2008-02-06February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 6, 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.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Clerk, Ella W . Jordan, Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, Director of Planning, V. W ayne
Cilimberg, and, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Resolution of Appreciation: Max Kennedy.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Kennedy began as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals on September
21, 1976. For the majority of his time as a member he served as Chairman of the BZA. He worked with
at least five zoning administrators. He is a soft spoken person and as a lawyer is able to bring to the table
legal issues involved in decision-making. Mr. Boyd then read the following Certificate of Appreciation into
the record and presented same to Mr. Kennedy.
This Certificate of Appreciation is presented to Max Kennedy in recognition of his valuable
contributions to the Board of Zoning Appeals since September 1976. W e as a community are
strengthened and uplifted by those who step forward to volunteer their services in support of improving the
quality of life of our residents. W e offer our sincere appreciation to Max for his dedication and
commitment in preserving the quality and beauty Albemarle County.
Mr. Kennedy thanked the Board for the resolution saying it had been a short 31 years of service
and fun.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said the Railroad Industry (in particular, Norfolk Southern) is planning to expand the
amount of freight it carries on its trains. The lines that run through Albemarle could create greater
volumes of noise and impact many areas of the County where people might want to have a say although
Albemarle is not directly involved in decision-making. If the railroad has applied for State funding, there is
a State policy saying local government should be alerted to the decision-making process. She suggested
writing a letter to the head of Virginia Rail and Public Transportation asking that Albemarle be involved in
their discussions. The letter should refer to relevant sections of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
__________
Ms. Thomas said Senate Bill 768 would drastically reduce or wipe out the proffer system as the
Board knows it; the proffer enabling legislation has been changed so part of the system only went into
effect this past July. She suggested the Board express strong opposition to passage of the proposed bill.
Mr. Boyd asked if any Board members disagreed with that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker said he sent a personal e-mail to the legislators, not as a Board member. He pointed
out that if this had been in place when the Board approved the Biscuit Run development, it would have
cost the County about $25.0 million in capital funds for infrastructure improvements. It is a devastating bill
for higher growth localities that have to build infrastructure to keep up with growth issues. The senator
who drafted and sponsored the bill (W atkins) was a big recipient of money from developers in his last
campaign. On the Democratic side, the democratic senator who is strongly interested in the bill has been
a big recipient of money from developers over the years, and has “carried their water” on many bills. He
thinks the developers see the downturn in the economy as an opportunity to get something done that they
have been trying to get done for a long time, i.e., to severely limit the amount they have to contribute to
pay for growth where it occurs.
Mr. Dorrier said it was said the County would benefit to the amount of about $41.0 million
including credits from Biscuit Run. He asked if Mr. Rooker was indicating that $25.0 million of that amount
would have been “lopped off.”
Mr. Rooker said the bill has gone through about five iterations and each time it gets worse. It
started out with a twenty-cent grantor tax in order to make it revenue neutral to localities. The realtors
lobbied against that provision and got that it removed from the bill. The answer is “yes.” Instead of the
proffers being $41.0 million, they would have been closer to $16.0 million.
Mr. Boyd said he had also made some personal telephone calls to oppose this bill.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek said several people will be going to the Legislature tomorrow to meet with the area’s
senators and delegates. If it is the will of the Board, this can be conveyed directly to them.
__________
Mr. Rooker said he has had a number of people speak to him about the train issue mentioned by Ms.
Thomas. They would like the train not to speed up until it gets further out Route 250 W est past Ednam
and Farmington. There have been a number of complaints about noise impacts. He said there is a
dilemma because most people think it is a good idea to put more freight on the rails and get it off of the
roads, but that impacts the people who own property near the rails. He is not asking that the Board do
anything, although at a future date he may ask that a letter be sent to CSX (Buckingham Branch operating
the train through that area) and he would like to get some understanding of the Board’s authority in
controlling the speed of trains; such authority has been granted to cities.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to know if there is any connection between acceleration and noise
that is appreciable over any distance. She said the freight schedule seems to be more powerful in the
formula than passenger rail.
Mr. Rooker said a number of people had brought it to his attention and he asked that the Board
look into it. He would like to get some understanding of the Board’s authority in the way of controlling the
speed of trains.
__________
Mr. Rooker said in the article that ran in the Daily Progress on Friday, February 1, 2008, titled
“Higher Tax Rate for Albemarle? W here the Board Stands Today”, he was misquoted. The question
asked of Board members was: “Given the revenue picture, should the County increase its tax rate of
$0.68 per $100 of assessed value.” Under his name it said “yes”. That was not the question he was
asked. W hen the reporter asked him that question he had said it was too early to tell because the Board
had not yet received a budget from the County Executive. Then he was asked if he would consider raising
taxes, and to that question he answered “yes.” The Progress ran a clarification the next day on Page 2 at
the bottom of the page. He wanted to clarify for the Board members his position. He did receive a letter
of apology from Jeremy Borden who admitted that he had made a mistake.
Ms. Mallek said she thought it was interesting that all six Board members basically said the same
thing in different phrases, but they chose to characterize people in three different ways.
Mr. Boyd said he could have complained about his “no” vote just as Mr. Rooker had complained
about his “yes.”
Mr. Rooker said the article was interesting because Mr. Boyd’s “no” vote did not reflect what he
said. He thinks the reporter was trying to get a “yes” or “no” answer to a question and when people did not
answer “yes” or “no” he altered the question a little and ended up with a variety of answers.
__________
Ms. Mallek said this afternoon she would like to find out how the Advanced Mills Bridge project
can move forward after the Board hears from the Highway Department.
__________
Ms. Mallek suggested the Board take another look at the report of the Development Review Task
Force in order to consider some of its recommendations. She thinks some things will be mentioned in the
“Gateway Appeal” today which might not have happened if changes had been made in procedure in order
to clarify the development process.
__________
Ms. Mallek said she is researching the issue of burying asphalt rubble in the rural areas of the
County. Apparently there was a change in the Zoning Ordinance in 2002 to allow this as an acceptable
policy. Farm owners are allowed to receive money in exchange for people dumping torn up parking lots in
their fields and then covering them over. She said this leaves a disaster for the next landowner or for the
owner fifty years from now. In the research she has done, there is a market for this asphalt. Even the
local paving companies would like to have this material because they are reprocessing and selling it as
fast as they can get it. They grind it up and put it right back on the road. She would like to have a
discussion and reevaluate the scientific information that was used to change the policy.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a great deal of this happening.
Ms. Mallek said that apparently there is some. She has learned that surrounding counties do not
allow this practice. Albemarle is also getting asphalt from other counties dumped here. It seems to be
allowing something that is just creating a problem.
Mr. Slutzky asked how the change came about.
Ms. Mallek said it was apparently at the request of a project.
Mr. Slutzky asked if this is a policy issue or an ordinance change done at the request of an
applicant. Mr. Tucker said he is surprised that if the asphalt companies are reprocessing why they have
not reached out to people who are digging up the asphalt.
Mr. Rooker said it makes no sense that they would dump the asphalt if they can sell it.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Mallek said it may be the difference in convenience and dollars.
Mr. Slutzky said there is other construction waste that people are putting in the ground.
Mr. Rooker said in the past DEQ took the position that asphalt is inert material and not subject to
migration.
Ms. Mallek said the paving people are concerned about the petroleum by-products in the asphalt.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he as received a letter from one of his constituents regarding barking dogs. This
subject has come up several times in the past and he would like to know if the Board members are
interested in taking another look at a barking dog ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said she knows people can be driven to absolute distraction by a dog that barks all
night.
Mr. Boyd said this person made some good suggestions in his letter.
Mr. Davis said this problem has been addressed by previous Boards. The last time there was a
lengthy public hearing, but the Board declined to adopt a barking dog ordinance. Other localities have
adopted such ordinances with various degrees of success, but it is a controversial issue. The last time
this was discussed staff created an information guide to give people suggesting ways to resolve barking
dog problems without County intervention. That was helpful in a lot of situations. Often, it is neighbor
versus neighbor, and other issues are involved. It would be a time-consuming issue.
Mr. Slutzky said he did not get a copy of that letter. He has been dealing with a barking dog
problem in his district for the past eight months, one which has caused neighbors to put their houses on
the market. The homeowner had 30 dogs. The Zoning Department issued notices of violation so the
issue has been studied intensely. It would have been helpful to have some measure of control available
for the County to intervene, so he would be interested in reopening the discussion.
Ms. Thomas said the middle ground that occurred to her was that through a friendship she was
able to get the SPCA involved, and this letter suggests the SPCA regards incessant barking as an
indication of animal cruelty.
Mr. Slutzky said the SPCA was very helpful in the situation he just described.
Ms. Thomas said she wonders if the Board could first ask the SPCA if there is something they
could do if a change were made in the Dog Ordinance. Rather than having staff do a study right now, ask
the SPCA for advice. She assumes the SPCA was not able to solve the problem described by Mr.
Slutzky.
Mr. Slutzky said they tried. He does not disagree that it would be helpful to have the SPCA’s input
if the Board goes forward and deliberates this issue, but he would find it useful to have a report on the
experience of other counties.
Mr. Rooker said he is in favor. It becomes a quality of life issue for a lot of people. He said the
Board member serving his district at the time a barking dog ordinance was being considered actually
received several death threats during that time. People take this seriously, on both sides of the issue.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to have some research on what has been successful in other areas.
He thinks the problems are isolated instances. W hen constituents take the time to write to the Board, he
thinks the Board needs to respond.
Mr. Slutzky said in the instance where the person had 30 dogs, they were actually taking in dogs
which would have been destroyed by surrounding counties if they had not been given shelter. She had an
honorable purpose, but it was a good purpose in the wrong place. These are difficult decisions to move
forward with.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Bill Morrow discussed an application for rezoning made in September, 2007. The application
was made, accepted and reviewed by Planning. After its submission they were informed that because
they were in a Planned Development they needed everyone in the planned development to be a co-
applicant on the application. They got signatures as requested and submitted them to the County. On
January 8 they were informed that their hearing was scheduled for last evening. After that date they were
informed that a sale had taken place in that planned development so they needed that landowner to be a
co-applicant on the application as well. The new buyer is a corporation from out-of-town who bought the
property with no intention of developing it, but will “flip it” to somebody else. Since it is under contract, they
were advised by their counsel that the liability issues are such that they should never sign a co-application
to a zoning to which they will have no involvement henceforth.
Mr. Morrow said their development is now stalled, the situation is on hold, their hearing has been
canceled, and until the signatures are acquired, their development has come to a stop. He said this Board
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
touts the wisdom of mixed-use as being the blueprint of the future. He said that 500 landowners and 20+
commercial property owners all have to be co-applicants in order to just have an application accepted.
This means a public hearing in a public forum is now denied any applicant for any type of rezoning. This
is not in the Code, it is not in statute, it is not even written down. He asked that the Board review this
policy. If the Board thinks it is a prudent policy, he would ask that the Board adopt it and put it in the Code.
If it’s a bad policy he would suggest that it be cut out of the procedure.
__________
Mr. Paul Brockman asked if there will be an opportunity for citizens to make comments on the
Gateway application.
Mr. Boyd said he will allow comments at that time.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to hear comments on Mr. Morrow’s comments from Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis said the Zoning Administrator has prepared a comprehensive memorandum to the
Board on Mr. Morrow’s situation. It was distributed late yesterday by E-mail to the Board members.
Mr. Slutzky said the public might like to know what was in that memorandum. Mr. Davis said the
issue is not as simplistic as Mr. Morrow would lead the Board to believe. It would require a more detailed
discussion than the Board has time for right now. It is an issue that basically does not require all the
signatures for every matter, only for those which materially affect the planned community. This particular
application is requesting a significant change in the Code of Development, to which all the property
owners are bound. That is the whole essence of a Planned Development. These matters are reviewed by
staff on a case-by-case basis to determine if it has a material impact on the Code of Development and the
community. It is grounded in State law which requires all affected property owners to be an applicant for
any rezoning, and in this instance, originally all the property owners were applicants. Under State law any
property owner has an absolute right to withdraw their consent to a rezoning up until the Board of
Supervisors considers the matter. W hen the property changed hands, the new owner indicated they were
withdrawing their consent and that stopped the application until all required signatures are in place. That
is the essence of the situation. More analysis is provided in the memorandum he mentioned earlier.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Davis will provide that memorandum to Mr. Morrow. Mr. Davis said it is
available to Mr. Morrow.
Mr. Boyd said since he had not had time to read the memorandum, and since this issue has been
going on for sometime, he asked if the Board would consent to having it placed on the agenda for
discussion next week.
Ms. Thomas said her computer E-mail was open until eleven o’clock last night, and she had not
received the memorandum by then.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Davis had indicated that minor changes would not require this same
process. Mr. Davis said that is correct. It is a case-by-case analysis as to what is a material change to
the planned community
Mr. Rooker asked the change being proposed. Mr. Davis said the change would allow an
intensification of the development by allowing a hotel, and a hotel is not allowed at this time. That would
change density, parking and other factors which are significant to the planned development.
Mr. Slutzky said if the issue of materiality is determined by staff, is there any process whereby an
applicant can go to the Planning Commission and appeal that administrative determination. Mr. Davis
said there is no process to appeal it to the Commission. It would be a Zoning Administrator determination,
so they would have the same appeal rights as any other such determination has.
Mr. Boyd noted for the applicant that the Board will discuss this again next week.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve Items 7.1
through 7.4 on the Consent Agenda, but in Item 7.1, the revenue listed in Appropriation 2008-047 from the
Stony Point Fire Company be pulled, and to accept the remaining items for information. Mr. Davis said
since this is revenue and there must be a balanced budget, the expenditures will need to be decreased by
the same amount or $17,980 be taken out of the Fund Balance (Board Reserve) to balance the budget.
That adjustment will have to be made as well.
Mr. Boyd asked if this has been expensed. Mr. Davis said some revenue will be needed to
balance the appropriation so that will need to come from the Fund Balance.
Mr. Boyd asked what the $17,980 was applied to in terms of expenses. Mr. Davis said someone
else will need to explain.
Ms. Laura Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst, said everything on this particular appropriation was
already a budgeted project. This revenue would have taken the place of something that had been
budgeted using revenue from the Fund Balance. Funds from the Fund Balance will then be used to
balance this appropriation instead of funds from Stony Point.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Thomas said that will be a part of her motion. Mr. Rooker then gave second. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Requested FY 2008 Appropriations.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Code of Virginia stipulates that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total
expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a
meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The total of this requested FY 2008
appropriation is $1,364,798.32. A budget amendment public hearing will be required if future additional
cumulative appropriations exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of seven new FY 2008 appropriations as follows:
• Appropriation No. 2008-045 in the amount of $14,226.00 for the FY ‘07 State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program;
• Appropriation No. 2008-046 totaling $177,168.32 for donations and grants to various school
and school capital projects;
• Appropriation No. 2008-047 recognizing $1,094,709 in other revenue sources proffers, grant,
and recovered costs in the Capital Improvements Fund and reducing the anticipated General
Government borrowing and use of CIP Fund Balance;
• Appropriation No. 2008-048 appropriating $17,806.00 in grant revenue for Local
Government’s share of the Preschool Program at Red Hill;
• Appropriation No. 2008-049 for a Click-It-or-Ticket grant to the Sheriff’s Department in the
amount of $1,500.00;
• Appropriation No. 2008-050 totaling $48,500.00 for the Emergency Communications Center;
and
• Appropriation No. 2008-051 in the amount of $10,889.00 for additional grant funding for the
Community Corrections program.
A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment A. Staff recommends
approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $1,364,798.32 and the approval of the FY 2008
Appropriations No. 2008-045, No. 2008-046, No. 2008-047, No. 2008-048, No. 2008-049, No. 2008-050
and No. 2008-051.
Attachment A
Appropriation No. 2008-045, $14,226.00. Revenue Source: Federal Revenue, $ 14,226.00. The
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) reimburses localities for compensation expenses
incurred by correctional officers supervising aliens in local and regional jail facilities. Reimbursement is
given to localities even though the expenses are incurred by the correctional facility. The County of
Albemarle is scheduled to receive $14,226.00 for FY ‘07. This amount will be forwarded to the Albemarle-
Charlottesville Regional Jail to reimburse it for its expenses.
Appropriation No. 2008-046, $177,168.32. Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations)
$78,072.00; Local Revenue (Grant) $42,354.00; State Revenue $56,742.32. At its meeting on December
6, 2007, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
• National Board Certification is an extensive year-long assessment of actual teaching
practice based upon high and rigorous standards established by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Through this process, teachers document
their subject matter knowledge; provide evidence that they know how to teach their
subjects to students most effectively; and, demonstrate their ability to manage and
measure student learning. In our School Division, we have 12 teachers that meet these
standards: Catherine S. Coffman, Patricia P. Harder, Natasha A. Heny, Tim P. Howeth,
Mary Beth Kooken, Dolores W . Reinhold, Chandler E. Sansing, Marjorie W . Shepherd,
Thomas F. Sutliff, W endy L. Eckerle, Catherine A. Meaney and Denise A. Collado. In
recognition of this achievement, the Department of Education issues that National
Board Incentive Bonus Payments to these teachers. In past years, payments were
made directly by the State to the teachers. This year, the funds, totaling $34,492.32,
were electronically transferred to our Division to be disbursed to our teachers.
• Brownsville Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $12,900.00 from
the Brownsville PTO. It has been requested that the funds are specifically for
educational and recreational supplies for all teachers at Brownsville Elementary School.
• Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $3,580.00 from the Parent
and Teacher Support Organization at Henley. This donation is to facilitate a part-time
teacher for their At-Risk Program and a part-time teacher for their Library Night.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
• Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $39,204.00 from the Henley
Middle School PATSO. The donation is to be used to help fund the replacement of the
Henley Playground.
At its meeting on January 10, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
• Jack Jouett Middle School received a donation in the amount of $500.00. The donor
has requested that this donation be made in the name of Mark Jacobs. The donor also
requests that this contribution be used for the library at Jack Jouett Middle School.
• Cale Elementary School received two donations. Jeff Adams donated $500.00 and an
organization that would like to remain anonymous matched his donation with $500.00.
The donors request that these donations must be used exclusively for public, charitable
purposes to support the Paul H. Cale Elementary School Parent Teacher Organization.
• W estern Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $10,000.00 from
Mr. and Mrs. Schuler. This donation is to go towards the educational needs at W estern
Albemarle High School.
• W oodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from
Nancy B. Anderson. The donor has requested that this money be used for the Ann
W atson Bookroom at W oodbrook Elementary School.
• V. L. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,000.00 from
an anonymous donor. The donor requested that this donation be used to purchase
technology equipment for Murray Elementary.
• W estern Albemarle High School received two donations. The Huntley Foundation
donated $1,000.00 and the Robert Earl McConnell Foundation donated $6,500.00.
Both of these donors have requested that their donations go towards the Rowing Club
at W estern Albemarle High School.
• Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $288.00 from Joseph
Barnes. The donor requested that this donation be used to purchase pre-stamped
envelopes for fundraising mailings for the African American Studies Club.
• The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts has awarded Red Hill Elementary School a grant in
the amount of $1,354.00. This grant will assist with funding the Kid Pan Alley Project.
Through this project the children will learn about songwriting.
• State Farm Insurance Company awarded Agnor Hurt Elementary School a grant in the
amount of $25,000.00. This grant will fund the Mobile Classroom Project, The Do Drop
In Bus. This is an Albemarle County School bus that is equipped as if it were a
classroom. The goal of the program is to improve the academic performance of
students through extending the time available to learn. State Farm has provided this
funding annually for the past several years.
• The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made grant awards to several elementary
schools. Touring Grants were made to Broadus W ood in the amount of $3,250.00,
Brownsville in the amount of $4,750.00, Cale in the amount of $4,750.00, Greer in the
amount of $4,750.00 and Red Hill in the amount of $4,750.00. This grant will assist
with funding of the Kid Pan Alley Project at each school. Through this project the
children will learn about songwriting.
• The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) has awarded Albemarle County
Public Schools with a grant in the amount of $16,000.00. These funds will be used to
support the district’s participation in the “For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and
Technology (FIRST)” LEGO League and Tech Challenge, which are both a part of an
international robotics program that strives to ignite enthusiasm for discovery, science,
and technology among young people of ages 9 to 18. This grant will fund up to eight
FIRST LEGO League teams and as many as three FIRST Tech Challenge teams.
These students will research and solve real-world problems, present their research and
solutions; and, build an autonomous robot using engineering concepts.
Appropriation No. 2008-047, $1,094,709.00. Revenue Source: Local Funds (Recovered Costs)
$17,980.00; Local Revenue (Proffers) $675,729.00; State Revenue (Grant) $401,000.00. Since the
original appropriation of the FY ‘08 Capital Improvements budget, the following additional revenue sources
have been identified. These additional sources will reduce the planned Local Government borrowing
$955,850.00 and the use of $138,859.00 from the CIP Fund Balance. The schedule below identifies the
revenue source, amount, and project it is associated with.
Revenue Source Description Capital Project Amount
Fire Company Repayment Stony Point Building Improve. $ 17,980.00
VNDIA Grant Hollymead Fire Station 401,000.00
Hollymead Area C Proffer Hollymead Fire Station 102,138.00
Hollymead Area D Proffer Hollymead Fire Station 452,712.00
Avon Park Proffer Avon Street Sidewalks 61,718.00
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
W ickham Pond Proffer Crozet Streetscapes Phase 1 59,161.00
Total $1,094,709.00
Appropriation No. 2008-048, $17,806.00. Revenue Source: State Revenue (Grant) $17,806.00.
Albemarle County received grant funds from the Virginia Department of Education in FY ‘07 with a
commitment to increase the number of at-risk four year olds served in the Virginia Preschool Initiative
(VPI) within the County beginning in FY ‘08. The program has been expanded to serve eight additional
VPI students at the Red Hill Elementary School. The cost of the Red Hill program is shared with the
County Schools. Local Government’s share of the program is two-thirds the cost of the teacher assistant
for the program. This amount is funded by grant revenues and no local match is required.
Appropriation No. 2008-049, $1,500.00. Revenue Source: State Revenue (Grant) $1,500.00.
The Department of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office a grant in the
amount of $1,500.00 to assist in overtime for the national “Click It or Ticket” campaign.
Appropriation No. 2008-050, $48,500.00. Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $48,500.00. At
its meeting on November 20, 2007, the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) Management Board
approved the use of ECC Fund Balance for the following:
• $20,000.00 to replace all of the carpet within the Emergency Communications Center.
This cost includes the removal of existing carpet and the cost to elevate each of the
operational consoles while the carpet is being removed and replaced.
• $28,500.00 to fund the purchase of an additional vehicle for ECC. This vehicle, which
will be four-wheel drive, will be used to access the public safety radio communications
tower facilities under ECC’s control and responsibility. In addition, the vehicle will be
available during normal working hours for ECC staff to travel to meetings, training and
other such needs. The funding will cover the cost of the vehicle, 800 MHz radio, and
operating costs for FY ‘08.
Appropriation No. 2008-051, $10,889.00. Revenue Source: State Revenue (Grant) $10,889.00.
The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the County $10,889.00 in additional funding for
the Community Corrections Grant. This grant, administered by Offender Aid & Restoration, provides local
probation services, community corrections, and related components in nine-jurisdiction areas. The
original grant award, in the amount of $720,698.00, was appropriated as a part of the FY ‘08 budget
process.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she noticed that the “Click It or Ticket” grant is going to the
Sheriff’s Department. She asked if the deputies do traffic stops. Mr. Tucker said they have the authority
to do them, but are not proactively doing so. Mr. Davis said they participated in the initiatives last summer
where they did speed traps on Route 29 South. He is not familiar with their programs, but they have the
authority to do this. In some traffic safety initiatives they have joined with the Police Department and with
the State Police in being a part of the initiatives.
Mr. Boyd said on Appropriation No. 2008-047, fire company repayment from the Stony Point
Company for building improvements, there was a timing issue involved. He and Ms. Mallek met with the
Stony Point Board representatives. The contract was written to say the first payment was due in July, but
the work was delayed and has not been done. They are taking money out of their operating funds for
work which has not been done yet. He asked if this can be refunded to them until after the work is actually
done.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, said there is language in the contract which
addresses when that allocation is made. The contract was approved by the Board.
Mr. Boyd said the contract said the first payment was due July 1, but that was under the
assumption that the work would be done. Mr. Elliott said a contract amendment would be necessary if the
Board would like to make a change, but at this time the language is specific.
Mr. Slutzky asked the nature of the problem.
Mr. Boyd said he does not know if this will impact their operations. Mr. Elliott said he does not
know of any financial strife the department is under because of that $17,000 allocation being taken out. It
is a question of timing. The contract was signed over a year ago when it was assumed the project would
be designed and bid and the work would occur in the first quarter.
Mr. Boyd asked if it could be taken off of this appropriation until the Board can make a
determination.
Ms. Mallek said it would seem to be fairer to say that when the work is completed, the payment
schedule should begin. If that can be done, she would like to be sure it is done.
Mr. Boyd suggested that staff check with the Fire Company to see if this has adversely impacted
their operating funds.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the budget amendment in the
amount of $1,364,798.32 and Appropriation Nos. 2008-045, 2008-046, 2008-047 (adjusting the
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
$17,980 for Stony Point Building Improvement by swapping the revenue funding source), 2008-
048, 2008-049, 2008-050 and 2008-051, as follows:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-045
DATE: 2/06/08
EXPLANATION: FY ‘07 STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 33000 330085 Fed Rev-SCAAP J2 14,226.00
1 1000 33020 700002 Regional Jail J1 14,226.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 14,226.00
0701 Appropriation 14,226.00
TOTAL 28,452.00 14,226.00 14,226.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-046
DATE: 02/06/08
EXPLANATION: Education Donations and Grants and School CIP Donation
School Board Meeting: 12/6/2007 and 01/10/2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 16,480.00
2 2000 24000 240218 Nat'l Brd Cert Stip-St J2 34,492.32
2 9000 18100 181152 Donation-Henley PTO J2 39,204.00
1 2100 61101 160120 Stipend J1 32,041.16
1 2100 61101 210000 Fica J1 2,451.16
1 2100 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 12,900.00
1 2100 61101 134100 PT Teacher Aide J1 3,325.60
1 2100 61101 21000 Fica J1 254.40
1 9000 60252 800986 Henley - Plygnd Imp J1 39,204.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 50,972.32
0701 Appropriation 50,972.32
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 39,204.00
0701 Appropriation 39,204.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 22,388.00
2 3104 18000 181247 Rev-St Farm Grant J2 25,000.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Revenue J2 1,354.00
2 3104 18000 189900 Revenue J2 16,000.00
2 3104 24000 240295 Rev-Touring Gr J2 19,000.00
2 3104 24000 240369 Rev-Touring Gr Bw J2 3,250.00
1 2212 61411 800200 Furn/Fixtures-New J1 100.00
1 2214 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 1,000.00
1 2215 61101 800700 Data Prssg-New J1 3,000.00
1 2253 61101 601200 Books/Subscrip J1 500.00
1 2301 61411 520100 Postal Service J1 288.00
1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 10,000.00
1 2302 61105 800100 Mach/Equip-New J1 7,500.00
1 3104 60201 312500 Prof Service - Instr J1 3,250.00
1 3104 60202 312500 Prof Service - Instr J1 4,750.00
1 3104 60204 312500 Prof Service - Instr J1 4,750.00
1 3104 60207 312500 Prof Service - Instr J1 4,750.00
1 3104 60214 312500 Prof Service - Instr J1 4,750.00
1 3104 60215 132100 Pt/Wages-Teacher J1 21,000.00
1 3104 60215 210000 FICA J1 1,606.50
1 3104 60215 601300 Instructional Supp J1 2,393.50
1 3104 61101 152100 Sub/Wages-Tchr J1 464.00
1 3104 61101 210000 FICA J1 36.00
1 3104 61101 312500 Prof Svc - Instr J1 1,354.00
1 3104 61101 580100 Dues & Mmbrshp J1 1,000.00
1 3104 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 14,500.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 22,388.00
0701 Appropriation 22,388.00
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 64,604.00
0701 Appropriation 64,604.00
Total 354,336.64 177,168.32 177,168.32
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPOPRIATION NO. 2008-047
DATE: 02/06/08
EXPLANATION: To recognize other CIP revenue sources
Hollymead Fire Station - Hollymead Area C and D Proffers and VNDIA Grant ($955,850)
Crozet Phase II Streetscapes - Wickham Pond Proffer ($59,161)
Avon Sidewalk Project - Avon Park Proffer ($61,718)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 24000 240309 VNDIA Grant J2 401,000.00
2 9010 51000 512046 Hollymead Area C Proffer J2 102,138.00
2 9010 51000 512053 Hollymead Area D Proffer J2 452,712.00
2 9010 51000 512055 Avon Park Proffer J2 61,718.00
2 9010 51000 512056 Wickham Pond Proffer J2 59,161.00
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J2 -120,879.00
2 9010 41000 410500 Loan Proceeds J2 -955,850.00
2 8527 15000 150101 Hollymead C- Interest J2 2,084.94
2 8527 51000 510100 Hollymead C- Approp F/B J2 100,053.06
1 8527 93010 930010 Hollymead C-Transfer to CIP J1 102,138.00
2 8528 15000 150101 Hollymead D-Interest J2 9,010.33
2 8528 18918 189911 Hollymead D-Proffer Revenue J2 62,073.78
2 8528 51000 510100 Hollymead D-Approp F/B J2 381,627.89
1 8528 93010 930010 Hollymead D-Transfer to CIP J1 452,712.00
2 8534 15000 150101 Avon Park-Interest J2 1,259.84
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
2 8534 51000 510100 Avon Park-Approp F/B J2 60,458.16
1 8534 93010 930010 Avon Park-Transfer to CIP J1 61,718.00
2 8540 15000 150101 Wickham Pond-Interest J2 1,171.94
2 8540 18940 189911 Wickham Pond-Proff Revenue J2 25,806.48
2 8540 51000 510100 Wickham Pond-Approp F/B J2 32,182.58
1 8540 93010 930010 Wickham Pond-Trsf to CIP J1 59,161.00
8527 501 Est. Revenue 102,138.00
701 Appropriation 102,138.00
8528 501 Est. Revenue 452,712.00
701 Appropriation 452,712.00
8534 501 Est. Revenue 61,718.00
701 Appropriation 61,718.00
8540 501 Est. Revenue 59,161.00
701 Appropriation 59,161.00
TOTAl 1,351,458.00 675,729.00 675,729.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-048
DATE: 02/06/08
EXPLANATION: Red Hill Preschool Program
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1553 24000 240283 Bright Stars 4 Yr Old Pgm J2 17,806.00
1 1553 61155 114100 Salaries - Teacher Aide J1 10,666.00
1 1553 61155 210000 FICA J1 816.00
1 1553 61155 221000 VRS J1 1,916.00
1 1553 61155 231000 Health Insurance J1 4,123.00
1 1553 61155 232000 Dental Insurance J1 152.00
1 1553 61155 240000 Group Life J1 107.00
1 1553 61155 270000 Worker's Compensation J1 26.00
1553 0501 Est. Revenue 17,806.00
0701 Appropriation 17,806.00
TOTAL 35,612.00 17,806.00 17,806.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-049
DATE: 02/06/08
EXPLANATION: Sheriff's Department - Click It or Ticket It Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1509 33000 330011 Federal Revenue J2 1,500.00
1 1509 21070 120000 Overtime J1 1,385.25
1 1509 21070 210000 FICA J1 114.75
1509 0501 Est. Revenue 1,500.00
0701 Appropriation 1,500.00
TOTAL 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-050
DATE: 02/06/08
EXPLANATION: Management Board Meeting 11/20/2007
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 4100 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J2 48,500.00
1 4100 31041 312210 Contract Services J1 20,000.00
1 4100 31041 530900 Auto Insurance 1,200.00
1 4100 31041 600800 Vehicle Fuel 1,990.00
1 4100 31041 800500 Motor Vehicle 22,110.00
1 4100 31041 800700 ADP Equipment 3,200.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 48,500.00
0701 Appropriation 48,500.00
TOTAL 97,000.00 48,500.00 48,500.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2008-051
DATE: 02/06/08
EXPLANATION: Community Corrections Grant - Additional Grant Funding
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1520 24000 240440 State Revenue J2 10,889.00
1 1520 29406 566120 Offender Aid & Restoration J1 10,889.00
1520 0501 Est. Revenue 10,889.00
0701 Appropriation 10,889.00
TOTAL 21,778.00 10,889.00 10,889.00
__________
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Item 7.2. Resolution to accept road(s) in Foxchase Subdivision into the State Secondary System
of Highways.
