2009-05-13May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 13,
2009, with an adjourned meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m., and the regularly scheduled meeting beginning at
6:00 p.m. in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
The adjourned meeting was from May 6, 2009.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. 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, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Slutzky.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2009-004. Flood Hazard Overlay District.
Amend Section 30.3.05.1.1, By right within the floodway, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. This ordinance would amend Section 30.3.05.1.1 to add public water and sewer transmission lines,
main or trunk lines, and interceptors owned and/or operated by the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority,
as by right uses within the floodway in the Flood Hazard Overlay District, and change the reference to a
County department. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 2009.)
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, summarized the following executive
summary which was forwarded to Board members: In reviewing a plan for the upgrade to the Meadow
Creek Sewer Interceptor, staff found that water and sewer lines owned and operated by the Rivanna
W ater and Sewer Authority (RW SA) are not allowed by right or by special use permit in the Flood Hazard
Overlay District. However, water and sewer lines owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) are a by right use in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Staff also found that RW SA’s
water and sewer lines are a by-right use in all zoning districts outside of the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
Staff proposed a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to treat water and sewer lines
owned and operated by Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority the same as those owned and operated by
the Albemarle County Service Authority in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The purpose of today’s
public hearing is to consider a zoning text amendment pursuant to the Resolution of Intent.
Because the Zoning Ordinance specifically includes RW SA water and sewer lines as a by right
use in all zoning districts except the Hazard Overlay District and ACSA water and sewer lines are allowed
by right in the Flood Hazard Overlay District, staff believes it was an oversight that RW SA lines were not
also allowed by right in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The Meadow Creek Sewer Interceptor upgrade
is not permitted without this ordinance amendment. To avoid further delay to this project, staff proposed
to expedite the processing of this zoning text amendment with the goal of having it heard by the Planning
Commission on May 5th and the Board on May 13th. Finally, staff notes that because RW SA owns and
operates transmission lines rather than distribution lines, RW SA water or sewer line projects not already
shown on the Comprehensive Plan are subject to a finding of being in substantial accord with the
Comprehensive Plan. This assures that the County has an opportunity to review RW SA projects and
assure they are consistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, even if
permitted as a by-right use.
Due to the Planning Commission’s public hearing being scheduled for May 5th, it was not possible
to include a summary of the Planning Commission discussion with this executive summary.
No direct budget impact will result from this ordinance amendment. There is the potential of lost
tax revenue if development projects are delayed as a result of inadequate water or sewer lines.
Mr. Graham said after conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the
attached zoning text amendment for the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, and the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt ZTA-2009-004, Ordinance No. 09-18(2). Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, 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 III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 2)
By Amending:
Sec. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodway
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodway
The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway as a matter of right:
1. Agricultural uses, excluding structures of any kind, limited to field crops, pasture, grazing,
livestock, raising poultry, horticulture, viticulture and forestry.
2. Recreational uses (excluding structures of any kind and uses involving human habitation)
such as parks; swimming areas, golf courses and driving ranges; picnic grounds; wildlife
and nature preserves; game farms; fish hatcheries; shooting preserves; target, trap and
skeet ranges; hunting, fishing and hiking areas; athletic fields; and horse show grounds.
3. Flood warning aids and devices, water monitoring devices and the like.
4. Fences.
5. Electric, gas, oil and communications facilities, including poles, lines, pipes, meters and
related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility,
but excluding tower structures. (Added 7-1- 81) (Amended 5-12-93)
6. W ater distribution and sewage collection lines and appurtenances owned and operated by
the Albemarle County Service Authority, but excluding pumping stations and holding
ponds; public water and sewer transmission lines, main or trunk lines, and interceptors,
but excluding treatment facilities and pumping stations, owned and/or operated by the
Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority (reference 5.1.12, 30.3.03.1, 31.2.5). (Added 7-1-81)
(Amended 5-13-09)
7. If paragraphs (a) through (d) are each satisfied, projects which: (i) are designed or
directed by the county, a soil and water conservation district, or a public agency
authorized to carry out flood control or environmental restoration measures; or (ii) are
reviewed and approved by the department of community development in accordance with
the water protection ordinance. (Amended 5-13-09)
a. The purpose which will be served by the project, as determined by the department of
engineering and public works, is either flood control or environmental restoration;
b. The amount of fill material placed within the floodway, floodway fringe or approximated
flood plain does not exceed the amount of cut material removed from the same floodway,
floodway fringe or approximated flood plain in which the fill was placed;
c. No natural streams will be relocated; and
d. The project will use natural materials such as rock and vegetation, and will not use
engineered structures such as those identified in section 30.3.05.2.1(5).
8. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10-13-04)
(Ord. 98-18(2); 9-16-98; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 09-18(2), 5-13-09)
________________
Agenda Item No. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: 2009/10-2014/15. Six Year Secondary Road Plan and
Upcoming Year Construction Budget. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 2009.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, summarized the executive summary that was forwarded to
Board members. This public hearing is to receive public input on the County’s Priority List of Secondary
Road Improvements (Attachment A) and the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction
Program (Attachment B). The County’s Priority List establishes the priorities for road improvements for
roads in the State’s Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Secondary Construction Program is based on the
County’s Priority List and is reflective of available State road funding allocated to the County. The
County’s Priority List and the VDOT Construction Program are reviewed annually. The Board held a work
session on the County’s Priority List on April 1, 2009. Attachments A and B represent the input and
direction received in that work session.
At the April 1, 2009 work session, the primary point of discussion was the status of funding for the
Dickerson Road paving project (project priority #23, Unpaved Road Projects). Last year, the Board
directed that all unpaved road funds be placed on the Dickerson Road project, a road located within the
designated Development Area of Hollymead, until that project is complete. This direction was, in part, in
response to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to focus road funds on projects within (or
serving) the Development Areas, and to deemphasize improvements in the Rural Areas that might facilitate
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 3)
growth in the Rural Areas. The Dickerson Road project includes replacement of two bridges.
Approximately $1.8 million in road paving funds has previously been allocated to the Dickerson Road
project.
