2008-06-11June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 11, 2008, at 3:30 p.m., in Room 241 of the County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from June 4, 2008. The regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors was also held on this date in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building, beginning a
6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker,
Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Clerk, Ella W . Jordan, Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, and Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:31 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
(The following two agenda items were discussed concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 2. ZTA-2007-005, Downtown Crozet District (DCD), Discussion/Action.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-2008-002, Downtown Crozet District (DCD), Discussion/Action.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Zoning Text Amendment which is before the Board today that will
implement the Downtown Crozet Zoning District. Following is a list of the substantive changes made
since the joint public hearing on June 4, 2008:
Sec. 20B.1: The second paragraph was revised to add the promotion of economic and social
diversity as a stated intention of the district.
Sec. 20B.2: No changes.
Sec. 20B.3(A): The May 29, 2008, draft of the ordinance allowed the front yard setback (and
corresponding front parking area setback) to be modified from 10 up to 15 feet. To increase
flexibility this subsection was revised to allow the front yard setback (and corresponding front
parking area setback) to be modified from 10 up to 20 feet in six specific circumstances listed in
subsection 20B.3(H), and to allow administrative waivers from the side yard parking area setback
and the 200-foot building façade break. The building façade break regulations were also revised
to clarify that the building façade break must occur at least every 200 feet, unless the director
grants a waiver.
Sec. 20B.3(B): The date of adoption of the ordinance was added.
Sec. 20B.3(C): This subsection was added to authorize the director of planning to determine
which side of a corner lot is the front for the purpose of determining applicable setbacks, and to
determine which other sides are sides or the rear of the lot. This issue was not discussed at the
joint public hearing.
Sec. 20B.3(D): At the May 29, 2008, joint public hearing, there was concern that a building façade
break would not necessarily require complete building separation. To assure that adequate light
and air is provided, this subsection was revised to require that buildings separated by a building
façade break be complete structural breaks, and that the minimum separation be the width of the
pedestrian access or motor vehicle and pedestrian access at all points above the ground.
Sec. 20B.3(E): This subsection was revised to clarify that only those buildings abutting a street
must have their primary entrance from the front or side of the building, and that only those side
entrances serving as the primary entrance are required to have their doors face the front of the
building.
Sec. 20B.3(F): This subsection was revised to provide that an owner can satisfy the requirement
that a building have visibly discernible stories by one or more of the methods listed, instead of by
employing all of the methods listed.
Sec. 20B.3(G): No changes.
Sec. 20B.3(H): This subsection was revised to delineate the six circumstances when maximum
building and parking setbacks can be modified or waived, and when the minimum building façade
break can be waived. The May 29, 2008, draft ordinance provided only three circumstances.
Sec. 20B.3(I): Various subsections of the May 29, 2008, draft ordinance cross-referenced section
2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the procedure to administratively waive or modify certain
requirements of this ordinance. Proposed section 2.5 is part of the pending administrative
waivers zoning text amendment which has not yet been considered by the Planning Commission
at a public hearing. To assure that an appropriate procedure for modifications and waivers is
provided for this district, this subsection establishes a procedure for administrative modifications
and waivers to be reviewed and acted upon by the director of planning or the agent, as specified,
with the applicant having a right of appeal if the waiver is denied or is approved with objectionable
conditions. If review of a subdivision plat or site plan by the commission is requested, the director
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 2)
or the agent may defer acting on the modification or waiver request and allow the Commission to
consider the request as part of its consideration of the plat or plan.
Sec. 20B.3(J): This subsection was revised so that, where appropriate, its language matches the
language in subsection 20B.3(I).
Sec. 20B.4: Subsection (D) was revised to provide that parking areas that do not abut a
public street, but are visible from the public street, are required to provide screening only if they
are visible from the street in front of the lot on which they are located. This change was
suggested so that screening would not be required where the parking area was visible from the
street, but only from a vantage point somewhere up or down the street and, consequently, at a
greater distance.
Sec. 20B.5: Subsection (A)(2) was revised to increase the minimum height for an opaque
wall or fence providing screening from adjoining residential uses or districts from four feet to six
feet.
Sec. 20B.6: No changes
Sec. 20B.7: Subsection (B) was revised to clarify that, in addition to an owners’ association,
an individual owner could be responsible for maintaining sidewalks and street trees. Subsection
(D) was revised to cross-reference section 20B.3(I) for the applicable waiver procedure.
Figs. 1 and 7: These figures were revised to incorporate substantive changes regarding the
maximum building setbacks allowed with a modification (Figure 1) and the minimum height of an
opaque wall or fence providing screening of the use from an adjoining residential use or a
residential or rural zoning district (Figure 7).
Mr. Rooker asked if the screening requirement is between commercial and residential properties
and not other properties. Mr. Cilimberg said that was correct. There is a requirement for a 20-foot
planting area or in lieu of planting a fence could be provided.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is one adjustment on the zoning map and that is to remove the Shifflett
property (they actually requested that their property be removed from this amendment). The rest of the
map is as the Board saw it last week.
Mr. Rooker said if a site plan is approved with an opaque fence, can maintenance of that fence be
required? Mr. Cilimberg said that would be part of the conditions of site plan approval, so it would be an
enforceable condition. Mr. Davis said it would be part of the screening requirements. The Site Plan
Ordinance requires that screening be maintained.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff’s recommendation, based on what the Planning Commission also
recommended, is that the Board adopt the Zoning Text Amendment newly dated June 9, 2008, and the
Zoning Map Amendment that is reflected on the boundary map he just showed to the Board dated June,
2008. Mr. Davis said staff has prepared a resolution for the Board to adopt concerning the Zoning Map
Amendment so there will be absolute clarity as to its action.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are any budget implications attached to this approval. Mr. Cilimberg said
there was such a reference in the Executive Summary last week because of the analysis done in terms of
the fiscal impact. Mr. Davis said this ordinance does not require any capital expenditures on behalf of the
County that are different from the commitments made during the Crozet Master Planning process. There
are now by-right uses that would create an impact in terms of staff’s review of site plans; those would be
required even if the property was rezoned by property owners on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Cilimberg
said the properties going into the downtown zoning district that Mr. Davis referenced makes them eligible
to submit site plans. It removes the rezoning process for applicants so that would not be covered 100
percent by the fee charged. That will reduce some staff costs by not having to entertain any rezonings in
this area.
Mr. Slutzky asked if staff looked at the revenue side when considering the budget impact. Mr.
Cilimberg said Mr. Steve Allshouse did a fiscal impact study. Mr. Davis said a budget impact was a part of
the Board’s packet last week. It noted that the Board had approved $75,000 for consultant fees for the
project in September, 2006. The district would have a positive impact to County revenue over a 20-year
timeframe in an amount of $11,900.00 based on the fiscal impact analysis. That was the extent of the
analysis provided to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he was more concerned about the implications of approving this and including
allocations for infrastructure. Mr. Davis said some projects are already being processed; an extensive
streetscape project is underway, the Library project is underway, and some drainage improvement
projects. Beyond that he does not know of any commitment by this rezoning that would advance any other
projects.
Mr. Slutzky said as he expressed last week he is struggling with this ordinance amendment. On
one hand he thinks it is appropriate; it is imperative that the downtown part of Crozet be protected so
commercial activity can be stimulated there. He would like to know what impact this will have on the tax
bills of those who own property in the district. He said the value of the land inside the district will likely
increase, so he wonders if anybody would be interested in sequestering the increase in revenues
associated with this action and use them for infrastructure in Crozet.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 3)
Mr. Rooker said the County is spending more on the Crozet Library project than the number
mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg earlier. A combination of the Crozet library and the streetscape projects will
cost more than the $11.0 million in the CIP that are related to the Crozet growth area.
Ms. Thomas said it might be an interesting piece of information if it can be done. Mr. Tucker said
staff can do it, but it will not cover close to the amount that has been projected in the CIP for infrastructure
improvements.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board is committed to implementing the Crozet Master Plan. There are a
number of items in the CIP for Crozet and the value of those projects is significant. Last week, Mr. Bruce
W oodzell said the assessment of properties will have to be modified to reflect the new use potential of
those properties. That will create a revenue windfall. He understands the community wants this rezoning
to happen. He thinks the increase in revenues attributable to the act of upzoning should be concentrated
in Crozet for additional infrastructure projects. He asked if it is possible for the Board to do that. Mr. Davis
said there is no way for this Board to bind a future Board to how they would spend general tax revenues.
Mr. Slutzky said this Board cannot bind future boards to the proffer policy, but he thinks it expects
future boards to make use of it.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it would be a bad policy to do what Mr. Slutzky is suggesting. W ould
Mr. Slutzky say that when North Pointe is rezoned, the revenues resulting from the increase in value would
be spent on improvements at North Pointe until they built out because their value has increased because
of any rezoning? In Crozet the people have an advantage by having their properties rezoned en masse
thus saving the money they would have paid for individual rezonings. Also, there are no proffers
associated with this rezoning. In effect it could be said that there is a windfall for the people who
participated in this because they don’t have the cost typically associated with a rezoning. He thinks that
same argument could be made for any rezoning.
Ms. Mallek said she wishes she had thought of this idea because of the benefit to the community.
She understands the complicating factors, but she would also like to know the increase in value inside the
district.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is actually doing this at the request of people in Crozet. This was not a
Board-initiated idea.
Mr. Slutzky said he intends to vote for this amendment because it is clear the community is in
favor of it. He has had a number of discussions this week with Mr. W oodzell and Mr. Davis trying to
understand what impacts there might be in the way of taxes. It is clear to him that there is no way to
know. However, when staff gives revenue projections after the new assessments are made each year, he
would like to receive a simple report on revenues changes in this district.
Mr. Rooker said there are places in the community, like Biscuit Run, which have been rezoned
and the market has changed significantly since that rezoning took place. The value of that property has
changed because they rezoned it, and there is an expectation that the action will create an increase in the
value of the property.
Ms. Mallek said when the Hollymead Towncenter and other large projects were before the Board
for approval, the developers said these projects would generate large amounts of tax revenue. She would
be interested to know if any of that has come true.
Mr. Rooker said if the property has been rezoned and its value increased but nothing has been
done with that property at this time, there is no community cost associated with it. That is where Biscuit
Run and North Pointe are at this time.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that is information the Board can ask for. In the interest of moving this
conversation along, he will say that he does not think the idea of benchmarking is practical.
Ms. Thomas said having that information would be interesting. She asked Ms. Mallek if she had
any feedback to share with the Board members.
Ms. Mallek said she had a comment from one person who would like to be in this district, but that
is something for the Board to deal with at a later time.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Davis had a motion prepared for the Board to adopt.
Mr. Davis said that two motions are required. First, the Board needs to approve the Zoning Text
Amendment shown on the screen and then second, adopt the prepared resolution for the zoning map to
establish the zoning map amendment.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, by amending Sec. 3.1, Definitions, and by adding Sec. 20B.1. Purpose and intent, Sec. 20B.2,
Permitted uses, Sec. 20B.3, Area and bulk regulations, Sec. 20B.4, Parking, Sec. 20B.5, Landscaping,
Sec. 20B.6, Outdoor lighting, and Sec. 20B.7, Sidewalks and street trees.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 4)
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS,
AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
By Adding:
Sec. 20B.1 Purpose and intent
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses
Sec. 20B.3 Area and bulk regulations
Sec. 20B.4 Parking
Sec. 20B.5 Landscaping
Sec. 20B.6 Outdoor lighting
Sec. 20B.7 Sidewalks and street trees
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Cultural arts center: An establishment for the presentation of art, scientific, cultural or historical
materials, music, or live theatrical or musical productions, and which may include but are not
limited to museums, noncommercial art galleries, arboreta, aquariums, botanical or zoological
gardens, auditoriums, and music conservatories.
. . .
Outdoor performance area: A place of open-air (outdoor) assembly, consisting of a central space
or stage for performances, which may be open to the sky or partially covered or enclosed.
. . .
Research and development: A facility primarily used for the administration and conduct of
investigation, examination, prototype production, experimentation, testing, and/or training aimed at
the discovery and interpretation of facts, theories, and/or the practical application of the above to
products or processes.
. . .
Stepback: A building setback of a specified distance that occurs at a prescribed number of
stories or feet above the ground.
. . .
Story: That portion of a building, having more than one-half (1/2) of its height above grade, included
between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it. If there be no floor above
it, the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it.
. . .
Article III. District Regulations
Section 20B. Downtown Crozet District – DCD
Sec. 20B.1 Purpose and intent
The purpose of the Downtown Crozet District (hereinafter referred to as the “DCD”) is to
establish a district in which traditional downtown development, as described for the CT6 Urban
Core and CT5 Urban Center transects in the Crozet master plan, will occur.
To these ends, the DCD provides for flexibility and variety of development for retail,
service, and civic uses with light industrial and residential uses as secondary uses. The
regulations for the DCD are intended to promote a development form and character that is
different from typical suburban development allowed by conventional zoning, and are also
intended to: (i) promote the economic and social vitality and diversity of downtown Crozet; (ii)
implement the Crozet master plan for the downtown area of Crozet so that it may serve as the
commercial hub of Crozet and its environs; (iii) provide a greater mix of uses in downtown Crozet,
including increased employment; (iv) facilitate infill and redevelopment; (v) increase the utility of
the land; (vi) retain the uniquely diverse character of Crozet; and (vii) promote a pedestrian-
friendly environment.
These regulations are intended to provide maximum flexibility in establishing uses and
structures in order to implement the relevant policies of the Crozet master plan. Accordingly,
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 5)
although the DCD permits uses that are commercial and light industrial in character, neither
sections 21 nor 26 of this chapter apply to the DCD.
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section:
A. By right uses; retail and service. The following retail and service uses are permitted
by right:
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops.
2. Automobile, truck repair shops excluding body shops.
3. Barber, beauty shops.
4. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops.
5. Commercial recreation establishments including, but not limited to,
amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls.
6. Convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
7. Convenience stores.
8. Department stores.
9. Drug stores, pharmacies.
10. Factory outlet stores, clothing and fabric.
11. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.36).
12. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22).
13. Financial institutions.
14. Fire extinguisher and security products sales and service.
15. Florists.
16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery,
candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops.
17. Funeral homes.
18. Furniture and home appliances sales and service.
19. Hardware stores.
20. Health spas.
21. Hotels, motels and inns.
22. Indoor athletic facilities.
23. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
24. Laundries, dry cleaners.
25. Musical instrument sales and repair.
26. New automotive parts sales.
27. Newspaper publishing.
28. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops.
29. Nursing homes (reference 5.1.13).
30. Office and business machines sales and service.
31. Optical goods sales and service.
32. Photographic goods sales and service.
33. Research and development activities, including experimental testing,
subject to the performance standards stated in section 4.14 of this
chapter.
34. Restaurants.
35. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
36. Service stations.
37. Sporting goods sales.
38. Tailors and seamstresses.
39. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.11).
40. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
41. Tourist lodging.
42. Visual and audio appliances.
B. By right uses; office. The following office uses are permitted by right:
1. Medical centers.
2. Offices.
3. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.11).
C. By right uses; public and civic. The following public and civic uses are permitted
by right:
1. Churches.
2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02).
3. Conference centers, outdoor auditoriums, public art or kiosks.
4. Cultural arts centers.
5. Day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
6. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures
and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related
facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. W ater distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping
stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided,
central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance
with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 6)
7. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
8 Libraries.
9. Outdoor performance areas.
10. Parking structures and stand alone parking structures (reference 4.12
and 5.1.41).
11. Private schools.
12. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as
schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or
operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public
water and sewer transmission main or trunk lines, treatment facilities,
pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna
W ater and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5, 5.1.12).
13. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.11).
14. Theaters, live and movie, including multi-screen movie theaters.
D. By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are permitted by right,
provided that the first floor of the building in which the residential use exists is designed for and
occupied only by a use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E):
1. Apartments, either as a single-family dwelling or as a multiple-family
dwelling.
2. Attached single-family dwellings such as townhouses.
3. Boarding houses.
4. Condominiums.
5. Group homes (reference 5.1.07).
6. Tourist lodging within detached single-family dwellings existing on
June 4, 2008.
7. Dwellings occupied by the owner or employees of a permitted
commercial use, and their families (reference 5.1.21).
E. By special use permit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit:
1. Body shops (reference 5.1.31).
2. Buildings more than fifty (50) feet or four stories in height, up to seventy
(70) feet or six (6) stories in height, provided the increased height allows
the provision of a demonstrated public benefit, such as providing
affordable housing or parking.
3. Buildings one story in height.
4. Car washes.
5. Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and
chemical as well as pharmaceutical.
6. Detached single-family dwelling, provided that there is no other use
permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E) on the same lot.
7. Drive-in windows.
8. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas
or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances;
unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave
transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference
5.1.12).
9. Hospitals.
10. Manufacturing, processing, fabricating, assembling, and distributing
products including, but not limited to:
-Artists’ supplies and equipment.
-Business, office machines and equipment.
-Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed
toilet soap.
-Drafting supplies and equipment.
-Electrical lighting and wiring equipment.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 7)
-Electrical and electronic equipment and components including
radio, telephone, computer, communication equipment, TV receiving
sets, phonographs.
-Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy products, candy, beverages,
including bottling plants.
-Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines and similar ceramic products.
-Glass products made of purchased glass.
-Industrial controls.
-Jewelry, silverware.
-Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical household
appliances but not including such things as clothes washers, dryers
and refrigerators.
-Musical instruments.
-Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary
paper products, bags and containers.
-Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and
developing plant.
-Rubber, metal stamps.
-Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers, crystal
holders.
-Surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies.
-Toys, sporting and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition or
fireworks.
-W atches, clocks and similar timing devices.
-W ood cabinets and furniture, upholstery.
11. Publishing, printing, lithography and engraving, including but not limited to
newspapers, periodicals and books.
12. Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and
engraving.
13. Stand-alone parking (reference 4.12).
14. Storage yards.
15. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
16. Towing and storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32).
17. Veterinary offices and animal hospitals.
F. Accessory uses and structures. Accessory uses and structures are permitted,
including but not limited to: (i) home occupations, Class A and Class B (reference 5.2) for primary
residential uses; (ii) storage buildings for primary residential and non-residential uses; (iii) outdoor
performance areas for primary cultural arts center uses; and (iv) prototype manufacturing for
research and development uses.