At the request of the County’s Engineering Department, the Board adopted the following
resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Foxchase Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 6, 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
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Foxchase
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated February 6, 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 are:
1) Foxdale Lane (State Route 1850) from the intersection of Route 250 to the
intersection of Lenox Hill Road (Route 1851), as shown on plat recorded in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2503,
page 656, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.22 miles.
2) Foxdale Lane (State Route 1850) from the intersection of Lenox Hill Road
(Route 1851) to the intersection of Bedford Park Road (Route 1852), as shown
on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of the Albemarle County
in Deed Book 2503, page 656, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length
of 0.07 miles.
3) Foxdale Lane (State Route 1850) from the intersection of Bedford Park Road
(Route 1852) to the intersection of Ellington Bend (Route 1853), as shown on plat
recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 2503, page 656, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of
0.10 miles.
4) Foxdale Lane (State Route 1850) from the intersection Ellington Bend (Route
1853) to the intersection of Carlyle Place (Route 1854), as shown on plat
recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 2503, page 656, with a 50-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of
0.09 miles.
5) Lenox Hill Road (State Route 1851) from the intersection Foxdale Lane (Route
1850) 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 2503, page 656, with a 40-foot
plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.24 miles.
6) Bedford Park Road (State Route 1852) from the intersection Foxdale Lane
(Route 1850) 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 2503, page 656, with
a 40-foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
7) Ellington Bend (State Route 1853) from the intersection Foxdale Lane (Route
1850) 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 2503, page 656, with a 40-foot
plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.09 miles.
8) Carlyle Place (State Route 1854) from the intersection Foxdale Lane (Route
1850) 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 2503, page 656, with a 40-
foot plus right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.94
__________
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Item 7.3. Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits,
administered by the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA), can provide a significant amount of
equity financing for affordable rental developments. The credits are allocated by VHDA through a
competitive process which is based on a point system that includes project readiness, feasibility and local
support. VHDA is required by the Internal Revenue Code to provide localities with an opportunity to
comment on any developments under consideration for tax credits. The three attached letters of support
(Attachments A-C), if signed, would provide 50 points to each applicant. A letter that does not provide
support or opposition would provide 25 points and a letter stating that the development is inconsistent with
zoning or land use regulations would provide no points.
One of the adopted strategies in the County’s Affordable Housing Policy is to support applications
for and the allocation of federal low-income housing tax credits. The County has been notified by VHDA
that three applicants submitted letters of intent to apply for tax credits for developments in Albemarle
County. All developments are currently zoned for the proposed activities. Following is a brief description
of three proposed developments in Albemarle County that have notified VHDA of their intent to apply for
2008 Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. All projects are required to restrict the occupancy to
households with incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income.
Appleton Apartments, currently known as W ilton Farms Apartments, is a proposed
acquisition/rehab of 143 units of affordable rental housing located on W ilton Farm Road just off
Route 20 North. The existing garden-style apartments will be sold to the Virginia Non-Profit
Coalition and will undergo exterior renovations including a new roof, siding and windows. The
units will also receive new appliances and HVAC equipment.
Crozet Meadows is a 28-unit rental development for lower-income elderly tenants in Crozet owned
by Jordan Development Corporation. The owners are proposing to sell the property to a Limited
Partnership which will include Jordan Development and the Piedmont Housing Alliance. The
proposal includes rehabilitation of the existing units and development of 38 new units of affordable
rental housing. The Board approved similar support for this project last year although it was not
awarded tax credits. The Board also adopted a resolution last year committing up to eight
Housing Choice Vouchers to the development.
Treesdale Park is a 90-unit development proposed by the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program (AHIP) to be located on East Rio Road. The proposed project will consist of three,
three-story buildings of 30 units each and a separate community building. AHIP has requested
that the County provide financial support for this project. One means of providing financial
support is through the commitment of Housing Choice Vouchers. HUD regulations allow for the
commitment of up to 20 percent of allocated vouchers to be project-based vouchers. Currently
the County’s Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) Annual Plan states that we will use up to 15
percent but a revision will be proposed to the next Annual Plan to be submitted to HUD in April
that will allow the maximum commitment. All commitments of Housing Choice Vouchers to be
used with specific projects are conditioned on continued funding from HUD. A resolution is
attached for the Board’s consideration and adoption.
There is no budget impact in providing support for the allocation of federal low-income housing tax
credits to the three developments. The resolution to commit up to 21 Housing Choice Vouchers to the
proposed Treesdale Park development will not impact the County’s general fund budget as the vouchers
are funded by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors indicate its support for the three applicants
seeking federal low-income housing tax credits and authorize the County Executive to sign the letters of
support for inclusion in the respective applications. Furthermore, staff recommends that the Board adopt
the resolution to commit up to 21 Housing Choice Vouchers to the Treesdale Park development provided:
a. HUD approves the County’s Housing Choice Voucher Annual Plan to allow up to 20 percent of
allocated vouchers be used for project-based assistance, and;
b. HUD continues to provide sufficient funding to meet this commitment.
By the vote set out above, the Board supported the three applicants seeking federal low-
income housing tax credits, and authorized the County Executive to sign the letters of support for
inclusion in the respective applications, and adopted the following resolution to commit up to 21
Housing Choice Vouchers to the Treesdale Park development provided: a. HUD approves the
County’s Housing Choice Voucher Annual Plan to allow up to 20 percent of allocated vouchers be
used for project-based assistance; and, b. HUD continues to provide sufficient funding to meet
this commitment.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to improving the livability of all
neighborhoods and access to support services by residents; and
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
WHEREAS, The County of Albemarle is committed to preserving existing and promoting
the development of new affordable housing stock; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program through Treesdale, LP, is
applying for Federal Housing Tax Credits to develop 90 units of rental housing located on East Rio
Road and known as Treesdale Park; and
WHEREAS, all proposed units in the development will be restricted to households with
incomes at or below 60% of the area median income; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Office of Housing proposes the use of Housing Choice
Vouchers to provide project-based assistance for up to 21 of the proposed housing units with
household incomes limited to those families at or below 40% of the area median income;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle supports the
commitment of up to 21 project-based vouchers for rental housing located on East Rio Road and
known as Treesdale Park to provide rental assistance for households with incomes at or below
40% AMI contingent upon U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approval
of the County’s Housing Choice Voucher Annual Plan to allow up to 20% of allocated vouchers to
be used for project-based assistance and contingent upon HUD providing sufficient funding to
meet this commitment.
__________
Item 7.4. Resolutions of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance
requirements for roads associated with subdivisions and frontage for newly created lots.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that at the January 9, 2008, Board meeting, the Board
received a memo from Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, outlining ways that property has been
subdivided without using road standards and/or having inadequate road frontage. As a result of that
information, the Board instructed staff to prepare two Resolutions of Intent to modify County ordinances to
correct these problems.
A Resolution of Intent for the Subdivision Ordinance would amend the Subdivision Ordinance to
increase the minimum design and construction standards for private streets serving two lots to the
standards that currently apply to private streets serving three to five lots. It would also require that all lots
created from the subdivision of an existing parcel share the same entrance to an existing public or private
street. This addresses the issue of two-lot subdivisions where there is no road standard and corrects the
process nicknamed the “Albemarle Two Step” which has been used to avoid constructing road
improvements.
A second Resolution of Intent for the Zoning Ordinance would amend the Zoning Ordinance to
amend the lot frontage requirements to avoid back and front subdivisions where the only road frontage is
effectively the driveway serving the lot. It was noted at the January 9 Board meeting that there may be
difficulty in crafting an ordinance amendment to close this loophole, but this resolution would give staff
direction to further study this issue and provide possible solutions. Staff recommends adoption of the
Resolutions.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following two Resolutions of
Intent:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, subdivision regulations should assure the orderly subdivision and
development of land and promote the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens;
and
WHEREAS, the orderly subdivision and development of land includes requiring a
subdivider to lay out and construct streets in accordance with appropriate state and local
standards to relieve the public of the burden that would otherwise exist, to assure that streets are
properly designed and constructed for anticipated traffic, and to promote public safety and
minimize traffic conflicts with existing streets; and
WHEREAS, current County subdivision regulations allow these purposes to be
circumvented by allowing a parcel to be subdivided into multiple two-lot subdivisions that result in
lots being created without being served by streets meeting public street design and construction
standards or reviewed for approval by the Planning Commission under Albemarle County Code §
14-232 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, current County subdivision regulations also allow these purposes to be
circumvented by allowing the ultimate subdivision of a parcel to have multiple entrances onto
existing public streets, thereby creating additional conflict points and opportunities for accidents;
and
WHEREAS, in order to better achieve the purposes of subdivision regulation and to
eliminate the potential for circumvention of those purposes, it is desired to amend the Subdivision
Ordinance to increase the minimum design and construction standards for private streets serving
two lots to the standards that currently apply to private streets serving three to five lots, and to
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
require that all lots created from the subdivision of an existing parcel share the same entrance to
an existing public or private street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Albemarle County Code §§ 14-404, 14-412, 14-434
and any other regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the
purposes described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
_____
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, zoning district regulations establish minimum frontage requirements for lots
on public and private streets; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Ordinance § 4.6.1(b)(2) provides an exception to the minimum
frontage requirements established for the applicable zoning district by allowing the frontage of lots
served by an access easement to be reduced to the width of the access easement; and
WHEREAS, by allowing reduced frontage, Zoning Ordinance § 4.6.1(b)(2) facilitates front-
and-back subdivision lot configurations and allows the subdivision of parcels that have very limited
existing street frontage; and
WHEREAS, front-and-back subdivisions whose back lot meets only the frontage
requirements of Zoning Ordinance § 4.6.1(b)(2) result in an undesirable pattern of development;
and
WHEREAS, the elimination of the exception allowed by Zoning Ordinance § 4.6.1(b)(2)
will not, in and of itself, eliminate front-and-back subdivision lot configurations because an access
easement or right-of-way could be extended into the back lot to provide the full frontage otherwise
required by the district regulations; the elimination of the exception will, however, be effective in
conjunction with proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance identified in a separate
resolution of intent adopted this same date; and
WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community, it is desired to amend the Zoning Ordinance to delete the exception provided by
Zoning Ordinance § 4.6.1(b)(2) when a lot is served by an access easement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Zoning Ordinance § 4.6.1 and any other regulations
of the Zoning Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________
Item 7.5. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board
Chairman, was received as information as follows:
A monthly communications report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors
Meeting with the Legislators: On December 7th, the School Board hosted a meeting with local
Legislators. The discussion was an update of the meeting held August 31st and included
Composite Index/Cost of Competing and Standards of Quality Funding. Based on the discussion
with legislators, Delegate Bell and Delegate Toscano felt that it would be more appropriate to
address the composite index piece for Albemarle County due to the revenue sharing agreement
with the City of Charlottesville rather than look at adding Albemarle County to cost-to-compete
adjustments.
Annual Progress Report: At its December 13 meeting the Board was presented the Annual
Progress Report. The Annual Progress Report contains data and information on the Division’s
progress in meeting Strategic Goals and Board/Superintendent Priorities by providing updated
status on identified outcome measures associated with the goals and priorities.
Superintendent’s Funding Request Presentation: On December 19th, Dr. Moran presented her
two-year funding request for FY2009 and FY2010 to the School Board. Since the presentation the
School Board has been holding Budget W ork Sessions to focus on the departments within the
budget as well as any new initiatives that the Superintendent put forth in her recommendation.
The School Board held its Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 29th in the new Monticello High
School Auditorium.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Election of Officers and Appointments: At its January 10 meeting, the Board elected Brian
W heeler as Chairman and Diantha McKeel as Vice-Chairman. The Board also made
appointments to the PREP and CATEC Boards and established meeting times, places and dates
for 2008.
Resource Utilization Study: In July, the School Board contracted with the Commonwealth
Educational Policy Institute (CEPI) at Virginia Commonwealth University to conduct a resource
utilization study of the school division. The results of the study were presented by Dr. Bosher,
CEPI Executive Director, at the December 6 Board meeting where he focused on 19 key issues.
The Board reviewed with the staff the 19 recommendations on December 13. The
Superintendent received input from leadership staff during the week of January 2 to assist with
formulation of next steps to improve the organization’s efficiency and effectiveness. At its January
10 meeting, only 10 business days following the Board’s work session, the School Board received
staff recommendations and provided direction regarding which short-term and long-term actions
to pursue with details about which future budgets should be impacted. Board of Supervisors
members received a copy of the report.
Telephone Town Hall: On W ednesday, January 16 the School Board had their first Telephone
Town Hall meeting. The hour-long Telephone Town Hall focused on the school division budget
development process for the 2008-09 school year. The event reached a total of 16,775
households successfully. Of that number: 3,885 accepted the call (joined the conference), 4,792
opted-out of the call (answered the phone but hung up before joining the conference) and 8,098
received a message on their answering machines. The Telephone Town Hall is part of the School
Board’s efforts to build public understanding of the budget development process and increase
public participation.
February Meetings: The School Board will hold its Regular Board meeting on February 14,
2008, its Regular W ork Session on February 28, 2008 and its Special Budget W ork Sessions on
February 5 and 7, 2008 In addition a student conduct meeting is scheduled for Monday, February
25th.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said there has now been some experience in this building with doing
something unusual, which is telephoning every household that has a land line and asking if they wanted to
participate in a conference Telephone Town Hall Public Hearing. Apparently that worked, so it is
something she would like to keep in mind for getting input on the budget, or other items of public interest.
She knows Mr. Slutzky does not have a land line.
Mr. Slutzky said if one looked at the demographic distribution of the people who do not have land
lines to their homes he would caution the Board to not narrow public discourse to those people who are an
older population. He said that people under the age of 28 seldom have a land line today. There is a down
side to this procedure.
Ms. Thomas said a consultant has said that every time they checked with people who do not have
a land line, the results and opinions received were the same.
Mr. Slutzky said he is skeptical.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that if people know about it they can call in, but the County
can’t call them.
Mr. Slutzky said public outreach would have to take place through different media forms to that
constituency just to make sure they are represented evenly.
Ms. Mallek said having a variety of ways for people to express their opinions is a way to raise the
level of participation.)
__________
Item 7.6. Copy of letter dated December 12, 2007, from W illiam D. Fritz, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to J. Alden English, re: LOD-2007-00033, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 51, Parcel 24A (property of Thomas B. Merrick IV and Judith
Merrick, Daniel D. Merrick and Sharon Merrick, W . Gordon Merrick and Sandra Merrick, & Randolph V.
Merrick and Caroline Merrick) – Rivanna Magisterial District, was received as information.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked if other Board members had noted the number of determination
letters on the agenda.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to know how much each of these official determinations cost,
what the fee is for the determination and if that fee covers the cost. She was approached by a constituent
who wanted to get such a determination but was told he did not fit the policy of who got a determination
because it was just idol curiosity on his part. She also does not know what that policy is. She can tell just
by reading the letters that there is a lot of research involved.
Mr. Rooker asked what information is required of the applicant. Mr. Davis said the applicant is
asked to provide a lot of information that has to be verified and analyzed. There is no absolute
requirement as to what has to be submitted. In the Rural Areas the biggest problem is that there are a lot
of historic deeds and a lot of transactions transpired before either subdivision regulations or zoning
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
occurred. It is tricky to work through that history to determine which parcels were of record on December
10, 1980.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that work is expensive and can the cost be recovered. Mr. Mark Graham said
it was identified in the fee study presented to the Board last year. He thinks the average cost of this
determination is over $1,000.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County has the ability to recover that fee. Mr. Graham said he
understands that technically the County is not required to provide this determination. It is just a service
that has been provided.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County could require the applicant to provide detailed information
establishing the parcels. Mr. Davis said the County could require title searches and legal determinations.
It is an essential part of a lot of processes. It is essential in order to determine rural subdivision rights. It
is an essential part of the ACE Program because it is important in determining the value of the lots. Not
just large developers are applicants in these matters. Because the County’s Zoning Ordinance relies on
this determination, the Board’s policy in the past has been to make it easy for people to determine their
rights, but it is complicated. If the Board decides property owners should pay the cost, it will need to be
applied the same to all owners. That makes it more difficult from a policy perspective as to what cost
should be recovered in a particular application.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it is more costly if there are multiple parcels and many development rights.
Mr. Davis said the complications sometimes are not dependent on how much land there is, but the
number of historical parcels.
Mr. Slutzky said the Comprehensive Plan does not encourage subdivision of rural properties so if
there is an increased cost associated with proving there is a right to do something the Comprehensive
Plan does not encourage, he does not find that to be a undue hardship. If the County has any interest in
pursing transferable development rights, it would be useful to address this issue now instead of adding
that into the discussion later. To the extent the Assessor’s Office chooses not to place any value on
development rights they have no way of knowing how many development rights are on a parcel. It is
possible that after going through this exercise of determination, it could arguably make an owner
susceptible to an increase in their tax bill. If the Board is going to look at strategies for protecting the
County’s ecological systems in the Rural Area and reinforce the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in the
next couple of years, there is a risk of having a flood of people come in to get a determination before that
occurs. He is interested in accelerating the process and wonders if it would require a public hearing and
an ordinance change. Is it simply a policy issue to make it a requirement that an applicant pay the cost to
the County, and perhaps shift some of the labor burden onto the applicant?
Mr. Davis said the County Code currently has a fee that is associated with an application for
development rights. In order to change that fee, it would require an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance.
If specific requirements were put on that application, that should also be a part of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky said he would be interested in moving forward with this quickly.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County can have a tiered fee structure. Mr. Davis said that is possible as
long as there is a reasonable basis for the difference in fees. Mr. Graham said if an applicant asks for this
determination for the purpose of a subdivision or creating a conservation easement, staff cannot
distinguish between the two applications and would charge the same fee and go through the same
process.
Ms. Mallek said the ACE Program provides all of the legal and appraisal work for applicants. Mr.
Graham said easement programs outside of the ACE Program net more acreage in conservation
easements in the County than the ACE Program.
Ms. Mallek asked if a landowner has to provide their own appraisal for the ACPRFA (Public
Recreational Facilities) Program. Mr. Graham said a determination of development rights has to be
made.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Graham was saying the County could not differentiate between the two as
to the fee structure. Mr. Davis said that often it is not known why someone is asking for this
determination. If someone said they were doing it for a certain program, a distinction could be made
based on that statement. After someone knows their development rights, they could decide not to put the
land in an easement program. That is difficult criteria on which to base a fee.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a way legally to add the cost of the determination to their easement
value if they go through the program and receive funds for their development rights so they could recover
that cost in the same way the State credits for land use. Mr. Davis said the ACE Ordinance specifically
sets out recoverable costs; that ordinance would have to be amended in order to do that.
Mr. Boyd said in the essence of time the Board might ask staff to get it some additional
information.
Mr. Rooker said he is in favor of trying to make the fee more in relation to the existing cost.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to know how many applicants ask for a determination, what
percentage of them ultimately put land into conservation easement versus those who do not.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would not be a high percentage.)
__________
Item 7.7. Copy of letter dated December 12, 2007, from W illiam D. Fritz, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to J. Alden English, re: LOD-2007-00035, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS --
Tax Map 57, Parcel 73A (property of J. Ramsey Martin) – Samuel Miller Magisterial District, was received
as information.
__________
Item 7.8. Copy of letter dated December 12, 2007, from W illiam D. Fritz, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to J. Alden English, re: LOD-2007-00036, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS --
Tax Map 57, Parcel 73C2 (property of J. Ramsey Martin) – Samuel Miller Magisterial District, was
received as information.
__________
Item 7.9. Copy of letter dated December 12, 2007, from W illiam D. Fritz, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to J. Alden English, re: LOD-2007-00037, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS --
Tax Map 57, Parcel 73B (property of J. Ramsey Martin) – Samuel Miller Magisterial District, was received
as information.
__________
Item 7.10. Copy of letter dated January 3, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to Yates Carr Garnett, re: LOD-2007-00040, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 44, Parcels 4J & 4K (property of C. Mercer Garnett Jr. Trust
Agreement – Yates Carr Garnett Trustee) – W hite Hall Magisterial District, was received as information.
__________
Item 7.11. Copy of letter dated January 3, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to Oden L. Cornwell, re: LOD-2007-00045, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 134, Parcel 7A (property of Oden L. Cornwell, Jr.) – Scottsville
Magisterial District, was received as information.
__________
Item 7.12. Copy of letter dated January 3, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to Peter Duntell, re: LOD-2007-00046, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 99, Parcels 36C & 38 (property of Peter Dutnell) – Samuel Miller
Magisterial District, was received as information.
__________
Item 7.13. Copy of letter dated January 3, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to Marcia D. Fallon, re: LOD-2007-00047, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 113, Parcels 5, 5A & 6A (property of Marcia D. Fallon) – Scottsville
Magisterial District, was received as information.
__________
Item 7.14. Copy of letter dated January 3, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to Barbara Joan Ford or David J. Ford or James Ford, re: LOD-2007-00048, OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 6, Parcel 21 (property of Barbara Joan Ford or
David J. Ford or James Ford) W hite Hall Magisterial District, was received as information.
__________
Item 7.15. Copy of letter dated January 3, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to Vincent L. & Stephanie J. Jones, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax
Map 87, Parcel 44 (property of Vincent L. & Stephanie J. Jones) – Samuel Miller Magisterial District, was
received as information.
__________
Item 7.16. Copy of letter dated January 3, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, AICP, Chief of Zoning,
to John D. Griffin, Esquire, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS -- Tax Map 70,
Parcel 47A & Tax Map 84, Parcel 28B (property of Charles B. & Pamela Fitzgerald) – W hite Hall
Magisterial District, was received as information.
__________
Item 7.17. FY 2008 Second Quarter Financial Report, was received as information as follows:
It was noted in the Executive Summary that this Quarterly Financial Report provides information
on the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of December 31, 2007. The Financial
Report includes a bar chart that compares fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with the prior year.
A. Attachment A – General Fund Quarterly Financial Report (in millions):
1. Revenues: The Department of Finance estimates that General Fund revenues, transfers,
and use of fund balance will be $6.828 million (3.1%) less than appropriations of $221.634
million. Indicators suggest that the economic expansion will continue to slow as the housing
and credit crunch remain influential. Final revenues may vary from estimates due to
continued market uncertainty.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
a. Real Estate tax revenues are estimated to be $3.317 million (3.0%) less than
appropriations. The Budget was prepared prior to the impact of the housing
crunch becoming known. It was based on an estimated 2008 reassessment rate
of 5.0% and 2007 new construction of $668.328 million. The actual 2008
reassessment rate is 0.14% and 2007 new construction was $291.072 million.
b. Personal Property tax revenues are estimated to be $1.015 million (4.8%) less
than appropriations. The decrease is attributed to a sales shift from high dollar
fuel inefficient to lower dollar fuel efficient vehicles, average used vehicle sale
prices falling faster than prior year comparable vehicle sales, and an actual
decrease in new vehicle unit sales from prior years.
c. Delinquent Property tax revenues are estimated to be $0.284 million (29.4%) less
than appropriations. The decrease is being experienced in both real estate and
personal property collections.
d. Sales tax revenues are estimated to be $1.100 million (7.5%) less than
appropriations. Actual collections for July through November are slightly less
than FY07 for the same period. Indicators for December sales tax revenues to
be received in February point to continued reduced collections reflecting the
weakening of the national and state economies. The impact of the rapid increase
in gift card sales is unknown at this time.
e. Business License revenues are estimated to exceed appropriation by $0.467
million (4.8%). Business licenses are based on prior calendar year gross receipts.
Due to the one year lag in recognition, the County is now realizing an increase in
license fees from when market conditions were stronger.
f. Other Local tax revenues are estimated to be $0.128 million (1.1%) less than
appropriations. The decrease is primarily attributed to decreased local
recordation and seller tax collections related to the housing and credit crunch.
g. Federal revenues are estimated to be $1.336 million (24.4%) less than
appropriations. The decrease is primarily attributed to decreased federal
reimbursement for public assistance. There will be a related decrease in local
expenditures. Economically sensitive expenditures for food stamps, TANF, and
Medicaid are administered by the state.
h. Other categories are estimated to vary less than $0.100 million from
appropriations.
2. Expenditures: Total expenditures, including transfers, are within appropriate levels, 44.3%,
for the first six months.
a. Departmental expenditures are estimated to be $2.223 million (2.7%) less than
appropriations. The decrease is primarily attributed to decreased public
assistance expenses. Additional estimated departmental expenditure reductions
are due to the elimination of 3 positions, freezing of 14 vacant positions, and
reduced total rewards funding.
b. Non-departmental expenditures are estimated to be $0.100 million (0.7%) less
than appropriations. The decrease is due to an anticipated reduction in reserve
and other County-wide spending.
c. Transfers are estimated to be $3.482 million (2.8%) less than appropriations.
The decrease is due to:
i. $3.001 million reduction in the School Division transfer resulting from
reduced local tax collections; and
ii. $0.482 adjustment in debt service resulting from a prior year adjustment.
3. Revised Revenues less Expenditures:
a. Revenues are projected to be $1.021 million less than estimate expenditures.
b. Fund Balance available February 06, 2008 is $1.254 million. This is after an
estimated $1.690 million transfer to the CIP fund based on expenditure savings in
FY07.
c. Projected End-of-Year Available Funds is $0.232 million. It is important to note
that these figures are assuming the savings from the frozen/deleted positions and
decreased public assistance expenses only. Staff is aggressively pursuing
additional saving opportunities and is confident that, by the end of FY08, actual
revenues will exceed expenditures.
B. Attachment B – General Fund Budget Comparison Report: The bar-chart report tracks
changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time.
a. Revenues in all categories except Federal, Transfers, and Use of Fund Balance
show positive growth over FY07.
b. Expenditures in all categories except Non-School Transfers are expected to
increase over FY07.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
C. Attachment C – General Fund Balance Report: The report indicates that the County:
a. Has an audited FY ‘07 Fund Balance of $18.314 million at June 30, 2007,
b. Appropriated $2.370 million for FY ‘08 projects,
c. Has remaining FY ‘07 Fund Balance of $15.944 million at December 31, 2007,
d. Reserved $13.000 million for cash flow purposes,
e. Has a Preliminary $1.690 million CIP transfer commitment, and
f. Has Unobligated Funds Available of $1.254 million at February 06, 2008.
This Financial Report is based on audited financial data for FY ‘07 and the first six months of
operations for FY ‘08. Staff will utilize this data as the basis for the FY ‘09 Budget. It is important to
remember that any change in the County’s real estate tax rate will impact both the FY ‘08 and FY ‘09 real
estate tax revenues. Staff estimates that each one cent increase in the 2008 real estate tax rate will
increase FY ‘08 revenues by $788,149 (including real estate, public service, and mobile homes) and FY
‘09 revenues by $1,608,235 (including 2008 new construction). This Financial Report has been prepared
for your information. No action is required.
________________
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: SDP-2007-048, Crozet Gateway Final Site Plan. Request final site
plan approval for the construction of two (2) buildings for commercial and office use on 1.99 acres zoned
HC Highway Commercial and EC Entrance Corridor. This request includes a request for a waiver in order
to allow shared parking within the site. The property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcels 32 and 32A are
located in the W hitehall Magisterial District in the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 240
(Brownsville Road) and Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike). This is currently the site of a convenience
store. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Crozet Community.
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, made the presentation. He said this is appealed from
the Planning Commission who was hearing it on an appeal from a determination of the Deputy Zoning
Administrator. The issue is that a preliminary site plan was approved for a piece of property at the
intersection of Routes 250 and 240 which included a condition stating “The preliminary site plan for this
project was approved with the following note on the plan. ‘The parking requirements will be finalized at the
final site plan stage when the building footprint and design has been finalized. The building outline and
area shown hereon is approximate. The final building outline and area will not exceed the totals shown
hereon’.” He showed an aerial photo of the property.
Mr. Fritz said the applicant then submitted a final site plan which showed 99 parking spaces. W ith
the mix of uses proposed along with some storage, the total number of parking spaces required by the
County’s Ordinance was 120. The Zoning Ordinance includes provisions which allow the Zoning
Administrator to reduce the number of required parking spaces by either a) authorizing shared parking, or
b) simply reducing the total number of required parking spaces. The applicant applied to have the parking
reduced under both of those scenarios. A reduction in parking was authorized from 120 down to 118
parking spaces, saying the storage proposed for the property would be shared with the office space so did
not need to have its own parking. Not enough dissimilar hours between the retail and the commercial
were found to authorize shared parking between the retail and the commercial.
Mr. Fritz said the applicant submitted information indicating the County’s parking standards are
excessive, and a different parking standard should be applied for the commercial and the office. Staff
reviewed that information and declined to grant the reduction. This decision was based on the fact that
the County’s Ordinance has a specific parking standard for the uses proposed; that the parking standard
the applicant proposed is not clear or more definitive than the ordinance requirements. The applicant
submitted some work by the Urban Land Institute and it is part of the Board’s packet tonight. Zoning staff
felt that was more appropriate for a zoning text amendment than it was for a reduction in parking because
staff would not be able to differentiate this request from any other request for commercial or office.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to grant a waiver based on a staff
decision that the parking requirements were excessive. Mr. Davis said there is a specific standard in the
ordinance for granting a waiver. The basic waiver standard is that the public health, safety and welfare
would be equally served by the reduced number of parking spaces; criteria that allow the Zoning
administrator in consultation with the County Engineer to make that determination is set out in the
ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said the health, safety and welfare category is fairly broad. W ould that give staff the
ability to make an individual determination that the shared parking was not applicable in this case? Mr.
Davis said there are a number of factors set out in the ordinance that staff can consider in making the
determination. After consideration of those factors, there is still the general consideration as to whether it
serves the general health, safety and welfare criteria.
Mr. Rooker asked if the factors are objective factors.
Mr. Davis suggested Mr. Fritz list those factors. Mr. Fritz said staff looked at three factors. One
was the shared parking, another was the nature of the use proposed by the applicant, and third, would a
reduction serve the public purpose to a greater degree. He listed the criteria used for this review, and said
that in addition staff looks at whether there would be an adequate area on site to provide the required
parking should the reduced parking standard be determined at a later date to be insufficient. He then
showed a diagram of the parking and travel areas on the property. It shows that there is no additional
area on site should the parking reduction from 118 spaces down to 99 not prove to be adequate. That
was another reason why staff could not make a finding that a reduction was appropriate.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Slutzky asked if surrounding parcels will be developed so there would be other opportunities
for additional sharing. Mr. Fritz said staff does not expect the area to develop significantly as a
commercial area. Another factor to consider is whether the parking can be added, and if traffic reduction
situations are occurring in the area such as pedestrian access and public transportation. The answer to
both questions is “no.”
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has discussed expansion of public transit. He thinks it is reasonable to
anticipate that in the future there might be a lot of traffic entering this center and if there is a problem with
parking it is likely there would be some transit option there to mitigate the situation. Mr. Fritz said that is
something this Board might consider, but because it is not in place now, staff did not consider that.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Fritz thinks it would be reasonable for the Board to consider allowing for
the shared parking use in the utilized standards. Mr. Fritz said he will say the same thing he told the
Planning Commission; parking is an art, not a science. ULI has one standard. ITE has a different
standard. The County standard is different from both of those in some cases, and in some cases they
match. Every jurisdiction determines for itself the appropriate level of parking. That was done by
Albemarle after holding lengthy public hearings when the parking study was done. He cannot say whether
188 or 99 is the appropriate number. The applicant has given the Board some good information from ULI
which tends to indicate that a lower standard is appropriate. It is staff’s opinion that the question would
best be answered through a zoning text amendment, not through an administrative parking reduction
process.
Ms. Thomas said the Board is totally limited in its ability to do that in this instance.
Ms. Mallek said if bus service were extended to Crozet, it would go right by this center.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant needs to provide a bus pull-out or something. This is a situation
which can only be reached by car. ULI has been leading the way in rebuilding shopping centers and she
has read a lot about ULI and what they want to see in shopping centers; however, this is a very suburban,
ordinary location which can only be accessed by car.
Mr. Slutzky said because of its relative isolation, some of the draw synergies which occur in an
actively commercialized district are not present here. On the practical side, he cannot imagine this
parking lot ever filling up even if built out.
Mr. Rooker said he has seen four or five centers in the last few years that are similar to this one
and their parking lots are full all of the time. If the right kinds of tenants go into the center, it will be full.
Ms. Mallek said she would like someone to address the apparent inconsistency with the amount of
land on this lot being set aside for shrubbery as opposed to the Clover Lawn development. She drove
around both places and looked and wondered if this is a place where some middle ground can be found.
