2009-10-14October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
14, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker,
Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, and, Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Slutzky.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3a. Recognition: Proclamation recognizing October, 2009 as Community
Planning Month.
Mr. Slutzky read the following proclamation into the record:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, change is constant and affects all cities, towns, suburbs, counties, boroughs,
townships, rural areas, and other places; and
WHEREAS, community planning and plans can help manage this change in a way that
provides better choices for how people work and live; and
WHEREAS, community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be meaningfully
involved in making choices that determine the future of their community; and
WHEREAS, the full benefits of planning requires public officials and citizens who understand,
support, and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation; and
WHEREAS, the month of October is designated as National Community Planning Month
throughout the United States of America and its territories, and
WHEREAS, The American Planning Association and its professional institute, the American
Institute of Certified Planners, endorse National Community Planning Month as
an opportunity to highlight the contributions sound planning and plan
implementation make to the quality of our settlements and environment; and
WHEREAS, the celebration of National Community Planning Month gives us the opportunity to
publicly recognize the participation and dedication of the members of planning
commissions and other citizen planners who have contributed their time and
expertise to the improvement of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, we recognize the many valuable contributions made by professional community
and regional planners of Albemarle County and extend our heartfelt thanks for the
continued commitment to public service by these professionals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, I, David Slutzky, Chairman of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, do hereby designate the month of October 2009 as
Community Planning Month in the County of Albemarle in conjunction with the
celebration of National Community Planning Month.
______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Rae Ely, President of Historic Green Springs, spoke. She said they oversee the Green
Springs National Historic Landmark in western Louisa County. She came tonight with a delegation of
landowners from Green Springs who all own land which fronts on Route 15 – together they own
approximately four miles. Also present is Mr. Noel Harrison who is the liaison for the Green Springs
National Landmark from the Secretary of the Interior, National Parks Service. They wish to express their
extreme dismay over the resolution passed by this Board last week recommending that a Route 29
eastern bypass travel through the Green Springs National Historic Landmark on Route 15. This was done
without any notice and apparently without any investigation. This delegation joins with their friends, and
with their historic delegation colleagues in opposing any site that goes through, or touches, or adversely
affects the Southwest Mountains Historic District.
Ms. Ely said a number of the Supervisors who have been friends of or participated with the
preservation efforts of the Green Springs National Historic Landmark District know Green Springs is more
than a historic district as is the Southwest Mountains Historic District. It is a unit of the National Parks
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Service and it is a National Historic Landmark District. Being a national landmark it has the same
designation as Monticello, Mount Vernon, the Alamo, or Montpelier. In case someone told the Board that
Route 15 can be, or is going to be widened, they were given wrong information. Green Springs is 14,000
acres and is under conservation easement and six and one-half miles of Route 15 on both sides of the
road is under conservation easements, most of which are held by the Secretary of the Interior.
Ms. Ely said those easements that are held under a particular act – a Federal statute – can
withstand eminent domain by the Federal or State Department of Transportation. (Note: The buzzer
rang, and Ms. Ely asked for the Board’s indulgence because this is a matter of importance.) She came
tonight to ask the Board to rescind that portion of the resolution as being ill founded and maintain its
position as opposing the eastern bypass in the current configuration. She does not know where that
recommendation came from, but that eastern bypass should not follow the Southwest Mountains
proposal, and by all means it should not follow Route 15. She said Historic Green Springs has been
working with VDOT for about 15 years to find an alternate route for Route 15 outside of the Historic Green
Springs National Landmark because it bisects the landmark and should not. Someday the roadway will
have to be moved.
Ms. Ely said she had talked with Ms. Thomas, and maybe this can be used as a springboard for
working together to find alternative routes, but this is not the way to do it. She asked that the Board,
tonight, before this goes any further, modify and rescind that portion of the resolution. She said Mr.
Harrison is present to answer questions, and there are other members of the Historic Green Springs
Historic Landmark who can also speak.
Mr. Slutzky asked that those in support stand (approximately ten people stood to show support).
Ms. Ely said the effort to preserve Green Springs has been going on for 40 years.
Mr. Slutzky said he had spoken in favor of exploring the possibility of using the Route 15 corridor,
and he did that because of his strong desire not to have an eastern bypass go through a bunch of
valuable, historically relevant, preserved land in Keswick, which was the way VDOT had marked the map.
He does not know how the other Board members feel about the resolution, but in the future he will be
careful to admonish VDOT not to draw lines on maps until there has been enough studying done to
document that where the road goes is possible, and that the public has been engaged in a way that
indicates they would be receptive to having that line converted into a roadway.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to address the notice issue raised by Ms. Ely. He said the corridor
study by VDOT which had been going on for about 18 months never had a public hearing – only a number
of onsite meetings – small gatherings – over this 18-month period of time. There were “studio sessions”
where people could drop in and express themselves to the consultants. About two weeks ago, they came
to a meeting at the Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO and unveiled the draft report. They had one public
meeting after that which was not advertised in the newspaper - VDOT had hired a consulting group to do
the study.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the people who attended that meeting did so because of “word of
mouth” or e-mails. At that meeting they said the comment period with respect to the draft report (it
contains many recommendations) closes on October 16. If the Board was going “to weigh in on it” that
had to be done quickly. He said the Board received many e-mails about this proposal – people
understood the Board was talking about building an eastern bypass. The Board does not express support
for any eastern route in its resolution – it says that if a corridor is to be studied the Route 15 corridor
should be followed avoiding certain historic areas. He thinks the Board should have added Historic Green
Springs on that list of historic areas.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board can amend that resolution because it has not been sent yet.
The letter that would accompany that resolution is being signed by the Chairman today. One thought
might be to simply add Historic Green Springs to the list of areas that should be avoided when looking at
an eastern corridor – he would support doing that.
Ms. Ely said it can’t follow Route 15 and avoid Historic Green Springs because Route 15 bisects
Green Springs.
Mr. Rooker said the resolution says “generally follow.” There is a lot of Route 15 that is not
around the Green Springs area. He does not know if some resolutions are still standing, but about ten
years Louisa, Orange and Fluvanna counties and the town of Orange all passed resolutions asking that
Route 15 be upgraded to a four-lane facility.
Ms. Ely asked if it is wise for Albemarle County to make a recommendation as to a specific route
without a detailed study. It would run into the historic Town of Gordonsville – it’s a “can of worms” since it
was said tonight that the Board had a very short period of time to reflect on it. She does not think
Albemarle County should take it upon itself to recommend Route 15. She said going along Route 15 there
are the Hallowed Ground areas and it is nothing but a “can of worms.” Since I-64 intersects within a
couple of miles of Historic Green Springs, this is simply an invitation to trouble. She hopes the Board will
take out the recommendation on Route 15 altogether and let VDOT handle that.
Mr. Slutzky said he will not support not commenting on it because the way it is now in the hastily
put together VDOT exercise without adequate public input, they are putting a line on a map through
Keswick, and the County does not want that to happen. The Board has received numerous
communications from constituents saying this is a problem. He thinks it is appropriate in the Board’s
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
resolution to acknowledge the inappropriateness of that line on the map. It might try and word it in a way
that makes it clear the Board wants historic districts and other sensitive areas to be considered and
avoided.
Ms. Thomas said she has a copy of the resolution the Board passed last week and it says
“Resolved, the eastern bypass study corridor generally follow Route 15 and avoid the Southwest
Mountains and Keswick Historic Districts.” She thinks that if the resolution said “Resolved that any
eastern bypass study corridor avoid sensitive areas such as the Southwest Mountains, Keswick, and
Green Springs ....” that would recognize that the Board wants to avoid the Keswick area that it meant to
honor and protect in this resolution. She told Ms. Ely that she was personally embarrassed because she
had thought it was not a good idea to mention Route 15 but she did not speak up. She asked Ms. Ely
what she would think of changing the resolution in that way.
Ms. Mallek said she would definitely like to remove the reference to Route 15 because it is
stepping out of the Board’s role of responsibility based on what it knows now, but describing historic
districts and sensitive things in general is appropriate.
Mr. Slutzky said he is fine with that recommendation.
Mr. Boyd said he wants to support this change, because he is opposed to an eastern connector
going through Keswick or through any areas of Route 15. He did not vote for the resolution last week, not
because of this issue, but because of other sections. He would like for this motion to be an amendment to
that resolution so he can then support the amendment.
Mr. Davis said that procedurally the Board should have a motion to rescind the resolution adopted
at the last meeting, and then another motion to adopt a new resolution.
Mr. Rooker said that will be an entirely new resolution and Mr. Boyd won’t be able to vote for it.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board could just move to modify the resolution. Mr. Davis said there would
then be two resolutions which had been adopted – the Board can have two resolutions adopted and have
the second resolution impact the first, but his recommendation is to rescind the prior resolution.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to RESCIND the prior resolution regarding the Route 29 Corridor
adopted on October 7, 2009, and to ADOPT the resolution with the change read by Ms. Thomas at this
meeting.
Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said he voted against the first resolution, but not because of the eastern connection
which he is vehemently opposed to. He agrees with everybody that it was thrown at the Board at the last
minute; he did not even have the advantage of the MPO meeting. He is not as opposed to some of the
routes on the western part of the area that follow along the land already purchased for a western bypass,
and that is why he voted against this resolution. The way this amendment is being done he will also have
to vote against this new resolution. He said he is definitely opposed to any kind of an eastern connector
road and he has sent that information to VDOT.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to say that he was misinformed by VDOT – he was led to believe
that the Route 15 corridor had been examined and evaluated and there were many people along that
route that had embraced the idea of having more of an expressway scale road. He said that is another
disadvantage of the haste with which this was done.
Mr. Rooker said that over the years there have been resolutions passed by some of the
communities along Route 15 – not requesting an expressway type route – but requesting that sections of it
be upgraded to a four-lane facility.
Ms. Thomas said this shows that the Board should stick to the areas it knows. She thinks this
statement will put the Board’s emphasis on not going through sensitive areas and leave it at that.
Mr. Dorrier said that as a technical matter, it is not something that will be built any time soon.
Mr. Slutzky said there is a danger when VDOT puts a line on a map. Even if the road will not be
built for 50 years, or if ever, people own property along that line and it impacts the value of their property, it
disrupts their sense of well-being, it is a negative impact, and that is why they should not draw a line on a
map. He then asked that the roll be called.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
RESOLUTION
Whereas, the Route 29 Corridor is a major north-south link for through and local traffic.
The Virginia Department of Transportation, in association with the Virginia Department of Rail and
Public Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board and various state and local
elected officials, have initiated the Route 29 Corridor Study which covers approximately 219 miles
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
of roadway between the North Carolina border and I-66 in Gainesville; and
Whereas, the goal of the study is to develop a Blueprint for the Route 29 Corridor that will
guide future transportation improvements. The study is supposed to determine the transportation
needs and identify recommendations to meet those needs while building on the commonalities of
citizen concerns along the corridor. All recommendations should be context sensitive and
sensitive to all environmental concerns, including historical and cultural resources; and
Whereas, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is in agreement with many of the
concepts in the Corridor-W ide Recommendations, such as controlling access on Route 29,
integration of land use and transportation planning, and enhanced transit, as reflected in its
Comprehensive Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan, participation in the 29H250 Study, and
commitment to integration of land use and transportation planning as reflected in Places 29 and
other growth area adopted master plans; and
Whereas, the Board of Supervisors strongly opposes any of the extensions of Leonard
Sandridge Road in the final Route 29 Corridor Report for the following reasons:
• the Southern interchange would still need to be built, an interchange or major
intersection with Hydraulic Road would be required, and the cut through
Stillhouse Mountain would still be necessary, so the cost would exceed $100.0
million; and
• none of the proposed routes would likely qualify for federal funding and there is
no possibility that any of these routes could be funded from the County’s modest
Secondary Road allocations; and
• the result of leaving these routes on the map in the final report would be to
diminish property values and interfere with the lives of a number of citizens for an
indefinite period of years to perpetuate lines on a map that will never become
actual transportation projects. This would include residents living in the
Canterbury Hills, Colthurst, Montvue, Georgetown Road, Hessian Hills, Old
Forge, Terrell, Georgetown Green, Lambs Road, Ivy Ridge Road, Roslyn
Heights, and Roslyn Ridge neighborhoods; and
• Route 1C would also impact two churches and take substantial acreage from the
four school complex on Hydraulic Road; and
• the current best parallel road system we have to Route 29 is Georgetown Road to
Hydraulic Road to Berkmar Drive. W hat is being suggested is to spend more
than $100.0 million to build a parallel road to the parallel road system that is
functioning reasonably well; and
• there is no traffic study that even suggests that any of these proposed roads
would take any substantial vehicle trips off of Route 29 or that they would even
shorten travel time for people presently using Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads.
