2008-01-09January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
9, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker,
Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. (Note: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek who were
elected on November 6, 2007, had taken the oath of office on December 21, 2007.)
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Ella W . Jordan, Clerk, Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk, and Director of Planning, V. W ayne
Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Mr. Tucker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman.
Mr. Tucker said it is his duty this morning to assist the Board with the first agenda item. He then
opened the floor for nominations for the office of Chairman for calendar year 2008.
Mr. Rooker offered motion that Mr. Ken C. Boyd be reelected as Chairman of the Board for the
calendar year 2008. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Boyd assumed the Chair. He thanked the Board members for giving him the chance to lead
the Board for another year. He welcomed Ms. Mallek as a new Board member, saying the Board is
pleased to have her as a member. Since he is continuing as Chair, he does not have a lot of things to say
about what he plans to do this year. Several Board members have offered suggestions about things he
might do differently, and he is open to other suggestions. He looks forward to serving as Chair. He knows
there will continue to be issues for the Board to address.
Mr. Boyd then asked for nominations for the office of Vice-Chairman. Ms. Thomas offered
motion to appoint Mr. David Slutzky as Vice-Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Slutzky.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Senior Deputy Clerk.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to reappoint Ms. Ella W . Jordan
as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors for the Calendar Year 2008 and to reappoint Ms. Meagan Hoy as
Senior Deputy Clerk for the same term. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2008.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to set the meeting times, dates
and places for Calendar Year 2008 as follows: first W ednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., second
W ednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m., with said meetings to be held in the County Office Building on
McIntire Road; the meeting dates for January 2009 will be set for January 7 at 9:00 a.m., and January 14
at 6:00 p.m. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 8. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Requested by Citizens.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to set the dates for hearing zoning
text amendments from citizens as follows: September 10 and December 10, 2008, and March 11 and
June 10, 2009. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of.
Mr. Boyd said there is one change in the Rules of Procedure that he would like to make note of;
the change came from an organizational work session the Board held a couple of weeks ago. This year
the Board is changing to the Rules for Small Boards so there are two changes from prior procedures. First
is that the chairman will be allowed to make motions.
Mr. Davis passed around a sheet showing the rules for Small Boards. The Board’s current Rules
of Procedure require a second. That was not proposed to change based on discussions at the
organizational meeting. By adopting the small board procedures, the only working change would be that
the chair could make a motion if seconds are required. Beyond the “bullet points” shown in the handout,
Roberts’ Rules of Order would still be applicable under the proposed local rules.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the one change recommended is that the chairman can now make a motion.
Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said the Board will still use the Rules of Procedure it has used in the past. Mr. Davis
said the primary rules will be the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Board, with Roberts’ Rules adopted
by reference. The rules specifically set forth in the Rules of Procedure are the primary rules which govern
how a meeting is conducted.
Mr. Boyd said if the Board so desires, it can continue with the rule of the chair not making a
motion. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has discussed this change, and he thought it had decided it wanted to
adopt this change so the chair can make a motion.
Ms. Thomas said there is one piece in the changes which is a surprise to her and that is taking a
vote by a show of hands. That has never been done because it makes it difficult for the Clerk to record
what transpires. Mr. Davis said small board procedures do not require that. It is closely akin to when the
chair says “is there consent from the Board” and no vote is taken at all. This would be allowed, although
under Roberts’ Rules that is not permitted. Occasionally this Board acts by consensus and this
recognizes that possibility.
Ms. Thomas said supposedly the Board was to actually stand on different occasions. Mr. Davis
said he was meaning to talk to the Board members about not standing up when speaking, but he had let
that pass.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks it is good that a motion need not be seconded. Mr. Davis said the rules
before the Board specifically override that provision of the small board procedures, and a second will still
be required.
Ms. Thomas said she had a question. She is fixated on the fact that the Board will not be able to
accept any proffer changes after the public hearing starts. So under (F3) which talks about the public
hearing, there is nothing in that section to keep the Board from having public comment before calling it an
officially open public hearing which is the only way she can think to get around this rule. Mr. Davis said
that may be a technical way to avoid the requirement, but he does not know if that would be viewed as
circumventing the rule. Technically, until the public hearing is opened, changes could be made to the
proffers.
Ms. Thomas said she does not know that the Board will have to do that, but that was the only way
she could think of allowing public comments to be taken seriously. Otherwise, it is either an up or a down
vote. This is just for zoning matters and not for usual business. She had a question for Mr. Tucker.
Under “Order of Business” it says: “Proffers have to be submitted no later than two business days prior to
the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper.” She asked if
that is working out with staff. Mr. Tucker said staff does not follow that closely all the time. There are
times when it works out that way, but many times there are things the applicant learns after further work
with staff, so it is difficult for staff when they are trying to get the petition ready for the Board. He said staff
can push more vigorously to enforce that rule better. Sometimes the proffers do come in after a hearing
has been advertised.
Ms. Thomas said her question is, if the proffers come in two days before the advertisement, is
that enough time? Mr. Tucker said that normally it is the County Attorney’s staff that reviews the proffers
last. Two days may not be enough time for that office depending on how extensive the proffers are.
Ms. Thomas said this policy can be followed, but it could be necessary for the signed proffers to
be submitted more in advance than they are now if that is a problem for staff. Mr. Davis said the intent of
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
that rule was to have the final documents available so when the first advertisement appeared in the paper,
anyone could come in and review those documents. In practice, that rarely happens. Between the
Planning Commission meeting and that of the Board there is not a great deal of time. The final proffers
and plans on proposals that have issues that are unresolved usually get to staff at the deadline. Planning
staff then has to review those documents, the County Attorney’s Office has to review those documents,
and often there are additional changes required. Staff tries to work those changes out before the Board’s
meeting which is generally two and a half weeks later. This schedule is not working now. Staff has not
found a good solution unless there is additional delay.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the time period that impacts the process is the time between the
Planning Commission meeting and the Board meeting. He said that time could be lengthened by the
Board.
Ms. Thomas said that is not before the Board today. Mr. Tucker said he does not think the Board
can pick a date which will work all of the time. It depends on the application.
Mr. Slutzky said the Planning Commission may require something the applicant will not do and
then the Commission does not support the request. Before it is over, the applicant agrees to do whatever
was requested in the beginning. Does the Board want to put a chilling effect on their inclination to be
compliant with the request? If the applicant is not allowed to make changes up to the last minute, they
may think the Board will support an inferior application.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, to speak. Mr. Graham
said he would like to remind everybody why the policy was created. There were two reasons, the
frustration of the public and the Board. The dates were set based on the time staff needed to be able to
review the proffers and provide an analysis of the proffers for the Board.
Mr. Rooker said the second part of the policy has been solved. Since the policy was adopted, the
Board has voted on a measure where there were significant proffers with technical changes being
requested by staff. There were times when the Board got to the public hearing and got an entirely
different set of proffers with changes which were not necessarily requested by staff.
At this point, motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt the Board’s current Rules of Procedure
which includes Roberts’ Rules of Order for Small Boards. Mr. Rooker said where these rules are in
contradiction with the Small Board Rules, the Board’s rules will prevail. He then seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Rules of Procedure as adopted are set out in full below.)
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
A. Officers
1. Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if
present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the year
for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the
head official for all the Board’s official functions and for ceremonial purposes. He
shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia Code Sections 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423)
2. Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a
Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the
Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during his absence or
disability. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422)
3. Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year
terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms.
(Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422)
4. Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman
are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as
Chairman.
B. Clerk and Deputy Clerks
The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks
who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set
forth in Virginia Code Section 15. 2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in
resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416)
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
C. Meetings
1. Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected
members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in January
of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual
meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places for regular
meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416)
2. Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days
as has been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subsequently
establish different days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a
resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416. If any
day established as a regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the meeting
scheduled for that day shall be held on the next regular business day without
action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416)
If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and
declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board
members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the
next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members
of the Board and to the press as promptly as possible. All hearings and other
matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no
further advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416)
Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to
day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the
next regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code
Section 15.2-1416)
3. Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary
at such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be
adjourned from time to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient.
(Virginia Code Section 15.2-1417)
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two
or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of
the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon
receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman,
shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the County Executive, and
the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and delivered to the person or
to his place of residence or business. The notice shall state the time and place of
the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. No matter not
specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all members
are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the special
meeting or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code
Section 15.2-1418) The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and
place of such special meeting and the matters to be considered.
D. Order of Business
The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation with the
Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Board shall
be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation.
The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the agenda
shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, individuals will be
allowed a three-minute time limit in which to speak during the time set aside on the
agenda for “From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda”.
Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public hearing
on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written deferral request to
the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on W ednesday of the week prior to the
scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted administratively
by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board package and the
deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert the public of the
deferral. Any request received later than the W ednesday deadline and any subsequent
request for a deferral for the same application previously deferred will be granted only at
the discretion of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless
the Board determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to
the public caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when
a deferral is granted.
It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the
final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are
available for public review. To achieve this preference, applicants should provide final
plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed
necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
business days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing
advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this date by including it in
annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a minimum of two
weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing
shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be
advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public
hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the
advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial
revisions or amendments are made to the submitted materials after the public hearing
has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board to either defer action and schedule a
second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to deny the
application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or
not forward the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine calendar days
prior to the date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent
changes made in proffers at the public hearing resulting from comments received from
the public or from Board members at the public hearing.
E. Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the
Board. If during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action
can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again
established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1415)
A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any
regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such
meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next
regular meeting.
F. Voting Procedures
1. Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be
made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion
properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that
is not seconded shall not be further considered. The vote on the motion shall be
by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each member voting and
how he voted on the motion. If any member abstains from voting on any motion,
he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be announced by the Chairman
and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon. (Article
VII, Section 7, Virginia Constitution)
2. Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all
elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or
resolution (1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing
taxes; or (3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code
Section 15.2-1428)
3. Public Hearings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board
requiring a public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may,
however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or
consideration of such matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the
applicant and the public for public hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board.
Unless otherwise decided, the applicant shall be permitted no more than ten
minutes to present its application. Following the applicant’s presentation, any
member of the public shall be permitted no more than three minutes to present
public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public hearing.
Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more than five
minutes for a rebuttal presentation.
4. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly
seconded, shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on
the original motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members
making and seconding the original motion. If the motion to amend is approved,
the amended motion is then before the Board for its consideration. If the motion
to amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the Board for its
consideration.
5. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member
moving the “previous question”. Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call
for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of
those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
under consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to
debate and shall take precedence over any other matter.
6. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a
motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held
on the same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may
be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may
be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall
be to place the matter for discussion in the exact position it occupied before it
was voted upon.
7. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map
amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions
shall only be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by
a majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may
be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may
be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to
nullify the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map amendments, special use
permit decisions and ordinances may be rescinded or repealed only upon
meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking action on such matters as
if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration.
G. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next
regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is
given.
H. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board members
present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the
Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the
motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter
before the Board. Provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not
permit the Board to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the
Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law.
I. Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be
governed by Robert's Rules of Order’s Procedure in Small Boards.
(Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80; 1-7-81; 1-6-82;
1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87; 1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97;
1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001; 1-9-2002; 1-8-2003; 1-7-2004; 1-5-2005; 1-4-2006; 1-3-2007; 1-9-2008)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Boards and Commissions Policy, Adoption of.
Ms. Thomas said no changes are proposed to this policy, so she will offer a motion to readopt the
policy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Policy on Board and Commissions, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. CREATION OF NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. On an annual basis the list of active boards and commissions will be purged of all
bodies not required by Federal, State, County or other regulations, which have not met at least
once during the prior twelve-month period.
2. W henever possible and appropriate, the functions and activities of boards and
commissions will be combined, rather than encouraging the creation of new bodies.
3. Any newly created task force or ad hoc committee which is intended to serve for a
limited time period may be comprised of magisterial or at-large members at the discretion of the
Board of Supervisors. The appointment process shall follow that adopted in Section B for other
magisterial and/or at-large positions.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
B. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. All appointments to boards and commissions based upon magisterial district
boundaries will be made by the members of the Board of Supervisors. All magisterial positions
will be advertised. At the discretion of the supervisor of that district, selected applicants may be
interviewed for the position.
2. Prior to each day Board meeting, the Clerk will provide the Board a list of expired
terms and vacancies that will occur within the next sixty days. The Board will then advise the
Clerk which vacancies to advertise.
3. In an effort to reach as many citizens as possible, notice of boards and
commissions with appointment positions available will be published through available venues,
such as, but not limited to, the County’s website, A-mail, public service announcements and local
newspapers. Interested citizens will be provided a brief description of the duties and functions of
each board, length of term of the appointment, frequency of meetings, and qualifications
necessary to fill the position. An explanation of the appointment process for both magisterial and
at-large appointments will also be sent to all applicants.
4. All interested applicants will have a minimum of thirty days from the date of the
first notice to complete and return to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a detailed application,
with the understanding that such application may be released to the public, if requested. No
applications will be accepted if they are postmarked after the advertised deadline, however, the
Board, at its discretion, may extend the deadline.
5. Once the deadline for accepting applications is reached, the Clerk will distribute
all applications received to the members of the Board of Supervisors prior to the day meeting for
their review. For magisterial appointments, the Clerk will forward applications as they are
received to the supervisor of that district who will then recommend his/her appointment.
6. From the pool of qualified candidates, the Board of Supervisors, at their
discretion, may make an appointment without conducting an interview, or may select applicants to
interview for the vacant positions. The Clerk will then schedule interviews with applicants to be
held during the next day meeting. For magisterial appointments, the decision to interview
selected candidates will be determined by the supervisor of that district.
7. All efforts will be made to interview selected applicants and make appointments
within ninety days after the application deadline. For designated agency appointments to boards
and commissions, the agency will be asked to recommend a person for appointment by the Board
of Supervisors.
8. All vacancies will be filled as they occur.
9. All incumbents will be allowed to serve on a board or commission without his/her
position being readvertised unless, based on attendance and performance, the chairman of the
body or a member of the Board of Supervisors requests the Board of Supervisors to do otherwise.
10. As a condition to assuming office all citizen members of boards and commissions
shall file a real estate disclosure form as set forth in the State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act and thereafter shall file such form annually on or before January 15.
11. If a member of a board or commission does not participate in at least fifty percent
of a board’s or commission’s meetings, the chairman of the body may request that the Board of
Supervisors terminate the appointment and refill it during the next scheduled advertising period.
C. ADOPTION
This policy shall be reviewed and readopted by the Board of Supervisors in January.
(Amended and/or Readopted 01-07-98; 02-12-2005; 01-04-2006; 01-03-2007; 01-09-2008)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Proclamation: Vietnam Graffiti Project.
Mr. Boyd read the following proclamation into the record. He said he saw the display this
morning, and it is quite interesting. He then presented the proclamation to Art and Lee Beltrone.
“Marking Time: Voyage to Vietnam”
Whereas, the volunteer Vietnam Graffiti Project was founded in 1997 by Albemarle County
residents Art and Lee Beltrone of Keswick, after Art Beltrone discovered historic
graffiti-inscribed berthing unit canvases aboard the former military troop ship
"General Nelson M. W alker" in Virginia's James River Reserve Fleet — also
known as the "Ghost Fleet," and the graffiti was left by young American soldiers
going to the war in Vietnam during the 1960s; and
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Whereas, during subsequent years the couple organized a cadre of volunteers who worked
with the Maritime Administration to remove more than 1,000 of the historic rack
canvases and other artifacts for preservation which were transferred to museums
maintained by the Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institution, Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, and state and local repositories throughout the United States, and
the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society also received a canvas signed by
a local soldier; and
Whereas, just prior to the organization's tenth anniversary, the Vietnam Graffiti Project, in
partnership with the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, created the "Marking
Time: Voyage to Vietnam" traveling exhibit, which had its premier Albemarle
County opening January 7, 2008 at the Albemarle County Office Building and
remains on display at the COB through January 11, 2008; and
Whereas, because of its historic relevance, the "Marking Time" exhibit will be shared with
other communities throughout the nation following its debut at the County Office
Building;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors expresses its
sincere appreciation to Art and Lee Beltrone for their outstanding devotion and
dedication to preserving this important collection of artifact history and creating a
display that communicates the emotion and experience of young soldiers
shipping out to the Vietnam W ar.
Mr. Beltrone said he and Lee would like to thank the Board for this recognition. He said he would
like to recognize all the members of this community who helped make this possible. It was a labor-
intensive effort to remove the material from the ship when it was in the James River.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek expressed her appreciation for being able to represent the citizens of the W hite Hall
District. During the next year she will ask the Board to study the Land Use Program, to put Soil Erosion
Control guidelines in the Code, and to examine assessment and tax payment procedures. She asks that
the Board place on the agenda at a later meeting a resolution concerning the coal plant proposed for W ise
County.
__________
Mr. Rooker said the Board members received a mailer from the Charlottesville Marathon. He
wants to publicly point out that it has been named one of the top ten marathons in the country by Runners
Magazine which is a lofty award.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board did a lot of work in the development area in the past year. The
Comprehensive Plan was updated concerning the rural areas, but a lot of those things have not yet been
put into effect. For herself, during this coming year she will be placing more emphasis on protecting the
rural areas. Another issue is that of dark skies which ties into energy conservation. She said there will be
an announcement soon about the County Office Building-McIntire and its Energy Star program.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said one of his New Year’s resolutions is to be a man of fewer words.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked when the Board will work on infrastructure needs. Mr. Tucker said
infrastructure will be a part of the Five-Year Financial Plan work session on January 23.
__________
Mr. Boyd said one of the most important things the Chair does is to coordinate meetings. This
year he would like to work on streamlining the number of items on an agenda, particularly for the evening
meetings.
Mr. Slutzky said at the Board’s retreat, it had discussed the possibility of having an additional
meeting each month. He suggested that on a quarterly basis a third meeting be built into the schedule.
Ms. Thomas said that during the next three months, there are already four meetings scheduled
each month. She suggested starting it later in the year.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the Board members had indicated that a third meeting was necessary
when the agenda was overloaded. Mr. Tucker said it was discussed as being set on an as-needed basis.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Carl Shaw discussed land prices/values and encouraged the Board to do all it can to reduce
land prices (see written materials which were given to the Board and which are on file in the Clerk’s Office
with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors).
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
(Note: Mr. Rooker said there is a problem with the mike at the public’s podium, and it needs to be
cured. It has been evident since the Board moved into this room.)
__________
Mr. Rex Linville from the Piedmont Environmental Council spoke about the success of land
conservation in 2007. This is the success of the community of Albemarle County and not the PEC. PEC
does not hold a lot of conservation easements, but it works to educate landowners and their advisors
about conservation easements. This year easements were donated to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation,
purchased through the ACE Program, and some easements were donated to the Albemarle County Public
Recreational Facilities Authority or The Nature Conservancy. He showed a chart depicting the number of
easements held (about 6,889 acres) and their location. He thinks a lot of this came about because there
were some expanded Federal tax deductions that expired at the end of 2007. PEC is now working at the
Federal level on the Farm Bill to see that those expanded Federal income tax deductions are made
permanent. That would help keep the trend going. He does not know where this places the County in
achieving the 30,000 acre goal. He also commended Mr. Scott Clark of the County’s staff for his work in
this effort at the end of the year.
Mr. Rooker said with that additional acreage this brings the total to about 72,000 acres of land
under conservation easements, which is about 16 percent of land in the County.
__________
Mr. Ben Thompson, representing Luck Stone Corporation, provided an update on the Route
22/250 intersection/realignment and signalization project. He said this project began in the mid ‘90s as a
County initiative. The County approached Luck Stone about relocating its main business entrance to a
signalized intersection. At that time, Luck became the major private contributor to this public project. The
project fell apart in the late ‘90s due to a landowner dispute. This prompted the County and Luck to shift
the project to VDOT to work through the acquisitions. VDOT has now completed all the design work and
completed acquisition, which included property donations from Mr. Lloyd W ood of Shadwell Market, and
Luck Stone. All parties are now ready to proceed.
Mr. Thompson said that unfortunately, due to the length of time that has elapsed, once adequate
financial contributions will no longer complete the work on these heavily traveled roads. Conservative
estimates of the cost now are $1.2 million. Luck Stone is committed to remaining the major contributor
and in an effort to drive costs down will be accepting responsibilities for construction management. In
order to keep the project on track and improve safety on an entrance corridor, he is present this morning
to request that the County explore opportunities to increase its contribution and continue to move forward.
A suggested amount is approximately $400,000. If all things move forward, construction could begin in
May, with completion in October/November.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Thompson explained the situation to him last week. He had not been aware this
was a joint project between the County and Luck Stone with VDOT facilitating engineering designs, etc. It
is not a VDOT project. He asked Mr. Thompson to appear today and explain the project to the Board. He
said originally there was to be a $500,000 contribution from Luck Stone, with $135,000 from the County in
proffered dollars from the Glenmore development. That was in 1995 dollars, and everybody knows that is
not enough today.
Mr. Thompson said they have worked extensively with Mr. Juan W ade of County staff and he has
done a phenomenal job on this project.
__________
Ms. Janie Eckman, speaking on behalf of the IMPACT group, expressed its support for Item 14.1
on the consent agenda. She came to remind the Board that IMPACT supports this proposal. Bus Route 5
currently runs until 7:00 p.m. IMPACT asked for an additional five hours of night service after it was found
that the chief reason to extend service hours on this route was to provide access to jobs at the University
for employees working the evening shift at the Medical Center and for those working in dining services.
Also, many retail stores along Route 29 North have evening shift workers as do two nursing homes and
the Doubletree Hotel. A number of refugee families have settled in Charlottesville and many live in
apartment complexes along Route 5 and work evening shifts. These shifts end at either 11:00 p.m. or
12:00 a.m. Reliable public transportation is needed for the entry level wage earners. Safety at night is also
critical to the many women employed in these positions. IMPACT believes greater social equity and
improved access to employment are key objectives of improved transit service. They urge the Board to
approve this request for grant funds. She said a large number of the people using public transportation
are drawn from households that do not own an automobile. Evening service on Route 5 is needed starting
this year.
__________
Mr. David W ayland, a member of the Crozet Community Advisory Council, thanked the Board
members for serving the citizens of the County. He said the citizens in the W hite Hall District, particularly
those in W hite Hall, are encouraged by the election of Ms. Mallek as a Board member. They urge all
Board members to continue what it was doing in 2007 to protect the rural areas in their part of the County,
and to monitor and keep Crozet in mind when it is making decisions. Many good things are happening in
Crozet, particularly in the way of the Streetscape project. He asked that the Board continue the balance
between protecting the rural areas and providing controlled growth in the development areas with
substantial proffers to go with development. He asserted that for some citizens, last minute changes in
proffers do not allow them time to react.
__________
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Jeff W erner of the Piedmont Environmental Council thanked the Board members for having a
Comprehensive Plan and policies which allow conservation easements to occur. He taught a class last
year related to historic preservation. He showed the students how historic districts in Albemarle County
have been a catalyst for land conservation efforts. W hen looking at a map of the State, you can see a
string of historic districts from Orange County to southern Albemarle County. There is a historic district in
southern Albemarle, the Covesville historic district, providing a relationship to these districts. He thanked
Ms. Thomas for declaring this the year of the rural area.
Mr. Slutzky said the issue of conservation easements has been mentioned a couple of times
today. He is aware that there are sometimes problems with enforcing conservation easements. Recently
the Board was made aware of an instance where the way in which the County’s ordinance defines
“dwelling” has had an impact on the enforcement of an easement. He asked if the Board members would
like to have staff make suggestions on what can or cannot be done to fix that problem. He knows that
sometimes the problem comes about in the way the easement is drafted, and there are also problems in
the way the ordinance is written. If there is a fix available going forward, situations like that might not
occur with new conservation easements.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the Board had already asked staff to do that. Mr. Tucker said at the
end of December Ms. Thomas made that request, and staff has been working on it since.
Mr. Rooker said he asked that the easement language be redrafted. The Board also talked about
the VOF easement form which has been updated a number of times. It specifically addresses the amount
of buildings by square footage which are allowed, etc. He thinks the specific problem with the easement is
being dealt with by the redrafting of the easement form being used. He remembers that the Board
authorized the allocation of some money to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority so they could retain
counsel to review the interpretation of their easement. He assumes that will take place and they will take
appropriate action based upon the advice they get from counsel.
Ms. Thomas said the Board has to take some action in public to do what Mr. Rooker just said.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the Board decided in closed session to do that.
Ms. Thomas said since the Board is not supposed to discuss what it did in closed session, she
has been constrained in public to explain how the Board can say it will have money for that, but the Board
has not taken public action yet. That should be done.
Mr. Davis said in response to Mr. Slutzky’s specific question about the definition of “dwelling unit”,
staff is looking at that issue. They have found that not many localities do it much differently than
Albemarle, but it is an issue staff is focusing on and will present some options for the Board to look at.
Mr. Slutzky said since it was not discussed in public, he wanted to make sure people knew the
Board was trying to address the issue.
Mr. Rooker said he has actually run together the public and the private discussion of this, so he
apologizes. If the definition of “dwelling unit” is defined in the easement, you do not have to worry about
the Zoning Ordinance definition. Mr. Davis said there are two separate issues, but they do intertwine. In
rural preservation easements, which are a creature of the Zoning Ordinance, the ordinance actually says
what has to be in that easement and uses the term “dwelling unit.” It is complicated, but staff is looking at
that definition.
__________
Mr. Neil W illiamson of the Free Enterprise Forum thanked County staff, PEC and VOF with regard
to conservation easements. He said everyone needs to remember the landowners because these are
voluntary easements. There are significant tax benefits to the landowner, but there are huge benefits to
the community. He thanked the County for its dedication to this program and the folks for recognizing the
concept of extinguishing land development rights and retaining conservation as a real value.
__________
Ms. Brin Potter said she is representing an applicant on an appeal. She asked if the public will be
allowed to comment. There are a number of people present from the public and a number of
representative agencies. Mr. Boyd said he will allow some comments from the public during that
discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve Items 14.1 through 14.7 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. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 14.1. Grant Application to Fund Night Service on CTS for Route 5 in the Route 29 North
Corridor.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that during discussions by the Board on allocating an
additional $250,000 for transit service improvements in June 2007, consideration was given to using those
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
funds to reduce headways (to 30 minutes) on Route 5 or to provide for night service on this same Route.
The Board approved using the additional funds to reduce headways on Route 5, but also indicated an
interest in participating with CTS in applying for a future grant to assist in funding night service on CTS
Route 5 along Route 29 North.
Applications are due in late January for the Federal Transit Administration’s Job Access Reverse
Commute (JARC) Grant. As the current public transportation provider, CTS would have to apply for the
JARC funds. CTS is now is the process of developing a grant application and needs to know if the County
still wishes to provide night service on Route 5 and if it will provide the necessary financial commitment
(local match) in order to proceed with the application process.
Staff has submitted a budget request for FY ‘08-09 to request funding for night service on CTS
Route 5. The budget proposal is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget and will
be reviewed by the Board during the FY ‘09 budget process. A final decision on whether to provide night
service on Route 5 will be made during the budget process; however, due to the timing for the grant
application, County staff and CTS need direction from the Board on its willingness to participate in the
grant proposal prior to the Board’s review schedule for the upcoming budget.
Route 5 currently runs between Barracks Road Shopping Center and W al-Mart on roads that
parallel Route 29 North. Route 5 has service every 30 minutes and operates 6:15 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. The
new night service would extend service to 11:00 p.m. (with service every 30 minutes). CTS estimated that
the total cost to provide this service would be approximately $225,000 per year. If funded, the service
would start in August, 2008.
The Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant funds, if awarded, would pay for 50 percent of
the cost for the expanded service. CTS is also anticipating that other ongoing Federal and State operating
assistance funds and fare revenues from bus riders would cover a portion of the cost for the service.
Therefore, if the JARC grant is received and other Federal/State funds remain at the same level, the
County’s cost for the night service on Route 5 will be approximately $70,000. County funds will be
required to apply for this grant since the service is entirely within the County.
Night service along Route 29 North is recommended in the current Transit Development Plan
(TDP) completed in 2006. This initiative will benefit transit dependent residents who work the night shift at
the retail/office establishments along Route 29 North. They will benefit by being able to keep and find jobs
because they will have safe, reliable, and cost efficient transportation. This route runs through several
residential neighborhoods and, therefore, has the potential to serve numerous new riders. The
community organization, IMPACT, has also requested that the Board fund this service.
CTS previously provided night service to the general area currently served by Route 5. In 2005,
the Board discontinued funding for the night route. At that time, the route was the poorest performing
route when compared to other night service routes on a rider per service hour basis, serving only 2.72
riders per service hour in FY ‘04 based on data provided by CTS. However, it is important to note that the
proposed Route 5 night service differs from the eliminated service in that it will provide headways that are
more frequent and the night route will be aligned with the current daytime route, both of which are
improvements that would be expected to increase ridership.
The estimated cost to the County would be approximately $70,000 if CTS receives the full grant
award and other funding sources remain consistent. A budget request has been submitted as a new
strategic initiative for the FY 2008-09 Budget for the total estimated cost for the night service in the County
($225,000). The County’s match would be paid to CTS on a quarterly basis. CTS must re-apply for JARC
funds annually.
Staff recommends that the Board join with CTS to apply for the Federal Transit Administration Job
Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant and commit the estimated $70,000 toward funding of night
service on Route 5 in the County.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said he did not understand from the language in this application if
additional funds will be required. He assumes the $225,000 in this year’s budget has been used paying
for the extension of the bus route to the Southwood Mobile Home Park and for increasing the headway
times on Route 5. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said the funding in the budget has been
expended. For this upcoming budget, a strategic initiative was submitted to fund this service in case the
grant is not awarded. During the budget review process later in the year, there will be full funding included
for this service.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff is anticipating keeping that same contribution to transit each year. Mr.
Benish said that is correct; this is the additional funding for that additional service in the next fiscal year.
The grant covers much of that cost.
Mr. Rooker said $70,000 would be in addition to the grant. Mr. Benish said “yes.”