Sec. 20B.3 Area and bulk regulations
Area and bulk regulations within the DCD are as follows:
A. Area and bulk regulations, generally. Any buildings, structures and improvements
established on and after June 11, 2008 and to which subsection 20B.3(B) does not apply, shall be
subject to the following area and bulk regulations and subsections 20B.3(C) through (J):
Building Setbacks (See Figure 1)
Front-Minimum
Front-Maximum
Side-Minimum except from accessway or
alley
1 foot
10 feet, except up to 20 feet with
administrative modification (See
subsection 20B.3(H)
0 feet
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 8)
Side-Minimum from accessway or alley
Side-Maximum (See Figure 2)
Rear (Minimum)
3 feet, except 1 foot within a building
façade break
20 feet, except with administrative waiver
(See subsection 20B.3(H))
0 feet
See also subsection 20B.3(C) for corner
lots
Parking Setbacks
Front-Minimum-As a primary use (stand
alone parking)
Front-Minimum-as an accessory use
Side-Minimum-As a primary use (stand
alone parking)
Side-Minimum-As an accessory use
Rear (Minimum)
Same as maximum front building setback
(10 feet, except up to 20 feet with
modification (See subsection 20B.3(J))
No closer to the right-of-way than any
existing or proposed primary structure on
the lot. Parking areas shall be located to
the rear and/or side of the primary
structures, as viewed from the right-of-
way to which the lot abuts. On corner
lots, the parking areas shall be located to
the side or rear of the primary structure,
and not between the structure and any
rights-of-way that intersect at the corner.
0 feet
3 feet
0 feet
Stepbacks (See Figure 4)
Front-Minimum
Floors above 40 feet or the third story
shall be stepped back a minimum of 15
feet
Building façade breaks (See Figure 3)
Front-Minimum
Every 200 linear feet (See section
20B.3(E)), except with administrative
waiver (See section 20B.3(H))
Lot size
Minimum
1500 square feet
Density
Residential-Maximum
36 dwelling units per acre
Frontage
Minimum
None
Building Height (See Figure 4)
Minimum height-by right
Minimum height-by special use permit
Maximum height –by right
Maximum height-by special use permit
30 feet or 2 stories
1 story
50 feet or 4 stories
70 feet or 6 stories
B. Area and bulk regulations, pre-existing buildings, structures and improvements.
Notwithstanding subsections 6.3(A)(1) and (3), and subsection 20B.3(A) of this chapter, any
building or structure established before, and existing on, June 11, 2008, may be extended or
enlarged without complying with the maximum front and maximum side yard setbacks and the
minimum front yard setback for parking as an accessory use.
C. Corner lots; determination of front and other sides. Notwithstanding sections
4.6.2(b) and 4.6.3 of this chapter to the extent they determine when front yard setbacks apply, for
purposes of determining setbacks the director of planning (the “director”) shall determine which
side of a corner lot abutting a street shall be the front based upon the prevailing building pattern
that has developed in the vicinity of the lot, and shall then determine which other sides will be the
sides and rear of the lot.
D. Minimum standards for a building façade break. Each building façade break shall
provide either pedestrian access or motor vehicle and pedestrian access to the side and/or rear of
the building on the same lot. A building façade break providing only pedestrian access shall be a
sidewalk having a minimum width of five (5) feet. A building façade break providing both motor
vehicle and pedestrian access shall have a travelway at least twelve (12) feet in width and a
sidewalk on at least one side having a minimum width of five (5) feet. The travelway and the
sidewalk shall be designed and constructed to the applicable standards in the design standards
manual. Buildings separated by a building façade break shall have a minimum separation of the
width of the pedestrian access or motor vehicle and pedestrian access at all points above the
ground. See Figure 3.
E. Building entrances. Each building abutting a street shall have a primary entrance
from either the front or side of the building. A building also may have secondary entrances on the
side or rear of the building. If the primary entrance is located on the side of a building, its doors
shall face the front of the building.
F. Stories. For the purposes of this section 20B, each story shall be visibly
discernible from the street and be composed of habitable space and/or occupiable space, as
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 9)
defined by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Visibly discernible stories shall be
achieved through the use of windows or building entries on each story, using varied building
materials, special ground-floor design treatments, or other façade elements or other architectural
details. In accordance with the procedures stated in subsection 20B.3(H), the director may waive
the requirement that windows, building entries or other façade elements be used to make each
story visibly discernible if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that the use
of other architectural details would render the stories visibly discernible to an equivalent degree.
G. No structures within easements within setbacks. No structures shall be
established within easements located within setbacks.
H. Modifications or waivers to change maximum setbacks or minimum building
façade break. In accordance with the procedures stated in subsection 20B.3(I), the director may
modify the ten (10) foot front building setback and authorize the front building setback to be
increased to up to twenty (20) feet, may waive the maximum side yard setback and establish a
different setback, and may waive the minimum building façade break and establish a different
minimum building façade break. The director may grant a waiver or modification in the following
circumstances: (i) to allow outdoor café seating; (ii) to accommodate public spaces and plazas;
(iii) where topography, easements, or unusual physical conditions make compliance with the
requirement impracticable; (iv) where the required sidewalk and street trees are located on the lot
instead of in a public right-of-way; (v) the strict application of the requirement would not further the
purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, and the waiver or
modification would better achieve the goals of the comprehensive plan or provide a design that
better meets the purpose and intent of the DCD; or (vi) the waiver or modification would allow the
building to be consistent with the prevailing building pattern that has developed in the vicinity of
the lot.
I. Procedure for administrative modifications and waivers. Applications for
modifications or waivers (collectively, “waivers”) authorized to be reviewed and acted upon by the
director or the agent (collectively, the “director”), as applicable, pursuant to this section 20B shall
be reviewed and acted upon according to the following procedure:
1. Application. The applicant shall file a written request with the department
of community development stating why one or more of the applicable circumstances exist or
criteria are satisfied to allow the waiver to be granted.
2. Action by the director. The director shall act on the waiver request in
conjunction with the county’s action of the site plan, subdivision plat or special use permit or, if no
such action is required, within thirty (30) days of the date the application was submitted and
determined to be complete. The director may grant the waiver if he or she determines that one or
more applicable circumstances exist or criteria are satisfied. In granting a waiver, the director
may impose conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. If
review of a site plan or subdivision plat by the commission is requested, the agent may either act
on the waiver or defer action and allow the commission to act on the waiver as part of its
consideration of the plan or plat, in which case the commission shall have the same authority as
though it were considering the waiver on appeal.
3. Appeal to the commission or the board. The denial of a waiver, or the
approval of a waiver with conditions objectionable to the applicant, may be appealed from the
director to the commission and from the commission to the board, as the case may be, as an
appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as
provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9 of this chapter, to which the waiver pertains. If
subdivision plat or site plan approval is not required, the applicant may file a written appeal with
the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) days of the date of the written action by the
director or the commission. A waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an
application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors without
the filing of an appeal. In considering a waiver on appeal, the commission or the board may grant
or deny the waiver based upon its determination of whether one or more applicable circumstances
exist or criteria are satisfied, amend any condition imposed by the director or the commission, and
impose any conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
J. Waiver to allow alternative location of parking area. The parking area setback
requirements in subsection 20B.3(A) may be waived as follows:
1. Consideration by commission. The commission may waive the parking
area setback requirements in subsection 20B.3(A) and allow a parking area to be located between
a street and a primary structure, subject to reasonable conditions that it may impose, upon a
finding that:
a. There are unusual physical conditions on the lot or an adjoining
lot including, but not limited to, the location of existing structures and parking areas, steep
topography or other environmental features, narrowness or shallowness or the size or shape of
the lot that make it impossible or unfeasible to provide parking to the side or rear of a primary
structure;
b. The potential safety of patrons and employees cannot be
achieved with adequate lighting and other reasonable design solutions; or
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 10)
c. The strict application of the applicable regulations in
subsection 20B.3(A) would not further the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the
public health, safety, or welfare or achieve the goals established in the comprehensive plan.
2. Consideration by the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors
may consider a request under this subsection only as follows:
a. The denial of the request, or the approval of the request with
conditions objectionable to the applicant may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an
appeal of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or a denial of the site plan, as
provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9 of this chapter, to which the waiver pertains. If
subdivision plat or site plan approval is not required, the applicant may file a written appeal with
the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) days of the date of the written action by the
director or the commission. A waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an
application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors without
the filing of an appeal.
b. In considering a request, the board may grant or deny the
request based upon the findings set forth in subsection 20B.3(J)(1), amend any condition imposed
by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in
subsection 20B.3(J)(1).
Sec. 20B.4 Parking
The parking, stacking and loading requirements stated in section 4.12 of this chapter shall
apply in the DCD, subject also to the following:
A. No maximum number of spaces. Notwithstanding section 4.12.4(a), there shall
be no limitation on the maximum number of parking spaces that may be provided.
B. Minimum number of parking spaces. Notwithstanding sections 4.12.6 and 4.12.7,
except when shared parking is approved as provided in subsection 20B.4(C) below, the following
schedule shall apply to determine the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required to be
provided:
1. Residential uses: One (1) space for each dwelling unit having one (1)
bedroom; two (2) spaces for each dwelling unit having two (2) or more bedrooms.
2. Non-residential uses: For all non-residential uses other than
convalescent homes and nursing homes, one (1) space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of
net floor area. For convalescent homes and nursing homes, one (1) space per each five (5)
bedrooms plus one (1) space per employee per shift, or as otherwise provided in a parking study
submitted by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator. For the
purposes of this subsection, “net floor area” shall be deemed to be: (a) eighty (80) percent of the
gross floor area; or (b) at the request of the applicant, the actual floor area as shown on floor
plans submitted by the applicant, delineating the actual net floor area, which plans shall be binding
as to the maximum net floor area used.
3. Non-residential uses; bicycle parking spaces: For non-residential uses,
one (1) bicycle parking space per ten (10) automobile parking spaces required.
C. Shared parking. Notwithstanding section 4.12.10(d), the aggregate number of
parking spaces required for all uses participating in the shared parking shall not be reduced by
more than seventy-five (75) percent. W ithin the DCD, the term “nearby lot” as used in section
4.12.10 means a lot within the DCD or a lot within one-quarter (1/4) mile of the lot with which
parking will be shared.
D. Screening from public streets. Each parking area having more than five (5)
spaces that abuts or is visible from one or more public streets abutting the lot on which the
parking area is located shall be screened from the streets with continuous evergreen shrubs or
opaque walls comprised of materials such as, but not limited to, masonry or board, at a height not
to exceed four (4) feet, or by a combination of evergreen shrubs and opaque walls. Opaque walls
shall be augmented with landscape vegetation such as shrubbery, trees, or other vegetation
approved by the agent. If evergreen shrubs are used as the screen, the shrubs shall measure at
least twenty-four (24) inches in height at the time of planting, and at maturity shall be three (3) to
five (5) feet in height. Evergreen shrubs shall be planted between three (3) and five (5) feet on-
center, depending upon the species selected. See Figure 5.
E. Landscaping. The requirements of subsection 32.7.9.7(a) and (b) of this chapter
shall apply only to parking areas having more than twenty-five (25) spaces. Subsection
32.7.9.7(c) of this chapter shall not apply to parking areas within the DCD. See Figure 6.
Sec. 20B.5 Landscaping
For each development requiring approval of a site plan under section 32 of this chapter,
the landscaping requirements in the DCD shall be as follows:
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 11)
A. Screening. Notwithstanding subsections 32.7.9.8(a) and 32.7.9.8(c)(1) of this
chapter, the rear of each lot shall be screened from any abutting lot containing single-family
detached or attached dwelling units, or any abutting lot in a residential or the rural areas zoning
district. See Figures 7 and 8. The required screening shall consist of vegetative screening, an
opaque wall or fence, or alternative vegetative screening, as provided below, to the reasonable
satisfaction of the agent:
1. Vegetative screening. If only vegetative screening is provided, the
screening strip shall be at least twenty (20) feet in depth. Vegetative screening shall consist of a
double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a double staggered
row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center.
2. Opaque wall or fence. If an opaque wall or fence is provided, it shall be a
minimum of six (6) feet in height and plantings may be required by the agent at intervals along the
fence or wall.
3. Alternative vegetative screening. The agent may approve alternative
methods of vegetative screening that better meet the intent to screen commercial uses from
residential uses and districts. In approving alternative vegetative screening, the agent shall make
the approval in writing and state the reason for approving the alternative.
B. Tree canopy. Subsection 32.7.9.9 of this chapter shall not apply within the DCD.
Sec. 20B.6 Outdoor lighting
Notwithstanding subsection 4.17.4(b)(1) of this chapter, the spillover of lighting from first-
story luminaries from non-residential uses in the DCD onto public streets and onto other non-
residential uses is permitted, provided that the Virginia Department of Transportation approves
the spillover of light onto public street rights-of-way.
Sec. 20B.7 Sidewalks and street trees
For each development requiring approval of a site plan under section 32 of this chapter,
sidewalks and street trees in the DCD shall be provided as follows:
A. Sidewalk design. Each sidewalk proposed to be accepted for maintenance by
the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be designed and constructed according to Virginia
Department of Transportation standards or to the standards in the design standards manual,
whichever is greater. Each sidewalk proposed to be privately maintained shall be constructed
using concrete, designed so that no concentrated water flow runs over them, and otherwise
satisfy the standards in the design standards manual. Each sidewalk on Crozet Avenue, Three
Notch’d Road and the street identified in the Crozet master plan as the new Main Street shall be
at least ten (10) feet wide. All other sidewalks shall be at least eight (8) feet wide. See Figure 9.
B. Sidewalk ownership. Each sidewalk, including street trees, proposed to be
accepted for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation, shall be dedicated to
public use. Each sidewalk, including street trees, proposed to be privately maintained, shall be
maintained by the owner of the lot on which the sidewalk and street trees exist or an owners
association that is obligated to maintain the sidewalk and street trees. The agent may require that
a sidewalk proposed by the developer to be privately maintained instead be dedicated to public
use if the agent determines that the sidewalk serves a public purpose and there is a need for the
sidewalks to be publicly owned and maintained.
C. Street trees. Notwithstanding section 32.7.9.6 of this chapter, street trees shall
be planted within grates on each sidewalk or in a planting strip abutting the sidewalk, spaced at a
minimum of twenty-five (25) and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center and the distance of each
tree from the edge of the sidewalk shall be approved by the agent. Street trees shall be selected
from a current list of recommended large shade trees, subject to the approval of the agent when
site conditions warrant medium shade trees. See Figure 9.
D. Waivers from sidewalk requirements. In accordance with the procedures stated
in subsection 20B.3(I), the agent may waive the requirements for a sidewalk and/or street trees
where the developer demonstrates that: (i) the Virginia Department of Transportation prohibits
establishing sidewalks and/or planting street trees; or (ii) existing utility easements prohibit
establishing sidewalks and/or planting street trees.
Figures
Figures 1 through 9 are for illustration purposes only. If there is a conflict or inconsistency
between a regulation in section 20B to which a Figure pertains and the Figure itself, the regulation
is controlling. In addition, Figures 1 through 9 merely illustrate specific requirements and do not
show all applicable requirements of section 20B.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 12)
Figure 1: Front setbacks
Figure 2: Side setbacks
Figure 3: Building façade breaks
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 13)
Figure 4: Stepbacks and building height
Figure 5: Parking areas; screening from public streets
Figure 6: Parking areas; landscaping
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 14)
Figure 7: Screening requirements
Figure 8: Screening requirements
Figure 9: Sidewalks and street trees
__________
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to adopt ZMA-2008-002 and the accompanying map
dated June 11, 2008, as reflected in the following resolution. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 15)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Crozet Master Plan describes downtown Crozet as the historical focal
point for cultural and commercial activities in Crozet and the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the lands within downtown Crozet are currently within various zoning districts,
and the regulations within those districts have been identified as imposing a number of
impediments to the development and redevelopment of downtown Crozet in a manner consistent
with the Crozet Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Text Amendment 2007-005 – Downtown Crozet District (DCD) –
would establish a new zoning district in the Crozet community that implements the Crozet Master
Plan; and
WHEREAS, after several public work sessions conducted by the Planning Commission
and the Board, and with input from several committees comprised of members of the Crozet
community, the boundaries of the proposed Crozet Downtown Zoning District were identified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Zoning Map is
amended to change the zoning map designation for lands shown on the attached map entitled
“Crozet Downtown Zoning * Recommended Boundary,” by Albemarle County GDS June 2008,
which includes the following parcels (identified by their County tax map and parcel number), from
their current zoning designation to Downtown Crozet District:
056A1010004600, 056A10100046A0, 056A1010004800, 056A1010004900,
56A1010005000, 056A1010005300, 056A1010005400, 056A10100054A0,
056A1010005500, 56A1010005600, 056A1010005700, 056A1010005800,
056A10100058A0, 056A1010005900, 56A1010006000, 056A10100060A0,
056A1010006200, 056A1010006300, 056A1010006400, 56A1010006500,
056A1010006800, 056A1010006900, 056A1010011900, 056A1010012000,
056A1010012200, 056A1010012300, 056A1010012400, 056A1010012500,
056A20100000A0, 56A2010000700, 056A20100007A0, 056A2010000800,
056A2010000900, 056A2010001100, 56A2010001200, 056A2010001300,
056A2010001400, 056A2010001500, 056A2010001600, 56A20100016A0,
056A2010001700, 056A2010001800, 056A2010001900, 056A20100019A0,
056A2010002000, 056A20100020A0, 056A20100020B0, 056A2010002100,
056A20100021A0, 056A2010002200, 056A2010002300, 056A20100023A0,
056A2010002400, 056A20100024B0, 056A2010002700, 056A2010002800,
056A20100028A0, 056A20100028B0, 056A20100028C0, 056A2010002900,
056A2010003000, 056A20100030A0, 056A2010003100, 056A2010003300,
056A2010003500, 056A2010003600, 056A2010003700, 056A2010007000,
056A20100071A0, 056A20100071D0, 056A20100071E0 and 056A2020A00100.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 16)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Policy Regarding Board Minutes, W ork Session.