There would be a significant wait to get the traffic onto Hydraulic Road; and
• for the cost of constructing any of the proposed extension roads, we could
complete the widening of Route 29 from Hydraulic to the Route 250 Bypass, add
the additional ramp at Best Buy onto the Route 250 Bypass, widen Route 29 from
Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead and possibly have funds to build a grade
separated interchange at Rio Road and Route 29. If the bypass right of way were
sold, we would also have enough funds to build the Hillsdale Drive connector,
which traffic studies show will take 8,000 to10,000 vehicle trips per day off of
Route 29 at its most congested point. These improvements have been traffic
modeled, are included in the area’s Long Range Transportation Plan and will
significantly improve the flow of traffic in the Route 29 Corridor; and
• the aforesaid projects can be done as funds are available; the “southern bypass”
project is all or nothing. It can’t be built incrementally; and
• a recommendation to “study” this issue would result in more money being
diverted to a study that will go nowhere at a time that we have little or no
transportation funds for actual projects; and
• the MPO removed the study of the “southern bypass” from the area’s Long
Range Transportation Plan, demonstrating that it has no local support. This vote
was unanimous and included the VDOT representative on the MPO.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
commends the consultants and VDOT for their work on the Route 29 Corridor Study; and
Further Resolved that, the Hillsdale Drive connector, the additional southbound lane on
Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to the Route 250 Bypass (with the additional ramp lane) and the
additional lanes on Route 29 between Polo Grounds Road and Hollymead be included in the
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
report, as they are in the area’s long range and six year transportation plans and have been
demonstrated through traffic modeling to be cost effective ways of improving traffic flow and
safety in the corridor; and
Resolved that, any Eastern Bypass Study Corridor avoid sensitive areas such as the
Southwest Mountains, Keswick historic district areas, and historic Green Springs; and
Resolved that, localities should not be required to include specific transportation projects
in their comprehensive plans that are not approved by the locality and/or by the applicable MPO.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff was going to mention the recent award from VML (Virginia Municipal
League). Mr. Tucker said the County has been notified by VML that it has received and tied for a first
place “Go Green Virginia” award. The award will be presented next Tuesday in Roanoke.
Ms. Thomas said she attended the VML Conference last year and got to stand in for the County
and be handed an award. She hopes staff can attend the meeting this year to receive the award. Last
year the County barely squeaked into the winning category so to be number one this year and to tie with
Arlington County is magnificent. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Sarah Temple, the County’s Environmental
Manager, gets the “kudos” for that.
Mr. Slutzky said she certainly deserves to travel to that meeting and accept it on the Board’s
behalf.
__________
Ms. Thomas said this month is Hispanic Month. She was at a meeting of Creciendo Juntos which
is an organization that draws together social service groups and the police, and churches and
organizations working with the Latino community. She learned that the County police are regarded as
sensitive and helpful to the Latino community. That is a big step forward – people in that community are
often hindered, not only by language, but also by their perceptions brought from their native countries.
Mr. Slutzky said there is an officer who is assigned that duty. The police have worked hard to
earn that recognition, so it is good to hear that it has worked.
__________
Ms. Mallek said the proposed Greenwood/Afton Rural Historic District is nearing the next phase of
its activity. They have completed fundraising. The initial report has been submitted to DCR, and the
follow-up report is to be submitted in January. She handed to the Board members a copy of a map
showing the outlined district which they are hoping “will be fully blessed” in 2010.
__________
Ms. Mallek said October 31 will be the 50th anniversary of the plane crash at Buck’s Elbow
Mountain in Crozet. It was a sad occasion, but a good occasion for Mr. Phil Bradley, the lone survivor at
age 30. He is coming back to an event at Mint Springs Park at 10:00 a.m. on the 31st. He put up a
memorial at Mint Springs and his family tends it. She invited everyone to attend.
__________
Ms. Mallek said she recently took a field trip with Ms. Cathy Mays, the president of the American
Chestnut Foundation. The Foundation is looking at areas in the W hite Hall District as nursery locations for
their seedling project hoping to bring back the American Chestnut tree. It is another wonderful thing that
will be offered from the rural area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Boyd, to approve the consent agenda in its entirety.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: July 2, 2008.
Mr. Boyd had read his portion of the minutes of July 2, 2008, pages 38 – end, and found them to
be in order.
The minutes were approved as read, by the above-recorded vote.
__________
Item 6.2. FY 2010 Appropriation.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown
in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The total of the new
requested FY 2010 appropriation itemized below is $171,000. A budget amendment public hearing is not
required because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted
budget.
This request involves approval of one FY 2010 appropriation - Appropriation No. 2010-038 totaling
$171,000 re-appropriating an uncompleted local government project from FY09. A description of this
request is provided in Attachment A. Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount
of $171,000.00 and the approval of Appropriation No. 2010-038.
Attachment A: Appropriation No. 2010-038, $171,000.00. Revenue Source: General
Government CIP Fund Balance $171,000.00. This request re-appropriates the costs related to the
Fire/Rescue Emergency Radio Notification System which was not completed as of June 30, 2009.
Reappropriation of funds supports the purchase of radio equipment (550 pager/radios) for a system
currently being installed which is set to be online by the first of the year. Delaying the purchase will not
allow for proper programming of the equipment and will ultimately impact its ability to go online.
By the above recorded vote the Board approved the FY 2010 budget amendment in the
amount of $171,000.00 and approved Appropriation No. 2010-038, as set out below.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2010-0038
DATE: 10/14/09
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of project from FY ‘09 General Government CIP
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 32010 800313 Fire Dept -
Emergency Radio Notification J1 171,000.00
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J2 171,000.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 171,000.00
0701 Appropriation 171,000.00
TOTAL 342,000.00 171,000.00 171,000.00
__________
Item 6.3. Voting Credentials for VACo Annual Business Meeting.
The Board approved Ms. Sally Thomas as it’s Voting Delegate at the 2010 VACo Annual
Business meeting with Ms. Ann Mallek as the Alternate Delegate.
__________
Item 6.4. ZMA-2006-008. Berkmar Business Park; Applicant request for 12-month extension.
The following letter had been received:
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
By the recorded vote set out above, the request for a 12-month extension was approved.
_________
Item 6.5. Cancel November 11, 2009, Regular Night Board of Supervisors’ meeting.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board’s regular meeting scheduled for November
11, 2009, was cancelled.
_______________
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: To amend the Six-Year Secondary Road Priority List that
was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 13, 2009. The proposed amendment will remove
Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) and add the Broomley Road bridge over the Buckingham Branch railroad.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 28 and October 5, 2009.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board discussed this change recently. The change would move moneys
from the Unpaved Road Fund for Dickerson Road to the ultimate reconstruction of the Broomley Road
Bridge. Last week, staff gave the Board the report (a copy of that report is in the package for this week’s
meeting). There is also a draft resolution included that would provide for that change – the result of which
would be a potential reduction in the County’s Unpaved Road funds “whenever they reappear, if they ever
do.” He said staff estimated that reduction to be about $150,000 over a six-year period – the Residency
Administrator recalculated that number to be closer to $105,000.
Mr. Slutzky said this action assumes the General Assembly would not provide for localities who try
to be reasonable and prudent in the face of the State’s inability to fund transportation. Mr. Cilimberg said it
will be one of the Board’s legislative initiatives this year.
Mr. Boyd asked if this money will be put to use immediately even though it is short of the amount
needed for that project. Mr. Cilimberg said that initially the money will be used for engineering. It is hoped
that Federal moneys will be available for construction, but that is several years into the future.
Mr. Boyd said there will be a new General Assembly next year. He asked if this action has to be
taken now, or could the Board simply authorize shifting of that money at some future date. If that were
possible, the money could be spent when the opportunity arose, but if things changed, the Board would
not have “burned that bridge.”
Ms. Mallek said that would be based on the public hearing tonight.
Mr. Boyd said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said the Board always has the right to move the money and that is the action being
contemplated tonight. There is nothing that prevents the Board from making any change in the Six-Year
Plan at any time.
Mr. Boyd said he thought this had to do with the Board’s having to notify VDOT of its intentions. If
the money is moved from “one pot to another” he assumes it can’t be undone. However, if the money is
not going to be spent now, then why put it “over into that separate pot?”
Mr. Rooker said it makes it possible that the Broomley Road project might get built sometime in
the next six or seven years with the addition of Federal bridge money. W ithout Federal money, there is no
schedule for it to be done. He has been talking about this project for a very long time, and has met with
people in Flordon Subdivision and people from VDOT several times. VDOT has actually done some
preliminary engineering work on this project to determine how the bridge might fit into the existing terrain.
W hen work is done on a railroad bridge now, they provide for double-tracking, so the bridge has to cover a
longer space – that will be true of any bridges that fall into that category. The current bridge is not high
enough – it does not meet the new standards, so must be higher. There are a lot of issues, and hopefully
work can begin on the issues because there is some money allocated to the project. He is concerned that
without money being allocated to the project, none of the preliminary work will be completed.
Mr. Boyd said that was his original question – will this money do some good now, or is it just put
aside “in a pot” to be used several years into the future if additional money becomes available to go
forward with it. If that is the case, he does not know why the Board needs to take this action today. He is
in favor of the project.
Mr. Slutzky said there is no way this money could be used on Dickerson Road. Frankly, leaving
money sitting there for that project creates an expectation that is unfair to folks on Dickerson Road.
Mr. Boyd asked if it makes a difference whether the money is sitting “in that pot” or sitting “in this
bridge pot.”
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it makes a difference. Also, the “pot” it is in now is the “pot” that is
completely disappearing. The County is not getting any Unpaved Road Funds now to add to that pot, and
second, notice has been received from the Secretary of Transportation that the entire Secondary Road
Program will not be funded.
Mr. Boyd said he just had a question – he is not arguing about that.
Mr. Rooker said he will point out that the money is “being put into a pot” that is, under the current
funding scheme, attracting some money. There is some Federal bridge money – this money added to that
money may put the County in a position where a project can actually be done as opposed to having
money just sitting and declining in value from inflation.
Mr. Slutzky said if there were no further discussion at this time, he would open the public hearing.
Mr. Thomas Albro said he lives in Far Hills Subdivision which is located off of Old Ballard Road.
He is on the board of their property owners’ association and came to speak in favor of the adoption of the
resolution before the Board tonight. Far Hills is a subdivision of 20 lots, most of which are built on. Their
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
concern is that heavy emergency equipment cannot use the Broomley Road bridge because of its weight
limit. He has driven over that bridge twice a day for almost 13 years, and it is chronically in a state of
disrepair. The road surface is potholed and disintegrating, the guardrails are falling down and broken and
it takes a long time to get them fixed. The property owners are concerned that fire trucks cannot get to
their subdivision quickly because they can only access the subdivision through W est Leigh and that takes
considerably longer than using the Broomley Road bridge. For all those reasons, plus the fact that it
would be more beneficial to the people in Flordon, they strongly support the resolution.
Mr. Bill Gray congratulated the Board on receipt of the green award announced earlier in the
meeting. He has been a resident of Flordon for 27 years and came to ask the Board to transfer those
moneys to the bridge project. He said a number of people from that area came in support (approximately
15 people stood). He said it is a matter of safety, particularly for the older people in the area. He asked
the Board to pass that resolution.
Ms. Caylee Ferguson said she represents the Ivy Creek neighborhood at the end of Broomley
Road. She came to ask that the Board support the amendment to the Six-Year Secondary Road program
by transferring road-paving funds to the Broomley Road bridge project. Over 100 homes and families will
benefit from passage of this amendment. They recognize that this allocation of resources is an important
and necessary first step toward addressing a real need for a wider bridge across Broomley Road. They
are committed to seeing this project through and to assisting in its completion when possible. She knows
this is a time when resources are smaller and the list of wants and needs does not shrink. She will remind
the Board that this project and the problem it addresses is not one of development, property values,
beautification, convenience or time-saving, but one of safety. The need for the project is to allow fire
trucks to access their homes and their families quickly enough to save lives. She asked that the Board
consider this project as a high priority to save lives.
Mr. Tommy Everett said he is a resident of Flordon. He said there are over 50 children residing in
Flordon, alone. This is really a safety issue. A couple of years ago there was a power outage – a
generator exploded and dropped sparks between his and his neighbor’s house and started a fire. They
called the fire department, and then in about 25 minutes Virginia Power trucks showed up. They had
noticed that there was a power outage and came to the scene – 20 minutes later the fire trucks showed
up. Obviously they put the fire out before the fire trucks got there, but if it had been a house it would have
burned down. He asked that the Board reallocate these funds so that bridge may be built.
Mr. John W ilson said he is president of the homeowners’ association from the Candlewick
Subdivision. He represents about 35 households, and will say that they strongly support this resolution.
They urge its passage for all of the reasons described tonight. He thanked Mr. Rooker for his leadership
in this matter. He said if the Board needs more information, getting response times from the fire
department might help in reaching a decision.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he wants everyone to understand that his question earlier was not for lack of
support of this amendment. He thinks this is something the Board has supported for a long time – it was
just a question about the process.
Ms. Thomas said she is delighted with this shuffling of money, but needs to remind everybody that
this is not enough money to do the project. It is a good time to make this change because preliminary
engineering work is needed. The road might have to be rerouted quite drastically in order to take care of
the sharp curve that trucks can’t get around at this time. It is not an easy project – it is not just widening
an existing bridge. It is also not unique. There is a bridge on Dry Bridge Road that has kept fire trucks
from a large section of the Samuel Miller District for many years, but that bridge is on the Six-Year list so if
there ever is anymore money the project should move along. She is not opposed to putting this money
into this project. She can’t resist saying there is not enough money at the State level, and the State is
strangling communities because they will not put enough money into the roads in the State. She points
that out for the benefit of some people who might want “to bend the ear” of some State legislators.
Mr. Rooker said the County had $5.0 million in Secondary Road Funds six years ago, and now it
has $1.6 million and that is scheduled to be cut in half about six months from now. The Board has a letter
from the Secretary of Transportation saying Secondary Road Funds will be entirely eliminated in the next
two years if something is not done about transportation funding. The State is finding it difficult to even
come up with enough money to provide the 20 percent match needed to get Federal funds. The one area
where there is still some funding is in the Federal bridge fund “pot.” If there is an improvement in
transportation funding at the State and Federal levels it may help accelerate the three projects on the
County’s list.