Mr. Slutzky said when the Board last discussed the budget it was decided to allocate some
resources to the Southwood route and the other initiative. Applying for a grant was discussed so it would
be less expensive to the County and that the night service could be provided through the grant.
Mr. Boyd said he is in favor, but did not understand how the numbers were working.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Ms. Thomas said the Executive Summary says the County must reapply for these funds annually,
so this is a one-time thing. She asked if staff had any idea of the County’s chances of receiving this
money. Mr. Benish said Mr. Bill W atterson is present if there are questions. He thinks that if funds are
available the County would receive re-approval, but there are no guarantees.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board supported staff’s recommendation to join
with CTS to apply for the Federal Transit Administration Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC)
grant and commit an estimated $70,000 toward the funding of night service on Route 5 in the
County.
__________
Item 14.2. Community Development Block Grant Fund, Request to set public hearing.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Virginia Community Development Block Grant
(VCDBG) is a federally-funded grant administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD). Since 1982, the DHCD has provided funding to eligible units of local government
(non-entitlement communities only) for projects that address critical community needs, including housing,
infrastructure and economic development. Albemarle County has received numerous grants in previous
years to support housing and community improvement initiatives.
Approximately $10.0 million is made available by DHCD annually for competitive grant proposals
in the Commonwealth. The VCDBG application process requires that two local public hearings be
conducted. The first public hearing is to provide information on eligible activities that may be funded by a
CDBG, the amount of funding estimated to be available, and past activities undertaken in Albemarle
County with CDBG funds. A follow-up public hearing is required to review any proposed applications.
Applications must be submitted by the County, although the proposed activities may be undertaken by
other agencies. The second public hearing must take place prior to the application due date of March 26,
2008.
There is no budgetary impact unless or until an application is made and approved for a funded
project. Staff requests that the Board set a public hearing for the Community Development Block Grant
program for February 6, 2008, to provide information to the public and interested parties regarding the
eligible CDBG activities, funding availability, the process for submitting proposals for applications, and
past activities undertaken in the County with CDBG funding and to receive public comment on this
information.
By the recorded vote set out above, Board set a public hearing for the Community
Development Block Grant program for February 6, 2008.
__________
Item 14.3. Resolution to accept road(s) in Copperfield Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of Engineering Staff, the Board adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in Copperfield Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated January 9, 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 Copperfield
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated January 9, 2008, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 and §33.1-82, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Copperfield Ridge (State Route 1627) from the intersection of Reas Ford Road
(Route 660) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2555, pages 300-309, with
a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.21 miles.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Total Mileage – 0.21
__________
Item 14.4. Resolution to accept road(s) in Dunlora (Phase 3B) Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of Engineering Staff, the Board adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in Dunlora Subdivision, Phase 3B, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated January 9, 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 Dunlora Subdivision,
Phase 3B, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated January 9, 2008, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 and §33.1-82, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Shepherds Ridge Road (State Route 1709) from existing end of state
maintenance to the intersection of Townbrook Crossing (Route 1713), as shown
on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 1836, page 184, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length
of 0.10 miles.
2) Shepherds Ridge Road (State Route 1709) from the intersection of Townbrook
Crossing (Route 1713) to the intersection of Townbrook Crossing (Route 1713),
as shown on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1836, page 184, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.12 miles.
3) Shepherds Ridge Road (State Route 1709) from the intersection of Townbrook
Crossing (Route 1713) to the end of state maintenance, as shown on plat
recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1836, page 184, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of
0.05 miles.
4) Townbrook Crossing (State Route 1713) from the intersection of Shepherds
Ridge Road (Route 1709) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1836,
page 184, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 miles.
5) Townbrook Crossing (State Route 1713) from the intersection of Shepherds
Ridge Road (Route 1709) to the end of state maintenance, as shown on plat
recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1836, page 184, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of
0.07 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.40
__________
Item 14.5. Resolution to accept road(s) in Bentivar (Phase 2) Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of Engineering Staff, the Board adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in Bentivar Subdivision, Phase 2, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated January 9, 2008, fully incorporated herein by reference, is
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
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 Bentivar Subdivision,
Phase 2, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated January 9, 2008, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 and §33.1-82, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Bentivar Farm Road (State Route 1064) from the intersection of Bentivar Drive
(Route 1033) to the intersection of Hartland Court (Route 1066), as shown on plat
recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1666, pages 284-285, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.26 miles.
2) Bentivar Farm Road (State Route 1064) from the intersection of Hartland Court
(Route 1066) to the intersection of Oak Ridge Court (Route 1067), as shown on
plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 1666, pages 284-285, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.10 miles.
3) Bentivar Farm Road (State Route 1064) from the intersection of Oak Ridge
Court (Route 1067) to the intersection of W alnut Ridge Lane (Route 1077), as
shown on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1666, pages 284-285, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.12 miles.
4) Bentivar Farm Road (State Route 1064) from the intersection of W alnut Ridge
Lane (Route 1077) to the intersection of Bentivar Farm Court (Route 1065), as
shown on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1666, pages 284-285, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.09 miles.
5) Bentivar Farm Road (State Route 1064) from the intersection of Bentivar Farm
Court (Route 1065) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1666, pages
284-285, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.15 miles.
6) Hartland Court (State Route 1066) from the intersection of Bentivar Farm Road
(Route 1064) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1666, page 284, with
a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.18 miles.
7) Oak Ridge Court (State Route 1067) from the intersection of Bentivar Farm
Road (Route 1064) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1666, page 286,
with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
8) Bentivar Farm Court (State Route 1065) from the intersection of Bentivar Farm
Road (Route 1064) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1666, page 285,
with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 miles.
9) Walnut Ridge Lane (State Route 1077) from the intersection of Bentivar Farm
Road (Route 1064) to the intersection of Beech Grove Court (Route 1079), as
shown on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 1666, pages 287-289, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.08 miles.
10) Walnut Ridge Lane (State Route 1077) from the intersection of Beech Grove
Court (Route 1079) to the intersection of W alnut Ridge Court (Route 1078), as
shown on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
County in Deed Book 1666, pages 287-289, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.25 miles.
11) Walnut Ridge Lane (State Route 1077) from the intersection of W alnut Ridge
Court (Route 1078) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1666, pages
287-289, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 miles.
12) Walnut Ridge Court (State Route 1078) from the intersection of W alnut Ridge
Lane (Route 1077) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1666, pages
288, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 miles.
13) Beech Grove Court (State Route 1078) from the intersection of W alnut Ridge
Lane (Route 1077) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1666, pages
287, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14 miles.
Total Mileage – 1.66
__________
Item 14.6. Resolution to accept road(s) in Foxcroft (Phase 4) Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of Engineering Staff, the Board adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in Foxcroft Subdivision, Phase 4, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated January 9, 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 Foxcroft Subdivision,
Phase 4, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated January 9, 2008, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229 and §33.1-82, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Foxvale Lane (State Route 1141) from existing end of state maintenance to the
intersection of Rolling Valley Court (Route 1052), as shown on plat recorded in
the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1504, page 14, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 miles.
2) Foxvale Lane (State Route 1141) from the intersection of Rolling Valley Court
(Route 1052) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1504, page 14, with
a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14 miles.
3) Rolling Valley Court (State Route 1052) from the intersection of Foxvale Lane
(Route 1141) to the west cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1504, page 14,
with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
4) Rolling Valley Court (State Route 1052) from the intersection of Foxvale Lane
(Route 1141) to the east cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1504, page 14, with
a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.20
__________
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Item 14.7. Request to install “W atch for Child Playing” Sign for Stonewood Drive (Route 1034).
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the residents of properties along Stonewood Drive
submitted a request to install “W atch for Child Playing” signage on Stonewood Drive which is a cul-de-sac
road serving 11 homes. The road is located off of Doctor’s Crossing road just north of Stony Point. VDOT
requires that the Board adopt a resolution approving the placement of a “W atch for Child Playing” sign
before it will install a sign.
The County has developed the criteria for reviewing a “W atch for Child Playing” sign installation
request. Staff evaluated this request against these criteria and the request meets three of the four criteria.
There are no formal/central child activity attractions on the road. However, given the number of children
(eight as noted in the petition) in the neighborhood and the lack of sidewalks, it is staff’s opinion that this
request for the installation of a “W atch for Child Playing” sign has merit in this location. The cost to install
a “W atch for Child Playing” sign is $125. This cost will be paid from the County’s Six Year County Road
Maintenance Fund. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution approving the installation of the
sign on Stonewood Drive (Route 1034).
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked that staff come up with a sunset clause of some kind in order to
determine if in five years there are still small children in the neighborhood so the sign is still relevant. Mr.
Benish said he will check with VDOT because these signs technically become VDOT property and are
part of the right-of-way system and their traffic management. Mr. Tucker said staff could call people in the
neighborhood to see if the sign is still necessary. VDOT has to take down the sign and there has to be a
work order placed for that.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution approving
the installation of “Watch for Child Playing” signs on Stonewood Drive (Route 1034).
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO INSTALL WATCH FOR CHILD PLAYING SIGN ON
STONEWOOD DRIVE (ROUTE 1034)
WHEREAS, the residents of Stonewood Drive are concerned about traffic in their
neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live and
play in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, many children live and play on Stonewood Drive and the residents
believe that a “W atch for Child Playing” sign would help alleviate some of the safety
concerns; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Stonewood Drive have requested that the County
take the necessary steps to have a “W atch for Child Playing” sign installed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the community’s request for VDOT to install “W atch for
Child Playing” sign(s) on Stonewood Drive.
__________
Item 14.8. Copy of letter dated December 10, 2007, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Manager of
Zoning Administration, to Robert Linwood Quick, Jr., re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 121, Parcel 74-B (property of Robert Linwood Quick) Section
10.3.1. – Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for information.
__________
Item 14.9. Proffer Management- Quarterly Cash Proffer Activity Report.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Board directed staff to provide quarterly reports
on cash proffers that show cash proffer revenue and expenditures. On October 3, 2007, staff provided a
proffer activity report for FY 2006-2007. This report is the first quarterly report for FY 2007-08 (July-
September 2007).
During the first quarter of FY 2007-08, the County received a total of $130,740.22 in proffered
funds. Of these funds, $56,300 is allocated for specific projects and $74,440.22 for general Capital
Improvement Projects. The County expended $70,000 in cash proffers this quarter for the Village of
Rivanna Master Plan, which was partly funded by the Glenmore rezoning. A more detailed description of
the projects, cash proffer amounts and activities are provided on Attachment A (on file).
Recent collaboration between the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Facilities
Development and the Community Development Department significantly streamlined the process for the
utilization of cash proffers for Capital Improvement Projects. The Zoning Proffer Planner will continue to
interact with these departments and assist in the review of using cash proffer revenue for Capital
Improvement Projects. Cash proffers continue to assist with funding the needs of the County to offset the
impacts from development.
This report is provided for informational purposes only. Staff, however, requests that the Board
provide direction if it desires any changes to the report format that would make the quarterly reports more
useful.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said staff had asked for suggestions on how to improve this report. He
said this report appears to show only what has been expended. He thought the Board would get a report
of how much is due, and how much has been expended. He thinks the entire program should be in the
quarterly report. Mr. Tucker said he thought staff had provided that information to the Board previously.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky agreed.)
This report was received for information only.
__________
Item 14.10. Memorandum dated December 13, 2007, from Amelia McCulley, Zoning
Administrator, to the Board of Supervisors, re: Rural Area Subdivisions, received as follows:
It was noted in the Executive Summary that at a recent meeting, the Board asked staff to provide
information about current Ordinance provisions that allow property to be subdivided without road
standards and/or with minimal frontage requirements. These subdivisions are typically approved
administratively. As a result of this information, the Board may wish to have a future work session
to discuss these provisions and related policy issues.
The current Ordinances (Zoning and Subdivision) allow the following to occur:
1. Subdivisions can be platted in several steps (two or more separately approved and
recorded plats) to avoid the requirement of building a road which would be required to
meet public road standards or be approved with a private road waiver. Each of these
separate subdivision plats qualifies for administrative approval (if there are no required
waivers), require no notice to the neighbors, and no Planning Commission approval.
This type of development creates more individual entrances onto the public roads,
therefore additional conflict points and opportunities for accidents. In addition, it results in
more two-lot shared driveways which have no road construction requirements. Some of
these driveways may not provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, thereby
detrimentally impacting the provision of police, fire and rescue services to those residents.
a. W hat commonly occurs in the first step is an administrative Rural Division
creating a lot which meets minimal public road frontage (250 feet) and acreage (5
acres or more). (See Attachment page 1 – on file in the Clerk’s Office.) This step
can create one or several new lots (shown as Parcels A and B).
b. The next step is a subdivision plat that establishes a shared driveway to serve
two lots (A1 and A2, B1 and B2), creating one new lot from each of the Rural
Division lots created in the first step. These lots are either divided side-by-side or
front-and-back (see #2 for discussion of the latter). The Subdivision Ordinance
does not have a specific construction standard for a shared driveway. It only
requires a “travelway passable by ordinary passenger vehicles in all but
temporary extreme weather conditions.” Confirmation that this road standard is
met is typically provided by a note on the plat.
2. Zoning Ordinance Section 4.6.1 (b)(2) facilitates a front-and-back subdivision layout by
reducing the road frontage required for a lot at the end of an access easement. It allows
a lot (parcel A on page 2 of Attachment A) to reduce its frontage requirement from 150
feet to the width of the access easement. This provision allows the subdivision of
property which has limited existing public road frontage. If Section 4.6.1(b)(2) were
eliminated, however, staff is concerned that it could result in some extended and perhaps
unnecessary roads (to provide the 150 feet of frontage to the back parcel A) without an
improved result.
Subdivisions utilizing Section 4.6.1(b)(2) can result in an undesirable pattern of
development with a house (on the lot at the end of the easement) almost immediately
behind another house (on the front lot). Unless it is planned otherwise, the house in the
rear lot may face directly into the back of the house on the front lot.
Two Subdivision Ordinance amendments that could eliminate the Rural Division tactic to avoid
road standards and address staff concerns regarding eliminating the Section 4.6.1(b)(2) road
frontage reduction are:
1. Require all lots created from an existing parcel to share the same entrance and
therefore the same road. This will minimize the number of entrances on existing
public roads, thereby reducing conflict points. This will better meet planning and
transportation goals. It will also preclude the multi-step subdivision resulting in lots on
separate shared driveways without a road standard requirement described in #1.
2. Establish / increase a road standard for a (shared driveway) private street serving two
lots. The existing minimum road standard for 3-5 lots could be expanded to include
2-5 lots. This change could arguably improve emergency access by establishing a
road construction standard. If this increased standard is not approved, repealing the
Section 4.6.1(b)(2) frontage provision may not reduce the number of subdivisions
creating two lots on a driveway without an applicable road standard.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Either or both of these potential Subdivision Ordinance amendments can be further discussed
with the Board. Alternatively, the Board could pass a resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision
Ordinance and staff can proceed with these amendments. There are impacts on the process,
applicants and staff that would need to be considered as with any Ordinance amendment.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked if staff plans on moving forward with these amendments. Mr.
Tucker said the Board had asked for this information. In order to move forward the Board would need to
adopt a resolution of intent.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see this brought back for action so he would make a motion that
the appropriate resolution be brought back to the Board in order to cure the problems outlined in the
memorandum.
Ms. Thomas agreed with Mr. Boyd that it would be easier to understand the problem with staff
“walking the Board through it.” Mr. Davis said this would involve a Zoning Ordinance amendment and
potentially two amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff would need to have the Board formally
adopt a resolution of intent for the Zoning Ordinance amendment. If the Board wants staff to explain it at
a meeting, staff will prepare an explanation.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is what should be done before moving forward with the drafting of an
ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to have a resolution of intent come back with the presentation. The
Board could adopt it at the end of the process if it wanted to go forward.
Mr. Slutzky said if the Board wants to have a discussion with staff first, he does not oppose that
suggestion.
Mr. Rooker said he is prepared to make a motion today to do it, but if other Board members are
not comfortable with that, he is willing to wait.
Ms. Thomas said the Board will have just as much explanation which ever way it goes. It will build
in an extra month of delay if it waits for the explanation first, so she is supportive of a resolution because it
does not say precisely what the Board would do. Mr. Davis said staff has not prepared a resolution of
intent for the Board’s review today, but can draft one for the next agenda.
Mr. Boyd said he does not want staff to do a lot of work rewriting the ordinance and then find out it
is something the Board will not consider. Mr. Tucker said staff had hoped the graphic in the staff’s report
would be adequate. Staff can show on a piece of paper the issue, and he thinks the Board will quickly
understand the issue.
Mr. Boyd suggested this be discussed later today.)
__________
Item 14.11. Letter dated December 10, 2007, from Colonel Brian W . Lauritzen, US Army
Installation Commander, to the Honorable Kenneth C. Boyd, re: Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
supported by a Draft Environmental Assessment for Expansion of Rivanna Station, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said the letter from the Department of the Army received here January
3, 2008, which was dated December 10, 2007, will supposedly set in motion a need to respond to their
environmental non impact statement. Staff has formally requested an extension of this and also through
DEQ the County has gotten a defacto extension. The County’s comments can be part of the DEQ
comments which give the County until January 25. There have been comments by the public that the
County did not know what was going on and in some sense that is correct because this letter was not
received until well into January. Comments were supposed to be made by January 9. That was not a
good way to carry on communication with the County. Staff is setting upon the right path. There have
been many, many frustrations including the fact that the E-mail address given is not correct. The County
has not been able to communicate with the Army with the E-mail address that they gave. She thinks the
County is on the track of communicating as well as having a date certain for its comments.
Mr. Slutzky asked if staff will address the limited investigation given to the impacts on the Rivanna
River at that particular point attributed to soil erosion. Mr. Tucker said the County has submitted to them
the County’s regulations and requested that they follow those regulations.
Mr. Slutzky said as a matter of policy the County has a higher standard of soil erosion protection
than the invoked level of protection the Army is saying they will comply with. W hat will the County’s
position be? W ill the County ask the Army to honor its policy or let them do less? Mr. Graham said staff
is going to ask them to do more. In the assessment they indicated they are interested in low impact
development. W ith the initial project at NGIC the Army made a commitment and obtained a permit from
the County for both erosion and sediment control and stormwater management and staff has asked them
to make a similar commitment with this project.
Mr. Rooker said he has noticed that with greater frequency the Federal Government sends out
communications that are dated, but then are not mailed until 20+ days later. It is just a regular course of
business for the Federal Government.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it has a little to do with Homeland Security. W hen writing to a
Congressman, he was told not to send it through the regular mail because it goes to some offsite place
and stays there for a month or so.
Ms. Thomas said it was particularly frustrating that the E-mail bounced back. If all pieces of paper
are going to be scrutinized, she asked if there were a fax number that could be used and was told “no.”)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Appeal: ARB-2007-80: Montessori Community School. Final review of a
Site Development Plan for Tax Map 78, Parcel 12A. Proposal is to construct a new 5,500 square foot
classroom building with associated landscape and site work as Phase I of the schools’ proposed
expansion.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Planner, said this is an appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s
(ARB) decision on the first phase of the proposed expansion of the Montessori Community School on
Pantops. She said the elementary school building is proposed for the corner of the site at the intersection
of Rolkin Road and the Route 250 East Entrance Corridor. The primary issue of the ARB was the
architectural design of the elementary school building. There were also a number of other issues that
were not resolved at the last ARB meeting including the landscape treatment along the frontages. The
“Action Letter” from the ARB’s meeting on October 17, 2007, lists all of those issues (16).
Ms. Maliszewski said the Phase I proposal was reviewed by the ARB on three different occasions.
She showed a rendering of the design for the elementary school building presented to the ARB in July,
2007. The ARB found significant design issues with this proposal and recommended that the applicant
return for a work session. Issues included roof design and general compatibility with the historic buildings
of the County. She said the applicant agreed to the work session and it was held in August, 2007. The
changes proposed were primarily related to materials but no building or roof form changes had been
made. The ARB found that the building was still not compatible with the historic architecture of the County
or the existing structure on site.
Ms. Maliszewski said the applicant returned to the ARB in October, 2007 and she showed the
design proposed at that meeting. Changes were primarily related to materials and colors, and there were
no changes proposed in building or roof form. The ARB found that the building design and other site
elements still did not meet their Entrance Corridor Guidelines, so the ARB voted to deny the application for
a site plan. The majority of the architectural decisions that resulted in the proposed design for the
elementary school were based on the concept of green building. The Entrance Corridor Guidelines do not
address green building, but it is possible for a building to be both green and still meet Entrance Corridor
Guidelines.
Ms. Maliszewski said that subsequent to this review, staff and two of the ARB members met with
the applicant to discuss the project. At that meeting, the applicant presented two alternate designs.
Those designs included changes to the roof form and to the windows. Those present at the meeting felt
those changes were more in line with the Entrance Corridor Guidelines than the previous designs.
Because the Montessori site is a prominent one on the Route 250 East Entrance Corridor, and because
the ARB has determined that the proposal does not meet the Entrance Corridor Guidelines, it is
recommended that the Supervisors affirm the decision of the ARB as stated in the October 17, 2007,
Action Letter (on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors).
Mr. Boyd asked if Board members had questions.
Mr. Rooker said there are a number of attachments to the staff’s report which trace the history of
this request through the ARB. He understands that Attachment “E” is the most recent response from the
ARB, and in that letter it says: “By a vote of 3:0, the ARB unanimously denied the petition as submitted
and provided the applicant with the following comments and suggestions for recommended revisions to
the proposal:” There were 16 different recommendations listed in that letter. He asked if any of the 16
recommendations have been met. Ms. Maliszewski said those were items left outstanding at that review;
it is not unusual to have that many outstanding items. The applicant has not submitted anything since that
review. Normally, the ARB would approve a request and leave those conditions to staff. In this particular
case, the primary issues were the architectural design of the building and the landscaping along the
frontages. Those were issues the ARB wanted to come back to them for their review.
Ms. Rooker asked why this petition would not just go back to the ARB with the alternative design
that apparently was looked at. He assumes the applicant generated that design. Ms. Maliszewski said
the applicant prefers to go with their chosen design, if they can.
Mr. Slutzky said he needs to understand the role of the ARB in this process. In reading the
materials, it seems the ARB felt constrained because the Guidelines they operate under do not take into
account the objective of promoting green building. They acknowledged that there is a benefit to the
community by having green building design, but it was not a variable available for consideration. He
asked if the current Guidelines empower the ARB to take into account a corporation’s brand identity when
they are deciding the aesthetic impact of a building. He often drives by that dreadful blue roof on the
CarMax building and wonders why it was allowed; he knows the Board is trying to be differential to
corporate branding. Do the Guidelines acknowledge that is an appropriate purpose? Ms. Maliszewski
said the Guidelines say corporate branding or the franchise designs need to be revised to meet the
Guidelines.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Boyd asked if that blue roof was a corporate brand. Ms. Maliszewski said that blue roof was
not the original blue roof proposed. It was revised and built.
Ms. Thomas asked if the blue roof is better than the original blue roof proposed. Ms. Maliszewski
said “yes.”
Mr. Slutzky asked if the ARB is actually not supposed to be taking into account brand identity and
giving it latitude. Ms. Maliszewski said that is correct.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the ARB works with businesses to allow for what can be tolerated. W hy
would there be a blue roof of any color when it is so dramatic on that corridor? Ms. Maliszewski said an
applicant with a franchise design will often propose their standard design. The ARB reviews what is
presented to them and makes recommendations for that design to change to meet their Guidelines.
Some results are more successful than others. Mr. Tucker said he was told at one time that Albemarle is
one of very few localities that do not have a giant giraffe at Toys’R Us which is obviously branding.
Mr. Slutzky said Albemarle also does not have big golden arches. That is a testimony to the value
and benefit to what the ARB does. In this case there is a unique characteristic to this Montessori project.
They are trying to be differential to green design standards. It is easier to accomplish this with the building
aesthetic being different from the building in the background. Does the Board want to discourage and not
approve something that does not match as well as the Board would like it to?
Ms. Thomas said she disagrees that the Board has to take it as an “either, or.” She thinks the
value of the ARB is not to have some aesthetic sense which is higher or better than that of others, but to
make the buildings form a pleasing whole when driving along the entrance corridors. The ARB is charged
with looking at everything around a location, and that the community fits together to form a pleasing whole.
There is no reason why a rain collection, a rain forest, or use of native materials cannot also fit into the
entrance corridor. It is harder, but she thinks the Board should recognize the value of what the entrance
corridor in general does, and also encourage the green design. It will always be easier to put down
something that is absolutely plain and allows the rain to slope off the roof. It is more of a challenge to
make it fit into that urban, very visible site. Although the applicant would prefer that the original design be
approved, it seems they have thought about ways to match those two goals.
Mr. Slutzky said he agrees that green should not necessarily trump the purpose of protecting the
impact of the corridor aesthetic. He supports the ARB. It has been pointed out to him that the County’s
entrance corridors look homogenous compared to some of the urban sprawl in other places because of
the work of the ARB. W hen he looked at the drawings provided to the Board he saw the value of
changing the color scheme to provide color compatibility with the structure in the background, the building
materials, and some of the landscaping details. He sees more compatibility between those structures
than the ARB acknowledged, and he does not see these as competing design forms. The pieces he saw
were compatible in color; presumably building materials would have some similar affects, but he is not
sure he would reach the same conclusion the ARB did. W hen there is a reasonable balance between the
old way of building and the new way, he does not want to be too rigid in applying those principles.
Mr. Boyd suggested the Board hear from the applicant before exploring this matter further.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to say first that the Board should send a message to the ARB that
green building is important to the community and it is a factor the Board wants considered.
Mr. Boyd said to the applicant that it is obvious the Board is concerned about environmentally
sensitive buildings. The applicant should address why the 16 issues in the Action Letter would make it
impossible for the Montessori School to do both.
Ms. Brinn Potter said she is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Montessori Community
School. The School recognizes that the ARB guidelines are important to the community. They hope this
process can be a clarification for everybody. She said the Board of Supervisors approved their master
plan through a special use permit in March, 2007. They tried for approval of their preliminary site plan in
July and August of 2007, at which time they introduced a design to the ARB. In deciding on the criteria for
their design, they looked at the ARB Guidelines. The Montessori School is dedicated to not only green
design and sustainability, but incorporating that into their educational model. They recognize that the
process is as important as the product. They had a committee of staff, parents and experts who worked
for months on the master design. They felt their design gave them some latitude to look at green design
and sustainability. In particular, they could combine contemporary design as well as traditional.
Ms. Potter said they looked at their sanctuary (called that because it is certified as an Audubon
sanctuary). They sometimes feel like an oasis on Pantops because they are surrounded by economic
development, but they are doing this important and different work. They wanted to hold to their ideals with
something as significant as their long-range master plan. They looked at solar orientation and how the
wind and the weather and light would be coming into their new building. Because subjectivity is
sometimes a curse when dealing with a committee of 12+ people, they wanted to use the requirements for
LEED certification. Using LEED for a school develops extra criteria that are rankings for educational
settings. It is important because it falls in with the Montessori philosophies of incorporating education as
part of design; it is not just about what is created, but what you continue to create.
Ms. Potter said the plan presented to the ARB originally came back to them with a lot of
comments and that had an effect on their LEED scoring. In the beginning they had hoped to be in the
SILVER level for schools, which is a level above basic certification. The question was how they could
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
make changes and still maintain LEED certification. They were each trying to change design elements
including external surfaces with their ability to stay green in an objective, specific way. As a member of
the Board of Trustees there is pressure to watch the economic bottom line. They do not have unlimited
resources, so tried to find the most economical way to be green in real terms and at the same time meet
the important criteria set forth by the ARB.
Ms. Potter said this is their final proposal. Obviously they did not change the roof design. They
are aware of the ARB’s wish that it fit with what they see as traditional structures in the area. They could
argue that a shed roof is also a traditional structure and is seen often in the area. They recognize that it
has a contemporary look, but at the same time they tried to find aesthetic changes that did not
compromise the LEED certification. She said they made many changes at each of the phases of the
process. They recognize that this appeal may not be appropriate and the Board may not overturn the
denial. If they went forward with the designs this Board has not seen but which they are simultaneously
working on in the interest of time and money, they would lose their LEED certification for schools. They
cannot afford to make other changes and maintain LEED certification; they are trying to fine tune this plan
so asked their architect to do many different versions. If they change the shed roof, it will cause them to
lose their LEED certification and greatly impact their rainwater harvesting system.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Potter if she is an architect. Ms. Potter said she is not. She said their
architect is present as is their landscape designer to answer specific questions.
Mr. Rooker said as to the roof design jeopardizing rainwater harvesting, rain is harvested off of
pitched roofs all the time. Ms. Potter said the shed roof design provides efficiency because there is no
need for a gutter system. Also, the shed roof faces toward the courtyard which allows a visual educational
opportunity for the children, adults and members of the community. She said a rainwater harvesting
system is possible with a gable roof, but efficiency is lost, the cost increases because they would need to
collect rainwater from two places, and they would lose their educational opportunity. She said there is
someone present from the TJ Soil & W ater Conservation District along with their architect who can give
more specific details.
Mr. Rooker asked what change was made in the roofline in the alternative design mentioned
earlier. Ms. Potter asked Mr. Neal Deputy, their architect, to answer that question.
Mr. Slutzky said it would be helpful for him if the applicant could say compliance with the Entrance
Corridor Guidelines would result in a reduced LEED score and explain the reasons for that statement.
Mr. Deputy said he is the Project Architect for the Montessori School. As to the first question, he
put together some alternatives in order to meet with Mr. W right and Mr. Lebo to flesh out what they
thought might be acceptable to help navigate this impasse. He said those designs were not ratified by the
Montessori Community School’s Board of Directors. As to the second question, he is not a LEED AP
architect. They have a LEED AP architect who has done the scoring for the various stages of their
submittals – Ms. Shannon Bear. W ith respect to the roof form, the single sloped roof is the most efficient
way to achieve the goals of the School. It speaks to the crux of sustainability and environmental
stewardship which is efficiency and the integration of systems. A roof system must speak to the structural
system, the special system, the thermal and moisture protection system, the energy management system,
along with pedagogical and ideological systems within the school.
