2008-03-19March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
19, 2008, at 6:00 p.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: Assistant County Executive, Bryan Elliott, County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, and Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. 1:00 p.m. - Call to Order.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: FY 2008-09 County Budget: (if needed).
Agenda Item No. 3. 3:15 p.m. – Recess. (Note: There was no need for an additional work
session on the budget on this date so the part of the meeting adjourned from March 17, 2008, was
cancelled.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Auditorium by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 6. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek updated the Board on her recent “town hall” meetings. She received many good
suggestions such as: because people are not able to attend Board meetings, find some way to keep
them more aware of what is happening at those meetings; use some type of technology to get a draft of
the minutes sooner; Local Government should have the same kind of resource utilization study the
Schools just finished; and, the Board establish some sort of citizen board to respond to citizen concerns -
people were suggested for appointment to same.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she would like a summary of the General Assembly actions that specifically
affect Albemarle County since she could not tell from the VML report which would apply to the County.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he has received comments about budget items removed by the Board during its
work sessions. Two items the Board talked about yesterday were “Save the Fireworks” and the
“Workforce Council.” They are small items, but there was not a clear decision about those items
yesterday. He asked if there is enough interest to put the fireworks item back in the budget.
Mr. Slutzky said he did not think the Board had actually decided to eliminate it. He was surprised
that staff sent a communication to constituents saying the Board had zeroed out that item. He would like
to see it stay in until the final public hearing on the budget.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to leave it in for discussion.
Mr. Dorrier said he would support $10,000 for this item.
Ms. Thomas said she suggested that it be taken out of the budget but would be happy either way
as long as the Board discusses it again after the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd said the problem is that staff has notified people it is has been removed from the
budget.
Mr. Rooker said there were a number of items on the list for discussion yesterday. The Board
moved some items to the “not funded” section of that list; he does not mind the “fireworks item” being in
for discussion and public input.
Mr. Slutzky said there were three things on the list and he does not think there was closure on the
fireworks item. He thinks it should be included in the advertisement for the budget with the Board making
a final decision after the hearing.
Mr. Rooker said in order to balance the budget certain items were removed from the list. The
fireworks request was one of those items. He said the Board can discuss it again when it makes the final
decision on the budget.
Mr. Slutzky said that is not what he agreed to. For the moment he would like for it to be included
in the budget advertisement
Ms. Thomas said leaving it in will change the bottom line of the budget, but there is a reserve
figure. Mr. Davis said it would only affect the Board’s contingency. Mr. Elliott said staff hopes to have the
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
final version of the advertisement printed tonight so it is ready to go to the newspaper tomorrow. If the
Board wants that item included, it will be incorporated into those final numbers.
Mr. Rooker said he does not see any reason to change the advertisement. If four Board
members want to fund that item it can be done from the Reserve.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the W orkforce Development item.
Mr. Boyd said they requested $13,000 but the Board did not agree to fund that item.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the Board needed additional information about the request. If the
information proved satisfactory, the item could be funded from reserves. He thinks the Board said it is a
good program, but it wanted to be sure other localities participating in this agency are doing their part to
make up for the lost Federal funding.
Mr. Boyd said staff should not tell people their request has been removed from the budget when
the Board has not made its final decision on funding. Mr. Elliott said when the County Executive’s
recommended budget was presented to the Board, agencies were notified of what their funding levels
might be. He thinks the letter sent by staff noted only what that funding level might be.
__________
Mr. Boyd said he and Ms. Mallek act as liaison with the Fire/Rescue Advisory Committee. They
have reconstituted the group to look at the issue of EMS Recovery Fees. No decisions have been made
despite what has been published in the newspapers.
Mr. Rooker said the Board tentatively included in the budget money for a half year of the
volunteer program. He thinks that was conditioned on a recovery plan going through.
Mr. Boyd said all of that money was deleted from the proposed budget.
Ms. Mallek said the Board should let the meetings go forward and be patient. The reason there
has been a problem in the past is because of the “red herrings” about the program. It is going to take
some time for it to be worked out.
Ms. Thomas said at its roundtable meeting, the Planning District Commission talked about
revenue recovery. The two neighboring localities that have such a program took about three years to get
it before the public.
__________
Mr. Boyd said the Board wrote to the Department of Rail and Public Transportation and asked to
be informed about any rail enhancement fund projects in the County. He has received a letter from Mr.
Matthew Tucker, its director, saying he would be glad to meet with the Board, but there are no plans for
anything in Albemarle. He asked if the Board members wanted to meet with him, or just wait to see what
will happen.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Tucker offered to provide the Board with a briefing on any potential future
rail initiatives that might impact Albemarle. She thinks that before the end of 2008, the Board should get
an idea of what those plans are.
Ms. Mallek said she met with some citizens last week who are interested in commuter rail service
between Zion Crossroads and W aynesboro. They have talked both with Buckingham Branch and
Amtrak, and they are interested. She said that on April 17 there is a dinner meeting at the Steakhouse for
the Rail Historical Society, and a person from Buckingham Branch will attend to talk with them.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Paul Accad said he lives in Glenmore. He has been following the budget talks closely and
has an idea to share with the Board. He was listening to a podcast of the Board’s discussion of the
City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement and was surprised to hear that 70 percent of the County’s lands
do not generate enough real estate tax revenue to pay the City for the Revenue Sharing Agreement. He
finds it hard to get information on the City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement ($17.0+ million) and the
Land Use Tax Program ($-18.0 million), so it occurred to him that the Board could use the same format it
used in 2006 to set up the Development Review Task Force and set up a new group to produce a
document to educate the average citizen on the history of these two programs, and their current status.
These programs have grown too big to be on auto pilot and they are too big not to review.
__________
Ms. Mallek said at a meeting in Crozet last night several farmers said that on their real property
assessment notice the entire value of their house and the two acres is included in that land use number.
She thinks it needs to be clarified as to how much of the land is on a reduced assessment. Mr. Davis
said they are shown on the tax bill but are not included in the amount of the land use tax which is
calculated separately.
Ms. Thomas said this must be the ninth time the Board has talked about having a study of land
use taxation. But, to date, nothing has happened.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Rooker said staff has said it is one of the items in the rural area plan that it has not gotten to
yet, but this is very large revenue item. He thinks it should be made a high priority. Mr. Davis said staff
plans on making a recommendation concerning revalidation in April, and then report on the Land Use
Plan and formation of a committee in May or June.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board needs a refresher course on the Land Use Program. Mr. Davis
said the program has been presented to the Board a couple of times over the last 15 years. It will be
summarized again as part of a history of land use.
Mr. Slutzky asked if during the presentation next month on revalidation the Board could also
receive the history and context of the program. Is there any reason to wait until July? Mr. Cilimberg said
if this is a Community Development led initiative, they need to wait to find out how it fits in with other work
priorities. This actually is more tied to the Finance Department. He asked if the Board is approaching
this from the revenue side or more toward the purpose of the program for conservation and preservation
purposes.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks it is both. Mr. Cilimberg said if it is both, then Community Development
has to make it a part of its work plan.
Mr. Boyd said if the Board wants to find out through the revalidation process whether land is
qualified for the program that is one thing. If the Board wants to talk about it as a revenue source or
doing away with the program, he does not want to be a part of that decision. He thinks it is an important
program the County needs to keep. He does not want to discuss how to generate more revenue by doing
away with land use taxation.
Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Boyd is only one Board member. He thinks there are questions about the
purpose of the program and whether that purpose is being fulfilled. He would like to know if this is the
best use of the County’s revenue.
Ms. Thomas said it is not just a finance item, but is a land use item also. The Board has left the
Community Development Department sorely under-funded, and there may not be a person to do that
work immediately.
Mr. Slutzky asked if because of that fact Ms. Thomas would be willing to wait or is this sufficient
enough of a priority to ask staff to give an update on the program in April. Mr. Davis said the data
concerning the program needs a significant update and is being worked on now on the Finance side. The
reason staff proposed breaking it into two parts is that revalidation can be done quicker. For the second
part, Mr. Mark Graham and others must determine their resources and a way to deal with the Board’s
request that there be a comprehensive review of the program. That will take longer to pull together.
Mr. Rooker said from 62 percent of the land in the County less is received in tax dollars than is
paid to the City on that land. That is a huge fiscal issue which needs to be looked at. Land use is a tool
to help conserve land in the County and keep it out of development so a decision needs to be made as to
whether it is a cost-effective tool. He said that over the years a number of people have asked how the
Board can justify the expenditure each year when that money could be used to put land in permanent
conservation easements by expanding the ACE Program. He thinks the Board needs to look at what the
program is accomplishing and what other permutations might be available that would be less costly.
Mr. Slutzky agreed with Mr. Rooker, but the only option for keeping lands in conservation
easements is not by expanding the ACE Program. The Board could say land must be in conservation
easements in order to be eligible for land use deferral. There are a number of strategies in addition to the
ACE Program. Although it sounds like this item will have to wait until the Board establishes the priorities
for the Community Development Department’s W ork Plan, he is not convinced that is true.
Mr. Dorrier said this is a big, important issue. The Virginia Farm Bureau feels strongly about
keeping the land use tax program for the farmers.
Mr. Slutzky said it sounds as though only the revalidation part of this item will be presented next
month. Mr. Cilimberg said in May Mr. Graham will present a list of priorities for the Community
Development Department. This matter is part of that Work Program discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Consent Agenda. Ms. Thomas offered motion to approve Item 9.1 on the
consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. 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, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 9.1. Approval of Minutes: August 1 and August 8, 2007.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of August 1, 2007, and found them to be in order as
presented.
Mr. Boyd has read the minutes of August 8, 2007, and found them to be in order as presented.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the minutes which had been read.
__________
Item 9.2. Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund Annual Report.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that the Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund was
established in 1994 by an agreement between the County of Albemarle, the Charlottesville Housing
Foundation (CHF), and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). The purpose of the Trust
Fund is to hold notes and deeds of trust on houses in Crozet Crossings and to collect and distribute funds
upon the resale of the houses. The Trust Fund must meet the requirements set forth by the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development under the provisions of the Community
Development Block Grant Program. One of the requirements is that the collected funds be used for
housing projects that benefit low- and moderate-income households. The Fund is managed by five
trustees (two representing the County, two representing CHF and one representing AHIP) and is staffed
by the County’s Chief of Housing. The Trustees are required to submit an annual report of the Trust Fund
finances and activities to the Board.
The Trustees met on January 30, 2008, to review the financial status of the fund and
review/approve funding requests submitted by two nonprofit applicants. The Fund is in good financial
condition with cash on hand in the amount of $399,850.64 as of December 31, 2007. In addition, the
Fund has potential receivables representing eleven loans totaling $234,420 in original subsidy amounts
and the potential to recapture through shared appreciation $254,193 based on assessed values. The
amount of shared appreciation is based on sales price or assessed value at the time that actions trigger
repayment (sale or refinancing). There is one loan in bankruptcy that is not included in these amounts.
Last year the Trustees approved and the Board appropriated $60,000 to Habitat for Humanity to
assist in constructing two houses for households with disabled residents who were living in substandard
conditions. These projects are underway. Two new applications were received in January, 2008
requesting a total of $400,000 of funding. AHIP submitted an application for its proposed Treesdale Park
development that will provide ninety units of affordable rental housing. Jordan Development Corporation,
with Piedmont Housing Alliance, requested funding for the rehabilitation of twenty-eight existing rental
units for seniors and the construction of thirty-eight new rental units for seniors at Crozet Meadows. The
Trustees approved $252,000 for Treesdale and $134,400 for Crozet Meadows. Once these projects
receive other financial commitments and are ready to begin construction, the Trustees will request the
Board to appropriate the approved funding.
There is no General Fund budget impact, as these funds come from a restricted account required
to fund housing projects. Staff, on behalf of the Trustees, recommends that the Board review and accept
this report on the Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said it is important to point out that $400,000 from this fund will be put
into affordable housing. It is almost the same amount of money requested by the IMPACT group.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the IMPACT group has recognized there are different mechanisms
already in place, and there are other things such as the Proffer Policy. They felt there were gaps beyond
that existing level of investment that necessitated their suggestion for $0.5 million.