Based on VDOT’s forecasted statewide budget, there will be no allocations for the paving of
unpaved roads, at least through VDOT’s 2015 Fiscal Year. Since there will be no additional road paving
funds available for allocation over the next six years of the Plan, no new funds will be allocated to the
Dickerson Road project in the foreseeable future. W ith a total project cost of $12 million, including
replacing both bridges, this project cannot be funded and constructed utilizing unpaved road funds. All
available regular construction funds over the next six years are needed to fund higher priority projects, such
as the Meadow Creek Parkway, Jarman’s Gap Road, and Georgetown Road, as well as other maintenance
projects. Based on these circumstances, the Board considered reallocating the $1.8 million from the
Dickerson Road project to other projects, but decided to maintain the funding allocated to the Dickerson
Road project and see if additional funding becomes available at the state or federal level over the next year
to allow continued funding of this project. The Board will reconsider whether to reallocate the $1.8 million
during next year’s review of the County’s Priority List. The Board indicated that the Old Ballard Road
Bridge Improvement project would be a likely candidate project for the reallocation of these funds. VDOT
and County staff will continue to evaluate the Old Ballard Road Bridge project to determine the total project
cost in anticipation of the need to reallocate funding available to this project next year.
Staff has also adjusted the County’s Priority List to reflect comments from the Planning
Commission and the Board. Specifically, the Old Ivy Road and Southern Parkway projects have been
lowered on the Priority List. This change reflects the desired higher priority given to the Sunset-Fontaine
Avenue Connector Road, the Berkmar Drive Extension, and the Berkmar Drive Extension Bridge over the
South Fork of the Rivanna River.
The Six Year Road Planning process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of
State/VDOT secondary road construction funds.
Mr. Benish said after the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the County
Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) and authorize the County Executive to sign
the VDOT Secondary System Construction Program for Albemarle County consistent with the County’s
Priority List (Attachment B).
W ith regard to the Dickerson Road project, Mr. Rooker emphasized that the plan can be
amended, and suggested not waiting a year as there have been discussions of moving other projects over
and working with legislators to remove the penalty for shifting those funds elsewhere. This, of course, is if
the Board does not want to spend money on unpaved roads. The chances of finding another $10 million
in the next year to do Dickerson Road are zero. He thinks the Board should move forward and look at
how this money might be applied to other projects and understand the penalty part.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Board hasn’t voted on whether to pave roads in the rural areas, and
it seems a lot of roads have dropped off the list altogether, particularly with regards to rustic rural roads.
Mr. Dorrier said the rural areas of the County are the most likely to have unpaved roads, and the
people who live in these areas do not see that they are getting much for their dollars.
Mr. Allan Sumpter, VDoT Residency Administrator, explained that since funding sources have
dwindled, VDOT has been instructed to develop plans “with only projects that are considered viable
projects on the plan that can receive funding.” He stated that the timeframe for this is the six-year period
in which VDOT feels it can “reasonably move it from one phase to the other.”
Mr. Rooker added that it doesn’t prevent the County from maintaining a list of priority unpaved
road projects that is separate from the six-year plan.
Mr. Sumpter responded that Mr. Benish and staff have been handling it that way.
Mr. Boyd said that his constituents are concerned with their roads losing a place in the plan
entirely.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he would have trouble with putting funds on rural area road projects
when there are many urban infrastructure project needs, as the Comp Plan has prioritized urban
improvements.
Mr. Boyd said that decision has already been made, but if rural rustic roads get refunded, the
funds should be for rural roads.
Ms. Mallek said that the list is still being maintained.
Mr. Rooker said it is important to keep a County priority list, but let people know that no money is
being allocated by the State to that program today, but if it comes back, there is a priority.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board should keep the 2008 priority list and when money
becomes available again, people can return to that list. She has always been distressed that the County
has a six year road plan that leads people to think that something is going to be done in six years. She
added that the Secretary of Transportation has also commented that “that’s a sham” and she suggested
just using the 2008 county priority list.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 4)
Mr. Sumpter noted that only projects that are receiving active available funding are in the plan,
and he offered to assist in informing constituents.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board could get an interpretation by VDOT on the allocation issue. The
issue is whether previously allocated money would penalize the County if the unpaved road program starts
again in the future.
Mr. Sumpter replied that he did that internally with those in local assistance who provide
interpretation, and they ran it through the Attorney General’s office. It was established that the Code
stipulates any use of unpaved road monies on other roads would result in a reduction of $250,000 per lane
mile. It is not a VDOT policy; it is spelled right out in the Code.
Mr. Rooker said it would seem that Albemarle is not the only locality trapped in this situation.
Mr. Boyd commented that he would not want that to be “wide open” with funding moved from
construction to maintenance projects at VDOT’s whim.
Mr. Sumpter suggested that the Board talk with legislators about the support they might offer to
advocate for some flexibility in the Code. It would be speculative at very best to try to say what the
General Assembly might or might not do.
Ms. Mallek asked about the $7.7 million for Jarman’s Gap that has been “set aside” as noted on
the chart presented.
Mr. Sumpter explained that when that is added to revenue-sharing funds, there is a total of about
$11.2 million for the project; full funding is required by the time the project is completed in the year that it is
completed. He added that it appears at this time that VDOT will be able to fulfill the estimate of 2011-13.
The project is in Central Office right now for approval of right-of-way acquisition.
Ms. Mallek asked how much Georgetown Road is short.
Mr. Rooker said the project has not gone out to bid, so they do not know the final costs. Based on
estimates, he thinks the project is fully funded.
Mr. Sumpter summarized that there is nothing added to the plan from the previous year, with the
Meadow Creek Parkway as the top priority. Meadow Creek is in the plan because VDOT is still working to
accrue the funds; it will show in the plan until it is completed. Jarman’s Gap is the next priority; that is
where the majority of the $10.0 million in projected allocations is going because it is a federally funded
project. They are using a little of the TeleFee money to supplement Georgetown Road, but it is projected
to be fully funded. He noted that Advance Mills Bridge is fully funded. The Dry Bridge will follow with
bridge funds coming from the District’s Bridge Allocation Fund.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were funds for Phase II of Jarman’s Gap.
Mr. Sumpter responded that while engineering has been done for that, funds are not available,
and there is some question as to whether the community wanted the project built from the point of Grey
Rock on.
Ms. Mallek noted that Phase I will bring the road to W estern Avenue and modernize the
connection at Route 250 and I-64.
Mr. Sumpter reported that Dickerson Road is listed in the plan, as are Rural Rustic Roads – Old
Green Mountain Road (Route 722), which is near completion and W alnut Level, which has ongoing
construction now.