Mr. Boyd said that if everybody has made up their mind, this conversation might be short.
Mr. Rooker said he supports continuing with having complete, accurate minutes. It is important
that the public have an accurate representation of what takes place at these meetings. Abbreviated
minutes would require that someone make an editing decision about what is reflected and what is not
reflected. He has participated with other groups which used abbreviated minutes and frequently the
editing did not accurately capture the discussion. W ithout an accurate history it would be difficult to make
any necessary corrections to the edited version.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 17)
Mr. Tucker said staff had a short presentation to make.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, County Executive’s Office, made a PowerPointe presentation. She said that in
December, 2007 the Board held a work session with Mike Chandler to discuss changes in procedure that
might be beneficial to the Board. He presented data about the length of Board meetings. He made some
suggestions including a recommendation that the Board consider modifying recordkeeping requirements
since meetings are podcast. The Board agreed to review an example of summary style minutes and
determine whether it would change from detailed minutes to summary minutes. The work load in the
Clerk’s Office has increased and no additional resources have been provided. In fact, since 1991 staff
has been decreased by one full-time employee and one temporary person.
Ms. Allshouse said the Board is requested today to modify formal recordkeeping requirements. If
the Board decides to keep detailed minutes, staff recommends additional revenues be appropriated so the
Board minutes can be completed within a reasonable timeframe. She said summary minutes meet legal
requirements just as action minutes or detailed minutes do. A certain type of summary minutes would
reduce administrative costs and give a faster turnaround. Staff thought it might be worth considering
because there is the podcast for one to listen to although at times the conversation is inaudible and it is
hard to know who is speaking. Board dialogue would no longer be part of the County’s official record and
it would no longer be available to the public in a written format.
Ms. Allshouse said if the Board continues with detailed minutes there are a couple of options.
There is no legal requirement that the minutes be completed in a certain timeframe. Some overtime costs
in the Clerk’s Office are not associated with minute preparation, but with the length of the Board’s
meetings. Another option would be to provide some additional clerical assistance for the Clerk’s Office. If
the budget were increased by as much as $35,000, it is felt there could be faster turnaround with minute
preparation and overtime costs might be reduced.
Ms. Allshouse said Mr. Slutzky has furnished her with the name of a transcription service used at
the University which she can check into. If the Board decides to provide additional resources, staff will
work on an appropriation. How fast does the Board want the minutes completed? Does the Board want
to modify the minutes to another format, and if not, does it want to decide how fast they should be
prepared?
Mr. Boyd said the Executive Summary contains information about how many people have used
the podcast recently. However, it does not say how many people look at the minutes online. From a cost
benefit standpoint, he thinks minutes are done for a handful of people.
Mr. Slutzky said he has had a number of people tell him they would like for the minutes to be
available online. He agrees with Mr. Rooker that the Board should continue with detailed minutes
because they have an appropriate social purpose. He is not prepared to cut back on access to the
Board’s discussion of agenda items. The Board needs to find a way to get them caught up to date so they
can stay caught up. He thinks the recommendation today is sound. If the Board continues with detailed
minutes, he thinks two-months would be an appropriate amount of time for preparation. He spoke with a
transcription service that felt they could do them in a week or two. If the Board set a two-month
turnaround time, they should be routinely ahead of that schedule.
Mr. Slutzky said he was surprised by the information in the Executive Summary showing the effect
the increase in Board activity has increased the burden on the Clerk’s Office without a reciprocal increase
in resources. To be fair to the Clerk, they do a terrific job and put in a lot of overtime. Maybe staffing
should be left in place, but shift the role of doing the minutes away from the existing staff. If a separate
appropriation is made for the cost of the transcription he will support that cost range if that is what is
required. He would like to see the Board set a two-month turnaround time for detailed minutes and make
an appropriation to fund the transcription, and probably add enough to get the back eight months caught
up.
Ms. Mallek agreed.
Ms. Thomas said the steps for minute preparation in the Executive Summary show that after the
minutes are prepared, the Clerk has to look them over, and the County Attorney has to also look at them
since if someone does not know the subject matter, there are things the Clerk has to correct and the
Attorney’s Office also. She would like to know from staff whether a two-month turnaround is possible.
She is thinking that the $35,000 mentioned is one-half of one of the frozen positions and she would like to
know if the other Board members think this is the place to put money at this time.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see a list of people who have requested copies of minutes because
he thinks they should be charged.
Mr. Rooker said that is covered under the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the minutes are needed only for review by a third party. The podcast
should contain the whole meeting, so he thinks they could go back to the podcast for a specific item on
the agenda. He asked if the minutes are ever needed for legal purposes.
Mr. Davis said the discussion of the Board is not usually relevant to a legal action. It is just the
action itself. If minutes are needed in a legal proceeding, it is for a motion, a resolution or an ordinance if
one was adopted. The discussion is not usually relevant to that issue.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 18)
Mr. Slutzky said he has used the minutes many times, in particular when the Board discussed
extended work on Sunridge Drive. It was very helpful for him to see what had been said about a very
complicated and difficult matter. W hat neighbors said occurred at those meetings was different from what
was reflected in the minutes. In order to reconcile the disconnect it was important for him to see what
each party had said at the time. Having those detailed minutes has been very helpful to him.
Mr. Rooker said it is not clear from the Executive Summary that doing an accurate summary of
the minutes saves time.
Ms. Thomas said if it were not for the time involved, she would say that all of the Board members
should read all of the minutes because it is a good review. She thinks the decision is whether to pay more
to have the minutes transcribed, or put up with a longer timeframe for delivery of minutes.
Mr. Rooker said he does not agree to have a delayed delivery of minutes. He does not think
preparation of good summary minutes saves any time; someone has to listen to the entire meeting in
order to compose those minutes. It is evident the work cannot be done using the present allocation of
resources. He thinks the Board should allocate resources to get the backlog brought up-to-date and then
maintain some reasonable schedule. He agrees with the 60 days suggested. Also, he thinks the Board
members need to read the minutes within that timeframe also.
Ms. Thomas said there should be an increased budget amount rather than having a goal of a
timeframe that will probably be impossible, but she is concerned about spending $35,000 on minute
preparation.
Mr. Rooker said the information provided shows that the resources for the Clerk’s Office have
been cut, while the workload over the last three-plus years has exploded.
Mr. Boyd said the Board members could also curtail their conversations.
Ms. Mallek said the copy of the October 10 minutes included with the Board’s packet today clearly
show that all the detail is needed. Those minutes contain all of the items on which the Board is currently
working. To go and read those again, and then realize the consequences of something the Board did not
do at that time is an eye opener. As much as she would like to be frugal and not increase expenses, she
thinks this is something the Board must figure out a way to do. The Board cannot expect Ms. Jordan and
Ms. Hoy to work 24 hours a day. Every citizen who has contacted her about this matter said these
minutes are the only way for them to find out what is going on. They would like for them to be presented
faster. She thinks the Board owes the citizens this transparency so they can read what is being said, and
she does not think the podcast is the same thing.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board should eliminate the podcast.
Mr. Slutzky said “no.” It has value.
Ms. Mallek said it has value and is quick. It is the way to get out the gist of the meeting, but she
would vote for minutes.
Ms. Allshouse said she understands that at least four Board members have agreed to detailed
(near-verbatim) minutes.
Mr. Tucker suggested the Board make a motion and vote on this matter.
Mr. Slutzky then moved that the Board reaffirm its commitment to detailed (near-verbatim)
minutes, and in an effort to get caught up with the eight-month backlog and to insure moving forward in
producing the minutes in a two-month time period, the Board agree in principle to increasing the Clerk’s
budget by as much as $35,000 from the Board’s Reserve, subject to Mr. Tucker bringing an appropriation
back to the Board.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. FY ’07 – FY ‘10 Strategic Plan – June 2008 Update.
Ms. Lori Allshouse said this work session was scheduled so the Board could review, discuss and
then approve the 2008 update to the County’s Strategic Plan. The update includes three major changes.
Key performance indicators presented to the Board in April, 2007 have been added. There is updated
information in the section entitled “Environmental Scan.” Also, the addition of a Public Safety Objective is
recommended. She said the current plan covers a four-year time period and is based on priorities
identified by the Board at its 2005 Strategic Planning Retreat and approved by the Board in July, 2006.
Staff recommends that the Plan be updated to keep current and focused on results and align it with
emerging strategic challenges.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 19)
Ms. Allshouse showed a diagram on the screen representing the cycle of the Strategic Plan.
Although the Strategic Plan covers four years, it is updated annually. Also, every other year staff presents
information from the Citizen Survey.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, said he will present a proposed amendment to the
Strategic Plan related to public safety. During the 2007 Fall Strategic Planning Retreat, the Board focused
on long-range funding, master plan implementation, transportation and emerging public safety strategic
challenges. W hile master planning and transportation are included in the County’s Strategic Plan, public
safety is not. To ensure the Strategic Plan aligns County strategies and efforts to meet emerging
challenges, staff stated during the Retreat that they would bring back a recommended Public Safety
Strategic Plan Objective for the Board’s consideration.
Mr. Elliott said that for the past several months, representatives of the Police Department,
Emergency Communications Center, Department of Fire Rescue and Department of Social Services met
to discuss cross-departmental public safety-related strategic challenges and to develop a recommended
objective statement. The recommended Public Safety objective focuses on increasing prevention
activities and services and improving public safety emergency response times. Early in the discussions it
was recognized that while the Board had focused on police and fire/rescue services, the Department of
Social Services as well as the 911/Emergency Communications Center are key providers of public safety
services. It is appropriate to consider how these areas could be more clearly referenced and addressed in
the Strategic Plan. Based on their discussions and research, it is recommended that the Board approve
adding this objective into the County’s current Strategic Plan – “By June 30, 2010, enhance the safety of
the County by improving emergency response times and increasing prevention activities and services.”
Mr. Elliott said in weighing this recommendation, staff asks that the Board consider that public
safety was a top citizen priority. Providing emergency rescue, police and fire protection services are three
of the top priorities in the 2006 Citizen Survey, with the top priority being education. Public Safety has a
large and growing impact on the County budget. Currently approximately 43 percent, or $39.2 million, of
the General Government operating budget is allocated to Police, Fire/Rescue, the Department of Social
Services and the ECC. The number of career staff for fire/rescue has increased from 10 to 80 since
1997. At the request of the volunteer fire/rescue stations, the County has put career staffing in these
facilities in daylight hours when volunteer coverage is not adequate. The two new fire/rescue stations are
fully staffed by the County.
Mr. Elliott said staffing for the Police Department has grown in the past decade; the number of
sworn offices has increased by 30 FTEs. This has enabled the County to achieve faster response times
to critical incidents. W hen reviewing public safety workloads, he would mention that between FY 2004
and FY 2007, the amount of burglaries increased by 50 percent. In 2000, there were 3,000 automobile
accidents and 18 traffic fatalities. The number of structural fires increased 31 percent between FY 2006
and FY 2007. The number of adults referred to the Department of Social Services for Protective Services
increased 49 percent between FY 2004 and FY 2007. Finally, the number of County-dispatched calls by
the ECC increased 14 percent during this time period from just over 60,200 to 68,600. The increase in the
use of technology has impacted the ECC as well, since cell phones, voice over internet providers and text
messages do not provide specific address locations for ECC call takers.
Mr. Elliott said the recommended strategic objective has two primary focuses. One is response.
Established response time goals for Police and Fire/Rescue are now a part of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. The ECC Center has a call-to-dispatch goal as established through its National
Accreditation Board. The Department of Social Services works to exceed State and Federal Standards in
its response to Child and Adult Protective Service referrals. An additional area on which to focus is
prevention. Intervention pertains to such items as mediation, fire prevention programs, companion
services for the elderly, and the Bright Stars and family support programs. Code Enforcement works
through the Fire Marshal’s Office and sending VDOT data on traffic accidents and reconstructions.
Engineering includes plan reviews and input for public safety regarding building design. In all of these
departments there is an education process which involves such things as interfacing with the Schools to
train youth on how to use 911, establishing more Neighborhood W atch Programs, educating citizens on
crime prevention strategies and Adult Protection Awareness training for those who work in adult care
facilities. As a result of the discussion among staff, they believe there are other opportunities for cross-
departmental prevention efforts if this is adopted.
Mr. Elliott said if this amendment is approved today, staff envisions that the process for
developing specific strategy development in these areas will include interfacing and involving the
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Advisory Board, the DSS Advisory Board, the Police Citizens’ Advisory
Board, the ECC Management Board, staff and others. Staff recommends approval of the June update to
the Strategic Plan which includes updated performance indicators, data, and the addition of the Public
Safety Strategic Objective which is “By June 30, 2010, enhance the safety of the County by improving
emergency response times and increasing prevention activities and services.” He offered to answer
questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked what benchmarks are recommended. Mr. Elliott said in terms of benchmarks,
staff is working in several areas. They are working in the Police and Fire/Rescue Divisions to attempt to
obtain the response time goals as established in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker said the benchmarks are shown on Attachment B to the Executive Summary. They
are taken from the current Comprehensive Plan. He does not see anything there for Social Services, but
in their Annual report to the Board there was a report card on areas which they benchmarked and actual
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 20)
results from the prior year. Those benchmark numbers are not included in this recommendation, but it
might be a good idea to do so.
Ms. Mallek said the number of interventions for Child Protective Services is increasing, and she
does not think the Board funded the extra person the Department requested for this year. That is a place
where there is a definite need as far as the public is concerned. It looks like the number of fires is going
down because prevention efforts have been successful, but the Social Services side seems to be
increasing dramatically.
Mr. Rooker said there has actually been an increase in structure fires. Concerning Social
Services, between five and seven employees have been added to that department over the past couple of
years. That does not mean the County is close to the formulated numbers.
Ms. Thomas said she was pleased to see the prevention part of this statement. The problem with
prevention is that the agency that sees the end product is not the same as the agency which is funded to
do the prevention. W hen there is not a lot of interest in prevention, that is a disconnect. W hat came to
her mind instantly was the Jail. The Jail is not mentioned, but it is the Jail’s statistics that should be a
measure of whether a preventive activity is taking effect in some way. She knows the Police Department
had to cut down on Community Policing and that seems to be an area of preventive activity. It is one thing
for the public to demand that the Police respond in five minutes, but they seldom demand juvenile
delinquency prevention. It is hard to get it all into a document when dealing with agencies that do not have
connections one with the other. The Bright Stars Program and having Social Services workers in the
schools probably affects the crime rate more than anything else being done. She does not know how to
put that into the Strategic Plan. She is delighted with the word “preventive”, but is not sure there is truly a
preventive plan in effect. It would be easy to add the Jail statistics as a benchmark.
Mr. Dorrier said he and Mr. Tucker serve on the Jail Board. There are ten or more programs
implemented at the Jail to reduce and prevent crime to try and steer people on the right path when they
are released. There is some merit in including the Jail.
Mr. Tucker agreed. He said there are lots of issues at the Jail. The Jail Superintendent has a
completely different approach to recidivism; programs in the Jail have a bearing on what inmates do when
they are released, and they have made a difference. The issue of process is one they have been working
on with students at UVA. There is going to be a need to expand the Jail very soon. Any expansion will
probably take the form of a more minimum security facility rather than the addition done several years ago
for weekenders and work release prisoners. That would be a savings, but the Jail is reaching a number
where an expansion will have to be considered. In order to do so, the Jail must exceed its capacity by 50
percent before the State will consider funding an addition.
Mr. Dorrier said it has been said that 60+ percent of that growth is due to Albemarle County’s
growth.
Mr. Rooker said Col. Matthews is doing a good job at the Jail. There are few crimes committed by
a person who has not committed a crime in the past. Reduction of recidivism is important. In this issue,
the matter of response times must be addressed. There are communities that are not nearly this
aggressive in response times. But, having a response time target that is unrealistic can have many
impacts. It can be demoralizing to the people who are supposed to do the job. It is a significant cost
driver, but the citizen survey showed that people were satisfied with Police, Fire/Rescue work in the
community. He does not know how much money would be needed in these areas to ultimately hit the
targeted response times. Perhaps at some point the advisory committees could study this matter.
Mr. Boyd said staff is looking for directions from the Board as to what to take back to the various
committees that worked on this recommendation. He would like to see all three of them look at response
times. Mr. Tucker said the next step is to work with the stakeholders and the various advisory committees
of all the entities listed.
Mr. Slutzky asked if a question should be included in the next Citizen Survey asking the public if
they want the County to scale back on the five-minute response time in the growth area.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think a question could be phrased that is not “loaded.” There could
be a straight forward question just asking for an opinion for an adequate response time.
Mr. Slutzky said a question could be phrased “W e currently have a projected response time of five
minutes but with current budget constraints are unable to achieve better than 7.9 minutes. W ould you
favor increasing taxes to accomplish the five-minute response time, or are you satisfied with 7.9?”
Mr. Rooker said that would be a way to address it, but it is not clear to him how much you would
have to spend. If you put another 30 police officers on the street, would it change this response time? He
does not know what is embedded in the response time.
Mr. Dorrier said the response time was not just picked out of the air. It was taken from national
standards.
Ms. Mallek said she cannot drive to the closest neighborhood in Crozet and meet this time limit.
Should the stakeholders be told that the response time has to be improved when the current standard is
met a majority of the time except on second and third calls.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 21)
Mr. Slutzky said the report notes that 41 percent of calls to the Police for emergency calls in the
development areas are responded to in five minutes.
Ms. Mallek said she was not familiar with the Police side of the question. Also, she was not at the
Board’s Retreat last fall. She said there were five different parts of the ACFRAB recommendation, but
only the first one about career things has come to the Board. She would like to know what would be the
result of the Board’s vote in favor of this Strategic Plan recommendation.
Mr. Elliott said the current goals are part of the Comprehensive Plan; they were taken from
national standards.
Mr. Boyd said even though those marks are not always achieved, the County still is getting very
high marks for Police services. Mr. Tucker said it is not just the Police, but all emergency services.