Mr. Boyd said his point is that there is $1.3 million in the budget going toward affordable housing
for different programs.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board accepted this report on the Crozet
Crossings Housing Trust Fund only.
__________
Item 9.3. Copy of letter dated February 29, 2008, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to David Collins, John McNair Associates, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS
AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 118, Parcel 17 (property of Philip H. Calhoun, Thomas
Calhoun, David Calhoun, Andrew Calhoun, Jonathan Calhoun, Henry W. Calhoun, etal) and Tax Map
118, Parcel 18A (property of Mitchell O. Carr, Trustee) – Scottsville Magisterial District. (Removed from
agenda)
__________
Item 9.4. Copy of letter dated March 3, 2008, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, re:
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 79, Parcel 10
(property of Albemarle Edgehill Farm LLC) – Rivanna Magisterial District, was received as information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: To solicit public input on the proposed Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications that may be submitted to the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development for the following projects: Treesdale Park - installation of onsite
infrastructure to include roads, water and sewer to support the development of 90 rental units; and,
Crozet Meadows - installation of onsite infrastructure to support the development of 38 rental units for
seniors. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10,
2008.)
Mr. Ron W hite, Housing Director, said a public hearing was held on February 6, 2008, at which
time information was provided on eligible activities that could be funded by VCDBG, the amount of
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
funding estimated to be available, past activities undertaken with VCDBG funds, and the process for
applying for funding. There were no public comments tendered at that hearing. The purpose of the
public hearing tonight is to seek input on proposed project applications; two applications have been
received. Both applications request the maximum amount allowed for their specific activity or $700,000
each; the County can apply for up to $2.5 million.
Mr. W hite said the first project is for Treesdale Park Apartments. The proposal is for money to
help with infrastructure costs, land development, road, sidewalks, water and sewer. The total
development costs of the project are about $23.0 million, and the project relies heavily on low-income
housing tax credits for equity financing. He said tax credits are not as good at this time as they were last
year so he expects there will be financing gaps over and above what is actually proposed. Treesdale
Park Apartments is a proposed 90-unit rental development on Rio Road to be undertaken by the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). It will be a mix of one, two and three-bedroom units
with initial rents ranging from $450 to $890 a month. At the end of the 15-year tax credit compliance
period, AHIP will have the opportunity to buy the project for existing debt and any exit taxes in order to
keep it in affordable housing stock.
Mr. W hite said the second project is for Crozet Meadows Senior Housing. The project is a joint
venture between Jordan Development Corporation, the current owner, and the Piedmont Housing
Alliance. The proposal is to rehabilitate 28 existing rental units and build 38 new rental units for seniors.
All of the units will be one-bedroom with rents ranging from $467 to $561 a month. They are requesting
money for onsite work, roads and installation of water and sewer lines. The total development cost is
estimated at $8.9 million.
Mr. W hite said DHCD's program guidelines this year indicate that funding for on-site infrastructure
would be in the form of a loan with interest repayable at the completion and occupancy of the
development. County staff has met with DHCD staff to emphasize the importance of using VCDBG
funding as long-term deferred financing. The Housing Committee followed up with a letter to stress the
need for a grant to the County so the County can make a deferred loan to the proposed developments.
DHCD staff encouraged the County to proceed with the applications making a case for the need for
deferred loans to both developments. If one or both proposals are awarded VCDBG funds, there will be
additional opportunities to address this issue, if it still exists, prior to executing a contract with DHCD.
Mr. W hite said staff recommends that the Board, after receiving comments on the proposed
VCDBG applications tonight, adopt resolutions approving submission of the applications, and authorize
the County Executive to execute the applications and the required certifications and assurances for both
proposals.
Mr. Boyd asked if this will allow both projects to lower their rent by a significant amount. Mr.
White said the proposals are based on their receiving the money and it being a deferred loan. If the
money is not granted, and AHIP or the Jordan Development Corporation cannot substitute it with like soft
money, neither project is feasible. They should have a 110 percent debt coverage ratio, so without this
money, or similar money being in the project as a deferred loan, they would not meet that debt coverage.
Ms. Thomas asked the chances of receiving this money. Mr. W hite said he will not weigh one
proposal against the other, but the County has a good track record, and DHCD has a good track record
working with AHIP on rehab projects such as the Whitewood Village project. He thinks that is the
stronger proposal of the two. Unit costs are high because of site development costs and that could be a
negative factor. In staff’s meeting with them, they said they try to look at the whole picture. As long as
the need can be documented (rental housing is an important need in the County), he thinks that covers a
lot of what they are looking for.
Ms. Thomas asked if it is the sort of thing that a group like IMPACT could have input into. Mr.
White said he does not think so, but if they were present tonight to speak at this public hearing, of if they
had been present during the Board’s first public hearing, staff would make note of that in the applications.
Ms. Mallek asked if letters could be sent after tonight. Mr. W hite said if he gets the letters by
Monday they could be included as support documents with the application materials. Nothing will be
accepted after the deadline; all materials must be in the application package.
Ms. Mallek said there is a comment in the staff’s report that there is no budgetary impact unless
or until an application is made and approved for a funded project. She asked if the $56,000 listed as
being included in each application to cover administrative and project management costs for the funded
activities is paid by the County or AHIP. Mr. W hite said ten percent is allowed for those purposes. He
hopes both of these projects can be managed using County staff working with Facilities Development so
part of the money may be moved around in the County budget to help other departments. It is likely that
things like Davis-Bacon wage reports and similar items would have to be contracted out. If the grant is
awarded and the $56,000 is not needed, he would ask that the money go into the project itself.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing.
Mr. Cliff Fox said both of these projects are reasonable. He has looked at them with AHIP. He
thinks there are a lot of missed opportunities in the current zoning ordinance; such things as the granny
apartments and the accessory apartments that are named but are not articulated. That is a way to
disperse affordable housing within the neighborhoods as opposed to clustering it. W hile these projects
are great, the County needs to keep working on ways to integrate affordable housing throughout the
neighborhoods.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the resolutions for the Treesdale Park
Virginia Community Development Block Grant application and the Crozet Meadows Virginia Community
Development Block Grant application approving submission of both applications, and authorizing the
County Executive to execute the applications and the required certifications and assurances for both
proposals.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The two resolutions, as adopted, are set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents and improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held February 6, 2008, and March 19, 2008 the
County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $700,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds
to support the production of a ninety (90) unit rental development known as Treesdale Park; and
WHEREAS, other resources estimated in excess of $20,000,000 including, but not
limited to, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, Federal Home Loan Bank, the Crozet
Crossings Housing Trust Fund, and VHDA loans will be invested in the project; and
WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Treesdale Park
Apartments will be very-low and extremely-low income as required by the Internal Revenue
Service for federal low-income housing tax credits; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has committed to providing twenty-one (21) project-
based Housing Choice Vouchers; and
WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the project include:
Development of ninety (90) affordable rental units benefiting approximately 250
persons annually, one-third
of whom are expected to be children;
Construction of a community center; and
Provision of services including after-school school programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is
hereby authorized to sign and submit all necessary and appropriate documents for the Treesdale
Park Virginia Community Development Block Grant application.
_____
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents and improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Hearings held February 6, 2008, and March 19, 2008 the
County of Albemarle wishes to apply for $700,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds
to support the production of a thirty-eight (38) unit senior rental development known as Crozet
Meadows; and
WHEREAS, other resources include Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and the Crozet
Crossings Housing Trust Fund will be invested in the project; and
WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100%) of the population residing at Crozet Meadows
will be very-low and extremely-low income as required by the Internal Revenue Service for
federal low-income housing tax credits; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has committed to providing eight (8) project-based
Housing Choice Vouchers; and
WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the project include:
Development of thirty-eight (38) new affordable rental units benefiting
approximately 50 senior persons annually; and
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Rehabilitation of twenty-eight (28) existing senior rental units benefiting
approximately 36 persons annually.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, is
hereby authorized to sign and submit all necessary and appropriate documents for the Crozet
Meadows Virginia Community Development Block Grant application.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: ZMA-2004-018, Fontana Phase 4C (Signs #37, 45).
Proposal: Rezone 17.146 acres from RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre), R-4 Residential zoning district (4 units/acre) and
R-1 Residential zoning district (1 unit/acre) to R-4 Residential zoning district which allows
residential uses at 4 units per acre for 34 dwelling units at a gross density of 1.98 units/acre.
Proffers: Yes.
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale
nonresidential uses in Neighborhood 3 – Pantops.
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: At the intersection of Fontana Dr (Rt 1765) and Via Florence approximately 0.5 miles
from the intersection of Fontana Dr and Stony Point Rd (Rt 20 North).
Tax Map/Parcel: 78E-A.
Magisterial District: Rivanna.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10,
2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Board saw this request several months ago.
The location of the property is adjacent to the existing Fontana development. This proposal would
convert several zoning districts to R-4 with a proffered plan for 34 single-family lots. It includes
commitments for 15 percent affordable housing in the form of cash and the proffer to mitigate impacts at
$17,500 per unit for the single-family attached units which are part of the project. He pointed out on a
map the areas where the project would be built. One of those areas is adjacent to the Cascadia
development which had been approved by the Board. It includes extension of a road to eventually serve
the development to the north of Fontana 4C.
Mr. Cilimberg said at its meeting on August 8, 2007, the Board heard concerns from residents in
the existing part of Fontana subdivision about the unfinished pedestrian paths in those phases. The
applicant agreed to work toward finishing those paths and staff prepared a plan which the applicant has
now proffered to address the provision of paths throughout Fontana and to complete the path system,
and to include this project in that plan. The plan contains locations for paths and the standards and the
proffer will insure that the path system is installed prior to any grading in Phase 4C. The County Engineer
worked on this to be sure it is a workable plan for the applicant and staff, and that there be some flexibility
on the ground to deal with particular circumstances.
Mr. Slutzky interrupted to ask the County Attorney if there is a problem when the County actually
drafts the language for the proffer. Mr. Davis said the proffer has to be voluntarily offered. County staff
often assists in drafting proffer language.
Mr. Cilimberg said the recommendation is for approval of ZMA-2004-008 with the proffered plan
dated July 30, 2007, inclusive of proffers dated February 24, 2008, and signed March 13, 2008. He said
there were some technical aspects to the proffers that needed to be finalized, nothing substantive, and
those have been reviewed by the County Attorney. The proffers are in hand, and he gave a copy to the
Board. In addition to what is before the Board for action tonight, there will be some waivers necessary.
Those will be considered during the subdivision approval process and be subject to the Planning
Commission granting them. He said the Commission may not grant them or the applicant may not pursue
all of them. They relate to things such as curb, gutter, sidewalks and street trees on three of the new
streets, and critical slopes disturbance. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd asked the difference between the proffers just handed out and those sent out with the
Board’s materials for this meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said this final set of proffers basically gets all of the
words right. Mr. Davis said there were some minor typographical errors, no substantive changes.
Ms. Thomas asked what is being done to affect the Monticello viewshed. Mr. Cilimberg said
Proffer No. 4 talks about trees to be planted, or retained. Proffer No. 9 refers to architectural standards
and talks about colors.
Ms. Thomas asked if experience shows that to be sufficient. Mr. Cilimberg said there is definitely
a difference with that type of proffer. It has been the most effective way of dealing with the viewshed
issue.
Mr. Boyd asked the status of the interconnection between Fontana and Cascadia. Mr. Cilimberg
said Cascadia has not presented development plans yet. In their approval, they had provided for the
possibility of a connection and this plan also provides for a connection.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Boyd asked if there are two connection points with one being near the Montessori School.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out on the plan where there would be a connection on the east side of Cascadia.
Then on Fontana Drive toward Route 20 there is another location where a connection could be made.
Mr. Boyd said the connection at the top of the development was opposed by the neighborhood.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was of concern because of the amount of traffic that might use roads considered
substandard by the residents for through traffic.
