age and the Board would probably end up revising the ordinance if they do not put in a
floating date.
Mr. Dorrier said it seems to have merit to include a date that has continuous use for 40 or 45
years.
Ms. Thomas suggested that a date less than 50 years could be set, such as 1965, so that they are
erring on the side of allowing some flexibility.
Mr. Slutzky said that he would be comfortable changing it to 1965.
Mr. Rooker asked if the primary difference between the designations is the exemptions.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is by-right so store owners would be exempted from provisions, and
Class B accommodates larger, more modern stores.
Ms. Joan McDowell, Principal Planner, noted that there is something already in the ordinance in
the form of an administrative approval for an alternate septic system.
Mr. Davis mentioned that that would only apply if it were a non-conforming structure. He
explained that if there is a septic tank for a non-conforming structure and the tank fails, then the Zoning
Administrator can make a determination after they have exhausted their ability to restore the existing
septic tank under current regulations. If they cannot do that, the Zoning Administrator can allow them to
have alternative means to meet public safety standards – such as an alternative septic system.
Mr. Boyd asked if something should be added to the language related to “continuous operation,”
to accommodate situations such as somebody moving their store location.
Mr. Cilimberg said, from staff’s standpoint, it is better to have a date because otherwise someone
would have to go back and research the record of ownership.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Ivy Store burned down twice. She thinks that they rebuilt on the
original footings. She asked if that removes them from being a historic store.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if at any time there was a building that served as a country store on that
site, it would be interpreted that that business operated as a country store.
Ms. McCulley stated that the record will reflect that that will be the way it’s interpreted.
Board members agreed that the date would be set as January 1, 1965.
Ms. Thomas said that she had a question about the square footage for the allowable eating area.
Mr. Davis pointed out that that’s a supplementary regulation and can therefore be modified.
Mr. Rooker asked where the 20 percent figure came about, noting that a very small store would
have a tiny eating space.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that if it were made larger, the result would be the restaurant becoming
the primary use, but specific owner appeals would allow for modification by the Commission or Board.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt ZTA-2006-001 with the change in the date of
the stores to January 1, 1965, and the change to “shall” regarding the non-conventional sewage system.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-18(7)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 6.4 Nonconforming lots
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
Sec. 10.4 Area and bulk regulations
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.45 Country stores
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article 1. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Country Store: A store whose primary use is to offer for sale a wide variety of retail merchandise.
Country Store, Class A: A country store located in a historic country store building, and which may include
accessory uses including those expressly authorized in section 5.1.45.
Country Store, Class B: A country store located in a non-historic country store building, and which may
include accessory uses including those expressly authorized in section 5.1.45.
Country Store Building, Historic: A building whose primary use at any time on or prior to January 1, 1965
was a country store.
Country Store Building, Non-Historic: A building constructed after January 1, 1965 whose primary use at
any time after that date was a country store.
Article 2. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.45 Country stores
Each country store, Classes A and B, shall be subject to the following, as applicable:
a. Country store, Class A. Each country store, Class A, shall be subject to the following:
1. Primary use. At least fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross floor area of a historic country
store building shall be used as a country store, including accessory food sales and interior
seating for accessory food sales as provided in section 5.1.45(a)(2)(a).
2. Accessory uses. The following uses are permitted as accessory uses:
a. Accessory food sales. Accessory food sales, which may include, but are not
limited to, luncheonettes, snack bars, refreshment stands and other restaurant
uses. Interior seating for luncheonettes, snack bars, refreshment stands and
other restaurant uses shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total gross
floor area of the country store use. An additional twenty percent (20%) of the total
gross floor area of the country store use shall be allowed as exterior seating.
b. Single family dwelling and offices. Up to forty-nine percent (49%) of the gross
floor area of an historic country store building may be used for one single family
dwelling and/or one or more offices.
3. Exemptions. Country stores, Class A shall be exempt from sections 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.12.6,
4.12.13, 4.12.14, 4.12.15, 4.12.16(a) and (b), 4.12.17, 4.12.18, 4.12.19, 6.3 (B), (F) and
(G), 6.4(D), 32.7.2.7, 32.7.2.8, and 32.7.9.
4. Building size. An historic country store building shall not exceed the gross floor area of
the building as it existed on November 12, 2008 or four thousand (4,000) square feet
gross floor area, whichever is greater.
5. Front yard setback. The following minimum front yard setback shall apply:
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
a. Building satisfies minimum front yard setback. If, on November 12, 2008, a
historic country store building satisfies the minimum front yard setback set forth in
section 10.4, then that setback shall apply.
b. Building does not satisfy minimum front yard setback. If, on November 12, 2008,
a historic country store building does not satisfy the minimum front yard setback
set forth in section 10.4, the minimum front yard setback shall be the distance
between the building and the street, road or access easement on November 12,
2008 and that distance shall not be thereafter reduced. An enlargement or
extension of the building shall: (i) be no closer to a right-of-way than the existing
structure or footprint; (ii) be set back from the street, road or access easement
the minimum distance required by the Virginia Department of Transportation to
provide sight distance; and (iii) comply with the rear and side yard setback
requirements, unless they can be reduced pursuant to section 4.11 of this
chapter.
6. Entrances. No existing entrance for a new use shall be used until the Virginia Department
of Transportation approves the entrance to the site. Except for those changes to the
entrance required to meet applicable design standards, provide adequate sight distance
and safe and convenient access as determined by the county engineer, each existing
entrance shall retain its existing site character as determined by the director of planning.