Mr. Deputy said this is the most efficient form structurally and is also the most efficient form from
a thermal and moisture protection point of view because it requires the least amount of material to build. It
requires the least amount of transport and labor. It is able to vent itself naturally along the slope of the
roof without attic vents or forced venting which a gable roof would require. It creates overhangs where
they are needed - to the south, east and west. A gable system is non-hierarchical with respect to where
its overhangs are placed – they would appear out of balance. Finally, it is the least expensive system they
can use, but is one that has a basis in Central Virginia historic architecture. He thinks it is the best
solution from all points of view. If they lose the roof, they lose LEED points. He said Ms. Bear can speak
to that in more detail. It is not only more LEED points, but they would lose a lot of other things as well.
Ms. Boyd said he would like to summarize what Mr. Deputy said which is that the Montessori
Board rejected the alternative approach because of economics, the lost educational opportunities and the
degradation of the LEED certification. Ms. Potter said her subjective interpretation of this process is that
you could put 10 architects in a room and they would argue as to the best solution; she recognizes that the
ARB is in place to make the final assessment. She said it is not just about LEED but the position the ARB
was put in. The executive summary basically said the ARB commended the School’s efforts to build a
green and sustainable building, but there are no provisions in their guidelines to allow them to direct or
consider a building’s sustainability as part of the consideration. She thinks that is why the School needed
to come before the Supervisors.
Ms. Potter said the School looked at the County’s Comprehensive Plan as a guide. There are
some subjective places in the ARB Guidelines; everything does not have to be homogeneous. The reality
of the Comprehensive Plan is that it does not to be an overarching document that drives all documents for
the County. They would argue that sustainability and green building is part of the Guidelines even though
they are not specifically written into the Guidelines. She then showed some pictures showing that there
are a variety of rooftops in the Pantops area, and it is challenging to hire an architect and say make things
compatible to what is traditional in the area. She offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said part of what seems to be incompatible is the color of red on the building. Ms.
Potter said what they intended was to use the natural color of cedar siding. They were asked to make it
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
brick red, and that was one of the changes they made. It should be the same color as the building already
on the property which makes the new building cohesive with the original building on the property.
Ms. Thomas asked if any thought was given to reflecting the unique and interesting windows that
still will be seen at the administration building. Ms. Potter said setting a big bank of windows high and
offsetting them to allow for maximum light reduces the interior lighting needed. It is not just aesthetic, but
they are trying to balance being able to reduce the use of interior fixtures – natural light will be maximized.
She said for them it actually came down to roof design and native landscaping. Those were the two “deal
breakers.”
Ms. Mallek asked if there is any possibility to have winter cover amongst the native tall things that
would deal with the erosion issue during off season. Ms. Potter said that is a question for Mr. Hunter
McCaudle who is the landscape designer.
Mr. McCaudle said he is a landscape architect with McKee Carson. They are doing the civil
engineering and landscape architecture for the project. The overarching concept for the landscape is to
create an outdoor classroom, or living laboratory of native plant species of the Piedmont region of Virginia.
They are using multi-textured, multi-layered plants to increase and enhance the Audubon certificate that
is currently awarded to the site. That will bring different plant, mammal, insect and bird species back to
the area. There are several sewer and water line easements that cross that hillside. They cannot plant
large shrubs or trees in those easements. They propose using native warm season grasses for that and
planting them in plug form. In the summertime they range from blues and greens and move into the
ochres and beiges in the wintertime. They have avoided monoculture planting which is seen across the
street at the Rite-Aid Store and at some of the gas stations. They do not feel that would nurture the
learning capabilities of the children.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be any exposed soil in the wintertime. Mr. McCaudle said that is
not the intent.
Mr. Rooker said this is not a public hearing. He said the Board has received a plethora of E-mails
and there are a number of parents and students from the School present today. He would ask that the
Board consider allowing one or two people from that group to speak.
Mr. Boyd said he was just going to suggest that. Ms. Potter said they were going to ask that
everyone stand. They have two people present who would like to speak – one is Ms. Garnett Mellon from
the TJ Soil & W ater Conservation District, as well as Mr. Bill Edgerton from the Oak Hill Fund.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to go through the technical aspects of this petition;
people who have expertise are appreciated.
Mr. Boyd said the Board will allow input even though this is not a public input session. He asked
that comments be limited, but the Board will hear from anyone who wishes to speak.
Ms. Garnett Mellon said she is with the T.J. Soil & W ater Conservation District. One of their
charges is to protect water so in recent years they have encouraged rainwater harvesting. This should be
an interesting process for the children at the School. There may be rainwater harvesting of this building
which may be beyond the scope of the ARB’s evaluation. Maybe it is appropriate that the Supervisors
oversee this particular piece. She said the School came to the TJS&W CD about a year ago and asked
them to write a grant. They wrote the grant to a local, anonymous donor and were awarded over $20,000
to add to this project so they could have a significant rainwater harvesting system catching 8,000 gallons
of water. The roof would be pitched toward the community center of the School so the children could see
the process. She said the money has been awarded but there is an issue with the timeframe.
Construction has to do with when the grant is completed and whether or not the grantor can be generous
enough to offer the money at this time. She said Albemarle has amazing water resources, but the
TJS&W CD wants to encourage rainwater harvesting wherever possible.
Mr. Bill Edgerton said he came to urge the Board’s serious consideration of the recent denial of
the Montessori Community School’s certificate of appropriateness. He believes that what the School has
designed will be an asset to the community and worthy of the Board’s support. He has committed most of
his professional career as an architect to promoting green building and sustainable design as important
ways of addressing growth-related environmental degradation of the County. Several years ago he closed
his private practice to focus all of his efforts on promoting green building and sustainable design in the
affordable housing sector.
Mr. Edgerton said that as an Albemarle Planning Commissioner, he was pleased last year at the
commitment of the Montessori Community School to incorporate green building and sustainable site
design in the proposed expansion. The School not only intends to develop the project as a LEED project,
but they hope that both the buildings and the site design will become models of sustainability for the entire
community. He understands the School intends to incorporate the importance of sustainable design in
their educational curriculum as well as share the model with the community.
Mr. Edgerton said one significant feature of their proposal is the rainwater harvesting system. The
proposed system utilizes a single slope shed roof to collect all of the rainwater and then utilize it on site.
To do this in the Development Area is significant because it will reduce the need for the School to utilize
water from the community’s water system. The School is coordinating its efforts with the TJS&W CD who
will be constructing the system and monitoring the same. He understands one of the ARB’s aesthetic
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
concerns was the single sloped shed Galvalum roof which was designed to maximize the efficiency of the
rainwater collection.
Mr. Edgerton said another key feature of the design that was troublesome to the ARB was the
proposed use of native plantings as an integral part of the site design. The utilization of native plantings is
the preferred solution because being native the plantings are genetically adapted to this geographic zone
and therefore require less maintenance and watering. By restricting the proposed plantings to native
species the School will be minimizing the impact on the community water system as well as preventing the
inclusion of potentially invasive species. He was troubled by the letter from the ARB when they said they
preferred a landscape plan “that will achieve the character suitable to the surrounding urban area.” As
one of the few properties in the Pantops area not committed to the automobile, he would hope the Board
might agree the community would be better served by celebrating the remaining natural environment as
the School plan does rather than trying to promote a less desirable urban theme.
Mr. Edgerton said one issue has troubled him about this process because sustainability is covered
by the Comprehensive Plan; it was updated just last year. He is troubled that the ARB does not feel it is
empowered to consider that. If that is the case, he hopes this discussion will lead to making sure they do
consider the Comprehensive Plan when they are reviewing projects.
Mr. Jeff W erner said he is with the Piedmont Environmental Council. For years he had a
relationship with the Montessori School and he can say the School and the students value this greatly. He
came today to encourage the Supervisors to seek a solution. There are unique characteristics here that
need to be embraced. He was a builder at one time and his graduate degree was at the Architecture
School. He understands the key problem is with the shed roof which forms the finished ceiling space of
the learning room, whereas a hip roof, relative to LEEDs, is an inefficient use of space since it has to be
heated and cooled, or it is treated as attic space, so it is unused space. He said hip roofs are funny
especially when looking at them subjectively, particularly when looking up a hillside. Architectural
elevations are done as if you are floating at a midpoint in space both high and low. He has dealt with
people who have looked at roofs and elevations and when he had finished their house they were standing
in the driveway saying “I thought I would be able to see my roof.” He said that needs to be kept in mind
when arguing for a traditional roof that may or may not be evident from certain vantage points. He thinks
everybody can work together on this unique situation and find a solution relative to ARB review.
Ms. Amy Gardner said she is a resident of the City, graduated from the School of Architecture at
UVA and is a member of the Board of Architectural Review for the City. She has tried to think of historical
properties on Pantops Mountain this morning, and can think of only one. It is the former Peter Jefferson
home. W hether the ARB likes it or not they have a post-modern sprawl condition on Pantops. A well-
designed piece of modern architecture on Pantops would be welcome from the big-box and local
development that has overtaken the mountain. She cannot think why a shed roof would be a problem in
the context created on the mountain. If she were a member of the ARB she would have found this a
welcome project. During the last few years the City has had to mesh many new projects with the
Downtown Mall. She urged the Board to consider the presentation and to overturn the ruling of the ARB.
Ms. Candace Smith said she is vice-chairman of the County’s ARB. She would like to make it
clear that the ARB never said they had an objection to rainwater harvesting, or native plants. They are
advocates of the possibility of sustainability, but their charge is to look at aesthetics. They never asked for
the building to be barn red, but said that natural wood with a finish would weather irregularly and poorly
and look disheveled in the future. The ARB asked the School to come up with alternatives.
Ms. Smith said the applicant has talked about time and money affecting them, and their time and
money is being lost because their support system, their professionals, did not follow through when the
ARB gave them specific comments and asked for a response. She said the Schools’ submittal was
incomplete with insufficient information to evaluate. They could not send it on with simple administrative
approval. There are often 15 or more items but they are distinct enough that the ARB will understand
what the change will result in so they can have staff make sure those changes are on the drawings. She
said there was enough information lacking that the ARB could not make a decision on what the building
would look like.
Ms. Smith said the planting plan was the same planting plan submitted in July or August; it was
never changed, it was handwritten and the ARB had specific questions which were not addressed. She
said the discussion today has focused on the building type, but she feels the landscaping has the
possibility of creating a terrible eyesore at a prominent intersection of the entrance corridor. A jumble of
trees and shrubs were interspersed between what was called “meadow mix.” The ARB has never
approved meadow mix in the past, and has only its private sources to advise if this is obtainable and
feasible. The ARB did not object to it but needed further information. Just saying meadow mix will be put
in does not tell the spacing, the quality, or what it will actually look like. Her sources have confirmed that it
is not a low-maintenance installation. It requires, at the least, bush-hogging once a year, which is not
feasible on this slope and it needs to be maintained at 12 inches, or preferably six inches for the first year,
and that requires mowing.
Ms. Smith said meadow mix can mean any variety of plants and grasses and the precise mixes
need to be known in order to evaluate what will be seen. The School’s landscape architect just said it will
be warm season grasses and they will be blowing in the wind and looking nice throughout the year. He
then said the canopy species that will move into the site can be accommodated there. The reason for
bush-hogging is to keep the weeds and other trees out. If the intention is that it go back to the ailanthus
that currently lines Route 250, the ARB needs to know that so it can decide if that is an appropriate
appearance. The three dimensional drawing that was given is deceptive and only shows a possible spring
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
view ten years from now. It does not reveal how poor the site could look or how year-round there would
be use of the building. It is not that the ARB will not approve the plan, but it needs additional information.
The ARB regularly tells applicants that a particular tree or shrub won’t survive in a particular place
because of its exposure, or its placement. Most applicants will listen and say “thank you” because they
are glad a client will not have to replace a tree regularly.
Ms. Smith said the building’s form and finish are not appropriate for that intersection. The ARB,
from the beginning, has recommended a change in the form but little changes have been made other than
to change the color of the building. The ARB must respond to what can be seen from the entrance
corridor. W ith a building perched at the top of a hill, they know the building’s features will be more
prominent. As an example, consider the multi-storied Rosewood Retirement building currently under
construction behind Target off of Route 29 North. The argument presented to the ARB was that the
building would be more than 1,000 feet from the road and much of the building would be background. She
has talked with many people who after driving by that building have questions. W hen a building is placed
high on the land, it takes on a greater presence.
Ms. Smith said the footprint of the Montessori School building is twice as long as the existing
historic structure, and closer to the entrance corridor. The building will be very visible and needs to be
well-finished. A single slope shed roof has been approved for other entrance corridor buildings but it is
done in conjunction with the site with views to and from the entrance corridor so it is not that the ARB is
opposed to this type of roof. On this hill, one would be staring up at the underbelly of the roof overhang
and it does not fit on the site relative to the existing buildings on the site.
Ms. Smith said the argument that the building needs to take this form to be sustainable is not true.
The fact that they claim they will lose points by not having a single sloped roof is not true. She is glad that
an earlier speaker showed the checklist for LEED. Unfortunately, the LEED word is used as a catch-all. It
is a system that is currently in place to evaluate buildings and there are 68 LEED points on new
construction that can be obtained; at the most, only one or two of them have anything to do with the
aesthetics of a building. Two of those have to do with daylighting and views, so this building is trying to
capture more daylight and views, but it does not take advantage of the single slope roof in the way it
should to when it has that form.
Ms. Smith referred to the drawing presented to the Board and said the two central images show a
sloped roof with windows up high that allow daylighting into a classroom. In this project, the architect said
that in the upper portion where the ARB would like to have windows to let daylighting in to justify the single
slope roof, he has put the HVAC equipment. Looking at his design, the head of the windows on the low
side of the building and the high side of the windows are identical. He has not captured anymore daylight
because of the roof form. He could capture the same amount of daylight with a flat roof, a hip roof or a
gable roof. He has not raised the windows to capture light which would influence how the ARB looks at it.
Ms. Smith said the middle picture shows a building which the ARB has partially approved. It has
the single slope shed roof, and in this case, most of those roofs face the entrance corridor. Conceptually,
this is a marvelous design for a classroom and has been used many times in the country. If this was the
approach, it would have changed the elevation of that building and added more windows and had a
different rhythm and proportion to it. She said the six other images are all LEED certified structures so the
form of the building has nothing to do with LEED. LEED cares about many other issues and the points are
tallied even as design is begun and construction advances. Enhanced refrigerant management has
nothing to do with the look of the building.
Ms. Smith said the ARB feels the building can be used as a teaching tool. It can be a sustainable
building, and it can be a green building, but the School has not met the very simple aesthetic requirements
of telling the ARB what it will look like, and then having the ARB evaluate it.
Ms. Shannon Barras said she is a local architect and also works as UVA. As the person who did
the LEED score card, she would like to make a few points. She said any form of building can be done and
achieve LEED through various designs. The changes that would be made would affect water collection.
They would lose points for the gray water that would be used for the plumbing. Also, she assumes they
would not be gathering quite as much water with the new design. They would lose points with daylight and
views. She said it would be nice to have the windows higher. In the current design they chose not to have
them go higher based simply on cost. The windows would be smaller through a traditional mimicking of
windows, losing daylight and views. They would lose another point if native planting were eliminated.
Other points can be gained, but she thinks the correct way to address LEED is by good design and not by
purchasing points (there are ways to purchase points). She offered to answer questions about LEED.
Mr. Rooker said there seems to be some misunderstanding. The Board just heard a
representative of the ARB say they are not opposed to native plants. Their problem came about because
they did not receive a plan showing where the native plants would be placed. Second, he does not
understand the statement that a change of the roof design would result in less water collection. Ms.
Barras said she does not feel there would be the potential for capturing more water. The same amount
could be captured with a change in the roof but it would require two systems or more piping, which they
cannot afford. Also, they would be watering the plants from that captured water which they could not do
without having enough roof to capture it.
Ms. Thomas asked if the entire roof’s amount must be captured in order to get their points. She
said there are so many compromises that could be made. One is that they do not need the traditional hip
roof in order to have the appearance from the entrance corridor that there is some roof to look at. At some
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
point a roof either looks bigger than expected, or not as much roof is seen as expected. She thinks that
having some downward tilt of the roof for what is totally tilting upward as seen from the entrance corridor
would appear to be a hip roof. At first she thought that would not be good because it would cut off the
windows, but it was just pointed out that the windows do not go to the very top, therefore the windows
would not be shaded with “a bit of a hip.” That also would reduce the rain collection by a measurable but
small amount. She asked if they have to collect all water from every roof in order to do the rain
harvesting. Ms. Barras said she did not think that was the case. They looked at that concept. On this
particular building, aesthetically it looked funny, and they did not like it. She does not know the solution.
Mr. McCaudle said he would like to address some of the issues mentioned by Ms. Smith. He said
the landscaping became an issue because of the way it would be planted using a diverse mix of planting
species incorporating the meadow mix over the easements and not following along the traditional
hedgerows and tight rows of tree species like those in front of the gas station. He said the plans they
presented show where and how many plant specifies are on the site, their sizes, their numbers, the
meadow mix; it is all incorporated into the site plan. He said everything submitted followed the ARB’s
checklist. There was never anything that was not submitted when requested.
Ms. Thomas said the picture she gets from the sketch of the best case scenario which was
presented in the Board’s packet of materials, is of something that is very shaggy and unkempt. She does
not know where someone got the idea there had never been appeal of an ARB ruling because there have
been appeals filed in the past. Shaggy, as opposed to a kempt appearance, is something other applicants
have wanted because they did not want the expense of keeping a hedgerow and trimming same; used car
lots do not want a hedgerow because they want to be sure the bumpers of the cars can be seen. Kempt
as opposed to shaggy is something that comes before the Board all the time and the Board always picks
kempt. She said it is nice that it is an educational feature, but little kids will not be on that steep slope
walking amongst those bushes, nor will the School want to encourage mammals on that hillside because it
will be enticing them out onto a busy highway. She is not convinced that what has been proposed to the
Board is defensible. It does not matter if it is native plant species. She hopes the ARB will go to drought
resistant native plant species in their recommendations. She asked if Mr. McCaudle can aesthetically
defend what looks like something the Board would not allow in the entrance corridor if it were any other
applicant.
Mr. McCaudle asked if Ms. Thomas’ definition of “kempt” is “a trimmed hedge.” He said there can
be a very structured series of plantings, large masses, and sweeps of different types of shrubs and be
very kempt which is what they are proposing.
Ms. Thomas said it does not look like that in the sketch. Mr. McCaudle said it is difficult to create
a prospective of planting. W hat they propose is that there would be sweeps and masses of a series of
shrubs to bring in diversification of bird, insect and wildlife species. That further enhances the Audubon
certification of the site. W hat would be wrong with having diversification of species and different flowering
sequences, and seeing those birds when one is stopped at the stoplight on Route 250? That is why he
thinks it is defensible. W hy not bring the kids to the top of the hill to look down, or even down to the
bottom of the hill where there is a sidewalk so they could look up and see different plant species
flowering?
Mr. Paul W right said he is Chairman of the Architectural Review Board. Most of what he has to
say is not about architecture, but about process. He heard comments about the blue roof and what the
ARB learned from that proposal. For example, the blue roof on the CarMax, which is right below the
School, shows that design can be improved and changed over time. That blue was not on the original
submission; it was probably the third. The ARB has learned that if a strange color is to be approved, it
should get a very big sample since looking at little samples will fool you. That is why in their new meeting
room they insisted on natural lighting because for a long time they were looking at color chips under
fluorescent lighting and mistakes were made. They would like to have that decision back, but that is not
how it works.
Mr. W right said the ARB has no opposition to green buildings. The more he studies it the more he
realizes that green, sustainability and design can co-exist without any problem. In terms of what the ARB
has before it, the ARB does not have the tools in which to balance different competing needs. They do
not have any staff that is trained in LEEDs although he knows the County is working toward that. He
recommends that as a group the County join the LEED certification if it is determined to be important.
Now, they have to take the word of other people, which they do not do for anything else. One applies for
LEED certification only after the building has been built. If someone came with a LEED certified building,
they would have to make compromises on design and in the end the building would not get LEED
certification. At that point, what would the County do since the applicant did what had been promised. He
is wondering why LEED certification is only needed in the entrance corridor. If the County wants LEED
certification, perhaps it should be required for every building. It is hard to make this a requirement just in
the entrance corridors. As a member of Green Counties, Cool Counties, and other initiatives, it would
seem that this is almost as important to make this a process that would go through all buildings and,
therefore, the ARB would not be involved with LEED certification at all. They could stick to aesthetics and
design which is their charge from the Board.
Mr. Boyd said if there was no one else who wished to speak, the Board would discuss this
request.
Ms. Thomas said she thought people wanted to stand to show their support of the request. (Note:
Approximately 40 people stood.)
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Rooker said he does not see how this plan cannot be returned to the ARB. Representatives
of the ARB have said they have incomplete information upon which to make an evaluation. This Board
charged the ARB with this process of achieving an aesthetic appeal to the entrance corridors, and in their
findings 16 different issues were raised. He would find it difficult to say none of those things matter and
approve the plan. He is sympathetic to a number of the things raised by the School. First, early on it was
said that this Board wants to encourage green building, sustainable design and would like to make certain
the ARB takes that into consideration in making its decisions. He thinks sustainability should co-exist with
reasonable aesthetics. A variety of aesthetics are in that entrance corridor today. He is confident that if
the ARB gets all of the information requested, together with input from this Board on its priorities and what
it expects the ARB to consider in its approval process, this can be worked through and completed in a way
that accommodates substantially what the School is asking for, but at the same time allows the ARB to
complete a reasonable review process with respect to the proposal.
Mr. Slutzky said he agrees with most of what Mr. Rooker said but ends up with a different
outcome in his mind. It appears that the people from the Montessori School came before the ARB with
their proposal refined and the ARB, with its hands tied with regard to the green building considerations,
said they needed more information. The ARB had some foundational issues. Representatives of the
School felt there were issues on which they could furnish further information, but there were fundamental
issues they could not get beyond. They then decided to come before the Board of Supervisors. In this
case there are some fundamental issues of how much primacy the Board wants to give to the objectives
of green building and design. In this particular case, which he thinks is unique, he would be comfortable
supporting the applicant in their request to overturn the decision of the ARB. He would also say he is not
trying to undermine the overall purpose and intent of the ARB, and would be willing to support the
applicant’s request. He also encourages the ARB to advance their understanding of the technicalities of
LEEDs so they can find compromises when there is an inevitable conflict between these competing
objectives in a way that is more consistent with the sustainability accords the County has developed.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks there is a “Solomon’s choice” involved here. This property is in his district
so he has met with people from the Montessori School and has talked with some members of the ARB.
He thinks each of these groups may have “drawn a line in the sand” and will not go beyond it. There have
been some communication problems between the two. There has also been the idea that they will not
give in on a particular point. He is leaning toward sending this request back to the ARB and encourages
them to recognize the importance of sustainability. He would like to see the two parties come up with a
compromise that can achieve the goals of both. Maybe that is not possible and this Board will have to
make the decision. He is not willing to give up the thought that they can come to a compromise.
Mr. Rooker said this is not just a single issue which has been brought to the Board. He said there
are 16 things, and he wonders if Mr. Slutzky is willing to overturn the ARB on the requirement “to provide
large shade trees along the entrance corridor frontage outside of the electric easement.”
Mr. Slutzky said the 16 things before the Board are not discreet items. W hat is before the Board is
a process challenge. They said that the ARB for a litany of reasons decided to reject their request for
approval. They are asking the Board if it supports that position. He does not. He thinks the fundamental
consideration should be the Board’s commitment to the green building element. W hile a lot of the other
things are important, they are nuances compared to that. He thinks the Board needs to send a signal that
it is committed to that.
Mr. Rooker said those nuances are required in virtually every application, and are what has made
the difference in the entrance corridors. W hile he agrees with the School’s case for a green building and
wants to be sure that is accommodated, most of the things listed have nothing to do with the slope of the
roof, etc.
Mr. Slutzky asked if ARB approval subjects people to a litany of items that then need to be
resolved at staff level. He said the ARB gave clear directions to staff as to their concerns.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board overturned the decision of the ARB with 16 reasons for denial, which
of those things could then be put in as conditions.
Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. Davis explain what would happen if the Board approved the denial.
Mr. Davis said typically the Board would approve the plan with an itemized list of corrections which would
have to be implemented. If the Board simply overturned the ARB’s decision, the Board would then have to
approve a plan with a set of conditions to address all the issues; staff cannot do that.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board could isolate the issues that seem to be the impasse issues and
approve the plan subject to the 14 ARB conditions, but take the other two, for example, the roofline.
Mr. Rooker said the roofline is one of the problems. The roofline is not isolated as a specific item.
Item No. 1 reads: “Revise the form of the classroom building to be compatible with the forms and
features of the significant historic buildings of the County, and particularly the on-site Administration
Building.” He asked if the only issue is the roofline. Mr. Davis said that was a comment which was
intended to create a new draft that would then be reviewed further by the ARB for determination of
compatibility.
Mr. Rooker said he does not understand the background of all of these items. He is sympathetic
to the School’s desires to build a sustainable building and understands their financial resources are not
unlimited. He thinks the whole idea of trying to make education a part of their sustainable building is
laudable. It is an asset to the community, and the building will be an asset to the community upon
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
completion. Given the scope of these issues, this Board is not in a position today to go into these
conditions and fashion its own conditions without hearing the presentation that led to them. He feels the
Board could send this request back to the ARB with some directions.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to echo the diversity that could be offered by a sloped roof. There
are many forms that all have admired and lived amongst in the urban and agricultural environment.
Perhaps directions could be sent to the ARB to take a little wider view on that issue, and also to bring the
parties to the table on the other 14 issues. She did not understand from looking at the pictures that the
glass did not go all the way to the ceiling. She thinks the people with the expertise need to get together
and figure it out.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has to decide whether it wants to affirm, reverse or modify in whole or
in part the decision of the ARB. He does not think the Board is willing at this time to do any of those
things. He somewhat agrees with Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Rooker, even though they are on both sides of the
issue, that the plan should go back to the ARB to be worked out. He does not think the Board is in a
position to deal with each of the 16 items.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Davis if the Board denied the appeal of the Montessori School, what
ramifications that would have as opposed to simply saying the Board would not take any action. Mr. Davis
said if the Board denied the appeal the School would have to make a new application to the ARB for
approval of the project before they could get final site plan approval.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to challenge both groups; he thinks the ARB has heard today that it
should give a little bit because the Board wants them to consider sustainability issues. He would
encourage the ARB to put this on the fast track because time is money to the School. Obviously, the
Board would like to have this matter settled at the ARB level.
Mr. Rooker said if this request comes back to the Board, he would like it to be on a single issue,
or two issues. At this time, the Board does not even have the background information that led to the
ARB’s decision.
Ms. Slutzky said he still feels the Board should overturn the ARB on this particular request.
Obviously that is not going to happen. He asked if the Board could sustain the determination of the ARB
or would it be better if the Board took no action today and asked both the ARB and applicant to sort this
out so the applicant could withdraw its appeal. Process wise what can the Board do?
Mr. Davis said the Board has two options. First, with the consent of the applicant, the request can
be referred back to the ARB and it could chose to have further dialogue with the applicant. Second, if the
applicant will not consent to that, the Board has to make some decision. He does not think the Board is in
a position to do that today, so if that is the posture of the applicant, he would recommend that the Board
not make a decision and refer the request back to staff to get input from the ARB and staff in order to
have a recommendation on what could be approvable by the Board addressing the issues talked about
today. That will require staff and the ARB to have further dialogue with the applicant. He thinks staff
would prefer that the applicant consent to having this plan returned to the ARB who is better equipped to
handle this type of request.
Mr. Boyd said the applicant has heard the discussion and there does not appear to be support to
override the ARB. Ms. Potter said the School’s overarching issue has to do with time. That is why they
were concerned with the two main issues which are the “big sticking points.” W hen she talked about the
roof, she was referring to Item No. 1. That was communicated to them as the primary problem with the
form. She does not understand completely what Mr. Boyd said, but if the School consented to go back to
the ARB it is consenting to a long timeline that puts them in jeopardy of losing the grant for the rainwater
harvesting system and their groundbreaking in terms of school scheduling.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the shorter process is to go back to the ARB because the Board has
asked them to consider this on an expedited basis.
Mr. Boyd said that is what he said.
Mr. Slutzky asked when the ARB could consider this request again. Ms. Maliszewski said the next
meeting of the ARB is on January 22, and again on February 4. However, scheduling would depend on
staff having the information in time to review it.
Ms. Thomas said she was going to try and give the ARB the consensus of the Board today.
W ithout that kind of guidance, referring it back would not help at all. She will express her own thoughts.
She thinks rain harvesting is important. Important to her is the landscaping and how it looks early on, not
ten years from now. Although native plants are okay, she does not see that as a learning experience on
that slope. Today, she finds it to be ugly because it is hard to get plants to latch onto that soil. She would
like careful landscaping, and the educational aspects are less important to her than its appearance
because of its prominent location in the community. The window shape and its blocky appearance are not
that off-putting because she thinks color of the siding and the landscaping can make the building fit in.
Mr. Slutzky said that captures his views well.
Mr. Boyd said “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and he thinks that is a lot of what is being
looked at on this plan. Personally he does not have a problem with the shed-type roof in that location. He
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
is not an architect and is not artistic, but that is something he would be willing to see so some of the
landscape issues could be dealt with instead.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there are some compromises concerning the roof issue that would
meet both objectives easily. If that is not the case, then he would agree with Ms. Thomas. He said the
ARB was formed about 1988 and out of all the things the County has tried to do he thinks the ARB’s
efforts have made the single most important aesthetic improvement to the community. In the case of the
roofline here, he thinks there are some small changes that probably could be made. Green building is at
the top of his list of things the County should pursue. If there is no way to achieve the aesthetic look with
a green building approach, then he thinks it is a worthwhile trade-off.