Mr. Boyd said he was reading the minutes of the Board’s last work session on this project and it
was noted that the problem might be solved by putting a light at Cascadia, but VDOT has said they will
not install a light there. The concern of the residents is valid; they fear the residents of Cascadia who
want to turn left onto Route 20 will go through Fontana to get to a traffic light for that left-hand turn. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Cascadia development has not progressed yet, and things have changed. There may
be warrants that will be met with Cascadia’s development for traffic that was not anticipated at the time of
its approval.
Mr. Boyd said he travels Route 20 every day and during peak times it is difficult to make a left-
hand turn out of there.
Mr. Rooker said the Board needs to be aware that VDOT is adopting standards which require
connections, and if connections are not made, the County cannot get State Maintenance funds for those
roads. He said the standards now being required are basically the Neighborhood Model standards the
Board adopted some time ago. Those will become State requirements.
Mr. Boyd he can understand that when roads have been built to higher standards, but the
Fontana roads were not built like that. There are no sidewalks, but there will be a trail system which
might help.
Ms. Thomas said when she looked at the map of this plan originally there was an obvious gap
between the dotted path and the beginning of the new section. She wondered if there would be a way for
pedestrians to get from the path to the new section. Mr. Cilimberg said that path is shown as part of the
proffered pathway plan. The new plan for Fontana 4C shows a path that would be part of the new section
that will have a connection behind lots in the existing section.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the waiver about the trees. Mr. Cilimberg said the
applicant will be subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for the Development Areas.
There will be a standard cross-section of curb and gutter, a planting strip and a sidewalk. They can ask
for a waiver from that provision during the subdivision process. Nothing the Board does in approving this
petition would affect that request at the subdivision level. The Board would not be granting anything that
the applicant would otherwise be required to do under the Subdivision Ordinance.
Ms. Mallek said it concerns her when staff has to spend a great deal of time doing work for the
applicant. Hopefully staff’s work on this path system might be used later for another applicant as to
procedures, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said staff hopes they do not have to do too many of these plans.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd asked the applicant to come forward and speak.
Mr. Lewis Martin said he represents the applicant. W hen they were here in August the applicant
proffered conditions that satisfied Planning. There was an issue regarding the pedestrian pathways. The
matter was deferred with a strong recommendation from the Board that the applicants meet with County
staff and resolve the pathway issue. That has been done; the applicant has worked with the County
Engineer to come up with a plan. The applicant will not be able to move any dirt in this space until he has
completed those pathways in the existing phases. He has to complete the pathways in this new section
before he gets the ninth building permit in the new phase. He believes the concerns raised in August
have been adequately addressed.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Carl Seelman said he is a resident of Fontana. He has two concerns about Glenn Brooks’
plan for the pathways. One is because it is next to his house. He read Item 10 “At the transformer shown
below, the transformer is to be moved where the trail ... for its full width to one side after easements are
obtained.” He said on one side of the trail is his property. He feels that he may be forced to give up his
property to put a trail on it and that is of concern. Item No. 6 refers to 10 percent and he does not know
what that number means. He assumes that 10 percent means that in 10 feet it can only go up one foot.
It says that if that happens, stairs or realignments would be provided subject to the approval of the
erosion control officer or the County Engineer. He said realignment to him means moving the path onto
somebody’s private property, and stairs means it will be inconvenient for people to push strollers up. He
is concerned about the safety of the neighborhood. He sees of a lot of strollers and women and children
walking up the streets, partly because the paths are only partially completed. The residents have been
asked not to use the paths which are not feasible and safe for people to walk on at this time.
Ms. Jeanne Anderson said she is a member of the Fontana Board of Directors Homeowners’
Association. She wanted to reiterate their thanks to County staff for drawing up a plan and getting this
into the proffers so the paths can be completed before work on 4C is started. However, even with a fully
functioning path system, it is not a replacement for sidewalks, curb and gutter. She asked that the
County keep this in mind when the Cascadia request comes in for approval. Their roads are substandard
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
and hopefully the pathways when finished will be useful, but they are not a replacement for a sidewalk
system and will not alleviate their concerns about the road system.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Brooks could address the Board about the pathway.
Mr. Glen Brooks, County Engineer, said there were two issues, one concerning a transformer and
the other stairs. Ten percent may be low, but the idea was to leave some discretion so they could try and
follow the plan. There are two locations on the plan where staff feels stairs are necessary, but tried to
avoid requiring them everywhere else. This plan was intended to show the routes and then work on the
details in the field because there is not an up-to-date survey of the property.
Mr. Rooker said as to the question of taking someone’s property, the County does not intend to
exercise eminent domain with respect to this pathway, so the applicant would have to work out a private
agreement with the property owner. Mr. Davis said the burden would be on the developer to work out an
acceptable agreement with the property owner.
Mr. Brooks said at this time there seems to be no alternative other than to move the transformer
or to move the trail.
Mr. Boyd asked about the two locations which require steps. Mr. Brooks drew the locations on a
copy of the plan. He then explained the use of steps in the plan and what type of steps might be used.
Ms. Mallek asked about the use of a wooden ramp such as those used at beaches. Mr. Brooks
said there would be a worry about the longevity of such ramps. Ms. Mallek said she thinks it would be far
better than stairs because it could be used by bikers. Mr. Brooks said there is flexibility in the plan to do
something like that.
Ms. Mallek asked if the roads in the existing subdivision have been accepted into the State
Highway System. Mr. Brooks said most of them have been.
Mr. Rooker said this application is a good example of how far the County has come with respect
to the standards it requires. Most of the public comments received had to do with the fact that the
subdivision was not built to the standards required at this time with respect to sidewalks, street trees, curb
and gutter, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said everybody has to recognize that this development is on the side of a
mountain. That poses a great challenge to putting in a system like the one being discussed. He said Mr.
Brooks tried to come up with something that will work as a retrofit to what everybody wants to accomplish.
It is not easy to make that happen in this kind of terrain.
Mr. Boyd said the roads are very narrow and with the sidewalks he is fearful a tremendous
amount of traffic will be created through there when the roads are interconnected. With the amount of
density being put in there with the addition of W est Ashcroft, Lake Ridge, Ryan Homes, etc., the narrow
roads scare him.
Mr. Rooker said there were people on the Board who did not support imposition of the standards
and a lot of the development community said at one time that these standards should not be adopted.
What the Board is seeing now is that the community wants and demands these standards. If standards
are not put into place, problems are created when links are created. He thinks the Board has done good
work getting to where it is now with respect to the standards being required at this time.
Ms. Mallek suggested that traffic calming measures might make it less appealing for people to
speed if the connection is opened. A connection will provide benefits for getting emergency people
through without having to go out to Route 20.
Ms. Thomas said that is a Catch-22 because the present residents will have to go over the speed
bumps or whatever traffic calming is put into place. She lives next to a subdivision which has six speed
bumps so has a feeling about what that does to the present occupants. She asked Mr. Boyd if he was
suggesting that this petition not be approved.
Mr. Boyd said “no”, but the Board will need to be careful when the Cascadia petition is brought
back for approval. He is worried about where it will connect to Fontana. If it can be connected at the
bottom of the hill near the Montessori School, that will reduce some of the traffic through the
neighborhood. He then offered motion to approve ZMA-2004-018 inclusive of the proffers dated
February 24, 2008, and signed on March 13, 2008.
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, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
Original Proffer ______
Amended Proffer ____
(Amendment # I to ZMA 94-06 )
PROFFER FORM FOR FONT ANA PHASE 4C
Date: February 24, 2008
ZMA # 04-18
Tax Map and Parcel Number Tax Map 78E, Parcel A
17.15 Acres to be rezoned from R1, R4, RA to R4
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned.
These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is acknowledged that
such conditions are reasonable.
1. Conformity with Plans: Fontana Phase 4C shall be developed in general accord with
the plans entitled, “Fontana — Phase 4C Rezoning Plan,” prepared by Terra Engineering
and Land Solutions, dated, July 30, 2007, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A, (the “Plan”). No more than thirty-four (34) dwelling units shall be developed in Fontana
Phase 4C.
2. Final Grading Plan: The Owner shall submit a final grading plan meeting the
requirements of this section (hereinafter, the “Final Grading Plan”) with the application for
each subdivision of the residential units shown on the Plan identified in Proffer 1 above.
The Final Grading Plan shall show existing and proposed topographic features to be
considered in the development of the proposed subdivision. The Final Grading Plan shall
be approved by the County Engineer prior to the approval of the first preliminary
subdivision plat. The subdivision shall be graded as shown on the approved Final
Grading Plan. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any dwelling on a lot where
the County Engineer has determined the lot is not graded consistent with the approved
Final Grading Plan. The Final Grading Plan shall satisfy the following:
A. The Final Grading Plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, surface
drainage, driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines
are needed to verify that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer.
B. The Final Grading Plan shall be drawn to scale not greater than one (1) inch
equals fifty (50) feet.
C. All proposed grading shall be shown at contour intervals not greater than two (2)
feet.
D. All concentrated surface drainages over lots shall be clearly shown with the
proposed grading. All proposed grading shall be shown to assure that surface
drainage can provide adequate relief from flooding of dwellings in the event a
storm sewer fails. Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf
grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a gradient of three (3) feet horizontal distance
for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1). Steeper slopes shall be
vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined to be appropriate by
the County’s program authority in its approval of an erosion and sediment control
plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not exceed a
gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise
or fall (2:1), unless the County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations
for steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts.
E. Surface drainage from one-half (1/2) acre of land or from three (3) or more lots,
whichever is greater in area, shall be collected in a storm sewer or directed to a
drainage way outside of the lots.
F. All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point
beyond the rear of the building site.
G. The Final Grading Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in
width, or to the lot line if the distance is less than ten (10) feet, from the portion of
the structure facing the street has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent
adjacent to possible entrances that shall not be served by a stairway. This
graded area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways or walkways
connecting the dwelling to the street.
H. Any requirement of this condition may be waived by the County Engineer by
submitting a waiver request with the preliminary plat. If such a request is made, it
shall include: (i) a justification for the request contained in a certified engineer’s
report; (ii) a vicinity map showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller
than one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (iii) a conceptual plan at a scale
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
no smaller than one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed
boundaries of the property; (iv) topography of the property at five (5) foot
intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance of
five hundred (500) feet from the boundary line or a lesser distance determined to
be sufficient by the agent; (v) the locations of streams, stream buffers, steep
slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; and (vi) the proposed layout of streets and
lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as applicable. In reviewing a waiver
request, the County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by
the Owner satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived to at least an
equivalent degree. In approving a waiver, the County Engineer shall find that
requiring compliance with the requirement of this condition would not forward the
purposes of the County’s Subdivision and W ater Protection Ordinances or
otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of
the Project, and to the land adjacent thereto,
I. The Owner may request that the Plan be amended at any time. All amendments
shall be subject to the review and approval by the County Engineer.
3. Affordable Housing: The Owner shall contribute $2,809.00 cash per dwelling unit, up to
an aggregate maximum contribution of $95,500.00 (equivalent to $19,100 cash per unit
as cash in lieu of five (5) affordable dwelling units) to the County for the purpose of
affordable housing. Each cash contribution shall be due and payable with each
application for a building permit. Each cash contribution shall be used for the purpose of
funding affordable housing programs in Albemarle County. If this cash contribution has
not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within ten (10) years after the
last payment of the contribution, all unexpended funds shall be applied to any public use
serving Neighborhood 3 Pantops.
4. Trees: At least one hundred-seventy (170) trees shall be planted or retained on the
subdivided lots. Trees shall be distributed among all lots with a minimum of 5 trees per
lot. The five trees to be counted on each lot shall be marked in the field for inspection
purposes. The owner shall not request a certificate of occupancy until a final zoning
inspection is performed and all required trees are in place.
Standard for trees to be retained: Deciduous trees to be retained shall be at least a 1
1/2 inch caliper d.b.h. and non-deciduous trees shall be at least four (4) feet in height. All
trees to be retained shall be identified on erosion and sediment control plans, final
grading plans, and road plans. A tree conservation plan in accordance with Section
32.7.9.4. of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted and approved prior to approval of
any erosion and sediment control permit for grading.