Mr. Slutzky said the community may feel that with the constraints on staffing, the County is doing
a remarkable job. It is hard to interpret a generic question. If some of the survey questions were broken
down into more direct questions, maybe more direct feedback would be received.
Mr. Elliott said what is in the Capital Plan and what is proposed in the Five-Year Plan as to the
strategy for Pantops and Ivy for Fire/Rescue are measures that staff thinks would get the County to the
five-minute response time in the urban area. Beyond those two stations, there is nothing in the CIP in
terms of new fire stations. The intent was that the Board look at the areas of Monticello, Hollymead,
Seminole, Ivy and Pantops and have urban area coverage available to meet that five-minute average
response time.
Mr. Rooker said there is a new station at Hollymead and it is staffed. Has it been determined how
that station affects response times in that area?
Mr. Elliott said staff is working on that and should have a report fairly soon. W ith the station
opening in March, there has been little comment on it yet.
Mr. Boyd said staff needs to know whether the Board wants to add this piece, and he thinks all
Board members agree that emergency services should be a part of the Strategic Plan. (The Board
members all agreed by voice.)
Mr. Dorrier said the Board is not considering all public safety in this amendment unless it also
considers the Jail. W ith the increase in jail population going from 500 to 800 and the majority of those
coming from Albemarle County, he does not think the Board is dealing with public safety unless it deals
with the Jail also.
Mr. Slutzky said as a benchmark, he thinks the Jail should be included as part of the whole
picture.
Mr. Dorrier said it is important; there are over 500 people there who will be released into the
community. Public safety is involved every time one of them is released.
Ms. Allshouse asked if Mr. Dorrier was saying the Jail should be involved when staff determines
how the County should move forward with this strategy.
Mr. Tucker said they would be one of the stakeholders just like the advisory committees of the
other four entities.
Mr. Dorrier said the budget of the Jail is increasing rapidly, and he thinks it should be part of the
Strategic Plan.
Mr. Rooker said the employees at the Jail do not work for the County, but for the Jail Authority, so
there is a little difference.
Ms. Thomas said the Jail is not that dissimilar in relationship to the volunteer firefighters. The
County funds each of those entities and each has an independent board; this Board has appointed people
to the Jail Board and also appoints people to the Advisory Board for the volunteers. She is in favor of
making sure the Jail is mentioned and involved in the stakeholders group.
Mr. Rooker asked how they can be included in the Strategic Plan. He assumes they have their
own adopted goals and strategies.
Mr. Boyd said he believes that is true in all these cases. The Fire/Rescue Advisory Board is also
doing strategic planning.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board needs some figures showing what is going on at the Jail.
She thinks the Board should know if some of its policies are not working in terms of the Jail. If the Jail is
releasing people into the community and the Police Department sees a problem with some of those
people, a public safety issue is created if the Jail is not included.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 22)
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the Board needs to talk to the Jail Board about how they might participate.
Mr. Rooker said the Board might provide information furnished by the Jail Board in these
strategies. He does not think the County can write strategies for the Jail Authority. There are a lot of
coordinated programs at this time between the Police Department, the Sheriff and the Jail as to how
things are done in the community.
Mr. Boyd said this is an excellent document. There are key indictors in the document, and he
would like for the performance indicators to say whether the County is measuring up. It would be nice to
know if they are good or bad.
Ms. Allshouse said that type of information can be provided in the annual report.
Ms. Thomas referred to Page 7 and said one of the key indicators on that page should be the
value of the County’s agricultural products.
Ms. Mallek said it would be good to know the vacancy rate of commercial office space. On page
8 under the key performance indicators she would like for there to be a mention of how the County
supports the viability of the fire/rescue volunteers and what is being done to increase their numbers. She
does not want it to be overlooked.
Mr. Elliott said staff can redesign the chart in the report which shows volunteer operations and
their budget.
Ms. Mallek said the volunteers provide a very important role in fire/rescue service and it should be
shown as a key performance goal.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board discussed the issue of poverty at length last November. On page 15 of
the Environmental Scan, a poverty profile is described. It says that 6.5 percent of the County’s population
is living in poverty. At the meeting in November, the Board described poverty in a more realistic way at the
200 percent level, so he suggests that this be reworded to say that the 6.5 percent is living below the
Federal poverty level which is a more accurate statement.
Mr. Boyd said that figure includes college students as well.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board looked at that issue in November and it was measurable, but did not
have an impact. He said there is a significant constituency in the community that is in need of housing.
He does not know what a benchmark might be, but a key performance indicator might be a percentage of
those the County serves. This report is silent on the issue of how the County is succeeding or failing with
respect to the affordable housing issue and the poverty issue.
Mr. Boyd asked if that information is in the Housing Report the Board just received. The Board
has not yet established goals.
Mr. Slutzky said maybe that should be done. The Board knows there is a problem. It will have an
opportunity to set some goals in the Affordable Housing Fund soon when the Task Force makes its report.
Ms. Thomas said she has made many comments on the pages of the report and she wondered if
staff would like to have those comments now. W hat does it want the Board to do now?
Ms. Allshouse said she has heard a lot of data questions. Staff does an Environmental Scan for
the Board in the fall so a lot of that data will be incorporated into that scan. The key performance
indicators are ones staff selected for the Board in April, 2007. She wants to get the Plan up-to-date at this
time.
Mr. Slutzky said for the housing issue and the poverty issue he would suggest that the Board think
about performance indicators for next year’s update. He has no problem with this plan the way it is
reflected.
Mr. Rooker then moved approval of the 2007-10 Strategic Plan update with the addition of the
proposed public safety strategic objectives attached (see Executive Summary on file). He recognizes that
any comments that came out of this meeting today will be incorporated into the next update of the Plan.
Mr. Slutzky gave second to the motion.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that means that if the Jail is considered a part of the total package it will come
up next September.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks staff would interact with people at the Jail and then bring something
back to the Board to consider putting in the safety section.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
__________
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 23)
Ms. Thomas noted the Key Performance Indicator on page 22 that reads: “Develop policies and
infrastructure improvements to address the County’s growing needs.” She has become aware of the
County’s crumbling present infrastructure that has little to do with growth but a lot to do with age (pipes,
bridges, water and sewer infrastructure, railroad crossings). These are the major things that come to
mind. At what point would discussion of that fit into upcoming strategic planning sessions. She said a
good 60 percent of the W ater Supply Plan people are interested in anything dealing with crumbling
infrastructure.
Mr. Slutzky said Ms. Thomas is “right on the mark” with this. He thinks that in the next update of
the Strategic Plan the Board should consider isolating maintenance and restoration infrastructure as
distinguished from infrastructure attributable to growth.
Mr. Rooker said that is done in the sense that the CIP includes a significant number of projects
that are maintenance projects. The Strategic Plan could include an explicit goal that the County
adequately maintain existing infrastructure.
Ms. Thomas said she realizes the County does not maintain water and sewer facilities, so she
“will not beat a dead horse.”
Mr. Dorrier said there is going to be a national conference in October about infrastructure.
Mr. Tucker said staff has tried to address those things which the County controls. It does not
have any control over roads and bridges, and water and sewer. But, the County has done well with the
infrastructure it controls.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recess. At 5:07 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Thomas that the Board
adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1)
to conduct an administrative evaluation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called, and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Call to Order. The meeting was called back to order at 6:07 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 9. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Not Docketed: Mr. Davis reminded the Chairman that a motion is needed to certify the closed
session.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek said any residents in Crozet who have an interest in commuter bus service from
Crozet to Charlottesville should contact her or Donna Shaunessey at JAUNT.
__________
Ms. Mallek suggested that the other Board members speak with their representatives on the
Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors and ask them to consider having more detailed
minutes of their meetings, and that copies of those minutes be forwarded to this Board on a regular basis
so they can furnish answers to questions from constituents.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked for information on a regular basis about sales tax receipts in the County.
__________
Mr. Rooker said there is an upcoming transportation session in the General Assembly. Four bills
have been submitted for consideration at that session. Two of the bills involve a change in the way
Secondary Road Funds are appropriated. If either of those bills is adopted, Albemarle will have a further
significant cut in funds. One would result in a 30 percent cut in Albemarle’s allocation and the other would
result in a 39 percent cut in funds. This would be over and above the 44 percent cut the Board received
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 24)
notice of a few months ago. Looking at the numbers, total Secondary Road funds for the coming year
would be about $850,000. As a comparison, about 10 years ago the County received $5.0 million a year
in Secondary Road funds. This year it will be about $1.350 million compared to $5.0 million ten years ago.
Mr. Rooker said if any one of these change go into affect, it will be a cut between $850,000 and
$950,000 for this area. This is a completely unacceptable situation. Most people probably do not realize
that the State is charged with building and maintaining roads in the County, not the County. Albemarle is
now setting aside about $2.0 million a year out of County property taxes because the State is pushing this
expense down to localities. It is going to make Virginia uncompetitive economically as years go on. He
would like the Board to send a letter to its legislators with an analysis of how any of these proposed bills
would affect County revenues, and urge them to do whatever is possible to ensure the bills are not
enacted.
__________
Ms. Thomas said there was a RideShare event held in the County Office Buildings yesterday
(June 10), and it went very well. People are eager to use car pools or van pools to get to work. She would
encourage anybody who has a business or who has a group of people who would be interested in
ridesharing to contact RideShare based at the TJPDC. It is the right time for people to think about ways to
get to work other than by using a single occupant vehicle.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda for Public Hearing.
Mr. Bernard W illiams said he is a County resident. He thanked the Board for considering the
water issue further. He asked the Board to vote in favor of the resolution on dredging the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir and that it also look at routine maintenance of all water facilities and resources.
__________
Mr. Nicholas Lang said he has been concerned that the population growth estimate on which the
existing water plan is constituted may be considerably low. He asked that the Board ask for appropriate
demographic studies to determine if that is the case. If there is any uncertainty about how much
population growth there will be he thinks to allow an existing water source to decline or cease to exist as
an effective water source is fool hearty in the extreme. In fact, there may be a need to enlarge the
Ragged Mountain Reservoir and also have regular maintenance of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
__________
Mr. Sam Freilich said he is a County resident. Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville
support the dictum of sustainability so the project as currently conceived is in opposition to that goal.
There may be an option that is sustainable and may offer all the water needed, or at least mitigate the
expense and environmental damage of the proposed project. The cost of dredging could be millions of
dollars less than the plan proposed, as well as create nominal, if any, environmental damage. One of the
prospective bidders will be Dominion Development Resources. This local engineering firm, in conjunction
with Virginia Land Company, may be able to offer a competitive bid because Virginia Land owns a quarry
near the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir which is suitable for drying and handling the solid effluent. He
asked that the Board contact the RW SA and ask them to fund a study of the SFRR in order to obtain a
reading in order to make an accurate bid. He thinks it would be a small investment allowing for an
evaluation of a sustainable alternative, or at least an alternative to the high cost of an environmental
impact study of the plan under consideration.
__________
Ms. Margareta Douglas said she runs the Rivanna Farm which is on the North Fork of the
Rivanna River. She said a new development is proposed in the area (North Pointe) and it will have 900
houses. She asked where the water will come from for it and was told it would be from the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir. That Reservoir is full of silt. She urged the Board to conduct a serious maintenance
study. For North Pointe the alternative is to drill in the North Fork of the Rivanna River which holds little
water and it would be extremely expensive.
__________
Mr. Thomas Jones said he lives in Earlysville. He has followed the progress of the Long-Term
W ater Supply Plan and commends everyone involved for the creative, responsible, environmentally-sound
plan that has been put forward. W hen RW SA presented that plan to City Council last fall they said there
were no plans to limit silting into the SFRR. According to the projections the reservoir would eventually silt
in. Since then many people have spoken in favor of maintaining the reservoir through dredging for a
number of reasons such as: it is central to the water supply plan; it would increase the reliability of the
overall water supply by eliminating single points of failure; it would add capacity as a margin of safety if
rainfall patterns changed due to climate change or population projections are inaccurate; it is a part of the
natural environment of the County providing habitat for wildlife and opportunities for outdoor recreation; it
is good stewardship to maintain the past investment of the community in the SFRR. He brought copies of
a letter signed by 80 local citizens that was sent to City Council in May requesting that they commit to a
program of dredging the SFRR.
Mr. Jones said some of the signers of the letters are rowers like him. They have had an
opportunity to see the scale of the ongoing siltation and its effect on the reservoir. Such deterioration
raises fears that dredging might not even be allowed under future rules. He said the majority of the people
who signed the letters are not rowers or landowners abutting the reservoir, but are citizens with a strong
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 25)
interest in both the environment and a viable community water supply. He urged the Board to vote in favor
of the resolution on dredging and water conservation.
__________
Ms. Karen Pape said she is a resident of the County. She has read the County’s Comprehensive
Plan and it appears that since the 1970s there has been an effort to preserve and protect the area around
the SFRR. She believes that dredging is a natural extension of the preservation that has occurred over
the last 20 years. She is concerned that in the next 50 years there will no need for that reservoir and if
that happens, it would be open to development throughout the northwest part of the County. That area is
now protected and preserved. The people before us have made efforts to protect the reservoir and she
believes it is important for this generation to continue in those efforts. Secondary things have occurred
along the reservoir, but it is first and foremost a water resource. The residents deserve to have a
resource as beautiful as the reservoir. It is a wonderful resource for wildlife in the community. She urged
the Board to consider dredging of the reservoir.
__________
Mr. Kevin Lynch thanked the Board for putting the dredging resolution on the consent agenda
tonight. He seconded the many good reasons given tonight for why dredging is a useful and prudent thing
for both communities to do. Another reason is that in the Four-Party Agreement the City agrees to let the
Rivanna Authority withdraw water from this reservoir the City still owns, it requires that in reciprocity the
Rivanna maintain the reservoir. The Board, along with City Council, would be fulfilling an obligation the
Rivanna Authority made decades ago when it signed the lease taking over water from that reservoir.
There are a couple of other things related to RW SA that are not related to the resolution before the Board
tonight. For six years, they have budgeted for a couple of new stream monitors, in the South Fork of the
Rivanna River and in the Moormans River. They have talked about restoring the health of the Moormans,
so it would be helpful for Rivanna to know the natural flows of the river. That was budgeted and money
was taken from the rate payers in 2002 to get that done, and it still has not happened. He suggested the
Board urge its representative on the RW SA Board to make that happen. Also, in 2005 the State passed a
new water planning section (780) which puts responsibility for the planning of a water supply on the
elected public officials in the City and County. There are good things in the water supply plan alluded to
earlier that are not being done such as more attention to population and demand management.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Item 12.4
on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 12.1. Copy of letter dated May 21, 2008, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Kirk Hughes, L.S. c/o Kirk Hughes & Associates, re: LOD-2008-010 - OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 82, Parcel 4 (property of
Hugh H. Taylor, G. W ayne Taylor, Virginia G. Leake, C. B. & N. D. Goddin) - Rivanna Magisterial District,
was received as information
__________
Item 12.2. Notice from the Virginia State Corporation Commission providing copy of Application
of Virginia Electric and Power Company to revise its Fuel Factor pursuant to Virginia Code §56-249.6
Case No. PUE-2008-00039, was received as information.
__________
Item 12.3. W eldon Cooper Center Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Stakeholders Dialogue,
was received as information.
__________
Item 12.4. Resolution Supporting Study of Maintenance Dredging of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir and Efforts to Promote W ater Conservation.
By the vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted:
A RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING A STUDY OF THE MAINTENANCE
OF THE SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RESERVOIR
AND EFFORTS TO PROMOTE WATER CONSERVATION
WHEREAS, the Rivanna W ater & Sewer Authority, with the support of Albemarle County
and the City of Charlottesville, has received a permit from the United States Corps of Engineers
authorizing the expansion of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir for a community water supply; and
WHEREAS, the approval of a community water supply plan does not negate the County’s
concerns regarding the maintenance of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and the importance of
water conservation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in addition to the specific elements of the
community water supply plan approved by the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority, the City
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 26)
Council and the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Rivanna
W ater and Sewer Authority to undertake a study of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and the
viability and merits of maintenance dredging, siltation prevention and any other appropriate
initiatives that could maintain and enhance the aquatic health and water quality of the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, as a valuable water resource for the long term future benefit of the
community. The Board hereby requests that the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Rivanna
River Basin Commission and other affected regional partners formally express their support of
this study; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to
increase its efforts to promote water conservation and efficiency by Albemarle
County water consumers, and commits to engage in an active dialogue with the
Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority, the City of Charlottesville, the Albemarle
County Service Authority, the University of Virginia and other key partners to
develop stronger incentives and more effective measures for the conservation of
water throughout the region.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2007-056, Rivanna Plaza.
Proposal: Drive through lane for proposed retail building.
Zoning Category/General Usage: Highway Commercial (HC); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay.
Section: 24.2.2(13) Special Use Permit, which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated
with permitted uses.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use: Regional Service in Urban Area 1.
Location: Northwest side of Seminole Trail (Rt 29) approximately 1,100 north of W oodbrook
Drive.
Tax Map/Parcel: TMP 45-109 and TMP 45-112C1.
Magisterial District: Rio.
Concurrent Project: SDP-2007-00137.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 2008.)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, 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 is an application for a
special use for a drive-through window for a proposed retail building on Route 29 North. It is next to
Schewel’s Furniture and Kegler’s Bowling Alley. The site plan for the proposed development shows three
buildings with a total of 32,000 square feet. This particular building has a proposed drive-through. The
plan shows a new entrance; one entrance to Schewel’s will be closed. The existing entrance to Kegler’s
will also be closed. A new connection will be made to Kegler’s parking lot with another connection
ultimately connecting to the proposed Berkmar Drive/Route 29 connector road.
Mr. Fritz said staff looks at many items when reviewing applications for special permits. Their
analysis of this plan is that design functions on site and the entrances proposed are adequate to handle
the volume of traffic. The ARB reviewed the plan and supported it; they made some recommendations
which the applicant agreed to. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission in April and it
recommended approval unanimously subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission discussed the access issues and the ultimate design of
the Route 29/Berkmar Drive Connector road. They were satisfied that those concerns were addressed by
the plan. The only thing before the Board tonight is the request for a drive-through window. The site plan
will be reviewed and approved administratively.