Mr. Boyd asked the applicant again if they were willing to have the request referred back to the
ARB. Ms. Potter said she appreciates what the Board members are saying. Under the sentiment that the
process of going back to the ARB is the common goal of working out this impasse which represents
something larger than this project, she will take that leap of faith and remove herself from her fiscal mind
and timeframe and consent to the process the Board is proposing.
Mr. W right said along with the comments to the ARB, the first one is not sufficient in terms of rain
harvesting. Both designs have rain harvesting and it would be helpful if the Board could give a little more
guidance, it would be easier to translate.
Mr. Slutzky said prior to today the ARB has had no empowerment through the guidance to even
take into consideration the ecological benefits of one design versus another. He said there seems to be
unanimity on the notion that the Board wants the ARB to modify its charge to reflect that value judgment.
Just saying rain harvesting is not sufficient for him. He would like to optimize the sustainable element of
building design and he considers that to be a priority that trumps aesthetics. However, he does not want
to put the ARB in the position of having to approve things which make no sense from an aesthetic
standpoint simply because the applicant can hang their hat on some superior ecological benefit. He asks
if that helps Mr. W right.
Mr. W right said it does, but in a sense both roof designs allow for rain harvesting. It comes down
to the sustainability argument on a peaked roof in terms of two pumping stations. He is also asking if the
shed roof is okay or if it is not okay. He does not want to be put in a position where the Board could go
back and argue on each side. He wants to do what the Board wants the ARB to do, but wants a
reasonable matrix. Some people here think that what the Board just said indicates it wants approval of the
shed roof. If that is what the Board wants that is fine, but some people might have also thought that with a
peaked roof system you can only do half the rain collection so there is a compromise involved. He thinks
it would be helpful if the Board could address that one issue. He has all of the Board’s other comments.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not want to compromise the ecological by the aesthetic. For him, if the
two are in direct competition, he would favor the more significant ecological benefit over the aesthetic.
Ms. Thomas said a shed roof might have some architectural treatment so it does not look so
much like a shed roof. She thinks the majority of the Board members have said a shed roof would be
okay if that is what it has to be.
Ms. Smith asked to make a comment. Mr. Boyd said the Board would hear a short comment.
Ms. Smith said the ARB did not want to get into the details of the design because it felt that because the
report was incomplete, that was a sufficient statement. She said it does not matter if the roof is sloped,
vertical or flat. W hat matters is the footprint that catches the number of rain inches per square foot. The
footprint of that building shows a significant amount of other areas beyond the single sloped roof. There is
a complete arcade, there are other roofs projecting off, there is a giant classroom (which is something the
ARB had concerns about), and another similar portico on the other side which takes up at least as much
of the rainwater conditions as the main sloped roof.
Mr. Slutzky said there is cost associated with the piping. Ms. Smith said she does not know if
those are piped, but if there is a huge arcade she assumes there is piping. She said the piping is PVC
piping which could cost only from $2,000 to $10,000 out of a multi-million dollar project. W hat is gained in
a moment is nothing. The piping argument does “not hold water.” Looking at the last drawing submitted
to the ARB, it shows a classroom projecting out beyond the arcade. They probably lost LEED points
because they changed it from a roof garden to a classroom, As a roof garden it would have obtained a
tremendous amount of points. The building is not yet finished being designed. It has two small posts
supporting thousands of pounds of weight. It shows a beam supporting it. She is concerned about the
structure which projects out like a boat over the hillside; the ARB has not received enough information on
it.
Mr. Boyd said that is why this Board is saying the ARB has to deal with the question.
Ms. Smith said one single shed roof is not the issue. There are already “bent” roofs in this area,
but they are not necessarily visible because they are concealed by bends that go the other way. She said
there are several issues about the design that the ARB wanted to address.
Mr. Boyd said the Supervisors cannot get into that kind of detail. That is why it is being sent back
to the ARB and the ARB is being encouraged to give in to sustainability issues. Ms. Smith said the ARB
appreciates these directions.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Slutzky said Ms. Smith said a moment ago that having to have redundant collection systems
and a more extensive piping system colors his perspective that these are clear directions. He wants it to
be clear that he, personally, wants the ARB to pay much more attention in this particular case to the
importance of the ecological aspects of the proposal over its aesthetic aspects. He does not think the
extra rainwater collection and the extra efficiency should be dismissed. Ms. Smith said she was not
discounting it; she said the cost to catch it is minimal.
Mr. Boyd said this debate must be ended.
Ms. Potter said based on Ms. Smith’s comments, she feels it is urgent that this Board make a
statement on Item 1, the design and form. She feels that if the Board does not make a clarification on that
roof design, the whole project will have to be redesigned. In terms of practicality of the School getting
somewhere on January 22, both parties need to know whether that redesign has to happen or whether the
Board is saying the current form is supportive of the existing surroundings and it meets the Board’s
standards.
Mr. Boyd said there is a problem with doing that, as the Board just heard, because there are other
issues involved. Ms. Potter said she thinks all those other issues can be addressed.
Mr. Rooker said Item 1 in the letter, which deals with the form, etc. of the building, contains things
other than the roof. He is not prepared to say the ARB is wrong when he has not even seen a complete
proposal that is different. The last proposal to the ARB was incomplete.
Mr. Deputy said he would like to speak to the issue of incompleteness. They have not had a
submission rejected for being incomplete. They have never received a comment from the ARB which was
not addressed in writing in a detailed fashion. In return, they got comments from the ARB like the Board
saw in the letter (revise the form of the building). That gives them little direction and left them to try and
read between the lines to understand what the ARB wanted. They were told to stay close to the ARB
guidelines; compatibility seems to be an issue. He said the ARB guidelines state that the standard of
compatibility can be met through building scale, materials and forms. He said the ARB may not agree with
their responses, but they have been diligent and very detailed about how they responded to each issue.
He said the 16 points Mr. Rooker mentioned are the same points they addressed in their final
presentation. Although they may not have liked the way the School responded, to say the application is
incomplete is inaccurate.
Mr. Boyd said this matter will be deferred and the Board is encouraging both sides to try and work
out these issues. He does not know how the importance this Board places on sustainability issues can be
made any clearer. He asked Mr. Davis if the Board needs to take formal action. Mr. Davis said there
should be a motion to the affect that with the applicant’s consent this matter is referred back to the ARB
for it to reconsider its decision on this plan.
Mr. Boyd said he would so move, and ask that it be done as expeditiously as possible. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said he wanted to make sure staff had a thorough under-
standing of the Board’s expectations. 1) Rain harvesting is crucial; 2) aesthetic review of this request
should not compromise rain harvesting; 3) landscaping along the hillside should have preference toward
its appearance as opposed to its educational value; 4) the shed roof design is okay, but the Board is
expecting compromises to the extent that those compromises do not impact the ability to have effective
rain harvesting; 5) the resulting design and the compromises provided by the ARB should insure that there
would be LEED certification; and, 6) in terms of review, staff will review as quickly as possible (there are
only two staff people, and there are a lot of submittals). Staff and ARB review of this will probably not be
quick, but they will work toward doing it as quickly as possible.
(Note: At 12:08 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened again at 12:18 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. City, County YMCA Use Agreement.
Mr. Tucker said because the meeting is running behind schedule, staff will skip the full
presentation of this item; however, Mr. Kurt Krueger has an item to mention and then the Board can ask
questions.
Mr. Krueger said he wanted to be sure it was clear that the period between approval of the use
agreement by the County and May 20 is the master planning process the City will use for the active side of
the park. It is anticipated that during the process, the City, the County and the YMCA will get together and
negotiate the breadth and scope of the aquatics facility in McIntire Park. Also, the YMCA received a
message from former Mayor David Brown that Mr. Craig Littlepage is interested in talking about adding a
diving component to the facility. There may be an exciting opportunity over the next four months to build
an aquatics facility for the community that would have a significantly large diving component and
competitive pool component.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Slutzky said this Use Agreement does not address whether or not the Board will ultimately
approve the building of a competitive pool with diving facilities, so by supporting this the County is not
obligated to fund the extra 1.2+ million. Mr. Krueger said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd said he gave each Board member a copy of a proposal from the Gators/Stars
Organization which is a competitive swimming organization. They are also building a facility, and they
might possibly accommodate the competitive swimming needs. This Agreement would commit the Board
to the $2.030 million for the indoor facility at McIntire Park.
Mr. Rooker asked if this is the agreement that was worked out and has now been approved by the
City. Mr. Davis said the agreement attached as Exhibit D has under Paragraph 13 a parenthetical that
basically says “insert any additional provisions required by the County and agreed to by the City.” He said
staff did not recommend any additional conditions, but he wanted to point that out for the Board’s
clarification. If there are no additions staff will remove that parenthetical and after final review of the
agreement it would be ready for execution.
Ms. Thomas asked what makes the County’s cash contribution ($2.0+ million) the equivalent of
the City’s contribution of land. Has anyone evaluated the value of the land the City is proposing to use?
There was an alternative proposed which was to use land at PVCC and that land would not have to be
paid for. Mr. Krueger said he thinks the County was willing to put in that amount of money to partner with
the YMCA when the facility was to be built behind the Monticello Fire Station or even at PVCC. The City
has come up with a variety of values for the land at McIntire Park, but it is probably in the range of
$600,000 or higher. The larger the facility and the more land used, the more valuable the piece of
property. Because the facility is to serve both the City and the County, it is likely its use will fall along
population lines which at this time are 70 percent County and 30 percent City.
Mr. Boyd said as a point of reference, they considered the land to be worth nothing because the
County had access to free land, but the location is probably the importance of that amount. Mr. Krueger
said McIntire Park provides the opportunity to better serve the public.
Mr. Rooker said the County Parks & Recreation Department said this is a better location for the
County than other potential locations. He then offered motion to approve the proposed Use Agreement
and to authorize the County Executive to execute the agreement on behalf of the County in substantially
the same form as provided to the Board, after it has been approved by the County Attorney, with any
necessary changes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Agreement, as signed, is set out in full below.)
THIS GROUND LEASE (hereafter the “Lease”) is entered into this 1st day of 15th, 2008
by the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (hereafter the “City”) and the PIEDMONT FAMILY YMCA,
INC., a charitable non-profit organization authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of
Virginia (hereafter “Lessee”).
1. Leased Property. The City, as the title holder of the subject property, in considera-
tion of the rents and covenants to be paid and performed by the Lessee, leases to the Lessee and
the Lessee leases a portion of the property commonly known as McIntire Park in the City of
Charlottesville, being within the area described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, (hereafter the “Leased Property”).
[Note: the specific property subject to this Lease will be approximately 3 – 5 acres and
located on the western side of McIntire Park in the area currently used as softball fields.
The exact boundaries of the Leased Property will be determined by the City following the
completion of a Master Plan for McIntire Park, which the City shall complete by May 20,
2008. The area to be studied for the exact boundaries is shown in Exhibit A. In the event
the City has not completed the Master Plan, the boundaries of the Leased Property shall be
the area identified on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit C, as per Paragraph 4 below. In
no event shall the Leased Property include the existing picnic shelters, playground area,
concession/restrooms building, parking areas or baseball fields.]
2. Title to Leased Property. The City represents and warrants to the Lessee that it has
the power and authority to execute this Lease and to carry out and perform all covenants to be
performed by the City under this Lease.
3. Condition of Leased Property and Lessee’s Right of Entry. The Leased Property
is currently used as active and passive public recreational areas under the supervision of the City
Department of Parks and Recreation. The City makes no representation or warranty as to the
condition or suitability of the Leased Property for the intended purpose of this Lease prior to or at
the time of the execution of this Lease. Lessee accepts the Leased Property “as is” on the
effective date hereof.
Prior to the Commencement Date specified in Paragraph 4, the Lessee shall have the
right to enter onto the Leased Property for the purpose of conducting, at Lessee’s own risk, cost
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
and expense, surveys, soil borings, engineering studies and other similar examinations necessary
to determine the suitability of the Leased Property for the Lessee’s intended use. Lessee shall
provide reasonable notice to the City Department of Parks and Recreation prior to entering the
property, and shall exercise this right of entry at all times so as not to unreasonably interfere with
the normal operation of McIntire Park. If Lessee determines, as a result of its studies, that the
Leased Property is not suitable for its intended use, Lessee may terminate this Lease prior to the
Commencement Date, and neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder. In
the event of such termination Lessee shall, at its own expense, restore the Leased Property to the
condition in which it existed prior to any changes made during the course of its studies. Lessee
indemnifies and agrees to hold the City harmless and defend the City from all claims for damages
to the City or its agents caused by actions of the Lessee in the course of conducting the studies.
4. Term. The initial term of this Lease shall be for a period of forty (40) years, which
shall begin on the date specified in the notice from Lessee to the City required below (the
“Commencement Date”) and continuing thereafter throughout the day of , 2048. Lessee
shall give the City at least sixty (60) days prior written notice of the Commencement Date, which
shall be the date it may commence occupancy of the Leased Property, not later than 120 days
from the earlier of May 20, 2008 or the date the City completes its Master Plan for McIntire Park.
The City agrees to complete such Plan and give notice to the Lessee of the site in McIntire Park
on or before May 20, 2008. In the event the City fails to complete such Plan or give such notice,
the area identified on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit C shall be designated as the Leased
Property without further action on the part of either the City or Lessee.
5. Rent. The Lessee shall pay to the City nominal rent at the rate of $1.00 per year, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
6. Use. Subject to the Lessee’s compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws and regulations, the City hereby grants permission to the Lessee to occupy the Leased
Property for the purposes of constructing and operating a fitness and recreational center with such
amenities as are provided for in the Use Agreement (defined in Paragraph 7 below) (hereinafter
the “Facility”).
7. Purpose. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the use of the Facility shall be
primarily for the benefit of residents of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and non-
resident members of Lessee. The operation of the Facility, and the conducting of any programs,
classes or activities on the Leased Property, shall be in accordance with a “Use Agreement”
executed by the parties hereto and the County of Albemarle, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit B. The Use Agreement may be modified from time to time with the
approval of all of the parties to the Use Agreement, provided that such modifications are in writing
and signed by authorized representatives of all such parties.
8. Construction Commencement and Completion. If construction is not commenced
within sixty (60) months of the execution of this Lease, this Lease shall terminate unless an
extension of time is requested by the Lessee for good cause and agreed to by the City, such
agreement not to be unreasonably withheld. Subject to delays beyond the reasonable control of
the Lessee, the Lessee shall substantially complete construction of the Facility and obtain a
Certificate of Occupancy within twenty-four (24) months of the beginning of construction, unless
an extension of time is requested by the Lessee for good cause and agreed to by the City, such
agreement not to be unreasonably withheld. All construction shall be conducted in such a way as
to minimize disruption to other activities and uses of McIntire Park outside of the Leased Property.
In the event construction materially disrupts operations of the City or other authorized users of
McIntire Park outside of the Leased Property, the City may, by written order to the Lessee, require
the Lessee to temporarily stop all, or any part, of the construction. Upon completion of construc-
tion, Exhibit A shall be replaced with a map showing the exact coordinates for the location of the
Facility, in addition to the boundaries of the Leased Property.
9. Quiet Enjoyment. The Lessee, on paying the rent and observing and keeping all
covenants, warranties, agreements and conditions of the Lease on its part to be kept, shall quietly
have and enjoy the Leased Property and the Facility during the Lease term.
10. Approval of Improvements.
A. No improvements of any kind, including driveways and parking areas,
shall be made to the Leased Property unless and until Lessee shall have obtained any and all
required local, state and federal governmental approvals and permits, and all such improvements
shall be undertaken and constructed in strict compliance with all applicable City, state and federal
rules, regulations and laws.
B. The City and the Lessee acknowledge that the Lessee’s intended use of
the Leased Property may require a rezoning, special use permit or site plan approval for all or any
portion of the Leased Property. By its execution of this Lease the City hereby evidences its written
consent for Lessee to apply for and seek any and all land use and zoning approvals necessary for
the future intended use of the property. The City’s consent shall not be construed as a
representation that it will grant or approve any particular application submitted by Lessee, which is
otherwise within the City’s discretion to approve or deny.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
C. The Lessee shall, at its own expense, engage licensed architects,
engineers and other professionals as necessary to conduct all necessary site evaluations and
surveys, to include, but not necessary limited to, public records, easements, utility locations, plat
surveys, existing conditions surveys, soils investigations and environmental investigations. The
Lessee shall produce for approval design plans and construction documents, to include
specifications, site, building, traffic, roadway and parking plans. The preliminary drawings and
design plan for the entire Facility shall be approved by the City Council prior to commencement of
any construction. Additionally, a site plan must be approved by the City Planning Commission
prior to the commencement of any construction. Such approvals by the City Council and the City
Planning Commission shall not be unreasonably withheld.
D. The design and exterior appearance of the proposed Facility shall be
subject to the approval of the Charlottesville City Council. Prior to the commencement of
construction Lessee shall submit to the City Board of Architectural Review (“BAR”) a detailed and
clear description of the exterior features of the proposed Facility, including but not limited to the
general design, arrangement, texture, materials, plantings and colors to be used, and the type of
windows, exterior doors, lights, landscaping, parking, signs and other exterior fixtures and
appurtenances. The BAR shall, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of a complete submittal
make a recommendation to the Charlottesville City Council regarding the appropriateness of the
design and appearance of the proposed Facility and if a recommendation is not made, within such
time period the application shall be forwarded to City Council for action. W ithin thirty (30) days of
the earlier of (i) receipt of the recommendation of the BAR or (ii) expiration of the review period,
the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed exterior
design and appearance of the Facility. Such approval by the City Council shall not be
unreasonably withheld. The Lessee and the BAR or the City Council, as applicable, may mutually
agree to an extension of the time limits set forth in this Paragraph.
E. If Lessee fails to obtain any of the approvals necessary to construct and
operate the Facility, following diligent pursuit thereof, the Lessee may terminate this Lease without
further obligation, responsibility or duty by either party hereto.
F. The City agrees to grant to Lessee standard easements to and from the
Leased Property for any utility lines required to serve the Facility. Lessee shall have a right of
access to and from the Leased Property over existing McIntire Park ingresses and egresses.
G. The Lessee shall have the right to place signs on the exterior of the
Facility and at such other location at McIntire Park as may be permitted pursuant to the City of
Charlottesville zoning ordinance.
H. Upon termination of this Lease for any cause Lessee shall remove, at
Lessee’s sole expense, any and all improvements made by the Lessee to the Leased Property
excepting those made with the consent or approval of the City. The City shall provide thirty (30)
days notice of any request to remove such improvements or to elect to keep such improvements
as the City’s property. In the event of removal Lessee shall be responsible for the restoration of
the Leased Property to its prior condition, and if Lessee fails to do so then the City may do so and
collect from Lessee the cost thereof.
11. Existing Improvements within the Leased Property. Lessee shall, at its own
expense, be responsible for the removal and disposal of any existing structures or improvements
on the Leased Property at the time of the execution of this Lease. Lessee shall be under no
obligation to replace any improvements removed pursuant to this provision. In lieu of disposal by
the Lessee, the City may, in its discretion, retain ownership of any materials, equipment or
structures removed by the Lessee. In the event the City elects to retain ownership, any extra cost
for removal over and above demolition costs shall be borne by the City.
12. Reservation of Easements. The City reserves to itself, while this Lease is in effect,
easements over and for all existing utilities within the Leased Property, including but not limited to
water, sanitary sewer, storm water sewer, electrical power and gas. At the option of the City,
Lessee shall execute standard deeds of easement granting the City adequate access to any
existing utilities within the Leased Property. Any relocation of existing utilities required by
construction of the Facility and related improvements shall require the prior approval of the City of
Charlottesville, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall be accomplished at
the sole expense of the Lessee.
13. Existing Recreation or Parking Facilities. All construction shall be performed in a
manner so as not to materially reduce or interfere with the City’s or the City Parks and Recreation
Department’s existing recreational or parking amenities located outside of the Leased Property at
McIntire Park; provided, however, that the Lessee and the City, through its Department of Parks
and Recreation, may agree on certain site or use restrictions during the construction period. The
Lessee shall provide reasonable parking and roadway improvements to accommodate the
construction and operation of the Facility.
14. Title, Liens. Title to the ground shall remain in the name of the City. Title to the
Facility constructed by the Lessee shall be titled in the name of the Lessee, except as otherwise
provided herein. The Lessee agrees that the Leased Property and the Facility shall not be
encumbered by any mortgage, lien (mechanic’s lien, materialmen’s lien or other lien), pledge
other encumbrance during the term of the Lease. If any such lien or notice of lien rights shall be
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
filed with respect to the Leased Property, the Lessee shall immediately take such steps as may be
necessary to have such lien released, and shall permit no further work to be performed at the
Leased Property until such release has been accomplished.
15. Financial Assurances. Prior to the commencement of any construction in or upon
the Leased Property, the Lessee shall have entered into a written contract with a licensed and
bonded Class A general contractor and shall have secured a performance bond for the entire
amount of the contract, or shall have secured other contractual arrangements reasonably
acceptable to the City that provide assurance that the construction will be completed. Additionally,
prior to the commencement of construction, the Lessee shall present to the City Manager for his
review and concurrence (a) a capital financial plan containing adequate assurance of the Lessee’s
ability to finance the construction of the Facility and (b) a five-year operational plan and budget
that demonstrates adequate assurance that the Lessee will have available funds to support the
operational plan for use and maintenance of the Facility. The Lessee acknowledges that the City
is under no obligation under this Lease to provide any funding to construct, equip or operate the
Facility.
16. Maintenance/Operational Expenses.
A. Upon the date of commencement of construction of the Facility, and
continuing throughout the term of the Lease or its termination, whichever first occurs, the Lessee
shall, at its own cost and expense, maintain and keep the Leased Property, whether improved or
unimproved, in a reasonably clean, attractive condition, and not commit or allow any waste or
damage to be committed on or to any portion of the Leased Property. The Lessee shall be
responsible for all costs associated with the ongoing maintenance, operation and repair of the
Facility, including but not limited to the roof, doors, windows, mechanical, utility and electrical
systems, sidewalks, parking areas installed by Lessee, and landscaping. Maintenance, repair and
snow removal from joint City – Lessee parking areas shall be as set forth in the joint use
agreement for such areas. Lessee further agrees to abide by any duly adopted City policies,
present or future, governing the use of pesticides, cleaners, fertilizers or other products at McIntire
Park.
B. As part of its maintenance responsibilities Lessee agrees to comply fully
with any applicable governmental laws, regulations and ordinances, limiting and regulating the
use, occupancy or enjoyment of the Leased Property, and to comply with the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code and the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, as supplemented and
modified by duly enacted ordinances of the City of Charlottesville.
17. Utilities and Services. The Lessee shall be responsible for and pay all costs and
charges for utilities and services in connection with the Lessee’s occupancy of the Leased
Property including, but not limited to, permits and connection charges for gas, heat, light, water,
sewer, power, telephone, cable, internet connection, janitorial, trash removal and other utilities or
services. All of the foregoing utilities and services shall be instituted and obligated for in the name
of the Lessee, and the City shall have no responsibility whatsoever for the furnishing or cost of the
same.
18. Taxes and Assessments. Real property taxes shall not be imposed against the
leasehold interest of Lessee if Lessee is exempt from the payment of real property taxes pursuant
to Chapter 36 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (Virginia Code sections 58.1-3600 et seq.);
provided, however, that real estate taxes on the Lessee’s leasehold interest shall become due
and payable at any time that Lessee is no longer entitled to a tax exemption under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
19. [Intentionally Omitted.]
20. Damage or Destruction of the Leased Property. The City shall have no
responsibility for any damage caused to the Facility or the Leased Property, except that caused by
the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its employees and agents, to the extent provided
by law. The Lessee agrees that all property of every kind and description kept, stored or placed in
the Facility shall be at the Lessee’s sole risk and hazard and that the City shall not be responsible
for any loss or damage to any of such property resulting from fire, explosion, water, steam, gas,
electricity, the elements or otherwise, whether or not originating in the Facility and whether or not
caused by or from leaks or defects in or breakdown of plumbing, piping, wiring, heating or any
other facility, equipment or fixtures or any other similar cause or act.
21. Indemnification. The Lessee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City and its
officials, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, claim, suit,
damage, charge or expense suffered, sustained, incurred or in any way be subjected to, on
account of death of or injury to any person and for damage to, loss of and destruction of any
property whatsoever, which arises out of, results from, or is in any way connected with actions
taken in the performance of the Lessee’s obligations under this Lease, or which occurs as a
consequence of any negligence, omission or misconduct of the Lessee and any of its contractors,
subcontractors, agents or employees in the performance of the Lessee’s obligations under this
Lease. The City, to the extent provided by law, shall be responsible for the negligent acts,
omissions or misconduct of its agents or employees.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
22. Assignment. The Lessee shall have no right to assign, in any manner or fashion,
any of the rights, privileges or interests accruing to it under this Lease to any other individual or
entity, without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld in the event of a proposed assignment to a successor non-profit charitable organization.
In the event of assignment, the Lessee shall remain fully liable and responsible for all of the
obligations imposed by this Lease unless it is otherwise agreed in writing by the City.
23. Sublease. The Lessee may sublet portions of the Facility subject to approval by the
City. The operations of any tenant under such a sublease arrangement must be compatible with
the operations of the Lessee and the intent of this Lease. Any sublease will ensure the
completion of the proposed construction and continuation of any necessary utilities, maintenance
and repairs. Any sublease must incorporate the terms of all contracts and agreements then in
existence between the parties in connection with the Facility including the terms of this Lease.
24. Nondiscrimination. During the term of this Lease, the Lessee agrees that it will not
discriminate against any person in its membership, programs or employment because of race,
religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, financial circumstances or any
other basis prohibited by law.
25. Drug-Free Workplace. During term of this Lease, the Lessee is to provide a drug-
free workplace for the Lessee’s employees, and to provide notification of this policy to its
employees and applicants for employment. For the purposes of this Paragraph, “drug-free
workplace” means a workplace where employees are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful
manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of any controlled substance or
marijuana during the term of this Lease.
26. Insurance. Prior to commencing any construction of the Facility, the Lessee, at its
sole cost and expense, shall secure and maintain throughout the term of this Lease, the following
insurance coverage:
(a) W orkers’ Compensation Insurance. The Lessee shall maintain and require
all contractors or subcontractors to maintain such workers’ compensation
coverage as may be required pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8 (§65.2-
800 et seq.) of Title 65.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
(b) Commercial General Liability Insurance. The Lessee shall maintain and
require all contractors or subcontractors to maintain, per occurrence, the
following coverages: $1,000,000 general aggregate limit (other than
products/completed operations); $1,000,000 aggregate limit products/
completed operations; $1,000,000 personal injury and advertising injury limit
liability; $1,000,000 each occurrence limit; $100,000 fire damage limit (any
one fire); and $10,000 medical expenses limit (any one person).
(c) Fire and Extended Coverages. The Lessee shall maintain coverage against
loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other hazards as are covered
and protected against, at standard rates under policies of insurance
commonly referred to and known as "extended coverage," as the same may
exist from time to time.
Each insurance policy required by this Paragraph shall be written or endorsed so as to
preclude the exercise of the right of subrogation against the City and, with the exception of
W orkers’ Compensation Insurance, shall name the City as an additional insured. Each insurance
policy required by this Paragraph also shall be endorsed to include the following clause: Should
any of the insurance policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing insurance
company will endeavor to mail written notice of such cancellation to the City at least 10 days in
advance. Upon receipt of any notice, verbal or written, that the said insurance is subject to
cancellation, the Lessee shall immediately (within five business days) notify the City. In the event
Lessee fails to comply with the requirements of this section, the City shall have the right to require
the Lessee to suspend use of the Facility until such time as the requirements of this Paragraph
are met.
27. Proof of Insurance. The Lessee shall provide the City with one or more
certificate(s) of insurance confirming the insurance required by this Lease. The W orkers’
Compensation Insurance and Commercial General Liability Insurance certificates shall be
provided to the City by the Lessee upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, then again
(without demand) on or before the expiration date of any policy and, upon request by the City, on
each anniversary of the Commencement Date of this Lease. The Fire and Extended Coverages
certificate shall be provided to the City by the Lessee prior to the commencement of construction
of the Facility, then again (without demand) on or before the expiration date of any policy and,
upon request by the City, on each subsequent anniversary of the Commencement Date of this
Lease. Upon demand by the City, Lessee shall furnish copies of the Lessee’s insurance polices,
together with the required endorsements as provided herein.
28. Annual Report; Financial Records. The Lessee shall prepare an annual report for
presentation to the City Manager upon the anniversary of the Commencement Date of this Lease
or at such time as otherwise agreed, including an operational plan and budget with at least a five-
year projection. In accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures, the Lessee shall
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
maintain books and records pertaining to the Leased Property and Facility and amounts expended
by it in connection with this Lease. Upon request, the City shall be entitled, at its own expense, to
obtain an audit of such books and records. Upon receipt of notice that the City desires an audit,
the Lessee shall make its books and records available to the City and its auditor(s), and the
Lessee shall cooperate with the audit.
29. Default. Each of the following occurrences relative to the Lessee shall constitute
default:
(a) Failure or refusal by the Lessee to make the timely payment of rent or other charges
due under this Lease when the same shall become due and payable, provided the
City has given the Lessee fifteen (15) days written notice of the same;
(b) The filing or execution or occurrence of an insolvency proceeding by or against the
Lessee; or an assignment for the benefit of creditors; or a petition or other proceeding
by or against the Lessee for the appointment of a trustee or a receiver or for the
liquidation of any of the Lessee’s property; or a proceeding by any governmental
authority for the dissolution or liquidation of the Lessee;
(c) Failure by the Lessee in the performance or compliance with any of the terms,
covenants, or conditions provided in this Lease, including provisions of the Use
Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period of sixty (60) days after
written notice from the City to the Lessee specifying the items in default; provided,
however, if such failure is of a type that is not reasonably capable of being cured
within such sixty (60) day period, such sixty (60) day period shall be extended for so
long as the Lessee is making diligent efforts to cure such default; or
(d) Any change in the operation, charter, or ownership of the Lessee (including, but not
limited to, loss of Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status) incompatible
with the purpose of this Lease, or a change, incompatible with the purpose of this
Lease, in the nature of the services provided at the inception of the Lease as set forth
more fully in Exhibit B).