Standards for trees to be planted: All trees shall be planted in accordance with either
the standardized landscape specifications jointly adopted by the Virginia Nurserymen’s
Association, the Virginia Society of Landscape Designers and the Virginia Chapter of the
American Society of Landscape Architects, or the road and bridge specifications of the
Virginia Department of Transportation. At planting, deciduous trees shall be at least a 1
1/2 inches in caliper d.b.h.; non-deciduous trees shall be at least four (4) feet in height.
5. Pedestrian Paths: Pedestrian paths shown on the Plan shall be constructed according
to the standards for Class A Type I pedestrian paths in the Albemarle County Design
Standards Manual. The Owner shall not request that the County issue the ninth (9th)
building permit until the paths have been completed to the satisfaction of the County
Engineer.
6. Cash proffer: The Owner shall contribute $17,500 cash to the County for each unit
constructed within the Property for the purpose of mitigating impacts from the
development. Each cash contribution shall be used for improvements for schools,
libraries, public safety, parks and transportation as identified in the County’s Capital
Improvements Program. The cash contribution shall be paid in increments of $17,500 for
each unit prior to or at the time of issuance of a building permit for each unit. If this cash
contribution has not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within five (5)
years after the date, all unexpended funds shall be applied to any public use serving
Neighborhood 3 Pantops.
7. Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers: Beginning January 1, 2008, the amount of each
cash contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any
increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building
Cost Index (the “MSI”). In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a
sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment
shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding
year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the
preceding calendar year, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of
December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended. For each cash
contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be
correspondingly adjusted each year.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
8. Final Approval: The Owner shall not submit an application for an erosion and sediment
control permit for grading until improvements have been completed for phases 1, 2, 3,
and 4A and 4B of the Fontana Subdivision and all bonds held by the County in
conjunction with subdivision, stormwater management, and erosion control for prior
phases have been released by the County.
9. Architectural Standards: The Owner shall require as part of the covenants for Fontana
Phase 4C that all structures be constructed using medium shaded earth-tone colors for
façade treatment of the buildings and dark, non-reflective materials for roofs. The colors
for the façade treatments and the colors and materials for the roofs shall be subject to
prior approval by the Director of Planning.
10. Plan for Pedestrian Paths for Phases 1 2,3, 4A and 4B of Fontana Subdivision: The
Owner shall construct pedestrian paths in accordance with the plan entitled “Fontana
Pedestrian Path Plan,” prepared by Glenn Brooks 2-25-08, pages 1, 2 and 3. These
paths shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to grading in
Phase 4C.
(Signed) A. M. Nichols____ ______________________ 3/13/08
Signature of Owner A. M. Nichols, Trustee Date
Fontana Land Trust
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: ZMA 2006-14, Professional Office Building at Hydraulic &
Georgetown Rds (Signs #58 & 65).
Proposal: Rezone 1.051 acres from C-1 Commercial zoning district which allows retail sales and
service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) to NMD Neighborhood
Model District zoning district which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with commercial,
service and industrial uses. Approx. 20,000 sq ft building.
Proffers: Yes.
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: Southwest corner of Georgetown/Hydraulic Roads intersection.
Tax Map/Parcel: 60F/3.
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10,
2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the location of this project is in the Rural Areas
on the edge of the Development Area. Some years ago the property was rezoned for a commercial use
and approved specifically for a gasoline station. That plan was never pursued, but a few years ago a site
plan was presented that required a number of waivers, and the plan was never exercised. The current
application is for a change of the allowed use at this location, which would be accomplished through a
rezoning from the current C-1 designation to NMD to develop a professional office building of
approximately 16,800 square feet. The request is for NMD in order to achieve some design aspects
preferable in this location. The site falls back significantly from the roads to the rear of the property; it is
in the drainage basin of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Cilimberg said the plan calls for the development to occur on the front two-thirds of the
property with parking under the building. An area adjacent to the parking would be preserved and also
there would be a preservation area to the rear of the property. There is a specific proffer which
addresses replacement of trees in the conservation area. No trees would be removed in the preservation
area on the rear of the property. There is a reference in the staff’s report to a critical slopes waiver, and
he pointed out that area on the plan. Along the front of the property, there would be sidewalk
reconstruction because there is a path and sidewalk there now which would be continued between the
adjacent properties along Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads, and there would be plantings along the front
of the building. He said the applicant has had to deal with the existing waterline along the front of the
property, and that has affected the design of the front of the building.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission recommended approval but with a recommendation
that several issues be resolved. Those issues have been addressed. The general development plan
now delineates the conservation and preservation areas. The conservation area is overlaid with the
existing conditions noting trees to be removed. Replacement for trees to be removed from the
conservation area will be two trees of similar species or quality for each tree removed or destroyed. The
trees to be replaced are those in excess of twelve inches and the replacement trees will be not less than
two and one-half inches. The current proffers and Code of Development have been revised. He then
handed to the Board members the final copy of these materials.
Mr. Cilimberg said the recommendation is for approval of the zoning map amendment inclusive of
proffers dated and signed March 18, 2008, the Code of Development dated February 25, 2008, and the
General Development Plan dated January 19, 2007, revised February 25, 2008. There are also five
waivers recommended for approval by the Commission. One waiver allows this planned development in
the rural areas, or otherwise it should be in a development area. To accomplish what is considered to be
a preferable use and design of this location, a planned development approach has been taken and that
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
requires a waiver of Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. A waiver is required for reduction of the rear
setback adjacent to the RA from 50 feet to 47 1/2 feet. A critical slopes waiver is required. Also, a waiver
to allow one use rather than a mixture of uses and housing types in this location, as just offices are
planned for the site, although the applicant has also mentioned some limited support commercial. A
waiver is required to allow reduction of amenities from the required 20 percent of the site to 11 percent of
the site based on site constraints. Amenities are supposed to be usable open space, but site constraints
do not allow the applicant to achieve the 20 percent. They did provide a sidewalk and they are adjacent
to other areas including the school complex.
Mr. Rooker asked the size of the preservation area. Mr. Cilimberg said it is probably one-third of
the site. The total acreage is a little over one acre. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said there was mention of a bus shelter, but she does not see it on the plan. Mr.
Davis said Proffer No. 2 references that shelter, but apparently it has not been finally located. That would
be a requirement of the site plan.
Ms. Thomas asked about a water retention basin which is mentioned in the report. Mr. Cilimberg
said the site has been evaluated as to its ability to handle the basin, but the basin is not shown on the
plan.
At this time, Mr. Boyd asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Keith W oodard said the location for the bus stop will be determined by VDOT and the County
jointly. If that can be determined prior to the time they submit the final site plan, or during construction, it
is their responsibility to build it either on their property or just off of their property. In the proffers they
have agreed to pay a certain amount with an escalation clause in case it ends up with someone else
having to build the shelter. With regards to drainage, the current site plan shows two filter units as well as
under parking lot drainage structures, piping and such. Water will be both retained and filtered on site
before being released into the watershed. They have worked with the RW SA, ACSA, Dominion Power,
VDOT and the County planners to achieve the plan presented. It is a tight and challenging site, but they
have come up with something that will add to that intersection and still accommodate all the activity that
needs to flow around it. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd then 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.
Mr. Rooker said originally this site was approved for a gas station as a sole use. Without a
rezoning, there was no flexibility to do anything else on the site. W hen VDOT condemned land for the
widening of Hydraulic Road, there was a gas station on the adjacent property to the north. VDOT took
their gas tanks so it could no longer operate when the sidewalks were installed. The County then agreed
to a gas station being built on the site so the business could continue, but it never was continued. This is
a much better use of the property and he is glad to see this plan come forward. He then moved approval
of ZMA-2006-014, inclusive of the proffers dated and signed March 18, 2008, the Code of Development
dated February 25, 2008, and the General Development Plan dated January 19, 2007, revised February
25, 2008.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
Original Proffer X
Amendment
PROFFER FORM
Date of Proffer Signature: 03-18-2008
ZMA: #06-014
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 60F-3
1.051 Acres to be rezoned from C-I to NMD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to
the property, if rezoned with the offered plans approved for development. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is acknowledged that the conditions are
reasonable.
1. The Owner shall install a permanent 5-bike bicycle rack as shown on the revised plan
entitled, “General Development Plan page 2 of 4”, dated 1-19-07 and last revised 2-25-
08, hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”. Installation of the bicycle rack shall be
completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the building to be
erected on the property.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
2. The Owner shall construct one bus shelter as shown on the Plan with the dimensions as
follows: nine foot (9’) - wide shelter with six foot (6’) all metal bench with back.
Construction of the bus shelter shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate
of occupancy for the building to be erected on the property. If VDOT and the County
transportation planner do not determine the location of the bus shelter prior to final site
plan approval, then upon the subsequent determination of the shelter location by VDOT
and the County transportation planner, and upon written request by the County, the
Owner shall construct the shelter and metal bench in the selected location at its sole
expense, but not to exceed seven thousand eight hundred dollars ($7,800). The Owner
shall complete construction of the shelter and bench within 90 days after the date of the
written request by the County.
3. Each building to be constructed on the property shall be rated a minimum of “Certified”
(or demonstrated to the County’s Director of Community Development’s satisfaction to be
eligible to receive such certification) under the LEED-NC Green Building Rating System
for New Construction and Major Renovations, Version 2.2 (October 2005) or the LEED
Green Building Rating System for Core & Shell Development, Version 2.0 (July 2006), as
applicable (collectively, the “LEED Compliant Commercial Space”). Prior to issuance of
the building permit for any proposed LEED compliant space, the Owner shall provide to
the County Director of Community Development a certification from a LEED certified
architect that such space, if constructed in accordance with the building plans, is
designed to achieve the minimum “Certified” rating under LEED provided in this Proffer 3.
Before the Owner requests a certificate of occupancy for any building for which a LEED
certified architect rendered such a certificate, the Owner shall submit to the County’s
Director of Community Development a written statement from the architect that the
building was built to the plans on which the opinion was based. For each building
containing LEED compliant space, the Owner shall provide a copy of the LEED
certification to the County’s Director of Community Development within one (1) year after
the date the certificate of occupancy was issued for that building.
4. The preliminary and final site plan shall delineate the Conservation and Preservation
Areas on the property. The Owner shall replace trees that must be removed in
Conservation Areas. Replacement shall be two (2) trees of similar species or quality for
each removed or destroyed tree. All tree replacement shall be in accord with the final
landscape plan for the final site plan for the Property. The Owner’s obligation to replace
trees within the Conservation Areas shall be completed within the following planting
season. The trees to be replaced must be in excess of 12” dbh and shall be replaced
with trees of the same or a similar species or quality of not less than 2.5” dbh, as
determined by the County’s Director of Community Development.
CKW 2 LLC
(Signed) Chris Kabbash
By: Chris Kabbash 03/18/2008
Its Member
_____
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the five waivers for ZMA-2006-014,
Professional Office Building at H ydraulic & Georgetown Roads, as recommended by staff and the
Planning Commission. The motion as seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzk y, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The waivers are set out in full below.)
1. Waiver of Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance allowing this Planned Development in the
Rural Areas (permitted by Section 8.2);
2. Reduction of the rear setback adjacent to RA from 50’ to 47.5’;
3. Critical slopes waiver;
4. Waiver of Section 20A.8 to allow one use rather than a mixture of uses and housing
types; and
5. Waiver of Section 20A.9.b to allow reduction of amenities from the required 20 percent to
11 percent of the site.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: SP-2007-27, Emmanuel Episcopal Church Amendment
(Sign #4).
Proposal: Site reorganization including expanded parking, future office/education building,
columbarium, memorial garden.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Section: 10.2.2(35).
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre).
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Location: 7599 Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt 250), Greenwood.
Tax Map/Parcel: 70/12, 13 & 13A.