Mr. Slutzky said he had a question which is unrelated to this request. If the road between Better
Living and Schewel’s were not built, would traffic go up to Berkmar and come down by the W al-Mart? Mr.
Fritz said the road from this site west to Berkmar does not exist. If it were built, there would be access to
Berkmar. If the eastern portion was not opened, there would be no access to Route 29. As proposed,
they would have access back to Route 29 and ultimately to Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Rooker asked if this applicant will build that road from Route 29 to their property line on the
west side. Mr. Fritz said “yes.”
Mr. Rooker asked if the owner of Better Living must give the right-of-way to continue that road to
Berkmar. Mr. Fritz said “yes.” He said the special use permit was analyzed with both concepts in mind.
Ms. Thomas asked that Mr. Fritz indicate on the plan the proposed traffic flow in and out of the
drive-in window. Mr. Fritz did so.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Mark Green said he was present to represent the applicant, Rivanna Plaza, LLC. He offered
to answer questions.
The public hearing was opened. W ith no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing was
closed and the matter placed before the Board.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 27)
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky to approve SP-2007-056 subject to the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Drive-in window is limited to one window; and
2. Development of the site will be in general accord with the site plan titled Special Use
Permit Application Plan for Rivanna Plaza and initialed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2008-07, Lebanon Evangelical Presbyterian
Church (Sign # 8).
Proposed: Special Use Permit to bring an existing church into conformance with the zoning
ordinance and to allow the construction of a storage building.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre).
Section: 10.2.2 (35) church building and adjunct cemetery.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/ acre); Entrance Corridor
Overlay.
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: 8312 Brooksville Road; north side of Route 250 W est; approximately .10 mile east of
Plank Road; in the Greenwood area.
Tax Map/Parcel: TMP 70-2; TMP 70-2A; TMP 70-3A.
Magisterial District: W hite Hall.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 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 Lebanon Presbyterian Church needs a storage
building. This request encompasses several parcels; the storage building will be located at the rear of the
property. No other changes are proposed on the site. He noted on a map the existing area of the church
and its parking and the location of the proposed building.
Mr. Cilimberg said the site is on Route 250 W est in the Greenwood area in the Rural Area. The
church dates back to the 1850s. It had a façade alteration at one time. A special use permit will bring the
total church property into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The church does not intend to have
lights on the exterior of the new storage building. Staff did include the standard lighting condition that has
been used on other special use permits for properties in the rural area. It would apply to the entire church
including the storage building and other existing buildings, and a lighting plan would be required for the
total church property. The Board may not want to apply that condition in this case considering the limited
extent of the improvements.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval with five
conditions including the outdoor lighting condition. If the Board feels that condition is excessive,
considering the circumstances leading to the request for this special use permit, it should remove that
condition as part of its action.
Mr. Rooker said the Planning Commission’s recommended Condition No. 5 reads: “All outdoor
lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from the abutting properties.” He asked if that
condition applies to the entire property or just to the addition. Mr. Davis said it would apply to the entire
property because the special use permit applies to the church use in total.
Ms. Thomas asked if the wording as proposed by the Planning Commission would require a
lighting plan. Mr. Davis said it would not as long as the Zoning Administrator was satisfied that the light
was not in conflict with that condition.
Ms. Thomas said she is hesitant to require a lighting plan when just a storage shed is being
added. She said the wording could require them to pay attention to the lighting and not require a plan so
she is thinking that No. 5 as it came from the Planning Commission would suffice in this case.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the applicant has objected to the more onerous provision staff recommended
in accord with the Board’s policy. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know the answer to that question. He
said the staff’s report to the Planning Commission used the old condition the Board did not want to use
anymore.
Ms. Thomas asked if only the first sentence of the recommended condition would require a
lighting plan. Mr. Cilimberg said “no.” Mr. Davis said it would not require a lighting plan, but the Board
would need to clarify whether it wanted a retrofit of existing lighting. He is not sure the lighting on the
church now is in compliance. An alternative would be to apply the condition to any new lighting proposed
in the future.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 28)
Mr. Slutzky said as a matter of policy the Board needs to be consistent when setting precedents.
If the standard is going to be that when it is a very nominal modification of the site activities, the Board will
“bend the rules”, that would make it clear to applicants that that is what is being done. The Board should
ask the applicant how they feel about the condition.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd asked the applicant to speak.
Pastor Don Hardman was present to speak for the church. He said they knew nothing about the
lighting until this hearing began tonight. There are outside lights on the church which are not up to the
present standard. There is nobody around the property; abutting properties have cows on them. His
house is on the property and it is the closest house. They do turn on lights around the church at night for
parking and there are post lamps in the front and on the doors.
Mr. Boyd asked if the church plans on adding any lighting at all. Mr. Hardman said they do not
plan on adding lighting. They just want to add a storage building for their lawnmower.
Mr. Slutzky said he would recommend that the old language be allowed in this case, but on the
argument that it is because staff inadvertently left the new policy out when it was presented to the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Thomas said even the old wording might express that concern about whether they have to
retrofit the lighting. Perhaps the first sentence of the recommended Condition No. 5 which refers to “all
new outdoor lighting” might suffice. The Board is concerned about light pollution so it does not matter that
there are no neighbors.
Mr. Hardman said it is an old building with the lights shining downward, so he is sure they are
floodlights.
Mr. Slutzky said that works for him. The record can show that the Board’s logic was tied to the
inadvertence rather than any other precedents.
Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing, but with no one from the public rising to speak, the hearing
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved approval of SP-2008-007 subject to the five conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission with Condition No. 5 being modified by the Board tonight to read: “All new outdoor
lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from the abutting properties.”
Mr. Davis said the second sentence would be applicable if the wording were changed to read: “A
lighting plan for new lighting limiting light levels ...” If they propose a new lighting scheme, then the church
would have to do that.
Ms. Thomas said new lighting might consist of one new light and then they would have to have a
whole plan under that wording. She thinks the way it was worded is fine.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions, as approved, are set out in full below.)
1. Special Use Permit SP-2008-07 Lebanon Presbyterian Church shall be developed in
general accord with the concept application plan provided by the applicant and received
February 11, 2008 (Attachment A-on file). However, the Zoning Administrator may
approve revisions to the concept application plan to allow conformance with the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. The color of the storage building shall be brown and the roof color shall be charcoal, as
agreed by the applicant;
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without prior approval of a
separate special use permit;
4. There shall not be an increase in the sanctuary without prior approval of an amendment to
this special use permit; and
5. All new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away
from all abutting properties.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2007-001, Zero lot lines.
Proposed: Amend Sections 3.1 (Definitions), 4.11.3 (Reduction of building separation and side
yards) and its subsections, 14.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 15.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 16.3 (Area
and bulk regulations), 17.3 (Area and bulk regulations), 18.3 (Area and bulk regulations) of the Zoning
Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code). This ordinance would amend Section 3.1 by
defining “zero lot line” and “zero lot line development; Section 4.11.3 and its subsections by revising the
regulations for reduced side yard setbacks for primary structures not within zero lot line developments,
adding regulations to allow reducing the minimum building separation or side yards for detached dwellings
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 29)
in zero lot line developments to zero feet if there is adequate fire flow, and deleting a provision that
grandfathered plats approved prior to January 1, 1983, from certain requirements of Subsection 4.11.3.1;
and would amend Sections 14.3, 15.3, 16.3, 17.3 and 18.3 by revising the respective district yard
regulations to allow minimum side yards to be reduced to zero feet on one side in qualifying zero lot line
developments. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2,
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 Zoning Text amendment will define “zero lot
line” for the conventional residential districts. It is available now and has been implemented through
planned developments, but it would add to the ordinance the definitions of “zero lot line” and “zero lot line
development” in the various zoning districts and would allow a ten-foot side yard to be reduced to zero feet
on one side of the lot only. It would need to be shown on a subdivision plat, with a ten-foot building
separation, and an easement must be in place so that ten feet allows for the maintenance of the abutting
development. It deletes the requirement for reduction of the side yard setback. That is now covered
through Code as part of fire protection requirements.
Mr. Cilimberg said this started as a request in the R-4 District for a 15-foot zero lot line allowance.
After review with the Planning Commission and considering in general the zoning districts, it was decided
that a ten-foot building separation and zero lot line would be appropriate for the R-2 to R-15 Districts. The
amendment was generalized to apply to all of those districts. The Commission was concerned about
continuing the language from Section 4.11.33 for grandfathering old allowances. That has been removed
now based on a resolution of intent adopted by the Commission to remove a similar provision from
Planned Development Districts. That resolution is still working through the process. In seeing this
particular request to change zoning for this section of the Ordinance, the Commission recommended that
provision be removed.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was concern about the impact on fire suppression opportunities. The
Fire/Rescue Division has confirmed that Code regulations permit what is being requested, and the ten-foot
separation allows for appropriate fire suppression measures. The recommendation from staff and the
Planning Commission is for approval of the ZTA with the amendment language dated May 6, 2008, and
provided as Attachment 1 to the Executive Summary on this matter tonight.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Fire Marshal might speak.
Mr. James Barber, Assistant Chief of Fire Prevention and Fire Marshal, Department of
Fire/Rescue, spoke. W hat is before the Board tonight is currently allowed in the Code. As the Code is
promulgated, concerns for fire suppression and the increased need for water supply are taken into
account. As buildings are built closer together the required fire flow is increased.
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Barber was referring to the Building Code concerning fire walls, etc. Mr.
Barber said it is in the Building Code and is also mirrored in the Fire Code as well.
At this time, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing. W ith no one rising to speak, the hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt ZTA-2007-001, An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 3.1, Definitions; Sec. 4.11.3, Reduction
of building separation and side yards; Sec. 4.11.3.1, Untitled; Sec. 4.11.3.2, Untitled; Sec. 14.3, Area and
bulk regulations; Sec. 15.3, Area and bulk regulations; Sec. 16.3, Area and bulk regulations; Sec. 17.3,
Area and bulk regulations; Sec. 18.3, Area and bulk regulations; and, by repealing Sec. 4.11.3.3, Untitled;
with the language recommended by the Planning Commission dated May 6, 2008.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS,
ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District
Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.11.3 Reduction of building separation and side yards
Sec. 4.11.3.1 Untitled
Sec. 4.11.3.2 Untitled
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 30)
Sec. 14.3 Area and bulk regulations
Sec. 15.3 Area and bulk regulations
Sec. 16.3 Area and bulk regulations
Sec. 17.3 Area and bulk regulations
Sec. 18.3 Area and bulk regulations
By Repealing:
Sec. 4.11.3.3 Untitled
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Zero lot line. The term “zero lot line” means the location of a detached dwelling unit or portion
thereof on a lot in such a manner that one of the sides of the dwelling unit rests less than the
distance to the side lot line otherwise required in the district and may rest directly on that side lot
line.
Zero lot line development. The term “zero lot line development” means a subdivision reviewed
and approved by the county as a single-family detached residential or mixed use development
that uses zero lot lines, and in which a minimum separation of ten feet between detached dwelling
units is maintained.
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.11.3 Reduction of building separation and side yards (Added 1-1-83)
The minimum building separation and side yards for primary structures may be reduced in
accordance with the applicable district regulations as follows:
A. Reductions for structures not within zero lot line developments; with adequate fire
flows or which are constructed in accordance with the building code. The minimum building
separation or side yards for primary structures may be reduced if the structure is not located
within a zero lot line development, but is located in an area where available fire flows are
adequate under Insurance Service Offices standards to allow the reduction. Each primary
structure for which the minimum building separation or side yard has been reduced as provided in
this subsection shall be subject to the following:
1. In the case of a side yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official
may require a guarantee as deemed necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this
section, and this guarantee may include, but not be limited to, appropriate deed restrictions,
disclosure, and other such instruments, which shall be of a substance and be in a form approved
by the fire official and the county attorney, and shall be recorded in the records of the circuit court
of the county;
2. No structure shall encroach within any emergency accessway required by
the Albemarle County fire official;
3. Unless constructed to a common wall, no structure shall be located
closer than six (6) feet to any lot line; and
4. No structure shall encroach on any utility, drainage or other easement,
nor on any feature required by this chapter or other applicable law.
B. Reductions for dwelling units within zero lot line developments. The minimum
building separation or side yards for detached dwelling units may be reduced to zero (0) feet on
one side for each dwelling unit located within a zero lot line development if the structure is located
in an area where available fire flows are adequate under Insurance Service Offices standards to
allow the reduction. Each zero lot line development shall be subject to the following:
1. The subdivider shall submit with the final subdivision plat a lot
development plan showing all the lots in the zero lot line development and delineating the location
of each zero lot line dwelling unit;
2. The subdivider shall establish a perpetual wall maintenance easement on
the lot abutting the zero lot line side of the dwelling unit so that, with the exception of fences, a
minimum width of ten (10) feet between dwelling units shall be kept clear of structures in
perpetuity. This easement shall be shown on the final plat, shall be of a substance and be in a
form approved by the director of community development and the county attorney, shall be
recorded in the records of the circuit court of the county with the approved final subdivision plat,
and shall be incorporated by reference in each deed transferring title to each lot that is a dominant
and servient estate; and .
3. Building footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot to a
maximum distance of eight (8) inches.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 31)
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 14.3 Area and bulk regulations
Area and bulk regulations within the R-2, Residential, district are as follows:
STANDARD LEVEL BONUS LEVEL
CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER
REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
Gross density 2 du/acre 2 du/acre 3 du/acre 3 du/acre
Minimum Lot Size 21,780 sq ft 14,500 sq ft 4,520 sq ft. 9,700 sq ft
Minimum frontage:
public, private 80 feet 70 feet 70 feet 65 feet
Yards, minimum:
Front 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Side(a) 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Rear 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
(a) Minimum side yards may be reduced to not less than ten (10) feet in accordance with section 4.11.3, provided
that minimum side yards may be reduced to zero (0) feet on one side in zero lot line developments in accordance
with section 4.11.3 and are approved under chapter 14.
Maximum
Structure height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Sec. 15.3 Area and bulk regulations (Amended 3-18-81)
Area and bulk regulations within the R-4, Residential, district are as follows:
STANDARD LEVEL BONUS LEVEL
CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER
REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
Gross density 4 du/acre 4 du/acre 6 du/acre 6 du/acre
Minimum Lot Size (added 7-17-85)
10,890 sq ft N/A 7,260 sq ft. N/A
Yards, minimum:
Front 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Side(a) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Rear 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
(a) Minimum side yards may be reduced to not less than ten (10) feet in accordance with section 4.11.3, provided that
minimum side yards may be reduced to zero (0) feet on one side in zero lot line developments in accordance with
section 4.11.3 and are approved under chapter 14. (Amended 1-1-83)
Maximum
Structure height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Sec. 16.3 Area and bulk regulations
Area and bulk regulations within the R-6, Residential, district are as follows:
STANDARD LEVEL BONUS LEVEL
CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER
REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
Gross density 6 du/acre 6 du/acre 9 du/acre 9du/acre
Minimum Lot Size (Added 7-17-85)
7,260 sq ft N/A 4,840 sq ft. N/A
Yards, minimum:
Front 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Side(a) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Rear 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
(a) Minimum side yards may be reduced to not less than ten (10) feet in accordance with section 4.11.3, provided
that minimum side yards may be reduced to zero (0) feet on one side in zero lot line developments in accordance
with section 4.11.3 and are approved under chapter 14. (Amended 1-1-83)
Maximum
Structure height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet
Sec. 17.3 Area and bulk regulations
Area and bulk regulations within the R-10, Residential, district are as follows:
STANDARD LEVEL BONUS LEVEL
CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER
REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
Gross density 10 du/acre 10 du/acre 15 du/acre 15du/acre
Minimum Lot Size (Added 7-17-85)
4,356 sq ft N/A 2,904 sq ft. N/A
Yards, minimum:
Front 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Side(a) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Rear 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
(a) Minimum side yards may be reduced to not less than (10) feet in accordance with section 4.11.3, provided that
minimum side yards may be reduced to zero (0) feet on one side in zero lot line developments in accordance with
section 4.11.3 and are approved under chapter 14.
Maximum
Structure height 65 feet 65 feet 65 feet 65 feet
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 32)
Sec. 18.3 Area and bulk regulations
Area and bulk regulations within the R-15, Residential, district are as follows:
STANDARD LEVEL BONUS LEVEL
CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER CONVENTIONAL CLUSTER
REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
Gross density 15 du/acre 15 du/acre 20 du/acre 20 du/acre
Minimum Lot Size (Added 7-17-85)
2,904 sq ft N/A 2,178 sq ft. N/A
Yards, minimum:
Front 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Side(a) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Rear 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
(a) Minimum side yards may be reduced to not less than ten (10) feet in accordance with section 4.11.3, provided
that minimum side yards may be reduced to zero (0) feet on one side in zero lot line developments in accordance
with section 4.11.3 and are approved under chapter 14. (Amended 1-1-83)
Maximum
Structure height 65 feet 65 feet 65 feet 65 feet
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 4,
Animals and Fowl, of the Albemarle County Code, by adding Article IV, Animal Noise, section 4-601,
Noise from animals; section 4-602, Complaints of animal noises; and section 4-603, Penalty for violation;
making it unlawful for the owner or custodian of an animal to harbor an animal which disturbs the peace
and quiet of any person in the County through frequent, excessive and untimely sounds. The proposed
ordinance would not apply to lots zoned Rural Areas that are five acres or more in area and exempts
noises made by livestock or poultry and noises made by animals in an animal shelter or commercial
kennel. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 2008.)
Mr. Davis said the County currently has an ordinance regulating noises in the County. However,
that ordinance exempts animal noises including barking dogs. Over the years, if the Police Department
received a complaint, an Animal Control Officer investigated the complaint, and tried to resolve the
complaint. Dog owners and complainants are encouraged to discuss the situation. In 1996, when the
Board last reviewed this issue in a formal manner, staff prepared a brochure that explains remedies and
approaches to resolving animal noise complaints.