The dumpster area has a very wide bush screen and a fence around it, so there is redundant screening
which takes up parking spaces. She asked that the applicant address the history of the project; this
property has been commercial since the 1970s so it is an historic country crossroads market, something
which she personally values. She compares this proposal to W hites Market in Earlysville which has a very
large grocery store and all sorts of offices and a Post Office around it, and understands that by today’s
standards it would not “fly”, but it works well and it is never full except for the Fourth of July Parade. In this
case she hopes for some middle ground.
Mr. Boyd said if there were no other questions for staff at this time, he would ask the applicant to
speak.
Mr. Sam Saunders said he is a civil engineer with the Timmons Group and is representing the
applicant. They are present to ask this Board to approve their site plan, particularly the shared parking
request. He said the project has by-right zoning. The plan was turned in to the County in August, 2006,
that plan showed the shared parking. They understood that the building square footages would be
tweaked a bit during the process, but the shared parking was part of the project from the beginning. They
believe that building extra parking and its environmental impacts are negative pieces to over-parking the
shopping center. They believe the arguments put forth from ULI are reasonable; they used the 1999 ULI
book. They agree with the characterization that this will be a neighborhood center. Ninety-nine parking
spaces are shown although ordinance requirements are for 118 spaces which is a 16 percent reduction.
Mr. Saunders said he would like to outline some of the history of this request. The site plan was
reviewed by County staff in August, 2006. His client and staff went to the staff review meeting and they
got no feedback that shared parking would not work, everything was good. The calculations were on the
plan, and that note was added, but they understood the note had to do with the final building design.
Based on staff’s recommendation, his client hired an architect who started work with the Architectural
Review Board. Requirements were put on that they felt went too far, and it took extensive time and money
just getting all staff comments. At the same time, his client adjusted his business operation because he
thought the site plan would go through. In June, 2007 they got the certificate from the ARB which they
needed in order to go forward with final site plan submittal. They got a “nod” from staff that the final site
plan could be submitted. Immediately they were informed that they did not have a critical slopes waiver,
but in looking at their files, they found the slopes waiver had been submitted in September, 2006 and
never acted on. They did that through the Planning Commission who approved it in July, 2007.
Mr. Saunders said that in June, 2007 they got comments on their final plan that they needed to
submit a waiver and justification for the shared parking which shocked them because they thought the
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
issue was settled. They prepared the documentation based on the ULI shared parking book and
submitted that to staff. In August, 2007 they got a letter saying that was denied. There were a number of
meetings with staff, and in late September they gave up some square footage by converting some office
space to storage in the way of a compromise and that was also denied. That is how they got to this point
in the process. To reduce square footage more would hurt the economic viability of the project. They
believe they presented a reasonable and workable scenario for shared parking. Mr. Yousef and his family
intend to keep this project, not “flip it.” It is part of their family legacy so they will be sure it works right.
Mr. Saunders said those are the main points he wanted to make. He asked that the Board look
favorably on this request. They think it will work. He then offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said a few years ago she was involved with the Rio Hill Shopping Center trying to get
them to give up parking spaces for a Park & Ride lot. The tenants were all in agreement, but the
mortgage holders would not allow them to reduce the number of parking spaces. She asked if all of that is
worked out on this request. Mr. Saunders said that is his understanding. One of the hardships is that they
had it all worked out, but since the plan was delayed some of those things have to be updated. He said
they have not gotten any comments from their financiers that there is not enough parking.
Mr. Dorrier said he wanted to check on a procedure. W as the parking issue brought up initially?
Mr. Saunders said it was brought up in August, 2006, when the plan was under review. He understands a
note was put on the plan, but the request for shared parking has been in the plan from the beginning.
Mr. Rooker asked the normal amount of time a shared parking request is entertained. Mr. Fritz
said typically it is done during preliminary site plan review and completed prior to approval of that plan. In
this case, that was not done.
Mr. Saunders said at this time they are not specifying any particular type of retail. W ith the delay
in the project, they have not been able to get their leases lined up. They are using the retail and office
general categories on the plan.
Mr. Rooker said there is a different requirement for retail and office uses. Mr. Fritz said the
method he is describing is the normal method used by staff.
Mr. Rooker said when the parking ordinance was revised ceilings were put on parking
requirements because arguments usually went toward requesting more parking than the County felt was
needed. He said ULI standards were looked at when redoing that ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky asked if transit were put into this area, how practical would it be in the current plan to
provide for a pull-over for a bus. Mr. Saunders said they have not looked at the idea yet. His concern
would be whether the bus came on site and needed a space to stop, or whether it stopped out on the
road.
Ms. Mallek said she cannot tell from the map if there is adequate setback on the road to have the
bus pull out. Mr. Saunders said if it were in the road right-of-way that would be a different scenario. He
knows the property is not as walkable as some other areas, but walkability and transit were not in their
minds knowing they are not to fruition yet.
Ms. Thomas said this is not the best site for transit.
Ms. Mallek said she has seen plans for things nearby that will be easily walkable to this site, but
they are not on the ground now.
Mr. Boyd said the applicant had said the ARB restrictions were greater than they had thought. He
said Ms. Mallek had asked if there were a trade-off in the size of shrubs, etc. Is there room for a
compromise? If less landscaping were required, would it leave more room for parking? Mr. Saunders
said they felt more landscaping was being required than for other projects. They are trying to get greater
setbacks on the frontage, and maybe if there were not so much required around the dumpster, they could
get more spaces.
Mr. Rooker asked if a sidewalk is planned for the road. Mr. Fritz said “no.”
Ms. Mallek said Crozet Avenue might have a sidewalk at some point in the future as projects are
built further toward Crozet.
Mr. Rooker said if the County had planned a sidewalk along that side of Crozet Avenue the
County would want to get that as part of this project as opposed to hoping there will be money for it in the
future. If there is no plan for a sidewalk along Crozet Avenue, he does not know how this applicant could
be required to build a sidewalk that is not even planned to connect to a future sidewalk.
Mr. Cilimberg said he thought the question had to do with Route 250. He said Crozet Avenue is
shown in the Master Plan with a cross-section design. Ultimately, if it were ever improved all the way
there could be a sidewalk, but it is not in any plans for improvement. Route 250 does not show that
because a buffer (green space) is shown throughout Crozet – it was supposed to be the transition to the
Rural Area. Crozet Avenue (Route 240), if it is ever improved, which it will be in the “downtown” area, it
could have a sidewalk.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Slutzky asked if Mr. Cilimberg was saying it would be prudent to require that as a condition of
allowing for the shared parking. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know how that “plays in” to a requirement
on a site plan. This is not a rezoning.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board can approve a site plan with conditions. Mr. Davis said sidewalks
on his property could be a condition of the site plan, but the Board could not require off-site improvements.
Mr. Boyd said one person from the public had asked to speak. He invited him to come forward.
Mr. Paul Brockman said he is a resident of the Samuel Miller District. The back side of his house,
which is the view side, overlooks Crozet. He has had a longstanding interest in Master Planning for
Crozet. He attended most of the meetings on the plan and never heard any concern expressed by any
resident of the area about the zoning on this property, nor by any County staff member. As far as the
public is concerned, the property is as it has been zoned for over 30 years, Highway Commercial. Other
than being an interested neighbor, he listed some of his past experiences such as being past co-chairman
of the Virginia Municipal League. He became acquainted with this project about five years ago and was
involved with it for a time when a company in the commercial mortgage business was looking at financing
it. It is a marginally-viable project at the present time. To put more restrictions on it will bring its viability
into question. In the time in which this project has been before the County, Clover Lawn has been
approved and is nearing completion. The commercial development in Old Trail has been rezoned,
approved and is under construction. The Blue Ridge Shopping Center has been reviewed, approved and
has broken ground. Mr. Yousef is still waiting; it has been a horror story. He said the Board is dealing
with a human being who owns his property, who is not asking developers to develop the property for him,
and is trying to get approval to go ahead. He said the ULI standards are well developed based on
nationwide reviews. If the Board thinks there is an issue with parking, the Board should ask the
Commission and Planning staff to review it again and come back with further recommendations.
Otherwise, he thinks those who vote to approve this project will say small developers and individual
property owners still have a place with a commercial project. Those who vote against will be understood
to have said “development is an exclusive province of the major developers.”
Mr. Adnin Yousef said he and his family started with this project back in 1978. He met with Mr.
Benjamin Dick who was the Zoning Administrator at that time and explained what he wanted to do with the
property. He was told the property had been Highway Commercial since 1947 and he could have a
development on that corner any time he wanted. In 2002 Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner, contacted
him and said the County would like to use his property as a model for the Crozet Master Plan. Ms.
Thomas and Mr. Fritz sent him to speak with Sophie and Thomas W ultz with Nelson & Burke. Those
people designed a plan the County would look in favor of as to setback and parking requirements. That
was a promise issued to him by Ms. Susan Thomas and Mr. Fritz. They then went to the County with his
engineering company, Timmons Group. Those people made a plan based on by-right development. They
applied for and handed in that by-right plan dated July 20, 2006, to the County and requested a parking
waiver. The Planning Department had the chance to review the plan.
Mr. Yousef said they went to the preliminary hearing and at that time there were six different
applications. In the room were about 65 people, and those people listened to the conversation between
he and Mr. David Pennock. Mr. Pennock was working for Mr. Fritz. Mr. Yousef said his plan was
approved, and Mr. Pennock said the only thing to worry about was the ARB approval, “as far as we are
concerned, you are approved.” W ith the shared parking on the plan, Mr. Pennock handed Mr. Yousef a
letter from the County addressed to his engineer which says “if you meet these requirements, you will be
approved. Your biggest problem is the ARB.” Mr. Yousef said the letter contained three different dates he
had to appear before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Pennock said not to
worry about that because he had already been approved, that is just the way the process goes if you are
refused here. They went to the ARB and on that first day he was told he should have come to them first.
He feels he is the victim of a power struggle with the staff. All of his statements can be verified by either
witnesses or a letter. That staff member said he should have come to the ARB first, and he said he would
work with them, but not to make it too expensive on him. The reply was “if you can’t afford it, you should
sell it to somebody else who can afford to develop the corner.”
Mr. Yousef said before the October meeting with the ARB in 2006, he was working in his store
when a lady walked in and asked him if he knew the owner was going to throw him out of the store. She
said she was with the ARB and could help him; he then advised her that he was the owner. He then went
through six months of hard times with the ARB. At one of the meetings, Mr. Snow was very upset with her
insulting comments to Mr. Yousef that he could not be trusted with landscaping. W hen the plan was done
for the Clover Lawn Shopping Center, the developer was asked to put screening around the dumpsters,
but they asked him to also put screening behind the screen. His original plan had 107 parking spaces, but
he ended up with 99 spaces because the ARB added so many trees to the plan. Grates were required
around the trees and that took even more spaces. He said it took four months for the County to issue his
certificate of appropriateness after that. In May 2007, the County sent an official E-mail to his engineer
saying they would put his project on a fast track to finish, but they did not have a slopes waiver. His
engineer said the waiver was requested in September, 2006. The County had no record of it. His
engineer gave staff a copy of the request. A slope waiver was granted in June, 2007, nearly a year after
making application.
Mr. Yousef said the first time they heard about a parking waiver was when Mr. Pennock sent a
letter saying they could be approved for the waiver but would have to give the County justification. W hy
wait ten months to ask for this information when he had already spent money on the engineer? After his
conversation with Mr. Pennock in August, 2006 he initiated closing his business. He has lost almost
$600,000 to date. He has spent almost $100,000 in engineering. W hy wait until the last moment? He
paid his taxes so a County employee could tell him whether he is doing right or wrong. W hy was he not
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
informed in July, 2006 that the building did not have enough parking? He would have made that
adjustment. In the beginning, he said he would develop the property by-right. Now, a year and a half later
he is told that it is not big enough. In the meantime, he lost a contract with UVA Health Services for
$140,000 a year for 25 years. It went to his competition next door at Clover Lawn. In May, 2007, he was
contacted by a real estate company who asked to buy his project. He was told to either take the deal or
he would never be able to develop the corner. This man was named Andrew Benetti and he wanted to
buy the property. Yesterday, one of the largest developers in the County came to him and said since he
was not willing to sell the property, he would lease the property for 99 years and he would take care of the
County and get the project approved. This is intimidation and it is not right. He is asking for justice from
the Board.
Mr. Yousef said Mr. Fritz tried to cover up a mistake the County made back in August, 2006. He
is not going to pay the price for that. If he had been told at that time that the project was too big and did
not have enough parking, he would have adjusted it. W hy did the County wait until he had closed his
business? This has imprisoned him for the last two years in his place. He is not doing any business but is
afraid to close his doors for fear that the clock will start ticking and after two years his property would
become nonconforming and his zoning would be taken away. In 1992 they tried to downzone his property.
He is just asking for justice. He is building this project for him and his wife’s retirement and their legacy.
His son will operate it. They ask for a good future and the American dream. He asked that the Board
approve his development.
Mr. Dorrier said he noticed in the requirements that there need to be alternative solutions to off-
street parking, and further that the applicant can provide incentives for transportation modes other than
cars. He wonders if Mr. Yousef would be willing to come up with a plan to encourage more bicycles to
come to his parking area and set up an incentive for his employees to use bicycles and pedestrian ways to
get there. W ould he integrate a bicycle rack in the parking area? Mr. Yousef said “yes”, he is willing to do
that. He said he has been going through this for the past 18 months and there have been no objections to
the plan from his neighbors or the community of Crozet. The only opposition he had was from County
staff because they did not get what they wanted. Then he has opposition from some big developers
because they want to rob him of his rights. He said there is no one present this morning that is opposed.
Mr. Slutzky asked that Mr. Yousef send him by E-mail or a telephone conversation more about his
experience with the ARB. There have been some stern allegations about the ARB and he would be
interested in learning more about them. Mr. Yousef said Mr. Snow can confirm what he has said. He said
Ms. Candace Smith said a lot in the ARB meetings and he suggested that those transcripts be read.
W hen she came to his business she tried to embroil him to go in opposition of the plan because she did
not realize he was the landowner. She was underhanded. He said the Board needs an ethics committee
so the staff and public would be afraid to do what they did to him. He was asked after the Planning
Commission meeting, by these two people here, if there any other alternatives. They wanted him to make
the whole corner as office. They were not opposing the building. Everybody said it was fine. He was
approved by all entities except Mr. Fritz. He opposes it. W hy? He thinks it is unethical for Mr. Fritz and
Mrs. Fritz to work on one project. He and his wife are the two people opposed to his project.
Mr. Rooker said without speaking to the delays that occurred with the application for a critical
slopes waiver and the delay that occurred about the shared parking issue, he has not heard anything to
indicate that staff members present today, Mr. Fritz and Ms. McCulley, have done anything in an unethical
manner. They are charged with enforcing the ordinance and making recommendations based on what the
ordinance says. The parking provided does not meet the ordinance requirements. They pointed out that
the Planning Commission and the Board have the ability to grant the waiver. Given all the facts and
circumstances, he thinks the waiver makes sense. He is ready to support it, but he does not see that Mr.
Fritz or Ms. McCulley have done anything unethical or improper in the process of this application. He
does apologize to the applicant for any delays that may have been caused in the event something was not
taken up at the proper time, if that occurred.
Mr. Slutzky said as he read the record, Mr. Fritz did advise that the Planning Commission had the
authority to make the decision. He is very concerned about some of the things he heard about the ARB.
He has heard nothing that impugns the credibility of the Planning Department. He does share Mr.
Rooker’s sentiment that the County owes Mr. Yousef an apology.
Mr. Boyd said there is one other citizen who would like to speak.
Mr. Don Franco said he is a resident of Albemarle County and is a professional developer. He
does a lot of things to balance stated policies, regulatory requirements, public input and economics. He
was asked by Mr. Yousef and his design team to meet with them in the Fall of last year. He looked at their
project. He assured Mr. Yousef that despite his experience he does not think it had been personal. He
had not been singled out by the County, and it was not personal between him and individual staff
members. The issues Mr. Yousef has with the process are the same issues he has with projects. He has
looked at the project which is borderline and he does not think it can give up any more square footage if it
is going to be viable. He said the project is urban in nature, but the square footage looked for here is
below what ULI would allow to be on that site. The standard suburban rule of thumb would be about
20,000 square feet, and Mr. Yousef has less than 30,000 square feet. W ith ULI fully executed 30,000 to
40,000 square foot would be the maximum that could be put on that site. He takes exception to what staff
said about approaching this as a zoning text amendment. There is a willing applicant who would set some
standards, experiment and let the market dictate whether it will work or not. The County has this
opportunity as opposed to having to change requirements for the whole County with a ZTA.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Dorrier said if the Board can approve a waiver for reduction of parking and then encourage
additional modes of transportation, it would be in compliance with what the Board is seeking.
Mr. Cilimberg said in answer to the question about the Crozet Master Plan, he wants to correct the
record. He said the section of Route 240 adjacent to the property is designated the same as Route 250
as a scenic byway and tree buffer area. A greenway connection is shown in this area. Ultimately, it is
hoped there can be an off-road trail or path rather than a sidewalk in this area and that is the only thing
anticipated on Route 240.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to approve the waiver request for SDP-2007-048, Crozet
Gateway Center, to allow shared parking, a reduction in the required number of parking spaces to 99, the
addition of a bike rack, and to approve the final site plan subject to the conditions set out in the staff’s
report.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Davis if the motion is correct. Mr. Davis said the waiver contains a
condition for the bike rack. W hat is before the Board is the final site plan with the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission which are on Attachment “A”, Page 5, of the staff’s report and
a request for a waiver.
Ms. Thomas said she is glad the Board is talking about bicycles, referred to as “bicycle
encouragement.” A bike rack is all that can be said, but encouraging people with bikes to use this facility
is what she will “hang her hat on.” She thinks the Board is making a mistake to let this suburban parking
lot be inadequate in size. She is concerned about the personal challenges that have been made because
when the Board sets up policies, it sets up the staff to be unpopular. In this case, lost papers are not
forgivable, but adhering to the Board’s standard for parking is forgivable and is the reason the policy
exists.
Ms. Mallek encouraged the Board to bring back the recommendations of the Development Review
Task Force in order to set out more straightforward procedures so this type of thing does not happen
again.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
W aivers:
1. to allow shared parking;
2. to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces to 99; and
3. to allow the addition of the bike rack.
__________
Conditions of Approval - SDP-2007-048 - Crozet Gateway Final Site Plan
1. The Current Development Division shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for
signature until tentative final approvals for the following conditions have been obtained.
The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
a. Current Development Planner approval to include:
i. A conservation checklist (available on Community Development website)
shall be added to the plan and signed by owner; and
ii. Parking counts, areas for each use, and impervious area calculations
must be updated to reflect any modifications to parking or layout.
b. Current Development Engineer approval to include:
i. The plan is acceptable as shown. Bond amounts for Erosion and
Sediment Control and Stormwater Management are available and must
be posted.
c. Please provide evidence of Albemarle County Service Authority approval.
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval to include:
i. The applicant must address the comments issued by AJ Hamidi on
November 9, 2007.
Mr. Boyd said the plan is approved. He will not repeat what the other Board members have said
because he thinks the problem does not lie with the staff, but with the process. He apologized that it has
taken Mr. Yousef so long to get to this point.
________________
Agenda Item No. 9. FY 2006-2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
Mr. Richard W iggins, Director of Finance, was present to present the report. He said the report
was prepared by County staff led by Mr. Ed Koonce and Ms. Ann Murray from the Accounting Division,
and Robinson Farmer Cox Associates, led by Mr. W es Clark and Mr. Randy Jones. His report contains
detailed information about the County’s financial activity for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2007. The
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
report was presented to the County’s Audit Committee on December 17, 2007, and it recommended
acceptance of the report. He asked that the Board accept the report.
Ms. Thomas said she would like some assurance that the depreciation issue mentioned is being
taken care of. Mr. W iggins said the way fixed assets are depreciated is a longstanding issue. The
Access Albemarle (the new financial management system) system that will hopefully be coming on line in
the near future will provide automation for the fixed asset system of records.
Mr. Boyd said he has watched this particular item and other items which have been postponed for
years pending the new accounting system. Further delay of implementing that system should not be used
as an excuse.
Mr. Rooker said in the Introductory Report it talks about several projects which have been
approved in the County and he does not know how they are chosen to be mentioned. Projects such as
Albemarle Place and North Pointe are not included and are larger projects with more of an impact than the
ones mentioned. W hat Ms. Thomas mentioned was not just fixed asset depreciation, but an issue about
works in progress, a separate issue mentioned in the Auditor’s Letter. It relates to depreciation, but it is
different than the Access Albemarle issue.
Ms. Mallek asked for a definition of “liquid property taxes.” Mr. W iggins said that is actually part of
the General Fund Quarterly Financial Report. Right now the Finance Department is bringing in delinquent
taxes at a reduced rate from what was anticipated. First cycle billings went out in December, and
delinquent collections have been less than anticipated. They are assuming the taxes will be collected, but
so far what has been collected in delinquencies is less than anticipated.
Mr. Rooker said in the cover letter of December 15, 2007, from Robinson Farmer Cox, under
“Capital Assets” there is a sentence reading: “Depreciation that is taken on these non-depreciable items
is not removed from the Excel W orkbook which requires that a large reconciling item be included in the
financial statements, etc.” He asked if that is what Mr. W iggans was responding to a minute ago. Mr.
W iggans said “yes.”
Mr. Rooker then moved to accept the FY 2006-2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
________________
Agenda Item No. 10. Climate Change Protection/Cool Counties, Participation.
Ms. Sarah Temple, Environmental Manager, was present to make a report on the progress which
has been made toward internal environmental management initiatives with a focus on climate change
protection. This is a new program for the County and it would be good to get a green light from the Board
on the staff’s recommendations.
Ms. Temple said staff has begun implementation of an environmental management system
(EMS). The cornerstone of this system is the Environmental Management Policy signed by Mr. Tucker in
2004. The major tenets of that policy are: a commitment to complying with Federal, State and local
environmental initiatives; going above and beyond complying with these regulations into the realm of
proactive pollution prevention initiatives; and, to continue environmental improvement. Eventually this
EMS will be county-wide, but it is being implemented on a part-by-part basis (fence line approach). This
means departments are implementing the EMS on an individual basis. Because EMS implementation is a
detailed process it would be difficult to do it all at once.
Ms. Temple said General Services is the first department in the implementation process. The
second department will be Parks & Recreation. These where chosen to be first because they have the
biggest potential environmental impact as to daily operations; chemical management, underground
storage tank management, asbestos, indoor air quality, etc. All of the day-to-day operations and activities
that could have an adverse impact on the environment are being ranked based on criteria derived by a
team. They will develop a list of the most significant aspects in order to prioritize their efforts. They will
develop goals (objectives and targets) around these lists and also standard operating procedures. She
said EMS has strong regulator support. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has developed
a program entirely devoted to recognizing and rewarding organizations that have implemented EMS – it is
called the Virginia Environmental Excellent Program Review. Albemarle will be participating in the
program and there are many benefits in the way of reduced permit fees, networking and recognition.
Ms. Temple showed the Board a rendering of the EMS logo. One of the biggest goals of the
current EMS is energy conservation. Albemarle partnered with Energy Star in December of 2006. An
energy management team was then formed and it set a goal of reducing overall energy consumption from
Local Government buildings by 30 percent by 2012. This translates into about six percent a year from
2007. Energy Star’s portfolio management software is being used to track energy use and measure
reduction efforts. Staff has been able to measure a combined 11.1 percent reduction in energy use since
the baseline year of 2005.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the 11.1 percent takes into account both what has been added as well as
what has been taken away.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Temple said “yes.” Staff believes part of that came about from the green roof on the County
Office Building on McIntire Road. Also, this last fall over 75 occupancy sensors where installed in the
building, and since then a dramatic reduction has been seen.
Mr. Rooker asked if that was done for lighting purposes.
Ms. Temple said “yes.” Those sensors have been put into every storage closet, every bathroom,
common areas such as lunch rooms and meeting rooms, and other high use areas to insure that lights are
turned off eventually. It has made a big difference.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff has been able to track the financial impact of that.
Ms. Temple said the portfolio management software system allows her to input both the amount
of bills and consumption figures. This system also gives each building a benchmarking score that is
based on the EPA/Energy Star score system. It compares Albemarle’s buildings to buildings across the
country of similar use and square footage. The building is given a score and if it is 75 or above, that is an
efficient building. COB McIntire just went above the score of 75 so is now eligible to earn an Energy Star
label for the building.
Ms. Temple said buildings are one of the biggest polluters of green house gas emissions.
Anything that can be done to lower energy consumption in the buildings will help with the greater climate
change initiative.
Mr. Slutzky said it has been said that buildings represent 40 percent of greenhouse gas; that is a
huge percentage.
Ms. Temple said on December 5, 2007, the Board adopted the U.S. Cool Counties Stabilization
Declaration which states that the County will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050
from both government operations and within the community. There is growing scientific consensus that
climate change is happening because of the increasing use of fossil fuels and the production of methane.
Buildings account for 40 percent of energy use globally and that is a big problem. Scientifically, there are
already naturally occurring greenhouse gases on the level where people live and breathe; carbon dioxide
and methane are examples. These molecules are loosely bound and absorb heat more easily than other
molecules. W hile some of the solar heat is reflected off of the earth’s surface a lot of that heat still comes
through. The presence of more greenhouse molecules allows more heat to be absorbed and that warms
the earth.
Ms. Temple said generally speaking there are two approaches to addressing the issue. One is to
change the way the County operates in-house by changing its practices. Second is to work with the
community, the residential and industrial sectors to influence them to change their practices. She
recommends using the five milestone guide put forth by the International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI). This is an organization which is committed to working with cities and counties to help
them become more sustainable. They have developed preeminent climate change software that allows
cities and counties to track greenhouse gas reduction efforts. Albemarle joined ICLEI and downloaded
that software and started the first step of conducting a baseline emissions inventory. Second is to set a
target for greenhouse gas reduction. Third will be to establish a local action plan and implement same.
Fourth will be to enter into a phase where the County will assess, report and modify the plan.
Ms. Temple said a baseline emissions inventory is needed to get data to compare future reduction
efforts against. Secondly, the baseline inventory will give an idea of problem areas. She recommends
that 2000 be used as the base year because the data from that year is accessible and defensible. She
said the Kyoto Protocol encourages countries to reduce their emissions below 1990 levels but that data
would be difficult to get. The 2000 data can be obtained easily and is far enough in the past that some
checkpoint year can be examined.
Mr. Boyd asked how staff will go about establishing a baseline from eight years ago. W hat criteria
are used? Ms. Temple said the baseline inventory basically looks at all greenhouse gas emissions from
the County both internally in government operations and in the community. This will be a complex and
long process. In-house information is easier to get; getting information from the community is more
challenging. She said the General Services Department has hired an intern to start this process, but it
could take from six months to a year to get the data.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to meet with Ms. Temple and discuss what goes into the calculations
for the baseline data. He is curious as to why staff wants to go back so far when the County was not as
active in energy conservation as it is now. Ms. Temple said staff felt 2000 was a good year and is recent
enough to give a good idea about what the County was doing in that year. Staff also wants to examine a
checkpoint year of 2005 or 2006 to see how much emissions were lowered during that time period.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a Citizen’s Survey component of that baseline. Does staff have
information about employment and where people live in order to get an estimate of their commutes? Ms.
Temple said staff is working on that now. The process has already been initiated, and staff feels it can be
completed using existing staff.
Ms. Temple said the next logical step is to set a reduction target. There is already a built-in target
with Cool Counties of reducing emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. That is an annual average of
about two percent. ICLEI recommends that interim targets also be set in 15-year increments so there are
more immediate goals on which to focus. Generally, before cities and counties begin this stage they
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
create a task force. It would be somewhat like the City’s Sustainability Council, but would be more
focused on this initiative. This would allow sufficient community input and sector specific input.
Mr. Boyd asked why interim targets are not just an extension of the two-percent per year. Ms.
Temple said that is an option. Mr. Boyd said he thinks it would be far less costly than putting together a
task force.
Mr. Rooker said a task force is not proposed just for the purpose of setting the targets.
Mr. Boyd said he understands that. He was looking at some of the projected numbers and it is a
multi-million dollar project over the next five years. Ms. Temple said that number was based on what the
cities surveyed had budgeted. It does not mean Albemarle will have to budget that much.
Mr. Slutzky said he would remind everybody that there are six bills presently pending before the
U.S. Senate that would require the United States as a country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80
percent by the year 2050. If buildings produce 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, buildings are
entirely in the purview of local governments to regulate. Similarly, the location of buildings impacts vehicle
miles traveled and that accounts for a substantial portion of greenhouse gas emissions and that is land
use which is also a local government issue. He thinks the Feds will give the County a big check for transit
and other options to achieve those goals. He thinks the County will have to do this for good reasons and
there will be a cost associated with it, but having the inventory in place will put the County in a better
position to achieve those objectives than other municipalities.
Mr. Boyd said he does not personally feel the County needs to design itself around potential
legislation coming out of W ashington. The County is already doing a number of things on the list. A lot of
those things are common sense issues which were recognized years ago. It does not take a task force to
say there should be mixed-use neighborhoods.
Mr. Rooker said it may make more sense in the first five years to average more than the two-
percent a year because things can be done that are not expensive but which have a great impact. He
would like to take advantage of the wealth of talent and expertise in the community to help with this
objective. Also, normally a community task force works free of charge.
Mr. Boyd said that generally a task force has a tendency to demand and need a lot of staff
support. Ms. Temple said staff would be involved if there were a task force. This is recommended to
insure there is sufficient community input. Organizations such as the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission would be interested in helping.
Mr. Boyd said that Ms. Temple should continue with her presentation.
Ms. Temple said the third step would be to, with the task force, develop a local action plan.
Generally, that plan is broken into categories such as: land use planning, transportation, energy efficiency,
green power, green building, recycling, education and outreach. These things are usually in the form of
incentives, but could be in the form of ordinances.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the categories listed are things which the County is already doing except
for green power and incentives. Do all of these things just need to be coordinated? Ms. Temple said
there has been a lot of progress in government operations but there can continue to be increased
progress. Some of these categories represent initiatives to encourage the community to change as well.
Mr. Slutzky said the County may have “put its foot into the water”, but other communities have
done a lot of things that a task force might identify to stimulate outcomes not entirely under the control of
the County. The City has initiated a tax strategy to reward people for making private investments to green
their buildings. He thinks this exercise will yield a lot of fruit beyond the nice things that have been done
already. If one thinks of this as internalizing the cost that will have to be paid in indirect ways, it is a
bargain to move forward with this exercise.
Ms. Mallek said it will position the County to be ready to receive matching funds from elsewhere
as it has with the ACE Program. Because ACE was one of few programs actually operating, the County
was able to benefit tremendously from those funds last year.
Mr. Boyd said he is not opposed if new things can be identified, but he does not want to “double
do” work that is already being done. As an example, there has been a consultant working on the question
of recycling, so he does not think that needs to be redone by yet another group.
Mr. Rooker said that is true of just about everything on the list.
Ms. Thomas said one example is a “no idling policy for fleet vehicles.” W hen she saw that
suggestion, she immediately thought of the School System. She asked Ms. Temple if she is working with
them. Ms. Temple said “yes.” Her counterpart, Ms. Lindsay Check, has been a great help. Staff wants
the School System’s baseline inventory piece.
Ms. Thomas said school buildings are the County’s main buildings. Ms. Temple said there are
26+ buildings in the School System. They are already working on an “anti-idling policy” for the School
Division. There is already a good aggressive comprehensive plan in place. Some of the things outlined in
that plan need to be pursued. Since her time is limited for presenting the timeline in detail, she would like
to give the Board a general idea of the small steps that can be accomplished: 1) Baseline emissions
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
inventory – staff should be able to complete it by the end of August. 2) Long-range budget – the budget
will depend on what is identified in the Local Action Plan and the specific projects and programs chosen to
move forward with. This can begin with additional staff; she added staff in the report for five years
because she is personally handling all of the other environmental in-house initiatives.
Ms. Temple said she would leave the Board with one thought. It is often said that climate change
and global warming are insurmountable issues, but tackling these problems on a global scale is merely
the sum of communities proactively pursuing this initiative at the local level.
Mr. Slutzky said that Attachment “D” to the staff’s report indicated there were budget details
attached and there were not any. Also, it said research had been done on six localities, and he would like
to know the names of those localities. He has worked closely with Ms. Temple and Ms. Sarah Check on
getting rid of toxic materials, and he just wants to say that the County is lucky to have core expertise and
motivation among staff.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks approval is needed for the Implementation Plan, Attachment “B”, to the
staff’s report. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. He said Ms. Temple has a lot of energy and has done a
great job for the County; it is fortunate to have her in this position.