In the event of default as defined in this Paragraph, title to the Facility shall revert
automatically to the City, and the Lessee shall surrender the Facility as provided in Paragraph 32
and execute all documents deemed necessary by the City to convey title to the Facility.
30. Eminent Domain. In the event of termination due to any taking by eminent domain,
partial or total, the City shall be entitled to receive that part of the total condemnation award or
compensation for the taking which is equal or attributable to the value of the land taken, and the
Lessee shall be entitled to receive the part of the award or compensation which is equal or
attributable to the value of the Facility thereupon. If the taking is such that sufficient area remains
for the Lessee to continue its normal operations, then the Lease shall terminate as to the part of
the premises and Facility so taken, but shall remain in effect with respect to the part of the
premises not taken.
31. Termination of Lease.
A. In the event the City chooses not to enter into a renewal of this Lease and
not to enter into a new lease allowing continued operation of the Facility by the Lessee on
substantially the same conditions, then (i) the City shall provide the Lessee with five years’ notice
of its intent not to enter into such a renewal or new lease (or shall renew this Lease for a sufficient
duration to provide such five years’ notice); (ii) the Lessee shall surrender the Facility as provided
in Paragraph 32, and transfer title to the City at Lease termination and execute all documents
deemed necessary by the City to convey title to the Facility. In the event of such termination or
any agreed upon earlier termination of this Lease; the City shall compensate the Lessee in the
amount of ninety percent (90%) of fair market value of the Facility as of the time of Lease
termination. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed as granting the Lessee a lease for a
period longer than forty years.
B. To calculate fair market value, the parties shall mutually determine a fair
market value for the Facility, which value shall be determined as of the date of the termination of
this Lease. If for any reason the parties are unable to agree upon a price, the following procedure
shall apply: The City and the Lessee shall each select one qualified individual as an appraiser at
each party’s own expense. Said two appraisers shall determine the market value of the Facility
(without adjustment for the status of the underlying real estate), including any furniture, fixtures
and equipment, as of the date of the termination of the Lease, taking into consideration such
factors as are generally considered in valuing similar facilities. If said appraisers are unable to
mutually agree upon a fair market price for the facility, furniture, fixtures and equipment within
thirty (30) days after their appointment, they shall select a third qualified appraiser and the two of
the three appraisals closest in value shall be averaged, and that average shall be binding on the
parties.
32. Surrender. Upon termination of the Lease, unless the Lease is renewed or a new
Lease is granted to the Lessee pursuant to the requirements of state law, and upon payment by
the City to Lessee of the amount required under Paragraph 31 above, the Lessee shall quit and
surrender to the City the Leased Property and the Facility in good order and condition, except for
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
ordinary wear and tear, free and clear of any liens or encumbrances, provided that the Lessee
shall remove from the premises any personal property belonging to the Lessee (other than
furniture, fixtures and equipment) or third parties, which can be so removed without material
damage to the Leased Property and the Facility, and at its cost and expense shall repair any
damage caused by such removal. Personal property not so removed shall become the property
of the City, which may thereafter remove the property and dispose of it. Upon such termination
and payment, the City may without further notice enter on, reenter, possess and repossess the
Leased Property and the Facility by any necessary means, and may remove the Lessee and all
other persons, and may have, hold and enjoy the Leased Property and the Facility and the right to
receive all rental and other income of and from the same. The surrender of this Lease shall not
work a merger and shall, at the option of the City, terminate all or any existing subleases or may,
at the option of the City, operate as an assignment to it of any or all such subleases.
33. Failure to Construct Facility or Abandonment of Use. If the Lessee fails to
substantially complete the Facility within the timeframe set forth in Paragraph 8 above,
discontinues use of the Facility for the purposes as set forth in this Lease and as more particularly
described in Exhibit B for a period of at least six (6) months, or willfully abandons the use of the
Facility for a period of at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the term of the Lease, the
Facility shall revert automatically to the City. In such event, the Lessee shall surrender the Facility
as provided in Paragraph 32 and transfer title to the City at Lease termination, and execute all
documents deemed necessary by the City to convey title to the Facility. Any period of time in
which use of the Facility is discontinued or abandoned for the sole purpose of Facility
maintenance, casualty repairs or improvements shall not be included in the six month period
described in this Paragraph.
34. Right of Entry. At any time during the term of the Lease, the City shall have the
right, upon prior notice to the Lessee (except in the event of an emergency), to enter the Leased
Property and the Facility at all reasonable times for the purposes of inspecting the Leased
Property and the Facility to ensure compliance with the terms of this Lease. Notwithstanding the
City’s right to inspect the Leased Property, the City shall have no obligation to inspect the same.
The City’s failure to detect any violation or to notify the Lessee of any violation shall not relieve the
Lessee of obligations under the terms of this Lease.
35. Waiver. No failure on the part of the City to enforce any of the terms or conditions
set forth in this Lease shall be construed as or deemed to be a waiver of the right to enforce such
terms or conditions. No waiver by the City of any default or failure to perform by Lessee shall be
construed as or deemed to be a waiver of any other and/or subsequent default or failure to
perform. The acceptance or payment of any rentals, fees and/or charges and/or the performance
of all or any part of this Lease, for or during any period(s) following a default or failure to perform
by the Lessee, shall not be construed as or deemed to be a waiver by the City of any rights
hereunder.
36. Identity of Interest. The execution of this Lease or the performance of any act or
acts pursuant to the provisions hereof shall not be deemed to have the effect of creating between
the Lessee and the City any relationship of principal and agent, partnership or relationship other
than that of lessee and lessor.
37. Notice. The City’s designated representative to receive all communications, claims
and correspondence regarding this Lease is the City Manager, at the following address: P.O. Box
911, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902. The Lessee’s designated representative to receive all
communications, claims and correspondence regarding this Lease is its Executive Director/CEO,
at the following address: 442 W estfield Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901. Either party may
change the designated representative or address for receipt of notices by giving notice to the
other party as provided in this Paragraph.
38. Modification or Amendment. Any other modification or amendment of the Lease
(other than for an extension or enlargement of the time or territory of the Lease, which is subject
to Virginia Code section 15.2-2105) shall be binding only if approved by the Lessee and the City,
and evidenced in a writing signed by each.
39. Time of Essence. Unless specifically provided herein to the contrary, in all
instances where a party is required hereunder to pay any sum or do any act at a particular
indicated time or within an indicated period, it is understood and stipulated that time is of the
essence.
40. Cooperation. The City and the Lessee agree to provide any further documentation
or cooperate in any way necessary to carry out the basic intent of this Lease.
41. Persons Bound. The covenants, agreements, terms, provisions and conditions of
this Lease shall bind and inure to the benefit the respective parties hereto and to their
representatives, successors and (where permitted by this Lease) their assigns.
42. Entire Agreement. This Lease, together with the schedules, riders and exhibits, if
any, attached, contains the entire agreement between the City and the Lessee. Any prior
understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Lease shall not be binding
on either party except to the extent incorporated in this Lease.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
43. Recording. Any party shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to prepare
and record a Memorandum of Lease or short form of the lease in recordable form, but excluding
detailed provisions of this Lease.
44. Headings. The section headings are for convenience only and shall not be used to
explain, modify, simplify, limit, define or aid in determining the meaning or content.
45. Interpretation. In the event of any conflict, discrepancy or inconsistency between
this document and any other documents which have been incorporated into this document by
reference or made exhibits or attachments hereto, then the provisions set forth within the body of
this document shall govern the parties’ intent.
46. Severability. In the event that any term, provision or condition of this Lease, or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances, shall be held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, and the application of any
term, provision or condition contained herein to any person or circumstances other than those to
which it has been held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby.
47. Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed, construed and enforced by and in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any suit or controversy arising under
this Lease shall be litigated in the General District or Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia. The party prevailing or substantially prevailing in any such litigation shall be entitled to an
award of its attorney’s fees from the non-prevailing party.
W e agree to be bound by this Lease and its terms and conditions.
LESSOR:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By ________________________
Gary O’Connell
City Manager
Date ________________________
LESSEE:
PIEDMONT FAMILY YMCA, INC.
By ________________________
Kurt J. Krueger
President
Date ________________________
______
USE AGREEMENT
MCINTIRE PARK NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 15th day of 2008, among the PIEDMONT
FAMILY YMCA, INC. (the “Lessee”), the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (the “City”), and the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (the “County”).
W HEREAS, the City and the Lessee have entered into a Ground Lease dated January
15, 2008, for certain property within McIntire Park in the City of Charlottesville (the “Lease”); and,
W HEREAS, under the terms of the Lease the Lessee will construct and operate a
community recreation center on the Leased Premises (the “Facility”); and,
W HEREAS, the County has agreed to make a future capital contribution of $2,030,000 for
construction of the Facility (the “County Capital Contribution”); and,
W HEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into an agreement that sets forth the terms,
conditions and requirements for the operation of the Facility.
The Parties therefore agree that throughout the term of the Lease the Facility will be
operated and managed in accordance with the following:
(1) Lessee Status: Lessee covenants that it, and any authorized or approved assignee or
subtenant of Lessee, will operate the Facility as a charitable, non-profit organization.
(2) County Capital Contribution and Facility Components: The County agrees to make
the County Capital Contribution and the Lessee agrees to diligently conduct a capital campaign to
solicit contributions from private donors to pay for the cost of construction of the Facility. Subject
to Paragraph 8 of the Lease, Lessee shall not begin construction until it has secured cash,
pledges and a loan commitment sufficient to construct the following components (the “Core
Components”):
fitness center
gymnasium (including indoor track)
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
multi-purpose space (including meeting space)
locker rooms
child watch space
family aquatics center
Lessee desires to raise sufficient contributions, and if successful, intends to add the following
additional components (the “Additional Components”):
licensed child care center
(3) Core Functions: Lessee agrees to provide the following programs, functions or
activities at the Facility utilizing the Core Components:
(Check if to be provided)
_X__ Youth, teen, adult and senior athletics
_X__ Health, fitness and wellness facilities and programs
_X__ Youth and teen life skill development
_X__ Community and family special events
_X__ Art, culture and enrichment programming
_X__ Environmental education
_X__ Outdoor adventure education
_X__ Therapeutic recreation
_X__ Child W atch
_X__ Instructional / recreational / therapeutic aquatics
_X__ Competitive / recreational / aquatics
Lessee intends to provide the following programs if sufficient funds are raised by it to construct
the Additional Components:
_X__ Licensed child care
(4) Public Access: The Facility will be open to all residents of the City of Charlottesville
and Albemarle County, and any non-resident member of the YMCA. Lessee’s service area, as
designated by the YMCA of the USA, includes all or portions of the counties of Greene, Nelson,
Madison, Fluvanna, Orange and Louisa, and residents within this service area will also have
access to the Facility. Lessee shall not discriminate against any person in its membership,
programs or employment because of race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, national
origin, disability, financial circumstances or any other basis prohibited by law.
(5) Relation to McIntire Park: Lessee desires to coordinate with the City’s Parks and
Recreation Department in the preparation of its master plan for McIntire Park. Integration of the
Facility as a component part of the larger McIntire Park will depend in large degree on the
outcome of that planning process. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the Facility can be used to
enhance current annual events at McIntire Park such as the Dogwood Festival, Earth Day, and
Fourth of July events by holding on such days programs such as family open house activities,
helping to coordinate outdoor activities with the Parks and Recreation Department or serving as
the focal point for event coordination. Lessee also intends to offer programs and services that will
take advantage of McIntire Park’s inherent assets. Such programs may include walking programs
for fitness for all ages using the trails and in bad weather using the Facility, summer day camps,
and nature and environmental programs such as the YMCA’s Earth Corps program through which
YMCA member volunteers can build and maintain additional walking trails within the Park. Users
of the Facility, as part of their overall fitness program, can use these trails, giving participants both
an indoor and outdoor experience, and an appreciation of the Park’s inherent beauty. The
Facility’s multi-purpose space could be used for class room space, as a meal site and provide
rainy day options in connection with other Parks and Recreation Department programs at the
Park. Lessee could also use the Facility in a number of different ways to bring in new events to
the community such as a duathlon and other athletic events.
(6) Management of Lessee: Responsibility for the ongoing management and operation
of the Facility will be vested in an Executive Director or Chief Executive Officer who will report to a
Board of Directors, chaired by a volunteer President, which will function as the policy-making body
of the Lessee. The City and the County will each have the right to appoint two members (four
members altogether) to the Lessee’s Board of Directors. The Lessee agrees to amend its Bylaws
to provide that the Directors of the City and the County Parks and Recreation Departments are
both invited and expected to attend each and every meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Lessee until termination of the Lease. Such Directors, like the Lessee’s Executive Director, shall
attend such meetings in an advisory capacity and have no vote, nor any liability as directors.
Lessee further agrees to actively seek and recruit residents of the City as Board members to more
equally balance the residencies of the members of Lessee’s Board. All members of the Board,
regardless of residency, will be required to be members of the YMCA.
(7) Fee Structure: The membership and fee structure of Lessee at the time of the
opening of the Facility is anticipated to be as follows, and shall be subject to change by the
Lessee’s Board of Directors:
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Anticipated Monthly
Membership Rate
Upon Opening
Anticipated Non-Member
Daily Admission Fee
Upon Opening
City/County Resident – Family $72.00 $9.00
City/County Resident – Adult Individual (ages 24-61) $48.00 $6.00
City/County Resident – Senior Individual (62+) $43.00 $5.00
City/County Resident - Young Adult (19-23) Individual $30.00 $4.00
City/County Resident – Teen/High School (ages 14-18) $20.00 $3.00
City/County Resident – Youth (13 and under) $18.00 $3.00
Reasonable membership categories, and membership, daily admission, class and
program fees shall be set by the Lessee’s Executive Director / Chief Operating Officer, subject to
the approval of Lessee’s Board of Directors. Lessee understands that there are a number of City
residents who currently utilize a punch pass system to allow them to have access to Crow and
Smith pools for recreational lap swimming. Lessee agrees to implement a similar system for
individual recreational lap swimming in addition to its membership and program fee structure to
help transition these individuals to the Facility, which system shall be phased out over a
reasonably short period of time based on its actual usage.
(8) Financial Assistance: No resident of the City of Charlottesville or Albemarle County
will be denied access or use of the Facility for financial reasons. The Lessee will provide financial
aid based on need to any City or County resident wishing to participate as a member of Lessee, or
in any class, program or activity conducted at the Facility. The process to determine eligibility for
financial aid shall be simple, applicant-friendly, consistently applied and subject to approval by the
Lessee’s Board of Directors to ensure both (i) the accuracy of the determinations and (ii)
convenience to the applicants. Initially, and consistent with the policy of many other YMCA’s,
Lessee will require applicants for financial assistance to provide it with copies of such person’s tax
return for the prior year and last two payroll stubs. In the event the applicant does not file a tax
return, Lessee will require the applicant to provide it with a letter from a federal or state agency
indicating that the applicant is eligible for federal or state assistance.
The Lessee’s income criteria for the granting of financial aid for reduced or free
admissions or memberships are as follows:
(i) Any individual or family living at or below the established federal poverty level will
be eligible for 100% financial assistance.
(ii) Any individual living at or above the median household income for the City of
Charlottesville would not ordinarily be eligible for any financial assistance, subject to extenuating
circumstances.
(iii) To determine eligibility for financial assistance for families, an additional $4500
per additional family member is added to the income standards used to determine eligibility.
(iv) The Lessee’s Board of Directors will establish a graded scale to determine the
level of financial assistance available for those individuals and families whose means lie between
the two standards of 100% to 0% assistance eligibility.
These criteria are subject to reasonable modifications from time to time by Lessee’s Board of
Directors. The Lessee also understands that the federal poverty level is used by the City school
system to determine eligibility for certain school benefits and agrees to work with the school
administrators to establish a system whereby a common application for financial assistance
eligibility can be used.
(9) Hours of Operation: The anticipated hours of operation of the Facility will be as
follows, subject to reasonable adjustment by the Lessee’s Board of Directors:
Monday – Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Saturday: 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Sunday: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
(10) Community Engagement: Lessee will publicize, and participate in the efforts of the
City and the County to publicize, membership benefits, programs, transportation assistance and
employment opportunities at the Facility, in order to encourage use of the Facility and participation
in programs by the public.
(11) Transportation and Parking: The Lessee desires that the City extend its existing bus
line on Rugby Avenue into McIntire Park to serve the Facility. The Lessee will provide additional
transportation assistance for programs as is reasonably feasible based upon need, insurance and
operating costs and equipment available to it. The City agrees to permit users of the Facility to
use the existing parking spaces in McIntire Park. Lessee will construct such additional parking
spaces as is reasonably feasible based upon the size and layout of the Leased Property and as
may be required by applicable zoning.
(12) Additional Provisions Related to Funding, Access and Use by City and County
Residents. In the event the Lease is not renewed or is otherwise terminated, the City agrees to
allow access to the Facility to County residents on the same basis in all respects as it allows
access to City residents. In the event the City commits on or before May 20, 2008 to a future
capital contribution of $1,250,000 for construction of the family aquatics center, the Lessee agrees
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
to include at least six (6) 25-yard competitive swimming lanes and a one (1) meter board and
diving well and give the Charlottesville High School swim team priority access to those six lanes
for practices up to two hours immediately after school classes end during the high school winter
swim season, and otherwise subject to the same terms and conditions established by the Lessee
with respect to other teams and programs using the pool. The Lessee further agrees that the City
may deduct the funds provided by it for this purpose from any amounts owed to Lessee under
Paragraph 31.A of the Lease upon termination of the Lease. The City and the Lessee further
understand that the County has tentatively set aside $1,250,000 in its CIP budget for 2012 for a
competitive pool at the Facility. The City, County and Lessee agree to negotiate in good faith prior
to completion of the City’s master plan for the active side of McIntire Park with respect to the
building of additional swim lanes and/or a competition pool; provided, however, that in the event
no agreement is reached prior to the earlier of completion of such plan or May 20, 2008, the
Lessee shall have the right to move forward with construction of the Facility with the components
identified in Paragraph (2) above, including in the aquatics center, if the City has committed to
make the $1,250,000 capital contribution as set forth above, at least six lanes, a 1 meter board
and diving well. Lessee agrees to work with the City and County to design and implement learn to
swim programs for public school students.
(13) Additional Provisions Related to Rights of County W ith Respect to Lease. Lessee
agrees to provide the County Executive with copies of all reports and records provided to the City
Manager under Paragraph 28 of the Lease, and the County shall have the same rights to audits
and inspections of books and records as are provided to the City under such Paragraph. The
County shall have the same right of entry as provided to the City under Paragraph 34 of the
Lease. The City and Lessee agree that the Lease may not be modified in any way which lessens
or adversely impacts the rights of the County or its residents hereunder.
(14) Modification: This Agreement may only be modified by written amendment executed
by authorized individuals on behalf of the Lessee, the City and the County.
W ITNESS the following authorized signatures:
PIEDMONT FAMILY YMCA, INC.
By:_________________________________
Kurt J. Krueger, President
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By:_________________________________
Gary B. O’Connell, City Manager
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By:_________________________________
Robert W . Tucker, County Executive
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Rivanna Magisterial District-Emergency Ordinance to change the polling
place for the Keswick Precinct.
Mr. Tucker said there was a polling place at the Union Grove Baptist Church for the Keswick
Precinct in the Rivanna Magisterial District,, but Albemarle County Electoral Board was informed in late
November that the foundation of the Church had sustained water damage and the resulting structural
problems are forcing the congregation to discontinue using the Church for all purposes until it is rebuilt.
The Electoral Board recommended that the polling place be changed to the Zion Hill Baptist Church. The
site was visited by staff and then selected over other possible locations. Zion Hill Baptist Church is
generally centrally located within the boundaries of the precinct. The Church’s social hall, which would be
used for elections, is well-suited as a polling place, has better access than other facilities considered,
meets ADA requirements, and has good accessible parking for those with disabilities.
Mr. Tucker said an emergency exists because dual presidential primaries will be held on February
12, 2008, and notice requirements for a regular ordinance would not allow the Board to amend the
ordinance until its February 6, 2008, meeting. Before the February 12, 2008, primaries, the location of the
polling place must be changed by ordinance, the County must submit the polling place change to the
United States Department of Justice for review to assure compliance with the Voting Rights Act (expedited
review will be requested), and the General Registrar must provide a 15-day notice to the voters in the
Keswick Precinct of the polling place change.
Mr. Tucker said State law provides that an emergency ordinance can only be enforced for sixty
days. Therefore, it will be necessary for this ordinance to be readopted under the regular notice provisions
for ordinances within sixty days. There will be a modest budget impact resulting from sending individual
notices to voters in the Keswick Precinct of the polling place change. Staff recommends that the Board
adopt the proposed emergency ordinance after receiving comments from the public. Staff also
recommends that the Board set a public hearing for its February 6, 2008, meeting to readopt the
ordinance.
Mr. Davis said this is not a public hearing, but the Board may take comments if they so desire.
Mr. Boyd asked for comments from the public, but no one was present to speak.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Boyd to adopt the following emergency ordinance as
presented to the Board and to set a public hearing to readopt the ordinance for its February 6, 2008,
meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-E(1)
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE CHANGING THE POLLING PLACE FOR
THE KESWICK PRECINCT OF THE RIVANNA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 24.2-307 requires that each polling place be established by
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 2-103(C)(4) establishes the Union Grove Baptist
Church, 471 Black Cat Road, as the polling place for the Keswick Precinct of the Rivanna
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Union Grove Baptist Church has sustained structural damage and is
unable to serve as a polling place for the indeterminate future; and
WHEREAS, the Zion Hill Baptist Church, 802 Zion Hill Road, has very recently agreed to
make its buildings available as a polling place; and
WHEREAS, after a polling place is changed by an ordinance adopted by the Board of
Supervisors, the County is required to obtain a pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act from the
United States Department of Justice before changing a polling place and, under normal
circumstances, such a change would be submitted at least ninety days prior to an election to allow
the Department of Justice to review the request and to allow the Albemarle County General
Registrar sufficient time to notify voters of the polling place change; and
WHEREAS, the presidential primary elections will be held on February 12, 2008 and there
is inadequate time to provide the notice required by Virginia Code § 15.2-1427 before adopting an
ordinance changing the polling place, obtaining expedited Department of Justice review, and
notifying voters of the polling place change; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that an emergency exists requiring the
adoption of this Ordinance without prior public notice pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1427.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED THAT:
Section 1. Change of polling place for the Keswick Precinct.
The polling place for the Keswick Precinct of the Rivanna Magisterial District is changed
from Union Grove Baptist Church, 471 Black Cat Road to the Zion Hill Baptist Church, 802 Zion
Hill Road.
Section 2. Immediate effect; emergency.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately, being adopted under emergency
procedures pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1427, and shall remain in effect not longer than sixty
days unless readopted in conformity with the applicable provisions of the Virginia Code.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Albemarle County Service Authority/Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority
Updates.
Mr. Tucker handed to the Board members a copy of a letter from the Albemarle County Service
Authority Executive Director asking that this Board rescind the Declaration of Emergency it adopted on
August 16, 2007. Once rescinded, the ACSA will lift the mandatory water conservation requirements for
all customers in the Urban, Crozet and Scottsville service areas. A Drought W atch will remain in effect.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board takes action on this item, staff has prepared a resolution referencing
well water users. He said Ms. Thomas asked for such a resolution last month.
Mr. Gary Fern, Executive Director, ACSA, said they are prepared to remove the signs which have
been posted throughout the County alerting people that there are mandatory restrictions in place at the
moment.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks the only thing the Board has to do is have a motion declaring that the
water emergency has ended at this time. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Ms. Thomas said there is a policy in place that says when reservoir levels are up to 95 percent of
capacity, the drought emergency will be lifted. She asked if that level has been reached. She is wondering
if the policy is being followed. Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, Rivanna W ater and Sewer
Authority, said the level is at 92 percent. It will probably be at 95 percent by the end of January.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that would be the expected level with or without any significant additional
rainfall. Mr. Frederick said if the rate of fill stays at the same pace as at present.
Mr. Rooker said he thought there were an objective standard for declaration of an emergency
drought watch or drought warning. Mr. Frederick said this is in line with the policy the RW SA Board
considered and adopted a couple of years ago. He is not familiar with the policy just mentioned by Ms.
Thomas.
Mr. Rooker said there is a policy with respect to when a drought watch is adopted, and a policy
with respect to when a drought warning is adopted. He thought there were specific objective standards in
place. How does the declaration of a drought emergency fit with the declaration of a drought watch? Mr.
Frederick said a committee, which consisted of staff from RW SA, the ACSA and the City, talked about
how to develop a drought policy. They had directions from this Board and Council to come up with an
objective criteria and standard. They settled on the terms of “watch”, “warning”, and “emergency” in order
to be compatible to what the Commonwealth of Virginia was beginning to define after 2002. It was also
the consensus of that committee that in stepping into a drought there needed to be a period of time
allowed for a significant call for voluntary conservation. They settled on one stage for voluntary
conservation, and two stages of restrictions. The warning is the first level with the emergency level having
more severe restrictions. All three entities came up with the targets for the restrictions. A minimum of five
percent is for the warning level, a minimum of twenty percent for the emergency level, and then the two
retail agencies decided on the specific steps needed in order to communicate restrictions to the public.
Mr. Davis said the County does not have any independent standards. It is relying on the
recommendations of the RW SA and the ACSA. W hen the Board gets to the point where mandatory
restrictions need to be imposed, the State Code requires that before the ACSA can do that this Board
must declare there is a water emergency. W hen they were at the point where they were ready to
implement mandatory restrictions to address the drought, the ACSA came to the Board of Supervisors
and requested that an emergency be declared. Now they are at the point where their criteria no longer
justifies imposing mandatory restrictions, so their recommendation is that the Board left the emergency
declaration until such time as the drought returns or conditions are such that mandatory restrictions are
necessary.
Mr. Rooker said he wanted to be sure the objective standards were being followed in the request
to the Board today. Mr. Fern said he thinks it depended on the modeling they did and the criteria used
when going to a drought watch or drought warning, or emergency.
Mr. Rooker said it was not based only on the 95 percent. There was a component that dealt with
stream flows, time of year, and other factors. He wants to be sure the action the Board is being asked to
take today is based on following that objective criteria.
Mr. Frederick said the criteria in this process are “risk based.” That looks at the probabilities for
certain conditions in the future which is a change from just saying that when the reservoirs are at level “x”
a drought watch, or warning or emergency will be called. The risk-based criteria rely on running a
computer model. In the model, current demand can be included or a restricted demand which is a
savings of “x” amount, or they can input unrestricted demands which is the basis of historical records. For
reservoir levels, they use current data from the existing system. For the probability forecast, they use
weather scenarios for every year of record for which there is data.
Mr. Frederick said they took years of records, looked at the probability of all reservoirs being full at
the end of April, and used that data to recommend that the warning be changed back to a watch. Until
December there was some risk that the reservoirs would not fill up. On December 27 they looked at the
records on the Mechum’s gauge and everything indicated that the reservoirs would be full by the end of
April, so the probability of the reservoirs not refilling is very small. They did not use any criteria that said
when the reservoirs are at 95 percent, the warning should be lifted.
Mr. Rooker said this is the first time he has heard about this. Mr. Tucker said these are policies
that the RW SA and the ACSA set up.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board heard about these policies previously.
Mr. Rooker said the Board had received something about the prior policies. Those were based on
objective criteria, and now they are going to a computer modeling approach which may be fine, but he
thinks it would be helpful for the Board to get a written report.
Mr. Boyd asked how the Board members wanted to act on this request.
Mr. Rooker said if this policy has been adopted and the ACSA and RW SA are comfortable with
the approach he is willing to act on the request. Before the Board receives another such request, he
thinks the Board needs to have a better understanding of what that computer modeling is producing.
Ms. Mallek asked what the recommendations to the public will be for spring from the RW SA. Mr.
Fern said the intent is to reinforce that the ACSA is not abandoning drought warnings entirely. They will
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
be going to a drought watch and that requires that the citizens voluntarily conserve water. He has been
discussing this with Ms. Judy Mueller of the City and they will be doing some radio advertising jointly, and
there will be advertisements in the newspaper.
Ms. Mallek said the signs posted around the area were helpful.
Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Slutzky suggested that when new signs are printed, a different color scheme be used to make
them easier to read.
Ms. Thomas said the new criteria for declaring a drought warning and watch has to do with
probability and what will happen in the foreseeable future. She asked if they want the Board to lift the
water emergency declaration since that will slow down the ability of the ACSA to put restrictions into place
in response to a drought warning. W ill this make it more awkward to a return of a drought declaration if
the Board lifts today the water emergency? Mr. Fern said it takes some time for the ACSA to get geared
up to do advertising, printing signs, etc. Last August when the emergency was declared, it only took them
a couple of days to get into the process.
Ms. Thomas said the Board does not meet every week of the month, so it could possibly be a
delay of several weeks. Mr. Fern said he did not think there would be a problem.
Mr. Rooker asked if in order for the ACSA to remove the restrictions, the Board has to withdraw
the emergency, or can the ACSA just remove the restrictions without that being done.
Mr. Slutzky said there is also another process question. If the public does not see the Board lift
the emergency, but the RW SA is saying there is not a near-term risk, it might weaken the credibility of
emergency declarations in the future.
Ms. Thomas said she wants people to continue conserving water, so she is not wholeheartedly in
support of lifting the emergency.
Mr. Davis said the declaration of an emergency enables them to impose water restrictions. They
could rescind their restrictions without rescinding the declaration of emergency. It is solely at the
discretion of the ACSA as to whether to have the restrictions or not once the declaration has been made.