Ms. Mallek said timing is important – after waiting for 21 years to get the right design for the
Advance Mills Bridge, because the design was ready so the project could begin, the County was able to
get the money. Even a matter of weeks later, it would not have been possible. She is glad the Board is
doing this tonight so the project can get going.
At this time, Mr. Rooker offered motion to adopt the following Resolution which was included in
the Board’s agenda packet tonight and denoted as “Attachment A” to the executive summary on this
subject (basically, requesting that VDOT amend the Albemarle County Six-Year Secondary System
Construction Program to: 1) add the Broomley Road Bridge Improvement Project; 2) remove the
Dickerson Road Project; and, 3) request that the Unpaved Secondary Road Funds currently allocated by
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
VDOT for the Dickerson Road Project be added to the County’s Secondary System Construction Funds to
be used for the Broomley Road Bridge Improvement Project.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2009, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved the
County Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements for Fiscal Years 2009/10 through 2104/15
(the “Priority List”) and authorized the County Executive to sign the VDOT Secondary System
Construction Program for Albemarle County (the “Albemarle County VDOT Construction
Program”); and
WHEREAS, the Priority List included road improvements for State Route 606 (Dickerson
Road) between Route 850 and Route 1575 which would include replacing two bridges and
reconstructing and surface treating the existing non-hard surfaced road, and these improvements
are identified in the Albemarle County VDOT Construction Program as VDOT Project Numbers
0606002296, 0606002297 and 0606002P75 (the “Dickerson Road Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Dickerson Road Project is being funded from the Unpaved Secondary
Road Fund provided by Virginia Code § 33.1-23.1:1 but, to date, only $1.6 million of the estimated
$11.6 million cost to make the improvements has been allocated by VDOT; and
WHEREAS, the Board has identified a more urgent need for a bridge replacement project
on Broomley Road, referred to as the Broomley Road Railroad Bridge Improvement Project (the
“Broomley Road Project”) because the existing bridge has an eight ton limit that restricts its use by
certain emergency vehicles.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that the Board of Supervisors requests that
VDOT amend the Albemarle County VDOT Construction Program to add the Broomley Road
Project, and to remove the Dickerson Road Project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board requests that the Unpaved Secondary Road
Funds currently allocated by VDOT for the Dickerson Road Project be added to the County’s
Secondary System Construction Funds to be used for the Broomley Road Project as provided by
Virginia Code § 33.1-23.1:1(C); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board acknowledges that, as provided by Virginia
Code § 33.1-23.1:1(C), for each $250,000 or portion thereof added to the County’s Secondary
System Construction Funds, the amount of the County’s non-surface treated roads used to
distribute Unpaved Secondary Road Funds in subsequent years shall be reduced by one mile or
proportional part of one mile; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Executive is authorized to sign the VDOT
Construction Program that is amended consistent with this resolution.
Mr. Slutzky thanked Mr. Allan Sumpter, Residency Administrator, for attending this meeting
tonight, and for doing the recalculation referred to earlier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: SP-2008-009, Animal W ellness Center.
Proposed: Veterinary Clinic for small animals.
Zoning Category/General Usage: DCD Downtown Crozet District-variety of commercial uses
including office, retail, service and civic uses; residential uses if mixed use (up to 36 units/acre);
light industrial uses by special use permit.
Section: 20B.2.E.17 Veterinary offices and animal hospitals. Veterinary office and hospital;
5.1.11 Commercial Kennel, Veterinary Service, Office or Hospital, Animal Hospital, Animal
Shelter.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Community of Crozet, CT5 Neighborhood Center in the
Crozet Master Plan which allows for a mix of uses and residential types at net densities of up to
12 units per acre; up to 18 units per acre if in a mixed use setting and CT 1 Development Area
Preserve.
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: 1100 Crozet Avenue/Route 240, approx. 400 feet south of the intersection of Jarmans
Gap Road and Crozet Avenue.
Tax Map/Parcel: 056A2-01-00-00700.
Magisterial District: W hite Hall.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 28 and October
5, 2009.)
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 request is for a special use permit for a
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
veterinary clinic in an existing building on property on Crozet Avenue south of the downtown Crozet
district. The area is designated in the Crozet Master Plan as Urban Center and Preservation (preservation
reflects the fact that a stream and drainage area come through the site). He showed on the screen
pictures of the location of the building which is presently being used for residential purposes.
Mr. Cilimberg said a new entrance would be established off of Crozet Avenue in order to obtain
the sight distance necessary for a small parking area associated with the business and the building.
Factors favorable are: the veterinary use can be supported by the Master Plan, it will be a new business
located in downtown Crozet, and it adaptively reuses a currently vacant building. There are no detrimental
impacts on surrounding properties and no unfavorable factors were found.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission and staff both recommended approval subject to six
conditions.
Ms. Mallek asked the meaning of Condition No. 6 (Use shall not commence until the building is
served by public sewer.). Mr. Cilimberg said it means the applicant cannot get a zoning clearance until the
building is served by public sewer.
Ms. Mallek said the back of this property is adjacent to the stormwater wetland that will be
installed in that area. Mr. Cilimberg said the frontage is also on the ultimate streetscape.
W ith no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened, and Mr. Slutzky asked the
applicant to speak.
W ith no one rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek offered motion to approve SP-2008-009 with the six conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the concept plan, entitled “Animal W ellness”
prepared by TCS Engineering Co., LLC and last revised July 14, 2009, as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the plan,
development shall reflect the following elements only and all other elements of the plan may
be modified during site plan review and approval: entrance relocation, general location of
parking areas, and outside area for walking animals. Minor modifications to the plan which do
not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. This special use permit applies to the existing building and any new buildings for the
veterinary use will require a new special use permit;
3. No overnight boarding use, other than for those animals under medical care shall take place
at the veterinary hospital;
4. The building shall be sound-proofed in accordance with Section 5.1.11(b) and air-conditioned;
5. No outdoor exercise area shall be permitted. However, walking of animals is permitted and
shall be separated from access by the public and limited to the area behind the building as
identified in Attachment D (on file); and
6. Use shall not commence until the building is served by public sewer.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: STA-2008-001, Rural Areas 2-lot street standard; single
point of access.
Amend Sections 14-207, Rural subdivisions, 14-224.1, W aiver of certain requirements by the agent, 14-
225.1, W aiver of certain requirements by the planning commission, 14-404, Lot location to allow access
from lot onto street or shared driveway, 14-412, Standards for private streets only, and 14-434, Completion
of on-site improvements required prior to plat approval, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend:
Sec. 14-207 by making rural subdivisions subject to Sec. 14-404 if any proposed lot would have less than
500 feet of frontage on a major rural street identified on the map adopted as Appendix A to the
Subdivision Ordinance;
Secs. 14-224.1 and 14-225.1 by transferring from the planning commission to the subdivision agent the
authority to grant waivers permitted under Secs. 14-404 and 14-412;
Sec. 14-404 by requiring that a subdivision plat establish a single public or private access into the sub-
division from an existing public or private street by requiring that the proposed street provide such
access for all lots within the subdivision, and, by amending the procedure for waiving that
requirement and the criteria for approving a waiver;
Sec. 14-412 by establishing new design standards for private streets serving 2 lots (by requiring that such
streets not exceed a 16% grade over 50 feet, have a travelway at least 10 feet wide, and maintain
a 10 foot by 14 foot unobstructed zone) and private streets serving 3 to 5 lots in the rural areas (by
requiring that such streets not exceed a 16% grade over 50 feet, allowing streets having a grade of
less than 7% to be gravel, and maintain a 10 foot by 14 foot unobstructed zone);
Sec. 14-434 by deleting the exception for certain private streets from the requirement that all on-site
improvements be completed prior to approval of the final plat where surety in lieu of completion of
the improvements is not authorized.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 28 and October
5, 2009.)
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said that at a meeting in June the Board discussed
several options related to this text amendment and directed staff to prepare the final Subdivision
Ordinance text amendment for single-point-of-access and private street standards. Currently, rural
subdivisions are defined as “Subdivision of rural lots of five acres or greater, 250 feet of frontage on an
existing public street.” These types of subdivisions are not subject to the single-point-of-access
requirements currently in the ordinance. This ordinance will classify several rural roads in the County as
“major rural streets” and state that in order to be exempt from the single-point-of-access requirements all
the lots created have to be five acres or greater and must have 500 feet of frontage. If the lots are not on
a major rural street, no change in regulations is proposed. This amendment will also establish an
administrative waiver process for single-point-of-access. The process will be administrative and criteria
will also be established – this was very important to the people who attended the roundtable and the Board
also directed that it be included. He drew the Board’s attention to the screen which showed the
administrative procedure.
Mr. Fritz said as to private street standards, the proposal is that a private street serving two lots be
subject to the same design standards as driveways – currently it is just reasonable access so “reasonable
access” will be defined. Private streets serving three to five lots will have a maximum grade and a clear
zone established – currently there is neither. Those will be at least to the minimum standards for a
driveway. Also, it will be specified that grade measurements will be taken over 50 feet because there can
be undulations in the roadway. Also administrative waivers for all private street design standards will be
established.
Mr. Fritz said there are other minor changes – there is a clarification that use of an internal street
applies to all the lots in the subdivision. Currently, if there is a subdivision of say 15 lots, and one of those
lots is large enough to divide further, all 15 of those lots would have to be served by an internal private
street. However, if the one lot is further divided (under the ordinance now it has to create its own internal
street), but this change would allow it to use the same internal streets that were established at the time of
the original subdivision. Language associated with construction and bonding of two-lot streets is “cleaned
up.” No bonding or construction is required now and none is proposed under the change.
Mr. Fritz said that staff recommends approval of the text amendment with delayed application. He
handed to the Board some additional language – a delayed application of the ordinance for projects that
have already been submitted. It says that any projects approved by January 14, 2010, would be subject to
the ordinance under which they were originally submitted. There are very few projects that would fall
under this provision. He said the single-point-of-access only addresses lots that are on major rural roads -
lots not on a major rural road or a rural street are not affected by these ordinance provisions. He showed
a map on the screen which was a graphical depiction of the multiple pages of text in front of the Board
outlining those roads. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker said it seems like a common sense approach to the issue.
Ms. Mallek said these changes are responsive to the concerns expressed by the public when the
Board discussed whether to have the three to five lot standards apply to two lots. That would have been a
major change. She applauded the citizens who participated throughout this process, and who took Board
members around the County to be sure they understood the consequences of the changes being
proposed.
M. Boyd said the way this is written, and the map that was shown on the screen, all of those roads
have been included in the language. He asked how often this will be updated. Mr. Fritz said those roads
are based on having 1,400 vtpd, so staff would have to periodically analyze traffic counts.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board is somewhat “shooting itself in the foot” in the sense that
the ordinance says if there is already a big traffic flow on a particular road, entrances are limited, but if
there is not, it is wide open for development. She is thinking of Dick W oods Road from Taylors Gap Road
to Miller School Road which was recently paved, and it is totally unprotected in this ordinance. She
understands going with an objective standard, so the County is “stuck” with that standard. She said it is
bad to have the citizens go to a lot of work to help the County develop an ordinance if it does not do much
of what it was hoped it would do.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing.
Mr. Roger Ray said he is and has been a land surveyor for a long time. He did not come to
oppose the ordinance, but wants to reflect on the process. In February, 2007 the Board adopted a
resolution of intent to amend certain sections of the ordinance in reference to access to subdivision lots.
The Planning Commission came back with an amendment to the ordinance which seemed to most rural
folks to be overwhelming and destroyed a lot of property rights, in particular division rights. Then came a
public outcry for help, and it started with a “town hall” meeting. After that meeting, there still being
concern, two people organized additional work and asked individual members of the Board to go on “a
drive around” so the unintended consequences of this very strict rule could be pointed out. Several
members of the Board were receptive to doing that and they looked at the real impact of the proposed
amendment on properties.
Mr. Ray said there was a public hearing and the Board asked staff to have a roundtable
discussion, and they did so. From that they gave the Board a list of options to go forward with a month or
so ago. The Board instructed staff which options to consider, and they did a good job of rewriting the
ordinance to make it clear what can and cannot be done. He said he would like to thank a lot of people,
particularly, Cathy Rash, Joe Jones, Ann Mallek, each member of the Board individually and the Board as
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
a group. Of all the years he has been doing this kind of work, this is the first time he has seen County
government work the way it should. He hopes he speaks for all rural property owners who have division
rights. He thanks everybody for this process.
Mr. Ray said there is one sentence he would like to add on the last page – Section 14.434(b) –
“The subdivider shall certify to the agent that all of the construction costs for the improvements including
those materials of labor have been paid to the person constructing the improvement.” He would like to
add and further certify that all fees have been paid for surveying and engineering expenses.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Ray if he was serious about that comment.
Ms. Cathy Rash said she came to thank everybody who worked on this amendment. She said it
is amazing what can be done when everybody works together with the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Joe Jones said he would like to thank Mr. Ray for helping with all of the legalese in the
ordinance and using his expertise to put it in laymen’s terms so it can be understood. He endorses the
amendment Mr. Ray recommended for the payment of the surveying. He said the roundtable process
seemed to have a good benefit as opposed to a committee that might meet often but not get anything
solved.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. Ray. She said he came to the town hall meeting in W hite Hall and he
came with large charts and lots of informational maps. A lot of landowners also attended to give a real
frame of reference.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Fritz had referenced a replacement page No. 9 which adds an effective date
provision which provides the grandfathering of plats that were submitted prior to October 13, 2009, and
are approved no later than January 14, 2010.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the work that Ms. Mallek did on this ordinance. She asked if
Ms. Mallek thinks this will accomplish anything.