Mr. Davis said that over the years Board members have continued to receive complaints that dog
barking and other related issues have not been resolved. In February and March of 2008 the Board asked
that an ordinance be prepared and brought to public hearing. Staff then examined ordinances from
localities throughout the Commonwealth and developed an ordinance for hearing tonight. That ordinance
proposes that it be unlawful for any person to have a dog that is unreasonably disturbing the peace and
quiet of any other person. The ordinance exempts animals on properties of five acres or larger in order to
be sensitive to the rural character of Albemarle County. It also exempts livestock and poultry that make
noises. It exempts animals in animal shelters or commercial kennels permitted under the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Davis said at the suggestion of the Animal Control officers and to avoid having limited barking
be brought as a violation, they suggested there be a threshold on the length of time a dog could bark
before being subject to this ordinance. They suggested a threshold of 30 consecutive minutes of barking
before a magistrate would consider whether or not to accept a complaint and that suggestion was
incorporated into the ordinance provisions. Under procedures in the ordinance, if a dog barked
continuously for 30 consecutive minutes, the complainant would need to go to a magistrate and swear out
a complaint. If the magistrate felt the complaint was valid, the magistrate would issue a summons to the
custodian of the dog. Next, a trial date would be set and the dog’s owner summoned to court for a trial
before a General District Court judge. The complainant would have to provide evidence that the dog had
been barking and the barking was unreasonably loud and annoying to the complainant. The dog owner
would also have an opportunity to present evidence for the judge to consider.
Mr. Davis said if the judge determined that the dog had been a nuisance and violated the
ordinance he could impose a fine based on the facts and circumstances presented. That fine could be up
to $500. The ordinance provides that if a single conviction did not deter the nuisance, and there were two
further convictions within a 12-month period of time, the judge could order removal of the dog to an
unregulated area of the County. If the property owner did not remove the dog voluntarily the animal
control officers could seize the dog for proper disposition, including, in the worse case scenario to destroy
the dog. That would not be anticipated in Albemarle County because it has a contract for the SPCA to
handle the dogs and it is a no-kill facility.
Mr. Davis said staff’s review found that cities and most urbanizing counties have animal noise
ordinances. The ordinance before the Board tonight parallels the City’s ordinance except for the amount
of the fines. The City ordinance has been in effect since 1953. It has a similar requirement in that the
complainant must swear out the summons and a similar requirement about removal of the dog from the
City if there are three convictions within a 12-month period of time. It has the same requirement for the
humane disposal of the dog if that does not work. He has talked with City personnel, and they do not
remember that any dog has ever been removed from a home in the City. It is apparent that their
ordinance has been a good deterrent to continuing dog problems in the City. He said this ordinance is
before the Board tonight for a public hearing. If the Board goes forward with an animal noise ordinance,
staff recommends that the Board consider favorably the ordinance before it.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 33)
Mr. Boyd asked whether Mr. Davis knew how many cases actually went to court in the City. Mr.
Davis said he did not have a count, but he was told that they are rare.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has received E-mails from citizens who have problems with barking
dogs. He got the impression that the animal control officer did not go out and investigate, but told the
complainant there was nothing they could do. He said Mr. Davis just said they are supposed to mediate
with the neighbors. Mr. Davis said Sgt. Mainzer is present tonight and can answer that question.
Mr. Boyd asked Sgt. Mainzer to come forward.
Sgt. Mainzer said he is the supervisor of the Animal Control Unit. As to the question about
mediation, that is something they handle on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the number of
complaints, and the seriousness of those complaints. They don’t always get to make a personal visit. A
civil, common law nuisance action is very difficult.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Animal Control Unit can mediate situations. Sgt. Mainzer said in some
cases they can mediate, but some are referred to the Mediation Center. Formal mediation has met with
some success, but it requires that both parties try to “meet in the middle.”
Mr. Rooker asked if in perpetual complaints about the same dog, the Officer has to say they really
cannot provide any help. Sgt. Mainzer said “yes.” They would try to determine the reason the dog is
barking and if there is abuse or neglect involved.
Mr. Boyd asked what is new with this ordinance. Basically the officer can only say the
complainant can go to the magistrate and have a summons issued. Under the present ordinance that
person could go to civil court and do the same thing.
Mr. Rooker said there must be an ordinance in effect for a civil action to proceed. There would
have to be a common law nuisance action, which is very difficult to do unless standards are set out.
Mr. Slutzky said that under the proposed ordinance, a police officer could initiate proceedings as
well as the complainant. Mr. Davis said that could occur only if the officer had witnessed the violation.
This ordinance envisions that it would be a complainant-driven process.
Mr. Rooker said the proposed ordinance would provide a remedy to the complainant that is not
available today. He asked if there is any county in the state the size of Albemarle County that does not
have an animal noise ordinance. Mr. Davis said he is not aware of any. Staff looked specifically at
Spotsylvania, Stafford, Hanover, Prince W illiam and James City. Those counties all have animal noise
ordinances.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the present noise ordinance in Albemarle County covers dogs. Mr. Davis said
it does not. It covers most nuisance noise sources but it exempts animals and specifically exempts dogs.
Mr. Dorrier noted the number of reported cases to the Animal Control Division for the last three
years. He asked if an officer investigated each case, or where they just telephone calls to report a barking
dog. Sgt. Mainzer said those are cases which were reported to the 911 Center and filed a complaint.
They were not cases investigated by an officer.
Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of cases are investigated by an officer. Sgt. Mainzer said they
are involved in very few.
Mr. Dorrier asked if most complaints are handled by the private parties themselves. Sgt. Mainzer
said “yes.”
Mr. Dorrier asked if they are handled successfully. Sgt. Mainzer said there is no way to know.
Mr. Dorrier asked if mediation is a new process in the County. Sgt. Mainzer said the Animal
Control Division has been using it for a couple of years, and it has met with some success.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Animal Control Division can direct people to the Mediation Center or is it
strictly voluntary. Sgt. Mainzer said it is voluntary. The Division can make a referral and provide
information to the Mediation Center.
Ms. Mallek asked if that can be required. Mr. Davis said directed mediation cannot be required.
The County has an informational brochure which is distributed and it is also on the County’s website. It
gives information about how mediation can take place.
Mr. Boyd asked if all of the people calling into the 911 Center were sent one of those brochures.
Sgt. Mainzer said he does think that was done. He said the type of service would depend on the time of
day the complaint was received. During day or early evening hours, it would be serviced by an Animal
Control officer; if at night, it would be by a Police officer. Animal Control officers have more knowledge
and time dealing with this type of problem. In a small percentage of cases, written information could be
provided about mediation. If Animal Control follows up they try to get the parties to resolve it on their own.
Mr. Boyd said he did not know there was a brochure, but thinks it would be a valuable tool if
someone mailed the complainant a copy. Mr. Davis said the brochure designed in 1996 has been very
popular. As a follow-up to what Sgt. Mainzer said, there are currently three Animal Control officers who
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 34)
work only during daylight hours. Since most complaints are received in the evening, they would only be
investigated by a Police officer if one was available to do so. It is a low priority complaint on the scale of
complaints received. The complaints are passed to the Animal Control Division the following day, and
when an officer has an opportunity to do so, they follow up with complainants.
Mr. Boyd suggested 911 personnel tell the complainant they can pick up a brochure at a County
office, or online, so they will know there is a remedy available.
Mr. Rooker said unless there is a downside for both parties, it is difficult for mediation to be
successful.
Ms. Thomas said she does think the people who have made complaints to Board members were
talking about a single incident. It is usually something that happens night after night, or afternoon after
afternoon. She asked if that counts as only one complaint in the statistics in the Executive Summary. Sgt.
Mainzer said those numbers are individual calls to the 911 Center.
Ms. Thomas said the E-mails she has received talk about calls to the non-emergency number at
the Police Department. She asked if Animal Control responds to those calls. Sgt. Mainzer said if a call
comes into the Police Department, it is transferred to the 911 Center. There is no direct way for a citizen
to speak to an Animal Control officer. The call would be prioritized and dispatched to a Police officer if it
comes in after hours, or an Animal Control officer. Depending on the seriousness of the call, it could be
held for an Animal Control officer when one is on duty.
Mr. Slutzky said there are a lot of good intentions reflected in the ordinance, but there is one
phrase that troubles him. If there should be a three-time event and the dog was removed from the home,
the ordinance stipulates that as a last resort the dog might be “humanely destroyed.” He asked if the
language “and/or have the animal humanely destroyed” would compromise the enforceability of the
ordinance. Mr. Davis said the ordinance would be enforceable without that language. Under current
circumstances that would be a remote possibility. The purpose for that type of language in animal noise
ordinances is to make the owner of the dog take the complaint seriously. The language could be removed
without affecting the enforceability of the ordinance.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a limit on the amount of the fine. Mr. Davis said in most of these cases,
a judge would weigh the facts and circumstances and exercise his discretion depending on the severity of
the case.
Mr. Boyd asked the reason for having the “confiscating the dog” clause in the ordinance. Mr.
Davis said someone who did not care about the fine could just simply ignore the ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said he supports Mr. Slutzky’s suggestion to take out the reference to euthanizing an
animal. That doesn’t happen with the Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA, and the County has a contract with
them. He does not see that it serves any purpose in the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek said several of the people who contacted her about their problems know there is a
brochure. She thinks these are situations which are beyond just talking with a neighbor. All situations are
not restricted to the growth area. Many people in the countryside have contacted her.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Boyd opened the public hearing.
Ms. June Russell said she has been the spokesperson for residents in Oak Forest Circle for 20
years. Often she has mediated problems, taken a piece of cake to someone and said there is a problem
that needs to be resolved. That has worked most of the time, but she has also wished the County would
do more. She asked the Board to support the penalty for those who excessively and frequently disturb the
piece. She said the problem now is that people leave their dog chained in the yard and go to work. The
people who are at home during the day have to listen to the dog bark all day. She was told that when a
dog barks it is because they are hungry, thirsty, tired, ignored, lonely, or hurting which means they are
being neglected and that is considered abuse. Only a small percentage of residents complain because
the burden of proof rests on them. They are the victims who must endure all of the stress, cost,
intimidation and retaliation. She said a strong ordinance which gives a message to dog owners that
neglect of their dog could result in a fine of up to $500 is needed. She said more “meat” is needed in the
ordinance. Please do not leave the citizens with all of the barking dogs which people leave then they go to
work, or go away from home on the weekend.
Mr. Jim Morris said he thinks this ordinance has a lot of problems. It attacks the people the Board
generally says it wants to protect, the people who do not have the resources to live on five acres or live in
a circumstance where a dog cannot be heard. He lives beside Huntwood development which is across
from what was called “Old Salem.” There are dogs allowed in both locations and he hears dogs barking.
He can also hear the dogs at Georgetown Veterinary Clinic. He can hear the band playing at Albemarle
High School. He can hear the ordnances put off at nine o’clock at night at football games. He said dogs
are far down on the list of problems. If there is a problem, it is usually a unique situation and he thinks
dogs should be included in the nuisance ordinance, rather than an ordinance targeting the people who can
least afford it. It is just one more step in splitting urban Albemarle with the rural area.
Mr. Leon Gorman said he remembers 1996. He owned a Labrador retriever and the only time he
went outside was when he jogged and the dog might bark a little. He walked his dog five times a day. His
neighbors complained to him and to the County. They left a couple of nasty messages on his answering
machine. He determined that these were crank complaints, so he never responded. From what he has
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 35)
read in this proposed ordinance, he finds it to be arbitrary. Someone could have a dispute with their
neighbor and complain about their dog. That is how arbitrary he sees this ordinance. In the State of
Virginia solid evidence is needed to file a misdemeanor complaint. He has a dog now. He thinks the kind
of evidence needed to support s complaint should be written into the ordinance.
Mr. James Barrett said he lives on Tilman Road. He is also co-founder of Responsible Dog
Owners of Albemarle/Charlottesville. He asked that the Board defer taking action on this proposed
ordinance. The timeline set out in the ordinance for barking needs to be resolved. He asked if a dog
barking at 10 decibels is excessive when his neighbor’s television is drowning out the barking of that dog.
He said other domesticated animals can disturb the peace as well as dogs barking. The ordinance needs
to be rewritten to try and resolve underlying issues of pets, not just dogs, from being nuisances. He
understands that the case which brought this to the forefront has already been resolved silently. He asked
that the Board consider deferring action on this proposed ordinance and appoint a task force to talk to all
stakeholders, and then present a set of regulations which speak to the diversity of pet nuisances in
Albemarle, and search for penalties that punish the owner, not the pet, and not clog the judicial system
with court cases for a single complaint.
Ms. Kathleen Dubovsky said she applauds the Board for addressing an issue that is causing harm
to the quality of life for many residents, but she is concerned with the random five-acre limit that will
restrict the application of this ordinance to all parts of the County. She has suffered from the constant
barking of neighbor’s dogs so can say this legislation is needed. Her neighbors live on 40 acres but have
chosen to place their breeding dogs along the road and property lines about 1000 feet from her dwelling.
She knows acreage size does not matter when it comes to the noise. Dogs naturally bark at everything.
On many occasions her neighbor’s dogs have barked from 9:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. She usually calls the
Police after about four hours of constant barking. The dogs bark again between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
She does not think this is humane to the dogs and certainly is not for the residents. Her neighborhood
association has attempted to discuss the issue with the neighbors, but where told to move if they did not
like the barking. They have called the Police Department and Animal Control. They have written to the
Board many times over the years. They are not against dogs, and not against livestock, but are against
dogs being allowed to bark day and night. The neighbors contend that their dogs are guard dogs, but who
would ignore for hours the barking of guard dogs? They researched the breed of the dog and it said that
they should be trained not to bark excessively both for the well-being of the dogs and the people who live
around them. She thinks it is the obligation of the Board to be sure the quality of life of the citizens is
protected.
Mr. W ayne Proffit said he is a fox hunter and owns a pack of fox hounds. If you live in the country
there will be sounds from dogs and livestock, etc. He thinks barking should be handled by individual
actions by each individual category. His dogs bark, but probably not for 30 minutes. If a dog gets loose
he knows exactly when it happens by the way the other dogs respond. If other animals come around, they
will respond and bark. He said if a neighbor is disgruntled, he can say his dogs are barking and bring
charges against him. He would have to prove that his dog is not barking, but the neighbor does not have
to do that. He has lived in the Scottsville District for 36 years and has had dogs for 36 years. He does not
know of any complaints against him even though he lives in a well-populated neighborhood. He has a
kennel for his dogs. He takes care of those dogs and buys his licenses, etc. He does not know why he
would be summoned to court for a simple hound barking. Dogs are going to bark. If you live in the
country, you should expect country noises.
Mr. W illiam Krause said he lives in Peacock Hill subdivision. He played for the Board a recording
of dogs barking across the street from his house. He has been plagued by a neighbor who has as many
as 10 dogs on his property. There has been a problem with the dogs running at large so they petitioned
the County to increase the fine from $25 to $250. This neighbor has been convicted 20 times, and also
has a dangerous dog conviction. The dogs have been a nuisance to the community, particularly with the
incessant barking. They bark for hours at a time day and night. They keep everybody awake. He
purchased a device that records the number of barks within 50 feet and since last October he has
recorded close to 5,000 barks. His neighbor has three acres so not all barks were recorded. There have
been at least 100,000 barks in the last seven months. He has talked with Animal Control officers who are
aware of this person, particularly with the number of convictions. The neighbor has no regard for his
neighbors or the community. He just goes to court and pays the fine; he will be in court next week for
another six charges. The barking has a dire effect on health and well-being. There is a publication from
the EPA and the W orld Health Organization on the effects of continuous noise in the household. He
handed some written information to the Clerk, and said the Board needs to consider what to do about
multiple dogs barking.
Mr. Arthur Epp said he lives in Forest Lakes North. He is a dog lover, but not a dog owner. As
the character of the County’s growth areas evolves, ordinances should keep in step and change
concomitantly. The nature of subdivision living is somewhat different from that of country living. Through
a recent personal experience, he knows that Albemarle needs the proposed ordinance applied to its
growth areas. A neighbor’s barking dog can be an annoyance, but under certain circumstances a barking
dog can be deleterious to one’s health. He knows this for a fact. His mother died last month; he had been
her 24/7 caretaker for over a year and a half. She suffered from a dementia-related illness and disrupted
sleep exacerbated her condition. After midnight on January 2, Jeke, a neighbor’s dog, like many times
before, appeared barking at their front door for several minutes. It startled his mother and awakened her.
On January 7, the dog appeared again at 7:00 p.m. He then had a contentious 20-minute telephone call
with his neighbor. No explicative was uttered or threat made, and she finally agreed to keep her barking
dog off of his property. His neighbor is a law-abiding citizen, but with no County or State law for her to
abide by, she showed no concern or remorse that her dog had awakened a dying neighbor after midnight.
People lose their objectivity when discussing their pets, and sometimes they lose their moral compass.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 36)
Ordinances are needed to provide clarity and reduce future conflict. He said a dog barking for only 30
seconds after midnight can be more disruptive than a dog barking for 30 minutes at noon. He asked that
the Board fine-tune this amendment to recognize time of day. He also asked the Board to consider a
leash law or Albemarle trespass law for Albemarle’s designated growth areas.
Ms. Marianne Sullivan said she lies on Old Lynchburg Road. She listed her professional
experience with dogs and said she is speaking for the Charlottesville Kennel Club and for herself. It is
natural for dogs to bark at strangers and other dogs. It is the owner’s responsibility to minimize this noise
and the impact it has on a neighborhood. However, this ordinance punishes the dog rather than the
owner. It involves only one complainant and puts a burden on the animal shelter and Animal Control. She
suggested there be nuisance rather than noise laws to address the larger problem of loose animals, the
problem of multiple animals and the problem owners of these animals. They are asking that the Board
defer action on this ordinance in order that all these issues can be addressed. They propose creation of a
task force to represent the community and discuss how to make this ordinance better as they feel there
are some problems with the ordinance as proposed.
Ms. Joanne Hayden asked that the Board not pass the proposed dog ordinance. She said this
ordinance is supposed to meet a strategic goal to enhance the quality of life for Albemarle residents. She
believes it will not meet this goal for the majority of the citizens and could potentially harm families and not
properly address what she feels are isolated concerns. She said the May 7 minutes of the Board state
there are about 30,000 dogs in the County while there were 71 complaints in 2007. This is only .2 percent.