Magisterial District: W hite Hall.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10,
2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. This is a request for some expansion and improvements
at the existing church complex on Route 250 W est. It also will incorporate a building which previously
has not been part of the church’s area in the special use permit. There will be site reorganization for
expanded parking, a future fellowship building, a columbarium, and the existing education building will be
brought into the special use permit and brought into compliance. There is waiver of disturbance of critical
slopes for future building and a portion of the parking area which was granted by the Planning
Commission. The Board is dealing with the special use permit tonight. He said the waiver had to do with
a proposed building and he pointed out that location on the plan. He said there will be reorganization of
parking on the site and some trees will be taken.
Mr. Cilimberg showed pictures of the site and the inside of the existing church. He said this is a
historically significant church so the proposal is sensitive to its historic surroundings; the proposal is
supported by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The reconfigured parking will avoid
destruction of some mature trees. No changes to the historic buildings on the site are proposed. A
couple of unfavorable factors to the proposal are: some mature trees will be removed in order to
accommodate some parking areas; and, some parking areas will be located closer to Route 250 in front
of the cemetery and the education building.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff and the Planning Commission feel it is a balanced proposal and
recommended approval subject to 10 conditions including an adjustment to Condition No. 7 which notes
that construction is related to the new building, and the columbarium. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Slutzky asked why parking at the education building was not put at the back of the building.
Mr. Cilimberg said it may be for the purpose of access because that part of the property has a separate
access point. There is also a walking path up to the other structures. He suggested the applicant speak
to the parking arrangements.
At this time, Mr. Boyd asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Doug Gilpin said he is a member of the church and has been their architect since 1976. He
said Mr. Mark Lewerth from LPDA is also present to answer technical questions. He said the church goes
back to 1861. The basic church structure was built in 1917 and it was expanded in the 1950s. They do
not want to change the historic structure or the landscape. The request before the Board tonight is in
response to the parishioners. The church has grown in membership. People park on the entrance drive
and close to Route 250. They wanted a good comprehensive parking plan and also wanted to do some
future planning. A great firm, LPDA, was hired and the church has been working with them for 15 or more
months on this plan which responds to their desire to keep the site historic, and answers safety issues so
the parishioners can get their cars into a parking place close to the church. In response to the question
raised about parking, some members would like to have parking closer to the church. It is quite a
distance and a change in elevation down into the other area mentioned. W ith regard to the access off of
Route 250, it goes back to an old drive to the Greenwood Garage, circa 1940s or 1950s. That is why that
access comes in at an odd angle. He said that Mr. Lewerth is available to answer questions.
Mr. Mark Lewerth said he would address Mr. Slutzky’s comment. The building in question is a
one-story brick rancher with a walkout basement. There is also a septic tank in the back.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a grade change from the front door level. Mr. Lewerth said it is
probably four or five feet; not a great distance.
Ms. Thomas asked about preservation of trees. Mr. Gilpin said many of the trees being taken
down as part of the plan are in the forested area, and many are not a good species. None of the historic
oaks will be removed.
Ms. Thomas said one of the conditions states that construction has to begin before March 19,
2013. She asked if that condition is satisfactory to the church. Mr. Gilpin said it is possible that
construction could not begin until five years out, and maybe even longer. The County has given them a
deadline and they will have to work with that.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Gilpin prefers having a deadline. Mr. Gilpin said he would like for it to
be a little more open. W ith the changes in the County, they may need the building in three years, but they
have been wise in their growth pattern, but they need another building now.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board can extend that deadline beyond five years. Mr. Gilpin said that two
years ago he guessed that the building would probably be seven to ten years out. He asked if the Board
could give a ten-year deadline.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board had to set a deadline. Mr. Davis said if the Board does not set a
deadline, the ordinance sets it at two years. The ordinance allows the Board to extend that two-year
period of time to whatever it feels is appropriate.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Slutzky said he has no problem with giving them ten years. Mr. Gilpin said the building is to
be brick with a slate roof just like the other structures. Ten years would be very generous.
Ms. Thomas said that usually she hates to do something like that when there might be changes in
the neighborhood during that period of time, but she does not think that would be a problem in this
location. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been similar requests from other churches, but the longest time
given to any of them has been five years. The Board would be setting a new precedent.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think it would be a precedent because this is such an isolated
building that no neighborhood changes are contemplated around it.
Mr. Rooker said he does not see any public benefit to not giving the church ten years. The
County has no interest in seeing this structure completed in a speedy manner.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board members can make it clear that this is not a precedent and the general
rule will be the shorter duration.
Ms. Thomas said questions were raised at the Planning Commission as to what is meant by
“limiting the amount of outdoor light pollution.” She asked if that has been clarified for the applicant. Mr.
Lewerth said it has not been clarified. It seems to be a fairly vague condition. He said they would be
happy to adhere to a standard, but what is “too much light pollution” in the rural areas. He thought the
intention was to put limitations on the number of lights on the site, or the foot candle illuminations. They
have no intent to light this site like a gas station, but he does not want to be in a situation where they are
hung up over language.
Ms. Thomas said for other rural churches, the Board has pointed out that lighting pathways with
bollards instead of overhead lights, or the full cutoff lights, is required, as is limited glare and luminosity.
She thinks the Zoning Administrator knows how to keep lighting from affecting the dark skies of the
surrounding rural area. She is comfortable with leaving the condition as recommended. Mr. Cilimberg
said this is the condition the Board has used for the last several months. He said staff will be reviewing
this issue to see if it can come up with some standards. He said this church will be subject to Entrance
Corridor review. The whole lighting plan falls under the ARB’s review, so he doubts they will permit
anything inconsistent with the Board’s intent. It will boil down to the ARB’s requirements, rather than
anything from the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Lewerth said he knew the church was subject to Entrance Corridor review, but at this point he
understands the request is subject to staff review. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is very experienced in dealing
with lighting plans.
At this time, 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 immediately offered by Ms. Mallek to approve SP-2007-027, Emmanuel Episcopal
Church, subject to the 10 conditions recommended, but amending Condition No. 7 to extend the deadline
to 2018.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions as approved are set out in full below.)
1. There shall be no day care or private school on site without a separate special use
permit;
2. Approval from the Health Department for the septic system and well shall be required
prior to approval of an issuance of a building permit;
3. Future burials in the cemetery shall be limited to areas outside the one hundred (100)
year floodplain;
4. Expansion of the mausoleum structure shall require amendment to this special use
permit. Tombs inside may be added;
5. Any future expansion of the church structures and/or size of assembly area shall require
amendment of this special use permit;
6. Special Use Permit SP-2007-027, Emmanuel Episcopal Church, shall be developed in
general accord with the concept Application Plan, provided by the applicant and received
December 21, 2007 (Attachment A – on file). However, the Zoning Administrator may
approve revisions to the concept Application Plan to allow compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance;
7. Construction of the new building and columbarium, as identified on the concept site plan
(Attachment A – on file) shall commence on or before March 19, 2018, or this special use
permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall thereupon
terminate;
8. Tree protection measures shall be required on the erosion and sediment control plan in
accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the tree
protection measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity;
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
9. The parking lot shall be paved using prime and double seal surface or, at the option of
the permittee, another surface material approved by the County Engineer deemed
equivalent or better than a prime and double seal surface in regard to strength, durability,
sustainability and long-term maintenance; and
10. All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from the abutting
properties. A lighting plan reasonably limiting the amount of adverse outdoor light
pollution shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval as a condition of site
plan approval.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: ZMA 2007-011, Patterson Subdivision (Signs #43 & 61).
Proposal: Rezone 3.52 acres from R1-Residential (1 unit/acre) to R6-Residential (6 units/acre) to
allow for up to 10 dwelling units.
Proffers: Yes.
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Community of Crozet; CT-3 Urban Edge: single
family residential (net 3.5 - 6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions and
schools and other small-scale nonresidential uses.
Entrance Corridor: No.
Location: Between Lanetown Rd and Lanetown W ay approximately 400 yards from the
intersection of Mint Springs Rd, Lanetown Rd, and Railroad Ave.
Tax Map/Parcel: 55/63.
Magisterial District: White Hall.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 3 and March 10,
2008.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized 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 project came to the Board in December,
2007 after a recommendation for denial by the Planning Commission. The applicant asked that the
request be referred to the Commission, and that request was granted. The Commission held another
hearing, and the request is again before the Board. The request is to rezone R-1 property to R-6 for
construction of 10 units. The property is in the Crozet Development Area designated CT-3, Urban Edge,
within what are called hamlets. The subject property is to the west of Gray Rock North. Orchard Acres is
to the east. He showed an aerial photo and pointed out an existing house with a driveway on Lanetown
Road. There are other dwellings on Lanetown Road with driveways; Lanetown Way intersects Lanetown
Road.
Mr. Cilimberg said the edge of the Crozet Development Area runs along Lanetown Road. The
CT-3 designation is over most of the site, but the area of the site along Lanetown Road is actually
designated CT-1 in order to represent its edge condition next to the rural areas. He said the Planning
Commission recommended denial 4:2:1 based on issues which included density not being appropriate
based on the Crozet Master Plan’s recommendations for the edge areas of the Crozet Development
Area. Also, the addition of traffic to Lanetown Road and Lanetown Way is a concern. Some
Commissioners felt the applicant should have had an opportunity to request deferral in order to address
items of concern. Some agreed that the proposal could meet the 10,000 square foot average lot size
recommendation of the Crozet Master Plan land use designation thereby reducing the overall density of
the project, that the bio-filter and green space area adjacent to Lanetown W ay should be increased, and
the new streets to serve the new development should include sidewalks. There was a varied opinion
among the Commissioners as to the appropriateness of the project.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff included in the Board’s Executive Summary, its analysis of the Crozet
Master Plan. Some of the Commissioners believed the entire area was an edge condition, so therefore
the density allowed by CT-3 would not be appropriate. Staff felt the CT-3 designation given to this part of
the Crozet community included the possibility of allowing those densities CT-3 allows, but the edge area
on the north side of the property should not be developed. The applicant has provided a concept plan
and has proffered the plan that shows access at Lanetown W ay, shows the location of two bio-filter areas
plus one along Lanetown Road which provides for that separation from Lanetown and the lots in the
subdivision. It would provide for a future connection to the west for properties that might develop and it
lowers the number of lots the Commission saw from 12 to 10 with an average lot size of 10,000 square
feet.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant made cash proffers for affordable housing. They have no more
than 10 dwelling units with up to two single-family attached. At the Planning Commission’s last hearing,
staff recommended approval of the rezoning since it appeared that the outstanding concerns of the
Commission had been addressed, but the Commission recommended denial. The applicant has since
addressed some of those outstanding issues, particularly lowering the number of lots to make it in
keeping with the CT-3 in a hamlet area. However, the proposal has not been modified to the extent that it
provides an edge area density for the entire property. If the Board should find the rezoning is approvable
as currently proposed, staff recommends approval be inclusive of the proffers, including the proffered
Concept Plan. He said that on the Concept Plan the roads within the development would be subject to
normal urban standards.
Mr. Rooker asked if sidewalks would be provided. Mr. Cilimberg said unless the Commission
decided to waive that requirement. That would be decided during the subdivision process.
Mr. Dorrier asked that Mr. Cilimberg explain the mention that the development does not comply
with edge requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said there are a couple of interpretations as to the edge condition.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Based on the designations shown on the maps, as well as wording in the Comprehensive Plan, staff feels
the site is predominantly CT-3, but the edge condition in the Master Plan has been designated as CT-1.
Essentially no development would be allowed in that area. Some of the Commissioners felt this land on
the edge of Crozet is an edge condition, therefore, the density should be at the lowest end of CT-3 which
would restrict the number of developable lots.
Mr. Rooker asked that Mr. Cilimberg point out the location of Gray Rock on a map. He asked if
Gray Rock North is in an edge condition. Mr. Cilimberg said it is designated as a CT-4 area.
Mr. Rooker said Gray Rock North butts up against the same boundary to the development area
so under that interpretation the whole parcel on the back would be an edge parcel. Mr. Davis said the
parcel pre-existed the Master Plan.
Mr. Rooker asked how far back the edge goes under the interpretation today. It seems ridiculous
to him. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not interpret the edge to be as extensive as what was noted at the
Planning Commission’s hearing.