Ms. Mallek said “yes.” It has helped to make various parts of the County’s governmental
documents consistent. There were things in the Subdivision Ordinance which were not in the Zoning
Ordinance, etc. It will make actual requirements clearer. Hopefully, the waivers are detailed enough to
make it a smooth process without being a burden for the enforcement staff. She is optimistic and hopes
the citizens will continue to stay in touch because that is what made this different. They jumped right in
and became engaged.
Ms. Mallek then offered motion to approve ZTA-2008-001, private streets and single-point-of-
access as modified with the extra paragraph added October 6, 2009, regarding delayed application of the
ordinance for projects that have already been submitted by adopting Ordinance No. 09-14(2), An
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, and Article
IV, On-Site Improvements and Design, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending
Sec. 14-207, Rural subdivisions; Sec. 14-224.1, W aiver of certain requirements by the agent; Sec. 14-
225.1, W aiver of certain requirements by the commission; Sec. 14-404, Lot location to allow access from
lot onto street or shared driveway; Sec. 14-412, Standards for private streets only; and, Sec. 14-434,
Completion of on-site improvements required prior to plat approval.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 09-14(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II,
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, AND ARTICLE IV, ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND
DESIGN, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
14, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, and Article IV, On-Site
Improvements and Design, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-207 Rural subdivisions
Sec. 14-224.1 W aiver of certain requirements by the agent
Sec. 14-225.1 W aiver of certain requirements by the commission
Sec. 14-404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway
Sec. 14-412 Standards for private streets only
Sec. 14-434 Completion of on-site improvements required prior to plat approval
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
Sec. 14-207 Rural subdivisions.
The following sections of this chapter shall apply to each rural subdivision:
A. General: Sections 14-100 through 14-108.
B. Administration and procedure: Sections 14-200 through 14-204 and sections 14-
209, 14-226, 14-229 and 14-236.
C. Plat requirements and documents to be submitted: Sections 14-300, 14-301, 14-
302(A)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10), (11), (14) and (15), 14-302(B)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8),
(9) and (10), 14-303(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (H), (I), (L), (O) and (P), 14-304, 14-305(B), 14-
308.1, 14-309, 14-310, 14-312, 14-314 and 14-316.
D. On-site improvements and design: Sections 14-400, 14-403, 14-404 if any
proposed lot would have less than five hundred (500) feet of frontage on a major rural street
identified in subsection 14-207(E), 14-406, 14-414, 14-416, 14-421, 14-426, 14-427, 14-433 and
14-438.
E. The following streets in the rural areas are major rural streets:
1. Barracks Road (SR 654) from Old Garth Road (SR 601) to Georgetown
Road (SR 656).
2. Black Cat Road (SR 616) from Richmond Road (US 250) to Interstate 64
east of Charlottesville.
3. Blenheim Road (SR 795) from Coles Rolling Road (SR 712) to the Town
of Scottsville line.
4. Browns Gap Turnpike (SR 810) from W hite Hall Road (SR 810) to
Blufton Road (SR 672).
5. Buck Mountain Road (SR 663) from Earlysville Road (SR 743) to
Simmons Gap Road (SR 664).
6. Buck Mountain Road (SR 664) from Markwood Road (SR 664) to
Simmons Gap Road (SR 663).
7. Buffalo River Road (SR 664) from Simmons Gap Road (SR 663) to Frays
Mountain Road (SR 664).
8. Buffalo River Road (SR 604) from Frays Mountain Road (SR 664) to
Lexington Lane (SR 1540)
9. Burnley Station Road (SR 641)from Seminole Trail (US 29) to W atts
Passage (SR 600).
10. Critzers Shop Road (SR 151) from Rockfish Gap Turnpike (US 250) to
the Nelson County line.
11. Crozet Avenue (SR 810) from Three Notch’d Road (SR 240) to Buck
Road (SR 789).
12. Dick W oods Road (SR 637) from Interstate 64 to Taylors Gap Road (SR
708).
13. Earlysville Road (SR 743) from Hydraulic Road (SR 743) to Buck
Mountain Road (SR 663).
14. Frays Mill Road (SR 641) from Seminole Trail (US 29) to Spring Hill Road
(SR 606).
15. Free Union Road (SR 601) from Garth Road (SR 676) to Chapel Spring
Lane (SR 668).
16. Garth Road (SR 601) from Barracks Road (SR 654) to Free Union Road
(SR 676).
17. Garth Road (SR 614) from Browns Gap Turnpike (SR 810) to Owensville
Road (SR 676).
18. Garth Road (SR 676) from Garth Road (SR 614) to Free Union Road (SR
601).
19. Gordonsville Road (SR 231) from Louisa Road (SR 22) to the Louisa
County line.
20. Hansens Mountain Road (FR 179) from Richmond Road (US 250) to its
end.
21. Hydraulic Road (SR 743) from Georgetown Road (SR 656) to Rio Road
(SR 631).
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
22. Irish Road (SR 6) from the Nelson County line to the Town of Scottsville
line.
23. Ivy Road (US 250) from Three Notch’d Road (SR 240) to the US 29/US
250 interchange.
24. Ivy Depot Road (SR 786) from Ivy Road (US 250) to Dick W oods Road
(SR 637).
25. James Monroe Parkway (SR 795) from Carters Mountain Road (SR 627)
to Thomas Jefferson Parkway (SR 53).
26. James River Road (SR 726) from Blenheim Road (SR 795) to Irish Road
(SR 6).
27. Lego Drive (SR 1090) from Hansens Mountain Road (FR 179) to its end.
28. Louisa Road (SR 22) from Richmond Road (US 250) to the Louisa
County line.
29. Markwood Road (SR 664) from Buck Mountain Ford Lane (SR 776) to
Buck Mountain Road (SR 665).
30. Miller School Road (SR 635) from Rockfish Gap Turnpike (US 250) to
Dick W oods Road (SR 637).
31. Milton Road (SR 729) from Thomas Jefferson Parkway (SR 53) to
Richmond Road (US 250).
32. Monacan Trail (US 29) from Interstate 64 to the Nelson County line.
33. Monticello Avenue (SR 20) from Interstate 64 to the City of Charlottesville
line.
34. Old Ballard Road/Broomley Road (SR 677) from Ivy Road (US 250) to
Owensville Road (SR 676).
35. Old Garth Road (SR 601) from the US 29/US 250 interchange to
Barracks Road (SR 654).
36. Old Lynchburg Road (SR 631) from Red Hill Road (SR 708) to Country
Green Road (SR 875).
37. Owensville Road (SR 676) from Decca Lane (SR 678) to Garth Road (SR
614).
38. Owensville Road (SR 678) from Ivy Road (US 250) to Owensville Road
(SR 676).
39. Plank Road (SR 692) from Monacan Trail (US 29) to Miller School Road
(SR 635).
40. Proffit Road (SR 649) from Stony Point Road (SR 20) to Pritchett Lane
(SR 785).
41. Reas Ford Road (SR 660) from Earlysville Road (SR 743) to Loftlands
Drive (SR 1555).
42. Red Hill Road (SR 708) from Monacan Trail (US 29) to Dudley Mountain
Road (SR 706).
43. Reservoir Road (SR 702) from Buckingham Circle (SR 820) to its end.
44. Richmond Road (US 250) from Interstate 64 east of Charlottesville to the
Fluvanna County line.
45. Rio Road (SR 631) from Seminole Trail (US 29) to Hydraulic Road (SR
743).
46. Rockfish Gap Turnpike (US 250) from Three Notch’d Road (SR 240) to
the Nelson County line.
47. Rolling Road (SR 620) from Presidents Road (SR 795) to the Fluvanna
County line.
48. Rolling Road (SR 795) from Rolling Road (SR 620) to Carters Mountain
Road (SR 627).
49. Scottsville Road (SR 20) from Interstate 64 to the Town of Scottsville line.
50. Seminole Trail (US 29) from Rio Mills Road (SR 643) to the Greene
County line.
51. Simmons Gap Road (SR 663) from Buck Mountain Road (SR 664) to
Buffalo River Road (SR 664)
52. Stony Point Road (SR 20) from its southern intersection with Dorrier
Drive (SR 1422) to the Orange County line.
53. Thomas Jefferson Parkway (SR 53) from Scottsville Road (SR 20) to the
Fluvanna County line.
54. Three Notch’d Road (SR 240) from Ivy Road (US 250) to Crozet Avenue
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
(SR 810).
55. Union Mills Road (SR 616) from Richmond Road (US 250) to the
Fluvanna County line.
56. W hite Hall Road (SR 810) from Browns Gap Turnpike (SR 680) to Buck
Road (SR 811).
57. W oodlands Road (SR 676) from Free Union Road (SR 601) to Earlysville
Road (SR 743).
(9-5-96, 7-9-86, 12-21-83, 2-4-81, 5-2-79, 11-13-74, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-13(b); Ord. 98-
A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(2), 10-14-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
Sec. 14-224.1 Waiver of certain requirements by the agent.
The agent may waive requirements as provided in sections 14-313, 14-401, 14-404,
14-405, 14-407, 14-409, 14-412, 14-419 and 14-420, as follows:
A. A subdivider shall submit to the agent a written request stating the reason and
justification for the request and all proposed alternatives. The subdivider shall have the burden of
producing the evidence to enable the agent to make the findings required by this section.
B. The subdivider may appeal the disapproval of a waiver, or the approval of a
waiver with conditions objectionable to the subdivider, to the commission as provided in section
14-226. In reviewing a waiver request, the commission may approve or disapprove the waiver
based upon the applicable findings set forth in this section, amend any condition imposed by the
agent, and impose any conditions it deems necessary.
(Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(2), 10-14-09)
Sec. 14-225.1 Waiver of certain requirements by the commission.
The commission may waive requirements as provided in sections 14-234, 14-409,
14-410, 14-414 and 14-422, as follows:
A. A subdivider shall submit to the agent a written request stating the reason and
justification for the request and all proposed alternatives. The subdivider shall have the burden of
producing the evidence to enable the commission to make the findings required by this section.
The agent shall review the request and transmit his recommendation of approval, approval with
conditions, or disapproval to the commission. If the agent recommends approval or approval with
conditions, the recommendation shall be accompanied by a statement by the agent as to the
public purpose served by the recommendation, particularly in regard to the purpose and intent of
this chapter, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The director of planning and the
county engineer shall provide recommendations to the commission as to whether and how the
waiver would accomplish county goals, policies, good planning practice and good engineering
practice.
B. The subdivider may appeal the disapproval of a waiver, or the approval of a
waiver with conditions objectionable to the subdivider, to the board of supervisors as an appeal of
a disapproval of the plat as provided in section 14-226. In reviewing a waiver request, the board
may approve or disapprove the waiver based upon the applicable findings set forth in this section,
amend any condition imposed by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary.
(9-5-96, 8-28-74 (§ 10); 1988 Code, § 18-3; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-237; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-
05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(2), 10-14-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2242(1).
Article IV. On-Site Improvements and Design
Sec. 14-404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway.
Each lot within a subdivision shall be located as follows:
A. Single point of access required. Each lot, other than a corner lot within the
development areas, shall have reasonable access to the building site from only one street, shared
driveway or alley established at the same time as the subdivision; provided that, if the subdivision
is in the rural areas, each lot created from the subsequent division of any lot within the subdivision
shall enter only onto such street(s) established at the same time as the original subdivision and
shall have no immediate access onto any other public street.
B. Conditions when single point of access not required. Notwithstanding subsection
(A), a lot may be located so that it has reasonable access to the building site from a public street
abutting the subdivision if: (i) the agent approves a waiver under subsection (C); (ii) the subdivider
obtains an entrance permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation for the access; (iii) the
entrance complies with the design standards set forth in sections 14-410(F) and 14-410(G); and
(iv) the subdivider demonstrates to the agent prior to approval of the final plat that the waiver does
not violate any covenants to be recorded for the subdivision.
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
C. Standards for waiver. The requirements of subsection (A) may be waived by the
agent as provided in section 14-224.1. A request for a waiver may be made prior to or with
submittal of a preliminary or final plat, as follows:
1. Information to be submitted. A request shall include a justification for the
waiver and a conceptual plan. The conceptual plan shall: (i) be drawn at a scale no smaller than
one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property or an
alternative scale approved by the agent; (ii) show the topography of the property at the best
interval available from the County including delineation of proposed building sites; (iii) show the
locations of streams, stream buffers, critical slopes, floodplains, and known wetlands; and (v)
show the proposed layout of lots, location of existing features such as buildings, fences,
drainfields, existing driveways or other access ways, or other significant features.
2. Consideration and findings. In reviewing a waiver request, the agent shall
consider whether: (i) installing a single point of access would substantially impact environmental
resources such as streams, stream buffers, critical slopes, and floodplain; (ii) construction of a
single point of access would substantially impact features existing on the property prior to October
14, 2009; (iii) granting the waiver would contribute to maintaining an agricultural or forestal use of
the property; and (iv) granting the waiver would facilitate development of areas identified in the
open space plan as containing significant resources. In approving a waiver, the agent shall find
that requiring the extension would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the
public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land
adjacent thereto.