Mr. Tucker said the Board may not want to take action on this today, and only adopt the
resolution.
Mr. Rooker said he is not overly concerned about it, but just wanted to understand the process
and what this action by the Board means. It seems to be more symbolic than anything else because they
can remove the restrictions, but they can’t impose them again without the Board declaring a state of
emergency. Mr. Fern said in this case they feel it has already happened. The City Council rescinded their
water restrictions. The ACSA is requesting that this Board rescind the declaration of emergency so it can
remove water restrictions.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to rescind the water emergency declaration made in
August, 2007. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Thomas then offered motion to adopt the following resolution urging citizens on public water
and individual wells to continue to voluntarily practice water conservation, adding the words “and consider
the probable continuing drought when making landscaping decisions.” She thinks people will assume they
can go back to planting the things they have planted in the past and watering them. She thinks chances
of a drought are too great to continue doing this.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution as adopted is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION
Whereas, although the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority is now predicting that all
surface water reservoirs will refill this spring without the need to continue mandatory water
restrictions, there remains concern that baseline stream flows and groundwater tables continue to
be below normal for this time of year; and
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Whereas, while it is not possible to predict next summer’s weather with certainty, low
groundwater and stream flow during the winter indicates there could be a higher than normal
potential for a severe drought next summer; and
Whereas, well water users draw on underground water reserves which flow into streams
and feed our drinking water reservoirs and are a resource for the entire community; and
Whereas, excessive use of water from underground can adversely impact an individual’s
water supply and also downstream supplies; and
Whereas, it is critical for all our citizens to contribute to efforts to conserve water by using
voluntary conservation measures that can have a dramatic cumulative effect in reducing demand
on our local water resources;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
wishes to urge all citizens, whether on a public supply or an individual well, to continue to
voluntarily practice water conservation, and to consider the probable continuing drought when
making landscaping decisions. W e urge the RW SA and ACSA to remain diligent in monitoring
water conditions throughout 2008 in order to alert the public as early as possible if there is a return
to increasing water supply risks.
__________
Mr. Fern said the ACSA will be meeting with landscaping organizations in the community to review
the current mandatory water restrictions that apply to landscaping.
Ms. Thomas suggested the ACSA talk with members of the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
regarding the type of landscaping that uses the least amount of water. She said they require people to put
in certain plants and if they die that is a zoning violation. She wants to be sure they are included in the
discussions about landscaping.
Mr. Fern said he would be glad to answer any questions the Board may have about the ACSA.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Fern to call him about the easements for the sewer line extension in
Northfields. He understands from his constituents that there is an issue to be resolved, and he will be
happy to help with that.
Ms. Thomas said she recently met with people in W est Leigh who asked about the tearing up of
the road.
Mr. Tucker said that at next month’s meeting the Board will have time to talk about projects of the
ACSA and the RW SA.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Department of Social Services Advisory Board Annual Report.
Mr. Claude Foster, Chair of Social Services Advisory Board, said the Annual Report had been
forwarded to the Board members (copy on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the
Board of Supervisors). He said the Advisory Board’s goal for FY 2007 was to increase the number of
families assisted with childcare subsidizes by joining and supporting the statewide coalition to advocate for
scholarships to these deserving families, hosting a seminar for numerous local groups on how to carry out
this advocacy, and speaking to groups such as the League of W omen Voters. The report shows FY 2007
identified critical measures. The Department regularly monitors 35 outcome measures specific to its
programs. Thirteen are listed on the “Key Performance Indicators” chart in the report. There are six
where the agency did not meet its goals. There is a consistent issue in all of these indicators, and that is a
lack of State funding for the State-mandated changes in programs or performance criteria. The
Department will continue efforts to achieve these goals in spite of this handicap. Descriptions of the
programs offered by the Department are included in the report. Most programs show a growth in
caseloads. The Bright Stars Program (his personal favorite) has continued its rate of increase, but one of
the real successes of the Department is that it has built a capacity to accept 10 more children
immediately.
Mr. Foster said he is proud of the Albemarle County Department of Social Services for winning the
Virginia SPQA (United States Senate Productivity and Quality Award). He said the leadership team of the
Department had the courage to submit themselves to the scrutiny that comes with applying for such an
award. He said there are no better stewards of people’s funds in Albemarle than the employees of the
Department. In speaking for all of the Social Services Board members, he will say it is an honor to serve
on the Board for such a department with such a professional and dedicated staff. He offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Thomas said at VACo’s meeting, the Governor’s wife spoke about one of her passions, which
is a concern that children are aging out of foster care without ever having a real family. She told
heartrending vignettes of people saying “I never will have a family to go to on Thanksgiving all of my life.”
She wonders if that is an issue the Board of Social Services is working on.
Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services, said their Board is not working on that issue, but
staff has worked on it. Under the Foster Care section of the report there is the title “Concurrent Planning”
which is a dual goal for children in foster care. Part of the care is to get them and their family to a place
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
where they can return home, and secondly, to provide permanency. They are also working on returning
home and potential adoption. They have a sophisticated, independent living program for older children.
She said Charlottesville and Albemarle have been leaders on this in the State. They have children that
they are able to follow and encourage to stay in foster care until they are 21 years of age so they can
complete either a vocational training program or college. They have been successful in getting some kids
into community college, and some into a four-year college.
Mr. Slutzky said although the Department is doing a good job of fulfilling its responsibilities to the
disadvantaged in the community, it is short on dollars. He thinks it would be useful to see some report
that analyzes by program what the deficit is between what the community needs and actual funding from
the Federal and State governments. Illuminating how significant the funding gap is might be valuable for
the public to have.
Ms. Ralston said the Department already provides some of that information to the OMB Office, so
it could be provided to others.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Department is working with the IMPACT group. Ms. Ralston said they are
not. The Department provided them data when it was requested, but one of their Board members has
been a member of IMPACT.
Mr. Rooker said the Federal and State governments set standards, and then do not provide
funding for those standards. Actually, the State is not providing the funding needed to take advantage of
the Federal match. Albemarle is supplementing the Department to make up State funding in order to take
advantage of some of the Federal match, but even then there are shortages.
Ms. Thomas said this is a wonderful report. There are little things in it that she would like to
comment about, but there is not time.
Ms. Ralston said Ms. Sonia Jammes of the Department was the lead person putting together the
report along with Mr. David Cattell-Gordon.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Closed Meeting. At 1:07 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the
Board adjourn into closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under
Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions, and under Subsection
(7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring advice by counsel
relating to legal representation and easements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Closed Meeting. The Board reconvened into open session at 2:08
p.m.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Mr. Boyd said the meeting is running behind schedule so the Board will not make any
appointments at this time, but will return to Closed Session later today, and after that the Board may make
appointments.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23a. Transportation Matters: W ork Session on the 2008/09-2013/14 Six-Year
Secondary Road Plan.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said the VDOT Six-Year Secondary Road Plan is reviewed
and approved every year. That plan is based on a priority list that the Board of Supervisors reviews for
Secondary Road improvements. He will give a shortened PowerPointe presentation in order to help with
the timing of this meeting. The priority list is a list of projects that is more extensive than what can be
funded over a six-year period of time. Prioritization of projects is reflective of Comprehensive Plan goals
for growth management and facilities/infrastructure planning and development. It emphasizes projects
located in the Development Areas. It also considers Rural Area improvements, but those improvements
are focused on safety type of improvements. The County uses a rating system to help organize the
priorities. The rating system looks at location of the projects, capacity ratings, road design deficiencies
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
and accident reports. County staff works with VDOT staff in establishing and updating the list. Staff also
contacts emergency services and the School Transportation Division as well as the Town of Scottsville to
identify possible improvements. Scottsville Secondary Road projects are included in the VDOT Secondary
Road Plan, so the County prioritizes those improvements. At this time of the year, requests from citizens
are also considered.
Mr. Benish said some recommended changes to the Plan are: Route 651 (Free State Road
Bridge) has been removed from the priority list since construction of the Belvedere connector road.
During review of the Belvedere petition it was recognized that the road might be closed and used for
pedestrian and bicycle access only. It is a little early to pursue that closure but there are some logistics
involved since it is a railroad bridge; VDOT must be sure that it can retain some control of that bridge to
make that happen. That is a planning process that is not incorporated into this review.
Mr. Benish said the Southern Parkway has been maintained as a high priority project and it has
been moved ahead of the Old Ivy Road Improvement project.
Mr. Rooker said the Old Ivy Road project has been in the system for a long time, but has never
been funded. He said it has 6,900 vtpd which is more than Jarmans Gap Road and it is in an area where
a lot of pedestrians/ bicyclists use it. He thinks the Southern Parkway is an important project, but he
wonders if it is wise to make that change when there are two connector roads being built on the south side
of the County (Avon Center connector and Biscuit Run connector). If those are built, how would that
impact the need for the Southern Parkway? He would suggest not making that change until the Board
understands better how the traffic pattern will be affected by those planned improvements.
Mr. Dorrier agreed. He thinks it would be wise to hold off on making this change until the Board
“gets the lay of the land.”
Mr. Boyd asked the basis of that recommendation. Mr. Benish said it is based on a long-time
constraint because the railroad overpass has created some impediment to completing that project at the
end of Ivy Road. Staff tried to decide, with limited funding, what projects should be pursued. He thinks it
is a valid point, because it is far enough down on the list that retaining the old relative order still puts it into
the long-term, next project to plan for. Another emerging aspect of this road project is a new request from
the University for pedestrian and bicycle improvements on Ivy Road. That could provide for a parallel
improvement if that project moves forward. That is a primary road project so is not prioritized on this list.
Mr. Rooker made a good point that this change is not urgent this year.
Mr. Benish said there is a question about the Sunset Road Connector and the Southern Parkway,
and which of these projects is the most important.
Mr. Rooker said today the argument would probably be for the Sunset Road connector. There is
also a proposal for a potential entrance off of Route I-64 which would obviate that need.
Mr. Slutzky said if the County is going forward with the Meadow Creek Parkway, he thinks the
Berkmar Road Bridge should appear on the list as No. 5. Just putting it on the priority list does not mean it
will be funded, but it might signal to the development community and VDOT that the Board really wants
that parallel road system completed.
Ms. Thomas said she would argue to keep the Sunset Road project where it is on the list because
she wants to continue enforcing how important that project is to the County when talking with people at the
University. The University has said they will not increase the square footage at the Fontaine Research
Park until they have agreed where this road will go through their property. The Sunset Road Connector is
important because the County has allowed a tremendous amount of multi-student dwelling units in that
area.
Mr. Boyd suggested Mr. Benish finish his presentation.
Mr. Benish said he will go through the changes. For Sunset Road staff respected the prior
priority, which he thinks was a regional priority between the City and the County to keep the Southern
Parkway as an important roadway. Staff recognized that the Sunset Road Connector is important to the
County as well as the City. Maybe the MPO should decide which proposal is the most important.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the MPO comments about the ranking of the County’s Six-Year Plan just from
an informational standpoint, so the new City councilors can weigh in.
Mr. Rooker said these projects go into the MPO’s Six-Year Plan and everybody makes comments
on them when that occurs. He said the County has to adopt its own Six-Year Plan and he does not want
to get into a mode where people who are not familiar with all of the projects at this time might think they
are subject to approval by the City.
Mr. Benish said the UN-JAM plan is being updated this year. These are the types of issues that
could be discussed with the MPO while this is being done.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to talk about Item No. 22, Reservoir Road. She said the Board
talked about this a year ago, but it has not been discussed since. This road will have to be improved
somewhat for construction vehicles going to the Ragged Mountain Dam project. A comment was made
that it could be a recipient of State Revenue Sharing Funds, but that decision has not been made.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Slutzky said he thought Mr. Tom Frederick from RW SA spoke to that and said the cost would
be put “on the backs of the rate payers.” He is not in favor of having it as a higher priority on the list
because he thinks the people who will be paying for that facility should pay for it out of those funds. If the
Board thought it would like to supplement their efforts beyond what is needed for access by the trucks, it
might do that. He asked what Ms. Thomas felt about this suggestion.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is fine.
Mr. Benish said that is how staff had addressed the question. They assumed that would not be a
VDOT Six-Year Plan public project. Staff did want to recognize it as a project, so did not take it off of the
list. He continued by saying the Berkmar Drive Extended Bridge/Road project has been moved to No. 8.
He forgot to mention that the Strategic Plan lists the projects to be focused on and completed. Since it
takes about 10 years to get a project built, staff focused on the next batch of projects. Berkmar Drive
Extended was included even though Places29 has not been adopted at this time so it is not in an official
plan. There was a consensus that that parallel road will be a major component of transportation
improvements in the area.
Mr. Slutzky said when the MPO discussed this with the members of City Council who had not
embraced the Meadow Creek Parkway project, they said the Meadow Creek Parkway will work only if the
parallel road network is facilitated. The grade separation at Route 29 and Rio Road is a different issue,
but it is not part of the Six-Year Road Plan. As a result of the discussion by the MPO, the Policy Board
suggested that the County recognize the importance of the Berkmar Road Extension.
Ms. Mallek said CHART has been talking about this since the beginning of the UN-JAM process.
Mr. Benish said it has been on the inventory list, but it has now been elevated to a second tier high
priority. W ith this, the Northern Free State Project is being deleted (was Phase II of the old Meadow
Creek Parkway project) based on preliminary findings of Places29. That parallel road will not be
recommended in the next 20 years.
Mr. Benish said the new form change made to the Plan this year was to create a single list of
bridge improvements. The Board had seen the list when it looked at the Primary Road Plan priorities. It
has not changed significantly except for deleting the Free State Road project from the list. This list would
operate like the Unpaved Road Projects. He said staff wanted to acknowledge the Main Street Crozet
Project as an important strategic project as well as intersection improvements at Route 29/Hydraulic Road
and Route 29/Greenbrier Drive based on work on the 29H/250 and the Places29 studies. Both of these
projects are anticipated to be built during redevelopment through significant private contributions, although
there may be parts that will need to be constructed by the County. He said the interchange projects will
probably be Primary Road projects, but there are wings to them that are Secondary. He said those are
staff’s recommendations, and the next step is to schedule a public hearing for next month on the
proposed Plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked about a walkway/bike path project on Avon Street Extended. Mr. Benish said
there is a list of sidewalk projects in the Comprehensive Plan which includes Avon Street. Staff’s
recommends that all roads in the Development Areas have some type of pedestrian system, sidewalk or
pathway.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission looked at this Plan on December 4 and provided some
comments. They supported Priority Nos. 2 through 11. They said Jarmans Gap Road should be the
highest priority, which it is after the Meadow Creek Parkway which is close to going to construction. They
said the Board should place more emphasis on roads in the Southern Urban Area, and the Proffit Road
priority which was retained on the list because of its condition and its use as access to the Baker-Butler
School. The Commission recommended that the Board consider reallocating Rural Unpaved Road funds
to Development Area projects with the caveat that projects which address clear safety issues be done.
They suggested that density issues in the Rural Areas which contribute to demands for improvements to
roads in the Rural Areas be considered as an issue by this Board.
Mr. Benish said the transfer of Unpaved Road Funds is an issue the Board has considered almost
every six years. The intent of the VDOT funding is that Unpaved Road Funds are used for unpaved
roads, but those funds can be transferred to regular projects, but there is a financial penalty. For every
$150,000 transferred, funds are reduced by the amount of unpaved roads in the County by one mile so in
effect it reduces the amount of future funding the County would receive. VDOT can provide information
on this change.
Mr. Rooker said he asked Mr. Sumpter about it. Mr. Allan Sumpter, VDOT’s Residency
Administrator, said at this time, the allocation is about $15,000 per mile. Over a six-year period, the
penalty would amount to about $180,000. In terms of road work, that amount would cover the cost of one
Rural Rustic Road project.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the pavement dollars can be reallocated from rural areas to unpaved roads in
the Urban Area and not have a penalty. He used Sunridge Road as an example. Mr. Sumpter said the
money could legitimately be used on roadways listed as an unpaved State-maintained road. If the money
is taken from an unpaved road and used on any other roadway the penalty would come into play. The
urban versus rural designation the County uses will not affect what VDOT calls “unpaved road” money; it
applies to any State road number of 600 or greater that is an unpaved road. Mr. Davis said Sunridge
Road is not in the State system; it is simply a dedicated right-of-way.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Slutzky asked if there are other roads that have been accepted into the State system where
the paving conditions are such that the money might be used on them thus freeing up money for other
purposes. Mr. Benish said if a road is in the State System, the Unpaved Road money can be applied to
that road. The Planning Commission’s concern was that the vast amount of unpaved road money is used
in the Rural Area. He said that Rio Mills Road and Dickerson Road lie on the border of the Development
Area so are prioritized at the top of the list. A small part of Reservoir Road is in the Development Area.
He is not aware of many roads that have public rights-of-way that could become a part of the State
System through County efforts.
Mr. Sumpter said State Code is very plain on this issue. If the County uses this money on any
road other than an unpaved road that qualifies in the 200 miles, then the $250,000 penalty will apply. It
has to be a road that is already in the State System.
Mr. Boyd said he is not in favor of this recommendation. Every rural road in his district that has
been paved was paved because of safety issues, particularly those involving school buses.
Mr. Slutzky said he understands the safety issues. He has been looking at the requests from the
Schools for paving of roads in the area of Routes 668 and 671. He used to live in that area. Right now, if
one looks at the number of potential development rights in the County, there is a high concentration of
them in that area. He thinks the primary impediment to those development rights being used is that there
are dirt roads in the area. None of the people that he knew in the neighborhood wanted to see any of
those roads paved. He is sure that the day they are paved, particularly Fox Mountain Road going over the
mountain to Route 810, a lot of development will take place along that road. He agrees with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to only consider safety concerns and address them in a narrow and
limited way. He is sure that paving of these roads would invite development and it would be entirely
inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations.
Ms. Thomas said there is a good example on the list of regular paving priorities; No. 6, Pounding
Creek Road. It is a winding, charming unpaved road, but there are developments proposed all along that
road, and developers are just waiting for the road to be paved.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any possibility of making that road a Rural Rustic Road project instead
of a paved road. It would be cheaper.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think that road qualifies. Mr. Sumpter said part of the Rural Rustic
Road program requires that the Board indicate that any growth and traffic generated by the land will not
increase significantly over the next 10 years. He said the roads which are currently being done as RRR
projects are not in areas designated as growth areas.
Mr. Rooker said the County has two regular paving projects that are primarily to service growth
areas. Those projects would consume the entire amount of road paving funds for the next five or more
years. The Planning Commission’s recommendation would not even come into play for seven or more
years. Those roads either lie in the growth area or service the growth area.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has conflicting requests. The Planning Commission has said not to
pave in the rural areas because it would stimulate growth, and then there is the School System which for
other reasons is asking that a bunch of these roads be paved. He would prefer following what the
Commission recommended and have rural paving done in places closest to the growth areas.
Mr. Benish said staff is trying to address the concerns of the Schools through other measures.
Mr. Slutzky said on Route 668 there are places with large trees which shrink the width of the road
so it is not safe for a bus to go around a blind curve. There are ways to straighten that road without paving
it. He asked if other Board members would be willing to support the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Boyd said if there is some way to concentrate road paving around the growth area, he agrees.
However, a lot of that paving is occurring through private development. He is not in favor of the County
imposing upon itself a penalty for future paving dollars.
Mr. Rooker agreed. He said the regular paving projects indicate a preference for roads that are
not in the Rural Area. It does not indicate the extent to which the Board does not want to do Rural Rustic
projects, and instead to move that money to projects such as Rio Mills, etc.
Mr. Boyd said he is getting requests for roads which have been brought before the Board many
times, such as the short section of Gilbert Station Road. Does he tell his constituents’ that roads such as
this will not be paved?
Mr. Rooker said he is not saying that, he is just putting the issue on the table. Rather than the
Board adopting the Planning Commission’s recommendation, it comes down to what the Board is willing to
support. He, personally, is not ready to make a decision on the Commission’s recommendation.
Mr. Dorrier said that with the amount of money the County receives, not many roads will be paved.
Mr. Rooker said the County has an allocation of $640,000 for unpaved roads this year. W here
does the Board put that money?
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Mr. Dorrier asked what length of road could be paved for that amount of money. Does it cost the
same for every mile of road? Mr. Sumpter said “no.” Roads in the plan such as Doctors Crossing are
unpaved road projects which have characteristics that will require specialized construction work
throughout the project. A Rural Rustic Road costs about $180,000 because it is basically the same type
of construction on each road. It basically requires the addition of stone, with minimal drainage work, and
then surfacing. Construction costs will vary on all of the other roads mentioned.
Mr. Dorrier asked if a road further out in the Rural Area will be less expensive to pave. Mr.
Sumpter said “no.”
Mr. Rooker said a Rural Rustic Road project does not expand the road, but a regular paving may
require acquisition of additional right-of-way, and it might require expansion of the roadbed, so it is an
entirely different project. Mr. Sumpter said as to Rio Mills Road, it is a significant road project because
there is a curve immediately off of Route 29 that will require substantial work in order to meet acceptable
standards.
Mr. Slutzky said he would be happy if the Rio Mills Road project were put on hold. He has been
told by the quarry operator that as soon as that road is improved they will have trucks exiting that facility
every minute onto Rio Mills up to Earlysville Road and dispersing in various directions. The quarry owner
has offered to contribute in some way to the paving of that road. VDOT thought it would be a benefit to the
County if that project were made a priority, but there is a better way to solve that problem and that is to
have a different roadway go from the quarry to put traffic on Route 29; this would put the traffic through the
portions of Places29 which are not yet resolved. Resources could be allocated to roads that need to
move forward, then as Places 29 is finished, and with the possibility of getting proffers in the next couple
of years for the area south of Hollymead Towncenter, the County may never need to spend public money
to pave that stretch of Rio Mills Road. There is a possibility it will not be a road that goes all the way from
Earlysville to Route 29. W ould reallocating that money be a problem for VDOT? Mr. Sumpter said
placement of that project in the Plan is entirely at the Board’s discretion.
Ms. Thomas asked what estimated construction date was advertised. Mr. Sumpter said it was
December, 2015. Considering the current amount of funding the County receives, the regular unpaved
road projects in the Plan are so significant that it will take several years to get those to construction.
Mr. Rooker said if all of the unpaved road funds were allocated to Dickerson Road for the next
three or so years that project could be done. One problem is that if road is “scattered in project pails” and
then the costs increase, it will be difficult to complete anything. One approach might be to allocate
$500,000 a year of unpaved road funds to Dickerson Road so it can be done.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks that is a good policy, but he does not think money should be spent on
the top priority on the list.
Mr. Rooker said that project is so expensive it would take $500,000 for six or seven years, and in
the meantime the cost would be increasing.
Mr. Sumpter said it is just a question of where the Board wants to start storing the money. It is up
to the Board to decide how it wants to move and then VDOT will adapt to that schedule. On a daily or
weekly basis he gets calls about the Rural Rustic type of project. As far as maintenance issues are
concerned, they get calls related to gravel roads, traffic signals, etc. He has been reading the staff’s
reports and other materials trying to find out what the Planning Commission meant by their
recommendation. He got the impression that they thought the entire unpaved road program could be
stopped. He will mention that in other parts of the State, particularly in Northern Virginia and Loudoun
County, there was a stance taken to leave some roads graveled. They have reached a point now where
gravel roads are carrying up to 10,000 vtpd. They have to dedicate one crew each day to blade the road,
put down dust control and add stone. VDOT’s concern would be maintenance of the roadways. There
are more variable conditions on gravel roads because they change during the different seasons. W ould
not paving really mean traffic will not increase on these roads?
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the Planning Commission was trying to get to “the flip side.” The
County does not want the roads paved and invite 10,000 cars a day who are coming into town, to use
them.
Mr. Rooker said if the State provided adequate money for construction it might slow down
maintenance. He thinks the decision now is whether the Board wants to take a project like Dickerson
Road and try to dedicate enough money in the plan to get it built before costs escalate further.
Mr. Boyd said he is in favor of that approach. He would like to put together a plan to actually
accomplish something rather than just changing the date when the project should start. His major
concern about the Planning Commission’s recommendation is about a project such as Doctors Crossing.
He has talked with the residents in the area many times over the past four years. If the Board now says it
will not pave that road because it does not think the issues are great enough to require it, the Board needs
to be upfront and straightforward with those people and say the project is being removed from the list
because it lies in the Rural Area. It is hard enough to say there is no money for a project. The Board
needs to come up with some criteria, and if the project does not meet that criteria not even put the road on
the list.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Rooker said he has questioned how Doctors Crossing is ranked No. 3 yet it has an August 3
advertising date, when projects that are ranked higher have a 2015 advertising date. Mr. Sumpter said
that date just has not been changed.
Mr. Rooker said if the projects listed above it are accurate, that puts them in line for a 2016 to
2020 advertising date.
Mr. Boyd said he is aware of that. However, if in reality the Board has a policy which says that
because the area is underdeveloped at this time but there are many development rights in the area, than
the road will not qualify to be on the paving list. He thinks the Board needs to be upfront with these
people, and say that.
Ms. Thomas said she has said that to her constituents many times.
Mr. Slutzky said it might be helpful to get a sense of where development potential lies on one road
versus another. Maybe for those roads, the Board should look to be sure it does not have any inadvertent
instances where it is proposing to pave a road that will invite development.
Ms. Mallek said there is also the question of prices on projects, the different usages of the
roadway, and the traffic counts. Mr. Sumpter said he would like to point out something else. On last
year’s approved list there were two projects for Rio Mills Road; one has $611,000 allocated and the other
needs an additional $2.6 million. Also, there is a section of Dickerson Road which shows a balance of
$591,000 with an additional $1.58 million required. Another section has $1.0 million previously funded
with an additional $600,000 needed. He said if there is going to be thought given to focusing on one
priority, rather than put small amounts and extending the timeframe, some consideration might be given to
transferring money from other projects to the ones at the top of the list in order to get them to construction
faster.
Mr. Rooker said he does not see an allocation on his list. Mr. Benish said the County’s list does
not show allocations.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said staff can do further analysis based on the
comments made today before the public hearing if that is what the Board would like staff to do.
Mr. Boyd said that is a good idea but he thinks there should be another work session before the
public hearing in order to see what has been shuffled around.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful if staff would bring back one project that meets the criteria the
Board has been talking about.
Mr. Boyd said he would really like to see the changes discussed today before holding the public
hearing.
Mr. Slutzky said if the Board decides to move the Rio Mills Road projects off of the plan without
giving advance notice to the citizens that would not be fair to them.
Mr. Sumpter said part of the driving force for the public hearing comes from VDOT in Richmond.
He is under a deadline to get his plan to Richmond. It has to be done by April at the latest, so he is
agreeable to moving the public hearing to March.
Mr. Rooker said this is a policy the Board needs to make a decision on in order to instruct staff.
Basically the Board has said it wants to get one project done that is on the list, or a couple of projects
depending on the amount of money that has been allocated and is just sitting there. The other question is
whether the Board wants to continue with the Rural Rustic Road Program. That program impacts the
amount of money there will be to allocate here.
Mr. Sumpter said the Board should consider carefully the County’s allocation in that fiscal year.
That allocation also covers some Rural Rustic Road projects that have been committed to; citizens are
expecting them to be built in the next construction cycle. They would be paid from that $640,000.
Mr. Rooker asked how much of that $640,000 has been pre-allocated to those roads.
Mr. Foley said that will be part of the report staff will bring to the next meeting.
Mr. Boyd said three of these road projects have been done in his district, and the feedback from
the citizens has been tremendous.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks staff should include that type of feedback in its report. She got a
comment from one bicyclist and it was not favorable.
Ms. Mallek said she had received comments from some runners. Quite a few people commented
that the existing gravel roads are major parts of long distance running.
Mr. Boyd said that is anecdotal. He has talked with runners who say they hate to run on gravel
roads.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Rural Rustic Road projects have been popular with the citizens.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Rooker said the comments he has heard have been favorable for the projects which have
been completed.
Mr. Juan W ade, Transportation Planner, said the Board had asked staff to make a comparison of
roads before and after these projects had been completed. Staff chose Gilbert Station Road to do a traffic
count before it was recently paved, and another traffic count is scheduled for this spring. He encouraged
the Board to wait for those results; he gets a couple of calls a month from residents requesting that their
road be paved.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not doubt that there are a lot of people living in the Rural Areas who
would like to see their road paved. They also call members of the Board and ask that nothing be done to
encourage growth in the Rural Areas because they do not want to see traffic increase on that road. There
are competing concerns to take into account. Mr. W ade said if the Board decides to go in that direction,
staff will let the public know about this decision.
Ms. Thomas said the Comprehensive Plan, for a very long time, has said that nothing should be
done to encourage suburban type of development in the Rural Area. Having a nice paved road is
everybody’s definition of a suburban type of road. W hen she sees roads suddenly appear on the list from
the public, it makes her cringe because some person has called up, and in order to be responsive, staff
puts the road on the list and it does not fit the policy. She thinks the Planning Commission is taking the
Board to task for letting that happen. She thinks Mr. Boyd is right; if the Board wants to remind the public
that is not the policy there should be a stronger policy statement.
Mr. Slutzky agreed. He also suggested telling the School Board about the inducement to
development that paving of roads would imply. He thinks it might be more useful if the School Board
furnished a list of roads which could use safety improvements.
Mr. Boyd said people living on Rocky Hollow Road, which was just completed, asked that it be
considered because the elementary school bus and the middle school bus almost collided since there was
no way to see around the curves. That was a safety issue, and the School Board favored the project. At
one time, children had to walk out to the end of the road to catch the bus. Sending school buses into every
hollow in the County is promoting growth in the Rural Area even though he knows the School Board is
concerned about safety issues.
Mr. Sumpter said from the conversation today, he understands the Board wants VDOT to work
with County staff to identify what has been committed to Rural Rustic Road projects in the coming year;
they are to look at the priorities for the regular unpaved road projects; and, they are to identify a project
that realistically can be put together in a reasonable time and get it to construction.