7. Sewage disposal systems. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, if an on-
site conventional sewage disposal system cannot be approved:
a. Off-site conventional sewage disposal system. The zoning administrator may
approve a conventional sewage disposal system to serve a country store and its
accessory uses that is located on an abutting lot, provided that the owner obtains
from the owner of the abutting lot an easement and the deed of easement is in a
form acceptable to the county attorney that provides perpetual access to the
sewage disposal system to allow its installation and maintenance.
b. On-site nonconventional sewage disposal. The zoning administrator may
authorize an on-site nonconventional sewage disposal system if the applicant
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator that: (i) a
conventional sewage disposal system cannot be provided on-site for the country
store use only; (ii) the lot on which the country store use is located cannot be
enlarged by boundary line adjustment or subdivision; (iii) a conventional sewage
disposal system cannot be located on any abutting lot owned by the applicant
because of a physical condition or limitation of that lot including, but not limited to,
topography, soil conditions, or existing improvements on the abutting lot
(hereinafter, a “physical condition or limitation”; (iv) a conventional sewage
disposal system cannot be located on any abutting lot that is under different
ownership than the lot on which the country store is located because of either a
physical condition or limitation or the owner’s refusal to grant an easement; and
(v) the Virginia Department of Health approves the nonconventional sewage
disposal system. In authorizing a nonconventional sewage disposal system, the
zoning administrator shall require that the applicant maintain the system as
recommended by the Virginia Department of Health or as required by law.
c. Systems defined. For the purposes of this subsection, a “conventional sewage
disposal system” means a sewage disposal system regulated and authorized by
the Virginia Department of Health that uses a subsurface soil absorption system;
a “nonconventional sewage disposal system” means a sewage disposal system
regulated and authorized by the Virginia Department of Health that does not use a
subsurface soil absorption system including, but not limited to, a Type III system
regulated under 12 VAC 5-610-250(C).
b. Country store, Class B. Each country store, Class B, shall be subject to the following:
1. Primary use. At least fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross floor area of a non-historic
country store building shall be used as a country store, including accessory food sales
and interior seating for accessory food sales as provided in section 5.1.45(b)(2)(a).
2. Accessory uses. The following uses are permitted as accessory uses:
a. Accessory food sales. Accessory food sales, which may include, but are not
limited to, luncheonettes, snack bars, refreshment stands and other restaurant
uses. Interior seating for luncheonettes, snack bars, refreshment stands and
other restaurant uses shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total gross
floor area of the country store use. An additional twenty percent (20%) of the total
gross floor area of the country store use shall be allowed as exterior seating.
b. Single family dwelling and offices. Up to forty-nine percent (49%) of the gross
floor area of the non-historic country store building may be used for one single
family dwelling and/or one or more offices.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
3. Exemptions. Country stores, Class B, shall be exempt from section 32.7.2.8.
4. Building size. A non-historic country store building shall not exceed the gross floor area of
the building as it existed on November 12, 2008 or four thousand (4,000) square feet
gross floor area, whichever is greater.
5. Front yard setback. The following minimum front yard setback shall apply:
a. Existing building satisfies minimum front yard setback. If, on November 12, 2008,
an existing non-historic country store building satisfies the minimum front yard
setback set forth in section 10.4, then that setback shall apply.
b. Existing building does not satisfy minimum front yard setback. If, on November
12, 2008, an existing non-historic country store building does not satisfy the
minimum front yard setback set forth in section 10.4, the minimum front yard
setback shall be the minimum required by the Virginia Department of
Transportation to provide sight distance.
c. New building. Each non-historic country store building established on and after
November 12, 2008 shall comply with the minimum front yard set forth in section
10.4.
6. Entrances. No existing entrance for a new use shall be used until the Virginia
Department of Transportation approves the entrance to the site. Except for those
changes to the entrance required to meet applicable design standards, provide adequate
sight distance and safe and convenient access as determined by the county engineer,
each existing entrance shall retain its existing site character as determined by the director
of planning.
c. Sale of gasoline and other fuels. If a special use permit is granted for the sale of gasoline and
other fuels, the sale of gasoline from dispensers shall be limited to one multiple product dispenser
or one dispenser containing no more than six nozzles, not including nozzles for diesel fuel.
d. Pre-existing country stores. Any country store existing before and continuing on and after
November 12, 2008 that was authorized by a special use permit or a conditional use permit (the
“permit”) granted by the board of supervisors shall be subject to the following:
1. Country store, Class A. If the country store qualifies as a country store, Class A, the
permit and its conditions shall be of no further force or effect. If the permit or a
modification, waiver, variation, or a variance granted prior to November 12, 2008
authorizes what would otherwise be allowed only by a modification or waiver of the
requirements of section 5.1.45, the country store, Class A and/or the historic country store
building as approved shall be deemed to comply with section 5.1.45.
2, Country store, Class B. If the country store qualifies as a country store, Class B, the
permit and its conditions shall apply or not apply as follows: (i) if the permit has a
condition that is more restrictive than the applicable regulations in section 5.1.45, the
applicable regulations in section 5.1.45 shall apply; and (ii) if the permit or a modification,
waiver, variation, or a variance granted prior to November 12, 2008 authorizes what would
otherwise be allowed only by a modification or waiver of the requirements of section
5.1.45 granted under section 5.1, the country store, Class B and/or the non-historic
country store building as approved, shall be deemed to comply with section 5.1.45.