Ms. Thomas asked about the bridges along Dickerson Road.
Mr. Benish replied that they are currently under the Dickerson Road unpaved road project.
Ms. Mallek commented that if the weight limit could be reduced to eight tons on the small bridge
that would be a huge benefit.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there was information available on the next round of VDOT cuts.
Mr. Sumpter replied that he has not received any definitive word yet.
Ms. Thomas asked about the Fontaine/Sunset connector, noting that the University Real Estate
Foundation (UREF) and the Fontaine Research Park are coming to the County to request additional
development on that property. She said that her understanding was no further intensity of use would be
approved until a connector agreement and funding could be secured.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the University is being advised of that. There is some mention in
the Southern Area Study of additional development in relation to level of service on roads; however, they
are proceeding with rezoning projects that will come before the Commission and the Board.
Ms. Thomas reiterated that she felt it was pretty much an agreement that no further development
would happen without clarification for the connector.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 5)
Mr. Benish commented that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment identified the need for that road
to be established and the standard for the road system was that the roadway networks needed to function
at a level of service “D” or better as determined by VDOT prior to any additional development on the sites.
Mr. Boyd offered to raise the issue at the next PACC meeting later this month.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the University has resubmitted recently.
Mr. Rooker stated that at every PACC meeting where development in this area has been
discussed, it has included discussion of the need for proffers in order to continue development there. He
does not think it will be a surprise that the County will be looking for substantial contributions for that
purpose.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there would be an amendment to their zoning before there is any
further site development. He added that there has been a work session with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rooker noted that there has been a question of going over or under the railroad track, and the
most feasible way to accomplish that from a cost standpoint.
Mr. Cilimberg added that there has never been any analysis of that.
Mr. Benish added that part of the problem is the University only owns half of the land needed for
the roadway. That is going to be a problematic issue. The cost for the span and the feasibility to span the
railroad is problematic.
Mr. Tucker commented that the University is probably moving forward quickly to try to take
advantage of construction costs.
Mr. Rooker stated that the road should be built on their part of the property, so the question is
what contribution they should make to the bridge portion to the other property. He said that when this has
been brought up at PACC, it’s been made clear to staff that traffic analyses for these projects must be
combined. Mr. Rooker added that the Comp Plan was changed to include the re-development of the
adjoining property, and that has implied traffic impacts.
Mr. Benish also suggested putting Dickerson Road in as priority 23, so there is no promise of
moving down that list unless funding becomes available.
Board members concurred with Mr. Benish’s suggestion.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve the Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements as presented,
with the addition of a scheduled list of unpaved road project priorities, and to authorize the County
Executive to sign the VDoT Secondary System Construction Program for Albemarle County consistent
with the County’s Priority List. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker asked that the County Attorney’s office move forward with adding to the legislative
agenda a request to change the State Code to allow for the use of previously approved unpaved money to
be released and used for other projects without penalizing the locality, if the unpaved road program is
revitalized in the future.
Board members concurred.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2009-10 through 2014-15 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES (Projects 1 – 23) VDOT's County's Route Number/ Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Justification of Request Year Traffic Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost / Placed On Count/ Plan Ranking Date & Funding Source of Request Priority List Year_ Y 0 County wide County wide $299,400 signs,pipe,plant mix projects, raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting, etc safety, maintain function/staff, public req. Y 0 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program ** Designated for traffic calming projects through out the County that meet requirements and sidewalk improvements. Safety/Public Request, studies-plans Y 1 625 Hatton Ferry Hatton Ferry ** operation of ferry will be two days a week during the summer (Satruday and Sunday) Historic operation of ferry/staff Y 2 Meadow Creek Parkway Melbourne Rd to Rio Rd under constr. $30,162,877 two lane design approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR Capacity/ CHART 20,000-2006 Y 3 691 Jarmans Gap Road Rt 240 to Gray Rock Jan-11 $16,462,050 serve increased traffic and provide ped/bike access to Gray Rock subdivision Capacity,safety/Land Use Plan, CMP 2,700-2006 (CMP anticpates 4,500 in future) Y 4 656 Georgetown Road Rt 654 to Rt 743 Feb-11 $3,002,277 spot improvement, pedestrian access, urban cross-section, may be 3lane x-section at certain locations Capacity,safety/G'town Rd Plan, Public 17,000-2007 5 649 Proffit Road Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east improve alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk, the funding is only for preliminary engineering Capacity, safety/Land Use Plan 6,800-2007 6 781 Sunset Avenue Fontaine/Sunset Connector Improvements to Fontaine Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset Ave. Connector PACC, Area B Study,Capacity/LU Plan 2007, Connector portion added 4,600-2006 7 Berkmar Dr Ext. Bridge end of Berkmar Dr to HTC new parallel road in the Rt. 29 Corridor UnJam 2025 2006 23,500 8 631 Old Lynchburg Road 1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt.708 spot improvements at various locations to serve development in Southern DA/County Capacity/Land Use Plan 2,300-2007 9 Bridge Improvement Projects Various locations (See page 2) improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on County and VDOT priority varies 10 726 James River Road Route 795 to Route 1302 spot improvement to improve sight distance Safety/Scottsville 1,900-2006 11 Hillsdale Drive Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq. new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, to be constructed with urban funds Capacity/Hillsdale Drive Extension Study 12 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Road to 250/29 Byp widen, improve alignment ,moved down 2008 to coordinate with UVA Gateway project Capacity/Land Use Plan 6,900-2007 13 Southern Parkway Avon Str. to Fifth Str. Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speed Capacity/Southern City Study 15,000-2004 14 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Route 790 intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request 670-2007 15 Eastern Avenue Rt 240 to Rt 250 interconnect future neighborhoods str, proj. to include RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Capacity/Crozet Master Plan 4,100-2003* 16 631 Rio Road Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane Improve substandard intersection (may be funded in part with City/private developer funds) Safety/City 26,000-2007 17 643 Polo Grounds Road Route 29 to Route 649 Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request 1,300-2006 18 Main Street Crozet Avenue to Eastern Avenue new road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan, to be built with development of site Capacity/Crozet Master Plan 2003 3.600-2003* 19 743 Hydraulic Road Intersection with Rt. 29 (29H250) improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study 2003 18,000-2007 20 866 Greenbrier Drive Intersection with Rt. 29 (29H250) improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study Capacity,safety/29H250 Study 2003 8,200-2006 21 Eastern Connector Route 250 to Route 29 new road is currently being studied for an alignment Capacity/CHART 2006 Projects in bold are in the Development Area. **VDoT will add the estimated cost of these projects at a later time