Mr. Rooker said evidently staff does not agree with that interpretation of the Master Plan for this
location. Mr. Cilimberg said staff felt the edge was addressed through the CT-1 zoning along Lanetown
Road and the rest at CT-3 was eligible for development at that density.
Mr. Slutzky said staff’s interpretation makes sense to him. If that is the consensus tonight, it
should be made clear to the Planning Commission that is how the Board views it.
Ms. Mallek said citizens are confused because sometimes the Comprehensive Plan map colors
do not match the text. Legal staff told her the text could be used to make an interpretation as much as
the map.
Mr. Boyd asked what the text says.
Ms. Mallek said it calls the area a “fringe” area which means that at the edges compatibility with
what is on the other side of the street needs to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the text clarifies the meaning of “edge.” He thinks staff’s interpretation is that
it is the thin edge along the road, but the Planning Commission’s interpretation of edge is that it is the
entire property along the edge of the Crozet growth area.
Ms. Mallek said for the “fringe area” the plan reads: “Most of the periphery of the development
area is recommended for a gross density of development consistent with the rural area designation
outside it.” It has been explained to her that considering all the open space, the large lots and the
separation of houses on the other side of this small rural road at the end of a long accessway, it was part
of the step down in density between the core of the growth area and the outside.
Mr. Slutzky asked why the designation for this entire parcel was not a lower density.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was a question of how deep to go into this property to reflect the other
side of the road. He thinks some of the Commissioners felt the area along Lanetown Road should reflect
what is on the other side. Their view of the fringe condition was much greater than represented by the
colors on the map.
Ms. Thomas asked how this correlates with the Neighborhood Model which says that the edges
of the development areas should be distinct lines where there is density and then it stops. Mr. Cilimberg
said he thinks that was reflected in the colors on the map. Whether or not to have defined edges or
tapered edges has been argued for a long time. If the edges are to be tapered, the Master Plan does not
reflect that as the intent. The words in the Plan are about “edge” and “transition” into the adjacent rural
areas. Colors and words have to be balanced as to how wide of an area that should be. That is what
factored into a majority of the Commissioner’s decision to recommend denial.
Mr. Slutzky said that over time members of the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors will change. That is the reason to have a master plan document that is clear in its purpose
and intent. For those members who were not present at the time the original document was approved,
they would know the intent so it could be honored. It is important that things like this be identified during
implementation of a master plan. Since he was not on the Board during the earlier discussion, it appears
that the definition of an edge is much narrower than the Commission applied in this case.
Ms. Thomas said she drove to the site and looked at Lanetown Road. It is a very rural road. It
has no curb or gutter or shoulder. That is the road that would be used for traffic from the subdivision. Mr.
Cilimberg said the character of the road itself was considered. W hen the Board discussed the North
Pointe development it struggled with the issue of Pritchett Road which is on the edge of the development
area.
Mr. Slutzky said there is a difference here because no traffic was going to be dumped onto
Pritchett Lane at all. Mr. Cilimberg said that is true. In this case, traffic would use the new road built for
Gray Rock and come out to Lanetown.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Cilimberg mentioned the edge as being tapered or defined, but the problem is
that there is no clear definition of a taper. To him it sounds as if the Planning Commission was
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
considering a taper as a parcel. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission did not try to decide how much depth
there should be. This was a condition it needed to address; in this case it became most of a parcel.
There is nothing in the plan to define how much depth physically there should be on the edges of Crozet.
Mr. Rooker said there is nothing to say this is a fringe area except for a small strip. The words
have to be merged with the map. In the first instance, what is an edge? He assumes the edge is
designated by the map.
Mr. Boyd said it could be argued that the edge starts on the other side of the road.
Mr. Rooker said in order to depict the edge you have to go to the map. The words do not conflict
with the map in that regard. The map defines the edge, and the words define what can be done with the
edge.
Mr. Slutzky asked the meaning of CT-3 if it is not supposed to be the density of that designation.
He does not understand the interpretation of the Planning Commission in this instance.
Mr. Rooker said there is also the question concerning adequacy of the road to handle traffic.
What is staff’s view of the road and its ability to reasonably handle traffic from this new site along with
current traffic? Mr. Cilimberg said staff relied on VDOT’s comments. VDOT has been against accessing
Lanetown Road directly from the site. They felt traffic could be managed coming from Lanetown Way,
which is a public way, out to Lanetown Road.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is the only entrance to the property. Mr. Cilimberg said that at this time
that is true. They have shown the possibility for western access through the Patterson Subdivision which
also ends up taking Lanetown W ay.
Ms. Mallek said this is where the effect on the current Gray Rock North residents is
overwhelming. There could be 80 to 100 cars a day going onto the “J” shaped street that has no
sidewalks or storm drains or street lights. She was there at dusk and kids were playing ball in the streets.
She said Lanetown Way which runs through the middle of Gray Rock North was not designed to take on
a lot more traffic. She is disappointed that VDOT said using this street is safer. It would not be safer for
the people who live in the neighborhood. Lanetown Road is extremely rural and narrow. She thinks the
Board has to take into consideration in some way the people who live there now.
Mr. Slutzky said as development areas are developed, the Board will always have to confront the
timing sequence. The Board committed to this being a growth area so the County might have to absorb
some of the cost of upgrading these roads. The Board will have to decide if it is serious about
concentrating growth in the growth areas, or since there is not sufficient infrastructure, whether not to
implement master planning. He thinks the appropriate outcome is to develop the growth areas the way
the master plan contemplates it happening.
Ms. Mallek said there might be a further reduced number of lots that would bring this proposal
into consistency with the square footage of lots in the existing area.
Mr. Slutzky said that is just second-guessing the densities the community supported for this site
when they decided on master plan densities.
Mr. Rooker said if this proposal were reduced by one more lot it would conform with the lot sizes
in Gray Rock of about 12,000 square feet.
Ms. Mallek said that has been a concern for the residents in Gray Rock.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant has proffered to provide one affordable house in the development.
At this time, Mr. Cilimberg handed to the Board members the current, acceptable and allowable
proffers for the Board’s public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said the Board can’t allow a change in these proffers after opening the public
hearing. She asked if there could be a public comment period first to see if there are any good ideas
presented by the public. Mr. Davis said the Board can do that, but the risk goes to the applicant. If it
were legally challenged and that was deemed to be an improper process, there is a risk any approval
could be voided.
Ms. Thomas said for the public that a new restraint has been placed on the Board in that no
changes can be made to proffers after the public hearing is opened. That seems to be ridiculous
because the Board cannot respond to minor suggestions made by the public. Mr. Davis said it creates a
potential theory that could be used to challenge the rezoning.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board is not saying that theory is sound, but it probably should avoid the
opportunity for that to arise.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has been placed in a ridiculous situation where it can hold a public
hearing, but cannot incorporate any comments into the proffers for the development without re-advertising
and starting over.
At this time, Mr. Boyd asked the applicant to speak.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Cliff Fox said he is working with the Pattersons to get this proposal approved. Regarding the
traffic issue, he met with VDOT to look at ways to move traffic to the western boundary, but it was not
feasible given sight distance and other VDOT criteria. If there is a concern about traffic from adjoining
neighborhoods using this road, the pipestem is about 72 feet wide running up the western boundary and it
has the sight distance, so there could be relief on Lanetown W ay. Obviously, a road out to Lanetown
Road will not be extended until the adjacent property owner decides to do something with his property.
Mr. Fox said he was involved with the Waylands Grant rezoning. It came about almost
simultaneously with the proposal on the southern half of the Gray Rock property. Gray Rock North was
required to submit a rezoning request within six months of that approval. Interconnections were forced in
the approval process between W aylands Grant and Gray Rock. The developer of Gray Rock North
should have made the future residents of that development aware of the potential connection. It should
have been articulated within the County planning process and the approval process for Gray Rock north,
but it was not. If the adjacent properties are ever developed, he thinks that will provide relief and take
traffic away from Lanetown Way.
Mr. Fox said their first plan was for 17 dwelling units. That was reduced to 12 dwelling units with
a park. Part of the exercise was to create a sense of place in the context of the Neighborhood Model.
That park was on the northern third of the property. They tried to negotiate a reduced cash proffer
through donation of the park. They were even willing to guarantee the maintenance of the park by having
the homeowners’ association manage it. The linguistic infrastructure in the County Code is not there to
manage that, so the County Parks & Recreation Department was not comfortable with such an
arrangement. Then, at the neighbor’s request, they moved to a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.
Currently Lots 1 through 8 have a minimum of 10,000 square feet, and the connector road has about
19,551 square feet. He needs another 449 square feet to get both of those lots up to 10,000 square feet.
During the subdivision process, if he can tweak the connector road he will be able to gain that area to
create 10, 10,000 square foot lots. He needs a little flexibility.
Mr. Fox said that along Lanetown Road, they created a 50-foot bio-filter area. It will act as a
screen and an environmental component of the development. Almost two-thirds of the property runoff
flows toward Lanetown Road. One other concern of the neighbors was to make sure the water quality in
the two ponds at Gray Rock are not inundated, so they have included in the plan two bio-filters adjacent
to Lanetown W ay. The County’s Engineering Department said they appear adequate to serve that
function.
Mr. Rooker asked the size of the parcel for this development. Mr. Fox said it is 3.52 acres. They
are asking for 10 dwelling units. The recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan is stated incorrectly
in the Executive Summary. The higher number is incorrect in staff’s comments. In a hamlet area it is 3.5
to 4.5 units per acre. This request stands at 3.55 units per acre.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Cilimberg if the staff report is inaccurate on the upper boundary. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Executive Summary noted that the minimum is 3.5 and the maximum is 4.5 for CT-3.
For 3.5 acres (2.8 net acres is what the Crozet plan gives to base densities on), the minimum lots would
be 10 and the maximum 13. The applicant is proposing 10. The net density would be 3.55. Historically,
Crozet was under Neighborhood Residential in the Comprehensive Plan which was 3-6 dwelling units an
acre.
Mr. Fox said the Crozet Master Plan is modeled and structured on the Neighborhood Model. The
twelfth principle of the NM discusses clear boundaries with the rural areas. He noted that he had sent the
Board members an E-mail concerning this. He then read that principle aloud. He handed to the Board
members copies of a petition signed by 33 Crozet business people along with a letter.
Mr. Slutzky asked the size of the buffer along the road. Mr. Fox said it is approximately 50 feet in
width. He has about 100,000 square feet in lots, and has retained a six percent contingency to make
adjustments.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Fox if he had presented this same information to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Fox said he had not, he was surprised by the interpretation.
Ms. Mallek asked if a possible connection to the property to the west would allow a disconnection
to Lanetown W ay. Mr. Fox said that would go against the principles of the master plan. Interconnectivity
is desired. The notion of the Neighborhood Model is to integrate, not to segregate everything.
Mr. Rooker asked if the public hearing has been opened.
Mr. Boyd said it has not been opened. Mr. Davis agreed.
Mr. Rooker said the Board may want to decide whether there is support among the members for
this plan in its current form, or whether the Board would prefer changes in this plan before its approval.
He would prefer to hear from the public before doing that, but legally the Board can’t do that. Perhaps the
Board should have that discussion now so it can advise the applicant.
Mr. Dorrier said the key issue appears to be the road. Ms. Mallek has said the road cannot carry
a greater load of traffic. She implied that if the road were fixed, the development would be suitable.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Mallek said she did not make any suggestion. She said it is heavily used for everything now
whether it be as a sidewalk, or for playing or for driving. She does not know what the options are if this
plan goes forward.
Mr. Slutzky asked if she is talking about Lanetown W ay.
Ms. Mallek said “yes.”
Mr. Rooker said the Board does not know if the residents want to have that road upgraded. He
asked Ms. Mallek if she is supportive of this plan in its present form.
Ms. Mallek said she is torn because she is concerned about its effect on the existing 25 houses in
the area. Those residents are caught in the middle of the master planning process. She said the
applicant made efforts to meet all of the suggestions they received, so she applauds them for that. The
green things they will put in, plus the bio-filters to protect the lakes, are pluses for the project. They are
almost there on the square footage. Compatible size was important to the homeowners’ association.