Mr. Rooker then moved approval of the implementation of a climate protection program by
pursuing the plan outlined in the Discussion Section of the Staff’s Report and in Attachment B thereof –
Proposed Strategy and Timeline. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Proposed Strategy and Timeline are set out below.)
Proposed Strategy and Timeline
A Proposed Strategy and Timetable
As discussed in the Executive Summary, staff recommends that the County follow the milestones
outlined in ICLEI’s “5 Milestone Process”, which are also consistent with the Cool Counties
Policies and Programs Template: 1) conduct a baseline greenhouse gas emissions inventory, 2)
set an emissions reduction target for both the community and government operations, based on
inventory information, 3) develop a Local Action Plan to reduce emissions and achieve the set
target, 4) pursue implementation of the Local Action Plan, and, 5) monitor and report results to
interested parties and stakeholders.
• Milestone 1: Conduct a Baseline Emissions Inventory
A baseline emissions inventory serves as a reference against which to measure our
emission reduction in tons of greenhouse gas emissions. A baseline analysis will reveal
which activities in the County (community and government operations) are causing the
greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. transportation, building operation, etc.) as well as the
quantity that each of the activities is contributing. In this way, the emissions inventory
analysis aids in prioritizing areas and activities of focus for the development of the Local
Action Plan. The inventory is broken down into Community and Government sectors.
The former includes residential, commercial and industrial emissions, whereas the latter
includes emissions from public schools, government buildings and fleet.
Baseline Year
The Kyoto Protocol called for reduction of emissions by industrialized countries by an
average of 5.3% reduction below 1990 levels by 2012. Considering the difficulty of
accessing accurate records of community and government utility use, etc., from the year
1990, staff recommends the County use a baseline year of 2000. This is consistent with
the methodology the City of Charlottesville is using in its analysis, which is important if the
City and County should decide to collaborate on a Local Action Plan in the future.
Interim Year
Staff recommends that the County also collect greenhouse gas emissions data for an
interim year, 2006, in order provide a measure for emissions growth over the six-year
period, and also to examine what, if any, impact our governmental operations-related
sustainability efforts (e.g. ENERGY STAR, hybrid fleet vehicles, etc.) have made on
lowering emissions in the six-year period. This information may then be useful with
setting a realistic Interim Target and Target.
• Milestone 2: Set a Target for Greenhouse Gas Reduction
By participating in Cool Counties, the County has pledged to achieve a long-range target
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, an annual average of two
percent. However, ICLEI advises that localities with long-range targets generally also
establish interim targets (e.g. every five years) so that more immediate goals can be set
and tracked. Most localities have chosen a ten to twenty-year timeframe for their forecast
or interim target year.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Oftentimes at this stage, a locality will elect to establish a County-wide Task Force or
Citizen’s Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from key sectors
(Transportation, Commercial, Industrial, Public, County government) to manage all of the
following milestones by examining the inventory data and establishing both reduction
targets and work on developing a Local Action Plan. The County may want to consider
working with the City of Charlottesville to form a combined Task Force, as climate change
is a regional issue and it may be beneficial for the City and County to combine some of
their climate protection efforts.
• Milestone 3: Establish a Local Action Plan
This involves establishing a detailed Action Plan, including the policies, programs, and
projects that local governments take to meet their emission reduction targets by the target
year. A sample Local Action Plan is included as Attachment D, and examples of policies,
programs and projects that other localities have implemented as part of their Local Action
Plans are provided in Attachment C.
• Milestone 4: Implement the Local Action Plan
This stage involves implementing the policies, programs and projects outlined in the Local
Action Plan. This stage will be ongoing as new “interim targets” are set, and will involve
multiple sectors and groups, including the Countywide Task Force, if/when established,
working to achieve this milestone. ICLEI recommends updating the Clean Air Climate
Protection (CACP) software every two to three years with current emissions data to check
on emission reduction progress and to ensure that new data (e.g. census) and
information on new developments are added if/when appropriate.
• Milestone 5: Assess, Report and Modify Local Action Plan
This includes ongoing periodic review, progress assessment and public reporting until the
target year, and beyond. This process as mentioned above is typically managed by the
County-wide Task Force.
Estimated Timeline for Albemarle County
A proposed, estimated timetable for achieving these milestones is as follows:
Milestone Start Date Complete Date Completed By
Milestone 1: Conduct Baseline
Emissions Inventory January 15, 2008 August 31, 2008 General Services Dept.
Milestone 2: Set a Target (and
establish Task Force) October 1, 2008 December 31, 2008 Staff, Board of Supervisors, Task Force
Milestone 3: Establish Local
Action Plan January 15, 2009 May 31, 2009 Task Force
Milestone 4: Implement Local
Action Plan June 1, 2009 Ongoing Task Force, Various Sectors, Groups, Staff
Milestone 5: Assess, Report,
and Modify Local Action Plan June 1, 2010 Ongoing Task Force, Board of Supervisors, Staff
________________
Agenda Item No. 11. Status report on the Historic Crozet Streetscape Enhancement Project.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Transportation Engineer, Office of Facilities Development, was present to
present the report on the Crozet Historic Streetscape Project. He said this project was envisioned in the
Crozet Master Plan as an essential step in achieving the goals of the “Downtown” Crozet area. It was
divided into two phases. First, the streetscape improvements at the intersection of Crozet Avenue and
Three Notch’d Road have now been completed. Phase Two is taking those same improvements and
continuing them from the railroad overpass to Tabor Street. The same streetscape elements will be
incorporated utilizing the same materials, same style and same colors for consistency. The consultant
team composed of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and Community Planning and Design have assisted
through the community involvement process, and generated the conceptual preliminary design plans.
There was an initial “kick-off” meeting with the Crozet community, a number of meetings with business
property owners, and a couple of community meetings to review the consultant’s concept plan.
Mr. Kelsey said a presentation was made to the Architectural Review Board and a work session
held with the Planning Commission. Favorable results came from both of those meetings. The
preliminary design plan has been submitted to VDOT to make sure they approve of everything shown on
the plan. Today, staff will describe to the Board:
1. How the Community’s involvement has helped shape the Streetscape Plan;
2. The current Conceptual Streetscape Plan, cross-sections, details and vision for the
streetscape; and
3. Address comments and questions from the Board.
Mr. Kelsey then introduced Mr. Bryan Peters from Kimley-Horn. Mr. Peters said he is the project
manager for Kimley-Horn and Associates from Richmond. They specialize in developing streetscapes for
municipalities. He introduced Mr. Bruno Carvello who is the landscape architect, Mr. Ken Schwartz who is
heading up community planning and activities with the business owners; and, Ms. Bea W ilkerson who is
responsible for the graphics in the presentation. He then made a PowerPointe presentation.
Mr. Peters said they reached out to the people who use Crozet Avenue and specifically the people
who will be impacted the most, business owners in the area; to redevelop and set the stage for future
growth it does no good to drive out the current businesses during construction. It is no good to have an
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
historic enhancement project if the resources in the community are not valued. He said their conceptual
outreach activities have been completed as far as talking about what the plan should look like. They will
be developing the design further working with VDOT and the County. This summer they will be
negotiating with property owners to obtain dedicated right-of-way. He then introduced Mr. Ken Schwartz to
talk about how the Master Plan and the Phase Two Streetscape Plan go together.
Mr. Schwartz said he was asked to join the team for this project because of Kimley-Horn’s
commitment to the principles of the Crozet Master Plan and the desire for a robust outreach process with
the community. Since Mr. Peters has already mentioned the top two goals, he will emphasize the Natural
Resources piece. The streetscape strategy is evolving an innovative approach to dealing with the
environmental opportunities of a new improved Crozet Avenue. A lot of the project is about balancing
transportation needs for the community; vehicular, pedestrian, bicyclists, trucks, etc. Providing safety for
pedestrians and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle use within downtown Crozet is the first step. The
present historic village street in Crozet does make this easy. The public process has been extensive; it
has influenced every step of the design. There were numerous meetings held with all concerned parties.
One example that came from one of the first community meetings was a desire for bicycle
interconnections as much as possible within historic Crozet so they incorporated a connection from
Jarmans Gap Road through the new Main Street along Crozet Avenue for that segment of a “Z” or “L”. He
said the Crozet community has been involved and been willing to give of their time and ideas to make this
the best project possible.
Mr. Carvello said he would talk about the actual design of the project. He showed on the screen
the schematic master plan for the alignment of the streetscape project. Preserving history has been a
major element and keeping “this porch right here” was one of the elements they used to align the
streetscape. They wanted an ample sidewalk in front of it, and then a street which meets VDOT
requirements. It opens up on Main Street with a small but necessary turn lane for the future Main Street.
He pointed out the eastern part of the project which represents a 20-foot alleyway currently platted, but in
its physical form does not exist in its entirety. They plan to make it a usable alleyway to access properties
from the rear as well as for service vehicles, and bicycle and pedestrian movement. He showed some
vignette sketches they did. Mr. Carvello said they also talked extensively with individual property owners
and residents around the property. In several cases they devised plans or options for their properties
because the alignment shown would encroach 12 to 14 feet in some instances. They want to be sure they
do what is best for the community in general, but also what is best for their businesses and their interests.
The schematic master plan went through several additional public formation steps before it became a
more refined master plan (he showed a copy of that on the screen). He then showed a cross-section on
the northern part of the project and explained what it contains. A short question and answer session
followed.
Mr. Peters said they submitted last week the Crozet Avenue portion (Enhancement Grant portion)
of the project, which is for all of the improvements on Crozet Avenue itself. That was submitted to all
County agencies for review as well as to VDOT. Today, he brought with him the second portion of the
project, which is the Main Street portion. Because of VDOT funding issues it is broken into two projects,
but is actually one overall project. This completes the 30 percent design portion of the project, and in
about 30 days they should receive comments from County agencies, as well as VDOT. At that time they
can sit down and talk about any major issues that come up during the review. If there is consensus at that
time, this summer they will move forward and submit the actual finished design plans for the project. At
that time, the project will be almost ready to bid. In early fall they will submit the final set of documents.
That will take some time because of the Enhancement Grant funding. Because of Davis-Bacon bidding
requirements and the paperwork involved, there are many requirements between them, the County and
VDOT. Construction should start this winter or early in 2009. Even though the project is only about 1,000
feet in length, the project must be phased in a way that it does not disturb the area too much. They will be
looking at some other streetscape projects in the area that have not gone so well during the construction
phase. They want to create a partnership between the County and the public. They have a meeting
scheduled this fall with business owners to talk about how to maintain pedestrian and vehicular access to
those businesses. They want to respect Crozet’s history and keep that portion into the streetscape plans,
and continue the dialogue monthly. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Slutzky said with respect to the right-of-way issue, have any recalcitrant owners been
identified or is there likely to be a good collaboration with the process. Mr. Peters said he thinks there will
be good collaboration. They hinted that it would be nice if right-of-way was donated but some owners
were more receptive to that idea than others. They have not found any owner who will not give the right-
of-way. W ith reference to the Tabor Presbyterian Church, there is a process they have to work through
with the church structure, but basically they were told the County would have to buy the right-of-way
because it is a revenue source to the church. Crozet Avenue is a prescriptive right-of-way situation which
goes back to when VDOT was formed in the 1930s. The Byrd Act said VDOT owns 30 feet, 15 feet left
and right of center on all paved roads, so there is only 30 feet and that is not enough to do any of the
improvements the way they want to do them.
Ms. Thomas said different people regard certain things as historic, and others can’t see the
beauty in them. There was a wall that was of concern to people. She asked how that is being handled.
Mr. Peters said he has seen some photos of the stone wall and has talked with some people with the
historic group. It is about two feet tall and was built when materials and labor were cheaper. They have
committed to put back some type of wall much like in Phase One, which is not just a concrete ugly, white
VDOT-style wall. They will use cultured stone. W hen using VDOT money they have to do a NEPA
document to prove they are not negatively impacting any historic resources. They believe the wall will not
be counted as one. In certain areas, such as the Tabor Presbyterian Church and adjacent residential
areas, the vertical elevation would require that a wall be constructed anyway. It could mean recycling the
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
wall that is in place now, and it could be very costly. They believe they have some more cost-effective
options which will achieve the same thing.
Mr. Boyd said it is noted that the cost of this project will be covered by the CIP. He asked if it is in
that plan now. W hat is the total cost of this project? Mr. Tucker said he does not know the total cost at
this time, but the cost is covered by the CIP.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to know the amount because the Board has received criticism for not
putting money into infrastructure. This will be a huge investment in infrastructure in Crozet. Mr. Kelsey
said he does not have that exact figure with him, but he believes it is a total of $2.4 million.
Mr. Boyd said his point is that this Board does take a lot into account in the way of infrastructure
but is sometimes also criticized.
Mr. Rooker said there are two Enhancement Grants which are part of the funding. He asked if
any of those funds have been received. Mr. Kelsey said a total of $300,000 which will go toward
construction.
Mr. Rooker said if the Board is taking a presentation to Culpeper to the VDOT Highway Hearing, it
would be a good idea to invite Mr. Butch Davies to sit in because he was instrumental in helping the
County get the grants. The County may need another grant to complete something else in the Crozet
area. Mr. Davies should be kept informed of how those dollars are being spent. He thinks the plan is
quite impressive.
Ms. Mallek said she learned while going door-to-door in the Orchard Road area that it is being
used as a cut-through for large trucks. She knows this construction project will exacerbate that activity
and she is glad it is being phased and alternative routes will be publicized.
Ms. Thomas said she has been impressed with how the Crozet community listens intently,
participates, and then really expects to get back exactly what they have been told. Deviating from that
gives the Board and County a bad name. She said having the Harris House come down when the
expectation was that there would be a chance for people to salvage it has generated a great deal of E-
mail about what happened.
Mr. Schwartz said they are aware of the sensitivities with respect to the Harris property in
particular. No demolition has begun on that project. They continue to have a dialogue with both the
Historic Resource Group and some of the individual members, including Mr. Meeks. They want to be sure
he is well aware of their intentions prior to proceeding with that demolition. He has asked his staff to
provide a full detail of the discussions which have happened the last two or three weeks. There are some
issues regarding the disposition of the salvage material. They need to have a procurement process which
is fair.
Ms. Mallek said she does not know where the doors came from that have been outside in the rain,
but if there is going to be a process where people can buy the materials in the house, that process needs
to be made public. Mr. Schwartz said they are properly storing the doors on site with plastic protecting
them from the weather. If they will have to be stored outside for a long time, they may look for a storage
area where they can be put indoors.
Mr. Tucker said there is some potential lead paint, etc., so they had to be careful in terms of who
can roam around in the house.
Ms. Mallek said she understands that the citizenry cannot be allowed to just “stomp around” on
the property.
Mr. Schwartz said the involvement with the County on the Harris House does tie into the
streetscape project because they show that tearing down the Harris House goes along with DHR
reviewing the impacts of the project. DHR has marked the Harris and Amato parcels for demolition for the
future library.
Mr. Boyd thanked all for the presentation today.
________________
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Session.
At 12:03 p.m., Ms. Mallek offered motion that the Board go into closed session pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711A of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees, and commissions; under Subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of real property necessary
for a public safety facility; and, under Subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and staff specific legal
matters regarding a conservation easement.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
______________
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Session. At 2:04 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
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 session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Boards and Commissions: Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky to:
Appoint Mr. A. Bruce Dotson to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee (ACE) with
said term to expire August 1, 2008.
Appoint Mr. Naresh Naran to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention & Visitors Bureau (Seat 9)
with said term to expire June 30, 2008.
Appoint Mr. Jeffery Greer as the joint City/County Chair of the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority
Citizens Advisory Committee with said term to expire December 31, 2009.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report/ Advance Mills Bridge
Update, and Agenda Item No. 15b. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda, were heard
concurrently.
Mr. Allen Sumpter, Residency Administrator, said he would begin his presentation with the normal
monthly report. He said VDOT has received preliminary information from the traffic study at the entrance
to Glenmore. He believes they will be able to work with the County and the developer to move forward
with installation of a traffic light on Route 250 East at that location.
__________
Mr. Sumpter told Mr. Rooker that he will set up a meeting concerning Georgetown Road to bring
him up-to-date on the status of that road project. He has met with staff from the County’s Facilities
Management Division and they have identified some communication issues to work on. VDOT now has
enough information about the plans so they can begin looking at specific impacts to properties along that
road for a normal contemporary design.
Mr. Tucker asked if there will be a need for a significant amount of right-of-way for the project.
Mr. Sumpter said there are several parcels which will be impacted, but he does not know the exact
number. There are a couple of complicated drainage issues on a road that ends in a cul-de-sac and an
existing drainageway in that area. A sidewalk has been discussed for this project, but when adding
concrete it contributes to runoff so there will need to be adjustments for that.
Mr. Rooker said the project now is totally on the west side of the road; there will be no
construction on the east side of the road. The scale of the project was reduced to try and get it built with
the money available. There may be a need for right-of-way in some spots on the east side.
Mr. Tucker asked if VDOT has people ready to go out and get the right-of-way. Right-of-way has
been mentioned as the one factor that could hold up the project. Mr. Sumpter said the project has turned
out to be more of a contemporary design than what was anticipated originally.
___________
Mr. Rooker said that approximately a mile down Old Garth Road (21 Curves), there is a sink hole
starting to develop. That road is dark and unlit, so that is beginning to be a danger. Mr. Sumpter said
VDOT believes there is a sinking pipe associated with that problem; he will bring back a status report.
___________
Mr. Slutzky said on Rio Road (Route 631) at the W aldorf School entrance, VDOT reviewed it and
did not recommend a crosswalk or pedestrian crossing be installed until a sidewalk or trail is installed. He
would like to know how much sidewalk might be needed before that can take place. Mr. Sumpter said one
thing that is needed is a handicap accessible landing and some kind of a reasonable connection to go
safely beyond that point.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Slutzky said people would be going to Pen Park, but they would not walk along Rio Road; they
would cross the street and keep walking. Mr. Sumpter said as to pedestrian requirements, ADA
requirements must make sure a person can reasonably get past that point. One side of the road has a
sidewalk and the other side has nothing tying into it. He will set up an appointment to go and visit the
location.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said Route 713 in the Keene area has a lot of traffic and is like a washboard, it might
need some work.
__________
Mr. Slutzky thanked Mr. Sumpter for taking care of a request regarding a problem at the front of
the Post Office on Route 29 North.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she talked previously about the traffic light which is to be installed on Route 250
W est when W hite Gables and Kenridge finish their crossroad. The neighbors have expressed concern
that they will be forced to use that intersection before the light is installed making it a dangerous situation.
Mr. Mark Graham said VDOT needs an updated traffic signal warrant analysis and the developer
is working on that now. The County has informally told the W hite Gables people that they do not need to
convert their entrance into a right-in/right-out facility (it is a planned, bonded improvement) until the traffic
signal warrants are known.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that earlier today the Board was talking about things the County will be doing in
the future to save energy. One of the issues was whether to install street and traffic lights of a low energy
requirement. She asked if VDOT as an organization is going in that direction or what the County can
expect. Mr. Sumpter said he will have to check and get some information on the latest technology; he is
not sure how going green fits in.
__________
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Sumpter had indicated that there was a meeting recently with representatives
from Luck Stone to discuss the Routes 250/22 project and he thought there would be some information
available today
Mr. Sumpter said there was a meeting, but he would let Mr. David Benish explain.
Mr. Benish said there has been a meeting with Luck Stone and VDOT representatives to try and
resolve some of the issues involved with spending County funds on the project. Staff is looking into what
funding might be available to contribute to the project. It is also looking at the question of the County’s
ability to contribute to that project when it will be constructed as a private project. There are procurement
issues involved which staff feels have been resolved, but some of that needs to be finalized.
Mr. Boyd said Luck Stone was going to put the project out for bids. He asked if that has
happened. Mr. Sumpter said they have not released to VDOT any information about bidders or bids.
They did say they have been getting quotes and answering questions from bidders. They are concerned
about moving forward as close to the timeframe originally projected so it can be worked into the schedule
of bidders in their summer work program.
__________
Mr. Boyd said last month it was said there may be some delays in the schedule for the Meadow
Creek Parkway project. He asked if it is still on schedule for a spring advertisement date, with
construction in the fall. Mr. Sumpter said there are some things that could change that date, but that has
not happened at this time.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is an update on the question the City submitted to the State Attorney
General about who can sign for the easement needed. Mr. Sumpter said there was a meeting recently to
discuss the possibility of VDOT obtaining a right-of-entry so it can proceed with utility relocations. He has
not heard the result of that meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked if VDOT has signed easements for the City’s part of the project, as opposed to
the City School Board’s part. Mr. Sumpter said they only have the signature for the CA-TECH part, not for
the other parts controlled by the City.
Mr. Rooker said City Council has approved granting of the necessary easement. He asked if that
easement has been submitted to the City for signature. Mr. Quinten Elliott said the issue is whether the
City or the School Board has ownership of the School property. The City Attorney believes that even
though it is deeded in the name of the City, since the School has been using it, it will require VDOT to
work with the Schools to get rights to that property. VDOT has asked them to say how to move forward
with looking at different options, some of which may lead to where VDOT does not need to get the
property. If the property were turned into parkland and left in the City’s name, maybe VDOT will not have
to do all of the things it is looking at. They are looking at exchanges of right-of-way as part of the
interchange project. The City was supposed to get back to VDOT. He will be sure that VDOT’s
Preliminary Engineering Manager contacts the City to see if they have any updates on those discussions.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an area of land involved where VDOT needs an easement from the
City for use of property that is not School related. Mr. Elliott said that area is on the other side of
Melbourne Road and the City will maintain that land so it does not need to change ownership. They have
been able to work that out without any purchase or changing of deeds. He knows the City has some
concerns about how VDOT approaches this.
__________
Mr. Sumpter said he is ready to talk about the Advance Mills Bridge. He said the semi-annual
inspection last year revealed structural deficiencies. As a result, the bridge was closed in April, 2007.
Prior to this time, VDOT had been striving to honor a request from the previous Board in the late 1990s to
keep the bridge open using the best possible maintenance methods. Unfortunately, the bridge finally
reached a condition where this was no longer possible. Due to its design features, major rehabilitation
was not feasible from an engineering and cost aspect. The existing bridge is listed as a factor in the
designated historic district for the Advance Mills area. After considering public safety, access for
emergency vehicles, school bus traffic, and detours, the Board in August, 2007 requested that VDOT
pursue the installation of a temporary structure to reopen the river crossing until a permanent bridge can
be built.
Mr. Sumpter said because the bridge is located in an historic district, the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources was asked to review the plan to remove the existing bridge and place a temporary
structure. Following that review, the Federal Highway Administration issued a decision in late October,
2007 that the temporary bridge structure had independent utility and they granted VDOT permission to
remove the existing bridge and install the temporary structure. The temporary bridge project was
scheduled for advertisement in January, 2008. In mid-January VDOT was contacted by the FHW A
expressing concerns about whether the temporary bridge could be considered as a separate project, or
whether it should be included with the permanent replacement project for the purposes of an
environmental review. They also questioned the existing detour of Durrett Ridge Road.
Mr. Sumpter said VDOT continues to work with FHW A to address the questions they raised.
W hile those discussions are ongoing, VDOT has decided that the temporary project should be withdrawn
from the advertisement schedule. W ithout knowing the outcome of the discussions, they felt the
contractor should not incur the expense of preparing bids for the project. He said many of the discussions
last fall centered on why FHW A’s interpretation about separation of the temporary and permanent projects
was needed. The replacement project involves Federal participation regarding funding. In order to
receive this funding, they must adhere to requirements outlined in the National Environmental Protection
Act which includes the Section 4f document talked about in the past. Failure to follow the law and
regulations that are a part of that act could jeopardize Federal funding.
Mr. Sumpter said at this point VDOT will look at what can be done in the short-term and the long-
term aspects of the project. Their staff is working to provide FHW A information associated with the
concerns including detour alternatives in addition to Durrett Ridge Road. They are looking at the feasibility
of doing heavy maintenance work along the roadway including upgrades to the bridge on this route to
accommodate legal loads. If FHW A’s final conclusion is that the temporary and permanent bridge be
considered together for the purposes of environmental review, VDOT will purse options to accelerate the
permanent bridge project in order to restore service across the river as soon as possible. If they have to
go through the full environmental review process for the temporary bridge that will take many months to
complete. They will need to decide if it is cost and time feasible to put in a temporary bridge for a short
period of time.
Mr. Sumpter said VDOT is discussing reducing the scope of the project to basically being a bridge
replacement project with minor improvements to the approaches. The alternatives presented at the
Citizen’s Information Meeting last fall were based on meeting normal design requirements and addressing
the other weight-restricted bridge nearby. A benefit of reducing the scope is that it would provide some
reduction in time in the environmental review process by reducing the amount of field work, i.e.
archeological reviews, etc. associated with any possible new alignment. His office is working to get the
appropriate VDOT officials to the site to discuss design issues associated with a reduced scope. If that
concept goes forward, it might be possible to use a design-build contract which would allow a contractor to
come in and begin work as parts of the project are being designed. A preliminary analysis of using that
type of concept indicated the possibility of beginning permanent construction of a bridge in 2009.
Mr. Sumpter said that is a summary of the events that have occurred and VDOT’s actions. They
have discussed this with members of the community. He has talked with Ms. Mallek. He will try to keep
the Board and the community informed of any developments. He said they have not received a final
decision from FHW A regarding whether these two projects should be tied together.
Mr. Rooker asked when that decision might be forthcoming. Mr. Sumpter said it is anticipated in
the near future.
Mr. Slutzky asked what would happen if the permanent bridge project were abandoned. Could the
temporary bridge project move forward? Mr. Sumpter said that is a possibility.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a temporary bridge were in place, could the Board then decide it might want a
permanent bridge some where else. Mr. Sumpter said by doing so, the possibility of Federal funding to
construct a permanent bridge is eliminated.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Slutzky asked why that would happen. Mr. Sumpter said it is because the project had not
gone through the environmental review process necessary to determine all the adverse effects to the
historic district.
Mr. Slutzky asked if this project were bifurcated into two separate worlds, could the Board today
have a temporary bridge put into place without having to do any additional NEPA requirements.
Ms. Mallek said that last fall the DHR did their analysis for the temporary bridge.
Mr. Slutzky said it is then a process question. Could the temporary bridge be built and then as a
new project build the permanent bridge? Mr. Sumpter said the only way VDOT could proceed doing it in
the manner described would be if VDOT said it would never seek Federal funding on a permanent bridge.
Mr. Slutzky asked why the Federal funding would not be allowed for the permanent bridge. Mr.
Sumpter said that is because VDOT never went through the process to consider whether its actions would
have an adverse impact to the historic district.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the act of putting up the temporary bridge is an act that triggers some access
to future Federal funds. Mr. Sumpter said if the final decision is that replacing this bridge becomes a
wholesale project that includes removal of the existing structure, it ties it together and there is a need to go
through the environmental process.
Mr. Rooker said if removal of the existing bridge is the problem, it would seem FHW A would
recognize they have already looked at this. He thinks it would be difficult at this time to say take down the
existing bridge and put in a temporary structure, and then five years from now request a permanent
bridge.
Mr. Slutzky asked what would happen if the proposed temporary bridge did not involve being in
the water; suppose a longer span was constructed which did not rest on the existing piers. Suppose the
structure was removed, but the piers were not disturbed and the new structure did not rest on top of those
piers. W hat would have been done that triggered the need for the requirement?
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Slutzky was assuming the existing bridge would be left in place as is.
Mr. Slutzky said the piers would be left in place, but the top structure would be taken down. Mr.
Sumpter said the superstructure becomes a component of the entire aspect of the review.
Ms. Mallek said DHR said they had signed off on that.
Mr. Slutzky said he was confused. Does VDOT have permission to take it down now? Mr.
Sumpter said that is based on input from the FHW A separating the two.
Ms. Mallek said she is bewildered as to how they get away with changing the rules almost at the
end of the process when VDOT and the Board have done everything they have been asked to do.
Mr. Slutzky said he wants to be sure he understands what has occurred. He would like to know if
process-wise permission has been granted to build the temporary bridge. Mr. Sumpter said that was
granted based on input from the FHW A.
Mr. Slutzky asked if they have now said the temporary bridge component itself triggers a NEPA
obligation or are they saying it is a separate undertaking. Mr. Sumpter said if that is the final conclusion of
their re-review of this issue, then they will be connected together.
Mr. Elliott said VDOT has already started the process. FHW A is aware of what is going on with
the project. VDOT could not change directions if it wanted to. As long as VDOT was using State funds it
was able to avoid the NEPA process. Once they made the decision that the two projects could not be
separated NEPA came into effect.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that is the decision or whether it is still being discussed. Mr. Elliott said that is
where they are headed; they do not feel VDOT can actually separate these two projects versus their
original thought that they were different. As long as VDOT used State money on the temporary bridge
when they were separated, then NEPA did not play into effect.
Mr. Slutzky said with this new determination that appears to be imminent, what if the Board said it
is not worth it to wait for a permanent bridge so it would abandon the permanent bridge solution. There
would then be a span to repair; could a temporary bridge be put in that is a permanent bridge that does
not get down into the water. W hat obligation does the County have to continue to link these two together?
Mr. Elliott said they are already aware of what is going on.
Mr. Slutzky said there is a problem now where people cannot get across the water and the County
does not want to wait until they change their mind so it will just give up on the permanent bridge solution
and put in a temporary bridge because it is needed. He asked if Mr. Elliott was saying that cannot be
done. Mr. Elliott said from the State perspective he is not sure VDOT would support taking that approach.
One key factor for VDOT to even consider the temporary bridge was because it was assured it would not
be a permanent solution. They also have to consider value-added costs and other things that might cause
prices to escalate.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has another layer of concern which is a near-term crisis because there
is currently no usable bridge. Does the Board have other options available to it?. W ill VDOT not support
construction of a temporary bridge structure that could be moved to another location and used again
because it might not be funded out of the originally intended funds? There is already money that could be
used to pay for a temporary bridge if the permanent project were abandoned. Mr. Elliott said those funds
are Federal funds; VDOT has no State funds available for a temporary bridge.
Mr. Slutzky asked what would happen if the Board figured out a way to pay for the temporary
bridge. Mr. Elliott said it is between $1.0 and $1.2 million.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board chose to abandon the permanent bridge and move forward with a
temporary bridge structure, are there any impediments to doing that? W ould VDOT object to doing that if
the County could fund it somehow? Mr. Elliott said VDOT will be looking for a permanent solution. He is
not sure VDOT would want to recognize a temporary bridge as a permanent solution.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Slutzky needs to understand that this is a State road. It is their road, and
their bridge.
Mr. Slutzky said he understands that, but the Board has been told anecdotally that bridge
structures are designed to last 50 years. W hat about putting in a structure knowing it is not designed for
80 years, calling it a solution and moving on? Mr. Elliott said there is a lot of maintenance required by
those temporary structures so VDOT would have to continue to expend funds to maintain a temporary
bridge.
Mr. Slutzky said he understands that same argument was talked about before, and the
manufacturer optimistically characterizing their product suggested that the ongoing maintenance costs
were not that much different, it is really the decking. It could be designed in such a way to choose not to
put a layer over it and the decking would suffice for 50 years without much maintenance. Has VDOT
actually looked at that option? Mr. Elliott said VDOT has looked at that but there would need to be
increased inspections. They do not see it as a viable solution. As far as VDOT is concerned, the viable
solution is to put in a permanent structure.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Slutzky raised a lot of issues about temporary bridges when this was
discussed earlier, and he also raised the same issue about the bridge on Broomley Road. At the VDOT
level, based on their analysis of the cost of maintenance, etc., that option appears to be a “no-go.” VDOT
is not prepared to participate in funding a temporary bridge with the idea that it will be there for 50 years or
so. Mr. Sumpter said there is another component of this bridge issue. In previous meetings when Mr.
David Pearce was present, what the Board talked about is totally superstructure. The Board asked VDOT
to look at setting the bridge back on the existing piers, but they could not make that work.
Mr. Slutzky said that was due to the fact that VDOT had to do right-of-way acquisition and it was
comparing that scenario to the permanent bridge made the Board back off. Mr. Sumpter said there are
existing substructure components such as the abutments which are associated with supporting the
temporary structure. That is one of the real concerns about the temporary bridge being a long-term
solution.
Mr. Slutzky said the river could be spanned easily without setting anything on those abutments.
Mr. Sumpter said the issue with that idea is that it changes the entire characteristics of the roadways and
there is need for additional right-of-way.