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2009-10 through 2014-15 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES (Projects 1 – 23) VDOT's County's Route Number/ Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Justification of Request Year Traffic Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost / Placed On Count/ Plan Ranking Date & Funding Source of Request Priority List Year_ 22 702 Reservoir Road Fontaine Ave. Ext to Dead end paving and spot improvements, to be done as part of the reservoir reconstruction project Safety/Public Request 2003 2,000-2006 Y 23 606 Dickerson Road Rt 850 to Rt 1575 $11,608,274 Paving project, the two bridges associated with this project noted as 3 projects in VDOT’s Construction Plan Paving Proj, parallel to Rt 29 2008 960-2003 Projects in bold are in the Development Area. **VDoT will add the estimated cost of these projects at a later time
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS 2009-10 through 2014-15 BRIDGE PRIORITIES – IN PRIORITY ORDER Route Number Location Sufficiency Traffic Count Description/Comments Estimated Road Name From - To Rating* Cost ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Route 743, Advance Mill North Fork Rivanna River Closed 969 Under construction - Spring 2009 Estimated Cost, $3,715,368 Route 708, Dry Bridge Road Buckingham Branch Railroad 26 1128 High traffic count, EAD May -2013 Estimated Cost, $2,736,912 Route 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch 54.4 1479 High traffic count Route 677, Old Ballard Road Buckingham Branch 42.2 1267 High traffic count Route 637, Dick Woods Road Ivy Creek 36.1 1251 High traffic count Route 795, Presidents Road Hardware River 19.4 147 Low sufficiency rating Route 745, Wheeler Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 20.9 87 Route 641, Frays Mill Road Marsh Run 49.6 391 Route 649, Proffit Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 35.2 5094 Upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic count * The sufficiency rating utilized by VDOT to rate the bridge structure. Lower rating indicates the bridge is in need.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS 2009-10 through 2014-15 (APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARCH 12, 2008 – REAFFIRMED MAY 13, 2009.) RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PRIORITY Route Number, Location Funding Estimated Most Current Description/Comments Year Project Estimated Road Name From - To Status Cost Traffic Count/ Placed on Advertisement County Priority Regular/RRR Year of Count Priority List Date ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY FOR RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING IN PRIORITY RANKING 762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt 732 to Dead end Not funded $ 97,596 120-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 704 Fortune Ln Rt 715 to Dead end Not funded $142,443 130-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 672 Blufton Rd Rt 810 to Dead end Not funded $ 92,017 170-2006 School request in 2007. 2003 No date 608 Happy Creek Rd Rt 645 to Rt 646 Not funded $108,333 140-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 774 Bear Creek Rd NCL to Dead end Not funded 80-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 703 Pocket Lane Rt 715 to Dead end Not funded 110-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2005 No date 637 Dick Woods Rd Rt 691 to Rt 758 Not funded 110-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2005 No date 747 Preddy Creek Rd Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not funded 110-2006 School request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt 231 Not funded 80-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 769 Beam Rd Rt 1484 to Dead end Not funded 60-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date Unpaved roads with the daily traffic volume below are not eligible for VDOT paving improvements (regular or rural rustic roads). 637 Dick Woods Rd Rt 691 to Rt 692 20-2000 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 735 Mt Alto Rd Rt 602 to Rt 626 20-2000 School request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date RRR – Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program. Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase. The right-of-way for all unpaved road requests is undetermined until two or three years before estimated advertisement date.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS 2009-10 through 2014-15 (APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARCH 12, 2008 – REAFFIRMED MAY 13, 2009.) REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS (IN PRIORITY RANKING) Route Number, Location Funding Estimated Most Current Description/Comments Year Project Estimated Road Name From - To Status Cost Traffic Count/ Placed on Advertisement County Priority Regular/RRR Year of Count Priority List Date________ PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY FOR REGULAR PAVING IN PRIORITY RANKING 643 Rio Mills Rd Rt 29 to Rt 743 Not funded $ 3,218,665 650-2003 Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003 Dec-15 784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not funded $1,842,855 260-2006 School request in 2007. Public request as well. Aug-11 688 Midway Rd Rt 635 to Rt 824 Not funded $ 213,513 300-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 689 Pounding Creek Rd Rt 250 to Rt 635 Not funded 590-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 731 Keswick Dr Rt 744 to Rt 22 Not funded 310-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2005 No date 787 Gillums Ridge Rd Rt 682 to Rt 708 Not funded $1,427,288 290-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 674 Not funded 820-2006 School Transportation request. 2007 No date 685 Bunker Hill Rd Rt 616 to Dead end Not funded 310-2003 Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align & utility problems; will have to be reg paving project 784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Dead end Not funded 260-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2004 No date 720 Harris Creek Rd Rt 20 to Dead end Not funded 250-2006 Public request. 2007 No date 736 White Mountain Rd Rt 636 to Dead end (Sec btwn Rt 635&636 doesn’t meeting VDOT requirements) Not funded 230-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 731 Keswick Rd .60 ME Rt 744 to Rt 744 short rd seg btwn PO & KCC-may be eligible for RRF- Not funded 230-2003 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. Possible RRR 2004 No date 683 Shelton Mill Rd Rt 751 to Dead end Not funded 230-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2007 No date 712 North Garden Ln Rt 692 to Rt 29 Not funded 220-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt 713 to Rt 795 Not funded 220-2006 Public request . Ranking due to traffic count. No date 712 North Garden Ln Rt 29 to Rt 760 Not funded 220-2006 Project will be paved as part of Rt 712 from Rt 713 to Rt 795 No date 671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 749 Not funded 100-2006 School Transportation request. 