3. Gasoline fuel dispensers. Gasoline fuel dispensers established prior to November 12,
2008 may qualify as a nonconforming use under section 6.2.
e. Continuation of accessory uses. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, if a country
store, Class A or Class B, use discontinues, an accessory use authorized by sections 5.1.45(a)(2)
or 5.1.45(b)(2) may continue for up to two (2) years thereafter even though a country store, Class
A or Class B use is not reestablished during that period.
f. Canopies. Canopies over gasoline fuel dispensers shall be subject to the following:
1. Canopies existing on November 12, 2008. Canopies existing on November 12, 2008 are
permitted, provided that the location, height, size, area, or bulk of a canopy existing on
November 12, 2008 shall not be thereafter changed, enlarged or extended, and further
provided that the height, size, area or bulk of a canopy may be reduced.
2. Canopies established after November 12, 2008. No canopy may be established at a
country store, Class A, after November 12, 2008. A canopy may be established at a
country store, Class B, after November 12, 2008 as authorized by a special use permit for
a country store, Class B, under section 10.2.2(22)
Sec. 6.4 Nonconforming lots.
A nonconforming lot may continue, subject to the provisions, conditions and prohibitions set forth
herein.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
A. Physical changes to a nonconforming lot. A nonconforming lot may be changed as
follows:
1. Area or width. The area or width, or both, of a nonconforming lot may be
increased to make the lot less nonconforming.
2. Boundary line adjustments. The boundary of a nonconforming lot may be
adjusted provided that one lot sharing the boundary to be adjusted is a conforming lot and the boundary
line adjustment does not make the conforming lot nonconforming or the nonconforming lot more
nonconforming.
3. Public dedication or eminent domain. The area of a nonconforming lot may be
reduced by dedication for a public purpose or by the exercise of eminent domain.
B. Uses allowed on a nonconforming lot. A nonconforming lot may be used as though it
satisfies the zoning regulation that makes it nonconforming, provided that:
1. The use is either a nonconforming use or is a use that complies with the zoning
regulations applicable to the district in which the lot is located; and
2. The zoning administrator determines that the lot may be occupied consistently
with the public health, safety and general welfare.
C. Division, combination, or adjustment of boundary line of nonconforming lot authorized. A
nonconforming lot may be divided, combined with any other lot, or have one or more of its boundary lines
adjusted, provided:
1. The resulting lot or lots comply with the requirements applicable to the district in
which the lot is located and all other applicable requirements of the Albemarle County Code;
2. In the opinion of the zoning administrator, the resulting lot or lots more
substantially conform to the requirements of section 4.0 (general regulations) of this chapter and the area
and bulk regulations applicable to the district in which the lot is located, and comply with all other
applicable requirements of the Albemarle County Code; or
3. The resulting lot or lots serve a country store, Class A or B, and the division,
combination or boundary line adjustment is required to allow the use to meet the requirements of the
Virginia Department of Health and the location of all structures on the resulting lot or lots will not become
nonconforming or more nonconforming, and the size of the resulting lot or lots will not become more
nonconforming.
D. Setbacks applicable to a nonconforming lot. The current front, rear and side yard
minimum setbacks applicable to the district in which the lot is located shall apply to a nonconforming lot;
provided, that if any such setback is thereafter reduced as a result of an amendment to the setbacks
applicable to the district in which the lot is located, and in effect when an existing structure is extended or
enlarged, then that reduced setback shall apply.
E. Effect of change of ownership. A change of the ownership or occupancy of a
nonconforming lot shall not affect the status of the nonconforming lot.
(§§ 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.4, 12-10-80, 4-15-81, 9-21-88, 6-14-89, 9-9-92; Ord. 00-18(4),
6-14-00)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2307.
Article 3. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted in any RA district subject to the requirements and limitations of
these regulations:
24. Country store, Class A (reference 5.1.45).
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors
pursuant to section 31.2.4: (Added 10-9-02)
22. Country store, Class B (reference 5.1.45).
52. Sale of gasoline and other fuels in conjunction with a country store, Class A or Class B
(reference 5.1.45).
Sec. 10.4 Area and bulk regulations
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Area and bulk regulations within the RA, rural areas, zoning district are as follows:
REQUIREMENTS DIVISIONS BY
RIGHT
(Amended 8-14-85)
DIVISIONS BY SPECIAL USE
PERMIT
(Amended 8-14-85)
Gross density 0.5 du/ac 0.5 du/ac
Minimum lot size 2.0 acres 2.0 acres
Minimum frontage
existing public
roads
250 feet
250 feet
Minimum frontage
internal public
or private roads
150 feet
150 feet
Yards, minimum:
Front (existing public roads)
Front (internal public or
private road)(Amended 11-13-
91)
Side
Rear
75 feet
25 feet
25 feet
35 feet
75 feet
25 feet
25 feet
35 feet
Maximum structure height 35 feet 35 feet
_______________
NonAgenda. At 8:41 p.m., the Board took a recessed. The Board reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. CPA 2008-01. Water Supply Planning Update. Amend the Natural
Resources and Cultural Assets and the Land Use sections of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
to reflect new studies and community decisions regarding needed water supply for the Urban Service
Area, new state requirements for County-wide water supply planning, and County initiatives relating to
drought response. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 22 and November 3, 2008.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, explained that this is a public hearing to receive input on an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan – the water resources component of the natural resources
section and the utilities component. He said that the intent is to incorporate references to the Community
W ater Supply Plan adopted by the Board and City Council. Mr. Benish noted that both of these sections
of the Comprehensive Plan have not been updated for a number of years. These sections currently refer
to old water supply planning recommendations – specifically the Buck Mountain Reservoir, an alternative
determined not to be viable any longer. He said that since the adoption of these sections there have been
numerous studies completed to establish a water supply plan for the urban service area. The Board
approved the Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion in June 2006 as a preferred alternative for water
supply to the urban area. Mr. Benish mentioned that the County and the City with the Rivanna W ater and
Sewer Authority are working through the development of a regional water supply plan now required by
State Code, which by 2011 will cover remaining parts of the County.