Ms. Mallek said a landowner told her he had already agreed to donate the right-of-way for the
temporary bridge.
Mr. Slutzky said that is why he is perplexed. Mr. Sumpter said once VDOT goes through the
process of getting the right-of-way and making the design adjustments necessary to do what Mr. Slutzky is
suggesting, the timeframe is extended to the point that VDOT could go through the process of putting in a
permanent bridge.
Mr. Slutzky asked how soon VDOT could get a permanent bridge constructed. Mr. Sumpter said
if VDOT were able to get the design/build concept he just explained advertised next year, it would take 12
to 18 months to get it completed.
Mr. Slutzky said that would be over two years, so if right-of-way were donated quickly, how quickly
could a temporary bridge be put across where it did not rest on the abutments and went a further distance.
Mr. Elliott said to just have the bridge rest on the earth there would still need to be some sort of support or
the bridge would eventually settle into the earth. Some sort of abutments would have to be built beyond
where the current abutments are located. VDOT would have to design those abutments and there would
be environmental and archeological concerns because this is an historic area. To pursue the temporary
bridge with the thought process Mr. Slutzky is using would place the project into next year. VDOT could
start construction of a permanent bridge at the same time.
Mr. Slutzky said he wants to understand what Mr. Elliott just said. If a temporary bridge is done,
but there is disturbance of the ground on either side of the river, NEPA would come into play because of
historic conditions and archeological conditions. There would be a delay problem to comply with NEPA of
some six to 12 months, but for the permanent bridge construction could start in the summer. Mr. Elliott
said it is not NEPA that is the worry, they would still be using State funds and there are State
environmental regulations that must be met.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Slutzky said if the FHA is now saying the two bridges have to be co-mingled as one project
and they have to comply with NEPA, can all of that be done before this summer and then go forward with
the schedule. Mr. Elliott said if VDOT went strictly with replacing the bridge at the current location, they
could save time in the environmental process because they would not have to evaluate multiple locations.
Mr. Slutzky asked if VDOT could be to the design phase by summer. Mr. Elliott said everything
they would have to do for the temporary bridge they would have to do for the permanent bridge. The
difference is that a temporary bridge could be in place a year quicker than a permanent bridge but the
temporary bridge would have to be torn out later and that could disrupt traffic again. The issue is when it
becomes feasible to look at a temporary solution versus a permanent solution.
Mr. Slutzky said that is a persuasive argument. He has a lot of people asking why a bridge cannot
be put up, and he wants to be sure he understands that the Federal Government has changed its mind
and there is no choice.
Ms. Mallek said it is possible that if the right person spoke to the Federal Government they might
change their mind again, so she would like to talk about the RFP. She has been told VDOT chose not to
let the RFP feeling it was not fair to the business people when it was not absolutely certain the job would
be offered. To her, that is a loss of months in the event the Federal Government decides not to let VDOT
go ahead with the project. She would rather have those bids prepared so this could get back on schedule.
It makes a big difference to the people living in that area; they want this project to go forward in some way.
Mr. Slutzky said a disclaimer could be included in the RFP saying that is a possibility.
Ms. Mallek said these business people do bids all the time. Compared to the unfairness to the
citizens and the risks they undergo every day, she does not think that is a balanced approach. She would
be happy to meet with the people who made this decision and try to persuade them because she does not
think this is right.
Mr. Slutzky asked if VDOT would put out an RFP putting bidders on notice that the project might
not happen.
Mr. Rooker asked why there would be a chance it would not happen. Is Mr. Slutzky talking about
the bid on the permanent bridge?
Ms. Mallek said she is talking about the bid VDOT was supposed to let on January 29 on the
temporary bridge. Those plans have not changed except for the veiled threat and telephone call that has
come from W ashington or somewhere which says this cannot be done.
Mr. Slutzky said if they change their mind because somebody picked up the telephone and yelled
at them, maybe somebody else can yell at them and they will go back to where they were before.
Ms. Mallek said she does not want to lose time if that happens, and if it does not happen then she
does not think anything has been hurt. She knows that there are some citizens present today, and they
were told yesterday that they could speak.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that is an option for VDOT. Mr. Elliott said he will pass that request to
VDOT’s Chief Engineer.
Mr. Rooker asked if anybody knows what gave rise to this sudden change of mind. Mr. Elliott said
he does not know.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is anything in the record showing that somebody sent anything to
FHW A. Mr. Elliot said they asked for additional information about the detour and the information VDOT
sent about that detour made them change their mind.
Ms. Thomas said what they are saying is that the road that will have to be used for a detour is not
a safe road now, therefore they won’t let the bridge be built. That is one of the more ridiculous things the
Board has heard. Mr. Elliott said he understands the comments.
Ms. Thomas asked if VDOT has the money for this project. She was just reading a report that
said bridge needs in Virginia are about three and a quarter billion dollars. Mr. Elliott said that is another
consideration for VDOT. W hat will this project cost? He understands the concerns of each individual
community, but when looking at it from a statewide perspective and when it would cost $1.0+ million for a
temporary bridge and $4.0 million for a replacement bridge that is a significant amount of money.
Compare that to the low water bridge on Route 605 where VDOT is unable to go in and take the deck off
and replace the steel beams and put that back in place for $50,000. That money would allow him to
address a lot of small bridge repairs in the Culpeper District.
Mr. Rooker said there is no question that the money for the permanent bridge is available. Mr.
Elliott said that is true. W hen talking about a temporary bridge being in place for three or more years
before VDOT can get the permanent bridge in place it makes economic sense. At what point does the
whole process of temporary versus permanent become economically feasible.
Mr. Slutzky asked why the design/build concept was considered and then rejected initially. Mr.
Elliott said VDOT had also proposed getting around the small bridge on Route 641 and the sharp curve
with this project so both areas could be done at the same time. If the primary purpose is to get traffic back
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
and forth across the river that piece could be taken out and then a true design/build project could be done
and the bridge put in place much quicker and it would provide better service. That would reduce the
environmental issues.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks there are some members of the public present who would like to speak.
Mr. Chip Newland from the Advance Mills Homeowners Association said they appreciate the fact
that Mr. Elliott and Mr. Sumpter have worked with them on this matter. Nothing he will say today is a
reflection on anything they have done. They went through this process in good faith. There were
interested party meetings and community meetings which VDOT sponsored. They got a letter on October
29 from the Federal Highway Administration saying “knock yourself out, go ahead and put a temporary
bridge in.” Mr. Elliott got the $1.2 million, the RFP was to go out on January 29, but on January 28
somebody from the FHA called VDOT and said “we might reconsider this.” VDOT does not have anything
in writing. There is no rationale as to why it might be reconsidered. W hen the Homeowners talked to the
FHA, they referred to the letter and said nothing had been received saying to stop the project, and they
said “oh well.” Mr. Newland asked the nature of the legislation being used for the rationale to change your
mind, or that they show case law and administrative law, and they said they had none of that. It had to do
with the fact that they decided, based upon worries about the detour, that it is inadequate and with an
adequate detour there cannot be a temporary bridge. They did say there is case law; their chief counsel
had looked at two cases. He asked that they send a copy of that case law and they did; the Homeowners
have had it reviewed by a number of lawyers, and there is nothing in it that addresses
adequate/inadequate detours. He saw nothing that they reviewed that would make them reverse their
decision. This whole situation is now in limbo. He and the HOA will be going to Richmond tomorrow to
meet with people from the FHW A. They have talked with Congressman Goode’s office and he is working
on it as well. At this point they do not understand what is going on, but to just give up and move ahead
because somebody called VDOT is not good for the people in the area. There was a school bus accident
last week, and a person almost died last week because the ambulance could not get to them for an hour.
W hen does the public good prevail over any kind of bureaucratic prevarication? He is confused.
Ms. Mary Kastacheck, President of the Advanced Mills Homeowners’ Association, thanked Mr.
Elliott and Mr. Sumpter for all of their help in trying to find a solution to this situation. She said a bridge is
needed for emergency services purposes. She sent a letter to the Board last week about Durrett Ridge
Road and how dangerous it is. She said everybody is responsible for this situation by not looking into the
future when the bridge might have to be closed. She thinks the solution is to support the HOA and Ms.
Mallek when she goes to Richmond tomorrow to talk to Delegates and the FHW A. She asked that the
Board adopt a resolution requesting them to change their mind and separate the temporary bridge and the
permanent bridge so the 500+ citizens she is representing don’t have to wait until 2011.
Ms. Katherine Banks thanked VDOT for their work although there is still no bridge. The closing of
the bridge has affected her church since a lot of their members come from Earlysville. Their membership
has dropped and put a financial strain on the church. She asked the Board to help them through this
hardship so they can get their members back to church.
Mr. Newland said there was a meeting of the Steering Committee of their group of 540 people on
Sunday. They decided to tell the FHA tomorrow that they want a written statement of FHW A’s current
position. If they do not reverse their position, this group has decided it will raise money and formally
appeal their decision. A temporary bridge is needed for the safety of the community. They have no faith
that a permanent bridge can be in place until at least the beginning of 2011. They have worked for a
whole year in good faith with the understanding last October 29 that it would be open in April. Now it is
being pushed out two and one-half years for no reason that they can see. They will ask for a reason in
writing and if it is not compelling, they will appeal the decision.
Mr. Slutzky said he appreciates the fact that the County is clearly collaborating with VDOT in this
instance against the folks in W ashington. He said VDOT has done everything imaginable to try and get a
solution to the problem.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Albemarle County Service Authority/Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority,
Updates by.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, Rivanna W ater & Sewer Authority, said that last Sunday
the Sugar Hollow Reservoir started spilling for the first time since last summer. There was some good
rain on Friday and that helped considerably. He said the Ragged Mountain Reservoir is still 1.8 feet down,
but it will fill. They have kept Ragged Mountain lower for a couple of reasons. They wanted to be sure
water is moving through the old Sugar Hollow pipeline when the temperatures are below freezing so no
break occurs because of freezing water, and they also wanted to be sure that Sugar Hollow spills before
Ragged Mountain so that water is not lost while still trying to fill Sugar Hollow. He said it looks like Beaver
Creek Reservoir will be full very soon. It was at 0.2 feet low this morning. That puts the RW SA in a
position where within 35 to 40 days all reservoirs will be full. That is ahead of projections, so things have
improved since the last time he was at a Board meeting.
Mr. Gary Fern, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, said he had been asked
to give an update on ACSA projects. He said they have met with Edens and Avant, the newest developer
of Albemarle Place, and they are working on water and sewer within the development itself. He said
ACSA has met with them and the City in discussing a sewer that would go from that development to the
new Meadow Creek Interceptor. Currently there are negotiations between Edens and Avant and Pepsi-
Cola Company because that is where the route of that line might go.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Rooker asked if they will have to wait for an upgrade of interceptor facilities before being
allowed to tie into the sewer lines. Based on the schedule they have discussed, Mr. Fern said it would be
December, 2009 before the Meadow Creek Interceptor is in place and they can have their sewer lines in
place and connected.
Mr. Fern said another project is the Meadow Creek Drainage Basin. Currently, ACSA has hired
O’Brien & Gear, Engineers, to begin an infiltration inflow study. It will include evaluating 1,300 manholes
and about 40 miles of sewer within the drainage basin itself. It is a three phase project at a cost of $0.5
million. Phase One is underway and should be completed this spring. The intent of the study is to
determine and prioritize projects which would remove infiltration inflow in the basin in order to leave more
capacity in the Meadow Creek Interceptor.
Mr. Boyd asked if ACSA is able to do that study without increasing rates. Mr. Fern said it is part of
their CIP Program, so it is built into the rates.
Ms. Thomas asked if ACSA knows how much rates will be impacted by the study. She knows
RW SA just put out their CIP with a figure saying how it will affect their wholesale rate. Does ACSA know
what its increase will be independent of that? Mr. Fern said they do not have that figure at this time. They
are currently working on their 2009 CIP.
Mr. Rooker said the ACSA has a CIP for its own projects. Then there is the cost of amortizing
RW SA projects which will result in a rate increase to ACSA from the RW SA. He heard some potential
information about rate increases which will result from what RW SA will be passing to ACSA in the form of
higher rates to amortize its projects. He asked if there is anything definitive on that at this time. Mr. Fern
said there are three components. There is what is coming from RW SA, ACSA’s CIP, and ACSA’s
operating budget. They are in the middle of their budget process at this time.
Ms. Thomas said when Mr. Frederick was speaking to the RW SA Board at its last meeting, she
thought he was fairly brave by chastising his Board and all of the Supervisors because a lot of
infrastructure needs have not been met in the past. They are now playing catch up. She asked if Mr.
Fern can say that with this infill study, etc. the ACSA is keeping on top of the aging infrastructure. Mr.
Fern said ACSA, RW SA, and the City are moving forward to address the problem of aging infrastructure.
W ill they still have aging infrastructure in five years, maybe, but with what they are doing currently he
thinks they are moving in the right direction. The ACSA’s CIP was increased considerably last year just to
begin to address some of those issues.
Ms. Thomas said “just beginning to address” does not make her confident. At the end of five
years, will all of the infrastructure be in good condition given the fact that some things will still be 15 years
old? Mr. Fern said they are addressing the wastewater treatment plant, they are addressing the major
interceptors and the collection systems, so from the sewer side of things, they are addressing what is
needed. They will have to look at how much that will cost and whether it can be done in five years. They
are still waiting to hear the total effect of the interceptor study, so he cannot answer the question in its
entirety.
Mr. Frederick said to be honest in answering the question, they are learning a lot through the
comprehensive sewer study which should be finished within a year. He does not expect to say in five
years that everything has been done. He thinks it will be a ten to 15 year endeavor. They are trying to set
priorities in order to get the most important things done first. The Meadow Creek Interceptor is the No. 1
priority in the RW SA system. It is out of capacity and in failing condition largely because Meadow Creek
itself has moved since the pipeline was built. The stream is undermining the foundation of the pipeline in
some locations. After that, they have identified some places on the Rivanna Interceptor that need
attention. The Schenks Branch Interceptor that serves only the City and its downtown area and the
Albemarle/Berkeley Interceptor will get attention as will the Crozet Interceptor and the Powell Creek
Interceptor, but they cannot all be done at one time. There is a multi-year plan to address these issues.
Mr. Rooker said the increase in wholesale rates was mentioned earlier. He asked what that
increase will be. Mr. Frederick said the figure they released last week was about a six-percent per year
increase in wholesale rates for debt service on the CIP. They have not yet finished their operating budget
for next year, but he expects that for sewer in the operating budget the wholesale rate will be higher than
the six percent because they must take into account the increase in cost of utilities, labor, fuel, etc. He
said there are things on the operating side to do with the Moores Creek Treatment Plant that have not
been addressed in the past. W ithin the next couple of weeks they will have a figure to release on what
that number should be.
Mr. Mallek asked if the expected ratepayer effects are smaller than anticipated, would RW SA
consider doing the South Fork Rivanna to Ragged Mountain pipeline simultaneously with the dam raising
in order to get the project underway sooner. Mr. Frederick said the RW SA has actually run that number,
but he does not have it today. They have tough decisions to make right now and need to provide
alternatives so the right decisions can be made.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there might be delays in order to save near-term costs. Mr. Frederick said
they are looking at it from multiple perspectives. He said that just before he came to work at RW SA, its
engineering staff consisted of only two people. They are now as many as nine people, and it is possible
there is a need for more staff. Keeping the public involved, updated, and holding public meetings takes
time and effort on the part of staff. He needs to be careful that they don’t take on too many projects at one
time.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Ms. Mallek said a lot of years were spent working on a different reservoir which ended up being
cancelled because of changes in W etlands Regulations. She would hate to see that happen because the
pipeline was not pursued as quickly as possible under today’s rules. Mr. Frederick said that is an
excellent point. The two big issues in the water protection permit for the Ragged Mountain Reservoir
where Federal and State environmental rules apply are the dam and reservoir itself, and to a lesser
extent, the South Fork Rivanna pipeline. The permits will be issued for a 15-year period. If the decision is
to phase construction of the pipeline, RW SA believes it should be built within the 15-year permit
timeframe.
Ms. Mallek asked if as the water flow hits at the various impoundments will there be any changes
in the spring months for putting water into the Moormans River. Mr. Frederick said the draft permit which
they hope will become final soon, contained conditions about stream flow releases. The conditions in it
are conditions RW SA developed in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy based on three and one-
half years of scientific research. It is an innovative model as to how to balance human needs and stream
flow needs.
Ms. Mallek said the release now is 0.4 million gallons and the river is dry. Mr. Frederick said there
are three phases to the permit. The permit allows a minimum of 0.4 million gallons per day or natural
inflow from the date the permit is issued until the new Ragged Mountain Reservoir is at 30 percent full.
Then the trigger goes up and a higher level of stream flow releases tied to the natural inflow must be
provided. Once the pipeline is built, it goes up again. W hen the Reservoir is complete, 80 percent of the
total benefits of the 50-year project to the Moormans River will kick in and then when the pipeline is built
approximately 20 percent additional which carries it up to natural inflow 99+ percent of the time except in
severe drought.
Ms. Mallek asked if during the spring when water is overflowing all of the impoundments the inflow
stream is increased temporarily to the benefit of the ecology. Mr. Frederick said they do a couple of things
above and beyond the RW SA Board’s policy or DEQ requirements. He said RW SA is sensitive to
avoiding transferring water from Sugar Hollow to Ragged Mountain to have it spill over Ragged Mountain
when it could be instead in the Moormans River. Also, they are in the process of designing an additional
tap on the pipeline just below the Sugar Hollow Reservoir that will allow them to increase downstream
flows when it is determined it is not a risk to the water supply. The tap is being designed now. Today that
tap cannot be increased above 400,000 gpd, but in the near future that will be allowed. They have
promised the RW SA Board that the water supply will not be put at risk to the public.
Ms. Mallek asked about the original 1920s Sugar Hollow concrete dam. W ill it be removed to get
rid of the hot water that collects at the foot of the dam now? Mr. Frederick said there is a stilling basin at
the base of the Sugar Hollow Dam (a mandate of Dam Safety Requirements); there is a well at the base
of the dam so that when the flow comes over the spillway, the velocity is dissipated before it moves so it
does not erode the stream itself. They checked into this question and found that they cannot remove that
legally without permission from Virginia Dam Safety and it will not grant that permission.
Ms. Mallek said it really affects the temperature of the water. Mr. Frederick said that last week
they discussed the design of the new tap. They discussed the possibility of turning that so it goes into that
spilling area and that would help to moderate the temperature. They will be checking into that further.
Mr. Tucker said he had just gotten a memo from Mr. Frederick in which it is stated: “The impact
on the urban water rate (if that pipeline is added) would be seven percent per year for the City and 11.7
percent for the ACSA for each of the next five years instead of 1.3 percent for the City and 2.5 percent for
the ACSA.”
Ms. Thomas asked how that compares to the six percent just mentioned.
Mr. Rooker said he heard earlier that the 1.3 percent and the 2.5 percent numbers included
amortization of the water supply plan with a dam. Mr. Frederick said the six percent is the urban
wastewater side. The figure Mr. Tucker gave is for water only.
Mr. Boyd asked if anybody had another question.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates these conversations. She asked if during the next report from
Mr. Frederick, the odor control evaluations could be part of the presentation. It turns out that the septage
taken to the Moores Creek STP is a major part of what is causing the odor. It affects the process along
the way. There are to be a number of changes in the treatment itself and then that raises the price. She
said there are people who live in the rural area who might have their septic tanks pumped more often than
they do, so she would be interested in what the impact will be on the receiving of septage. Mr. Tucker
said Mr. Frederick made that request to him last year. There is no way RSW A can recover that in the
water rates in the urban area. It is more of a County responsibility because it is the rural area that causes
it. He has asked staff to add it into the CIP in 2009 or 2010. It will not be fully funded; the County will
probably have to fund debt service for that expense.
Mr. Rooker asked about the ACSA charging a fee that would amortize the cost. Mr. Tucker said
they do. Haulers also pay a fee which is increased almost every year. He thinks Ms. Thomas is worried
that if the cost becomes too excessive, people will not have their septic systems pumped out very often.
Mr. Frederick said that everything RW SA is planning to do is based on the plant continuing to accept
septage. It is no surprise that one came to the top of the list of things which are creating odors. It carries
throughout the plant when there is septage discharge. That is why changes need to be made to the extent
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
the County is willing to fund RW SA’s debt service on that portion of their cost so they do not pass along an
increase in the fee to the haulers. This is one of the few areas where the RW SA charges a retail rate.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has talked about a stormwater utility. He asked if there is any reason
why this should not be included within that as a cost of the utility.
Mr. Boyd asked if that could be done.
Mr. Rooker said there was a complaint that rural people were not benefiting at all from the utility.
Mr. Davis said what can be charged under the utility is limited by statute. He does not believe it is an
identified cost that could be charged for a stormwater utility. It could be for a service district.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it is an option to require that people properly maintain their rural septic
systems and if they fail to do so, impose a fine. Mr. Davis said the Board has the authority to require
people to pump out their septic tanks on a five-year basis but that has not been implemented in
Albemarle. Legally, people could be required to do it, but tracking that would be the challenge.
Mr. Boyd thanked Mr. Fern and Mr. Frederick for their reports today.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 2008.)
Mr. Ron W hite, Housing Director, was present. He said that each year the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development (DHCD) puts out their competitive application for community
development block grants. In Albemarle, applications are normally submitted for projects which are
undertaken by some nonprofit organizations. They require localities that submit applications to hold two
public hearings; the first public hearing is to provide information on eligible activities that may be funded by
CDBG, the amount of funding estimated to be available, past activities undertaken with CDBG funds and
to receive public comment on this information. The follow-up public hearing is held in order to consider
proposed project applications and this must take place prior to the application due date of March 26, 2008.
Mr. W hite said DHCD has estimated that about $10.0 million will be available for competitive
activities this year. Activities should benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevent slums and blight,
or address urgent community needs. Eligible activities include economic development, housing
rehabilitation, housing production, community facilities and community service facilities. He said
Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CDBG awards over the years, the most
recent being a grant to construct a community center at W hitewood Village Apartments, now known as
Parks Edge Apartments. The center was completed in September, 2004 and is the site for after-school
programs conducted by the YMCA, financial literacy classes, GED classes and employment
counseling/assistance. Prior to this project, CDBG funds were awarded for a comprehensive community
improvement initiative for the Porters Road/Yancey School neighborhood. This $770,000 CDBG award
leveraged over $2.0 million in other public and private funds to rehabilitate 28 houses, demolish 13
dilapidated houses, construct five new houses, and create a community park and community center.
Mr. W hite said they have set up a process for applications this year. The Office is asking
applicants to submit a notice of intent to the Office of Housing no later than February 12, 2008. This will
allow time to discuss potential applications with the Housing Committee at its meeting on February 14 and
then have a completed application delivered electronically so it can be submitted with an Executive
Summary for the Board’s meeting. Finally on March 15, 2008, the completed applications in hard copy
should be in the Office so they will be available for a public hearing on March 19.
Mr. W hite said interest has been shown by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program to
request up to $700,000 for the design and construction of on-site infrastructure for its proposed Treesdale
Park project on Rio Road. On the agenda this morning was a request that this project be approved for a
low-income housing tax credit. This project will provide 90 units of affordable rental housing. There has
been some interest in Crozet Meadows which would be the rehabilitation of 28 existing rental units for
seniors along with construction of 38 new units although nothing definitive has been received from them
yet on the amount or the type of activity they plan to undertake.
Mr. W hite asked that the Board hold a public hearing to receive input from the public on potential
community development and housing needs, and also to set a second public hearing to review any
proposed applications on March 19, 2008.
At this time, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked that interested parties speak. W ith no
one coming forward to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to set a public hearing for W ednesday, March 19, 2008, for the second
required public hearing to review any proposed application. 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, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: Elections – Rivanna Magisterial District – Ordinance to
change the polling place for the Keswick Precinct. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28, 2008.)
Mr. Tucker said the Board adopted an emergency ordinance on January 9, 2008, changing the
polling place for the Keswick Precinct in the Rivanna Magisterial District from the Union Grove Baptist
Church to the Zion Hill Baptist Church. Union Grove Baptist Church is no longer available as a polling
place because it is undergoing structural repairs. The emergency ordinance was necessary to establish
the polling place needed for the February primaries and to meet all mandated voting procedures.
Because an emergency ordinance is valid for only 60 days, an ordinance must be adopted after notice to
the public to make the polling place change permanent. W hen the Board adopted the emergency
ordinance, it set February 6, 2008, as the date for the public hearing to consider adoption of that
ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said the State Board of Elections has approved the emergency polling place change
and staff submitted the polling place change to the United States Department of Justice for review to
assure compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (expedited review was requested). The
Registrar’s Office has begun planning for the new polling place and providing timely notice of the polling
place change to the registered voters in the Keswick Precinct. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the
advertised ordinance after holding a public hearing.
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 then offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following ordinance.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, ELECTIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
2, Administration, Article I, Elections, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-103 Rivanna Magisterial District
Chapter 2. Administration
Article I. Elections
Sec. 2-103 Rivanna Magisterial District.
The Rivanna Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts and
polling places, as follows:
A. Description of district: Beginning at the intersection of Interstate 64 and the
Albemarle/Fluvanna County line; then northeast along the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line to its
intersection with the Albemarle/Louisa County line; then northeast along the Albemarle/Louisa
County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Orange County line; then west along the
Albemarle/Orange County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County line; then west
along the Albemarle/Greene County line to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29);
then southwest on Seminole Trail to its intersection with Dickerson Lane (State Route 763); then
west on Dickerson Lane to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south on
Dickerson Road to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then southeast along the
North Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south along
Seminole Trail to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering southeast
along the South Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with the North Fork Rivanna River and
Rivanna River; then meandering southeast along the Rivanna River to its intersection with
Interstate 64; then following Interstate 64 east to its intersection with the Albemarle/Fluvanna
County line, the point of origin.
B. Voting precincts: The district shall be divided into five (5) voting precincts, as
described herein:
1. Burnley Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Seminole Trail (U.S.
Route 29) and the Albemarle/Greene County line; then southeast along the Albemarle/Greene
County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Orange County line; then southeast along the
Albemarle/Orange County line to its intersection with the Southern Railway right-of-way; then
southwest along the Southern Railway right-of-way to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna
River; then meandering northwest along the North Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then northeast on Dickerson Road to its intersection with
Dickerson Lane (State Route 763); then east on Dickerson Lane to Seminole Trail (U.S. Route
29); then north on Seminole Trail to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County line, the
point of origin.
2. Free Bridge Precinct: Beginning at the confluence of the Rivanna River
and Redbud Creek; then east with Redbud Creek to its origin near the ridge of W olfpit Mountain of
the Southwest Mountain range; then southwest with the ridge line of the Southwest Mountain
range to its intersection with the origin of Barn Branch; then southeast with Barn Branch to its
intersection with Interstate 64; then west on Interstate 64 to its intersection with the Rivanna River;
then meandering northwest with the Rivanna River to its confluence with Redbud Creek, the point
of origin.
3. Hollymead Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of the Southern
Railroad right-of-way and the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with the
South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then north on
Seminole Trail to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering southeast
along the North Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-way;
then southwest with the Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork
Rivanna River, the point of origin.
4. Keswick Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of the
Albemarle/Orange/Louisa County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/Louisa County line to its
intersection with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/
Fluvanna County line to its intersection with Interstate 64; then west on Interstate 64 to its
intersection with Barn Branch; then northwest with Barn Branch to its origin near the ridge of the
Southwest Mountain range; then northeast with the ridge line of the Southwest Mountain Range to
its intersection with the Albemarle/Orange County line; then east with the Albemarle/Orange
County line to its intersection with the Albemarle/Orange/ Louisa County line, the point of origin.
5. Stony Point Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of the South Fork
Rivanna River and the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then meandering southeast to its
confluence with the North Fork Rivanna River and Rivanna River; then meandering south along
the Rivanna River to its confluence with Redbud Creek; then east with Redbud Creek to its origin
near the ridge of W olfpit Mountain of the Southwest Mountain range; then northeast with the
ridgeline of the Southwest Mountain range to its intersection with the Albemarle/Orange County
line; then west with the Albemarle/Orange County line to its intersection with the Southern
Railroad right-of-way; then southwest with the Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection
with the South Fork Rivanna River, the point of origin.
C. Polling places: Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the location
identified below:
1. Burnley Precinct: Northridge Community Church of the Nazarene, 5100
Dickerson Road.
2. Free Bridge Precinct: Elk’s Lodge Hall, 389 Elk Drive.
3. Hollymead Precinct: Hollymead Elementary School, 2775 Powell Creek
Drive.
4. Keswick Precinct: Zion Hill Baptist Church, 802 Zion Hill Road.
5. Stony Point Precinct: Stony Point Elementary School, 3893 Stony Point
Road.
(8-19-71, § 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, § 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1), 1-11-95; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 2-100(3), § 2-103;
Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01; Ord. 02-2(4), 7-3-02; Ord. 08-2(1), 2-6-08)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: SP-2007-045, Flow Automotive Sales and Display (Sign
#17).
Proposed: Expansion of the Flow Volkswagen-Audi-Mazda outdoor automobile sales and display
parking areas in the Entrance Corridor.
Zoning Category/General Usage: HC - Highway Commercial - commercial and service uses and
residential use by Special Use Permit (15 units/acre); EC - Entrance Corridor Overlay District -
overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access.
Section: 30.6.3.2 (b) which allows for outdoor storage, display and/or sales visible from an EC
street in the EC Entrance Corridor zoning overlay district.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale,
business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: 1307-09 and 1313 Richmond Road, south side of Route 250 East, approximately 1060'
east of Riverbend Drive.
Tax Map/Parcel: 78/15E and 78/15D.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Magisterial District: Rivanna.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on January 21 and January 28,
2008.)
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 for outdoor storage and display on Route 250
East at the Flow Auto location. The essence of the request is for approval of the display areas shown (on
a PowerPoint presentation). The proposal includes the addition of 71 vehicle display spaces on Parcel
15E with associated landscaping, lighting and related site improvements. The proposal has been to the
Architectural Review Board and is being addressed through extensive landscaping. Following the ARB’s
review, staff found several factors favorable to the request including the by-right use in the area, and the
ARB’s recommended conditions. Also, no detrimental impacts are expected if the recommendations of
the ARB are followed. No detrimental factors were identified by staff. There are a number of automobile
dealerships in this area with outdoor display.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 15, 2008, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-2007-0045, subject to five conditions primarily reflecting the
recommendations of the ARB.
Ms. Mallek asked if the entrances to the property will remain the same. Mr. Cilimberg suggested
the applicant address that question.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
speak.
Mr. Scott Collins, Collins Engineering, said he is the engineer on this project. He thanked staff for
their help with the project. He offered to answer questions, saying the staff report is thorough, and they
agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. As to the entrances, there are three at this time,
but they will be closing one and combining it with the entrance in the middle of the property. There is a full
turn lane across the entire property in the event Route 250 is widened in the future. That lane is built now
in front of the Flow Auto properties.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the existing lights in the lot are full cutoff lights. Mr. Collins said they are all
being replaced and will all be full cutoff.
Mr. Cheff Yarborough, president of the Flow Motor Group, said he would like to thank everybody
for what they have done, and ask that the Board look at their plan favorably. They have spent hours and
money on this plan in the hope of improving how people get in and out of the lot. They want to do
business in Albemarle County and Charlottesville, and he thanked the Board for their consideration.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he would move that the Board approve SP-2007-0045 subject to the five conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on site;
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the plan entitled
“Flow Automotives”, identified as Sheet 3, prepared by Collins Engineering, with revision
date of 12/18/07. Display parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces, as
identified on this plan. No parking shall occur in travelways;
3. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the lighting plan (submitted with the
site plan). Maximum light levels on site shall not exceed thirty (30) footcandles;
4. Final site plan approval is subject to ARB approval of the landscape plan (submitted with
the site plan). Landscaping shown on the plan will be required to be in excess of the
minimum requirements of ARB guidelines and/or the Zoning Ordinance to compensate for
the negative visual impact of the proposed use, including but not limited to the use of
larger caliper trees, additional evergreen shrubs and continuous interior planting islands;
and
5. Final site plan approval is subject to the recordation of easements for ingress/egress and
for the installation, maintenance and use of planter islands and landscaping on adjacent
parcels (Tax Map 78, Parcels 15, 15D and 15E).
(Note: At 3:50 p.m., the Board recessed. The meeting was called back to order at 4:02 p.m. with
Mr. Rooker returning at 4:04 p.m. and Mr. Tucker returning at 4:05 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Community Development W ork Program, W ork Session.