D. Terms defined. For purposes of this section, the term “reasonable access”
means a location for a driveway or, if a driveway location is not provided, a location for a suitable
foot path from the parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance to the building site; the term
“within the subdivision” means within the exterior boundary lines of the lands being divided.
(§ 18-36 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-39 (part), 9-5-96, 10-19-77, 5-10-77, 8-28-74; 1988 Code,
§§ 18-36, 18-39; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, §§ 14-500(C), 14-505; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-
20-05; Ord. 09-14(2), 10-14-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(5).
Sec. 14-412 Standards for private streets only.
In addition to the minimum design requirements set forth in section 14-410, the following
minimum design requirements shall apply to private streets authorized by this chapter:
A. Residential private streets. Each private street serving detached residential uses
authorized under sections 14-232 or 14-233 shall satisfy the following:
1. Streets serving two lots. Each private street serving two (2) lots: (i) shall
not exceed a sixteen (16) percent grade calculated over a distance of fifty (50) feet; (ii) shall have
a travelway that is at least ten (10) feet in width; and (iii) shall include a rectangular zone
superjacent to the driveway that is clear of all obstructions, including any structures and
vegetation, that is at least ten (10) feet in width and fourteen (14) feet in height. The subdivider
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the county engineer that the street will meet the
requirements of this subsection.
2. Streets serving three to five lots. Each private street serving three (3) to
five (5) lots shall satisfy the following: (i) vertical centerline curvature shall meet a minimum design
K value of five (5) for crest curves and fifteen (15) for sag curves; (ii) sight distances shall not be
less than one hundred (100) feet; (iii) turnarounds shall be provided at the end of each street per
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidelines; (iv) street
easements or right-of-way widths shall be thirty (30) feet minimum; and (v) the radius for
horizontal curvature shall be forty (40) feet or greater, unless otherwise authorized by this chapter.
Any standard in this paragraph (2) may be reduced to the standard for streets serving two (2) lots
where a driveway departs from the street and two lots remain to be served, and a turnaround is
provided. In addition, the following shall also apply:
(a) Private streets in the rural areas. For such private streets in the
rural areas: (i) travelway widths shall be fourteen (14) feet minimum, with three (3) feet minimum
shoulder widths, and a minimum of four (4) feet from the edge of the shoulder to the ditch
centerline; (ii) the grade shall not exceed sixteen (16) percent calculated over a distance fifty (50)
feet; (iii) if the grade of any portion of the street exceeds seven (7) percent, the entire street shall
be surfaced as required by Virginia Department of Transportation standards; streets having a
grade of seven (7) percent or less may have a gravel surface; and (iv) the street shall have a
rectangular zone superjacent to the street that is clear of all obstructions, including any structures
and vegetation, that is at least fourteen (14) feet in width and fourteen (14) feet in height.
(b) Private streets in the development areas. For such private
streets in the development areas: (i) an urban cross-section street design shall be provided, with a
minimum width of twenty (20) feet measured from the curb faces or such alternative design,
including a street easement or right-of-way width, deemed adequate by the county engineer to be
equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare; additional widths shall be provided for
gutters to control drainage at the discretion of the county engineer; and (ii) the entire street shall
be surfaced as required by Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
3. Streets serving six lots or more. Each private street serving six (6) or
more lots shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation standards, provided:
(a) Private streets in the rural areas. For such private streets in the
rural areas, the commission may approve Virginia Department of Transportation standards for
mountainous terrain if the subdivider demonstrates, for a specific, identifiable reason, the general
welfare, as opposed to the proprietary interests of the subdivider, would be better served by the
application of those standards.
(b) Private streets in the development areas. For such private
streets in the development areas, the agent may approve Virginia Department of Transportation
standards for mountainous terrain or an alternative standard deemed adequate by the county
engineer to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design standards
manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare.
4. Streets serving family subdivisions. Each private street authorized to
serve a family subdivision under section 14-232(B)(1) shall satisfy the following: (i) easement or
right-of-way widths shall be ten (10) feet minimum; and (ii) the surveyor shall include the following
wording on the plat: “The existing and/or proposed right-of-way is of adequate width and
horizontal and vertical alignment to accommodate a travelway passable by ordinary passenger
vehicles in all but temporary extreme weather conditions, together with area adequate for
maintenance of the travelway, as required by section 14-412 of the Albemarle County Code.”
B. Private streets serving non-residential, non-agricultural, attached residential,
multi-unit residential and combined residential and non-residential uses. Each private street
authorized to serve non-residential, non-agricultural, attached residential, multi-unit residential and
combined residential and non-residential uses under sections 14-232 or 14-233 shall satisfy
Virginia Department of Transportation standards or an alternative standard deemed adequate by
the agent, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, to be equivalent to or greater than
the applicable standard in the design standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public
health, safety or welfare. The agent may require minimum travelway widths to provide for on-
street parking upon a determination that the provisions for off-street parking may be inadequate to
reasonably preclude unauthorized on-street parking.
C. Clearing land for improvements. A private street constructed to Virginia
Department of Transportation standards shall not be subject to that department’s clear zone
requirements.
D. Landscaping and other improvements permitted. Subsequent to construction of a
private street, a subdivider may install ornamental plantings and any other improvements provided
that they do not conflict with sight distance, drainage facilities or other required improvements.
E. Waiver. The standards of sections 14-412(A)(1)(i) and 14-412(A)(2)(a) relating to
street easement or right-of-way widths may be waived by the agent as provided in section 14-
224.1, as follows:
1. Waiver of section 14-412(A)(1)(i). The agent, with the recommendation
of the county engineer and the fire marshal, may waive the standard in section 14-412(A)(1)(i) and
authorize a street having a grade that exceeds sixteen (16) percent if the subdivider demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the county engineer and the fire marshal that public safety vehicles would be
able to access each lot even though the grade may exceed sixteen (16) percent. In developing
their recommendation to the agent, the county engineer and the fire marshal shall consider: (i) the
length of the segment of the street that would exceed sixteen (16) percent; and (ii) whether the
segment that would exceed sixteen (16) percent would require the public safety vehicle to travel
uphill towards each lot. In authorizing such a grade, the agent may impose reasonable conditions
to assure that the public safety vehicles may access the lot including, but not limited to, a
condition limiting the maximum length any segment of the driveway may exceed sixteen (16)
percent.
2. Waiver of section 14-412(A)(2)(a). In reviewing a waiver request for a
lesser street easement or right-of-way width under section 14-412(A)(2)(a), the agent shall
consider whether: (i) the subdivision will be served by an existing easement or right-of-way of
fixed width that cannot be widened by the subdivider after documented good faith effort to acquire
additional width; and (ii) the existing easement or right-of-way width is adequate to accommodate
the required travelway and its maintenance. If the waiver pertains to minimum street easement or
right-of-way widths over an existing bridge, dam or other structure, the agent shall consider
whether: (i) the long-term environmental impacts resulting from not widening the bridge, dam or
other structure outweigh complying with the minimum width requirements, as determined by the
county engineer; or (ii) whether the bridge, dam or other structure is a historical structure. In
approving a waiver, the agent shall find that requiring the standard street easement or right-of-way
widths would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and
granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land adjacent thereto.
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
G. Eligibility for future acceptance into the system of state highways. Any and all
streets that are not constructed to meet the standards necessary for inclusion in the system of
state highways shall be privately maintained and shall not be eligible for acceptance into the
system of state highways unless improved to current Virginia Department of Transportation
standards with funds other than those appropriated by the General Assembly and allocated by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board.
(§ 18-36, 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-37, 9-5-96, 11-21-79, 3-29-78, 8-28-74(part); 1988 Code, §§ 18-
36, 18-37, 18-38; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-514; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05,
effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(2), 10-14-09)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2242(3), 33.1-72.2.
Sec. 14-434 Completion of on-site improvements required prior to plat approval.
Except as provided in section 14-435, all on-site improvements required by this chapter
shall be completed prior to approval of the final plat. Prior to approval of the final plat:
A. The subdivider shall submit to the agent a certificate of completion of all of the
improvements prepared by a professional engineer or a land surveyor, to the limits of his license;
and
B. The subdivider shall certify to the agent that all of the construction costs for the
improvements, including those for materials and labor, have been paid to the person constructing
the improvements.
9-5-96, 12-15-82, 4-21-76, 2-19-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988 Code, § 18-18; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, §
14-412; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(2), 10-14-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(5).
This ordinance shall be effective on and after October 14, 2009; provided, however, that
any subdivision plat submitted on or before October 13, 2009, and approved on or before January
14, 2010, may be approved under the subdivision ordinance in effect on October 13, 2009.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: ZTA-2008-002. Planned Developments and Neighborhood
Model District. Amend the following sections of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code:
3.1, Definitions, to amend and delete several definitions;
8.2, Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations, to change section
heading, to clarify the regulations applicable to planned developments (“PD”), to require that
waivers and modifications be expressly granted, and to reorganize the section;
8.3, Planned development defined, to revise the definition of “planned development”;
8.5.1, Applications and documents to be submitted, to revise the standards and information
accompanying an application to establish a PD district;
8.5.2, Pre-application conferences, to revise the parties in a pre-application conference;
8.5.3, Review and recommendation by the planning commission, to revise the matters considered by the
planning commission in acting on an application for a PD district;
8.5.4, Review and action by the board of supervisors, to change section heading and to clarify the
documents applicable to a PD upon approval of the PD rezoning;
8.5.5, Final site plans and subdivision plats, to change section heading;
8.5.5.1, Contents of site plans and subdivision plats, to revise a cross-reference;
8.5.5.2, Review of site plans and subdivision plats, to provide that when subdivision plats and site plans
are reviewed, they shall be reviewed for compliance as follows: (a) if the PD district was
established on or before December 10, 1980, the zoning and subdivision regulations currently in
effect apply unless vested rights are established; (b) if the PD district was established after
December 10, 1980, at the option of the developer, the zoning and subdivision regulations in effect
when the PD district was established or those currently in effect apply, provided that if the
developer elects the former, six delineated subjects of regulation are not so grandfathered and the
developer must comply with current regulations pertaining to those 6 subjects unless vested rights
are established; to revise the zoning administrator’s and director of planning’s review for
compliance and add the county engineer’s review, to define “applicable regulations,” to declare the
applicability of Chapter 17 of the County Code, and to declare that vested rights are not impaired;
8.5.5.3, Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development, to revise the provisions of
a plan, code or standard the director of planning may vary, and to authorize the director to require
that specified information be provided;
8.5.5.4, Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits, to revise references to county officers
and bodies and to clarify other clauses;
8.5.5.5, Site plan and subdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning districts established
without an application or application plan, to change the section heading and to clarify the
procedure and requirements for reviewing a site plan or subdivision plat where there was no
application plan when the PD district was established;
8.6, Amendments to planned development districts, to revise and expand the procedure to amend a
PD district by establishing requirements for who is an eligible applicant, submitting a map if the
rezoning affects less than the entire district, notice, and factors considered during review;
20A.3, Application requirements; required documents and information, to change the reference from
“general development plan” to “application plan” and to provide circumstances when applicant may
delay submitting parking and loading needs study until site plan;
20A.4, General development plans, to change section heading and the required elements of an
application plan in a neighborhood model district (hereinafter “NMD”);
20A.5, Codes of development, to clarify that any substantive or procedural requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance applies in an NMD unless the subject matter is expressly addressed in the code of
development (hereinafter the “code”), to expressly require that the code be in a form required or
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
approved by the director of planning, to change the required elements of a code, and to limit the
applicable architectural standards in pre-existing codes to only the new required elements unless
determined to be key features;
20A.6, Permitted uses, to change the reference from “general development plan” to “application plan” and
to allow a code to provide that any use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other
zoning district be a use allowed by special use permit in an NMD;
20A.7, Residential density, to correctly state the formula for calculating residential density in an NMD;
20A.9, Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas, to change references from
“site area” to the “area proposed to be rezoned” when calculating the areas of green spaces and
amenities; and,
20A.10, Streets, to change a reference from “department of engineering and public works” to the
“department of community development.”
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 28 and October
5, 2009.)
Ms. Mallek said she would first like to announce that there is a farm tour in the W hite Hall area
this Saturday from Noon until 5:00 p.m. There are six farms to visit and lots of fun at the pony grounds.
Mr. Cilimberg said this amendment came from a work session in August where there were no
recommendations made for changes from what the Planning Commission recommended regarding
planned district regulations in the Neighborhood Model District (NMD). Much of the text amendment is for
clarification, cleanup and change of titles. There is additional language for the park and study requirement
in the NMD regarding vesting. The biggest section of clarification and change is in the vesting and
architecture section in the NMD. The amendment regarding vesting came from the Commission. As to
the parking study element of the NMD, it is suggested that the ordinance allow the parking study to be
provided either at the time of the rezoning application or with the site plan in order to allow some flexibility.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in the vesting area, the old zoning allowances and subdivision regulations
applied with new development when there was a development that had been approved prior to zoning
ordinance changes. The proposed amendment would say that current regulations apply for all planned
districts approved prior to December 10, 1980, unless vesting can be established for any of those projects
approved prior to December 10, 1980. For all planned developments approved after December 10, 1980,
they can chose which regulations to use except that current Entrance Corridor, Flood Hazard Overlay,
landscaping, lighting, parking and sign regulations apply unless vesting can be established.