She is a dog lover, but she also loves the community. Tonight the elected government is proposing new
laws to take away a beloved family member for a complaint made by a possibly unfriendly neighbor. She
thinks any complaint should be validated by a County official and come from more than one neighbor to
avoid a personal vendetta being used to hurt a family dog. She said we have been living with dogs for
years, so why all of a sudden is there no tolerance for a pet dog? She said the Board cannot legislate
good dog ownership any more than it can regulate and legislate good parents. This is a needless,
ridiculous law to a relatively few interests, and she does not think it will benefit the community as a whole.
She said new restrictions on family dogs could get tighter and the law soon applied to rural areas also.
She said it was kind of a divine intervention tonight when all present at this meeting saw how a
government ordinance can cause an unintended, overreaction when a pastor just wants a shed for his
lawnmower.
Mr. Dick Hayden said he is concerned that this ordinance started from an extreme case of one
person owning 31 dogs. This is not a typical situation and the community should not be punished with
additional regulations. There is information on the Animal Control officer’s website about how to deal with
a neighbor’s dog. If that does not work there are other legal processes that can be used. There is no
reason to add new laws when the County can’t seem to follow the current dog regulations. He went to the
County Office Building to purchase a 15-dog kennel license and was told he could not get the license
unless he owned at least five dogs or got a note from his veterinarian. He was told that a supervisor in
that department had to review new state law before the license could issued, even though this was not
noted on the County’s website. In 10 days he had received no response so he called the SPCA and the
Scottsville Town Administrator (both are designated places to purchase a dog license), and they knew of
no requirement other than proof of rabies vaccinations. He purchased the kennel license in Scottsville.
Two weeks later he wrote a letter to County officials asking for assistance and immediately got a call
saying he could pick up his kennel license. There was no apology for what had occurred. He thinks the
Board should know about the problems he encountered and the barriers that will be created by adopting
this regulation. He posed the following questions: when does the 30 minutes of barking start; how much
of a delay before the 30-minute period begins; who will provide the service and at what cost; and, have all
of the current rules been enforced and if some of them failed, at what level? He is afraid that in the future
there will be an attempt to limit the number of dogs a person can own.
Mr. George Padaroff said he lives in Four Seasons. He wrote two letters to the Board outlining his
misery because of incessantly barking dogs. He said the word “incessantly” seems to be confusing to
some people. He does not mind a dog barking now and then, but it is the barking that never stops that
creates the problem. There are seven homes surrounding his that have a total of 14 barking dogs. They
do not bark now and then at an occasional squirrel, but bark hour after hour, day after day, simply
because they want to be brought indoors and be in the company of their owners. This barking does not
seem to bother the owners and they care not about rain or shine nor about heat or cold. These dogs have
barked incessantly at two, three and four o’clock on the coldest nights in January. He has tried to live with
it by never opening any windows so the barking is muted. He has an open porch which is seldom uses
because the barking is so annoying. Two of these neighbors are young women living in the townhouse
behind his. W hile at work, they put the dogs out into the garden just opposite the bedroom side of his
house and they bark all day. W hen these young women are at home they bring the dogs inside, but being
young they go out at night and they put the animal outside and the dogs bark non-stop until they return,
sometimes as late as 2:30 a.m. in the morning. He tried getting help from the Police, but they said their
hands were tied by the dog waiver. Animal Control said there was little they could do other than contact
the dog owner and appeal to her, but the owner did not have to comply. He got no brochure or any
reference to mediation. He hopes an animal noise ordinance will bring a stop to this nuisance. He hopes
the Board passes the ordinance.
Ms. Dorathea Muller said she lives in Brook Mill. She can’t get to sleep until after 11:00 p.m.
when her neighbor’s dog has finally stopped after continuous barking for an hour. By 2:00 p.m. another
neighbor’s dog starts and she is awake again. At 5:00 a.m. another dog starts. That is no way to treat a
human being. This is human suffering, not animal suffering and she is very upset. She asked that the
Board consider this new proposed law.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 37)
Mr. Linda King said she represents the Charlottesville/Albemarle Kennel Club and herself. She is
a resident of the County, a pet trainer and pet owner. She recognizes that this issue is complex, but it is
not unique. They recommended that a task force be created to review and provide proposals that would
meet the needs of all. This would enable benchmarking from other ordinances and give the time to fully
research what has worked, as well as fully research what has not worked. She does not think this
ordinance should just be modeled after another locality’s ordinance, but formulated for what is best for
Albemarle County. Only a small group would be needed to do the research needed. That would insure
that local dollars are spent to wisely and effectively protect the quality of life in Albemarle. The Board
needs to know when to respond quickly to protect the health and safety of the residents. This is not one of
those times. They ask that the Board defer action on this proposed ordinance tonight.
Mr. Zachary W hitlow said today people view pets as members of their family; that is how he and
his wife view their animals. W hen they researched this area as a place to live they found that it is ranked
in the top 10 animal-friendly areas in the country. Initially they lived in Charlottesville, but found that it had
a noise ordinance. Since they had dogs they decided to buy in Albemarle. He believes the proposed
noise ordinance is a bad idea and its passage would raise more questions and issues than it would solve.
If an ordinance is going to be applied at all, why exempt landowners with parcels of five acres or more?
This is unequal application of a law and would be poorly-veiled favoritism. If family pets are banished for
making noise, can children also be banished from Albemarle County or forced indoors if they live next to
any individual who works shift work and whose sleep is disturbed by their noise while at play? He hopes
not, and he hopes the Board will not pass this ordinance.
At 8:05 p.m., Mr. Boyd called a recess. He called the meeting back to order at 8:11 p.m.
Mr. Jerry Shores had signed, but was not present at this time to speak.
Mr. Don Dotson invited the Board’s attention to the Virginia case which sets the common law
standard for nuisance involving barking dogs. The case he cited was decided in 1906 and is still the
common law standard in the Commonwealth. He said the language is quaint, but is instructive: “The
howling of dogs and the barking of puppies on the premises of their owner when they subject their
neighbor and his family to great and continuous annoyance so that their rest is broken and their sleep
interrupted and they are seriously disturbed in the reasonable enjoyment of their home constitutes a
nuisance. Dogs in a neighbor’s yard may effectually murder sleep and disturb the reasonable enjoyment
of a home and where great and continuous annoyance and discomfort are created by the howling and
barking of dogs and the whining of puppies, and the rest of the neighbor and his family is disturbed and
sleep is interrupted and he is disturbed in the reasonable use and enjoyment of his property, the court of
equity will impose an injunction, and so on.” He said the question seems to revolve around a remedy and
how one goes about getting that. As to the way this ordinance is drafted, he thinks the five-acre rule is
irrelevant. If a neighbor had 100 acres but puts the dog right next to you so that it causes a problem, it is
a problem. He would remove the five-acre rule. He thinks the kennel license standard needed to be
looked at. General nuisance standards could also be looked at. He thinks the Board is doing the right
thing to make remedies more available so people don’t have to sue. A small, serious part of the problem
is that people don’t like to be criticized or complained about and retribution. It is a situation which is very
intimidating to many people who have a real problem with dog barking.
Ms. Sue Holden said she is a resident of the County and owns dogs. She supports the idea of
tabling this ordinance and forming a task force. She has a neighbor who has zero tolerance for any kind
of barking at all. If her dog is in the yard at night and a deer goes by, one bark is too much. Her neighbor
has left her anonymous voice mails many times and has called the animal control officer who has come to
investigate on multiple occasions. He has sent threatening letters which she found frightening. He has
come through her backyard – there are three+ acre lots and many common areas in the neighborhood.
He has come through the woods and surprised her as she got out of her car to complain about her dogs.
Her dogs are actually in the house. This person also works for the County and when her E-mail address
was changed, he claimed she was avoiding him and changed the address on purpose. That is the kind of
harassment and intimidation she had to put up with. She asked that while the Board is considering a
policy to protect people who really do have a problem, they be sure to protect people like her who are
trying to be responsible.
Ms. Inge McCormick said she supports the Kennel Club, but she did not wish to speak.
Mr. Damon Hopkins said he supports the proposed ordinance. He lives on a 4.25 acre parcel in
the RA zoned part of the Scottsville District. Over the past six years his family has had significant
hardships dealing with a neighbor who keeps a large number of dogs on an adjacent two-acre residential
lot. He is a dog owner. The neighbor’s dogs are primarily hunting dogs and fluctuate in number from
between eight and 20. Some of these animals are housed in outdoor pens while others run free. He has
communicated with the neighbor over a dozen times about the noise and odors created by these animals
that caused he and his wife to cover over and insolate their windows with little or no effect. They have
resorted to sleeping with earplugs. This has been difficult as they have had two children born over this
time and they could not use the earplugs because they needed to monitor their children. He has
attempted to discuss the problem with the owners on many occasions. He offered to pay for the
construction of a barrier or section of solid fence to deflect or absorb the noise. The owners expressed no
concern for his problems and made no effort to find common ground. He contacted the Police
Department and Animal Control on several occasions. He was told there is no law being broken because
of the exclusion of barking dogs in the noise ordinance. He spent thousands to erect over 700 feet of
fence on two common borders of his property to make it less convenient for the roaming dogs to cross on
to his property. He has planted over 25 cypress and evergreen trees to create a buffer from the noise and
smell. It will take years for the trees to grow and he is skeptical that they will have any impact on barking
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 38)
at a decibel level that pierces through the walls of a well-constructed home. They have tried to do what
they can to avoid selling their home. In 2007 they spent over $20,000 to add an addition to relocate the
master bedroom to the opposite end of the house. That has only slightly improved their condition at an
extraordinary cost. This proposed ordinance specifying 30 minutes of barking would be applicable in only
the most extreme cases. It would not solve his problem, but would allow some legal recourse. The
ordinance would send a message that the County would no longer condone this situation. The ordinance
may have an unintended benefit to the animals of the County because content dogs that are well cared for
with food, water, shelter and some exercise are unlikely to have sustained periods of barking. As the
County grows it is important to become more tolerant of one’s neighbors.
Ms. Lois Tickle said she lives in the Rio District of Albemarle, and is a dog owner, dog lover and
dog trainer. She also lives within 200 yards of a dog that suffers from boredom barking. She is here to
request that the Board defer voting on this ordinance pending further investigation. She asked that a task
force be created composed of citizens, animal trainers and veterinarians to present a recommendation.
She understands the intent of the ordinance is to allow citizens an avenue for litigation when dogs suffer
from a serious case of nuisance barking. However, she feels the ordinance is ambiguous. At the least,
she thinks the three convictions should come from three separate households. As to the 30 minutes, her
neighbor’s children violate that provision three times a week, and loud music violates it three times a
month. She has not seen anyone take their children or their entertainment centers. She has a neighbor
whose dog would violate the ordinance if there were three storms and the neighbor could not get home to
medicate the dog. If she were nasty, the neighbor’s dog could ultimately be “properly disposed of.” That
is not the answer. Jail the owners, and don’t punish the dog. An ordinance is needed, but not this one.
She asked that the vote be deferred.
Ms. Susanne Koqut said she is the Executive Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA.
The SPCA believes that all citizens should be responsible for the care of their pets and need to deal with
their neighbors. They sympathize with the people who are dealing with unreasonable neighbors. She said
the SPCA has heard from a number of dog owners concerned that this ordinance will be used as a tool in
neighbor disputes requiring only one person to complain. Many jurisdictions have ordinances which
require that more than one individual be disturbed. If the Board chooses to adopt the ordinance, the
SPCA suggests an amendment specifically stating that in order for the barking to be a violation it must
unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet, comfort or repose of three or more persons in the County.
They think this will place the appropriate burden of proof on the complainant to demonstrate this is not
merely a neighbor dispute. Also, any barking dog ordinance, even if it attempts to limit the impact on the
animal control officers will still require the time and attention of NCOs, the SPCA and the court system.
The time of the Animal Control officer needs to be used to utilize and prioritize the citizen’s safety and the
needs of animals from serious cruelty and neglect. In 2007, there 1,200 stray dogs running in the County,
many of which were large dogs. Over 130 of them were pit bulls and pit bull mixes. The SPCA believes
there is more direct and immediate danger to citizens from animal bites and serious danger to the animals
from being hit by a car and that the officer’s time should be utilized more appropriately to protect the
citizens of the community from these situations. The SPCA is willing to help and could distribute materials
and put information on its website for pet owners. Any dog which is chained 24/7 is likely to bark. They
urge the Board to take suggestions from the citizens to look at other alternatives.
Mr. George Urban said he is present to voice strong opposition to the proposed ordinance. His
concern is that the negative impact of the ordinance exceeds any potential benefit. He agrees that
nuisance barking is a problem and specific situations need to be addressed. W ith 30,000 dogs in the
County and only 71 complaints, that is less than two-tenths of one percent of the population. A broad
sweeping ordinance likely to penalize all responsible dog owners is not needed to address this limited
number of situations. He said the victims of nuisance barking will disagree with him, but they should
realize there are more effective remedies. No one has shown him that they have exhausted all of their
options including civil litigation, and not had a successful resolution of their situation. He cited a
newspaper article which recently appeared in The Hook concerning civil litigation by a complainant. He
thinks the remedies which are available should be exhausted before creating new ordinance. The
ordinance needs to contain clear standards but the proposed ordinance is confusing and not well drafted.
Not requiring that an Animal Control officer investigate complaints is problematic since it removes a
feature of existing policies. A primary reason to have the officer investigate is to ascertain if there is
animal cruelty taking place. By removing the requirement for investigation, there is the risk of it going
unnoticed. The proposed ordinance lacks provisions that a more well-balanced ordinance of similar intent
would include. He asked that the Board at least defer a decision on this ordinance until it can be better
researched.
Mr. Brian Connolly said he has a problem with a neighbor. He does not live in a small subdivision;
he lives in the country. He does want the neighbor’s pet taken away. He called Animal Control and they
came out and talked to the neighbor and his neighbor did take some steps which improved the situation a
little, but it is still intolerable. There are times when his five dogs, which are within 100 yards of his
property, will bark for 19 hours straight. He thinks this proposal will give him some rights to enjoy his
property, and peace and quiet. To have some sort of structure to address the problem, namely to bring it
before a magistrate and present evidence, is a good step forward.
Ms. Phyllis Jackson said she lives in Northfields. For two and one-half years she could not enjoy
her home because her neighbor had 27 dogs. Those dogs barked continuously, 24 hours a day. She
called Animal Control and the officer said he could check the situation, but if the dogs were well cared for
there was nothing he could do. She called the Police and they said there was nothing they could do, but
they would stop by and see if they could get the owner to get the animals to quit barking. This has
stopped now because for some reason the Zoning Department became involved. They discovered that
there was an animal refuge in the house and they found 27 dogs. It is better now. The lady has about
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 39)
eight dogs of her own and although they bark occasionally it not a nuisance. She thinks this ordinance is
needed because she had no recourse. Going to court and bringing a civil suit costs money. Some people
do not have the money necessary to do that.
Ms. Brie Gertler said she lives on Buckingham Circle. Although everyone has the liberty to have a
dog, they also have a liberty to be free from certain things. W hile she can have a dog, her neighbor also
has the right to be free from the nuisance of her dog. Her dog barks occasionally, but not for longer than
30 seconds. She thinks that if a dog barks for 30 minutes at a time, that is a precursor to a dog being
abandoned; it is an indication that the dog is being neglected. Put aside all the concerns about her
enjoying her patio, and worry about the dog. This ordinance is in favor of the dogs.
Ms. Caroline Grosey said she owns a critter behavior academy. She thinks there are more
options for the people who live near people with barking dogs. There is a silencer which can be
purchased at any pet store. It works within 50 feet and does not harm the dog; it works in the ear to stop
the dog from barking. There is also a citronella spray that an owner can put on a dog. It is not cruel. A lot
of trainers use it to get the dog to stop barking. There are other ways to approach this problem instead of
doing what the Board proposes to do.
Ms. Patty W orthington said she is a licensed veterinary tech and a professional dog trainer and a
member of the kennel club. She personally suffers from dog nuisance barking. Her neighbor has a dog
which barks 24 hours a day, lives in a kennel, and is bored. He is 20 feet from her fence line on their 180
acre property. She only has two and one-half acres so feels as if she is being penalized for not being able
to afford more acreage. She asked that the Board reevaluate the acreage because it does not seem to be
fair. She has eight dogs and they bark only from stimulus in the environment. She has put up a privacy
fence and taken many measures to prevent that, but she has a neighbor whose dog circles her property
everyday urinating on her fence line. That causes her dogs to bark, but she can’t stop that dog. She feels
strongly that people need to be educated to be responsible for their dogs.
Mr. Onnie Roach said he lives in the W hite Hall District, and came to say he does not support the
ordinance. He begs the Board to not support this ordinance. The presentation made by staff was “foggy”
to him. He thinks there needs to be further research on this ordinance because there are people who do
not like dogs, or barking. He owns ten dogs at the moment, but sometimes has more. As a trainer, he
has hound dogs which hunt and tree bears. He knows a dog cannot bark for 12 or more hours straight
because they would lose their voice. W hat people have said tonight needs to be studied further. He said
that dogs are like people. Some dogs are naturally quiet, some are hyper. There are men and women in
Iraq fighting to free a country from laws and ordinances, and is this County getting to be like the country of
Iraq?
Mr. Pete Banton said he lives in Keene. He is a houndsman. He has 12 hounds and a black lab.
He tries to keep them under control. He had a neighbor come to him and complain about the dogs, but
he has heard nothing else in two years. He thinks having people work with their neighbors should be the
solution rather than passing the problem to everybody else. He said if there is a dog that can bark for 19
hours, he would like to own it. He does not think a dog can do that even if it is neglected. He lives behind
the Tri-County Riding Club which is a very popular place. There are parties there almost every Saturday
in the summer. He goes to sleep with that noise “bopping” against his house, but he does not complain.
He just stays out of their business. He asked that the Board not pass this ordinance tonight.