2007 No date 829 Horseshoe Bend Rd Rt 601 to Dead end Not funded 210-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2004 No date 645 Magnolia Rd Rt 608 to Orange CL Not funded 190-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 637 Dick Woods Rd Rt 691 to Rt 635 Not funded 180-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2006 No date 674 Sugar Ridge Rd Rt 614 to Rt 673 Not funded 180-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 761 Briery Creek Rd Rt 622 to County line Not funded 160-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2005 No date 682 Broad Axe Rd Rt 637 to current paved sec Not funded 160-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 678 Decca Ln Rt 676 to Rt 614 Not funded 160-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 840 Gilbert Station Rd Ashlelgh Way Dr to pvd sect Not funded $1,500,000 120-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 856 Burton Ln Rt 711 to Dead end Not funded 120-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2007 No date 687 Shifflett Mill Rd Rt 601 to Rt 810 Not funded 45-2006 School Department request. 2007 No date 668 Fox Mountain Trail Rt 601 to Rt 810 Not funded 30-2006 School Department request. 2007 No date 605 Durrett Ridge Rd Rt 743 to Swift Run (incl bridge) Not funded 140-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 723 Sharon Rd Rt 6 to Rt 626 Not funded 130-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712 Not funded 130-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2004 No date 707 Blair Park Rd Rt 691 to Dead end Not funded 130-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 698 Hungrytown Rd Rt 633 to Dead end Not funded 90-2006 School Transportation request. 2006 No date 813 Starlight Rd Rt 712 to Dead end Not funded 80-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2004 No date 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles west to Rt 20 Not funded 80-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. No date 634 Spring Valley Rd Rt 633 to Rt 635 Not funded 80-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2007 No date 637 Dick Woods Rd Rt 151 to Nelson Co line Not funded 70-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2007 No date 721 Old Dominion Rd Rt 6 to Rt 630 Not funded 70-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2004 No date 776 Buck Mtn Ford Ln Rt 667 to Rt 664 Not funded 20-2006 Public request. Ranking due to traffic count. 2004 No date Projects in bold and italics are new on this year’s priority list. VDOT makes determination as to whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on this list until that determination is made.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 11)
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 12)
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 13)
_
___________
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 14)
Agenda Item No. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: STA-2008-0002. Fees. Amend Sec. 14-203, Fees, of
Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 14-
203 to impose new fees, to increase existing fees, and to change but not necessarily increase other fees
charged for almost all listed applications, permits, reviews, approvals, inspections and other services
provided by the County in the administration of Chapter 14. The following fees would be increased: (1)
preliminary plats reviewed by commission: (a) 1-9 lots: from $720 to $2200; (b) 10-19 lots: from $1100 to
$2200; (c) 20 or more lots: from $1330 to $2200; (2) preliminary plats reviewed by agent: (a) 1-9 lots: from
$360 to $1150; (b) 10-19 lots: from $550 to $1150; (c) 20 or more lots: $670 to $1150; (d) 2 lots under
section 14-232(B)(2) or lots fronting on existing public street: from $95 to $250; (3) final plats reviewed by
commission: (a) 1-9 lots: from $720 to $2100; (b) 10-19 lots: from $1100 to $2210; (c) 20 or more lots:
$1330 to $2340; (4) final plats reviewed by agent: (a) 1-9 lots: from $360 to $1000; (b) 10-19 lots: from
$550 to $1100; (c) 20 or more lots: $670 to $1230; (d) 2 lots under section 14-232(B)(2) or lots fronting on
existing public street: from $95 to $540; (5) reinstatement of preliminary or final plat review: from $65 to
$520; (6) plat for rural subdivision, family subdivision, resubdivision, or boundary line adjustment: from $95
to $690; (7) easement plats: from $95 to $490 if no deed, to $760 with a deed; (8) bonding inspection for a
plat: from $60 to $250; (9) groundwater assessment Tier 4: from $1000 to $1100; (10) waiver after
preliminary plat approved, before final plat approved: from $180 to $830; (11) waiver after final plat
approved: from $180 to $830; (12) relief from conditions imposed by commission prior to adoption of
chapter 14: from $180 to $390; (13) appeal of plat to board of supervisors: from $240 to $270; (14)
extension of plat approval: from $45 to $120; and (15) vacation of plat or portion thereof: from $170 to
$240. The following fees would be added: (1) each review of public road plans, including revisions after
approval: $250; (2) each review of private road plans, including revisions after approval: $400; (3)
authorization for one or more private streets within subdivision: $670; (4) waiver of one or more street
standards before preliminary plat approved: $540; (5) waiver of curb and/or gutter requirements before
preliminary plat approved: $540; (6) waiver of street interconnection requirements before preliminary plat
approved: $540; (7) final plat for subdivision without approved preliminary plat: applicable preliminary plat
fee plus applicable final plat fee; (8) inspection of street construction: actual county cost; (9) bond estimate
request for subdivision improvements: $250; (10) bonding inspection for bond reduction: $250; (11)
groundwater assessment Tier 1: $50; and (12) notices required by section 14-216 and 14-221: $200 for
first 50 and $1 for each notice beyond 50, plus applicable first class postage. The following fees would be
changed but not necessarily increased: (1) groundwater assessment Tier 2: from $250 plus $25 per lot to
$330; (2) groundwater assessment Tier 3: from $400 plus $25 per lot to $1010. The following fees would
be unchanged: (1) each filing of a preliminary plat for the same property: subject to the applicable fee; and
(2) condominium plats: $100. The proposed fees and fee increases are necessary to assure that the fees
cover a greater portion (approximately 50% for most fees) of the cost to the County to provide those
services than under current fees. The proposed fee increases are authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-
2241(9). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 2009.)
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, summarized the following executive
summary which was provided to Board members: At the December 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff
presented a Community Development Fee Study and a recommendation for a fee policy. Subsequent to
that study, staff proposed changes to the fees in the Building Regulations and W ater Protection
Ordinances, which were approved by the Board in August 2008. Staff then presented a recommendation
for Subdivision Ordinance fees to the Board in September 2008. The Board directed staff to present that
recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission to return a recommendation
to the Board. The Planning Commission held work sessions in October 2008 and January 2009. The
Planning Commission then held a public hearing on the text amendment in March 2009, resulting in a
recommendation to the Board for fees set at 75% of cost recovery, except for family subdivisions where
the fee was recommended at 50% of cost recovery. The Board held a work session on April 8th and
directed staff to advertise fees at 50% of cost recovery.
Staff has assumed it was not necessary to attach all of the previous executive summaries to this
report. For those interested in those materials, they are attached to the April 8th Executive Summary
available on-line.