Mr. Mark Graham said the purpose of this work session is to seek the Board’s agreement on
revisions to the work program of the Community Development Department for the remainder of FY 2007-
08 and to establish priorities for the Department’s FY 2008-09 work program. Since the current work
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
program was approved last June, it has become apparent a change is required due to changes in
available staff resources and Board member requests to consider revised priorities. Also, a decision is
needed on whether the fee increases which have been discussed would be an appropriate means of
funding some frozen positions in order to expand the work program.
Mr. Graham said some people have questioned why the work load is not down since requests for
building permits is down. He said Community Development issues permits and then has the enforcement
of those permits. There are zoning enforcement issues. Ministerial items are site plans and subdivisions.
Legislative are things such as rezonings and special use permits. There are also the ARB, GDS,
Comprehensive Plan, and the work program. Typically the resources available to dedicate to the work
program are those left after all of the other things have been addressed.
Mr. Graham said he would first discuss the permits, administrative and legislative items. These
are the items that typically change when the economy slows down. He showed a graph on the screen and
referred to the building permit workload (Building Inspections Division) which shows that the work load at
this time is at about 75 percent of the expected baseline figure. Similarly with the Zoning Division (an
activity related to new development), there is also a drop-off in the workload. As to the legislative
workload, there is no clear trend, but for the last year the average number of special use permit
applications has been fairly flat, as have applications for zoning map amendments. However, both still
tend to be a little higher than the baseline figure.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Graham was indicating that there had been no change in staffing since
2004. Mr. Graham said as far as the number of reviewers in these functions, there has been no change in
legislative reviews since then. In 2005, 2006 and early 2007 there were peak years which stressed staff.
The year 2004 was used as a baseline primarily due to the activity in that year compared to a 10-year
historical trend, it appears to be as close to an average year as could be found.
Mr. Graham said on the ministerial side (subdivisions and site plans) it was hard to pick out a
trend. Overall, the trend as far as subdivisions is dropping. In the way of site plans, there has been an
upward trend over the last part of the year. Last month there were 20 applications where in a normal
month the number is 10. If these two items are combined, it shows that the workload is staying fairly high.
Mr. Boyd asked if these numbers have been broken down into commercial site plans and
residential site plans. Mr. Graham said they are all shown together. Anecdotally, residential site plans
were seen the first part of the year but not in the second half. He said the bottom is falling out of the
condo market, so no one is trying to develop condos anymore. Overall, what is being seen is a jump in
commercial activity. W hen all of these are put together and you look at the current workload, there is
about a 25 percent drop in permits while the rest of it is staying about the same.
Mr. Graham said the Department has 84 budgeted positions – only 10 to 12 percent of their time
is available to work on the W ork Program. They are now at 77 positions, so their ability to work on the
W ork Program is shrinking. For this current year’s work, their priorities are: Completion of a draft
Places29 Master Plan, continuation of work on a Village of Rivanna Master Plan, completion of the
Country Stores strategy from the Rural Areas Plan, to begin work on the subdivision and lot frontage
requirements from the resolution of intent adopted this morning, and updating the Utilities section of the
Comprehensive Plan to accommodate RW SA’s W ater Supply Plan. Next would be an update of the
Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan. Beyond this, staff plans to complete work
this year on the Crozet Downtown District and part of the Neighborhood Model zoning changes.
Mr. Boyd asked if the amount of time staff allots to this activity is accounted for in infrastructure
costs. Mr. Graham said that is being looked at, but staff has never kept time sheets. They are looking at
some sort of time tracking system in order to better understand the use of staff time. Mr. Boyd said he
thinks that would help the Board in its decision-making process.
Mr. Dorrier said developers have said it sometimes takes years to get a plan through the Planning
Office, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. At one time, staff was going to work on
streamlining the system. He asked if there had been any progress on that process. Mr. Graham said the
Development Review Task Force recommendations are included on the work list. A number of things
have happened since those recommendations were received. One of those had to do with the Proffer
Policy which the Board adopted last October. There has been work with the Planning Commission on
administrative waivers, and last night resolutions of intent for that were passed. Staff is trying to schedule
a work session after the budget cycle is completed with the ARB, the Planning Commission and the Board
to look at issues related to streamlining applications.
Mr. Boyd said he hopes staff will include in that work session a discussion of the responsibilities of
the various groups. Mr. Graham said that will be part of the meeting. There have been a number of
private road appeals recently, so the question is whether the Board might consider itself somewhat of an
appeals court. W hen the Board remands an appeal back to the Planning Commission it might give the
Commission some guidance as to what it is looking for so the number of those appeals could be reduced.
W hat he has described is probably the limit of what staff can accomplish during the remainder of this
fiscal year.
Mr. Boyd said the Pantops Master Plan has not been finished but it does not appear on the list.
Mr. Graham said trying to find a time when the Board can begin its work has been the issue. It is now
scheduled for a meeting in March.
Mr. Rooker asked if it should still be listed under “master plans.” Mr. Graham said that is correct.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Rooker asked if there were things in the recommendations of the Development Review Task
Force that would save staff time if implemented. Mr. Graham said administrative waivers were intended to
reduce staff time. One other thing which is being worked on internally is a strategy for more detailed
guidance for site plans and subdivisions. Hopefully, applicants will use it to make a better first submission.
Ms. Mallek said during those Task Force meetings there was a lot of talk about improved
checklists and making sure to delineate thoroughly all the categories of information that applicants need
before coming to the County.
Mr. Boyd said one of those had to do with Engineering review and the Board was disappointed
with the results. Mr. Graham said there will be another update on that in March and he thinks the Board
will be even more disappointed. The Alternative Engineering Review provided a very detailed checklist on
what was required with submissions for certain site plans and road plans. The idea was if the engineer
went through that checklist, made sure everything on that list had been verified, and certified that it had
been done, the County could go ahead and sign off on the plan. They found that few engineers are using
that checklist and over the last couple of months several plans have been submitted where they certified
that everything was done according to the checklist, but when staff verified it, it clearly had not been
looked at.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks they should pay again and start over. The sooner the County stops
people who have not complied and sends them back to square one, the sooner they will get trained.
Several people have said they used the expedited review and thought it was great. It was a lot of work the
first time, but they thought it would be more to their benefit and that of the County later. Some of that
reduced number may be due to the fact that not much development is going on now.
Mr. Graham said staff is going to talk to the Board about fees in the near future. The current fee
structure does not recognize that if someone takes three or more submissions to get their plan right, it
costs them no more than someone who gets it right the first time.
Mr. Boyd said for the benefit of the people who were not a part of that Task Force, they discussed
at length people pushing through engineering work and leaving it to the County to catch all the mistakes.
It was noted that the County is doing a lot of work for these people.
Mr. Graham said for the next fiscal year he would like to get a sense of priorities. He showed a
slide listing staff’s recommended priority list. They looked at the Board’s Strategic Plan to help make the
list. First is to complete master plans, i.e. Places29, Village of Rivanna, Pantops, start the Southern
Urban Area Plan and then implementation of adopted master plans. In prior years, they had indicated that
an additional planner would be needed for implementation of the Places29 Master Plan, but they are not
continuing with that request because they recognize the situation with the budget. The Department will be
struggling trying to balance resources. It will have to be decided whether to dedicate resources to
implementation of the approved master plans or to go ahead and work on the next master plan.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think there are a lot of citizens pushing to have the Southern Urban
Area master plan completed.
Ms. Thomas said the Board receives a lot of criticism for waiting until after development has taken
place in an area before starting on a master plan. In theory it is always better to have the master plan in
place before intensive development occurs.
Mr. Boyd asked if when the final master plan is delivered to the Board, it will have a realistic
implementation timetable. Mr. Graham said Crozet was not good as to the timeframe; there is a timetable
included with the implementation table. The Pantops Master Plan has a fairly detailed implementation for
the short-term.
Mr. Graham said the next priority is additional Rural Area Strategies. Staff is not sure where the
Board wants to go with this. To be considered are Crossroads communities, land uses, etc.
Mr. Rooker said the Board does not have the list of Rural Area Strategies before it today, but part
of this is the Land Use Taxation Program which he thinks the Board should consider sooner rather than
later. If the Board is contemplating changes in the Land Use program, it should go ahead and discuss it
soon. The Board said it was going to appoint a committee to make recommendations as to how the Land
Use program might be changed. He said there is a huge amount of revenue lost to the community in the
form of land use. It may be a good investment, but there may be some things that would stem the tide of
some of that revenue loss. He said the County does not receive in taxation from property in land use an
amount that is equivalent to what the County has to pay the City for that land in the form of Revenue-
Sharing. The ten cents the County pays the City is more than the County collects on land under the Land
Use Taxation Program. He said the last time the Board looked at this there was about $17.0 million of tax
either deferred or lost depending on whether or not some of it is recaptured. He does not think the
amount recaptured is a significant amount. It is a huge revenue item and there may be some changes
that could be made that would be fair and also reduce somewhat the loss.
Mr. Slutzky said in addition to the revenue part of that discussion, there is the purpose aspect of it.
If the reason for the land use tax break is to discourage use of rural properties, there may be a more
effective way to obtain that outcome with a revision to the program.
Ms. Thomas said the purpose is to encourage farming. One of the things that came out of the
Rural Area Plan was not just to look at Land Use Taxation, but to look at ways of encouraging farming.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
That is why the agricultural position, which has now been frozen, existed. Maybe a committee could take
the place of a staff person in figuring out what could best be done. About 15 years ago there was a
committee which looked at what is needed to make agriculture and forestry more viable in the community.
She knows a list of things was put together after the Board adopted the Rural Areas part of the
Comprehensive Plan. Maybe the Board should hold a work session and give staff some guidance as to
what it would like to have done. She is not willing to drop that list of things which were adopted in
principle.
Mr. Tucker said the issue of revalidation for properties in the Land Use Program will be an agenda
item for the Board soon so it can be implemented with the new land use year.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there is land in the program which no longer qualifies just because
there has not been a revalidation process. He does not know if a committee should be appointed to study
this program, or if there are changes recommended under the current statute.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board could look at conservation easements and try to come up with more
incentives to encourage them.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks revalidation would be an important step to take. Just sending out a
form for people to fill out will sort out where places are not functioning according to what is expected. She
said her property has not been updated since 1982. She hopes the Farm Bureau and other groups will
help the County if a landowner loses a tenant. One of the biggest problems has been with widows who did
not know how to find tenants to come in and keep the land farmed. She does not want a situation where
these people might be removed from the program without the County giving them all the assistance it can
so their land can stay in the program productively. There is a benefit to having the open land farmed, and
one way to look at the reduced fee is the lack of services required for that land. She thinks revalidation is
a good way to start because it will help to raise the confidence of citizens that the investment they are
making is valid.
Ms. Thomas said there was a letter sent out about five years ago, and it received a lot of good
comments because people did not realize what they should be doing.
Mr. Slutzky said land should not just be in forestry, but they should have a forestry management
plan. He thinks the Board members are interested in taking the term “Rural Area Strategies” and giving it
new life. Since the purpose of today’s session is not to flesh this out, maybe staff should bring
recommendations for discussion at another meeting.
Mr. Boyd said staff should bring back the list mentioned by Ms. Thomas and start from there.
Mr. Rooker agreed. He brought up the Land Use Taxation Program because the Board has
discussed it many times, and it is a huge revenue area. It is a sum of money which is greater than the
County pays the City each year.
Mr. Boyd said he would also rank it with areas that may not be classified as rural such as
stormwater management, utilities, districts, fees, which all fall under the same department. Are they more
important than looking at land use? He thinks all of the issues need to be discussed and prioritized for
staff.
Mr. Rooker said there are several ways to approach the Land Use Taxation program. He said the
Comprehensive Plan contemplates appointment of a committee. He does not know if that should be
done. The Board might have a work session so it understands available options. If there are only three or
so options for changing the plan, there is no need to appoint a committee to spend a year to say this.
Mr. Slutzky suggested the Board hold a “public moment” and ask for feedback rather than spend
time with a committee.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest holding a one-hour work session on land use so the Board
might know the cost and the options available under the statute. Before amending the Land Use Tax
Ordinance, the Board would take substantial input from the public. He would like the Board to hold a work
session so someone can explain the various parameters.
Mr. Graham said he would like to propose that staff send to the Board members a list of the
Strategies in the Rural Area Plan. The individual members might respond to staff on items of interest and
the work session could then be set on that initial direction.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks it should not be limited to just the rural areas. If staff has urban area
issues it is working on, it should be on the list.
Mr. Rooker said this conversation came up with respect to the Rural Area Strategies.
Ms. Thomas said when she looked at the revised W ork Plan (Attachment B to the staff report) she
was alarmed at the things which are being postponed. Some are in the Development Area; there are
critical slopes regulations, the ARB Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, Historic Preservation, Natural
Heritage, green buildings, the contractor’s storage zoning text amendment, and lighting regulations. To
her, this is an alarming document. Since revenues are short, everything she thought was to be done is
being stopped, including Strategic Planning sessions.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the public wants the Board to provide all sorts of services and also cut
their taxes. The Board is saying to Community Development that all of these things are important, but
then the Board does not support them with the necessary funding.
Ms. Thomas said this is a good reality check. W ith present resources, things are just not being
done.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Ms. Thomas in some ways. The Board wants to do things which
have been implemented under the current Strategies and Goals. There was a good presentation earlier
today on carbon emissions and the environmental programs being done in the County. That is a new
thing. The master plans are new things; they are not in existence. He agrees that there are a lot of things
not being done which the Board would like to have done if there were more resources. He said there are
a number of things which are initiative-related which are being done.
Mr. Graham said the last category to be discussed is “Other Initiatives.” One thing which the
Board discussed earlier today related to fees; if the bill currently in the Legislature is passed, by July, 2009
there will have to be a program in place because proffers end at that date. That is something where
somebody else might direct the County’s priorities.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees. He asked the time-consuming aspect of the zoning text amendment
related to “contractor’s storage yard.” Mr. Graham said the issue is recognizing that the change in the
ordinance may take a lot of existing business operations and tell them that any change in their use will
require a special use permit. Staff will sit down with Ms. Thomas and explain the issues to see if it can get
some guidance as to the interest in this thing.
Mr. Rooker said if after looking at it Ms. Thomas decides she does not want to pursue it, it could
be removed from the list. If not, it does not seem to be something that should take a lot of time to do.
Mr. Graham said the last thing he wanted to discuss is the idea that there will be a work session
on fees in April. Those fee changes could free up positions that are currently funded or have a large part
of their funding through tax support, and have it based on fees. The planner positions might be able to be
shifted up faster and be thawed to allow more resources for that work program.
Mr. Graham said the recommendations in the Executive Summary are to revise the current W ork
Program as proposed and to establish priorities for the FY ‘08-09 W ork Program as proposed. The Board
has said it would like to have more input on Rural Area Strategies and staff will do that. Finally, advise
staff whether or not revised fees should be considered as an acceptable way to accelerate the funding of
the frozen positions. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd said he hopes Mr. Graham has clear directions from the conversation this afternoon.
Mr. Graham said he has enough to work with.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas suggested the Board members attend a meeting of the League of W omen Voters on
February 26 at noon. She said Mr. Frederick will be discussing upgrade of the sewage treatment plant
and Ms. Lauren Hildebrand will talk about inflow and infiltration to the system. It is what happens when
sewer pipes are not leaking outward, but leak inward. That means the system gets more stormwater
which has to go to the sewage treatment plant and be treated like sewage and that increases problems
with the plant.
__________
Mr. Tucker said staff has additional information regarding the land acquisition matter discussed
during the closed session today. If the Board would like to consider that information during the supper
break, the Board will need to hold another closed session.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he had one thing to mention before adjourning into closed session. He thinks
everybody got a note from Mr. Tucker about the Budget Review Task Force that he is putting together.
He thinks it is a good idea.
Mr. Rooker said he did not understand what it is for. He asked if this is the task force the Board
talked about to put objective criteria in place for establishing a tax rate. Mr. Tucker said it will first look at
the entire budget process. They will not look at a line item budget. Because staff was late getting into it,
he does not know if it would help to get it together in the next month. The idea might work better for next
fiscal year.
Mr. Rooker asked if there are two different things being talked about. There was clearly a
consensus of Board members for establishment of a committee for the purpose of considering an
objective criteria approach to setting tax rates. Mr. Tucker said that can be done.
Mr. Rooker said if that is the case, he hopes there will be a School Board member on the
committee. There may be some other categories that should be represented on the committee as well as
some community people.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Boyd pointed out that this is the County Executive’s committee, not a Board-appointed
committee.
Mr. Rooker said he is fine with the committee being appointed that way; he just wanted to
understand the expectation of that committee’s work.
_______________
Not Docketed: Closed Meeting. At 4:50 p.m. motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board
adjourn into closed meting pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (3) to
consider the acquisition of real property necessary for a public safety facility. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Call to Order. The Board reconvened into open session at 6:05 p.m. and
the meeting was immediately called back to order by Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Not Docketed: 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. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(Note: the following three public hearings were held concurrently. There public hearings were
continued from earlier meetings and had not been readvertised.)
Agenda Item No. 23a. Public Hearing: W PTA-2007-001. W ater Protection Ordinance;
applicability of erosion impact area; agreements in lieu of plans; stream buffers on other rural land.
Agenda Item No. 23b. Public Hearing: ZTA-2007-003. Zoning Ordinance; safe and convenient
access.
Agenda Item No. 23c. Public Hearing: STA-2007-002. Subdivision Ordinance; family divisions;
contour intervals; individual lot grading.
_____
Mr. Cilimberg gave an updated PowerPointe presentation (There was no executive summary
prepared for this meeting). He said existing provisions in the W ater Protection Ordinance differentiate
between water supply protection areas and other rural areas in terms of the one hundred foot stream
buffers. In the water supply protection areas it covers primarily all perennial and intermittent streams
whereas in other rural areas it covers just perennial streams. That is the biggest difference. The proposal
would have in ALL rural areas the one hundred foot stream buffer on both sides of all perennial and
intermittent streams. The remaining non-tidal wetlands and the distance from the water supply protection
impoundments would remain as the ordinance currently exists. There is also a change in the definition of
perennial streams to give more specificity where there would not be just a solid blue line on the USGS
maps, but also could be based on the guidance provided by the published options of CBLAD
(Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department).
Mr. Cilimberg said as to Critical Slopes and Safe and Convenient Access regulations, when the
public hearing was held last fall, driveways were restricted across critical slopes. That is no longer being
considered. The Safe and Convenient Access provisions are still proposed and would apply to all new
dwelling units. There would be an appeal to the County Engineer for waiver decisions for driveway grades
that could go to the Planning Commission. It also would not apply to establishing the first single-family
dwelling unit on an existing lot if the County Engineer determined that requirements would practically
prohibit that development.
Mr. Cilimberg said as to Family Divisions, there have been a number of different considerations.
W hat was before the Board previously from the Planning Commission had a cumulative 15 years
ownership by family before and after, with a minimum of five years after, but the Board is now considering
four years before and four years after the division takes place. The history of this came from the earlier
Mountain Protection Ordinance recommendations and generally was not to address any current abuses,
but was a provision proposed in anticipation of abuse from other ordinance changes. Staff provided the
Board with a list of comparable counties as to their requirements for family divisions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission recommended approval of all of these amendments
in 2007, and the Board’s consideration today remains consistent with those recommendations. He offered
to answer questions.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Mr. Boyd said there is a question about the new interpretation of stream crossings or driveways
near streams. Staff is now denying that capability based on a new interpretation of the rule. He asked for
an explanation.
Mr. Graham said staff had been applying the ordinance this way, but during the time when the
Community Development Department was being formed, with changes in personnel and responsibilities
this “fell through the cracks” and staff started allowing some of these to happen. He just found out about it
last fall and confirmed with the County Attorney that the old interpretation was the correct one. It has
nothing to do with the ordinance amendments that are proposed, but with the existing ordinance and how
it is enforced. He said it is set out in Section 17.3.21 and the words on the page are very clear. It is not
something on which staff has discretion.
Mr. Boyd said there seems to be a question about the interpretation of “practicable use or
reasonable use” that staff has determined means only one single-family. Mr. Graham said the authority
for the stream buffer section comes through the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Referring back to
those regulations, you can see that when they talk about where a locality may give modifications or
waivers with respect to disturbance of protected resource protection areas (stream buffers), it uses that
same type of language. It talks about a single use and the utilities associated with that use. He is
confident the County is consistent with State law and the way it is interpreted is the proper way to do so.
Mr. Boyd said if land susceptible to the stream buffer ordinance is greatly increased, it will be a
significant issue for a lot of people, particularly if in the future no mitigation of a stream will be allowed in
order for a crossing for more than one home. He thinks that needs to be considered since the Board will
be adding 15.6 square miles of buffers if it adopts that ordinance.
Mr. Rooker asked if somebody can appeal that decision if they do not like the interpretation. Mr.
Graham said technically they can appeal it to the Supervisors, but the way he reads the ordinance, the
Board has no more latitude then the program authority in the administration of this section. Mr. Davis said
there is not a waiver provision that is applicable to that.
Mr. Boyd said what he is saying is that if the amount of land subject to these stream setbacks is
greatly expanded, that will take quite a bit of land away from people. He asked if a family subdivision
could be done under that premise. Mr. Davis said “no.”
Mr. Boyd said a stream crossing or driveway within this expanded buffer area will be of critical
importance to people who may want to build a home for a family member, based on this new
interpretation. Mr. Davis sad he does not think it is a new interpretation. From staff’s perspective it is the
correct interpretation of the ordinance. If there is an existing building site that does not require the
crossing of a stream buffer, then that building site must be utilized. If that creates a reasonable use of the
property, then the crossing of the stream buffer is not permitted under the ordinance for a residential
building site.
Mr. Boyd said after the first site was used, a second site would not be allowed. Mr. Davis said that
is correct.
Mr. Boyd asked if that was true for a family subdivision request. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said that is the interpretation applied now throughout the part of the County that has
stream buffers in place. It also applies to perennial streams everywhere. Mr. Graham said it applies
everywhere in the County now for perennial streams.
Mr. Boyd said what the Board heard was that staff had been routinely approving these requests
for a long time. After the buffers were expanded in the watershed areas, people did not recognize the
impact there would be because they had been allowed to cross those perennial streams with mitigation
measures. The impact had not been felt until the last couple of months. Mr. Graham said some people
might have that impression. It had applied previously, but with changes in positions and personnel, it just
fell through the cracks.
Mr. Rooker asked how long it was applied the way it is now being applied and how long a period
of time was it not applied correctly. Mr. Graham said in Community Development it was applied that way
for three years. W hen it was in the Engineering Department and Public W orks, it was applied the way he
described it.
Mr. Slutzky said there is nothing in the ordinance before the Board tonight that speaks directly to
this issue. Mr. Graham said that is correct.
Mr. Slutzky said that issue, which the Board may want to tackle at another time, is not on point
with the three ordinances before the Board tonight.
Mr. Boyd said when the Board adopted the revised ordinance to include intermittent streams in the
watershed areas it was done in the timeframe Mr. Graham mentioned. If someone crossed an intermittent
stream since that ordinance was adopted a year or so ago, they would not have felt the impact of it
because they were able to build that second residence if they wanted to. Mr. Davis said the intermittent
streams in the watershed have always been a part of the ordinance. The only change the Board made
was to add the part of the watershed in the northern part of the County to that watershed protection area
so for that small part of the County which was added, Mr. Boyd’s point is correct. Otherwise, the rest of
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
the watershed in the rural area has had that intermittent stream prohibition since 1998 and it had been
applied under Mr. Graham’s interpretation, except for part of the last three years.
Mr. Boyd said there is a discrepancy in that because the public can demonstrate when it was
applied prior to that time.
Mr. Dorrier said there are three areas of distance from the streams in the ordinance; 100 feet, 50
feet and 25 feet. He asked the distinction being made with the 100 feet. Mr. Graham said it goes back to
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act when the State set up the enabling authority for local governments.
The 100-foot buffer is the expectation set by the State. Their regulations allow for a modification for uses
down to 50 feet when it is creating a hardship. The 25 feet has to do with agriculture and row crops. That
is the only agriculture were a stream buffer is regulated. That was a conscious decision by a prior Board.
They wanted to allow that flexibility for row crops.
Mr. Slutzky said there are a lot of rural landowners in the community who see themselves as good
stewards of the land. He wants to be sure everybody understands the purpose of what is being proposed
tonight. Mr. Graham said property owners who are farming or practicing forestry are not regulated now,
with the exception of the row crops which are restricted within 25 feet of the stream. No other agricultural
and forestry uses are regulated. They still will not be regulated. W hat the ordinance amendment says is
that if people will no longer be maintaining that stewardship of the property, but are going to divide,
develop or sell off lots, at that time the County wants to create those buffers and assure the buffers will be
maintained for stream protection. At that point, it is an intensification of use. Under Section 3.17 the
ordinance clearly speaks to development and that is when the stream buffers need to be protected. There
are many purposes for the ordinance. The Chesapeake Bay people see that by maintaining those stream
buffers stream bank erosion will be reduced, and viable eco-systems will be created along the streams.
The main benefit the Bay Program speaks to is the health of the rivers and the Bay.
Mr. Boyd said he has been doing some research and the science on it says it depends on the type
of vegetation along the stream. If there were a forested area and a 50-foot buffer, putting in another 50
feet would not be as harmful. W hat he read in the EPA report is that slopes have something to do with it,
the type of vegetation, and there are two things this deals with, sediment and nutrients. In some cases,
localities vary the allowance for stream buffers depending on the vegetation.
Mr. Rooker read the following from the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service. “A 100-foot wide buffer
strip of forest and grass can reduce sediment by 97 percent, nitrogen by 80 percent and phosphorous by
77 percent. As the buffer width increases, the buffer provides greater benefits. As seen on the table
below a 30-foot buffer provides minimal service. At 50 feet the buffer meets minimum water quality
protection recommendations and you get some aquatic habitat benefits. For effective water quality and
aquatic habitat protection, a buffer width of 100 feet is needed.” He said there is a reason why the
Chesapeake Bay Act established the 100-foot buffer as a standard. It is based on good scientific
evidence. It does not mean there are not unique circumstances in which a buffer width should not be
increased or decreased. There would have to be a very complex ordinance and incredible enforcement to
have an ordinance that varied the width based upon the vegetation throughout the County and varied the
buffer width based upon the slopes. There is not good slope information on all properties throughout the
County at this time. He does not think many jurisdictions have found it feasible to have a buffer protection
program that is malleable depending on numerous criteria. W hat has been done generally is what was
done with the Chesapeake Bay Act which required that all counties east of I-95 have a 100-foot buffer on
intermittent streams with wider buffers on perennial streams.
Mr. Boyd said he is not going to argue science with Mr. Rooker, but he can talk about the riparian
buffer width vegetation cover in the EPA report Ms. Thomas provided to him. There is a chart in that
report indicating 25 feet in certain circumstances is sufficient. He just wonders if the Board should give
some thought to building into these ordinances variance provisions when there are mitigating
circumstances. There are none in the ordinance in relation to a second dwelling.
Ms. Mallek referred to Page 4 and said it looks like it may be included. She read “Types of
development which may be allowed” and said there are modifications to the buffers allowed depending on
the circumstances.
Mr. Boyd said that is true for the first single-family dwelling, but staff just said that for the next one
it will be denied and there is nothing the Board or anybody can do about it. Mr. Davis said the provisions
under 17-321, paragraphs 1 through 5 of the Erosion Control Ordinance, deal with reductions of the width
of the stream buffers under certain circumstances. Paragraph 6 is the issue that was talked about earlier,
crossing stream buffers. Crossing of the stream buffer is only allowed if there is any reasonable building
site that does not require you to cross the stream buffer. The other circumstances vary depending on what
you want to place within the stream buffer, but there are circumstances when that buffer can be reduced
to 50 feet or encroached upon if necessary to address those circumstances.
Mr. Boyd said that is only for the first single-family dwelling, not for a family subdivision. Mr. Davis
said the reductions in the buffer do not necessarily apply to just one single-family dwelling. The crossing
of the buffer has that limitation, but the criteria for a reduction in the buffer does not apply in any other
reduction paragraphs.
Mr. Boyd said he would now open the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Hank Martin asked that people in the audience who had submitted questions to County staff
indicate so by raising their hands. Then he asked that they indicate whether they had received answers to
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
those questions. He said he had not received an adequate answer to his question. He said the human
factor has been lost in this debate when debating slopes and streams. He said a number of people have
shared their stories with him, and he then recited a few examples. He thinks this is a taking of land for the
protection of the environment or some other grand purpose. He asked how the people will be
compensated. He understands their taxes will continue to go up and the County has offered no
assurances of what will happen. He suggested that as these statistics are debated the human factor not
be forgotten.
Mr. Morgan Butler said he is speaking on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center. He
will speak only about two provisions that find their genesis in the Mountain Overlay District Committee’s
original proposal; stream buffers and safe and convenient access. That committee met for two years and
included members with diverse County interests who in April, 2006 offered their proposal. Since then,
there has been an effort to find a fair balance between the environment and property values. The
Planning Commission recommended one version to the Board in the summer of 2006, and then offered a
scaled-back version a year later. Tonight, this is the sixth time this proposal has come before the Board.
At about every stage of the process, the original proposal has been cut back and watered down in an
effort to accommodate concerns about property values. Of the five original categories of protection
proposed, only two remain. The provisions designed to protect the County’s most fragile slopes from
roads and driveways are the latest casualty. Although the two remaining categories were expanded to
cover all of the rural area rather than just certain elevations within it, they have been weakened in other
respects. Finding the right balance between environmental protection and property values is a difficult
task and requires compromise. After nearly two years of chipping away at the original MOD
recommendations, cutting back on buffer width, adding new waivers and even dropping certain provisions
outright, they are afraid that if the provisions are weakened any further, there will be nothing left to vote on.
The SELC urges the Board to adopt the W ater Protection and Safe Access changes tonight.
Mr. John Munchmeyer said he is speaking for the Jefferson Area Libertarians. He encourages
the Board to vote against the proposed legislation. The changes are based on dubious intentions. The
driveway and stream buffer issues are being pushed under the guise of public safety, but he feels this is
really about limiting growth. It is not the first time that people with an agenda have disguised proposals. If
the Board is against growth, just say so. Second, he does not think the proposals are necessary. These
ordinance changes have been proposed and rejected over and over again for the last ten years. Even if
the premise of growth is accepted as being a bad thing, the thinking is still flawed. Growth is happening in
the County’s mandated Growth Areas, not in the Rural Areas. The best course of action is to leave these
people alone. W hile there is currently not a lot of growth in the rural areas, there may be in the future.
The reason for this is not too much freedom, but too much government. Some people are forced into a
situation where they must subdivide, or divide and sell a piece of land to pay the fast growing, ever
increasing property taxes. W hen this ability is taken away as proposed in these ordinance changes, they
will have no other choice but to sell the whole property, possibly to developers who know how to get
around these ordinances. Private property owners are the best stewards of the land. To those who
support these ordinances, realize that rural landowners are their best allies. Big government is
promulgating unforeseen side effects that run contrary to those sought. Passing this legislation will further
exacerbate this situation by turning allies into enemies. W hy not try dialogue with landowners, or
persuasion of ideas instead of laying down the heavy hammer of government. If it is bad for people to sell
part of their land, it would be more effective to find ways to reverse the massive tax increases of the past
decade alleviating the impetus for this supposed problem. He said this is the United States of America
and property rights are the cornerstone of liberty and the republic. Those who came before us did not
fight and give their lives so that Albemarle County could control property to the minutest detail. The
citizens do not need the County to be their nanny telling how and where to build driveways. He said these
ordinances should not be adopted because they are based on dubious intentions, are not necessary, will
have the opposite effect, and are not congruent with the principles of the United States of America.
Mr. Ron Kerber said he thinks the Board should know whether those speaking own land in the
County. It is easy to tell other people what they can do with their property. He does not like to be told
what to do with his property when he does a good job taking care of it. He lives on 263 acres in the Stony
Point area which he has owned for ten years. He has had property in the area for 18 years. He came
here from Michigan where they were regulated and taxed. Until the last hearing on these ordinances he
had never attended any County meeting. He was appalled at the Board’s lack of appreciation for rural
property rights. At that meeting a woman gave a PowerPointe presentation showing that current family
division rights are not a problem. She showed how poorly staff had advised the Board, and yet it is
proceeding with an eight-year versus two-year regulation. He thinks logic is not working. Four years
before a division is not necessary, and he feels four years after a division is onerous. He noticed that staff
has said it is not a problem now, but could be in the future. Since it is not a problem now, the Board does
not need to act on it. W hat if a party dies in that four years or there is a divorce or a bankruptcy? W hat
would be done with a property that is restricted from sale for four years? The change in the intermittent
stream buffer will have many negative consequences for him. He has much property that would be
affected by letting staff tell him where a house can be built on one of his parcels. If he has a parcel with
no view, but has another parcel with a big view of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the ordinance will not allow
him to cross that stream buffer to get to a desirable building site. He asked who is looking at this from the
rural perspective as opposed to looking at it from the perspective of an urban dweller or suburbanite. He
does think the rural community has a voice in the County any longer. He asked that the Board consider
their property rights.