Mr. Benish said that this is essentially a housekeeping item to ensure that the Comprehensive
Plan reflects the most recent plan adopted by City Council and the Board for water supply planning. The
amendments were also necessary to eliminate some redundancies between the two sections of the Plan
and to streamline the discussion. He stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this initially on July
28, 2008, held a public hearing on September 16, 2008, and recommended adoption of this amendment
on October 7, 2008.
Mr. Benish reported that this removes some of the details in the Natural Resources and Cultural
Assets section of the Plan that are redundant to what is in the Utilities Master Plan, and adds a new
section that refers to the water supply planning process as required by the Commonwealth. He said that it
also removes references to Chris Greene Lake that proposed it be subject to water supply protection, as
those initiatives have already taken place. Mr. Benish said that it also deletes the old yield and demand
information, as it was 15 years old, and refers instead to the water supply plan and adds a
recommendation supporting the County’s role in determining the need and feasibility of maintenance
dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. He stated that staff recommends the Board take public
comment and adopt the proposed amendment.
Mr. Boyd noted that this is the normal process for updating the Comprehensive Plan for
something already approved by the Board. It does not mean this takes options off the table for later. He
noted that on November 25th, the Board will be sitting down with City Council, the Rivanna W ater and
Sewer Authority Board of Directors and the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors to
discuss some of the new issues that have been brought out.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bernard W illiams said he lives in the Ivy area. Many people have told him that water planning
in the County is really about “money and development.” He said that that is how it should be, as those
factors are important elements in the provision of water for a growing population. Mr. W illiams expressed
some concerns, however, stating that he worked in some naval facilities in Vietnam where he had to
ensure adequate and clean water, sewage, etc., and paid close attention to “source, treatment, and
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
delivery infrastructure.” Mr. W illiams said that the water services in the County are not reflective of
adequate attention to management. It is sound planning to maintain the investment in the Rivanna
Reservoir by regular dredging. It is cost-effective and should be done now, then we can get on with
multiple comprehensive studies and hard cost estimates of other possible water sources.” He added that
it would be a shame to destroy the large Ragged Mountain park area with a dam that has no significant
catchment. Good government is about frugality. He is asking this Board to approach this water
development business, as much as we need it, in a frugal manner, not just in new facilities, but in looking
after the facilities we have invested in already.
Ms. Patt Keats said she lives in Key W est. Ms. Keats said that she served on the Rivanna River
Basin Project beginning in 1996 as a property owner on the Rivanna River. Discussion of the 50-year
water plan is in order this evening because of the recommendation on page 9 of Attachment A, of the staff
report. The Board is being asked to add to the Comprehensive Plan the construction of the Ragged
Mountain Reservoir and the imaginary connecting pipeline from the South Fork of the Rivanna Reservoir.
It is difficult for her to spend any more time on something that has already been decided. She stated that
the Board’s approval of the current 50-year water plan continues the cycle of “dubious information that is
being circulated” and the public alarm. Ms. Keats said that only 30 percent of people in the County can
buy this water, and they cannot afford this price tag. She stated that the amendment tonight will remove
some water elements when there is no functioning 50-year plan in place. The locality’s water plan is not
due to the State until 2011 and until there is a functioning plan “all the cards should stay left on the table in
case they need to be included.” There is no rush to do this. Ms. Keats asked what happened to the water
plan from 2002 and 2003, noting that in 2004 the Board passed a resolution regarding the Rivanna
Reservoir that says it is the source of drinking water and its’ reduced capacity is due to sedimentation –
dredging is a key part of it. She mentioned that a Decatur, Illinois model was taken up by this Board and
signed off by members, adding that the Ragged Mountain Dam and pipeline are “under a red flag” by the
City of Charlottesville. She asked that the Board not automatically add this to the Comp Plan.
Mr. Rich Collins said he is a resident of the City and was Chairman of the Rivanna W ater and
Sewer Authority when the dam at Ragged Mountain was determined to need modification in order to
comply with State dam safety requirements. Mr. Collins complemented staff and the County for taking the
Comp Plan so seriously, as few localities in the State do this. In that spirit, he would not remove Buck
Mountain or Chris Greene from potential water supply planning as it is not timely. In addition neither of
these decisions are backed by the same level of serious thought and study that determined that they were
defunct. W e do not know how safe yield analysis will come out. W e do not know that the endangered
species issue would preclude Buck Mountain from being a water reservoir. He emphasized that there is
rumor and hearsay, but no documentation exists that would rule it out. Mr. Collins said that the real issue
is that the water supply plan hinges on whether we are going to conduct a serious evaluation of the
dredging and alternative water supply options rather than build a huge new mega dam at Ragged
Mountain. He also thinks there is a growing public perception that it is risk in waiting to perform a
thorough study, as there could be a drought and run out of water, or there could be a dam collapse that
would damage property and human lives. He added that he has talked for hours with the dam safety
people, and he did not get the impression that they are going to mandate building a new dam. He did not
get that impression from any of the officials he talked to. Mr. Collins added that the dam safety concerns
come largely from the Department of Conservation and Recreation that they have been stiffed and
disrespected. He said that there is an inadequate spillway at Ragged Mountain, but that can be fixed by
adding spillway capacity and does not require construction of a new dam. Mr. Collins asked the dam
safety people what proposals had been presented to them, and they indicated that the only proposal was
from a 2006 letter that indicated there would be a plan by 2011.