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider adopting an ordinance to amend the fees in the
Subdivision Ordinance (Attachment A). This text amendment has undergone an extensive review
process. Staff has approached the fee recommendation based on earlier guidance from the Board that
focuses on balancing two considerations. Namely, fees should recover the County’s cost for assuring
compliance with ordinance requirements while maintaining reasonable consistency with the fees in other
localities.
W ith respect to the Subdivision Ordinance fees, the main point of consideration has been how
much of the review cost should be the responsibility of the applicant and how much should be the
responsibility of the County. Staff has recommended a 50% cost recovery recognizing much of the cost
is related to providing opportunities for public participation rather than the technical review of ordinance
requirements. Basically, staff is assuming the cost of public participation should remain with the County
while the applicant is responsible for the cost of technical review by County staff. Staff notes that this
approach provides reasonable consistency with fees in other localities, although there is a wide range in
fees among the localities.
Next, in finalizing this text amendment for adoption, staff has gone back and reviewed all of the
fees as well as considered comments and concerns that have been raised. Based on that analysis, staff
is recommending two changes to the advertised fees that reduce certain fees. This is further detailed in
Attachment B and summarized below:
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 15)
1. Under subsection 14-203(C), staff recognized that lumping a boundary line adjustment with
other reviews has skewed that fee. A boundary line adjustment is a simpler review than that
required for a subdivision that creates an additional lot. As a result of this analysis, staff
recommends splitting subsection 14-203(C) into two separate fees and recommends a fee of
$200 for a boundary line adjustment. This change is incorporated into Attachment A.
2. Under subsection 14-203(D), staff recognized that it reviews easement plats that are
occasionally required with a site plan and concluded that fees for such easement plats should
be separated from the fees for other easement plats. Staff recommends adding a third fee
class to subsection 14-203(D) for easement plats required with a site plan and recommends a
fee of $200 for that plat. This change is incorporated into Attachment A.
3. Staff notes a question was raised with respect to post-construction easement plats. As a
result of field changes during construction, it is often necessary for developers to obtain
easements before roads can be accepted into the state-maintained system. Those
easements are often across lots that that have already been sold. For convenience in dealing
with the new property owners, the developer will often create a separate easement plat for
each lot rather than have one easement plat for the entire easement. W hen multiple plats are
submitted together for review, staff has historically treated them as a single easement and
charged a single fee. The proposed text amendment has been revised in Attachment A to
expressly codify this longstanding practice.
Finally, staff notes there is a need to establish an effective date for the new and amended fees.
Staff normally recommends a minimum of 30 days from adoption to give time to publish notices and
assure that applicants are aware of the change. In this case, staff recommends the effective date be
established as July 1, 2009. Setting the effective date at the start of the fiscal year will simplify
administration of the fees.
The County currently collects approximately $145,000 from subdivision fees in an average year.
Under the attached draft text amendment, the revenue would increase to approximately $476,000,
increasing County revenues by approximately $331,000 in an average year. Due to the building
downturn, staff anticipates applications will be one-half of an average year for FY 09 -10. Assuming the
text amendment is adopted with the recommended July 1 effective date, staff anticipates a revenue
increase of approximately $90,000 in FY 09 -10.
No significant drop in the number of applications is anticipated as a result of the new and
increased fees. W hile the increase is significant in many circumstances, the fees remain very small in
comparison to the value of the subdivided property.
Mr. Graham added that a fourth line item was added in part D for easement plat amendments to
clarify that the modifications would be treated differently. Also, in the case of an easement that goes
across three separate plats it would be treated as one easement for the purpose of the fees.
Mr. Graham also said that staff recommends for future fees to be handled in the same way as
those in the W ater Protection Ordinance and Building Regulation Ordinance, with the two main items
being a biennial fee change to be considered using the merit pool as the basis for any future adjustment
– as 80 percent of review costs is associated with salaries. As ordinance amendments are brought forth,
he said, costs of services and fees that change with those amendments should be considered as well.
Mr. Graham said after conducting the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt STA-2009-
002, as provided to Board members today, with an effective date of July 1, 2009.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there have been any discussions about reduced fees with staff in the event
that labor costs are actually reduced.
Mr. Graham responded that the last line of the staff report addresses that, as the expectation is
that staff should consider the cost of the service at the time; a fee recommendation would be made at that
time.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would require an ordinance change if something becomes ministerial and is
no longer sent to the Commission.
Mr. Graham said that would require an ordinance change because the provision is in the
ordinance to allow it to be called to the Commission.
Mr. Davis pointed out that some of the fees distinguish what would be reviewed by the
Commission and those are substantially larger; and if they are no longer required to go there, that part of
the ordinance may not need to be amended.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jack Marshall addressed the Board, on behalf of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle
Population, stating that ASAP had hoped the Board would set the fees at 100 percent of cost recovery
with two exceptions - 50 percent for subdivisions that provide affordable housing, and for family
subdivisions. Subsidies should serve as an incentive for actions the community wants to encourage or to
help those who find it difficult to pay the full amount of a necessary fee. Subsidies should not shift costs to
taxpayers and away from those who benefit and can pay. New residential housing does not help everyone
in the community – the main beneficiaries are the ultimate homeowners, developers and others who make
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 16)
profits in building and furnishing these new houses. For most of those who live in the County, the
taxpayers, to whom the County proposes passing a portion of these fees, the impacts of most new
subdivisions are largely negative, with higher taxes for schools and roads. Mr. Marshall stated that ASAP
disagrees with the premise in the staff report that much of the cost is associated with public participation
not technical review, adding that the opportunity for public input should be considered differently for
projects that are in the public interest – such as libraries. A request for a subdivision is a special interest
initiative proposed by an entity hoping for private benefit. He noted that in the case of private
developments, the need for community oversight is created by the developer’s actions and the cost should
thus be their responsibility. W hen the long term vision was to encourage growth because everyone
believed that growth was good, it made sense for taxpayers to underwrite the cost of development just as
residents pick up the costs for schools and police protection. Residential development does not pay for
itself and continual replacement of open space with houses and businesses is not in this community’s best
long term interest. There is a change in the way the community views development. The goal is being
shifted away from constant growth and towards a strategy of sustainability. This adjustment should be
reflected in a change in our calculus regarding who pays for what. Mr. Marshall stated that the County
should not ask taxpayers to pay the developer’s fees. It is not fair, and it is not smart policy.