Ms. Ellen Popkin said they own 238 acres in the Stony Point area. If the Board feels it must pass
these ordinances regarding the family subdivision ordinance, she would request that the Board consider a
grandfather clause, or new property owners only clause, especially since they have determined this is to
protect future abuse only.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Lonnie Murray said he has lived in the County his entire life; his parents still live in the County.
His family has been farm owners for over a hundred years. He lives in the Batesville area. Stream
buffers are in effect in his area and he has witnessed violations over the years with stream quality
declining, and destruction of wetlands. He has actually seen these things occur under the current
ordinance, even in protected areas. He does not think it is necessarily the rural farm owners that are the
problem. All must think in terms of the next generations. There is no way to guarantee that the next
person who owns the land will be a good steward. He would like to see these ordinances passed.
Mr. John Cruickshank said he lives in Earlysville and is speaking as a representative of the
Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club which has about 1200 members in Central Virginia. He said the Sierra
Club urges each Board member to vote in favor of the proposed rural area ordinances on stream buffers,
driveway standards and family subdivisions. He said protection of stream buffers will benefit the health of
County waterways and help restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Extending the 100-foot buffer to all
rural areas in the County makes excellence sense. Setting standards that limit the slopes and curvature
of driveways in rural areas will reduce erosion and facilitate access for emergency vehicles. The proposal
to require families to own their land four years prior to a family subdivision and four years after a family
subdivision is more than reasonable. It will discourage the resale of these lots for non-family development
while still respecting the rights of property owners. He asked that the Board support all three of the
ordinances. He then thanked the Board for joining the Cool Counties Program. He said a good way to
reduce greenhouse gasses and improve overall air quality is to pass laws that restrict the unnecessary
idling of motor vehicles and open air burning in the County. The pollutants that come from these sources
endanger the health of all, particularly those who suffer from respiratory ailments. He is sure the Board
members are aware that one out of every 16 students in the County schools is afflicted with asthma.
Those who feel there is nothing wrong with the air should spend just one day in an elementary school
nurses’ office. He said the people of Albemarle have rights. They have the right to clean air, waterways
free of pollution and sedimentation, and the protection of the natural landscape. He is confident the Board
will take the necessary steps to protect the rights of all.
Mr. Tom Olivier said he and his wife live in the Scottsville District. They raise sheep on the farm
that she grew up on. They will be affected on their farm by this ordinance, but both support adoption of
these ordinances. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club. He is the
Piedmont Group Conservation Chair, and he supports the statement just presented by their chairman, Mr.
Cruickshank. He would like to offer some temporal perspective on what is before the Board tonight
regarding stream buffers. He first spoke at a public hearing in the County in 1991 when the County was
considering adoption of a water resource protection ordinance enabled by the recently passed
Chesapeake Bay Act. He had read about the ordinance in the newspaper where it was characterized as
controversial. His colleagues in agriculture were making wild claims about what this would do to their
ability to farm their properties. As a biologist he knew that stream buffers were extremely important, so he
decided to check out exactly what was contained in the ordinance. He came to the County Office Building
and read the text of the ordinance. He thought it was really good so he came to a public hearing for the
first time and spoke expressing support for the ordinance. There was much railing that evening by rural
landowners predicting all sorts of dire consequences. In fact, the Board adopted the ordinance that night
and in the 17 years since, it has been a great credit to the County. He thinks the ordinances before the
Board tonight are good and are needed. He hopes the Board will adopt them this evening.
Mr. David Hamilton congratulated the Board on its work to reconcile the competing interests. If all
parties are slightly depressed and exhausted, it probably means the Board has done its job as a
deliberative body. He asked that the Board consider one additional item. At the end of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment in Section 4.6.6.6.d it allows the requirement to be waived on an existing
parcel if the County Engineer determines that compliance would be an impediment to practical
development. He appreciates the issue of property owners’ rights in this waiver, but he would suggest that
a comparable waiver be available for owners attempting to minimize land disturbance. He said Mr.
Cilimberg had said this is no longer a slope reduction measure, in fact with a big enough bulldozer a 16
percent driveway could be built. For owners who are attempting to do the right thing with regard to
construction of driveways, allowing staff to make a determination would be appropriate. They already
evaluate private road proposals under standards evaluating volume of disturbed land versus a non-
compliant scheme. Since this is no longer related to slope protection, but its DNA is from that slope
protection proposal, he thinks the Board should consider a measure to be sure nothing worse is done
because of this requirement.
Mr. Jay W iller said he is the Director of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders’ Association. He said there
is probably no one in the room tonight who questions the usefulness of stream buffers. The proper role of
County Government in that process is the question before the Board tonight. If the width of the Auditorium
is 100 feet wide, the width of the buffers in question is not the width of the room, but twice that width
because it applies to both sides of the creek. He said Mr. Graham pointed out that it will affect 414 miles
of stream, or 15.5 square miles of land, 10,000 acres. That is about 1.5 times the size of the entire City of
Charlottesville. It is one-half the size of the County’s designated growth area, a huge tract of land. At the
beginning of the meeting, the difficulty of creating an ordinance that manages buffers properly was
mentioned. Sadly, the bottom line in the discussion was that the County could not find a better way to
write an ordinance, not whether the ordinance could be dropped altogether and let the property owners
with the guidance of the County address their own land. He thanked the Board for “walking away from
discussion” of critical slopes, but he thinks the question of a 16 degree slope is still troublesome. It is a
very shallow slope, and he is surprised that the environmental groups are not talking about some of the
excess cut and fill on 16 degree slopes will cause. Also, this is supposed to be about safe and convenient
access with the driving force being that emergency vehicles cannot get up more than a 16 percent slope.
Earlier this week he asked County staff how many roads in the County have a length of road that has a 16
percent slope, and they did not have an answer, and VDOT also did not have an answer. He thinks most
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
people coming to this meeting tonight drove on a road with sections of more than 16 percent slopes. At
the time existing roads were built, that was not a requirement. If emergency vehicles cannot get up that
slope, they cannot get up his driveway and could not get to his house.
Mr. Fred Shackelford said he lives at Stony Point. He opposes all of the amendments, but will
focus his comments on the access amendment. For eight years he was a member of the Stony Point
Volunteer Company. He has driven fire trucks and in all of that time he does not remember a case when
they were not able to reach a house because the driveway was too steep. He thinks the 16 percent grade
limit is more restrictive than necessary to insure safe access by emergency vehicles. According to a
member of County staff, the rear entrance to this building from Preston Avenue is at 20 percent. Anyone
who drives on it knows that it is not unsafe. Just looking around, it is obvious that there are many other
streets which are steeper than that access ramp. Look at some of the streets in the Franklin or Ashcroft
subdivisions. Are they unsafe? If so, why do these amendments apply only to the rural areas? If the
Board adopts an access amendment that is as restrictive as 16 or 20 percent, it is obvious that the real
purpose is not safety, but to curtail property rights. Some people choose to live in subdivisions with
restrictive covenants where they must go to a homeowners association to get permission to paint their
house an unusual color or to put a storage shed in their back yard. That is their choice, but many people
chose to live in rural areas so they can make their own decisions. Supporters of these amendments
contend they are for the common good, and will protect the general public. If that is true, the general
public should share the cost of these amendments instead of putting it all on the landowners whose
property rights will be diminished. Proponents of these amendments say the rural areas have to be
protected, but who will protect him and other rural residents from the folks who want to take away their
property rights.
Mr. Jack Marshall said he was speaking on behalf of the 300 members of Advocates for a
Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP). He has 100 mountainous acres in the County. He said
ASAP’s support of these amendments is premised on detailed environmental reasons that have been well
stated by staff and others. He said there is a larger issue which those speaking both for and against these
amendments are addressing even if unintentionally. The Board’s vote on this will reflect a position on
intergenerational justice. He said twenty-first century Americans are not good at postponing gratification.
If they care about what is left to future residents of the County they can’t have everything they want today.
In a civilized society a community understands the meaning of sustainability; there are a lot of sacrifices
that all reluctantly agree to enforce upon ourselves. The amendments under consideration will tighten
land use regulations a little and limit individual freedom in modest ways. That is the cost of being
responsible stewards of a glorious county that should be passed undiminished to future generations. The
members of ASAP believe these three revised amendments to the ordinances represent a fair and
thoughtful compromise between the demands of today and the responsibilities for the future. Please vote
“yes.”
Mr. Stuart Kessler said he has owned rural land for 26 years. It is in pristine condition, and he
does not feel he is being rewarded for being a good steward of the land, but feels betrayed and punished
for being stupid. He thinks there are good intentions here, but there should be a slide of what happened
on Route 29 with the new growth area without looking at what has happened in other localities. He does
not see any difference between that and Fairfax County, other than they have W hiteman’s and Albemarle
has Target. Suddenly, there are thousands of homes and we don’t want anymore, so we will attack the
people who have been good stewards of the rural land. A woman gave a PowerPointe presentation at the
Board’s meeting in October using information from County records showing there were single digits of
homes in family subdivisions that were sold to outsiders. Every Board member at the time seemed
stunned. He thought someone in County administration was going to look at her facts. He asked if
anybody had an answer because that is what the public was told at the time. W hat happens to someone
who is sick? There is a recession coming up and there will be other situations like that. Those situations
have to be dealt with. Before the Board acts, the citizens need to have an answer to “Are you killing flies
with a sledge hammer?”
Ms. Shirley Napps said what she heard tonight is that there needs to be mitigation available to
people who own rural land so the family farm property owners are not unduly penalized, but the water
supply is also protected. She lived in New Hampshire and built a house on a lakefront property. The
required setback was 75 feet from the water. W hen she built, she realized that the land around the lake
was unstable and the house probably should not be that close, so she put it 125 feet away. She had
neighbors who not only built at 75 feet, but they also cut down every piece of vegetation between them
and the lake. She said there is something similar here. There are people who take good care of the land,
and there are people who abuse it. W hat is needed is protection for those who are good stewards from
those who are not. That is where this type of ordinance comes into action. She does not know if it would
be done fairly, but thinks that is what is being looked at.
Mr. Charles McRaven said they own land in northwest Albemarle that is crisscrossed with
streams. Those streams run very clear. For almost 60 years he has been in the construction and
restoration business, and they have always provided erosion control. W ith proper erosion control
something could be 10 feet from the stream and it could run perfectly clear. W ith poor erosion control you
could be 500 feet away and when it rains the stream would turn brown. Those who own land do not want
to see the Board take away their right to use that land or their right to leave the land to their children.
There are ordinances about erosion control. He has worked for years with soil engineers and they can
stop erosion. He said there are so many streams on their property that if they were to leave land to their
children, they would have land they could not build on, or land where they could put a driveway. Their
birthright will be denied as far as using the land. He said with reasonable restrictions, soil conservation
and erosion control, there is no reason to prohibit use of the land. No one gave them the land. They
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
worked for it and paid for it. Future generations have rights and those rights should not be abridged at this
time.
Ms. Jerry McCormick-Ray said she lives near W hite Hall in a mountainous area with a lot of
critical slopes. She wants to express her support of these ordinances. They are critically important and
will not have that much affect on people’s private uses if they are really stewards of the land. She said
private preferences need to yield to the public good. There will be trouble with the environment if the land
is not taken care of now. The water systems are clearly being affected because they cannot contain all of
the sediment and the sewage and things which are flowing in from unprotected water systems. She said
under the Chesapeake Bay Act, it will cost more than $19.0 billion to try and clean it up. Many states have
agreed this is a problem and have agreed to clean it up. Albemarle is not helping if some protection is not
passed. Locally, the reservoirs and water streams are brown. There is a need to protect the watershed
system. She lives in an area with steep slopes that is forested. There is more than a 100-foot buffer on a
stream which flows into Albemarle Lake. The area has been cleared and a road put in for a house to be
built. The road was cleared last summer and a lot of the vegetation was removed before any safeguards
were put in. The house has not been built yet, but torrential rains last summer poured sediment into their
stream, through the buffer areas. She said their streams were red with brown mud filling up the stream
and spreading it out. It is now settled down and the water looks good. W hen there is another big rain, all
of that will be mobilized and eventually seep into the reservoir. That is what the reservoir systems are
facing. If no effort is taken to protect the watershed system, everyone will be in trouble. She urged the
Board to pass these ordinances. They will not have a major affect on property owners if people care
about the personal protection of the watershed system and the future. Private preference needs to yield to
public shared interests.
Mr. Carleton Ray said he is speaking as a scientist, a rural landowner and a member of the
Mountain Overlay Protection (MOD) Committee. He assumes common sense and attention to historic
scientific findings persuaded the Board to drop the proposed W ater Protection and Zoning ordinances.
Many recognize that the ordinances before the Board tonight are watered down versions of those originally
proposed unanimously by the MOD Committee. For stream buffers and critical slopes the Board
unanimously endorsed the recommendations of the Planning Commission. W hat can now be said? First,
it is evident that even if these standards were to be applied and enforced throughout the County, water
and sedimentation problems would not be solved and would increase with development. Second,
consider where most of the sediment originates now, from farms, lawns, oat fields and along roadsides
where critical slopes have been created and considerable bare soil exists. Even with these ordinances in
place, solutions for sedimentation and clean water, as well as the County’s obligation to the Chesapeake
Bay, will not have been met. How can the County meet future requirements and the exorbitant costs
which are inevitable? Now, most former floodplains, both large and small, have become sediment filled
terraces with incised channels highly subject to sediment suspension. This means that restoration of
many of them will eventually be necessary. Meanwhile, the best that can be done is with acceptable and
scientifically supportable ordinances which are now before the Board. He quotes from a magazine article
which concluded that a minimum 100-foot buffer is the best for stream protection. He recommended that
the Board implement these ordinances as the first step and then plan for future involvement and
improvements.
Mr. Philip Nelson said he will speak in opposition to the expanded buffer proposal. He said
Albemarle County already has a stream buffer ordinance. It protects 1,700 miles of continuous streams;
this number came from the County’s website. That is roughly the distance between Albemarle and Texas.
The amount of land represented by those stream buffers is 41,000 acres. The proposal tonight is to
expand that number; another 10,000 acres would be added. In his opinion, the wording of the expansion
totally changes the nature of the program. It changes the program from clean definitions (looking at a
map to see what streams are shown) to “soft and fuzzy bureaucratic” (call a bureaucrat) definitions. The
ordinance would add 400 miles of intermittent streams. There is nothing in the ordinance defining an
intermittent stream. It gets worse because this expansion “muddies up” the existing definition of streams
on the map by saying “or as determined by the program authority after making a site evaluation.” He is
opposed to allowing an unelected County administrator to determine the value of another 10,000 acres of
Albemarle land. To do site evaluations there will be a need for more administrators, more staff, more
office space, and more cars. The Board is already having budget problems so he thinks they would need
another tax increase to support this additional expansion. This expansion of the stream buffer program is
a blank check, and he thinks it must be rejected.
Ms. Elizabeth Murray said she owns property and lives in the County. She commends the Board
for its hard work on these ordinances and she urges their passage. She does have some concerns about
the W ater Protection Ordinance, particularly “walking away from” the critical slopes provisions. It seems
there are many ways to get around protecting the steep slopes of the watershed and there have been
many disturbances on those steep banks. She urges the Board to be diligent about future wording of this
ordinance to be sure it is tight enough not to allow this to happen as often as it has been happening. She
suggested that the responsibility for the care of the watersheds rests with all on both public and private
land.
Ms. Robbie Savage said she is the director of the Rivanna Conservation Society and came to
reiterate the position they shared with the Board last October, and again urge the passage of the
intermittent stream provisions. She said intermittent streams are an invaluable natural resource and play
a critical role in the overall health of stream systems because they often represent the headwaters, which
Albemarle is to the Chesapeake Bay, throughout the river network. During storms, intermittent streams
can contribute large volumes of sediment and erosion throughout the watersheds that go directly over time
into the Chesapeake Bay. Buffers along streams can reduce these threats by keeping stream banks from
eroding and trapping the sediments before they reach the streams. Buffers also reduce the severity of
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
floods by slowing the waters before they reach the floodplain and riparian areas. She said it is the view of
the Rivanna Conservation Society that this is an important proposal. It amounts to a simple and
straightforward change in the County’s existing stream buffer ordinance resulting in an increased number
of intermittent streams that have protection. They need the County’s protection and they urge the Board
to pass these ordinances.
Mr. Steven Peters said the reward being talked about for the stewards of the land, and the
pictures which were shown, is basically just further restrictions. Under the old rules, these people should
have divided their land ten years ago. He thinks a lot of people will be looking at doing that, and feels that
those who can divide will do so. He thinks there will be a flurry of additional development when people
see what can happen. The way these restrictions are written, there are several people who will not do
conservation easements because when the land is evaluated they will not get enough tax credits to do it.
There has been concern expressed about the streambed, but now a farmer can run cattle through it,
tractors through it, or basically whatever he wants to do. In certain instances, that will be left in perpetuity
by the way the rules are written. If someone has 200 acres and has an intermittent stream and 195 acres
is on one side and five acres is on the other, as long as he farms it and messes up the stream he is okay.
If he wants to build a house on the other side, he can’t do it. That seems absurd. If the Board wants to
save the streams, it should allow mitigation. If the important issue is the streams, he would like a Board
member to tell him why 4:5 or 10:1 mitigation cannot be allowed. W hy does the County not want that?
Mr. Corky Shackelford said he is a lifelong resident of farmland at Stony Point. He appreciates
the modifications that have been made in these proposals since last fall, but wishes they went further. He
would like to address what he sees as a seriously flawed approach to governmental management. If the
purpose of these amendments is conservation of natural resources, it could be done more effectively and
efficiently by current best management practices for roads, streams and wetlands. If the real purpose is
simply to limit growth by making construction more difficult or impracticable he thinks a more equitable
and straightforward approach would be to offer compensation of loss of development potential. The cost
of these amendments is evident. W ider and more gently sloping roads will require longer driveways,
disturb more soil and increase erosion. The resulting increased cost of home construction will make for
less affordable housing. He thinks the proposed rules are based on assumptions carried to an extreme.
Runoff from properly managed driveways is unlikely to impact watercourses as significantly as does
natural erosion from major stream banks. It is apparently assumed that those who own large acreages
are waiting expectantly to develop their properties at the first opportunity without regard to environmental
concerns. He is not, but does not want to see the value of his holdings reduced because of executive
fear. The value of the land is enhanced by division rights even when it is sold as a single unit for
continued farm or estate use. There are fairer ways to manage property if it must be managed. He
understands that currently the State Legislature is considering a bill to permit banking of development
rights at the local level. This is a program that could reduce development at no cost to taxpayers. More
could be done for the undeveloped rural areas by supporting agriculture and other land uses which
naturally and productively protect the environment. Don’t burden the citizens with regulations which
infringe on personal freedoms and property. There have been references tonight about future generations
and he would like to leave his with a society that is free of government intervention.
Mr. Jeff W erner from the Piedmont Environmental Council spoke next. He said that since 2001
there have been 14 meetings of the Rural Area W ork Group, 30+ meetings of the Mountain Protection
Committee, 23 work sessions and hearings by the Board of Supervisors, 24 Planning Commission work
sessions and hearings and eight open house meetings for the public to attend on rural area issues. He
served on the Rural Area Focus Group and the Mountain Protection Committee and he thinks their efforts
deserve a decision. Those two committees were composed of members as diverse as the community
can provide. Although he is not happy with a lot of what has been taken out of their recommended
provisions, he knows a consensus of the members was necessary. The question before the Board tonight
is whether it will implement the stated policies of a plan that was unanimously adopted. He has talked to
many residents and knows that more than 100 sent the Board E-mails about these ordinances. People
are tired of the Board adopting policies which it appears they have no intention of ever implementing. It is
amazing how the Comprehensive Plan is used to argue why a Growth Area project must be approved, and
then the Rural Area Plan is treated with such little respect relative to implementing it. The Board has
failed to implement phasing, clustering, revisions to family subdivisions, steep slopes changes, stream
buffer changes, mountain protection, all of which came out of the Rural Area Plan. If the Board does not
adopt these things tonight, he asks that the Board state what in that plan it will implement.
Mr. Carl Tinder said he farms on 3,700 acres throughout the County. He is a lifelong resident of
the County. At the public hearing in October it was brought to the attention of all that the County has no
standards for driveway erosion control or standards for driveway construction. It would be a simple
solution to tie some standard for construction to the building permit and have it regulated in that manner
versus adopting these ordinances. Management would be a better solution than an ordinance which
restricts landowners’ rights. These ordinances are counterproductive. One requires stream buffering to
protect the water systems, but causes longer driveways to be constructed to get around the buffers. He is
concerned about the definition of a perennial stream and suggests that the Corps of Engineers’ definition
of a blue line stream be used. That definition is “set in stone” and is not subject to a subjective personal
opinion. Furthermore, if Best Management Practices were implemented, a lot of problems would be
solved. The three ordinances proposed are solutions looking for problems. Going back to the October
hearing, a citizen provided information showing that the family subdivision is not a problem and this
change would serve no purpose other than to further restrict family division rights.
Mr. Joe Jones said he is a resident of the W hite Hall area. He was there 30 years before zoning
was enacted and has been there 37+ years since. Since zoning was enacted there have been constant
changes and additions putting further restrictions on property. As to the family subdivision part being
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
considered, he is concerned about what is not underlined and due for a change tonight, but in Paragraph
“B” he read: “No lot created by the family subdivision, including the residue, may be transferred, etc....” If
he gave a child some acreage and the rest of his land were restricted for the next four years, he could
become ill the week, or he might want to sell what is left and go to the Bahamas. He does not think the
County should have the right to restrict his use of the residue. If you gave a child stocks and bonds, does
the County say you could not sell any other stocks and bonds for four years? Because his asset is his
land, he resents the Board putting that restriction on him. He can live with the four-year restriction on the
parcel because that seems to be a minor problem in the County. He asked that the Board not include
“residue” in Paragraph “B”.
Ms. W ren Dawson-Olivier said she lives in southern Albemarle in the Scottsville District. She lives
on a farm that her grandfather founded over 150 years ago. As her husband has already said, these
ordinances would affect what they are able to do with their property. But, she applauds these ordinances
and urges the Board to support them. Several Board members have said that protecting the rural area is
a high priority and this is an opportunity for the Board to do that. She encourages the Board to vote “yes”
on these ordinances.
Mr. Roger Ray said he does not believe the provisions for family divisions and driveways are
broken so do not need to be fixed. He is in favor of the new buffer in the W ater Protection Ordinance. He
is equally in favor of the protection of property rights but now there is a conflict between that stream buffer
and property rights. He said Mr. Graham spoke about previous regulations and how they had been
applied. He said Mr. Graham is extremely busy and is short-handed and he does not believe he had time
to thoroughly research what has happened with the stream buffers since its enactment in 1998. He thinks
it can be proven by looking at the maps he handed to the Board, and through his research into deeds and
court documents, that the stream buffer crossings were routinely and consistently approved for roads and
driveways across streams from the enactment of the ordinance up until some three or four months ago.
Mr. Ray sad he gave the Board a package of seven plats that created 30 +- subdivision lots the people in
his firm were able to remember and go to their files and find information about. If he thoroughly
researched his files, he believes he could find evidence of dozens of subdivisions done since enactment
of this ordinance that allowed roads within a stream buffer. If they went to the Courthouse and researched
the same issues, he believes there would be dozens of plats with probably hundreds of lots created. He
sent a letter to the Board asking that they explain to property owners what “reasonable use” of their land
is. Of all the people he talked to, not one understood the term “reasonable use.” He supports this
additional buffer, but only if the Board allows mitigation on a 5:1 ratio.
Mr. Dole Bishop said he sent many E-mails to Board members over the past several weeks, but
has not gotten a meaningful response from any of them or from any staff member. He has about seven
acres of land and is concerned about the driveway regulation since it would limit the grade of a driveway to
a new house to 16 percent. Sixteen percent is only nine degrees, four feet of rise in 25 feet. That is not a
big slope in the County. The reason for this was given as safe and reasonable access for fire and rescue
vehicles. How many existing driveways out of the thousands built with no grade limit have been
responsible for injury or property damage. He has received no data on the risk from the Board, staff or
firefighters. He has found that mature automatic chain technology is available which can be retrofitted
onto existing vehicles, but only a few of Albemarle’s units are so equipped. He said this was not
discussed by the Board at all as a mitigating measure. If driveway grades are a problem, all vehicles
should have them. He called Greene, Nelson and Augusta counties and found that they have no grade
restrictions. He thought a governing body would have its staff research and use hard data to analyze risks
and alternatives and pros and cons of any new law. Last fall, 14,000 landowners got a notice in the mail
saying that their existing lots would be exempt from the 16 percent regulations. No “ifs”, no “ands”, no
“buts”. Now the proposed ordinance provides an exemption, only if it is impracticable to meet the grade
standard. “Impracticable” means impossible. He thought the County would be obligated to send another
mailing to these folks. He was told by the County Attorney this afternoon that there is a legal loophole;
because none of this relates to zoning density another letter is not required. He said some people need a
steeper driveway path in order to site their house properly. Under these ordinances the County could
force them to move either the house or the driveway or both. The proposed amendment essentially forces
you to prove the driveway is safe and any plan you come up with could be rejected. He thinks it is clear
the intent is to make it more difficult and expensive to build in Albemarle County. He urged the Board to
reject these ordinances, or at least include a grandfather clause.
Mr. W illiam Mayo said he owns 116 acres in Earlysville. He came to listen, but at the start of the
meeting stream mitigation plans and how they impact land division was mentioned. They have been trying
to divide their property for estate purposes for a year and a half all following suggestions by planning
groups and all kinds of people. Things were going along fine until November. On November 6 they
received a letter from a senior planner saying that all of their divisions were fine, but there had to be some
modifications pertaining to a plat. The plat was revised and resubmitted and for the first time somebody
asked for a mitigation plan. They had never been asked for one. Subsequent to that they got a letter from
Mr. Shepherd saying that if they submitted a stream mitigation plan and it was accepted, “we will approve
the subdivision” which allowed them to cross a stream on the property. They scrambled before Christmas
to get it done. It was confirmed in January by Mr. Fritz that all they had to do was submit a stream
mitigation plan and if that was acceptable, the division would be approved. He understands this fell
through the cracks and reappeared in the fall. This thing that reappeared has cost them thousands of
dollars and it would appear that it is all for naught because they are trying to do what the County said to
do, and it has just fallen apart. His assumption this evening was that this happens every now and then,
and “we don’t care about the little people.” He is one of those little people and he has spent thousands of
dollars to try to accomplish something that he had been told to do by the County, and then tonight he
learned that it was all for naught, the County made a mistake.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Ms. Cynthia Nath said she lives in the rural area on land she owns just across the street from the
growth area. The Comprehensive Plan was put together to deal with a community that is both the growth
area and the rural area. She will echo the comments about North Pointe. Instead of saying that every
development coming into the growth area must be approved, she thought the idea was to create a
balance between the two areas; that is what makes a community. W hen she got her notice saying she
had a critical slope on her property, she looked into it. She understood there were “tree huggers” and
“property rights zealots” that all came together and looked at everything and decided this was the right
thing to do for the community, that would protect Albemarle County for today and the future. She may not
like the fact that down the street from her property there is a plan to put in 30 units on three acres, but it is
in the growth area. She said everybody needs to do what is necessary to protect the community. She
asked that the Board support these measures.
Mr. David Mitchell said he is one of the evil developers. He will talk about mitigation of stream
crossings and stream buffers. He is also an engineer and a builder and they know how to build things the
right way and cross streams the right way to do mitigation. He knows that at times there are people who
don’t do that, but those who do it correctly should not be punished and restricted from building houses for
people in the County just because of a “few bad apples.” Mitigation is reasonable and something the
County should consider seriously. He thinks the true intent is to stop development in the rural areas, and
he really does not have a problem with that, but this is not the way to do it. The best way to do it is
through TDRs. That way the County could harness the private sector’s money and move those
development rights closer to infrastructure, the roads and the schools so the impact would be less on the
rural area. He said the Board is doing this with private money because the County clearly does not have
the money to buy all of those development rights, and the County should compensate these people for the
only thing they own, their land. Believe it or not, their land is valued based on the development rights on
that land. That is the best way to protect the rural areas, not arbitrary 100-foot buffers.
Ms. Deanna Noland said she owns 40 acres in northern Albemarle County which she and her
husband purchased two years ago. For the six years before that they owned a quarter of an acre in the
County in a development. They decided to invest in the land and in the beauty of Albemarle. She has two
children and would like to be able to pass the land to these children so she is concerned about the family
division rights. If something should happen when her children are in college, and all of their money were
tied up in the land, they would not be able to stay stewards of the land because those children needed to
stay in college and yet they would have to wait for four years. She researched the 10,000 acres the
additional intermittent stream regulation is adding. She thinks it needs to imply that with proper
engineering the acres that cannot be accessed by any sort of driveways crossing them, could actually be
safely crossed and those properties still protected. It should say mitigation is the way to get there so the
property is still valuable and people will still want to hold onto and protect their property.
Mr. Eddie Gibson said he is a lifelong resident of Albemarle County. He is opposed to all of these
amendments because the Board is basically telling everybody they can’t do anything with the land they
have owned for generations. It is the same thing as when the Federal Government took the land for the
Park. That is not right. He thinks the development areas are the ones causing the problems. He knows
about the Reservoir and all that. It seems that everything concerns the Reservoir. He suggested looking
at Sugar Hollow Reservoir where there is nothing above it, but it has filled up also. How is that any
different from the South Fork Reservoir? There are a lot of houses being built in the growth areas
because it does not seem to affect the Reservoir. W hen all these clusters of houses are built, that is what
causes the most problems. The people who live in the rural areas are not causing the problems the
County is going after. He thinks it is wrong to impose restrictions that take people’s property rights away.
He said he would like to submit an amendment for the lot access requirements (he handed a paper to the
Board).
Mr. Neil W illiamson of the Free Enterprise Forum said he served on the Rural Areas Focus
Group. He also attended most of the Mountaintop Committee meetings. One topic discussed at length by
the Rural Area Focus Group and which was also part of the discussion by the Mountaintop group was the
idea of having a lot, and having an opportunity to build on the lot you own. That concept is preserved in
the ordinance as written. He thinks it could be done with mitigation. He continues to think of parcels that
are constrained by an intermittent stream that must be crossed that may have a secluded housing site that
provides great benefit, but the ordinance says “impracticable” which is a very strong word. He thinks the
idea of waivers rather than appeals may prove to be a better approach. Buying a lot and building a house
where it should be sited is important. Providing mitigation to any stream degradation that may be caused
by crossing that stream is a reasonable and rational approach to dealing with that issue.
W ith no other member of the public rising to speak, Mr. Boyd said that would conclude the public
comment section of this matter. He asked if Board members had comments.
Mr. Dorrier said last week a constituent told him he wanted to give some land to his heirs but
could not build on the property which contains a couple of hundred acres because a creek crossed the
land. They talked with Roger Ray who said that just three months ago they began to hear from the County
that you could not build on your property if you had a creek running through it. Mr. Dorrier said that was
the first time he had heard this. For heirs to be precluded from getting property because of a County
ordinance is not what the Board intended. He thinks the Board had the best of intentions, and the Board
has been pitted as being property rights advocates or environmentalists. He said someone can be a bad
property rights person and rape the land and destroy it, or can be a good property rights person and take
care of it and give it as a legacy to their children. If you own property and pay for it with your blood and
sweat and tears and have your whole wealth tied up in it, it is emotionally a part of you. He said
government is only as good as the people involved and he thinks the intentions here are good, but the
ordinance is still flawed. The Board needs to take it “back to the factory.” He does not think it is broken
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
but there is a need to deal with the runoff and the intermittent streams. If people are going to be protected
from runoff, there should be an ordinance that deals with a creek or stream that is flowing, not intermittent.
The Chesapeake Bay people have good intentions, but the Board needs to consider whether it is really
applicable to Albemarle County. He thinks the mitigation aspects of this ordinance leave a lot to be
desired. It puts the landowner in a position like the man who spoke and said he had spent thousands of
dollars. W hy should a landowner have to spend thousands of dollars to determine whether his land
qualifies for a legacy for his children? Until that is straight, the ordinance is broken and needs to be fixed.