Mr. Francis Fife said that 20 years ago he appeared before the Board to encourage the protection
and preservation of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. He hopes the Board would give further
consideration to amending the water plan before it is adopted into the Comp Plan, because if it is added to
the Comp Plan it will be more difficult to be amended. At present, the feasibility and cost of building the
new dam and pipeline location are unknown, as is the cost of pumping the water through it. Mr. Fife said
that the costs for dredging the South Fork have been vastly exaggerated, and he would assume that
examining the South Fork would have proceeded by this time. He added that it is imperative that a better
and less expensive plan be developed, as future rate payers are going to be very unhappy at the costs.
Mr. Fife stated that if the Board decides to amend the Plan, they should adopt the water plan as a concept
only so that changes can be made without great difficulty.
Mr. Jeff W erner said he is a City resident. In 2004-05 he put together a group that included Rich
Collins, Kevin Lynch, and others who seem to have forgotten the discussions that have taken place over
that time and decided something happened with the water supply plan that they cannot recall. He has yet
to see one “smoking gun” document that people refer to showing information. He stated that there was a
VHB study, revised draft May 16, 2001 of recommended alternatives that was adopted by the RW SA. Mr.
W erner stated that dredging for water supply purposes require continuing to keep the sediment out, and if
that is the most valid cost then that should be pursued. He is tired of the “swift boating” of this issue and
he is concerned that people are trying to obstruct the process. Mr. W erner emphasized that there is a
projected deficit of 9.9 million gallons per day, and full dredging and maintenance only gains 5.5 million
gallons. He said that he raised issues about the dredging cost and there is “no news” about the
revelations being presented. Until all the facts are on the table and there is an honest discussion, all he
sees is obstruction.
Mr. Joe Jones said he had family living in Rockfish Depot and others in Nelson County during
Hurricane Camille, and if there were a Camille-type event in the South Rivanna watershed, the whole
reservoir would be filled with that one rain event. He said that dredging and a new water source are
needed for water supply, noting that Sugar Hollow filled up one-third with one rain event. Mr. Jones urged
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
the Board to look at both options, adding that they may want a pipeline sooner than later from South
Rivanna to Ragged Mountain so it can be kept full in case of a rain event.
Ms. Dede Smith, a City resident, said if the Board is going to take Buck Mountain out of the
Comprehensive Plan it should be clarified as to why. She said that the reasoning has “pretty disparate
answers” and whether or not the James River Spiny Mussel was found there, as Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries has listed the site as potential habitat. Ms. Smith stated that the Board should
also clarify what criteria they would need to take a site out of the water supply plan – if they feel a live
specimen is needed, part of a specimen is found, or potential habitat has been determined.
Mr. John Martin said he lives in Free Union. He is speaking as an individual citizen and as a ten
year citizen representative of the water supply planning process. Mr. Martin said that in the early 1990’s
the regulators – DEQ, DGIF, and others – came to tour various sites, including a bridge that crossed over
Buck Mountain Creek. He stated that the regulators found a James Spiny Mussel under the bridge.
Ms. Betty Mooney, a City resident, said she has not ever seen documentation of the James River
Spiny Mussel. Ms. Mooney said that Mr. Boyd was on W INA yesterday commenting on the misinformation
around this concept. She believes the entire plan is based on this misinformation and faulty assumptions
that have been “systematically fed to the press, the public, and to all of the officials.” She added that now
the public is being scared into thinking they have to build this 1,200-foot dam, noting that W ill Goldschmidt
reported that the dam needed to be replaced by 2011 – which he indicated to her that Mr. Frederick had
told him “many times.” Ms. Mooney said that the other misinformation is that there is overwhelming public
support for this plan, and asked for legitimate information that the rate-payers have actually supported
this. She noted that this was first presented publicly in April 2006 as the alternative, and in June 2006 the
County and City voted to approve this – without public hearing. She also said that the original reported
cost from RW SA was $70 million, but The Hook and others have indicated that the cost is closer to $90 to
$107.4 million. Ms. Mooney said that there were statements made that the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
would be maintained, but in a letter from Mr. W erner and others sent to the Board, RW SA stated that it
would do some dredging to maintain water quality but not enough to maintain it as a storage facility. She
indicated that the County is not in a drought and there is no immediate water crisis; that same letter said
that there is no immediate water crisis and safe-yield projections are based on available water during the
worst drought of record; during periods of normal rainfall 97 percent of the water at South Fork flows over
the dam and the safe yield could be significantly increased. Ms. Mooney asked why the Board would do
this tonight, with the City already opposed to this. She suggested doing this as a concept; do not make it
a permanent addition to the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Keith Rosenfeld, a resident of the Ivy area, said he would not want to be where Board
members are right now. Mr. Rosenfeld said that he has met with DEQ, and there is some discussion
about the dam being dangerous but in meetings with the State there is a spillway that needs to be
addressed but there is no crisis with the dam. He added that the dam has moved into a new category
because of additional development downstream from it, so yes – the State is looking at it a little more
closely. Mr. Rosenfeld said that Joe Hassel of DEQ made a statement that four bays could be a viable
option and part of a solution. He added that he was initially concerned about the high price tag presented
for dredging, but new information seems to indicate that this option should be reconsidered. If the facts
are changing, he questions whether we really need to move and do this housekeeping tonight. He asked
if there is any problem in waiting a couple of months and making a better decision with better facts.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks this proposed amendment should be approved. There was an
extensive public process, a decision was reached and made, and this is the water supply plan that the
County and City have adopted. The Board is simply updating the Comp Plan based on that. He does not
understand the backlash unless it is some sort of continuing effort to undermine an outcome that has
already been determined. This is basically a housekeeping method and he does not feel that anything the
Board’s being asked to do is new. He does not know that there is a whole lot of controversy here. He
thinks there are a lot of frustrated people who did not like the outcome of the public process and they
continue to beat their drums of dissent in the hopes that they will stimulate some further delays. He feels
the Board should go ahead and adopt what staff has presented.