Mr. Neil W illiamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said this Board has never approved any
subdivision that did not support the realization of the Comp Plan that the community developed. Mr.
W illiamson said that he finds it “strange” that Albemarle is choosing this moment in time to increase fees.
He also stated that automatic fee accelerators – absent other management controls – hinder departmental
efficiencies, and Free Enterprise Forum suggests that the Board adopt a policy of a comprehensive review
of all fees every eight years to promote innovation and accountability within the department. The Free
Enterprise Forum feels believes that if an administrative review of a plat is available by Code, the applicant
should pay the “by-agent” fee, regardless of whether or not the plat is “called up” to the Planning
Commission, adding that escalation to Commission review is not to the benefit of the applicant and costs
the applicant a great deal of money to address the concerns and bring forward their team. He added that
this also fosters bad feelings between adjoining property owners and citizens when they learn that the
Commission has no latitude within the Code to make any changes. If Commission review is required as a
matter of Code or as a mutually agreed upon condition of rezoning, the full fee should be used and if it can
be approved administratively it should be billed administratively.
Mr. Roger Ray said he is a land surveyor and land planner that submits many plats for review that
the fees are paid on and in many cases they have increased several hundred percent. Mr. Ray thanked
the Board for not making the changes “so drastic” as the Commission recommended. He thanked Mr.
Fritz and Mr. Graham for considering separate fees for boundary line adjustments and easements.
Mr. Jay W iller, on behalf of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, said the BRHA appreciates
the lower fee assessment being considered but also feels there are pieces where the benefit is almost
entirely to the public that does not really add any benefit to the developer. Mr. W iller added that there are
some serious issues with the PFM report as far as the accuracy of the derivation of the fees and maybe
how they go forward in future review.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked how Mr. Graham arrived at the final figures for suggested fees.
Mr. Graham replied that the consultant – PFM – recommended the total cost, and the 50 percent
is staff’s judgment on how the cost should be split between the applicant and the community.
Referring to Section 14-203.B, Mr. Dorrier said the fees show review of “20 or more lots cost
$2,340”, and “one to nine lots cost $2100”, seems the cost should be more of a difference.
Mr. Graham said it seems so at first glance, but if you look into the issue, you find that the same
review has to be done and the same factors have to be considered, regardless of the number of lots. He
also said that it does not cost significantly more to review forty lots versus five lots, and if it goes before
the Planning Commission it costs about twice as much.
Mr. Rooker noted that there was significant review on the fee restructuring by the Planning
Commission, staff, and the consultant – as well as fee comparisons with other localities and the fact that
fees had not been changed since 1991. He said that what was decided to take to public hearing was a
compromise – with staff recommending 50 percent recovery and the Commission recommending 75
percent recovery with many in the development community wanting substantially lower fees. Mr. Rooker
noted that Albemarle’s process calls for more public input than most County processes, and there is some
public benefit to be derived from that approach, and embodied in the 50 percent approach was a provision
for annual adjustments. He thinks this is a good approach and he thinks the Board made a good decision
in what it took to public hearing. He suggested supporting the proposed ordinance amendment.
Ms. Mallek asked if the family subdivision provisions apply for multiple lots as well as one single
lot, as the driveway and surveying requirements might be different.
Mr. Graham responded that the plat review is essentially the same.
Ms. Mallek asked if staff have found for the various tiers of the groundwater fees have precipitated
multiple lot subdivisions.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 17)
Mr. Graham responded, “no”.
Ms. Mallek commented that having an item go to the Planning Commission actually provides a
good opportunity for the applicants to meet with neighbors, which reduces the likelihood of an item being
called up. She supports moving forward with the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Rooker commented that when he was on the Planning Commission and meetings were held
with neighbors before a plan was submitted, the chances of it getting called up were much reduced.
There are often changes made by the developer to accommodate comments made by the neighbors.
Mr. Boyd asked if the proposal includes a provision for ministerial increases in charges in line with
merit increases.
Mr. Graham replied that this is an ordinance amendment to be considered by the Commission
and the Board, with staff presenting it automatically every other year, with a recommended fee change.
Ms. Thomas commented that she received public input that they should not be paying for any of it,
but she is willing to support the 50 percent proposal.
Mr. Dorrier agreed.
Mr. Slutzky said that he sees the argument for the 50 percent level, and is comfortable moving
forward with the caveat that the building community is “teetering on the brink right now” and this should be
delayed by six months to a year with the expectation that few fees would be sacrificed. He is reluctant to
burden them just at this particular time.
Ms. Thomas asked if the budget was based on recouping these fees.
Mr. Tucker responded that the budget was based on that income for the remainder of the year.
Mr. Graham clarified that a $90,000 increase has been budgeted for the FY 2009-10 budget, with
a six-month delay meaning $45,000. He added that staff ran the numbers in early April and is fairly
confident in those numbers.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with Mr. Slutzky. It is a difficult time for a number of people and
especially the construction industry.
Ms. Thomas noted that $45,000 is salary for one employee, and people are hurting in a variety of
ways. She suggested the County go forward with the plan effective July 1, 2009; it is revenue the County
was counting on, revenue that the Board is not putting on people’s taxes.
Mr. Dorrier asked about a sliding scale approach, 25 percent per fiscal year quarter.
Mr. Tucker replied that this would mean an ordinance change every quarter.
Mr. Rooker said that if the idea was to delay this until mid-year, then the Board should have
considered other revenue sources during budget deliberations. He emphasized that the entire ordinance
is a compromise partially because of the building industry, and its merits argue in favor of moving forward.
Mr. Slutzky asked about considering a six month delay. He then asked how staff calculated the
$45,000.
Mr. Graham said he estimated a greatly decreased number of subdivisions being submitted in the
next year and calculated the fees based on that number. He explained that the County is getting about 25
subdivision applications per month – including easement plats – which is down from the mid-30s.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned that the budget was built on the presumption that these fees
would be put in place.
Mr. Slutzky added that the Board built its budget based on the expectation that revenues would
not decline further; the Board did not provide a rainy day fund for that purpose, and the budget was built
on the State continuing to fund it at their current level. In this situation, there is a direct impact on the
community, and he is inclined to give it a six month delay.
Mr. Boyd commented that the $45,000 does not bother him given its small size in the context of
the budget and possible surplus.