They did send her a letter earlier today.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Mallek if she is willing to support this rezoning in its present form. Are
there changes to the plan she would like to have made in order to support it? Once the public hearing is
opened, the Board will have to either approve or deny the request.
Ms. Mallek said there may be four Board members who will support the plan as presented.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to hear Ms. Mallek’s comments. Does she support it as it is; are
there changes which need to be made? Mr. Davis said he does not believe that the types of changes that
would have to be made could be made tonight because the plan is basically laid out on a sketch plan, and
it is also proffered. If the Board finds that there are elements of this proposal that are unacceptable and it
wants the applicant to offer additional changes, the plan would have to be deferred and readvertised.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the things Ms. Mallek has raised could only be achieved by reducing
the number of lots.
Ms. Mallek said that would be the easy solution, but it contradicts the plan. That is her dilemma.
Mr. Rooker asked if she is referring to the Crozet Master Plan.
Ms. Mallek said if the map is to be taken as the primary guide and it suggests a higher density,
her suggesting that a lower density would be compatible with the neighbors contradicts where the County
is supposed to be going.
Mr. Rooker said there is language in the master plan about compatibility with neighboring
properties and the edge.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the language referring to neighboring means neighboring in the rural areas.
Mr. Rooker said he is not sure what it means.
Ms. Mallek said it is truly unclear.
Mr. Fox said the letter he just handed to the Board members actually “walks the Board” through
the Master Plan. It is not crystal clear, but it references the pages in the plan. He read from Page 48
concerning hamlets. The majority of this property is designated CT-3, 3.5 to 4.5 dwelling units to the
acre.
Mr. Rooker said everybody seems to be of the opinion that the vast majority of the property is
CT-3.
Mr. Boyd asked if the lot sizes were increased to 12,000 square feet if this project would be
feasible.
Mr. Fox said that would make eight, plus the affordable unit, plus the cash proffers.
Mr. Slutzky said the plan is already at the bottom edge of the range of densities the community
determined were appropriate for the site.
Mr. Fox said the project is hardly feasible now coming down from 12 to 10 units per acre. He had
a discussion with the Piedmont Housing Alliance yesterday, and they were excited about the affordable
housing opportunity. Rarely do they find a 10,000 square foot lot for an affordable house. That is twice
the size of the lots in W aylands Grant and houses there are selling for over $400,000.
Ms. Thomas said W aylands Grant has the necessary infrastructure, but the road people will be
driving in on to this project does not have that.
Mr. Rooker said it appears the amenities here will be better than in the adjoining area in terms of
the internal amenities – bio-filters, sidewalks, street trees, road standards, etc.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Thomas said if the stub-out does not get turned into a road any time soon, it contains a
certain amount of acreage. She asked what the average would be if that acreage were included. Mr. Fox
said one of the suggestions from Gray Rock was elimination of that stub-out.
Ms. Thomas said she is not suggesting that, but in terms of calculation of square footage, what
would it add? Mr. Fox said it is a 44-foot right-of-way which is 129,000 square feet of 950 square feet per
lot.
Mr. Slutzky asked where the 10,000 square foot figure originated. Mr. Fox said that figure is an
average, not a minimum, and it is referenced in the Crozet Master Plan in the CT-3 District. It says the
average lot size should be 10,000 square feet, not the minimum size.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that is per parcel or within that sector of the Master Plan being inclusive of
the contiguous parcel. Mr. Fox said it is inclusive within the hamlet. He said in Gray Rock North the
average lot size is 12,500 square feet.
Mr. Slutzky said these lots could be 8,000 square feet without violating the spirit of the language.
Mr. Fox said that is correct. Mr. Cilimberg said the language mentioned by Mr. Fox is for the hamlet
designation.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates what Mr. Rooker is trying to do, but he does not see how the Board
cannot go ahead with the public hearing. He asked if other Board members had questions for Mr. Fox.
At this time, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Beno said he is a resident of Gray Rock North and a member of its homeowners’
association. He asked that the Board look at Table I of the Crozet Master Plan matrix. While it talks
about 10,000 square foot averages, under the definition of a hamlet it says 50 percent of the land in areas
dedicated to open space are preserved. To him a hamlet is designed to have more of an open feel. As
to the appropriate use of the edge, he thinks Commissioner Loach was the most “bull-dog” on the issue.
He said he was one of the authors of the document and to him the edge was intended to be a little more
rural. He said the residents of Gray Rock feel the project is denser than is fitting for the parcel. Gray
Rock and Gray Rock North are all zoned R-4. Since the road would be coming through their
neighborhood, it would, in effect, be a continuation of Gray Rock North, and they would like to see as
much as possible preserved. If the applicant went to R-4 and increased the lot sizes, that would be more
in concert with their neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker interrupted to say that R-4 allows four dwelling units per acre. Mr. Beno said that is
true, but that makes the minimum lot size 10,800 square feet which would eliminate the smaller parcels.
Mr. Rooker said R-4 would allow 13 or 14 dwelling units on this property. Mr. Beno said once the
sidewalks, etc. were included, it would be more in concert with Gray Rock.
Mr. Beno said when the Planning Commission recommended denial of this petition, it was said
that Gray Rock was developed without sidewalks because they were not required at the time; everyone
might agree that was probably not a good decision. Gray Rock residents are asking that the Board not
compound those shortcomings by adding extra traffic onto Lanetown Way. He personally stepped off the
distance between Lanetown W ay and Orchard Drive, and then to the existing entrance of the Patterson
property. They are about the same. He thinks sight distance might be met if VDOT were asked to look at
it again. They ask that the Board not compound the safety situation.
Ms. Thomas asked if the school bus comes up Lanetown W ay. Mr. Beno said it does not; it
meets at the intersection of Lanetown Road and Lanetown Way.
Mr. Fox asked if he could make a further comment. Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Fox said he thinks the Subdivision Ordinance would actually force interconnectivity back to
Lanetown W ay even if there were an entrance off the other way.
Ms. Mallek said the residents would have that direct access out, so they could use that way for
convenience, but would not be required to do so.
Mr. Fox said he had VDOT come out and inspect the sight distance. He has talked with the
adjacent owners and no one has been willing to give a sight easement; an easement would be required
for that location.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board made a commitment through the master planning process to the
broader principle of interconnectivity, of concentrating development activities within growth areas, and
upgrading infrastructure on those sites as they development. There will constantly be situations where
things that were developed in the past do not have the sidewalks and other infrastructure needed. If that
should become a reason to stop honoring the whole point of the growth areas and master planning, the
Board would be “shooting itself in the foot.” He is sympathetic to the real situation the residents of Gray
Rock have articulated. There was a chance during the master planning process to decide the boundaries
of the growth area and to decide on densities. The community as a whole came up with a vision and he
thinks this proposal is consistent with that vision in many ways. It has a number of quality features that
would otherwise be preferable. The only “bump” is that the master plan has to be superimposed on an
existing development inside the growth area that is not compatible with what would be required on that
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
property today. For him it is not a struggle if the Board is serious about the master planning process and
the growth areas. He does not see that there is a lot of discretion with this petition. He will support it.
Mr. Boyd said there is a similarity between this and the discussion about Fontana earlier tonight.
He will support it, but he still thinks neighborhoods should be connected.
Ms. Thomas said this is not easy for her, particularly after she went to visit the area. She is trying
to balance R-4 versus sidewalks, connectors, bio-filters and affordable units. She thinks the County will
be a better place having those aspects on this property. She wishes there were amenities Lanetown Way
could enjoy and she believes they will enjoy the sidewalks. This isn’t an easy decision, but she will
support the request.
Mr. Rooker said staff recommended approval. Looking back at what the Planning Commission
did, the vote against it was almost entirely based on an interpretation he feels was strained of the
designation for this property in the master plan. The applicant has made numerous changes through this
process to meet the requirements of staff and the recommendations of the Commission from earlier work
sessions/public hearings on the petition. He will support it, although it is difficult.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Planning Commission was erroneous in deciding that the edge was
a reason to deny the request. The applicant has made changes, and it is now for 10 units. There are
various things proffered and one unit will be affordable housing. It has a traffic problem, but it is not the
first traffic problem the Board has seen in the growth areas. He will support the request.
At this point, Ms. Thomas offered motion to approve ZMA-2007-011 subject to the proffers dated
February 19, 2008, and signed March 18, 2008, including the proffered Concept Plan.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek.
Original Proffer X
PROFFER FORM
Date of Proffer Signature: February 19, 2008
ZMA # 2007-00011
Tax Map 55 Parcel Number 63
3.521 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 to R-6
Patterson Subdivision
Emile Bethanne Patterson is the owner (the “Owner”) of Tax Map 55, Parcel 63 (the “Property”)
which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA 2007-00011 known as “Patterson Subdivision”
(the “Project”).
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property, if rezoned
with the offered plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is acknowledged that the conditions are reasonable.
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the total
residential dwelling units within the Project in the form of for lease or for sale affordable
dwelling units (the “Affordable Dwelling Units” or “Affordable Units”). Each subdivision
plat and site plan for land within the Property shall designate the lots or units, as
applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer, incorporate
Affordable Units as described herein, and the aggregate number of such lots or units
designated for Affordable Units within each subdivision plat and site plan shall constitute
a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the lots in such subdivision plat or site plan.
In the event that the number of Affordable Dwelling Units to achieve 15% results in a
fractional unit, the Owner shall contribute cash to the County in a proportionate amount
based on the amount of $19,100. For example, if 15% equates to 1.8 Affordable Units,
the Owner would provide I Affordable Unit pursuant to the terms described herein, and
would contribute cash to the County in the amount of $15, 280 be paid prior to issuance
of a building permit for the first Affordable Dwelling Unit. The Owner reserves the right,
however, to provide two (2) Affordable Units and concede, or gift, the fractional monetary
interest, (2 Affordable Units minus 1.8 Affordable Units required equaling a 0.2 affordable
overage) to Albemarle County, to meet the County’s Affordable Housing Policy.
A. The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be comprised of single-family attached
housing (townhouses) or single family detached houses at the Owner’s option.
The Owner or his successor in interest reserves the right to achieve the 15%
Affordable Dwelling Units in a variety of ways, utilizing the above mentioned unit
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
types alone or in combination as outlined below. The Owner shall convey the
responsibility of constructing the affordable units to any subsequent purchaser of
the Property. The current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create units
affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median family
income (the “Affordable Unit Qualifying Income”), such that housing costs
consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowner’s insurance
(PITI) do not exceed 30% of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income; provided,
however, that in no event shall the selling price of such Affordable Units be
required to be less than the greater of One Hundred Ninety Thousand Four
Hundred Dollars ($190,400.00) or sixty-five percent (65%) of the applicable
Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) maximum mortgage for first-
time home buyers at the beginning of the 90-day identification and qualification
period referenced below. The Owner or his successor in interest may at its
option facilitate the provision of down payment assistance loans to reduce the
out-of- pocket cash requirement costs to the homebuyer, such as, but not limited
to a second lien Deed of Trust, so that the resultant first mortgage and housing
costs remain at or below the parameters described herein. All financial programs
or instruments described herein must be acceptable to the primary mortgage
lender. Any second lien Deed of Trust executed as part of this paragraph for the
15% required affordable housing shall be donated to the County of Albemarle or
its designee to be used to address affordable housing. For purposes of
calculating the price of the Affordable Dwelling Units, the value of Seller-paid
closing costs shall be excluded from the selling price of such Affordable Dwelling
Units.
i. For-Sale Affordable Units - All purchasers of for-sale Affordable Units
shall be approved by the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its
designee. The Owner shall provide the County or its designee a period
of ninety (90) days to identify and pre-qualify an eligible purchaser for the
Affordable Units. The 90-day period shall commence upon written notice
from the Owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall
not be given more than 120 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the
certificate of occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a
qualified purchaser during this ninety (90) day period, the Owner shall
have the right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or
income of purchaser(s); provided, however, that any Units(s) sold or
leased without such restriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the
number of Affordable Units required to be provided pursuant to the terms
of this proffer. If these Units are sold, this proffer shall apply only to the
first sale of each unit. Nothing herein shall preclude the then-current
Owner/builder from working with the County Housing Department prior to
the start of the notification periods described herein in an effort to identify
qualifying purchasers for Affordable Units.
ii. For-Rent Affordable Units
1. Rental Rates For-Lease Affordable Units. The initial net rent for
each for-rent Affordable Unit when the Unit(s) is available for
occupancy shall not exceed the then-current and applicable
maximum net rent as published by the County Housing Office.