Mr. Boyd said that he attended a meeting with all regulatory authorities and he specifically asked
the question about damming Buck Mountain and DGIF said that would never be an option. That was his
deciding moment.
Mr. Rooker said that he was at that meeting and several others with the regulators, and it was
made clear that Buck Mountain would not be approved as a water source. He added that looking at the
standard of least environmental impact – measured by feet of stream inundated and wetlands taken – it
would be difficult to argue that the inundation there would provide the option of least environmental impact
under that standard. Mr. Rooker then suggested the Board wait on taking action on this, as the Board
voted in favor of the plan that came through a long public process and the reservoir is being examined
right now for possible future capacity. The plan everyone voted in favor of was premised on the
information they had at the time, and supposing at the end of the day the plan comes back costing twice
as much as everyone thought it would cost when they voted in favor of it, would they all still go forward
with that plan. He thinks they would have to consider the information they had at that time and make a
decision in the public interest based on the facts as they know them at that time. The Board is meeting
with City Council next week; the City has asked for a more detailed study. The Board may or may not
agree with going forward on that study, but there will probably be significant dialogue, and hopefully come
to a conclusion on the process to go forward in refining the cost estimates and other components of the
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
plan. He thinks the Board in effect is making an additional statement it does not need to make right now.
He does not have a problem with waiting until the Board has its dialogue with the City and perhaps obtain
results from whatever studies are going to be done before construction starts on the dam. Mr. Rooker
added that this is a good plan and there were numerous public information meetings that allowed
comment; the overwhelming majority of people that weighed in on the plan supported it. He also noted
that the 30 percent figure mentioned for those using public water is greatly underestimated. Mr. Rooker
commented that he does not see the urgency in acting on this tonight. This is a housekeeping matter and
it has been in the works for a long time.
Ms. Mallek noted that she was also in attendance at the meeting with regulators. She asked
about the consequences of removing references to Chris Greene as an emergency water supply.
Mr. Benish replied that staff was trying to simplify references and refer to a single specific
document.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that as an emergency release into the North Fork, Chris Greene could be
used at any time. It would be a major change if Chris Greene were turned into a permanent part of the
water supply system. If it has a pipe connecting it to the water treatment collection area as opposed to
going down the runway, it becomes an end source and has regulations such that you cannot swim in it.
Mr. Dorrier said that he is not sure why the plan is coming before the Board tonight.
Mr. Tucker explained that staff started working with this amendment to the plan because they
were moving forward with requesting the necessary regulatory permits for reconstruction of the dam at
Ragged Mountain. This needed to be amended before you could even do that. He added that City
Council has adopted a resolution to delay this.
Mr. Dorrier said that Mr. Frederick has indicated that any delay could be expensive, but he agrees
with Mr. Rooker that this plan could be delayed until after they meet with the City. He also does not
understand all the negativity that has come up all of a sudden about the water supply plan.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the Board seems to support the water supply plan, and his concern
about delaying is that it might project the impression that the plan is somehow unraveling.
Mr. Rooker said that this could be brought back very quickly, and this does not need to be
something that holds up the water supply plan. He supports the water supply plan that was approved
based on information available at that time, but if the plan put out to bid and comes back at double the
cost that will have to be considered. He does not think the Board should move ahead with blinders. Mr.
Rooker commented that what the City approved is not a mandatory statement, but rather a request, and
both jurisdictions must approve whatever plan is moved forward on. He added that the City owns the land
around Ragged Mountain, and the dam process cannot proceed without their approval. He thinks the
Board needs to proceed cooperatively and let reason prevail.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with deferring the decision tonight. He believes they
need to move forward with the 50-year plan, as they have spent a long time on it, but he will accept
delaying it until the meeting with the City. If it becomes extremely cost prohibitive, then the Board should
rethink it, but the issue needs to be resolved.
Ms. Thomas said that Mr. Frederick has indicated that replacing the dam is not an edict, but it is
not a dam that there is a lot of confidence in. She also added that people were very supportive of the
water supply plan, and she has received approximately 237 emails about it. She was pleased to see the
parts in the Comp Plan amendment about water conservation and drought management. Ms. Thomas
said that the Board can decide strategically that this isn’t the time to pass this amendment, but they all
seem to agree that this is the direction to be taken.
Mr. Rooker noted that in this amendment there is language that states “support and participate in
evaluating the need and feasibility for maintenance dredging of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to
preserve its integrity as a water supply and a recreational resource,” and this is the first time that
statement is being made in the Comprehensive Plan. He also added that the Comp Plan is a general
guide, and does not preclude the Board from adding something to the water supply plan, or prevent them
from dredging, or set a timetable for the implementation of the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that a resolution of intent for amendment to the Comp Plan could be
passed, so the ball starts rolling immediately.
Ms. Mallek noted that the item could be brought back on the Consent Agenda.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to defer CPA-2008-01 until December 3, 2008. Mr.
Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(Note: The next three agenda items were discussed concurrently.)