Mr. Jim Bernhardt said he lives in Earlysville. He has a dog which he rescued. She needs a
fenced-in area and the people who had her did not have such a facility. She is not neglected, but likes to
bark. She likes to be outside. She would not bark much except for delivery trucks and all kinds of trucks,
and people walking their dogs. She walks on a leash. She does bark at times. A lot of laws and
ordinance are well-intended but everything we do is done by the law of unintended consequences. This
may be one of those instances. He asked that the Board take counsel from what has been offered this
evening.
Ms. Alice Carpenter said just because an ordinance has been written and enacted in another area
does not mean it is a good ordinance for Albemarle County. She recommends that a committee consider
sensitivity to people who have been harmed by nuisance animals as well as people who love animals and
take care of them. She asked that the Board consider forming a task force and delay any decision tonight.
This task force should confer with people who are experts on all points of this issue, in order to find a
solution which protects people who own animals, as well as people who have suffered from people not
taking care of their animals.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:49 p.m., and
the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Thomas said she had been taking notes, and there were 11 people who spoke in favor of the
ordinance, 11 people who spoke against the ordinance, and eight people who requested that a task force
be appointed.
Mr. Rooker said the County has an adopted noise (nuisance) ordinance. Animals, other than
dogs, and exceptionally loud noise from a television are covered by that ordinance. Mr. Davis said
animals are exempt from the current nuisance ordinance, but would be covered by the proposed
ordinance. The other nuisances regarding loud noises are covered by an existing ordinance which
requires that a complainant swear out a warrant. It is a Class One Misdemeanor which is a serious
offense punishable by a fine and/or 12 months in jail. That ordinance has been in effect for years.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 40)
Mr. Dorrier asked if that is the “disturbing the peace” ordinance. Mr. Davis said it is a
noise/nuisance ordinance which is akin to disturbing the peace.
Ms. Thomas asked if that ordinance includes any animals. Mr. Davis said it specifically excludes
animal noises. At the time it was adopted, that stipulation was debated by the Board.
Mr. Rooker said there is an ordinance which covers a lot of things, but barking dogs were
exempted from that ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier said the State ordinance on “disturbing the peace” covers dogs. Mr. Davis said he is
not sure that is so. The State Code provisions apply to noises made by people rather than by animals.
That is why the nuisance ordinances are parallel to “disturbing the peace” violations under state law.
Mr. Rooker said the person making the compliant has to bear the burden of proof. The defendant
does not have to prove anything.
Ms. Mallek said her dog is also her door bell. There is a big difference in her mind between dogs
who bark because there is some event, and an animal that barks until people are disturbed. She thinks
this would protect responsible owners. It has been clarified that this proposed ordinance is less restrictive
than the noise ordinance that is in effect for other noises. She does not think that civil litigation is a fair
option because of the costs involved. It is a quality of life issue that may bear some expense. She asked
Mr. Davis to clarify that.
Mr. Davis said there are two different nuisance actions. In one case the complainant would be
required to show monetary damages in General District Court. The alternative is to go to Circuit Court and
if the complainant can prove that it is a nuisance and that monetary damages will not address the
problem, the Court could impose an injunction and require that a dog be removed from the property
without proving actual damages. That would be very difficult. He said that case law is very old in Virginia.
There is a civil remedy, but it requires that someone go to court and prove their case. Often, the matter
has to be addressed in Circuit Court and for most citizens that requires them to retain an attorney.
Ms. Mallek said many people who contacted her felt the five-acre restriction should be deleted.
Rural residents have equal protection under this ordinance as do urban residents. She asked that the
other Board members think about that.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the law will be impossible to prove. He sees four things that will make it
impossible to prove. First there is the unreasonable disturbance of others. He questions how that would
be proved. The complainant would have to prove the dogs had barked for 30 minutes. If it is dark, you
would have to determine where the dogs are, and whose dogs are barking. On five-acres or more of land
the person would have to show that the disturbance had been continuous. If there is a five-minute gap,
that must be proved also. These are practical situations that in a prosecution would be almost impossible
to prove. A person must go before a magistrate and swear an oath that this occurred, and the magistrate
writes the warrant. It is impossible to prove, and he thinks if the Board adopts an ordinance that cannot be
enforced, it is just worse off than if the ordinance were not adopted. He is totally opposed to this
ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky said he is curious to know how many of the Board members own a dog. He has had
dogs almost all of his life so has struggled with this ordinance. He is supportive of the ordinance because
people, particularly in the urban areas, need some recourse to the nuisance factors of dogs. He does not
think there is an adequate remedy now. He is not comfortable with the stipulation that the animal be
humanely destroyed. He will request that whoever makes the motion, remove that language from Section
4-603. He thinks the threat of having the dog taken away is probably sufficient to motivate irresponsible
dog owners to be responsive to neighbor’s complaints. The issue of where it should apply is a problem for
him. He is convinced that it should apply inside the growth areas but Mr. Davis told him the term “growth
areas” is not a well-defined legal concept. A number of people have suggested that it apply everywhere
because they live in the country and are also subjected to nuisance dogs. He thinks that when people
choose to live in the rural area part of the bargain they strike is that it is a rural area. Although having
dogs barking is not welcome, it is probably more reasonable to expect animal noises there than in an
urbanized area. He said Mr. Davis has done a good job of striking a balance between rural and urban
purposes by stipulating that the ordinance apply to parcels that are five-acres or less. He knows that
exempting parcels of over five acres will not give relief to some people who live in the rural area who
probably suffer at the hands of irresponsible neighbors. That situation might be addressed separately at
some future time. He is prepared to support the ordinance tonight. He said staff has provided the Board
with useful information. It was be useful to know that a similar ordinance has been in effect in
Charlottesville since 1953, and that during that time no dog has been taken from a property owner. He is
willing to support the ordinance with the one modification.
Mr. Boyd said he is not in favor of creating new task forces, committees, etc. He is concerned
about the unintended consequences of any type of ordinance which is adopted. He thinks the Board
needs to do something to offer relief to those people who have had to live with very bad situations for a
long period of time. He does not know that all alternatives have been completely vetted. One thing
mentioned tonight was that more than one person had to complain in order to move any complaint to the
court system. He knows the County has some things that require more than one neighbor to complain.
Mr. Davis said he is not aware of any regulation the County has in that regard. Staff did review
with the Board regulations from other counties which require more than one complaint; Stafford,
Spotsylvania, and Prince W illiam. Their ordinances require more involvement by animal control which has
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 41)
to certify that there have been two separate complaints. Those ordinances require that a warning be
issued by animal control. They then deliver the summons and subpoenas to all the neighbors to appear in
court. Albemarle does not have the resources to do that at the present time.
Mr. Boyd said he is not sure all of that has been vetted; is it really a legal requirement? He said
the Board has not reached out to some of the people who spoke tonight who are experts with dogs. He
thinks the Board needs to think this through further before moving forward. It is a tough issue, and he has
not decided how he will vote.
Ms. Mallek asked if going before a magistrate would take care of Mr. Boyd’s concerns. W here
would the proof be?
Mr. Rooker said generally speaking, a judge will not convict someone if the only evidence is one
person’s word against another. There is a burden of proof that has to be carried by the complainant. It
could be a recording, a video, etc.
Mr. Boyd said someone could tape record five minutes now, and five minutes ten times during the
day to get the total 30 minutes if there is a neighbor who is “out to get the other person.” He had hoped
there would be someway to force people into mediation. People have told him they talked with their
neighbors and resolved the situation, so not every situation is unresolved.
Mr. Rooker said the problem is when a neighbor says “to go blow smoke”, it is not my problem.
The question is what to do for the person who is suffering. People in his district have said there were five
or more continuously barking dogs in the neighborhood and they were told the police could do nothing
about it. A few people will go to a magistrate and swear out a warrant, go to court and provide the proof
necessary under this ordinance for a conviction without having tried to talk to the person whose dog is
creating the problem. People have said the owner should be punished and not the dog. This ordinance
does not punish the dog.
Mr. Slutzky said the argument that people will abuse this ordinance in some way is not factual.
This ordinance simply gives recourse to people in legitimate circumstances. It does not create a new
class of abusers. Does the Board give some frustrated citizens of the County recourse, or does it leave
them where they are today?
Mr. Boyd said he appreciates the point. He has heard all of these arguments before and does not
need to hear them again. He just wants to say he does not think the specifics and language in this
ordinance has been vetted thoroughly with experts in the field of dog barking and dog training. He knows
the Board does not want to go through the exercise of setting up a task force or a committee, and that is
not what he is advocating. Maybe the interested parties on both sides of this issue could sit down in a
room with the County Attorney and vet some things that might be included in the ordinance. Maybe it
could be handled all in one meeting.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that would be a nightmare. If there is no consensus on the Board to act
on the ordinance tonight, he can agree to creation of a task force. The Board would need to appoint
people with varied interests.
Mr. Boyd said he would want to appoint some of the people who are being abused by barking
dogs. He does not think it would need to be a long, drawn out process.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that when this group came back with a recommendation, the Board
would be in the exact same position it is tonight.
Ms. Mallek said if some Board members are intent upon pursuing study, is there a possibility of
passing the ordinance tonight and not having it take effect for 60 days. She is afraid that if the Board does
not take any action tonight, the matter will just disappear and nothing will have been done to help the
people who need help now.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board had challenged people to come out tonight, and fortunately people did
come and express their opinions on both sides of the argument. A number of people presented
themselves as experts and professionals, and there were different ideas given as to how to tweak the
ordinance. That is what a public hearing is for. There comes a time when the Board has to make a
decision. Things can be studied forever. He is not sure what else could be told to Mr. Boyd that the Board
has not explored already.
Ms. Mallek said she is happy to support the ordinance tonight.
Mr. Rooker said people mentioned that Albemarle is different from every other community, but it is
not. Every community in the Commonwealth of a size comparable to Albemarle has an ordinance.
People have a reasonable expectation that they will have some measure of peace and quiet on their
property. He said Charlottesville has had a comparable ordinance in place for over 50 years. They have
had no significant problems with that ordinance. The primary purpose that an ordinance like this serves is
deterrence. If people realize there is a possible fine for not dealing with their animals in a reasonable way,
they are more likely to deal with their animals in a reasonable way. Someone asked why the Board should
adopt an ordinance for only two percent of the people. If you looked at virtually every crime on the books,
only .1 percent of citizens commit that crime. That does not mean you should not pass a law to protect
people against crimes. He is in favor of doing something on this tonight.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 42)
Mr. Boyd asked if Ms. Thomas had a comment.
Ms. Thomas said she thought the County had done a good thing in 1996 when the brochure was
created. She wishes people knew more about the options they have. The dog that comes to the lady’s
doorstep at midnight in Forest Lakes is breaking the leash law, because Forest Lakes is covered by a
leash law. She wishes it weren’t necessary to have any ordinance like the proposal. She gets tired of
people who turn to government to solve problems they could solve if they just talked to their neighbor.
Theoretically she likes the idea of a task force, but has talked with people who are in favor of the idea, and
is not sure their recommendation would be better than the proposed ordinance. Several who spoke tonight
in favor also had concerns about some aspects of the ordinance. She has been thinking the Board should
pass the ordinance and then benchmark to see how it is working. One year would not be long enough for
this to take place. She also thinks the death penalty should be removed. Legally the Board cannot give
the ordinance a one-year trial, but could ask for a report in one year as to how it is working. That is the
only way she could support the ordinance. She shares the concern that there are cranks that would make
the dog owner’s life miserable. She shares that concern and thinks it is a legitimate concern in some
neighborhoods.
Mr. Boyd asked if a “sunset” provision could be added to this ordinance. Mr. Davis said he would
not suggest a sunset law. However, the State Code on animal laws was recodified by the General
Assembly in its last Session. That will take place in October. As a result of that, he must bring to the
Board in the next year a recodification of the animal ordinances in Albemarle County which have not been
addressed substantially since the 1980s. W hen that ordinance is brought back to the Board, this would be
a part of that ordinance. At that time, the Board would have an opportunity to see how this ordinance has
worked and could make changes then.
Ms. Thomas asked when that would happen. Mr. Davis said the recodification takes effect in
October. Staff hopes to bring it to the Board within the next year. It depends on what type of public
process is involved. He has talked with Ms. Kogut and indicated that the SPCA and other interested
parties would be asked to review that ordinance before it is brought to the Board. Staff will probably draft
an ordinance that complies with State law and addresses Albemarle’s concerns and then bring it to a
committee. That may take longer to process, but he hopes it can be done within six to twelve months.
Ms. Mallek asked if any Board members would be interested in deleting the five-acre minimum.
Ms. Thomas said she would prefer that it just be a development area/rural area division. She
asked why that cannot be done. Mr. Davis said the Comprehensive Plan does not have clear boundaries
established like those on a zoning map. It is a general in nature so it is probably not possible to define a
criminal ordinance with a Comprehensive Plan boundary line. Also, there are many subdivisions which
have less than five acres which are outside of development areas, particularly in the areas which were
designated as villages in the 1970s. A lot of complaints are generated in those areas. Staff was trying to
address problems outside of the growth areas in what looks like subdivisions.
Ms. Mallek said she is concerned about when there is a large lot and the dog is located right on
the property line. Is there any kind of setback or way to fix that? Mr. Davis said staff did not develop a
means to capture those animals because they were trying to be sensitive to the rural areas. He thinks
there might be way to address that, but then there might be the issue of who was there first. The
possibility can be explored.
Ms. Mallek said she lives in the rural area and there are three beagle packs that live within one-
quarter mile of her house, and none of them is ever an issue. It is not something that automatically goes
with the countryside, or with large numbers of dogs.
Ms. Thomas said she would not support anything that wiped out the distinction between the small
and large lots, particularly if this is something the Board would like to try for a year.
Mr. Rooker said he had thought about restricting the dog to within a certain number of feet of the
property line, but every property abuts another property.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks the issue is when there is a kennel with the chained dog right at the
property line next to someone’s small lot.
Mr. Dorrier said some of the ordinance facts mentioned have to be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Mr. Rooker said the best result of this ordinance would be that at the end of the year there had
been no actions brought and the deterrence of having an ordinance in effect would be to help people with
a significant problem, and it will have made it possible to get people into mediation.
Mr. Slutzky said he agrees and will make a motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Article
VI, Animal Noise, modifying Section 4-603, by having the words “or have the animal humanely destroyed”
struck from that sentence. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas said it has been agreed that the Board will revisit this issue.
Mr. Slutzky said that is a good idea, but it is not part of his motion.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 43)
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the best opportunity will be in about a year.
Mr. Boyd said he would like a report in six months as to how many cases there have been. He will
not vote in favor of the ordinance because he does not think it has been thoroughly vetted.
Ms. Thomas said she is only going to vote for this ordinance because she thinks that will happen
during the next year.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-4(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOW L, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY ADDING ARTICLE VI, ANIMAL
NOISE.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
4, Animals and Fowl, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Article VI, Animal Noise.
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE VI. ANIMAL NOISE
Sec. 4-601. Noise from animals.
It shall be unlawful and shall be a nuisance for an owner or custodian of an animal to
harbor or keep any animal within the county which frequently or for a continued duration howls,
barks or makes other excessive, continuous or untimely sounds which unreasonably disturbs the
peace and quiet, comfort, or repose of any person in the county; provided however, this section
shall not apply to any animal located on property zoned Rural Areas District of five (5) acres or
more, to any animal in an animal shelter or commercial kennel as defined in chapter 18 of the
zoning ordinance, or to sounds caused by livestock or poultry. For the purposes of this section,
“excessive, continuous or untimely sounds” shall mean any howling, barking or other animal noise
which continues for thirty (30) consecutive minutes or more with no cessation of such sounds for
time periods greater than five (5) minutes during the thirty (30) consecutive minutes.
Sec. 4-602. Complaints of animal noise.
Notwithstanding section 4-101 of this code, no person shall be charged with a violation of
section 4-601 unless the complainant appears before a magistrate and requests a summons to be
issued. However, when a violation is committed in the presence of an animal control officer or
police officer, he shall have the authority to initiate all necessary proceedings.
Sec. 4-603. Penalty for violation.
A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor, and any owner
or custodian of an animal found guilty under this section shall be required to abate the
disturbance. Upon a third conviction within twelve (12) months of any offense under this section
involving the same animal, in addition to imposing a fine, the court shall order the animal to be
removed from any area of the county covered by this section. If the owner or custodian of the
animal fails to comply with such order within two (2) weeks, the animal control officer shall seize
the animal and offer the animal to the SPCA for adoption in a home outside of the area of the
county covered by this section.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said Item 12.2 on the Consent Agenda concerned the application of Virginia Electric
and Power Company to revise its Fuel Factor. She said she had received a note from someone who
asked if the Board knew how this would raise the individual homeowner’s electric bill and whether the
Board could do anything about it. Mr. Davis said this is monitored by VML and VACo and they have not
alerted the County to any issues with it.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks VML and VACo monitor it to see what individual governments will
have to pay for their electricity. She does not know if they consider what the Board’s constituents have to
pay and she does not know whether the Board can speak up for them. Mr. Davis said this is a matter
heard by the State Corporation Commission, and the notice requirement is part of the State Code. Staff
does not generally provide a great deal of analysis. Albemarle would be just one voice among a lot of
other localities who would have a right to speak. There are some consumer watchdogs that speak out,
but staff does not provide that kind of in-depth analysis.
Ms. Thomas said she would not want to add that to staff’s workload. She told her constituent she
would ask. This is the same answer she has received each time she asked this question.
June 11, 2008 (Afternoon Adjourned and Regular Meetings)
(Page 44)
Mr. Rooker said in the notice there was a mention of the rate increase that would apply to the
average residential user during the year. He thinks it would be a good idea to bring this up with VACo and
see if VACo as an organization should look at these things carefully and perhaps take a position. It would
be more effective if this could be dealt with in a unified manner.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked for a report on the Airport and Chris Greene Lake, and the relationship between
the two specifically on environmental quality and water quality. There are concerns about the runway
extension and the fill proposed. She understands the grade on which they propose to build is 50 percent.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn to June 18, 2008, 12:00 Noon, Room 241, for a Luncheon with the
School Board.
At 9:31 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Rooker to adjourn to noon on June 18, 2008. The motion was seconded by Mr. Slutzky.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Slutzky.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 04/01/2009
Initials: EWJ