In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each
for-rent affordable unit may be increased up to three percent
(3%). For purposes of this proffer statement, the term “net rent”
means that the rent does not include tenant-paid utilities. The
requirement that the rents for such for-rent Affordable Units may
not exceed the maximum rents established in this paragraph
1A(ii)(1) shall apply for a period often (10) years following the
date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for
each for-rent Affordable Unit, or until the units are sold as
affordable units as defined by the County’s Affordable Housing
Policy, whichever comes first (the “Affordable Term”).
2. Conveyance of Interest. All instruments conveying any interest
in the for-rent affordable units during the Affordable Term shall
contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of
this paragraph 1A. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a
conveyance of any for-rent affordable unit, or any part thereof
during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full
disclosure of the restrictions and controls established by this
paragraph 1A(ii). At least thirty (30) days prior to the
conveyance of any interest in any for-rent affordable unit during
the Affordable Term, the then-current owner shall notify the
County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name,
address and telephone number of the potential grantee, and
state that the requirements of this paragraph IA(ii) have been
satisfied.
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
3. Reporting of Rental Rates. During the Affordable Term, within
thirty (30) days of each rental or lease term for each for-rent
affordable unit, the then-current owner shall provide to the
Albemarle County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease
agreement for each such unit rented that shows the rental rate
for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In
addition, during the Affordable Term, the then-current owner
shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of
rental or lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental
rates as the County may reasonably require.
B. County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units. If at any time prior to the
County’s approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject
property which includes one or more for-sale Affordable Dwelling Units, the
Housing Office informs the then-current owner/builder in writing that it may not
have a qualified purchaser for one or more of the for-sale Affordable Dwelling
Units at the time that the then-current owner/builder expects the units to be
completed, and that the Housing Office will instead accept a cash contribution to
the Housing Office to support affordable housing programs in the amount of
Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100) in lieu of each Affordable
Unit(s), then the then-current owner/builder shall pay such cash contribution to
the County prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the Unit(s) that were
originally planned to be Affordable Dwelling Units, and the then-current
owner/builder shall have the right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on
sales price or income of the purchaser(s). For the purposes of this proffer, such
Affordable Dwelling Units shall be deemed to have been provided when the
subsequent owner/builder provides written notice to the Albemarle County Office
of Housing or its designee that the Affordable Units(s) will be available for sale.
2. CASH PROFFER
A. The Owner shall contribute cash to the County in the following amounts for each
dwelling unit constructed within the Property that is not an Affordable Dwelling
Unit. The cash contribution shall be used to address the fiscal impacts of
development on the County’s public facilities and infrastructure (i.e., schools,
public safety, libraries, parks and transportation) identified in the County’s Capital
Improvements Program. The cash contributions shall be paid prior to issuance of
a building permit for the category of units described in this paragraph 2 in the
following amounts:
i. Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($11,900) for each attached
town home/condominium unit that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit
ii. Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($17,500) for each single
family detached dwelling unit that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit.
iii. Zero Dollars ($0.00) for each Affordable Dwelling Unit
B. Beginning January 1, 2008, the amount of cash contribution required by Proffer
Number 2 shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect increase or decrease for
the preceding calendar year in the Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City
Average, Southeast Average, Category C: Masonry Bearing Walls issued by
Marshall Valuation Service (a/k/a Marshall & Swift) (the “Index”) or the most
applicable Marshall & Swift index determined by the County if Marshall & Swift
ceases publication of the Index identified herein. In no event shall any cash
contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially
established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by
multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a
fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the
preceding calendar year, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of
December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended. For
each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental
payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year.
3. Total Number of Dwelling Units and Unit Types. There shall be no more than 10 dwelling
units within the development. Of the 10 dwelling units permitted there shall be no more
than two single-family attached units.
4. The property shall be developed in general accord with the “Concept Plan” dated
February 19, 2008, attached hereto.
By: _(Signed) Emile Bethanne Patterson)_
Emile Bethanne Patterson (Owner)
Date: 3/18/08
_______________
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Agenda Item No. 15. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Thomas said she spent a lot of time in the past week dealing with Chesapeake Bay issues.
She does not have anything major to report, but it looks like it will not be cleaned up, and if it does not get
cleaned up all localities will probably have passed upon them a stronger protection of the waterways.
Each stream will probably get a maximum load it will have to meet and there will be no money for that.
She was glad the Board passed the new buffer requirements because it was a divided vote, but she
thinks all will be glad that was done when stronger requirements come down on the County.
__________
Ms. Mallek said she hopes to get a response soon from the Zoning Administrator to her recent
query about accessory apartments. She is having trouble with the requirement that it have connected
heated space. That seems to be contrary to having a mother-in-law or someone come and live in a small
unit on the property. She needs to know more about that.
__________
Ms. Mallek said she has mentioned several times the issue of the burial of asphalt in the rural
area. Today she got a call from someone who is a heavy equipment contractor who wanted the details of
where to put the materials because a landowner was requesting that he dig a big hole and bury it in the
ground. She hopes the Board will move forward to clarify this issue and tell people there is a feasible
option available.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that included with the Board’s materials for this meeting there was information
about a treetop wireless tower in Earlysville. She thought it was going to be discussed tonight. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Planning Commission will hold a work session soon on the tower policy, but he is not
sure when that is scheduled.
Ms. Mallek said she called the neighbors to ask if they had been notified about this discussion,
they said “no.” Mr. Cilimberg said when applications are received, staff sends a copy of the applications
to the Board member representing the district in which the tower is requested.
Ms. Mallek said that is why when she saw the material in tonight’s packet, she was confused.
She asked if there are other towers within 100 feet of many, many houses. She has a real problem with
the health issues connected to towers, and to be putting this right over a neighborhood is very alarming to
her.
Mr. Rooker said the FCC does not allow the health issues of towers to be a basis for denial of
location for a tower. It is a federal preemption issue.
Ms. Thomas said one of her constituents has pointed out that for most towers now Planning staff
has them float a balloon and they takes pictures, but only from public lands. They do not go onto private
land. Those people who may not be close enough to the site to receive notification may not know there is
a request pending. This particular constituent went to the Planning Commission and recommended that
flying of the balloon be made widely known throughout the neighborhood. She even thought of
suggesting the County use its reverse E-911 system for notification. It would be a way the entire
neighborhoods could be made aware that something is about to happen. At one time towers were
requested along entranceways in order to assure that users of cell phones would have access. There is
now a new cell phone company in the County so there will be a bunch of new cell panels and there is an
interest in moving more into the residential areas because more households are going wireless. W ith a
combination of those two things, the Board may want to change its policy about how it deals with the
notice for the cell tower requests. The Board has a policy which has been nicely developed and worked
over for a long time, and it works. All of a sudden there is this glitch and people are not hearing about
new towers in neighborhoods.
Ms. Mallek said the people on the ground refused to answer the questions of the neighbors who
came to asked them what was going on.
Mr. Bryan Elliott said staff can talk about implementing some notification so people will be made
aware of the test so they can witness it.
Ms. Mallek asked if notification is only sent to the owners of abutting parcels. Mr. Cilimberg said
that is the legal requirement. He knows this issue came up at the Planning Commission meeting and he
has communicated with the Current Development Division. This is not handled by the Planning
Department. He said the Planning Commission will have a work session on the Tower Policy soon and
maybe the Board should be invited to attend that meeting.
Mr. Slutzky said he appreciates the comments about expanding the notice, but would caution the
Board not to use the E-911 reverse system for what might be argued would be aesthetic purposes versus
public safety issues.
__________
Mr. Boyd said there is an historic black church (Evergreen) on Proffit Road near the railroad
crossing which has been in disrepair for quite some time. The Church members either cannot afford, or
don’t want to keep it up any longer, so it was put on the market for sale. There are some uses that could
be made of the property that are not intrusive, but it would have to go through a rezoning process. He
wonders how amendable the Board members would be to such a request because applying for a special
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
use permit requires money and a lot of time. The church members do not have a lot of money. W ould the
Board be receptive to the idea of fast tracking such a request in order to preserve this historic site.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think it is so much fast tracking as the Board being amendable to the
special uses which are allowed. Site specific uses have been approved in the past, but they must go
through the process.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board would not want the church to choose a path that would require a
rezoning because the Board would then be dealing with spot zoning. Depending on what the Board
chooses as work priorities for Community Development, the Board will soon be looking at a list of
potential uses in the rural areas.
Mr. Rooker said he is not amenable to spot rezoning this property. If there is some potential use
that is not listed in the Zoning Ordinance and it is a good use, the church could seek to amend the
ordinance to allow that use. They would have to go through the process. Legally the Board only has two
options. It can approve something allowed by the Zoning Ordinance in that zone, or the ordinance can be
amended. Also, the property could be rezoned, but of those options, rezoning that particular location is
not a good option.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County could create a zoning category for historic structures or
something like that.
Mr. Rooker said that would take a longer time than just amending the ordinance to allow some
use by special use permit that is not currently in the ordinance, assuming everybody thought it was an
appropriate use.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the applicant could initiate a change in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg
said “yes”, but he does not know the date of the next application period. There is a fee associated with
such a request. Also, the Board could initiate a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said when discussing the W atkins application recently, the Board said the ordinance
should be amended. Mr. Cilimberg said he would not suggest that de facto the Board start getting into
individual uses that end up taking time to review when a better use of time would be to look at all uses in
the rural areas. If that were made a priority for staff, it could be done.
Mr. Boyd asked if it makes sense to have more lenient options in the ordinance for historic
structures. Mr. Davis said a simple way to address this issue would be to create another special use
which would be an adaptive use of an existing historical structure by special use permit. Staff would have
to look at the scope of such a change, but it would be a simple way to deal with an historic structure.
Mr. Slutzky asked how the Board would initiate such a change if there were a consensus of
interest to add that item. Mr. Davis said if there is a consensus, the fastest way to initiate that is to ask
the Planning Commission to initiate a text amendment. Unless a lot of analysis is required by the
Planning Department, it could be done easily. If staff is going to look at the question, it can be brought
before the Commission with a recommendation that the Commission initiate it.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Graham has been very sensitive about the staffing situation, and this
would basically be setting a priority for the Department. He does not want the Board to think that
adaptive reuse of historic buildings would be just a simple matter. First, there has to be a decision as to
the types of adaptive reuses that are appropriate. There could be a wide gambit that people might want
to exercise. In the case of country stores, which is coming to the Board soon, staff has gone through an
analysis of previous activities in country stores so the Board would have an idea of the limits of uses in a
country store situation.
Mr. Boyd said if the language were vague, the special use permit would still have to be approved
by the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board is willing to make it that simple, it would be without any
supplementary regulations.
Mr. Rooker said the supplementary regulations should go to the preservation of the structure. Mr.
Davis said the more complicated issue might be defining an existing historic structure. There would need
to be some definition of that.
Mr. Boyd suggested that this be looked at by the Historic Preservation Committee.
Mr. Dorrier suggested asking the committee to come before the Board and bring it up-to-date on
the issue of crossroads stores.
Ms. Thomas said that is coming from staff soon. She said the next meeting of the Historic
Preservation Committee is on next Monday at 4:30 p.m. She is the Board’s liaison but she will not be
able to attend that meeting. Ms. Mallek said she might be able to attend.
__________
Ms. Mallek said there is a big “Community Kick Off” for the western park in the middle of the Old
Trail development on Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. It will be at W estern Albemarle High
School.
__________
March 19, 2008 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Ms. Thomas said that thanks to Mr. Boyd the W INA folks are giving a time slot to some member
of the Board to talk for approximately 10 minutes after each Board meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 9:14 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 11/12/2008
Initials: EWJ