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 15. PROJECT: ZMA-2008-04. NGIC Expansion (Sign #77). PROPOSAL:
Amend general development plan for ZMA 2007-003. Approx 15 acres. CO, Commercial Office - offices,
supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) to allow
an additional 22,100 square feet of basement storage area in Building #1 and an additional 44,200 square
feet of basement storage area in Building #2 in two 4-story buildings of 89,400 square feet each. This
proposal also includes two concurrent special use permits SP-2008-045, an amendment to SP-2007-031,
to allow relocation on property of a 3-story 120 unit apartment building and SP-2008-46, an amendment to
SP-2007-032, to allow revision of research and development uses in the proposed office buildings.
PROFFERS: Yes. LOCATION: East of Rt 29 North, at the end of Boulders Rd, adjacent north of the NGIC
facility. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Portion of Tax Map 33 Parcel 1D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 22 and November 3, 2008.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 16. PROJECT: SP-2008-45. NGIC Expansion (Sign #77). (refer to ZMA 08-
004 NGIC Expansion revised). PROPOSED: Relocation on the property of 120 unit three-story
apartment building at a gross density of 8.0 units per acre on an approximately 15-acre site. LOCATION:
East of Rt 29 North, at the end of Boulders Rd, adjacent north of the NGIC facility. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
Portion of Tax Map 33 Parcel 1D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on October 22 and November 3, 2008.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. PROJECT: SP-2008-46. NGIC Expansion (Sign #77). (refer to ZMA 08-
004 NGIC Expansion). PROPOSED: Revision to allow for research & development uses within proposed
CO Zoning District Office Buildings, 178,800 square feet of office space in two 4-story buildings of 89,400
square feet each. ZMA 2008-004 proposes to allow an additional 22,100 square feet of basement storage
area in Building #1 and an additional 44,200 square feet of basement storage area in Building #2.
LOCATION: east of Rt 29 North, at the end of Boulders Rd, adjacent north of the NGIC facility. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: Portion of Tax Map 33 Parcel 1D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 22 and November 3, 2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that there are three actions to be taken on these requests. He provided
Board members an email (copy on file in the Clerk’s office) received from the Corps of Engineers
regarding the property off of Boulders Road. He explained that the intent is to add storage areas in
Buildings 1 and 2. There are two concurrent special use permits that replace prior approved permits that
are also included with this rezoning request – one to allow 120 residential units and another to allow
research and development uses in the proposed office buildings. Mr. Cilimberg said that this plan would
be part of the Board’s approval as the application plan. The plan consistent with the County’s Land Use
Plan as it was originally and continues to allow for the extension of Boulders Road – identified as
important in the Places 29 Draft Master Plan. He explained that the unfavorable factor has to do with how
stormwater management is being provided, particularly with offsite facilities that are uncertain to be
agreed upon by the Corps of Engineers. But since the staff report and addendum were written, he said,
staff have received written information from the Corps that staff feels satisfactorily resolves the issues with
stormwater management at this stage.
He added that this project has to go through a site plan process, and the particulars of design
would be addressed there. Based on that communication from the Corps staff feels the issues have been
resolved and can be appropriately addressed at the site plan phase. Mr. Cilimberg said that if alternatives
not anticipated by the application plan end up being necessary to change the location of features shown
on that plan, a subsequent rezoning may be necessary. He said that staff and the Planning Commission
recommend approval of ZMA-2008-004 inclusive of the proffers dated October 16, 2008 and signed
October 21, 2008, and approval of the two special use permits with the same conditions that were
originally approved with permits that went with the original zoning.
Mr. Rooker asked what was received from the Army Corps. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the email is
from a person that is based at Rivanna Station.
Mr. Graham said that the Corps of Engineers is responsible for managing the Rivanna Station
project, and he is the person based there and is speaking for the Corps.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scot Collins, representing United Land, said that they have been working to get from the Army
Corps confirmation of their plans for offsite stormwater management. The email from Terry Deglandon is
from the Corps of Engineers and they have certified that the existing pond can accommodate the NGIC
expansion on this site.
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Deglandon was not acting as a project engineer, but instead for
the Corps in reviewing stormwater facilities. Mr. Collins replied, “yes”. Mr. Collins added that the biggest
factor in the delay was their concern that the development of Rivanna Station as well as the NGIC
expansion worked well with the existing pond, which the Corps has now determined.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to approve ZMA 2008-004 inclusive of the proffers dated
October 16, 2008 and signed on October 21, 2008. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
_______________
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve SP-2008-045 subject to the one proposed condition
as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. A maximum number of one hundred twenty (120) apartment units shall be permitted.
_______________
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve SP-2008-046 subject to the conditions as
recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Future research, development/laboratory tenants will be subject to approval of a certified
engineer’s report prior to final site plan approval or occupancy, depending on timing, and
2. If any discharge of other than domestic wastes into the public sewer system is expected, the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) shall be so notified prior to site plan approval.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. PROJECT: ZMA-2008-05. Old Trail Village Block 2 (Signs #1,2,22&47).
PROPOSAL Amend Code of Development to include rest home/assisted living use for approved ZMA-
2004-00024 (Old Trail NMD) which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service
and industrial uses. Approved number of units for Old Trail is between 1600 and 2200. No change to
density is proposed. PROFFERS: Yes. (Amendment to refer to revised Table 4 of the amended Code of
Development). LOCATION: North side of Rt 250 W est, approximately 2,000+ feet west of the intersection
of Miller School Rd and Rt 250. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 55E1-A1 (portion). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: W hite
Hall. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 22 and November 3, 2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a request for the Old Trail Planned Development for the
opportunity to add assisted living in Block 2 of Old Trail, which is located just to the northeast of the Town
Center under development now. He said that it would include the use of the facility for assisted living.