Mr. Cilimberg said the architecture piece of the NMD has been simplified and “trimmed” down a
great deal. There were many provisions included in that section and it was cutback to focus on form,
massing and proportions for facade treatments and preservation of historic structures. Architectural
styles, materials, colors and textures would only “play in” if there were a question of compatibility with
adjacent neighborhoods. Otherwise that will not be part of the review under these ordinance
amendments.
Mr. Cilimberg said there are other minor changes as well. The recommendation from staff and
the Planning Commission is for approval of this amendment. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain again what the recommendation is for the
architectural part of the NMD. Mr. Cilimberg showed on the screen a list of the current information
required. There is not only form and massing, but architectural ornamentation, and roof form and pitch.
The proposal is to deal with form, massing and facade treatments in the preservation of historic structures
only.
Ms. Thomas said since Kenridge and W hite Gables are such striking examples of a place where
nothing was required in terms of height. Then, when it was built by a second builder, it destroyed the views
of the other buildings which had been built nearby. Assuming there was a roof height agreed to because it
was on the original drawings, but was not required or in any formal way approved by the County, is there
anything in this amendment that would keep that mistake from being a repeated mistake. Mr. Cilimberg
said in the case of those two projects, they were special use permits. There is nothing that prevents the
Planning Commission or the Board from including provisions within their approval or asking that provisions
be included in their Code of Development to address proportions and massing. He said the Commission
did not want to have that as an automatic requirement in every case because it would get into some areas
of judgment that staff does not always feel comfortable dealing with.
Mr. Rooker said there are height limitations in the various districts, so he does not know how a
single property could be singled out to have different height limitations on its buildings. Mr. Cilimberg said
it would not be about height - it would be about form and massing.
Ms. Thomas said she realizes that her example is of a small, contiguous development, so it is not
directly applicable to this. It is such a vivid situation that she wanted to make sure about the amendment.
Ms. Mallek said she hopes the section on compatibility with adjacent properties would get that
matter discussed during the hearing so conditions could be placed. Mr. Cilimberg said that would keep it
as a possible provision as it is reviewed by the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing.
Mr. Morgan Butler said he is present to speak on behalf of the Southern Environment Law Center
(SLEC). He said the staff report shows that this amendment went through much iteration before the
Planning Commission, and he gave several suggestions along the way. For the most part, staff was
responsive and made some changes. He thanks Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Greg Kamptner for their work on
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
this amendment. He has two questions about the draft ordinance. Section 8.5.5.3 deals with variations
from approved codes which staff may approve – Subsection 8.5.5.3.a.6 is a new category which allows
staff to grant variations for “Minor changes to the design and location of stormwater management
facilities, land disturbance including disturbance within conservation areas, and mitigation subject to a
recommendation for approval by the county engineer.” He thinks it is clear that the word “minor” qualifies
the three different clauses that come after it. He thinks it would be helpful to make clear that the land
disturbances that may be approved also need to be minor.
Mr. Butler also asked the meaning of “mitigation” in that sentence. He knows there is mitigation in
terms of stream buffer impacts, but it is not entirely clear to him. He asked that the word “minor” be added
before "land disturbances.” Also, he asked that the meaning of mitigation be made clear.
Ms. Thomas asked what word Mr. Butler would suggest. Mr. Butler said he does not know what
that word refers to.
Ms. Mallek said a square footage amount for disturbance might be easier for people to
understand because minor can mean something different to different people. Mr. Butler said he thinks
setting an objective number like that would be arbitrary.
Mr. Rooker suggested wording this sentence as “Minor changes to (i) the design and location of
stormwater management facilities, (ii) land disturbances including disturbance within conservation areas,
and, (iii) mitigation subject to a recommendation for approval by the county engineer.” He had assumed
the word “minor” was intended to modify each of those three categories. If it was, there could simply be a
(i), (ii) and (iii) which would make it clear. He asked Mr. Davis if that was the intent. Mr. Davis said he
thinks staff was trying to address a specific instance where this came up.
Mr. Rooker asked if the word “minor” was intended to modify each of those three categories or
just two of them. He also thinks the language needs to be made clearer. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks the
word “minor” was to apply to any of those cases. Since mitigation can vary, he thinks the mitigation is only
to take care of something that otherwise is being affected through the design. As an example,
conservation areas are different than preservation areas. Typically, conservation areas have some level
of disturbance allowed, for example, for utility locations. In a conservation area there could be a utility
location that ended up disturbing the area more than what the original plan anticipated, so that disturbance
would have to be mitigated.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would help to call it “restorative mitigation.”
Mr. Boyd said the mitigation would not always be restorative.
Mr. Rooker said the term is used in planning. He suggested styling it as “Minor changes to (i) the
design and location of stormwater management facilities, (ii) land disturbances including disturbance
within conservation areas, and, (iii) mitigation, each subject to a recommendation for approval by the
county engineer.” That would make it clear that it is modifying all three things before it. Mr. Davis said
mitigation was the only one subject to a recommendation for approval by the county engineer. Mr.
Cilimberg said there was a stormwater relocation case where the engineer recommended that there be a
relocation allowed.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there needs to be some clarification in the wording. He took it to modify
all three of the phrases. Mr. Davis said he thinks it does. He said another way to do it would be just to
say: “Minor changes to the design and location of stormwater management facilities, minor land
disturbances including disturbance within conservation areas, and mitigation subject to a recommendation
for approval by the county engineer.”
Mr. Rooker said minor would apply to mitigation also. Mr. Cilimberg said if talking about mitigation
the Board might want something that is a little more comprehensive just because of the nature of the
mitigation needed. He said that is probably not one that should be qualified as minor. Mr. Davis
suggested the sentence read: “Minor changes to the design and location of stormwater management
facilities, minor land disturbances including disturbance within conservation areas, and mitigation, all
subject to a recommendation for approval by the county engineer.”
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt Ordinance No. 09-18(9), 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. 8.2, Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations; Sec. 8.3, Planned
development defined; Sec. 8.5.1, Applications and documents to be submitted; Sec. 8.5.2, Preapplication
conferences; Sec. 8.5.3, Review and recommendation by the planning commission; Sec. 8.5.4, Review
and action by the board of supervisors; Sec. 8.5.5, Final site plans and subdivision plats; Sec. 8.5.5.1,
Contents of site plans and subdivision plats; Sec. 8.5.5.2, Review of site plans and subdivision plats; Sec.
8.5.5.3, Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development; Sec. 8.5.5.4, Building
permits and erosion and sediment control permits; Sec. 8.5.5.5, Site plan and subdivision plat
requirements for planned development zoning districts established without an application or application
plan; Sec. 8.6, Amendments to planned development districts; Sec. 20A.3, Application requirements;
required documents and information; Sec. 20A.4, General development plans; Sec. 20A.5, Codes of
development; Sec. 20A.6, Permitted uses; Sec. 20A.7, Residential density; Sec. 20A.9, Green spaces,
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas; and, Sec. 20A.10, Streets, changing Subsection
8.5.5.3.a.6 to read: “Minor changes to the design and location of stormwater management facilities, minor
land disturbances including disturbance within conservation areas, and mitigation, all subject to a
recommendation for approval by the county engineer.”
The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18(9)
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, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined
Sec. 8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted
Sec. 8.5.2 Preapplication conferences
Sec. 8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission
Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors
Sec. 8.5.5 Final site plans and subdivision plats
Sec. 8.5.5.1 Contents of site plans and subdivision plats
Sec. 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision plats
Sec. 8.5.5.3 Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development
Sec. 8.5.5.4 Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits
Sec. 8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements for planned development zoning
districts established without an application or application plan
Sec. 8.6 Amendments to planned development districts
Sec. 20A.3 Application requirements; required documents and information
Sec. 20A.4 General development plans
Sec. 20A.5 Codes of development
Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses
Sec. 20A.7 Residential density
Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas
Sec. 20A.10 Streets
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions.
Application plan: The graphic depiction of a proposed development containing the information
required by section 8.5.1(e) and, within the neighborhood model district, section 20A.4. A plan
designated and approved as a general development plan for a neighborhood model district
between March 19, 2003 and October 14, 2009, is an application plan for the purposes of this
chapter. (Added 3-19-03)
Block: An area shown on an application plan that is typically surrounded by streets and within
which land use activities occur. Although blocks usually imply a grid street system, where steep
topography exists blocks may exist in non-rectilinear shapes. (Added 3-19-03)
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 8.2 Applicable regulations; waivers and modifications.
Planned developments shall be subject to the following regulations in this chapter:
a. Sections applicable. Unless expressly superseded by a regulation of the applicable
planned development district, the regulations of this chapter, other than those pertaining
to conventional development districts stated in sections 10 through 18, 20B, 22, 23, 24,
27 and 28, shall apply to each planned development district unless the subject matter is
expressly addressed in the code of development under section 20A.5, or the regulation is
waived or modified as provided in subsection 8.2(b).
b. Waivers and modifications. An applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4,
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
5, 21, 26 and 32, or the applicable planned development district regulations be waived or
modified by the board of supervisors, as follows:
1. Submittal of request for waiver or modification. If the applicant requests such a
waiver or modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its
request in writing as part of the application plan, and shall demonstrate how the
findings required by subsection 8.2(b)(3) would be satisfied.
2. Timing of request. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32
establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any request for
a waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the
application plan; provided that an owner within a planned development may
request a waiver or modification of any requirement of sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32
at any time, under the procedures and requirements established therefore.
3. Findings. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver
or modification in sections 4, 5, 21, 26 or 32, a waiver or modification may be
granted only if it is also found: (i) to be consistent with the intent and purposes of
the planned development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies
all other applicable requirements of section 8; (ii) to be consistent with planned
development design principles; (iii) that the waiver or modification would not
adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare; and (iv) in the case of
a requested modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would
be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification.
4. Express waiver or modification. Each waiver and modification must be expressly
granted and no waiver or modification shall be deemed to have been granted by
implication.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined.
A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria at the time it is
established or amended: (1) the area proposed to be rezoned or the area within the planned
development district is under unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the
development conforms with one or more approved application plans; and (3) in all planned
development districts other than a planned historic district, the development will provide, operate
and maintain common areas, facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the
development where these features are appropriate.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.5.1 Applications and documents to be submitted.
Each application for a planned development district shall be submitted as provided for other
zoning map amendments. The documents required by subsections (a) through (e) below shall be
submitted with the application. After the application is submitted, the director of planning may
request additional plans, maps, studies and reports such as, but not limited to, traffic impact
analyses, identification of specimen trees, and reports identifying potential non-tidal wetlands
which are deemed reasonably necessary to analyze the application:
a. A regional context map at a scale of not less one (1) inch equal to one thousand (1000)
feet showing topography at a maximum of ten (10) foot intervals, surrounding properties,
improvements to those properties, surrounding public streets, private roads, and other
thoroughfares;
b. An accurate boundary survey of the area to be rezoned showing the location and type of
boundary evidence and the source of the survey;
c. A map at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100) feet, provided
that another interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the director of planning
where the size of the area proposed to be rezoned or topographic considerations warrant,
showing:
1. The following existing physical conditions: streams, wooded areas, potential non-
tidal wetlands, slopes in excess of twenty-five (25) percent, historic structures and
sites included in the records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
cemeteries, floodplain, and any identified features in the open space element of
the comprehensive plan;
2. Existing topography accurately shown using the county’s geographic information
system or better topographical information, and the source of the topographical
information;
3. Existing roads, easements, and utilities;
4. The name of the proposed development; the names of all owners; the name of
the developer, if different from the owner; the name of the person who prepared
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
the plan; all tax map and parcel numbers in fourteen (14) digit format; the zoning
district and all overlay zoning districts; the magisterial district; the north point; the
scale; one datum reference for elevation; if any part of the area proposed to be
rezoned is within the flood hazard overlay district (section 30.3), United States
Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or correlated to plan
topography; sheet numbers on each sheet and the total number of sheets; the
date of the drawing; and the date and description of the last revision;
5. The present use of abutting parcels; and the location of structures on abutting
parcels, if any; and departing lot lines; and
6. The existing location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site;
d. A traffic impact statement meeting the requirements of state law including, but not limited
to, 24 VAC 30-155-10 et seq.;
e. An application plan at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equal to one hundred (100)
feet, provided that another interval and/or scale may be required or permitted by the
director of planning where the size of the area proposed to be rezoned or topographic
considerations warrant, showing:
1. The areas to be designated as preservation areas, if appropriate, and areas to be
designated as conservation areas, such as streams, wooded areas, specimen
trees, non-tidal wetlands, and other significant environmental features;
2. Conceptual grading/topography using the county’s geographic information system
or better topographical information, and the source of the topographical
information, supplemented where necessary by spot elevations and areas of the
site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25) percent or greater;
3. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths;
4. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape;
5. Connections to existing and proposed streets, as well as proposed thoroughfares
shown on the comprehensive plan;
6. The general layout for the water and sewer systems, conceptual stormwater
management, and a conceptual mitigation plan;
7. The location of central features or major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development, such as major employment areas,
parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green spaces,
amenities and recreation areas;
8. A summary of land uses including dwelling types and densities, and the gross
floor areas for commercial and industrial uses;
9. A conceptual lot layout; and
10. Standards of development including proposed yards, building heights, open
space characteristics, and any landscape or architectural characteristics related
to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.2 Preapplication conferences.
Each applicant for a planned development shall attend a joint meeting with the staff of the
department of community development as well as other qualified officials from outside agencies
such as the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the
Albemarle County Service Authority to review the application plan and the proposed development
before the application is submitted. The purpose of the pre-application conference shall be to
assist the applicant to assure that the application and the documents to be submitted with the
application comply with all applicable regulations, and to identify as soon as possible conflicting
regulations and necessary waivers or modifications.