He understands what Roger Ray said; there may need to be some protection from the runoff going into
the streams, but that can be done through other methods such as erosion control. W hile the Board is on
the right track, this is still flawed and he will vote against it.
Mr. Slutzky said when these ordinances were on the agenda last October, he came to that hearing
with his mind fairly made up that he would support them. He heard a number of things that evening that
made him reconsider his interest in supporting some aspects of those ordinances. He was less
comfortable with the critical slopes ordinance. People raised concerns about the family subdivision
provisions that he had not thought of, so when the public hearing was over he had rethought the issue.
Before the Board tonight are three significantly different ordinances; they are not as aggressive in the
aggregate.
Mr. Slutzky said he ran for election as a Board member because he was concerned about
protection of the ecology of the rural areas. He recognized early on that protecting the ecology of the
community would often bump up against property rights. In the stream buffer ordinance they bump up
against each other hard. He has publicly said he would be comfortable with downzoning the entire rural
area for the purpose of protecting it from further development activity. Also, he is sensitive to the fact that
doing so would step on people’s property rights. He explored an approach to protecting the rural area
through downzoning that provided for development rights to be retired/ sold through some sort of a market
mechanism; that is what the reference to TDRs is. There has been such legislation adopted, and there is
more legislation being considered in this year’s General Assembly session. Over the next several years it
is reasonable to expect that the County will examine the idea of developing a TDR program.
Mr. Slutzky said that tonight he is convinced he has to support each of these ordinances in the
form in which they are before the Board. He thinks it has to be done to protect the rural areas from, in the
case of stream buffers, the soil erosion consequence of development activities. If at a later date the
County decides to implement a TDR Program, he will propose that the start date for those development
rights retired as a result of the downzoning go back to tonight; that means that if there are any
development rights that are lost to property owners as a result of what is done tonight, assuming the
ordinances are passed, he would encourage the County to include any of those in the eligible
development rights that could be sold in any kind of a transferable development rights program
implemented later. Most of this refers to the stream buffer ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky said he vacillated about whether he was enthusiastic about the 16 percent slope in the
“safe” ordinance. Since the last meeting he has talked with the fire marshal and become convinced that
the 16 percent grade is a reasonable number. He is comfortable supporting it as proposed. He does not
think 20 or 25 percent would be that different. If somebody came forward and said he could mitigate and
wanted to build some small stretch of road at a higher grade, that option is available. He is comfortable
deferring to staff to address that.
Mr. Slutzky said he is amazed by the number of people who communicated with him privately with
respect to family subdivisions asking how the County could take away their right to give land to their
children. He told them that is not what is contemplated. If someone has the right to subdivide their land
now, they can subdivide it and give or sell a parcel to their children. This family subdivision provision does
not apply to all instances where someone might give land to their children; it only applies to a situation
where they could not otherwise do it because of some restriction on the land. It is a relatively narrow
instance where there would actually be a family subdivision that would have to be done under this
ordinance. In those situations the holding pattern of four years on the front, and four years on the back
end is not unduly harsh.
Mr. Slutzky said that originally he was concerned about comments at the public hearing in October
when people questioned how they could get a loan. They were talking about the ten-year restriction on the
back end at the time. He talked with a number of lenders in the community and they said it is not a bar to
getting a loan; it is not a factor they take into account. He does not think having to wait four years is a
hardship for anyone in this room tonight. He does not think any of them intend to subdivide their land and
give it to a child so the child can make a quick buck on the resale of that land. He is comfortable with the
four years on the front end and four years on the back end; at the present time it is only two years on the
back end.
Mr. Slutzky said he is going to support each of these ordinances in their present form. He does
not think they are perfect and they are not as protective from an ecological standpoint as he wishes they
could be. He thinks they are reasonable, fair and balanced and if the Board has the opportunity at some
future date to develop a TDR program, he will advocate for including any property rights that someone can
demonstrate were actually taken off of their land as a result of the ordinance passed tonight.
Ms. Thomas said the ordinances before the Board tonight have been changed by the public input
received. The chairman of the Mountain Overlay District Committee said the committee would work by
consensus, so they pounded out some things by consensus and reached an agreement. That gave her
faith the community has a lot of underlying agreement even though they do not all agree on things. She
said there is already a safe and convenient access requirement in the County, so it adds little to what has
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
to be done when someone gets a building permit. This new requirements says that safe and convenient
access must be shown at the point of determining that this is a parcel. For the building permit now, it is a
20 percent grade. She has done a lot of research into the meaning of a 16 percent grade. She found that
Thomas Jefferson kept the grades up to Monticello at five percent, and that the grade up to Brown’s
Mountain is 14 percent. It is hard to find such a road in the County. Some thought the road up Afton
Mountain was that steep but in fact it is only about a six percent grade. There are concerns not based on
the kind of slope actually being talked about. She said no one wants a road the fire trucks cannot get up.
She thinks it is a worthy change to make for the purposes stated.
Ms. Thomas said that the Board has said that intermittent streams are important. They are the
ones that have the most direct contact with the land and the erosion that takes place there. The real
decision before the Board is whether intermittent streams in the rural areas that are not now affected by
that law should be protected. Even with the impacts this may have, she thinks the Board’s responsibility
lies in protecting the waterway and that the intermittent streams are the most important. She could live
with taking buffers off of some of the deep cut creeks because the buffers do not have as much affect on
those as on the shallow ones.
Mr. Thomas said as to the family subdivision ordinance, it is a compromise. The Board listened
when people said 15 years was far too long. Also, the Board is not talking about what someone can do
with their land. Essentially, building substandard roads is the main reason people go through the family
subdivision process. If they want to give something of value to their kids, they would not do it through that
process anyway but would do a regular subdivision. She will support these three ordinances.
Mr. Rooker said everything being considered tonight is directly out of the Comprehensive Plan
and the various sections the Board unanimously adopted. He said one speaker tonight mentioned that
there are a lot of goals and strategies in that Plan that are meaningless if they never turn into action.
Since he has been involved with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors he does not
remember any measures that have ever had more discussion and public comment than these have and
they have been substantially reduced in scope as a result of that public comment. W ith regard to family
subdivisions, they are optional under state law. Every county does not have a family subdivision
ordinance. That means Albemarle County allows something by ordinance that is not mandated by State
law. The family subdivision does not enable someone to divide their property any easier than going
through other subdivision means. Actually, a subdivision where one additional lot is created is easier to do
without going through the family subdivision regulations. There is a rural subdivision measure in the
County’s ordinance. The only thing the family subdivision enables is the subdivision of lots on substandard
roads. He agrees with Ms. Thomas. If someone wants to leave something of value to their heirs and
wants to do it through subdividing they are better off to go through a standard subdivision process. There
has been concern expressed about the recipient having to hold the land for four years. In the normal
subdivision process, they do not have to hold the property for four years.
Mr. Rooker said safe and convenient access is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He
has driven through the Rocky Mountains many times and the maximum grade on I-70 is seven percent.
There are probably few places in this area that have slopes in excess of ten percent. The stream
ordinance is in place in half of the County today. He has not seen it have any particular impact on
reducing property values. He asked the Assessor’s Office to provide him with the average acreage value
of vacant land presently covered by the ordinance as compared to land that is not covered. For the land
presently covered by the ordinance, the average per acre value is about $16,000. For the land presently
not covered by the ordinance, the average per acre value is about $10,700. The land the Board is talking
about extending this regulation to has a sixty percent greater value. The Comprehensive Plan does not
contain anything suggesting every hypothetical development right be preserved in the rural areas. He
thinks the Board should be mindful of property rights, but the goals and strategies in the rural area have to
do with protecting natural resources, open spaces and farmland. One speaker said the term “intermittent
stream” is not defined in the ordinances. In fact if is defined. “Perennial stream” is also defined in the
ordinances.
Mr. Rooker said one thing that should probably be brought back before this Board is the idea of
mitigation. He thinks some good points were made about mitigation. The County needs to look into how
the ordinance is being applied with respect to accesses. It needs to look at an option that might include a
3:1 or 4:1 mitigation effort as suggested by Mr. Ray. But, what is before the Board tonight is the extension
of an existing ordinance. He thinks the Board should pass these ordinances tonight in their present form,
and his suggestion be looked at in the near future.
Ms. Mallek said she learned a lot by speaking with many people and listening to comments from
the October hearing and more recently. She had a question about the family division and death in the
family. She understands there is already an allowance for an earlier sale. Mr. Davis said that upon death,
the land can be transferred to the heirs of the property, or under operation of the law if it is necessary to
dispose of the property because of a legal reason.
Ms. Mallek asked if anything ordered by a court can be done. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd asked if settlement of estate taxes is a legal reason to sell a part of the property. Mr.
Davis said only if it is necessary for the executor to finish the disposition of the property in the estate.
Ms. Mallek said with all of the alternatives that people can use in the subdivision process, she is
confident that she is supporting the four and four year division for the family subdivision. Many people
said earlier that a normal planning horizon is more like five years when the previous Board was talking
about the 15 years, so she thinks this falls within that better planning horizon.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Ms. Mallek said as to the stream buffer issue, she is one of those people who have been farming
in the western part of the County since 1980 under existing rules. There was great confusion earlier about
what would be done to farmers and many people called her. W hen she asked where they lived and was
told that it was the W hite Hall District, she told them they were already covered. They were relieved to find
out that what they had been doing all of the time could be continued, they would be able to pasture and
have no fencing requirement and there would be no inference with agriculture. The County does not want
people building structures in those buffers which would wash down into someone else’s property or cause
further damage. She is concerned about the mitigation issue. She spoke about this in October saying
more construction guidelines and fewer requirements for waivers is her preference. She would rather
have people know ahead of time what the plan is. She is not keen on changing the rules in the middle of
the process. She has a concern about how the Board can help people who are already in the process of
going through something. If someone has been working through months of estate planning, is there any
option to give 30 days or something for these processes to be finished? Mr. Davis said there is an
implementation provision in these ordinances. For any application submitted prior to today, yesterday’s
rule would apply provided it is brought to a conclusion within four months. Anyone who has something in
the process today that is approved within the four months would be operating under the prior rules.
Ms. Mallek asked if “process” means consultation with staff. Mr. Davis said an application would
have to have been filed.
Ms. Mallek said that is not exactly what she was asking for.
Mr. Rooker said several people called about that after the public hearing in October. There has
been a significant amount of time between October and now to file.
Ms. Mallek said she was comforted when she studied all the wording and it talked about the fact
that the driveways for existing lots were exempted from the requirements that the County get the best
performance possible based on the site. She supports that and plans to support all three of the
ordinances. She was surprised when she learned that the main access road to W intergreen is 14 percent.
That is a road she has struggled up in many types of vehicles. She thinks the County will be able to cope
with short distances of that, especially with the possibility of smaller sections being steeper.
Mr. Boyd said at everyone of these public hearing he has learned something new. W hat he
learned tonight leads him to be opposed to these ordinances in their present form. All of those other
times, these initiatives were defeated, voted down, except in October when no vote was taken. They keep
coming back in revised and better forms. Some people would call it watered down, but he thinks the
Board listened to the property owners. There are several things which are still problematic for him. Under
the family subdivision, there is still a question about the residual piece of property. If Mr. Jones is correct,
the way the statute reads now, if he owned a large track and wanted to give a small piece of it to a child,
he would be held to the same four-year period with the residual piece of property as they are now. That
may be a little over restrictive.
Mr. Boyd said the 16 percent slope does not bother him that much. He has talked with people in
the building business and it is not a problem for them because they would do switchbacks, cut and fill and
create more havoc with the slope because they can afford to do that. He thinks that is an unintended
consequence of including this restriction in the ordinance. He said “reasonable use of the property”
bothers him. W hat he said tonight is that the Board will put a lot more property (9,000 acres) into an area
which will be restricted by what can be done within a stream buffer. The way these ordinances are written,
the interpretation of staff and the attorneys is that there can be no mitigation. It is fine to say the Board
can address that later, but he would rather get these things right the first time. He thinks these ordinances
are still not correct although they are well-intended, but he thinks there will be unintended consequences
by taking away people’s property rights and he cannot support something like that.
Mr. Rooker said there is one thing he would like to correct. These measures have never been
voted down, none of them. This Board voted unanimously to extend the same intermittent stream
ordinance to the northwest section of the County several months ago. The Board has simply never voted.
Mr. Boyd said he was talking about the original Mountaintop Ordinance six or eight years ago.
Mr. Rooker said no vote was ever taken on it.
Mr. Boyd asked about the Mountain Overlay Ordinance when the Board met at Burley Middle
School.
Mr. Slutzky said only phasing and clustering were addressed.
Mr. Rooker said the public deserves to have a vote on this one way or the other. He is finally
pleased the Board has gotten to the point where it is going to take a vote.
Mr. Boyd said there were not enough votes the last time to get it passed. No one on the Board
who was in favor of adopting the ordinances was willing to make a motion to do so.
Mr. Slutzky said phasing and clustering were voted on, but failed 3:3. These ordinances were in
front of the Board for the first time last October. Several members of the Board, in response to that public
hearing, suggested modifying those proposals before taking a vote, and that is what is before the Board
tonight.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Dorrier said he cannot understand why the Board would be willing to leave the mitigation
process unchanged when people are spending thousands of dollars to find out what is going on. He
thinks that should be the key thing in place before passing an ordinance like this.
Mr. Rooker said the ordinance is already in place. There is a perennial stream ordinance that
affects all parts of the County. There is an intermittent stream ordinance that affects half of the County,
and the issue about mitigation is an issue in the existing ordinance. The question which has been raised
about whether it should be addressed is a good one, but he thinks it needs to come back to the Board with
recommendations by staff. There should be some deliberation on that issue by itself, not as a “knee jerk
reaction” the first time the Board hears about it. He thinks everybody has an interest in having that
brought back relatively quickly so the Board can deal with it.
Mr. Boyd asked about the status of a residual piece of property for someone who gave a small
section of land to someone in the family.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that issue is worth looking at, but is an issue that was raised for the first
time tonight. It is in the existing ordinance, it is not a change that is proposed so that should be brought
back with a recommendation from staff.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Thomas if she would like to make a motion.
Ms. Thomas asked if there should be three separate motions. Mr. Davis said “yes.”
Ms. Thomas then offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 17, W ater Protection,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by Amending Article I, General, Article II, Erosion And
Sediment Control, and Article III, Stormwater Management and W ater Quality by amending Sec. 17-104,
Definitions, Sec. 17-200, Applicability, Sec. 17-317, Duty to retain or establish stream buffer, and Sec. 17-
321, Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Boyd.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-17(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, W ATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE I, GENERAL, ARTICLE II,
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, AND ARTICLE III, STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT
AND W ATER QUALITY
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
17, W ater Protection, Article I, General, Article II, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Article III,
Stormwater management and water quality, are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17-104 Definitions
Sec. 17-200 Applicability
Sec. 17-317 Duty to retain or establish stream buffer
Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program
authority
Chapter 17. Water Protection
Article I. General
Sec. 17-104 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this
chapter:
(32) Perennial stream. The term “perennial stream” means any stream that is depicted
as a continuous blue line on the most recent United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangle maps (scale 1:24,000) or which is determined by the program authority to
be perennial following a site-specific evaluation using the guidance entitled “Determinations of
W ater Bodies with Perennial Flow,” dated September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department. This definition shall not apply to streams within a development area or
area of infill and redevelopment that have been piped or converted legally and intentionally into
stormwater conveyance channels such that the stream does not resemble or maintain the
characteristics of a natural stream channel, as determined by the program authority.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Article II. Erosion and Sediment Control
Sec. 17-200 Applicability.
This article shall apply to any land disturbing activity as provided herein:
A. Except as provided in paragraph (B), each owner shall comply with the
requirements of this article:
1. prior to engaging in any land disturbing activity, or allowing any land
disturbing activity to occur, on his property;
2. at all times during such land disturbing activity until it is completed,
including all times when the land disturbing activity is performed by a contractor engaged in
construction work;
3. when notified by the program authority that an erosion impact area exists
on his land, and the notice requires the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan in
order to control erosion and sedimentation; and
4. for the prior construction of an agricultural road, when the owner submits
a preliminary or final plat, preliminary or final site plan, an application for a zoning map
amendment to a non-agricultural zoning district, or an application for a special use permit for a
use or activity not directly related to agriculture for the lot on which the agricultural road is located
or serves, if both: (i) the plat, plan or application was submitted within twenty-four (24) months
after construction of the agricultural road began; and (ii) the program authority determines that the
dimensions and alignment of the agricultural road substantially correspond to the dimensions and
alignment of a road proposed on the plat, plan or any document submitted as part of an
application.
B. This article shall not apply to the following activities:
1. individual home gardens, landscaping, repair and maintenance work;
2. individual service connections;
3. installation, maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines
when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk; provided that the
land disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard
surfaced;
4. septic tank lines or drainage fields, unless included in an overall plan for
land disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank
system;
5. surface or deep mining;
6. exploration or drilling for oil and gas, including the well site, roads, feeder
lines and off-site disposal areas;
7. tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or forest crops,
livestock feed operations or products, or related engineering operations including, but not limited
to, construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches,
strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage and land
irrigation. This exception shall not apply to: (i) the harvesting of forest crops unless the area on
which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of
Virginia Code §§ 10.1-1100 et seq. or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture
uses as described in Virginia Code § 10.1-1163(B), in which case such person shall comply with
the provisions of this article when grading, excavating, or filling; (ii) a land disturbing activity
related to the construction of farm structures, including but not limited to agricultural structures or
roads not associated with tilling, planting and harvesting; and (iii) the construction of roads other
than agricultural roads;
8. the construction of agricultural roads, except as provided in paragraph
(A)(4);
9. repair or rebuilding of the tracks, right-of-way, bridges, communication
facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company;
10. installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and
other kinds of posts or poles; and
11. emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs;
provided that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment
control plan if the activity was not an emergency, the land area shall be shaped and stabilized in
accordance with the requirements of the program authority.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
C. Any activity that is otherwise exempt from this article under paragraph (B) shall
become subject to this article if the program administrator determines that an erosion impact area
exists on the subject property as provided in section 17-202.
(§ 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-8, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-3, 19.3-8; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-
98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 10.1-560, 10.1-562, 10.1-563.
Article III. Stormwater management and water quality
Sec. 17-317 Duty to retain or establish stream buffer.
Except as provided in section 17-319, any land subject to this article and each stormwater
management/BMP plan shall provide for stream buffers for the purposes of retarding runoff,
preventing erosion, filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff, moderating stream
temperature, and providing for the ecological integrity of stream corridors and networks, as
provided herein:
A. If the development is located within a development area or an area of infill and
redevelopment, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist
on any lands subject to this article containing perennial streams, and/or nontidal wetlands
contiguous to these streams. The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet
wide on each side of such perennial streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured
horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands
exist.
B. If the development is located within a water supply protection area or other rural
land, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any
lands subject to this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal wetlands
contiguous to these streams, and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the
following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams and
contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or
the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain. The stream
buffer shall be no less than two hundred (200) horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any
public water supply impoundment.
C. On agricultural lands used for crop land, whether located in a development area,
an area of infill and redevelopment, a water supply protection area or other rural land, the stream
buffer shall include all perennial streams, non-tidal wetlands contiguous with these streams, and a
twenty-five (25) foot buffer, measured horizontally from the edge of contiguous non-tidal wetlands,
or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist. On these lands, the stream buffer shall be
managed to prevent concentrated flows of surface water from breaching the buffer area. Each
owner of crop land with a stream buffer shall have developed by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and
W ater Conservation District a soil and water conservation plan, or a component thereof, which,
shall be based on an assessment of existing conservation practices of the crop land.
D. Each stream buffer shall be maintained and incorporated into the design of the
land development to the fullest extent possible.
E. Except for the activities pertaining to the management of a stream buffer
identified in section 17-318, the types of development authorized in a stream buffer identified in
section 17-320, and the additional types of development which may be allowed in a stream buffer
identified in section 17-321, no indigenous vegetation within the stream buffer shall be disturbed
or removed, regardless of the size of the area affected.
(§ 19.3-41, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-8, 19.3-41; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-2108.
Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program
authority.
Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the
circumstances described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by
the program authority pursuant to section 17-322:
1. on a lot which is located within a development area but is not within a water
supply protection area: within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most
landward (furthest from the stream);
2. on a lot which is located within a water supply protection area or other rural land:
within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward, but only for
stormwater conveyance channels or other necessary infrastructure, and only if such development
is determined by the program authority to be necessary to allow a reasonable use of the lot. In all
cases under this paragraph, the building site and the sewage disposal system shall be located
outside of the stream buffer;
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
3. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake,
pond, or ecological/wetland restoration project;
4. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the
construction and maintenance of a driveway or roadway, and the program authority determines
that the stream buffer would prohibit reasonable access to a portion of the lot which is necessary
for the owner to have a reasonable use of the lot;
5. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, on which
the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction, installation and maintenance
of water and sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems, and the program authority determines
that the stream buffer would prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems.
Any such sewage disposal system must comply with all applicable state laws; and
6. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the
stream buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building
sites outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying
zoning district.
(§ 19.3-45, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-8, 19.3-45; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-2108.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 6, 2008, provided, however, that any
subdivision plat, site plan or application for a building permit submitted on or before February 5,
2008, and approved on or before June 6, 2008, may be approved under the applicable regulations
in effect on February 5, 2008.
_____
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by amending Sec. 4.6.6, Lot
Access Requirements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Boyd.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.6.6 Lot access requirements
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article 2. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.6.6 Lot access requirements
Vehicular access on a lot shall be provided as follows:
a. In all zoning districts, a structure requiring a permit under the Uniform Statewide Building
Code may be established only on a lot having frontage on a public or private street as
authorized by the subdivision ordinance, except that this requirement shall not apply to
lots lacking such frontage on the effective date of this chapter.
b. In the rural areas zoning district, in addition to the requirements in subsection (a) and in
order to provide public safety vehicles with safe and reasonable access to a new dwelling
unit on a lot, each driveway that will serve a new dwelling unit: (1) shall not exceed a
sixteen (16) percent grade; (2) shall have a travelway that is at least ten (10) feet in width;
(3) shall extend to within fifty (50) feet of each dwelling unit on the lot; and (4) shall include
a rectangular zone superjacent to the driveway that is clear of all obstructions, including
any structures and vegetation, that is at least ten (10) feet in width and fourteen (14) feet
in height. The landowner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the county engineer that
the driveway will meet the requirements of this subsection before a building permit is
issued.
c. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (b), the county engineer, with the
recommendation of the fire marshal, may authorize a driveway having a grade that
exceeds sixteen (16) percent if the landowner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
county engineer and the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be able to access
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
the dwelling unit even though the grade may exceed sixteen (16) percent. In considering
a waiver request, the county engineer and the fire marshal shall consider: (1) the length of
the segment of the driveway that would exceed sixteen (16) percent; (2) whether the
segment that would exceed sixteen (16) percent would require the public safety vehicle to
travel uphill towards the dwelling unit; (3) whether fire suppression equipment such as
sprinklers would be installed within the dwelling unit; and (4) whether the dwelling unit is
within fifty (50) feet of a public or private street. In authorizing such a grade, the county
engineer may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the public safety vehicles may
access the dwelling unit including, but not limited to, a condition limiting the maximum
length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen (16) percent.
1. The landowner may appeal the disapproval of a waiver under subsection (c), or
the approval of a waiver with conditions objectionable to the landowner, to the
commission. The appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the department of
community development within ten (10) days after the date of the county
engineer’s and the fire marshal’s decision. In reviewing a waiver request, the
commission may approve or disapprove the waiver based upon the applicable
factors in subsection (c), amend any condition imposed by the county engineer
and fire marshal, and impose any conditions it deems necessary to assure that
public safety vehicles may access the dwelling unit. In so doing, the commission
shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the county engineer and
the fire marshal. In addition, the commission may consider such other evidence
as it deems necessary for a proper review of the waiver request.
2. The landowner may appeal the decision of the commission to the board of
supervisors under the same procedure and subject to the same standards as an
appeal to the commission set forth herein.
d. Any lot which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of subsection (b) shall be
exempt from the requirements of that subsection for the establishment of the first single-
family detached dwelling unit on the lot if the county engineer determines that those
requirements would prohibit the practicable development of the lot for that first single-
family detached dwelling unit.
(§ 4.6.6, 12-10-80; 5-21-86; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-18(1), 2-6-08)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 6, 2008, provided, however, that any
application for a building permit submitted on or before February 5, 2008, and approved on or
before June 6, 2008, may be approved under the applicable regulations in effect on February 5,
2008.
_____
Mr. Rooker then moved to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, and
Article II, Administration and Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by amending
Sec. 14-212, Family Subdivisions; conditions of approval, and Sec. 14-302, Contents of preliminary plat.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Boyd.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-14(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, AND ARTICLE II,
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
14, Subdivision of Land, and Article II, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-212 Family subdivisions; conditions of approval
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
Division 3. Procedures for Rural Subdivisions, Family Subdivisions,
Boundary Line Adjustments, Vacations and Easement Plats
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Sec. 14-212 Family subdivisions; conditions of approval
Each approval of a plat for a family subdivision shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. No lot may be created by family subdivision unless it has been owned by the
current owner or a member of his or her immediate family for at least four (4) consecutive years
immediately preceding the date the family subdivision plat is submitted under section 14-210.
B. No lot created by the family subdivision, including the residue, may be
transferred, except by devise, descent or operation of law, to a person other than an eligible
member of the immediate family of the subdivider, for a period of four (4) years after the date of
recordation of the plat, except for purposes of securing any purchase money and/or construction
loan, including a bona fide refinancing, or if the lending institution requires in writing that the
spouse of the member of the immediate family be a co-grantee and co-owner of the lot. The
subdivider shall place a restrictive covenant on the lots created by the family subdivision
prohibiting the transfer of the lots so created to a person who is not a member of the immediate
family for the retention period after the date of recordation. The restrictive covenant shall be
subject to review and approval by the county attorney before it is recorded. If the lot created is
conveyed back to the grantor during the retention period, it shall be recombined with the parent lot
within six (6) months after such conveyance and no building permits shall be issued for the lots
until they are recombined.
C. The entrance of the principal means of access for each lot onto any public street
shall comply with Virginia Department of Transportation standards and be approved by the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
D. The following note shall be added to each plat for a family subdivision: “No lot
shown on this family subdivision plat may be sold or conveyed to a person other than an eligible
‘member of the immediate family,’ as that term is defined in Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County
Code, for a period of four (4) years after the date of recordation of this plat except as authorized
by section 14-212(A) of the Albemarle County Code. If any lot created by the recordation of this
plat is conveyed back to the grantor during the four (4) year period, it shall be recombined with the
parent lot within six (6) months after such conveyance.”
(9-5-96, 1-3-96, 4-13-88, 12-21-83, 10-17-79, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-57; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05,
effective 6-20-05; Ord. 08-14(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2244(C), 15.2-2244.1.
Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted
Division 1. Plat Requirements
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat.
A preliminary plat shall contain the following information:
A. A preliminary plat shall contain the following information, which must be included
in order for a preliminary plat to be deemed complete under section 14-216(B):
1. Name of subdivision. The title under which the subdivision is proposed to
be recorded. The title shall not duplicate or be a homonym of an existing or reserved subdivision
name within the county, the City of Charlottesville, or the Town of Scottsville, except if the
subdivision is an extension of an existing subdivision.
2. Vicinity map. A map at a scale of one (1) inch equal to two thousand
(2,000) feet showing the property and its relationship with adjoining land and streets, its
relationship with landmarks in the area and, if the subdivision is a phased subdivision, all other
phases of the subdivision for which a final plat has been approved, in detail adequate to describe
the location of the property without field review.
3. Existing or platted streets. The location, width and names of all existing
or platted streets and all other rights-of-way.
4. Private easements. The location and dimensions of all existing and
proposed private easements. Existing easements shall be labeled with the deed book and page
number and the name of the owner of record.
5. Public easements. The location and dimensions of all existing and
proposed public easements outside of a street right-of-way. Existing easements shall be labeled
with the deed book and page number and the name of the public owner of record. Proposed
easements shall be labeled as “dedicated to public use.”
6. Alleys and shared driveways. The location and dimensions of all
easements for alleys and shared driveways.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
7. Existing and departing lot lines. If the property consists of more than one
existing lot, then the identification of the existing lots and their outlines, which shall be indicated by
dashed lines; and, the location of departing lot lines of abutting lots.
8. Proposed lots. The number, approximate dimensions, and area of each
proposed lot.
9. Building sites on proposed lots. The location, area and dimensions of a
building site on each proposed lot complying with the requirements of section 4.2 of the zoning
ordinance. The plat shall also contain the following note: “Parcel [letter or number] and the
residue of Tax Map/Parcel [numbers] each contain a building site that complies with section 4.2.1
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.”
10. Right of further division of proposed lots. The number of lots, as
assigned by the subdivider, into which each proposed lot may be further divided by right pursuant
to section 10.3.1 of the zoning ordinance, if applicable. The plat shall also contain the following
note: “Parcel [letter or number] is assigned [number] development rights and may/may not be
further divided and when further divided these rights shall not comprise more than [number] acres.
The residue of Tax Map/Parcel [numbers] is retaining [number] development rights and when
further divided it shall not consist of more than [number] acres.”
11. Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The deed book
and page number of the instrument whereby the property was created, as recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county.
12. Topography. Existing topography at the time of plat submittal at up to
twenty [20] percent slope, with a contour interval that is not greater than the interval on aerial
topography available from the county. The source of topography, including survey date and name
of the licensed professional or a statement that topography data provided by the county was used.
Proposed grading, with a contour interval equal to the intervals of the existing topography,
supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are
twenty-five (25) percent or greater. Existing topography for the entire site with sufficient offsite
topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features and physical characteristics, but in
no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site unless otherwise approved by the agent. For
property in the rural areas zoning district, the proposed grading shall show all grading on each
proposed lot, including access, clearing and all other lot improvements.
13. Proposed facilities. The location of proposed water and sewer lines and
related improvements; proposed drainage and stormwater management facilities and related
improvements.
14. Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved. The location, acreage, and
current owner of all land intended to be dedicated in fee or reserved for public use, or to be
reserved in a deed for the common use of lot owners in the subdivision.
15. Identification of all owners and certain interest holders. The names and
addresses of each owner of record and holders of any easements affecting the property.
B. A preliminary plat shall also contain the following information, provided that the
preliminary plat shall not be deemed incomplete for purposes of section 14-216(B) if it does not
include this information in the initial plat submittal:
1. General information. The date of drawing, including the date of the last
revision, the number of sheets, the north point, and the scale. If true north is used, the method of
determination shall be shown.
2. Name of plat preparer. The name of the person who prepared the plat.
3. Public areas, facilities or uses. The location of all areas shown in the
comprehensive plan as proposed sites for public areas, facilities or uses, as described in Virginia
Code § 15.2-2232, which are located wholly or in part within the property.
4. Places of burial. The location of any grave, object or structure marking a
place of burial located on the property.
5. Zoning classification. The zoning classification of the property, including
all applicable zoning overlay districts, proffers, special use permits and variances.
6. Tax map and parcel number. The county tax map and parcel number of
the property.
7. Reservoir watershed; agricultural-forestal district. A notation as to
whether the land is within an Albemarle County and/or City of Charlottesville water supply
watershed or an agricultural-forestal district.
8. Yards. The location of all yards required by this chapter and the zoning
ordinance, which may be shown graphically or described in a note on the plat.
February 6, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
9. Flood plain. The location of any part of the property within the flood
hazard overlay district, as set forth in section 30.3 of the zoning ordinance.
10. Stream buffers. The location of stream buffers required by section 17-
317 of the water protection ordinance, with the following note: “The stream buffer(s) shown
hereon shall be managed in accordance with the Albemarle County W ater Protection Ordinance.”
(9-5-96, 2-4-81, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-52; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 08-
14(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2262.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 6, 2008, provided, however, that any
subdivision plat submitted on or before February 5, 2008, and approved on or before June 6,
2008, may be approved under the applicable regulations in effect on February 5, 2008.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn to February 11, 2008, 11:30 a.m., Joint Meeting with Charlottesville
City Council.
At 8:30 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Rooker to adjourn this meeting until February 11 at 11:30 a.m. at the offices of the Martha Jefferson
Outpatient Treatment Center on Pantops. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion, which passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 07/02/2008
Initials: EWJ