Staff notes favorable factors as consistency with the Crozet Master Plan, adding variety to the facility’s
uses and services in the community, and low-impact nature of use. Mr. Cilimberg reported that no
unfavorable factors have been determined. Both staff and the Planning Commission have recommended
approval inclusive of proffers dated and signed October 23, 2008 and the revised table for the Code of
Development dated October 22, 2008.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Pete Caramanis, representing the applicant, said that this is a straightforward and non-
controversial item. He will be happy to respond to any questions.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Mallek asked how the application of the affordable housing section of the proffer will be
handled. Mr. Cilimberg said that will be handled administratively as part of enforcement of the proffers.
This issue was discussed at the Commission’s meeting last evening and more than likely the affordable
housing provisions will be applied to the dwellings in Old Trail.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to approve ZMA-2008-005, Old Trail Village Block 2, inclusive
of revised proffers dated and signed October 23, 2008 and revised Table 4 of the Code of Development
dated October 22, 2008. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
_______________
NonAgenda. Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky to appoint Mr. Fred Huckstep to the Fire Prevention Board of
Appeals, to fill an unexpired term to expire on November 21, 2009, and to reappoint W illiam “Bill” Daggett
and Fred Missel to the Architectural Review Board, with said terms to expire November 14, 2012. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier reported that he attended the annual meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties
(VACo) last weekend; it was very productive and interesting. Albemarle County won an award for public
participation that would be presented at the next Board meeting.
__________
Ms. Thomas noted that the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Task Force is meeting tomorrow night
and Mr. Rooker is not going to be able to attend, so if anyone can attend in his place the meeting is at
6:00 p.m. in the City Hall basement.
She also attended the VaCo meeting and learned a lot of things. The High Growth Coalition has
come out with a draft of public facility impact fee legislation, which they do not believe they will enter into
this session of the General Assembly unless there is a counter bill proposed. The Speaker of the House
has said it “will meet the same fate” as last year if it is brought up.
Ms. Thomas said it was reiterated at the VACo meeting that there is no money for transportation.
Ms. Thomas reported that there was a work session on “Sustainable Community Investment” a
plan by the Administration to support projects which sound to her a lot like the Neighborhood Model, but
there is no money for the initiative.
__________
Ms. Mallek said she is a member of the State’s Agricultural Committee. She learned at the VaCo
meeting that there may be some money available for biosolids. There are parts of the State that have
heavy reliance by some farmers on distributions of biosolids from wastewater plants in Northern Virginia.
The licensing fees that companies pay to the State go into a pot for localities to pay for inspections. She
said that the distribution companies are so interested in having a place to put their materials, they would
pay for inspectors to be onsite. She hopes the County can act on this since it is revenue neutral.
She also said that the stormwater regulations are not a revenue-neutral issue, and the State is
contemplating taking back 30 to 50 percent of fees to run their administrative supervision of the
regulations. Ms. Mallek said that it is going to be a complicated, staff-intensive process.
Ms. Mallek said that more information needs to be made available regarding home occupations,
as there may be restrictions on machinery and chemicals that can be used in situations where there is no
improved disposal system available – such as rural garages that use degreaser compounds.
Mr. Rooker said that the State closely regulates the release of degreasers, but it is questionable
as to who enforces that at the home level.
Mr. Davis explained that home occupations that are in separate buildings outside of the house are
regulated through special use permit. He does not think there are any regulations that specifically address
discharges, but if it is an industry that has discharged material there is a condition that addresses that
issue. It is going to be on a case-by-case basis probably.
Mr. Slutzky added that Federal regulations would also apply.
__________
Mr. Boyd mentioned that last night the Planning Commission denied Yancey Lumber’s
Comprehensive Plan Amendment request and his understanding is that is now dead unless the Board
initiates the matter.
Mr. Davis said that the Commission’s action suggested that this be made part of the Crozet
Master Plan Amendment process, which would be started very soon. He is not sure how much of a delay
it really is. He explained that it basically states it would be done as part of the review rather than a CPA,
and the timing may not be much different.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is interested in the project and would like to discuss it at the Board level.
Mr. Slutzky commented that delaying the master plan review by at least a year is on the table for
discussion as part of a budget issue.
Mr. Davis added that it would probably be delayed even if it were considered as a separate issue.
Mr. Boyd said that this is a County-wide issue, and he does not think it should be left to just the
residents of Crozet. It is an economic development issue for the County.
Mr. Slutzky said that the Crozet Master Planning issue will be considered by the Commission and
the Board.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Yancey property is not in the Crozet growth area. He asked if it is
something that would be properly addressed by the update of the Master Plan for an area that does not
include the property.
Ms. Mallek said that she suggested six months ago to the Yanceys to get support from the Crozet
community so they would support bringing the property into the growth area. The Board can consider
November 12, 2008 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
whether it would be in favor of swapping out some land for this land. Apparently this entire piece of
property is designated in the water protection zone which is something to be considered when talking
about heavy industry, light industry and other service uses.
Mr. Boyd commented that he would just hate to see the Planning Commission legislating this
somehow without the Board being able to weigh in.
Ms. Thomas suggested finding out the specifics of the Commission’s action.
Mr. Slutzky suggested the Board also receive information on the status of the applicant’s request
and the timing of the 2009 Crozet Master Plan revision.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn.
At 10:20 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Rooker to adjourn the meeting until November 25, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 241. Ms. Mallek seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 02/11/2009
Initials: EW J