Each applicant is encouraged to use the guidance provided in the preapplication conference
process to develop an application for a planned development that, when submitted with its
supporting documents, will be as complete and comprehensive as possible.
(§ 8.5.3, 12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
(Former § 8.5.2 Planning Commission Procedures Repealed 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.3 Review and recommendation by the planning commission.
Each application to establish or amend a planned development district shall be reviewed and
acted on by the planning commission as follows:
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
a. The commission shall consider and make its recommendation to the board of supervisors
on each application for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map
amendments. W ithin the time provided to make a recommendation, the commission may
hold work sessions on the application and proceed to a public hearing after it determines
that no further work sessions are necessary, or at any time the applicant requests a public
hearing.
b. In addition to any other factors relevant to the consideration of a zoning map amend-
ment, the commission shall consider the following:
1. W hether the proposed planned development or amendment thereto satisfies the
purpose and intent of the planned development district.
2. W hether the area proposed to be rezoned is appropriate for a planned develop-
ment under the comprehensive plan; the physical characteristics of the area
proposed to be rezoned; and the relation of the area proposed to be rezoned to
the surrounding area; and
3. The relation of the proposed planned development to major roads, utilities, public
facilities and services.
c. The commission shall either recommend approval of the application as proposed,
approval of the application with changes to be made prior to action on the application by
the board of supervisors, or disapproval. The commission shall also make recommend-
dations on all requested waivers and modifications.
(§ 8.5.4, 12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.4 Review and action by the board of supervisors; effect of approval.
Each application to establish or amend a planned development district shall be reviewed and
acted on by the board of supervisors, and approval of the application shall have effect, as follows:
a. Review and action. The board of supervisors shall consider and act on each application
for a planned development district as it does for other zoning map amendments. If the
board approves the application, the approving action shall constitute approval of the
application plan, all standards of development submitted by the applicant, and the code of
development, as applicable. The board’s action shall also identify which proffers it has
accepted and which waivers or modifications it has granted.
b. Effect of approval. Upon approval of an application, the application plan, all standards of
development submitted by the applicant, the code of development, as applicable, all
accepted proffers, and all approved waivers and modifications shall be included as part of
the zoning regulations applicable to the planned development.
(§ 8.5.5, 12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5 Site plans and subdivision plats.
Sec. 8.5.5.1 Contents of site plans and subdivision plats.
Each site plan and subdivision plat submitted for development in a planned development shall
comply with the following:
a. Generally. Each site plan for a planned development shall comply with section 32 of this
chapter, subject to the waiver or modification of any such regulation pursuant to section
8.2(b). Each subdivision plat for a planned development shall comply with chapter 14
subject to the waiver, variation or substitution of any such regulation pursuant to section
14-237.
b. Within the neighborhood model zoning district. In addition to the requirements of sub-
section (a), each site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development within the
neighborhood model zoning district shall pertain to a minimum area of one block and shall
include a phasing plan, and each site plan shall include building elevations for all new or
modified structures.
(§ 8.5.6.1, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.1, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5.2 Review of site plans and subdivision plats.
Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat for a planned development shall be
reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations, as follows:
a. Planned development districts established on or before December 10, 1980. Each
preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat within a planned development district
established on or before December 10, 1980, shall be reviewed for compliance with the
applicable regulations when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review;
provided that, at the option of the developer or subdivider, each preliminary and final site
plan and subdivision plat may be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
in effect when the planned development was approved if the developer or subdivider
establishes a vested right as provided in Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2296 et seq. or 15.2-2307
to develop under the previously approved planned development district.
b. Planned development districts established after December 10, 1980. Each preliminary
and final site plan and subdivision plat within a planned development district established
after December 10, 1980, shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations
in effect when the planned development district was established or, at the option of the
developer or subdivider, in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county
review; subject to the following:
1. Election to comply with regulations in effect when district established; exception
for certain current subjects of regulation unless vested rights established. If the
developer or subdivider elects to have its site plan or subdivision plat reviewed for
compliance with the applicable regulations in effect when the planned develop-
ment district was established, all of the following subjects of regulation in effect
when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review shall apply unless
vested rights are established under Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2296 et seq. or 15.2-
2307: (i) entrance corridor overlay district (section 30.6); (ii) flood hazard overlay
district (section 30.3); (iii) landscaping and screening (section 32.7.9); (iv) outdoor
lighting (section 4.17); (v) parking (section 4.12); and (vi) signs (section 4.15). If
rights are determined to have vested, the regulations for these six subjects in
effect when rights vested shall apply. For the purposes of this section 8.5.5.2(b),
an application plan approved on and after March 19, 2003 that complies with the
requirements of an application plan under section 8.5.1(e) or section 20A.4, or a
prior version thereof in effect on and after March 19, 2003, is a significant
governmental act within the meaning of Virginia Code § 15.2-2307.
2. Election to comply with regulations in effect when district established; election to
comply with certain current subjects of regulation. If the developer or subdivider
elects to have its site plan or subdivision plat reviewed for compliance with the
applicable regulations in effect when the planned development district was
established, the developer or subdivider may also elect to comply with one or
more of the subjects of regulation listed in subsection 8.5.5.2(b)(1) in effect when
the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review instead of with the
corresponding regulations in effect when the planned development district was
established.
c. Review for compliance and conformance. A site plan or subdivision plat shall be reviewed
to determine whether it complies with the applicable regulations and other requirements of
law, and whether it conforms to the application plan, as follows:
1. Zoning administrator. The zoning administrator shall determine whether a site
plan or subdivision plat complies with the applicable regulations. In addition, the
zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning, shall
determine whether the proposed permitted uses comply with the applicable
regulations and, in doing so, may permit as a use by right a use that is not
expressly classified in this chapter if the zoning administrator further determines
that the use is similar in general character to the uses permitted by right in the
district or by the code of development and is similar in terms of locational
requirements, operational characteristics, visual impacts, and traffic, noise and
odor generation.
2. Director of planning. The director of planning shall determine whether a site plan
or subdivision plat conforms to the application plan. In determining conformity,
the director shall determine whether the central features or major elements within
the development are in the same location as shown on the application plan and if
the buildings, parking, streets, blocks, paths and other design elements are of the
same general character, scope and scale as shown on the application plan.
3. County engineer. The county engineer shall determine whether an erosion and
sediment control plan, grading plan, stormwater management plan, road or street
plan, and mitigation plan conform with the concept grading, stormwater
management, streets, and mitigation shown on the application plan.
d. Applicable regulations defined. For the purposes of this section 8.5.5.2, the term
“applicable regulations” means, as appropriate and applicable, all zoning regulations, all
subdivision regulations, the application plan (except for those elements authorized to be
shown at a conceptual or general level), including those plans formerly referred to as
general development plans, conditions of approval, accepted proffers, the code of
development, special use permits, variances, and waivers, modifications and variations.
e. Applicability of chapter 17. Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat within
a planned development district shall be reviewed for compliance with chapter 17 of the
Albemarle County Code in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county
review, regardless of when the planned development was established or whether the
developer or subdivider elects, or establishes vested rights, under sections 8.5.5.2(a) and
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
(b) to proceed with review under the applicable regulations in effect when the planned
development was approved.
f. Vested rights not impaired. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the
impairment of a vested right that may be established under Virginia Code §§ 15.2-
2261(C), 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298, 15.2-2303 or 15.2-2307.
(§ 8.5.6.2, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.2, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5.3 Variations from approved plans, codes, and standards of development.
The director of planning may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development to
vary from an approved application plan, standard of development and, also, in the case of a
neighborhood model district, a code of development, as provided herein:
a. The director of planning is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of
an approved plan, code or standard:
1. Minor changes to yard requirements, build-to lines or ranges, maximum structure
heights and minimum lot sizes;
2. Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided
that the major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the
same;
3. Changes to phasing plans;
4. Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards;
5. Minor changes to street design and street location, subject to a recommendation
for approval by the county engineer; and
6. Minor changes to the design and location of stormwater management facilities,
minor land disturbance including disturbance within conservation areas, and
mitigation, all subject to a recommendation for approval by the county engineer.
b. The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director of planning. The
request shall specify the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is
sought, and state the reason for the requested variation. The director may reject a
request that fails to include the required information.
c. The director of planning is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the
variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2)
does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development; (3)
does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any other
development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in
general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application.
d. The director of planning may require that the applicant provide an updated application
plan and, in the case of changes to a code of development, a complete amended code
of development, reflecting the approved variation and the date of the variation. If the
director requires an updated application plan or code of development, the granting of the
variation shall be conditional upon the applicant providing the plan or code within thirty
(30) days after approval of the variation and a determination by the director that the plan
or code were revised to correctly reflect the granted variation.
e. Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by zoning map
amendment.
(§ 8.5.6.3, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.3, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5.4 Building permits and grading permits.
Building permits and grading permits may be issued as provided herein:
a. A building permit, including any special footings or foundation permits, may be issued for
any work within a planned development, excluding the installation of street signs, only
after the approval of the final site plan or final subdivision plat in the area in which the
permit would apply.
b. A grading permit may be issued for site preparation grading associated with an approved
planned development if the erosion and sediment control plan measures, disturbed area
and grading are in conformity with the concept grading and measures shown on the
application plan as determined by the county engineer, after consultation with the director
of planning.
c. If, after consultation with the director of planning, the county engineer finds that there is
not enough detail on the application plan to assure that the proposed grading and other
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
measures are consistent with the application plan, a grading permit shall not be issued
until the final site plan is approved, or the final subdivision plat is tentatively approved.
d. W ithin each neighborhood model district, the department of community development shall
review each building permit application or modification to determine whether the proposed
structure conforms with the architectural and landscape standards in the approved code
of development.
(§ 8.5.6.4, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.4, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.5.5.5 Site plan and subdivision plat requirements when there is no application plan.
Site plans and subdivision plats within a planned development district for which an application
plan was not approved shall be subject to the following:
a. No valid site plan or subdivision plat at time district established. If a planned development
district was established before an application plan was required by section 8 to be
approved as part of the zoning map amendment and neither a final site plan or sub-
division plat pertaining to the entirety of the planned development district was valid at the
time of the zoning map amendment nor was approved in conjunction with the approval of
the zoning map amendment, then neither a site plan nor a subdivision plat shall be
approved for any lands within the district unless and until an application plan and all other
documents required by section 8.5 are submitted by the owner and are approved as
provided therein.
b. Valid site plan or subdivision plat at time district established. If a planned development
district was established before an application plan was required by section 8 to be
approved as part of the zoning map amendment but a final site plan or subdivision plat
pertaining to the entirety of the planned development district was valid at the time of the
zoning map amendment or was approved in conjunction with the approval of the zoning
map amendment, the valid or approved site plan or subdivision plat shall be deemed to be
the application plan, and the site plan or subdivision plat shall be reviewed as provided in
section 8.5.5.2. (Amended 7-16-86)
(§ 8.5.6.5, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.5, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.6 Amendments to planned development districts.
A planned development district may be amended after it is established, either by the addition or
removal of land, or by an amendment to the application plan, code of development, proffers or any
waiver or modification, in accordance with the procedures and requirements of section 8 and
those applicable to zoning map amendments generally, and subject to the following additional
requirements:
a. Eligible applicant. Any owner, contract purchaser with the owner’s consent, or any
authorized agent of the owner, of one or more parcels within a planned development
district may apply to amend the existing planned development district as it pertains to the
owner’s parcel(s). The owner of each parcel to which the proposed amendment would
result in or require a physical change to the parcel, a change in use, density or intensity
on that parcel, a change to any proffer or regulation in a code of development that would
apply to the parcel, a change to an owner’s express obligation under a proffer or
regulation in a code of development even if the proffer or regulation is not expressly
changed, or a change to the application plan that would apply to the parcel, shall be an
applicant.
b. Amendment affecting less area than the entire district; map. If the proposed amendment
would affect less area than the entire district, the applicant shall submit a map showing
the entire existing planned development district and identifying any area to be added to or
deleted from the district, or identifying the area to which the amended application plan,
code of development, proffers or any waiver or modification would apply.
c. Individual notice. In addition to any notice required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204 and
sections 33.4 and 33.8 of this chapter, written notice of the proposed amendment shall be
provided to the owner of each parcel within the planned development district. The
substance of the notice shall be as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2204(B), paragraph
1, regardless of the number of parcels affected.
d. Factors to consider during review of proposed amendment. In addition to any other
applicable factors to be considered in the review of a zoning map amendment, the
following shall also be considered:
1. W hether the proposed amendment reduces, maintains or enhances the elements
of a planned development set forth in section 8.3.
2. The extent to which the proposed amendment impacts the other parcels within
the planned development district.
Article III. District Regulations
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Sec. 20A.3 Application requirements; required documents and information.