Mr. Benish said there will be another work session so this conversation can continue. He heard
that the Board wants to maintain Old Ivy Road as a strategic priority at its same priority number. For
regular unpaved road projects, Rio Mills Road is to be moved down on the list. Based on the way the
Criteria Based Rating System works, because it is considered an Urban Area road, it would just “flip-flop.”
Staff will identify other issues involved in moving into the concept of focusing on unpaved road funding.
The public hearing should be at night.
Ms. Mallek said on the potential project list, Page 5, No. 39, it says Route 641, Graves Mills Road
at Jacobs Run. She thinks Jacobs Run belongs with the description for Route 743.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23b. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report/Rural Rustic Road
Program Update/Advance Mills Bridge Update.
Mr. Sumpter said he will highlight a couple of things in the Monthly Report. He has talked with Mr.
Rooker about railroad bridges. As far as the analysis of Broomley Road, Mr. David Pierce said the bridge
was inspected by a consultant who was not sure they had the capability to do that analysis. Mr. Pierce is
trying to contact them to see if they have that capability and if they do, they will link Mr. Rooker with the
consultants.
Mr. Rooker said when looking at bridges which are categorized as inadequate, the cost is upward
of $4.0 million. He would like to know if anything can be done to strengthen the existing bridge on
Broomley Road to enable emergency vehicles to cross the bridge, and the cost of such work. He said that
although that bridge is posted for 10 tons, he thinks 14+ tons would be a better rating. He said it is against
the law for emergency vehicles to cross the bridge even though it might be able to maintain them. He is
trying to find out its real capacity and if there is some way to improve that capacity, and at least solve the
problem for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Sumpter said the Advanced Mills temporary bridge project has been submitted to VDOT’s
Central Office for advertisement. It is on schedule for advertising on January 2; there will be a preview
meeting with contractors on February 5. They are moving forward assuming the bids received will be
reasonable.
_______________
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Agenda Item No. 23c. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier asked that Mr. Sumpter look at Route 630 in Southern Albemarle. It is off of Route 6
and is a mile in length and has been reported to him to be in bad shape.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said he reported a problem to Mr. Sumpter and within 24 hours a sign had been
replaced in the Raintree neighborhood.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said heading toward the Airport from Route 29, there is now a sign that explains that
one does not get in the right lane to go to the Airport, but to get in the left land. It is still confusing, and he
suggested that there be a sign right before that one with a straight ahead arrow. He thinks that would
make it clearer. He wants the roundabouts to work well so there can be more of them.
__________
Ms. Thomas said on Route 250 W est the W hite Gables and Kenridge condominium groups were
required by the County to have only one access point (across from Birdwood Golf Course). They are
concerned that if they are required to only use that access and the one that is now being used by W hite
Gables before there is a stop light there, it will be more dangerous rather than dividing up the traffic. It is a
question of when the stop light is put in correlating with when the County requires the traffic from W hite
Gables to be only right-in, right-out.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio, VDOT Residency Program Manager, said he looked at the plan from 2002,
and there was a traffic study with it. It had a signal warrant analysis for the location at the W hite Gables
site, not for Kenridge, and not for the Kappa Sigma property. He spoke with the County Engineer and now
it is a right-in, right-out at W hite Gables, and full access at Kenridge, so they have asked for a revision to
the warrant analysis. W hen that is received, he thinks the signal can be put into place.
__________
Ms. Thomas said at the Northridge medical facility on Route 250 W est the University is proposing
a new 40-bed hospital on that property. She wants to be sure VDOT “is in the loop” on those discussions.
It is right at the edge of the County’s rural area so the County will be doing analysis, but she wants to be
sure VDOT is in that loop also. Mr. DeNunzio said they got the plan, and he thinks site plan review is
tomorrow morning.
__________
Ms. Thomas said on Route 250 W est there used to be a “W atch for Deer Sign.” It has
disappeared. Mr. Sumpter said it can be put back and he asked for the location. Ms. Thomas said it was
in-between Verdant Lawn Lane and W est Leigh Drive.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Sumpter if he will be setting a meeting to discuss Georgetown Road. Mr.
Sumpter said “yes.”
__________
Ms. Mallek said her constituents are pleased with the second roundabout at the Airport. It seems
to function well.
__________
Mr. Boyd said under the “Preliminary Engineering” section of Mr. Sumpter’s monthly report on
Page 1, it says the Meadow Creek Parkway right-of-way revision with the City has been completed, and
offers are ready pending a conference with the City Attorney, County Attorney and Attorney General’s
Office. Does that mean the project is moving along? W hat does the Attorney General have to do with it?
Mr. Sumpter said this refers to the School property owned by the City, but which is in control of the City
School Board. The offer went to the City and they said it should go to the School Board, and the School
Board said “no” take it to the City so they had to request an Attorney General’s opinion as to who the offer
should go to.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is going to delay the project. Mr. Sumpter said although there are still some
issues involved, VDOT officially has the advertisement date, but there is a possibility an adjustment will be
needed.
__________
Mr. Boyd inquired about the project at the intersection of Route 250 East and Route 22. He said a
person from Luck Stone is present this afternoon to talk about what is going on with that project. Does
VDOT have a different perspective? Mr. Sumpter said VDOT is authorized on that project to do the
engineering and right-of-way phases. That has almost been completed. That is all that is authorized.
VDOT is willing to be part of any discussion to try to facilitate any issues.
Mr. Boyd said the problem is that the cost has escalated. He thinks Luck Stone is suggesting that
they might raise the amount they would contribute. Is this something that has to be negotiated by the
Board? Mr. Sumpter said VDOT has done what they need to do, but is willing to have discussions to see
what everybody can do. He will see if there is anything VDOT can do to help out with the traffic light. As
far as what is authorized in the Six-Year Plan, VDOT has fulfilled that obligation.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Boyd said the estimated cost for the County is about $400,000 and that is a little steep, so he
would like to sit down with Luck Stone to see if a compromise can be reached. He does not know where
the County would get the funds. He wonders if the County will move forward and “step up to the plate”
because it just does not have the money.
Mr. Rooker said there has never been an analysis of how that project would address the safety
problem and how important the project is to the County. The project has been on the books for a long
time and was going to be constructed almost entirely with funds from Luck Stone. The County was going
to contribute about $125,000 from the Glenmore proffer money. Now the County is being asked to come
up with substantially more money, so he thinks the County should look at the importance of the project
and see what safety issues it would solve. He asked if the County could apply for safety funds. Mr.
Sumpter said if there is safety money that could be applied to VDOT putting in a signal, it would be listed
as a separate project. He has just made an initial briefing to his staff about budgetary matters, and all are
thinking about the question at this time. The signal cost is estimated at $225,000. If Luck Stone does the
construction, VDOT cannot give them the money to construct it.
Mr. Rooker asked if VDOT could do the signal, while Luck Stone controlled the project. Mr.
Sumpter said that is possible.
Mr. Rooker suggested that this project be discussed when it has the next work session on the
Secondary Road Plan next month.
Mr. Boyd said he would like a report on safety at that intersection.
Mr. Slutzky said he can see the appropriateness of the County investing in a project like that as an
initiative. He would want to know the clear benefit of the project and its cost relative to a whole litany of
unfunded things based on the tax rate and the budget proposal.
Mr. Benish said the source of the funds used in the Plan for the County’s contribution was the
proffer moneys related to Glenmore. Staff will provide that amount at the work session. Mr. Sumpter said
he will bring information on the possibility of VDOT funding the signal.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Public Hearing: Request to amend the Jurisdictional Area Boundary of the
Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 56, Parcel 67A
(Cohousing Site), and Parcels 67, 67B and 74B, all located in the Crozet Community Development Area.
Three Notch’d Road (Route 240). W hite Hall District. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on December 24 and December 31, 2007.)
Mr. Benish said Blue Ridge Cohousing, LLC, is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation
for W ater and Sewer service for a seven-acre parcel (Tax Map 56, Parcel 67A) located on the north side
of Three Notch’d Road, Route 240. The property is located within the Crozet Development Area in the
W hite Hall District and is currently designated for W ater Only to Existing Structures. The applicant is
requesting a W ater and Sewer designation to provide service to the proposed Blue Ridge Cohousing
project (ZMA-2007-12), which was approved by the Board on November 14, 2007. Staff recommends that
the Board approve including Tax Map 56, Parcel 67A, in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area Boundary for W ater
and Sewer service.
W ith no questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing. W ith no one from the public
rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve the inclusion of Tax Map
56, Parcels 67A, in the Albemarle County Service Authority’s jurisdictional area for water and sewer
service. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Public Hearing: SP-2007-0038, Carrsbrook (ATC) Verizon Tier III PW SF.
Proposed: Collocation of a personal wireless service facility on an existing tower.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA, Rural Areas-EC Entrance Corridor overlay.
Section: 10.2.2(48) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the
RA Zoning District.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas uses in Rural Area 1.
Location: W est of U.S. Rt 29N accessed via a gravel drive, approximately 0.15 miles north of
Ashwood Boulevard (Rt 1670).
Tax Map/Parcel: 46:15.
Magisterial District: Rio.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 24 and
December 31, 2007.)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner, presented the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He was assisted by Mr. Gerald Gatobu, Planner, who
gave a PowerPointe presentation.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Fritz said the facility is an existing tower and a special use permit is required because it is the
fourth array on an existing tower. This particular tower is located across from the entrance to Forest
Lakes South and is accessed by a gravel road that extends approximately 865 feet west from the
southbound lane of U.S. Route 29 North approximately 114 feet north of the bridge that crosses over the
South Fork of the Rivanna River. There are multiple towers on the site. The tower on which they plan to
collocate was previously approved. It has three arrays on it currently at various heights. The Planning
Commission reviewed the request and on November 13, 2007, recommended approval by a vote of 5:0:2.
Mr. Fritz said the Commission discussed in detail some of the modifications needed. There are
two modifications. The antenna will be mounted in a manner similar to the current antenna. The
antennas are not flush-mounted, but in a convention array where there are three sectors. The antennas
meet the size requirements of the ordinance. The Planning Commission approved the modification to
allow them to use a conventional antenna array as opposed to being flush-mounted. The Commission
also approved a modification to grant relief of the requirement that would have required submission of a
tree conservation plan. This was done because there are no trees to be removed.
W ith no questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he represents Verizon W ireless. He said the staff report is clear and
thorough. The recommendations from the Planning Commission would enable the Board to take action in
favor of this request. He introduced his client. He said Verizon has only recently been licensed by the
FCC to provide direct service to customers in this locale. Until this project is switched on, customers’
phones must roam on other carriers and providers. He said Verizon has put together a good team,
including some former planners from Albemarle County (Maynard Sipe went back to law school after
being a County planner and is now his new law associate; Stephen W aller is one of their zoning
consultants). Together they have 17 years of experience with the County, so together with Bill Fritz,
Stephen W aller and Jan Sprinkle, they are the experts on the County’s W ireless Policy. That is an
indication of his client’s commitment to understanding and pursing that policy. There may be matters in
the future with a full presentation where he can introduce other members of the team. He offered to
answer questions.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Davis if he is allowed to vote on this petition since he is a customer of
Verizon. Mr. Davis said unless Mr. Slutzky owns more than three percent of Verizon stock, he is okay.
Ms. Thomas said she did not get a cell phone through all the years that the Board was working on
this policy because she did not want to have any conflict of interest, not in the law, but in her own mind.
Mr. Rooker said he will not vote in favor of this request. In 2003, a request came to add antennas
to the tower and he voted against that; it passed by a 4:2 vote. This tower is the kind of tower that would
never be approved today under the current policy. There is an ugly blight existing off of an entrance
corridor that is seen by everybody driving down Route 29. The question is whether to add to that blight.
He said there are two ways to look at this issue, but he looked at it this way in 2003, and will look at it this
way again, so he will not support the petition.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks she was the other vote that did not support the request in 2003. She
does not think that adding to ugliness (referred to as “visually intrusive” in the policy) fits with the policy.
This tower is visually intrusive, and each time an antenna is added it will be more difficult to have the tower
taken down when cell towers are phased out. She sees no reason to do this when there is a very good
treetop pole policy that is being successfully used by other cell phone providers.
Mr. Slutzky said he will support the petition. He took those same points of view into consideration,
but it was his thinking that if the Board did not approve the petition, Verizon is coming into the market and
would request that a compliant tower be located in another location and he would rather have a couple of
more antennas on an existing ugly tower than a whole new tower.
Mr. Rooker said the other towers are poles with flush-mounted antennas on them. That is the
difference.
Mr. Slutzky said his logic was that this tower is already there, and so he weighed those two things
and came up with a different outcome. He then offered motion to approve SP-2007-038 subject to the
ten conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the two modifications.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below with a reference to the two
modifications mentioned above.)
1. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site construction plans, entitled “Carrsbrook American Tower Corporation
Compound", with a final zoning drawing submittal date of July 19, 2007;
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
2. The tower shall not be increased in height;
3. The additional array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the
tower. The cables extending from the ground equipment may remain black; and
b. The antennas shall be set at the minimum distance that is allowed by the
mounting equipment, and in no case shall any of the new antennas project from
the structure to a distance that is greater than that of the existing antennas;
4. The replacement of dishes and antennas attached to this tower may be approved
administratively, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the
replacement equipment are in compliance with these conditions of approval and in
accordance with all applicable regulations set forth in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
5. W ith the exception of any safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration
regulations, outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during maintenance periods;
regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not required for safety
shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. No existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the facility shall be removed for the
purpose of installing the proposed antennae or any supporting ground equipment;
7. The current owner and any subsequent owners of the tower and its supporting facilities
shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall
identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing
indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each
provider;
8. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall
be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is
discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued.
If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning
Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of
credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the
removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney;
9. The tower shall be limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas. No
additional relay, satellite or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on the tower
without an amendment of this special use permit; and
10. The special use permit must be amended to allow either of the three existing arrays of
panel antennas to be:
a. relocated on the structure;
b. modified to increase the number or size of panel antennas; or,
c. modified to increase the distance of the panel antennas from the structure.
Modifications:
1. The flush mounting requirements; and
2. The tree modification plan because they are not disturbing any trees.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. Public Hearing: SP-2007-41, Collin Gallahue, Violin Maker.
Proposed: Home Occupation to permit a violin making operation in an accessory structure on a
131 acre property.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Section: 10.2.2(31) Home Occupation-Class B.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: 6551 Heards Mountain Rd (Rt 633), Covesville.
Tax Map/Parcel: 97:24.
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 24 and
December 31, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant has requested a special use permit for a Home
Occupation-Class B permit in order to make and sell handcrafted musical instruments that are made on
site in an accessory structure. There would be a limited number of instruments made. There would be
some sales at the site on Heards Mountain Road. Both staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the request subject to three conditions.
W ith no questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to speak.
The applicant, Mr. Colin Gallahue, was present and offered to answer questions.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve SP-2007-041 subject
to the three conditions recommended. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. SP-2007-41 is limited to the making, repair, and sales of musical instruments;
2. No employees shall be permitted, without approval of an amendment to this special use
permit; and
3. Storage of materials shall be entirely within the accessory building, as shown on
Attachment A.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Public Hearing: SP-2007-044, SPCA Amendment.
Proposed: Special use permit for outside fenced dog exercise areas. No residential units are
proposed.
Zoning Category/General Usage: C-1 Commercial-retail sales and service uses; and residential
use by special use permit (15 units/acre).
Section: 22.2.2.13, Animal Shelter, uses permitted by special use permit in Commercial district.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Transitional - neighborhood-scale commercial uses,
offices, townhouses and apartments (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 1.
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: 3355 Berkmar Drive, Charlottesville, VA, approximately 1100 feet north of intersection
with W oodbrook Drive.
Tax Map/Parcel: 45-86.
Magisterial District: Rio.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 24 and
December 31, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is an amendment to an existing special use permit. It
would allow for construction of an outside, fenced exercise area for dogs at the facility on Berkmar Drive.
It is in an area that the Comprehensive Plan currently considers transitional. A lot of the adjacent zoning
is residential, but the real uses occurring in the area are scattered residential, non-residential uses on
residential properties, and a number of the properties are owned by VDOT having been acquired as part
of a proposed W estern Bypass project.
Mr. Cilimberg gave a PowerPointe presentation. He noted a number of areas on the plan which
are designated as tree conservation areas. Also proposed are additional screening trees, fencing around
the exercise areas, and decorative fencing along Berkmar Drive. Factors favorable to the request are: the
proposed dog exercise areas are an appropriate addition to the current facility; the proposed dog exercise
areas and the paths will provide a safer and more comfortable environment for staff, volunteers and
potential adopters to take care of and interact with the dogs; and, the proposed dog exercise areas have
been designed with the surrounding community in mind. There were no unfavorable factors identified.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its public hearing, changed a couple of conditions
from those originally recommended by staff. The Commission then recommended approval subject to
seven conditions. He said staff now recommends some further changes to the conditions of the
Commission. The first condition more specifically identifies the area intended for tree conservation, and it
would read: “A Tree Conservation Plan shall be submitted for those areas shown as Tree Conservation
Areas on the attached plan entitled ‘Charlottesville/Albemarle S.P.C.A. ZMA-2000-005, SP-2000-022,
revised November 6, 2007’.” Condition No. 2 refers to the area of screening on the plan. Originally there
was not a condition referencing this. The Commission asked that a condition be included, and in their
action they made reference to a double row of trees planted 15-feet on center that would conform to
ordinance requirements. In reviewing the location of that area of tree conservation and in consideration of
the Commission’s concern that there be screening from the S.P.C.A. and the residentially-zoned property
to the north, staff noted that VDOT owns that property. In both the current Comprehensive Plan and the
draft Places29 Master Plan, that area is shown as non-residential. Considering the limited area available,
staff felt that one row of trees as shown on the plan was acceptable and would reflect what the
Commission intended to accomplish in this area which is to screen the property from the adjacent property
should it develop residentially. Staff does not think it will, but staff recommends that Condition No. 2 read:
“At least one row of screening evergreen trees shall be planted 15 feet on center along the north side of
the property” and he has added the words “as shown on the attached plan.” That will reference
specifically the plan provided. Condition No. 3 was not changed (it has been in existence for a while).
Condition No. 4 references the plan for the general development of the site.
Mr. Cilimberg said Condition No. 5 is the same as that recommended by the Commission except
that staff added the phrase “to be either on a leash if outside the fenced area or contained within a fenced
area if not on a leash.” That condition would now read: “Animals may be walked and/or exercised outside
only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. W hile animals are outside, they must be supervised
and be either on a leash if outside the fenced area or contained within a fenced area if not on a leash.”
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Cilimberg said there was a Condition No. 6 reading: “Uses shall be limited to an animal
shelter and a veterinary hospital with associated offices only.” Since the Planning Commission’s meeting
staff of the Zoning Department has said that condition is not necessary as the current special use permit
limits the S.P.C.A. to an animal shelter so that original condition is not being recommended for inclusion.
Mr. Cilimberg said Condition No. 6 recommended by staff is Condition No. 7 from the Planning
Commission’s action and it is about the fencing material. It has just been renumbered and is not changed.
He said that several of these conditions all refer to the plan which is the key piece in this request. He said
if the Board agrees with staff’s recommendations for the six conditions, it will recommend that the Board
approve the permit with those conditions attached.
Ms. Thomas asked if “being supervised” in Condition No. 5 means there has to be a person onsite
with the dogs. Mr. Cilimberg said staff tried to define supervision in the second sentence of that condition.
Ms. Susan Kogut, Executive Director of the SPCA, said there will be free play without a human
person when dogs are in the pen and the dogs will be brought into the facility at night; no animal will be left
out after hours.
Ms. Thomas asked about the fencing material. Does staff know for certain what type of materials
will be used? Mr. Cilimberg asked Ms. Judy W iegand, Planner, to answer this question.
Ms. W iegand said the plan contains a note saying “Fencing materials for fenced exercise areas
shall be six-foot high vinyl black chain linked at rear left area and all other fenced areas shall be four-foot
high decorative black aluminum. Dog exercise areas shall be six-foot high galvanized steel chain link
fencing.” She said the fencing is described on the plan.
Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing at this time and asked the applicant to speak.
Ms. Kogut said she is the Executive Director of the S.P.C.A. She thanked County staff for helping
them through this process. She said they had one large donor who approached them and said she would
like to donate funds to develop dog walking paths in memory of her husband. They went on this project
because this lady actually came to the S.P.C.A. to walk her dogs. Other people do the same thing. There
are no nice paths now; they are makeshift paths which have just developed over a period of time by
people walking on the property. They have some fencing on the property now which was not part of the
special use permit previously approved; she did not know this when she began as executive director.
Ms. Kogut said they are going through this process to make what they are doing better, safer for
the dog walkers and safer for the public. The decorative fencing being proposed is the same fencing that
is directly across the street from their facility at Planet Fun. As to being supervised, dogs will not be left in
that area alone. They do not want dogs unsupervised, or to have potential adopters outside that cannot
be seen by staff. The people taking dogs out to that area to play would be supervising the dogs all the
time. She offered to answer questions.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed before
the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve SP-2007-0044 subject
to the six modified conditions recommended by staff today. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions, as recommended by staff today, are set out in full below.)
1. A Tree Conservation Plan shall be submitted for those areas shown as Tree Conservation
Areas on the attached plan entitled “Charlottesville/Albemarle S.P.C.A. ZMA-2000-005, SP-
2000-022, revised November 6, 2007;”
2. At least one (1) row of screening evergreens trees shall be planted fifteen (15) feet on center
along the north side of the property as shown on the attached plan entitled “Charlottesville/
Albemarle S.P.C.A. ZMA-2000-005, SP-2000-022, revised November 6, 2007;”
3. Fundraising activities and other special events shall not occur unless a zoning clearance has
been issued by the Department of Community Development;
4. The site shall be developed in accord with the attached site plan entitled “Charlottesville/
Albemarle S.P.C.A. ZMA-2000-005, SP-2000-022, revised November 6, 2007;”
5. Animals may be walked and/or exercised outside only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. W hile animals are outside, they must be supervised and be either on a leash if
outside the fenced area or contained within a fenced area if not on a leash; and
6. Fencing shall be of the material identified and installed in the locations shown on the plan
entitled “Charlottesville/Albemarle S.P.C.A. ZMA-2000-005, SP-2000-022, revised November
6, 2007.”
_______________
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Agenda Item No. 28. Public Hearing: SP-2007-048, Mt. Alto Baptist Church Building Addition.
Proposed: Amend SP-2007-16 to allow additional square footage of an approved expansion of
church alter area, additional choir space.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Section: 10.2.2.35, Church building and adjunct cemetery.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre).
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: 4330 Mt. Alto Road, off Howardsville Turnpike, Esmont.
Tax Map/Parcel: 133:16.
Magisterial District: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on December 24 and
December 31, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request is to amend SP-2007-016
which was approved on June 12, 2007. At that time, the Church requested a 320 square foot
expansion of the Church in an area of the property which was not large enough for the expansion.
Originally the expansion allowed only an area of 20-feet by 30-feet. The church discovered they
needed approximately 450 square feet for the proposed building addition. The area is needed to
accommodate the choir, an organ and a study area for the pastor. There will be no additional
seating or parking and it will not be visible from adjacent residences.
Mr. Cilimberg then showed a few photos of the property. He said the recommended
conditions of approval include a reference to the February 26 plan. It will be limited to a maximum
of 500 square feet. It will still have the same maximum amount of seating for the sanctuary. It still
references that there is no day care or private school on the site without approval of a separate
special use permit. He is making a suggestion today to modify Condition No. 5 to read:
“Construction shall commence on or before January 9, 2013, ....” rather than saying it must
happen within five years.
Mr. Cilimberg said he is also recommending today that a Condition No. 6 be added reading: “All
outdoor lighting associated with the addition shall be full cut-off fixtures.” It is a condition the Board has
been using recently. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Slutzky asked if adding this condition means the lighting on the site now is not grandfathered.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is referenced as part of site plan approval. In this case, it is a small addition, and he
does not believe there is a site plan for the church. Probably there will be a waiver of a site plan. They will
be required to bring in a plan to reflect their addition so there could be the lighting which would be
examined. Staff did not recommend this because of the limited nature of the condition, and the
Commission did not recommend it, but he wanted to mention it because he knows it is something the
Board has wanted to accomplish in most rural area development.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a way to word it differently by saying that upon any replacement of the
existing light fixtures, they be done in a manner which is compliant. Mr. Davis said the Board could say
“All outdoor lighting required for the addition shall be required to comply.” They will not need a site plan,
and they would not have to retrofit any existing lighting, but any new lighting provided would have to be
subject to these restrictions.
Mr. Dorrier asked why new lighting should not be required.
Mr. Slutzky said it is a cost burden that might not be warranted with this very modest addition.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is outdoor lighting at the church now.
Mr. Boyd suggested asking the applicant. He opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to speak.
Mr. Lawrence Randolph said he is a trustee with the church. They do have outside lighting now
on the backside of the building.
Mr. Boyd asked if the church anticipates putting in any new lighting with this addition. Mr.
Randolph said they will replace the existing lighting. Now, they are using floodlights, and they would
replace them with the same type of lighting.
Ms. Thomas said the County is trying to cut down on the light that goes into the sky affecting the
dark skies. She would like to have full cut-off light fixtures so no light goes up, but all light goes down.
Also, a light fixture cannot be aimed at a neighbor.
Mr. Boyd said flood lighting is not that type of lighting.
Mr. Slutzky said it is the fixture containing the bulb that limits where the light beams go.
Ms. Thomas said certain types of floodlighting would not be acceptable. Mr. Randolph said their
floodlighting now is pointed down, and that is what they want.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Dorrier said this church is located in a sort of wilderness. There is nothing around it. Mr.
Randolph said there are probably three houses on that road.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Randolph is he would be agreeable to a condition that when the revised
lighting is done, it be done in a way that matches this rule being imposed around the County on new
things. Mr. Randolph said that would be fine.
Mr. Rooker said the first sentence could say: “All outdoor lighting associated with the addition
shall be shielded to reflect light around from abutting properties.” The requirement for a lighting plan could
be eliminated.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would replace “site plan” with “building permit.” There is approval of a
building permit, and it could be looked at then, or the sentence could be eliminated entirely.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could just require lighting that is shielded and reflected away from
abutting properties. He does not feel a plan is necessary.
Ms. Thomas suggested that it read: “All outdoor lighting associated with the addition shall be with
full cut-off fixtures that are arranged or shielded to reflect light away from the abutting properties.”
Mr. Slutzky said he would suggest that before the lighting fixtures are installed, the church have
an electrician check with the County to see if the fixture is the one recommended by the County.
W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before
the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2007-048 subject to the five conditions stated in
the letter of December 21, 2007 addressed to Lawrence Randolph.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the motion should reference the six conditions shown on the screen
today. Mr. Cilimberg said condition No. 6 should simply say: “All outdoor lighting associated with the
addition shall be full cut-off fixtures.”
Mr. Dorrier agreed to that suggestion as the motion. Mr. Slutzky gave second. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Special Use Permit 2007-48 shall be developed in general accord with the concept
application plan provided by the applicant and received February 26, 2007. However, the
Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept application plan to
allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The addition shall be limited to a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet;
3. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum one hundred seventy-five (175) seat
sanctuary; occasional church gatherings beyond the normal capacity of the sanctuary
shall be permitted;
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit;
5. Construction of the addition shall commence on or before January 9, 2013, or this special
use permit shall expire; and
6. All outdoor lighting associated with the addition shall be full cut-off fixtures.
(Note: At 4:14 p.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 4:28 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 29. Regional Transit Authority (RTA), W ork Session.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Harrison Rue of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of the T.J.
Planning District Commission to make the presentation.
Mr. Rue made a PowerPointe presentation (a copy of all materials is on file in the Clerk’s Office
with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). He said they will be sorry to lose Ms. Mallek as
a member of the CHART Committee. He said members of this Board attended the session with members
of City Council about a year ago last November. This study was started as a result of that meeting, and
he thanked the Board for funding it along with the City and the State Division of Public Transit. Before he
started he introduced Ms. Melissa Barlow who is the PDC’s new Director of Transportation Programs.
She has been a member of the Charlottesville and the Louisa Residency Offices with VDOT, and she
worked on the first statewide transit plan for DRPT. She is now the lead on the regional transit authority.
Mr. Rue said the agenda for today will be to look at the RTA goals, review the RTA goals and
project scope, review project activities, and discuss having a joint Board/County workshop. He wants to
seek policy guidance on the next steps (review MPO Policy Board initial guidance on the preferred
management and governance and preferred service strategies for an RTA). He said the Regional Transit
Vision was reviewed by the Supervisors, adopted and approved; it is to link downtown Charlottesville, UVA
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
and the Medical Center, Pantops and the Route 29 North Corridor; to provide travel options in the region;
to improve routes and choices for underserved communities; to attract choice riders (those who currently
drive for most trips); to increase access to medical, employment, tourist, recreation, education, service
and retail destinations; to integrate transit fully with other modes, i.e., walking, wheeling, carpooling,
driving and regional bus and rail; to help make the area livable for a lifetime; and, to reduce traffic
congestion, pollution, energy consumption and personal travel costs.
Mr. Rue said the paperwork today includes a copy of the consultant’s Scope Task List (Number
1). There are highlighted elements of the things done in each of the reports. They are half way through
the report on Regional Transit Management and Governance. After the proposed work session with City
Council, they will complete the details after they know which of the options the governing bodies want to
move forward. They have basically finished with Regional Transit Service and Operations (Number 2).
As to Number 3 –Regional Transit Cost Estimation and Funding, and Number 4 – Regional Transit
Authority Plan and Recommendations, the consultant and the Transit Tech Team need more guidance
from the Board and Council.
Mr. Rue said Identifying Transit Potential started about a year ago when they showed the Board a
map showing four key destinations (employment and activity centers). That information was given to the
consultant who upgraded it looking at eight elements. In the report there are individual maps and tables
for all eight. He said the Composite Index identifies the areas highlighted on the map in the packet.