Except where the option is exercised as provided in subsection 20A.3(b), below, the following
documents and information shall be submitted in addition to any other documents required to be
submitted under section 8.5 of this chapter:
a. A statement describing how the proposed NMD satisfies the intent of the zoning
ordinance and is consistent with the applicable goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan, the land use plan, the master plan for the applicable development area, and the
Neighborhood Model; if one or more characteristics of the Neighborhood Model
delineated in section 20A.1 are missing from an application, the applicant shall justify why
all of the characteristics cannot or should not be provided;
b. A parking and loading needs study that demonstrates parking needs and requirements
and includes strategies for dealing with these needs and requirements, including phasing
plans, parking alternatives as provided in section 4.12.8 of this chapter, and transportation
demand management strategies as provided in section 4.12.12 of this chapter; provided
that the applicant may elect to submit the parking and loading needs study in conjunction
with the preliminary site plan for the development if it determines that the uses that may
occupy the buildings are not sufficiently known at the time of the zoning map amendment.
c. Strategies for establishing shared stormwater management facilities, off-site stormwater
management facilities, and the proposed phasing of the establishment of stormwater
management facilities.
d. An application plan, as provided in section 20A.4, including all information required by
sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the plan.
e. A code of development, as provided in section 20A.5, including all information required by
sections 8 or 20A to support any element of the code.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.4 Application plans.
In addition to the application plan requirements of section 8.5.1(e), the following are required
elements of an application plan in the NMD:
a. The general location of proposed streets, alleys, sidewalks, and pedestrian paths;
b. The location of proposed green spaces, amenities, conservation areas or preservation
areas, as provided in section 20A.9;
c. A conceptual lot layout;
d. Conceptual grading/topography using the county geographic information system or better
topographic information supplemented where necessary by spot elevations and areas of
the site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25) percent or greater;
e. Typical street cross-sections to show proportions, scale, and streetscape, which,
alternatively, may be provided in the code of development;
f. Any proposed connections to existing and proposed streets, as well as proposed
thoroughfares shown on the comprehensive plan;
g. The general lay-out for the water and sewer systems, conceptual stormwater manage-
ment, and a conceptual mitigation plan; and
h. The location of central features or major elements within the development essential to
the design of the development, such as building envelopes, major employment areas,
parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green spaces, amenities
and recreation areas.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.5 Codes of development.
A code of development shall establish the unifying design guidelines, the specific regulations for
the district, and the use characteristics of each block; provide for certainty in the location of and
appearance of central features, and the permitted uses in the district; and provide a flexible range
of a mix of uses and densities. Any substantive or procedural requirement of this chapter shall
apply to an NMD unless the subject matter is expressly addressed in the code of development.
Each code of development shall be in a form required or otherwise approved by the director of
planning. To satisfy these requirements, each code of development shall establish:
a. The uses permitted in the district by right and by special use permit, as provided in
section 20A.6.
b. The amount of developed square footage proposed, delineated for the entire NMD and by
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
block by use and amenity. The developed square footage may be expressed as a
proposed range of square footage.
c. The maximum number of residential dwelling units, dwelling units by type, and delineating
at least two (2) housing types, as provided in section 20A.8.
d. The amount of land area and percentage of gross acreage devoted to green space and
amenities, as provided in section 20A.9.
e. All requirements and restrictions associated with each use delineated in subsection
20A.5(a).
f. All uses expressly prohibited in the district, so that they may not be considered to be uses
accessory to a permitted use.
g. Architectural standards that will apply in the NMD, which shall address the following:
1. The form, massing, and proportions of structures which may be provided through
illustrations;
2. Façade treatments;
3. The preservation of historic structures, sites, cemeteries, and archeological sites
identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources; and
4. Architectural styles, materials, colors and textures if these elements are dete-
rmined to be necessary in order for a proposed development to be compatible
with its contiguous developed surroundings. The provisions in a code of
development adopted prior to October 14, 2009 pertaining to subsections
20A.5(g)(1) through (4) shall be the only architectural standards in the code of
development that apply to the planned development.
h. Landscape treatments where landscaping in addition to that required by section 32 is
proposed. The provisions in a code of development adopted prior to October 14, 2009
pertaining to landscape treatments as required under former subsection 20A.5(g)(7) shall
apply to the planned development.
i. For each block:
1. The uses permitted on the block by right and by special use permit;
2. Build-to lines or ranges, which are the required distance from the right-of-way to a
structure;
3. Minimum and maximum lot dimensions;
4. Minimum number of stories and maximum building heights;
5. Location of sidewalks and pedestrian paths;
6. Acreage devoted to and characteristics of green space, amenities, and
recreational areas and facilities as required by section 4.16;
7. Location, acreage and characteristics of conservation areas and preservation
areas as defined in section 3.1, if applicable;
8. Location of parking areas;
9. Location, acreage and characteristics of civic spaces, which are public areas for
community or civic activities (e.g., libraries and their associated yards, schools
and places of worship);
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and
section 8, the approved application plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers:
a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right if the use is expressly identified
as a by right use in the code of development or if the use is permitted in a determination
by the zoning administrator pursuant to subsection 8.5.5.2(c)(1):
1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district,
except for those uses allowed only by special use permit delineated in
subsections 20A.6(b)(2) and (b)(3); provided that the use is identified in the
approved code of development.
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
2. 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 conformity with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other
applicable law.
3. Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings.
4. Home occupation, Class A, where the district includes residential uses.
5. Temporary construction uses.
6. 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, 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.
7. Tourist lodgings, where the district includes residential uses.
8. Homes for developmentally disabled persons, where the district includes
residential uses.
9. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
(Added 10-13-04)
b. By special use permit. The following uses are permitted by special use permit if the use
is expressly identified as use permitted by special use permit in the code of development:
1. Each use allowed by right or by special use permit in any other zoning district.
2. Drive-through windows serving or associated with permitted uses.
3. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a by right
permitted use, if any portion of the use would be visible from a travelway.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord 04-18(2), 10-13-04)
Sec. 20A.7 Residential density.
Residential density within each NMD shall be as follows:
a. The gross residential density should be within the applicable recommended gross density
range established in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. In its deliberations
regarding the appropriate residential density for the district, the board of supervisors shall
take into account the amount of land devoted to non-residential uses.
b. The gross residential density shall be measured in dwelling units per acre and calculated
by dividing the proposed number of dwelling units in the proposed district by the gross
acreage of the district.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.9 Green spaces, amenities, conservation areas and preservation areas
Each NMD shall include the following:
a. Green space. The minimum area devoted to green space is as follows:
1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighbor-
hood density residential, urban density residential, transitional, neighborhood
service, community service, or office service, the area devoted to green space
shall be at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross acreage of the area proposed
to be rezoned.
2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional
service, office regional or industrial service, the area devoted to green space shall
be at least fifteen percent (15%) of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be
rezoned.
3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in subsections
20A.9(a)(1) and 20A.9(a)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of
the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to green
space.
4. The minimum area devoted to green space may be reduced by the board of
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall
consider these factors: the relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby
properties containing public green space such as parks or natural areas; the
known future uses of the adjoining properties; and whether a reduction would
better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the comprehensive plan.
b. Amenities. The minimum area devoted to amenities is as follows:
1. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as neighbor-
hood density residential, urban density residential, neighborhood service, and
community service, the area devoted to amenities shall be at least twenty percent
(20%) of the gross acreage of the area proposed to be rezoned.
2. For areas shown in the land use element of the comprehensive plan as regional
service, office service, office regional service or industrial service, the area
devoted to amenities shall be at least ten percent (10%) of the gross acreage of
the area proposed to be rezoned.
3. For areas having a land use designation not addressed in subsections
20A.9(b)(1) and 20A.9(b)(2), the recommendations of the applicable provisions of
the comprehensive plan shall be guidance on the minimum area devoted to
amenities.
4. The minimum area devoted to amenities may be reduced by the board of
supervisors at the request of the applicant. In acting on a request, the board shall
consider these factors: the relationship of the site to adjoining or nearby
properties containing amenities; the proportion of residential uses to non-
residential uses proposed; the known future uses of the adjoining properties; and
whether a reduction would better achieve the neighborhood model goals of the
comprehensive plan.
c. Additional requirements for amenities. Amenities shall also be subject to the following:
1. At least ninety percent (90%) of the residential units in the NMD shall be within
a one-quarter mile walk of an amenity.
2. The size, location, shape, slope and condition of the land shall be suitable for
the proposed amenity.
3. The amenity shall be suitable for the specific population to be served.
4. The design of any recreational facilities shall meet the minimum design require-
ments from recognized sources of engineering and recreational standards.
5. In nonresidential areas of the development, amenities shall be located so that
they are easily accessible to patrons and employees of the development.
d. Green space within parks and recreational amenities. Any portion of an amenity that is
covered in grass or other vegetation may be counted as both green space and an
amenity.
e. Preservation areas within green space. Preservation areas that preserve environmental
features shall be included as green space area.
f. Conservation areas within green space. Conservation areas that maintain environmental
features shall be included as green space area.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 20A.10 Streets.
Each street within an NMD shall meet the street standards for a traditional neighborhood
development established by the department of community development.
(Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Davis handed to the Board members a memorandum. He said that at the last meeting the
Board had discussed the extension of the lease for the Northside Library. He said there is a draft
resolution and a lease amendment, and he would request that the Board authorize the County Executive
to execute the lease amendment as set forth in the resolution.
Mr. Rooker asked if the agreement incorporates the financial terms previously discussed. Mr.
Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to adopt a Resolution Approving the Second Lease Modification
and Extension Agreement between the County of Albemarle and Rio Associates Limited Partnership for
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
the Northside Library. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND LEASE MODIFICATION
AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT BETW EEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND RIO
ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
FOR THE NORTHSIDE LIBRARY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle leases from Rio Associates Limited Partnership
15,572 square feet located at 300 Albemarle Square for use as the Northside Library; and
WHEREAS, the original lease for the Northside Library was first dated January 31, 1991,
and was extended by a First Lease Modification and Extension Agreement entered into on
November 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the current lease term expires October 31, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the attached Second Lease Modification and Extension Agreement extends
the lease of the Northside Library through October 31, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the
Second Lease Modification and Extension Agreement between the County of Albemarle and Rio
Associates Limited Partnership to extend the Northside Library lease through October 31, 2014.
__________
Mr. Thomas said there have been several bits of praise given out tonight, so she would like to
point out that the ordinance just adopted was the subject of six work sessions by the Planning
Commission. She thinks the Board should express its appreciation to the Commission for that work on
the Planned Developments and Neighborhood Model District ordinance.
__________
Mr. Tucker said he had received a letter from Ms. Emily Nelson of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and
W ater Conservation District requesting appointment of Mr. Steve Murray to the Thomas Jefferson W ater
Resources Protection Foundation Board. The previous Albemarle County appointee, Mr. W ill Cochran,
has moved out of the County.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Mallek to appoint Mr. Steve Murray to the
Thomas Jefferson W ater Resources Protection Foundation Board, with said term to expire January 31,
2011.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Slutzky said there is an issue that has come up several times in some of his neighborhood
meetings. People have been appreciative of the Board’s efforts to pass a mowing ordinance. However,
there is a problem where properties have gone through a rezoning but are in a holding pattern before
development starts, and there are abandoned buildings still standing on those properties. He asked if the
Board could have a policy that would routinely require that upon the granting of a rezoning any structures
that would not be used would be demolished within a short period of time. He asked if the Board
members would be interested in making that a policy. Having drug deals and other nefarious activities
taking place in these abandoned structures is disruptive of neighborhoods - there have been some real
issues along Rio Road with some of the abandoned structures.
Mr. Rooker said he is sympathetic with the issue, but there is some limitation on what the Board
can do. Mr. Davis said the current County Code allows the Board to take action if a building is deemed to
be unsafe by the building official or is in danger of falling down. The owner can be required to board up
the buildings, but there is no authority to deal with aesthetics.
Mr. Slutzky said this is a public safety issue, not one of aesthetics. These are structures which
are sound and not subject to that existing ordinance, but because they are abandoned people pry the
boards off and use the building. Mr. Davis said the Board has limited authority to deal with that issue.
There is a building maintenance code that staff used when the Board was considering the mowing issue.
Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Slutzky was suggesting a policy.
Mr. Slutzky said for future rezonings, at the very least staff could make it known that it is a
concern. Mr. Davis said this will require some additional research to see if an ordinance could address
this question – he does not think it is for the circumstances mentioned, but any applicant could make a
proffer to address the existing condition.
October 14, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Ms. Thomas said she is thinking of a situation where a property sat ugly for 15 years after it was
rezoned. It has finally been turned into some major buildings, but for all of those years it sat with a burned
out motel, and huge boxwoods. She said if the Board might expect a proffer at the time of the rezoning
committing to cleaning up the land before development took place.
Mr. Slutzky asked if something could be included in the Proffer Policy to let it be known that such
a proffer would be expected. Mr. Davis said the Proffer Policy only addresses financial impacts, so it
would not fit into that policy. There are lots of issues staff can make known to developers, and this can be
added to the list. Typically, staff has been successful in getting those types of proffers.
Mr. Rooker said it would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. There are properties that are
not occupied that are not eyesores. There have been times when people ultimately moved a building to
another location. He agrees that blight should not be allowed to exist, and to the extent that it can be
done, the Board should do it on a case-by-case basis. There have been situations in neighborhoods
where homes sat vacant for ten years and deteriorated and diminished the value of neighborhood property
throughout the entire neighborhood. The Board is not enabled to deal with that situation. At least with a
rezoning the Board knows something about the property coming before it and he thinks those issues
should be raised on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Slutzky said unless somebody disagrees, this is something staff should look at routinely.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn to October 16, 2009, 9:00 a.m., Department of Forestry Building.
At 7:38 p.m., Mr. Rooker offered motion to adjourn this meeting until Friday, October 16, 2009, at
9:00 a.m., at the Department of Forestry building in Fontaine Research Park for the Board’s Annual
Strategic Planning Retreat.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 12/02/2009
Initials: EWJ