There is a significant amount of moderate transit potential within the close-in urban growth boundary,
south toward Biscuit Run, Pantops, up Route 29 North, and around the Airport.
Mr. Rue said in looking at Potential Service Strategies there is the baseline and four options. At
the MPO Policy Board’s recommendation, they have come up with an Option 4-A (see Figure A1 in the
packet). He said these options were not intended to be incremental; each one adds to the other. The
MPO Policy Board felt that Option 1 (new local service in Albemarle County) and Option 2 (new local
service plus creation of a transit center at Barracks Road Shopping Center and a new cross town route)
did not do enough to deliver on the Vision. They suggest that focus be put only on Option 3 (new local
service, Barracks Road Transit Center, high frequency Route 29 truck route and local circulators) and
Option 4 (new local service, Barracks Road Transit Center, Bus Rapid Transit and local circulators). They
added an Option 4-A to be sure they reinforced the Pantops to Route 29 loop without having to go
downtown first (Pantops – 29 North service plus UTS routes). City Councilors who are members of the
MPO Board wanted to be sure that potential restructuring of City routes and improvements to increase
service in the City was included.
Mr. Rue said the potential for Bus Rapid Transit is very real, particularly along the Route 29
Corridor, as well as the potential for streetcars in some locations. This is not the time to think about
particular technology, but to look at the potential level of routes.
Mr. Rue said he had included several sheets entitled Potential Service Strategies which show a
balance of the amount invested by the County and the City in each of Options 2, 3, and 4. He said this
report hones in on real numbers, so the governance strategies show there is a need to look at other
revenue options, and that will require legislative approval. He said the baseline operating costs show an
expenditure of almost $6.0 million per year in the region. That includes routes in the County and the City.
In terms of operation, Option 4 is more than incremental, but less than double baseline costs. Capital
Costs call for serious dollars, particularly when looking at street improvements for a VRT system (the
routes are very long). He said all of these details are in the report.
Mr. Rue said when thinking about Management and Governance, if Option 1 were chosen, a new
governance structure might not be needed since incremental items in Option 1 could work. If Options 3
and 4 were chosen, considering the investment by the City and the County, a new governance structure
might be considered. He has talked with Mr. Davis who looked at some of the consultant’s
recommendations about the other non-RTA options.
Mr. Rooker asked that Mr. Rue go back to the chart pertaining to costs. Although the $10.9 million
shown for Option 3 is a doubling of transit expense in the community, the County’s percentage if there
were no outside participation would go up to about $5.0 million a year. There is no indication there will be
a substantial increase in State operating expense funding to help offset that cost. Mr. Rue said that is a
reasonable assumption. At some point, the Board will have to decide how much money should be put into
transit, and depending on the amount it is willing to invest, the best approach. As the Board members
study the reports, they have to decide how much they are willing to put into transit possibly starting next
year. If the County puts $5.0 million a year into transit, then Options 3 and 4 are possibilities. There is
also additional capital expense; some of that expense may be borne by Federal dollars. The chart shows
Option 4 at a cost between $31.8 million and $123.0 million.
Mr. Rooker asked if there has been any determination as to how much of that might be borne by
the Federal government. Mr. Rue said not yet. He suggested looking at Option No. 3 and Option No. 4 in
the Technical Report. They do not plan on doing that level of detail unless there is a willingness on the
part of the Board to consider that and then the report will be finished as directed by the Board.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to clarify something. He asked the current budget of the CTS and
how much the County spends per year versus what Option No. 4 would cost per year. Mr. Rue said he will
have to look in the report to find the answer to that question.
Ms. Mallek asked the amount of money that could be flexed from inter-transit.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Tom Foley said staff has done some analysis based on these reports. The net increase from
the credits the County would get from Federal and State revenues for Options 3 and 4 is about a $2.3
million increase to the County based on the formulas. There are no capital funds in that number.
W hether there would be that much additional Federal revenue to pay for the buses is a question which
has not been discussed with them yet.
Mr. Slutzky said this is in an early stage in mapping out those costs. Mr. Rue said there are two
main parts. One is the buying of the buses and there are different costs depending on the type of bus
picked. This has the potential of getting some highly competitive grants. At this time more money is going
into transit in the country. They believe the needed dollars to improve the roadway for transit operations
may be potentially fundable by primary road funding. Although those dollars are limited, they are less
limited than transit dollars. If a good job is done designing the improvements to Route 29 and Route 250
they may be able to get some double duty funds. It will still be a big number.
Mr. Rooker said that would only be needed if the VRT is done. Mr. Rue said that is correct. The
capital costs under Option No. 3 are based on an “enhanced bus” which might be similar to the buses now
running. They are already meeting with VDOT’s manager for this area about signal improvements and he
expressed a desire to attend the transit meetings because VDOT wants to improve their system.
Mr. Slutzky said the cost of Option 4 would be split somehow between the City and the County.
Hopefully, a significant part of that cost would be available through Federal moneys. Then, in the
organizational aspects of this there is the potential to charge either a gas tax (if enabling legislation were
granted) or a service district funding mechanism. There are a number of ways to fund this independent of
the normal funding tools.
Ms. Thomas noted a chart on Page 29 of the report about what is being used in Northern Virginia
to fund some of their transit. She would like that chart put together with what came out of the Dennis
Rooker/Leigh Middleditch group to see which of those things have already been considered for this area.
She knows that is not what is being discussed today, but she thinks it is a good direction to consider. Mr.
Rue agreed. He has already mentioned that to a couple of the citizens from that group who asked to be
included in the process.
Mr. Rue said the next part of his presentation concerns Management and Governance. It is
based on the following goals: stable and predictable funding; an institutional structure that works; each
participant has control over services offered for its jurisdiction; and, costs and revenues are allocated
fairly. He said they also had people conduct interviews of the Board members and there were common
themes: the RTA should be comprised of at least the City and the County; UVA and JAUNT; and, if UVA
is not an initial member, there should be an option for future inclusion. In the way of local control, each
participating member should have a high degree of control over services provided to its constituents. In
the way of cost-sharing, it should be equitable among RTA partners based on levels of service provided in
each area.
Mr. Rooker asked if it has been determined that JAUNT could be integrated into this without them
losing their Federal funding. Mr. Rue said that is being worked through in the options.
Mr. Rooker asked if Ms. Shaunesey is comfortable with the area having an RTA and JAUNT
interacting with that in some way. Mr. Rue said “yes.”
Mr. Rooker said JAUNT provides services that a transit system probably will never provide in the
outlying areas of the County. Their funding needs to remain intact through this. Mr. Rue said he thinks
Ms. Shaunesey is in favor of proceeding but is concerned about JAUNT’s role and there being no impact
on service to the rural counties. As routes are extended in the City and into the urban areas of the
County, JAUNT is then obligated to provide their service free around those areas, and that has a financial
impact which is being added in.
Mr. Rue said in term of Financing, most people interviewed said the City and the County could
likely increase funding for transit; if a dedicated funding source is developed, a sales tax on gasoline
would be preferable; and, State and Federal subsidies should be shared equitably between the City and
the County.
Mr. Rue said there were differing opinions about Composition of a Board, such as: size of the
board, relative representation among participating members, should stakeholders be included on the
board, and should members be elected or appointed.
Mr. Rue said there were six Organizational Possibilities provided by the consultant. A couple of
them are more feasible than the consultant said, so he is waiting for comments from Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis
said he does not think No. 3 and No. 4 accurately reflect the Joint Exercise of Powers. The service district
concept probably needs to be clarified since he does not think it accurately reflects what Virginia law
provides. Mr. Rue said this will be clarified and the information sent to the consultants who are also
working for Fredericksburg. This area might want to be “walking in tandem” with Fredericksburg. He
does not think it changes the current recommendation, but if enabling legislation is not granted, it might
allow a little more flexibility.
Mr. Rue said in reviewing the governance structures, there is only one entity that does what is
wanted. He referred to Table 1: Summary of Institutional Options, Policy Level Representation for UVA
and JAUNT only works under the legislatively-enabled RTA. As to the potential for new funding sources, it
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
is possible to use property taxes under a service district. W hether it is a new source, and not current
property taxes, is the real issue.
Mr. Rue said the Policy Board asked them to present the following questions to the Board and get
some feedback. 1) Significant investment, expansion, enhancement and reorganization of existing transit
service should focus on Options 3 and 4, plus Option 4A. 2) The RTA governance structure should allow
for future inclusion of UVA, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and JAUNT, and existing revenues should
be maximized to include potential mechanisms for generating new revenues. 3) The only option that does
both of those seems to be the legislatively-enabled RTA.
Mr. Slutzky said there is no gas tax under the RTA. Mr. Rue said that is correct. Mr. Davis said
the RTA is a blank slate.
Mr. Rooker said as part of the package, gas tax authority could be requested to fund the RTA.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks that is the main reason the Policy Board went with the RTA.
Mr. Rue said in terms of preparation for a joint workshop they need to know if the Policy Board’s
guidance is on track, other than Mr. Davis’ detailed review of the report, is there a need to go back and
review the other Management and Governance options at this time or should there be focus on how to
move ahead with an RTA. Should workshop time be spent on reviewing the more incremental service
options or should there be more focus on costs, etc. for the full system?
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks it was the sense of the MPO Policy Board that there should be no
attempt to get legislative intervention this Legislative Session but take the year to map out a plan, get
support for that plan, and then start lobbying so next Session the request might be presented to the
Legislature.
Mr. Boyd suggested getting feedback from Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison, on this
suggestion. Mr. Rue said they have done that. He also contacted the local Senator and he is willing to do
it, but the general guidance from the VRTP is that this would probably not be successful unless the City
and the County stepped up and say it will be done. In going for an RTA, funding sources must be
specified.
Mr. Boyd said considering the makeup of the General Assembly now, would they be giving gas
taxing authority to districts like this. He has heard that some representatives do not think this type of
authority should have been given to the two localities that have it. Mr. Rue said it will not be easily done,
and it will not be given to this region alone.
Mr. Rue said recently it was announced that there is a Federal Transit Authority Public
Participation Grant, and as part of that they will be conducting surveys. In six or more months, they will
have information on what the public in the local area thinks.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that is to set up Park and Ride locations. Mr. Rue said “yes.” In a couple of
reports, there are specific suggestions for location of improved park and ride services.
Mr. Boyd said he has not had time to study the whole document, but has skimmed the contents.
He asked if there are any goals and objectives to be had from this investment. Personally, he needs a
goals-oriented system if this money is spent. Mr. Rue said when the Federal Transit Administration is
investing in a rail line or something similar, they require detailed studies that prove there will be a certain
amount of ridership based on the density. That is out of scale for the type of transit system being done
here. In reality, it is hard to do that model. Before investing in a multi-dollar system, as part of that study
there would be more modeling to prove it is worth the investment.
Mr. Slutzky said there are data suggesting that at certain densities of population there will be a
certain response to an effective transit system. Much of that dynamic may change when the national
agenda focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and there might be Federal mandates to do so.
He said there are a few areas of high, predicted responsive to transit based on current models which will
change over the next few years. If gasoline gets very expensive and greenhouse gas reduction becomes
a national priority, it is not unreasonable to anticipate a significant investment in transit that might help
subsidize an RTA.
Mr. Boyd said he can appreciate that a lot of things might happen in the future that might impact it.
Even if the area could not come up with an expected goal to reach, it could say that in order for this to be
cost-effective it should be accomplished in the next couple of years. An exit strategy could be built into
the plan in the event it did not work. There is a need to explain to the public what is being done; there
needs to be more specifics.
Mr. Rue said he thinks that information could be included in the final report. This starts with a
Vision specifying certain things. It does not have a lot of measurables. The Vision is to provide increased
options for people who are either lower income or disabled, etc. Those particular locations are mapped
already.
Mr. Boyd asked if the public opinion survey will be taken with major employers because
congestion occurs during hours when people are going to and from work.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Ms. Thomas said only 20 percent of trips are actually by those commuting to work. W here people
are going in the community has to be discovered.
Mr. Rue said by the time this is implemented, there will be new data from the origin and
destination study for the new model which VDOT is rebuilding now. They have a group employed to do
this and they are aggressively looking at how to change VDOT’s model to measure potential walk and bike
trips. W ork on Places29 is being plugged into this new model, but it will not be used for another two or
more years. There is a swarm of potential science trying to solve this problem at both the Federal and the
State level.
Ms. Mallek said when the County began the ACE Program, there were few applicants. Last year,
there were more applications than could be funded because a sense of realness had been achieved. She
thinks it will take a while for people to feel this commitment is being made so they can change their
transportation style. Often, it is painful to make those adjustments. If people think it would only be for a
year or two, they would probably not make the attempt. She hopes a plan can be devised that all can
commit to; she thinks it will take a time to have monstrous ridership.
Mr. Rooker suggested that everybody read carefully Tasks 2a and 2c, supportive corridors and
studies. In that section the corridors Mr. Rue referred to are listed. The densities needed to support a
feasible transit system are pointed out. One of the studies concluded that neighborhoods with fewer than
12 to 16 dwelling units per acre have a marked increase in automobile trips and a decrease in the
economic feasibility of bus service, so they recommend 12 to 20 units per acres for frequent bus service
with less than 20 minute headways. Another study showed that seven to 15 dwelling units per acre was
needed to support a good transit system with reasonable head times. Our consultant concluded that four
units per acre were needed in order to make the transit work here. This area does not have that density
anywhere. He thinks that everybody supports the idea of transit, but needs to be sure that what is being
done has a chance of working. The best opportunity for success is the one to invest in. He asked that
everybody read through that information. There are maps and employment density figures included. The
County does not have the employment density that is recommended for a good transit system to work.
There is traffic congestion which is a good thing for transit. W ill the Board go into this with the idea that it
will support a substantial increase in transit funding based upon legislation enabling some additional
funding mechanism or is the Board willing to do it anyway and fund it from property taxes? Either way it is
incumbent upon the Board to think through whether it is the system which is the best design for success in
the community.
Mr. Slutzky said both he and Mr. Rooker represent the Board on the MPO so have an ongoing
dialogue about this question. If Mr. Rooker is right that established models would make one skeptical that
people in this region will likely get people out of their car and into a bus, there are two variables that might
make it work here. One is the Federal focus on greenhouse gas emission reduction because that will
imply subsidies. There are many bills pending before the U.S. Senate would apply an 80 percent
reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050.
Mr. Rooker said if outside funds can be received, this is less of a gamble for the Board.
Mr. Slutzky said he had mentioned one other thing. The cost of fuel will likely go up to a point
where existing models for the density of population that makes a system viable changes. A third factor
that has not been talked about is the fact that 20 percent of the people living in the County are at or below
the poverty level income and the number is worse for the City. There are a potential number of riders in
the Urban Area that the Board may want to subsidize their transit options. Also, one strategy that has
legitimacy is to build a transit system in increments. Over time, you try to make it achieve a certain critical
mass of effectiveness so it starts to attract choice riders. An alternative model, which is one he has
advocated for, would be to build an optimal system for the riders, instead of adding to existing routes that
are not necessarily reflective of an optimal pattern. He said the routes today largely reflect the City’s belief
that the center of the metropolitan universe is the traditional downtown area. It is probably third on the list
of destinations, after the University/Medical Center and Route 29 North. Routes need to be redefined
around where people actually go (the County cannot do that when the City defines where they will put the
transit center). The City decides how to operate their bus system and then they ask the County where it
would like to fund a route. There is a risk in creating a joint regional transit authority with the City. A
system that optimizes all the movements that will occur should be planned. Density is low given the
traditional models, but he believes circumstances will intervene to make the Board look like geniuses in
ten years when there is a system already mapped out with infrastructure and funding mechanisms in
place. He said that is a gamble the Board will have to take.
Mr. Rooker said he is more an incrementalist in expanding transit except if the Board feels it can
get additional funding sources to make the gamble more palatable, it then becomes less of a gamble for
the local taxpayers. There may be Federal funding available in the future for smaller communities. He
thinks it is good to have everything “on the table” so no one is surprised.
Ms. Thomas said a few years ago some local people went to Portland, Oregon, to look at its
public transit system. They did certain things almost 20 years ago that are finally paying off, basically
placing zoning around some transit stations that did not cause any change in land use for 15 or more
years. Things don’t happen fast, but there are good examples in Northern Virginia in the way of the
differences between Fairfax and Arlington. Fairfax chose to be a suburban type of situation and looks
more like what Albemarle will look like. Arlington chose a different route, and Albemarle could not mimic it
because there is no metro running underground.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is about bus transit, not streetcars or rail. Mr. Rue said they are not
recommending choosing any particular technology at this time. On particular routes they are talking about
expanding bus service with technology and potentially having new vehicles which are called “bus rapid
transit”. They have identified three places where a streetcar loop could work. The Downtown area to
Barracks Road is one where they think there is a potential over time for what is called a “shopper’s trolley”
linking Seminole Trail Shopping Center to the Fashion Square Shopping Center area with a trolley that
would link up with the bus system. That would happen over time and only if significant private investors
were interested. Every consultant report they have looked at going back a number of years said there is
not the density here that is necessary for a light rail system going up the Route 29 North Corridor.
Mr. Boyd said in looking at the information on the screen, he thinks Mr. Rue is asking for guidance
in setting up a joint meeting with the City.
Mr. Slutzky said the MPO Policy Board envisions at least establishing the Regional Transit
Authority as early as possible. It would help form a unified body and help to get out of the circumstances
of having a monopoly service provider. It is an awkward arrangement now, so part of the thinking of the
Policy Board is to get the governance in place and then it may be possible to leverage subsequent
resources.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Rue if he had the information he needed for the joint work session. Mr. Rue
said “yes.”
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the answer to the question on the screen “Do we need to review other
M&G options in detail at a joint workshop, or focus on RTA specifics?” is that everybody is focused on the
RTA.
Mr. Dorrier said he supports it. He thinks Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky should be congratulated on
their work with the MPO.
Mr. Boyd thanked Mr. Rue for the presentation.
_______________
At this time, Mr. Tucker suggested the Board return to discussion of Item 14.10, on the Consent
Agenda, Memorandum dated December 13, 2007, from Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to the
Board of Supervisors, re: Rural Area Subdivisions.
Mr. Bill Fritz was present to address questions from the Board. He said that at this time, staff has
an issue of what they call “the Albemarle two step” which is where an existing parcel fronts on a public
street in the Rural Areas. Example 1 is: A subdivision request is submitted, two lots are created and both
lots contain five acres with 250 feet of road frontage. This is a rural division which is done
administratively. Example 2 is: Then Lot A is subdivided into Lot A-1 and A-2 served by a new private
street. This is approved administratively. The only standard for the new private street is that it provide
reasonable access. It most likely will be a gravel driveway. At the same time, or immediately after, Lot B is
submitted to divide it into a two-lot subdivision.
Mr. Boyd asked if other than the road frontage issue, do these development lots exist or are they
creating development lots by this scheme? Mr. Fritz said the parent parcel that existed was a parent
parcel on December 10, 1980, and it had development rights which are being utilized without having to go
through any Planning Commission review.
Mr. Rooker said the County requires review of a new four-lot subdivision. W hat is happening here
allows people to get around that review, and also there is the question of road standards. Mr. Fritz said
Lot A is done and then Lot B. He then showed a rendering of the subdivision of this property. Mr. Davis
said this procedure avoids street standards and also avoids what most people would consider any
frontage on a road for Lots A-2 and B-2.
Mr. Fritz said the ordinance today permits exactly what is shown on the rendering, but it must be
done in multiple steps. If this subdivision was submitted in a single step it would require Planning
Commission action, and a couple of waivers, and also private street approval. Staff believes a change
which is fairly straightforward could be made to the ordinance simply requiring that all these lots access a
single point of access onto the public street. There would be the same number of lots on a single street
and the internal street would have to be reviewed by the Commission if it were a private street, otherwise it
would have to be a public street or built to a private street standard and have a maintenance agreement,
etc. Mr. Davis said it would have to be a public street unless it got waivers. Mr. Fritz said even if the
Commission authorized it as a private street, it would still be built to a higher standard than the two private
streets shown on the screen now.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the configuration is what is normal for a four-lot subdivision. Is there any
basis for denying the application? Mr. Fritz said what is shown on the screen is what staff approves on a
regular basis.
Mr. Boyd asked how often this is happening. Mr. Fritz said it is frequent.
Mr. Slutzky asked the benefit of requiring the applicant to come before the Planning Commission
if the Commission cannot say “no.” Mr. Fritz said it does not affect the number of lots that could be
created. Theoretically, because there is an internal street which has to be built to a higher standard it
could have some sort of dampening affect on the desire to develop the property. The street shown on the
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
screen would have to meet commercial sight distance standards, whereas for what there is now, there are
just two private entrances.
Mr. Rooker said there is a reason not to allow four lots to be subdivided in the manner shown. At
this time, people can come in and file one plan, and come in the next day and file a second plan and do
something they could not do if they tried to subdivide the property all at one time.
Mr. Slutzky said the change seems like a “no-brainer.”
Mr. Fritz said staff can prepare a Resolution of Intent for the change. There is a second thing he
needs to mention. Right now the ordinance states that for the parcel at the rear, its frontage is considered
the full width of the easement. He showed a rendering of what a lot would look like if the ordinance were
changed to say it had to be greater. In this kind of situation they would simply plat the additional 150 feet,
but there is no bonding requirement for a two-lot subdivision and, in reality, a street may not get built so it
would still look like the rending. If the full 150 feet of frontage was required, they would probably still build
a house, and the driveway would just come in at a different angle.
Mr. Boyd asked what would be gained by making this change. Mr. Fritz said that is a question
that was asked of staff. He does not know that anything would be gained by simply requiring the 150 feet
of frontage to be platted onto the adjacent property. It is fairly easy to do. Numerous other sections of the
ordinance would have to be changed in order to require that the street be built, and a bond would have to
be posted which would require a substantial increase in staff resources.
Ms. Mallek asked if what is proposed would be a driveway standard or a private street standard.
Mr. Fritz said it would basically be a driveway standard for a two-lot subdivision. He said for a cul-de-sac
situation there is a different provision that says it can be reduced down to the minimum that VDOT will
allow, or 50 feet.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Fritz is saying this is not worth pursing. Mr. Fritz said he is simply
advising the Board what the ordinance says. Numerous sections would have to be changed to require
that the road be built within the easement, and the access taken from the end of the easement. It would
be difficult to write, but it can be done.
Mr. Davis said the real issue is the standard for a private street. The County has a minimal
access standard which is really just a driveway for a private street for two lots. That private street could be
required to meet a higher standard. That would increase the public safety aspect by having fire truck
access.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that would be hard to write. Mr. Davis said “no.”
Mr. Slutzky asked why the County would not do that because that makes sense.
Mr. Boyd asked if that enhances the reason to build in a fire service district.
Mr. Slutzky said it would have a nominal affect on most two-lot subdivisions, but mostly it would
just make a safer access point.
Mr. Rooker said what is being discussed is something different than what Mr. Fritz pointed out.
Staff is talking about requiring that instead of the road being just a driveway, it should actually meet private
road standards. That is a different issue than what is shown on the diagram on the screen.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there would be a road maintenance agreement required. Mr. Fritz said “yes.”
But, the road standard is merely reasonable access by motor vehicle in all but the extremes of weather,
i.e., a driveway. There is no minimum width, no maximum grade, etc.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it has to be asphalt. Mr. Fritz said “no”, it can be gravel.
Ms. Mallek asked about drainage. Mr. Fritz said for a two-lot subdivision under the current
ordinance, drainage is not addressed. It is simply reasonable access, and the surveyor simply puts a note
on the plat that in his opinion the easement provided would allow for the establishment of a reasonable
access.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a more extensive excavation is needed in order for a private road to access
the second lot, or can the private road requirement include provisions for erosion and sediment control,
etc. Mr. Fritz said the County can almost always require some erosion and sediment plan because it will
be over the 10,000 square feet requirement in the ordinance. But, that gets back to the issue of what are
now called “agreements in lieu of a plan.”
Mr. Davis said there is the issue of whether the County actually requires them to construct a road.
Staff is presently discussing how this should or should not happen. Traditionally, the County has not
required people to build this private road if they had an existing driveway or a private access easement
through Lot B to get to Lot A. This road could be just a paper road and never be constructed. Mr. Fritz
said staff has situations where they are trying to decide where to put a house when there is an existing
house on Parcel B and the configuration of the driveway. At what point does the County require the
closure of that point and the construction of the new entrance. That is not addressed by the current
ordinance.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Mr. Davis said there are instances where a driveway that goes to House B might be extended
back to a house site on Parcel A and a road is never built at all.
Mr. Slutzky said if the Board is sympathetic to exploring each of these separately, maybe the staff
could draft some specific language to be considered. Mr. Fritz said based on the Board’s conversation
this morning, staff wanted some directions. Staff can draft a resolution of intent for consideration at the
next meeting.
Mr. Slutzky asked about question No. 2.
Ms. Thomas said she thought it was described in No. 2 in the memo to the Board in the sense of
requiring the standard that is now required for three to five lots to also be required if there were only two
lots. Unless that is what is being discussed, would the road have to be built as opposed to having some
other accessway? Mr. Davis said if it were increased to a private street standard, the County would have
to make sure the road was built and bonded unless it was built prior to platting so it would be an actual
street.
Mr. Rooker said in talking with staff, a huge amount of development in the Rural Area is just like
this example. It is the “Albemarle two step”, four lots, etc. W hat the County ends up with is a lot of
development which is haphazard with little regulation over it, so there are multiple accesses into the
properties because the County does not require that the street ever be built. Then there are driveways off
of driveways. It results in very bad planning.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a slope limitation on this private street. Mr. Fritz said if the County
required it to be a private street meeting some design standard the answer would be “yes.”
Mr. Slutzky asked if any other Board members are interested in pursing this, specifically including
the private road standard and that it would have to be built as a condition of platting.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis if the private road standard were required, if that would automatically
require that the road be built. Mr. Davis said he thinks so.
Mr. Rooker said nothing is gained by having a plat for a private road unless it is built. Mr. Davis
said all lots would have to be accessed by the private streets that are required for the platting.
Mr. Boyd said he is not sold on this second idea. The first idea he fully supports, but this appears
to be a little “over legislation.”
Mr. Slutzky said that is fair, but asked if Mr. Boyd would mind having this come back to the Board
for further consideration.
Mr. Boyd said “not at all.”
Mr. Fritz said staff can bring back recommended language in a short period of time.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board needed to adopt a resolution today concerning the first idea. Mr.
Davis said it is something staff can draft and place on a consent agenda for adoption.
_______________
(Not Docketed) At this time, Mr. Boyd said the Board needed to return to closed meeting.
At 5:37 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board adjourn into closed meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Closed Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 6:35
p.m.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed meeting.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
At this time, the Board returned to consideration of Agenda Item No. 22. Boards and
Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments, which had been skipped earlier in the meeting.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky:
To appoint Mr. Thomas Loach as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
represent the W hite Hall District with said term to expire on December 31, 2011.
To appoint Ms. Linda Porterfield as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
represent the Scottsville District with said term to expire on December 31, 2011.
To reappoint Mr. Calvin Morris as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
represent the Rivanna District with said term to expire on December 31, 2011.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky:
To reappoint Ms. Marcia Joseph as the At-Large member of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission with said term to expire on December 31, 2009. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky:
To reappoint Mr. Lincoln Lewis to the Board of Social Services representing the Rivanna District
with said term to expire on December 31, 2011.
To reappoint Mr. Claude Foster to the Board of Social Services representing the W hite Hall
District with said term to expire on December 31, 2011.
To reappoint Mr. Calvin Morris to the CHART Advisory Committee with said term to expire on
December 31, 2010.
To appoint Mr. David Paulson to the Housing Committee with said term to expire on December
31, 2008.
To appoint Mr. Clyde Gouldman to the Region Ten Community Services Board with said term to
expire on December 31, 2008.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Boyd announced that as the Chairman’s appointee he is reappointing Mr. Alan Culbertson to
the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation Governing Board with said term to expire on December
31, 2010.
_________
Mr. Slutzky said he would move that Board members serve on various committees as follows.
W hen Mr. Rooker asked if a motion were needed to approve the continued participation of Board
members on other committees, Mr. Davis said that in the past the Board had actually reappointed Board
members to those committees, but since there is no term limit, it is not necessary.
Mr. Slutzky said he would restate his motion to say:
Mr. Boyd shall be appointed to serve on the following committees:
Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council
Policy Committee (PACC);
Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee;
Eastern Connector Alignment Study Committee;
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee; and newly appointed to:
CIP Oversight Committee, and
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Advisory Board.
January 9, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Mr. Dorrier is to continue his appointments to:
Audit Committee;
Jail Authority;
Lewis and Clarke Exploratory Center Board;
Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee;
Rivanna River Basin Commission; and newly appointed to:
CIP Oversight Committee.
Mr. Rooker shall be reappointed to the:
Audit Committee
Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council
Policy Committee (PACC);
Metropolitan Planning Organization; and newly appointed to:
High Growth Coalition.
Mr. Slutzky shall continue to be appointed to:
Affordable Housing Task Force;
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee;
Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee;
Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee;
Metropolitan Planning Organization; and
Safer Chemical Committee.
Ms. Thomas shall be reappointed to:
Building Committee;
High Growth Coalition;
Historic Preservation Committee;
Lewis and Clarke Exploratory Center Board;
Rivanna River Base Commission; and
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Ms. Mallek shall be appointed to serve on the:
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Advisory Board;
Building Committee;
Piedmont W orkforce Network Council;
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; and
ACE Committee.
The motions were seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 30. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said the TJPDC appreciates the work County staff did putting together a report on
the County’s proffer system. Each month the Commission will be discussing a new item; she thinks a lot
will be learned about what the outlying counties do.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 31. Adjourn to January 14, 2007, 4:30 p.m., Room 235, for Joint Meeting with
School Board.
W ith no further business to come before the Board, at 6:42 p.m. Mr. Rooker moved to adjourn
this meeting until 4:30 p.m. on January 14, 2008. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was
called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: EWJ
Initials: 05/14/2008