Mr. Rooker responded that State revenues have declined more than anticipated in the last month,
and this will obviously impact the County.
Mr. Boyd added that local retail sales tax figures were also disappointing.
Mr. Dorrier said that a six-month delay is not unreasonable, as it allows developers to
accommodate the changes in their plans.
Ms. Mallek said she will support the delay although there may likely be a flurry of activity just
before the change takes effect.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 18)
Mr. Graham said if this is postponed until January 1st, that is a lot of planning time being provided
to potential subdividers.
Mr. Tucker replied that he is more concerned about the numbers that might impact staff in terms
of review, but he does not foresee a major impact as they won’t all come in December.
Ms. Thomas suggested going with three months. There are some people thinking about this and
it gives those people a chance to finish up what they are doing.
Mr. Rooker said he could support an October 1 start date.
Ms. Mallek said she could also support October 1.
Mr. Dorrier agreed.
Mr. Rooker moved for adoption of ZTA-2009-004 with a change in the effective date to October 1,
2009. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 09-14(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II,
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14,
Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-203 Fees
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
14-203 Fees.
Each subdivider shall pay a fee upon the submittal of a plat or other application, based on the
schedule below; provided that neither the county nor the county school board shall be required to pay any fee
if it is the applicant. The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.”
A. Preliminary plat:
1. If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $2,200.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $2,200.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $2,200.00.
2. If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(2) or if all lots front
on an existing public street: $250.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $1,150.00.
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $1,150.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $1,150.00.
3. Reinstatement of review: $520.00.
4. Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the same
property has been filed previously: The applicable preliminary plat fee.
B. Final plat:
1. If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $2,100.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $2,210.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $2,340.00.
2. If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(2) or if all lots front
on an existing public street: $540.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $1,000.00.
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $1,230.00.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 19)
3. Final plat without an approved preliminary plat: The applicable preliminary plat fee
plus the applicable final plat fee.
4. Condominium plat: $100.00.
5. Reinstatement of review: $520.00.
C. Other subdivision plats:
1. Plat for a rural subdivision, family subdivision, or resubdivision: $690.00.
2. Plat for a boundary line adjustment: $200.00.
D. Easement plat or plats, per easement:
1. Easement plat(s) without a deed: $490.00.
2. Easement plat(s) with a deed: $760.00.
3. Easement plat(s) required with a site plan: $200.00
4. Easement plat(s) amending a previously approved easement plat(s): $200.00.
E. Streets:
1. Public road plans: $250.00 for each review of a submitted plan, including reviews
of revisions after plan approval.
2. Private road plans: $400.00 for each review of a submitted plan, including
reviews of revisions after plan approval.
3. Authorization for one or more private streets within a subdivision: $670.00.
4. W aiver of one or more street standards before approval of a preliminary plat:
$540.00.
5. W aiver of curb and/or gutter requirements before approval of a preliminary plat:
$540.00.
6. W aiver of street interconnection requirements before approval of a preliminary
plat: $540.00.
7. If required to construct a street, the subdivider shall pay to the county a fee equal
to the cost of the inspection of the construction of any such street. These fees
shall be paid prior to completion of all necessary inspections and shall be
deemed a part of the cost of construction of the street for purposes of section
14-435(B).
F. Bonds:
1. Bond estimate request for subdivision improvements: $250.00.
2. Bonding inspection for a plat or bond reduction: $250.00.
G. Groundwater assessment information required by section 14-308.1:
1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401: $50.00.
2. Tier 2 assessment under section 17-402: $330.00.
3. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $510.00.
4. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1,100.00.
H. Other matters subject to review:
1. W aiver of any requirement of this chapter for which a waiver is authorized after
approval of a preliminary plat and before approval of a final plat: $830.00.
2. W aiver of any requirement of this chapter for which a waiver is authorized after
approval of a final plat: $830.00.
3. Relief from plat conditions imposed by the commission prior to the date of
adoption of this chapter: $390.00.
4. Appeal of a plat decision to the board of supervisors: $270.00.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 20)
5. Extension of a plat approval: $120.00.
6. Vacation of a plat or part thereof: $240.00.
I. Notices as required by sections 14-216 and 14-221:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: $200.00 plus the actual
cost of first class postage.
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00 plus the
actual cost of first class postage.
(9-5-96, 12-11-91, 6-7-89, 4-17-85, 12-1-82, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988 Code, § 18-
43; Ord. 98-A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 99-14(1), 6-16-99; Ord. 02-14(2), 7-3-02; Ord. 04-14(1), adopted 12-8-04,
effective 2-8-05; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(1), 5-13-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
This ordinance shall be effective on and after October 1, 2009.
________________
Agenda Item No. 4a. Closed Meeting.
At 5:13 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Thomas that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (3) to consider to discuss the acquisition
of property necessary for a transportation improvement to Route 29; under subsection (7) to discuss with
legal counsel and staff specific matters requiring legal advice concerning obtaining legal opinions
regarding the Community W ater Supply Plan and related matters; and under subsection (1) to discuss
appointments to boards, commissions and committees. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 5. Call to Order. The Chairman, Mr. Slutzky, called the meeting back to order
at 6:07 p.m.
__________
Agenda Item No. 5a. Certify Closed Meeting.
Ms. Thomas immediately moved that the Board certified by recorded vote that to the best of each
Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed
session were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed session. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 7. Moment of Silence.
______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Recognitions:
Item No. 7.1. Monticello High School Students Senior Project – CAP – Aaron Horton.
Mr. Aaron Horton, a student at Monticello High School, said that he is representing a group of
students from his school who are participating in a Citizens Action Project (CAP), which requires students
to focus on an issue and research it. Mr. Horton reported that his group chose environmental protection
as their core issue. They have been doing some work with Senator Deeds. The point of the project was
that the students become informed and make an influence. From their research, they found that the issue
includes four main initiatives – energy dependence, education, reduction of greenhouse gases, and
economic development. The group thinks that with the bailout money the most important thing to consider
is education. He said that several bills have recently been signed that have granted localities permission
to start programs – such as Senate Bill 1212 giving localities the option to offer low-finance loans to
people for certain energy-efficient housing measures. Mr. Horton stated that people should be informed
about this, but it was clear from his group’s research that the public is largely unaware of this option. They
hope that part of the bailout money could go to educating the public of the packet of bills included in the
plan. He added that the group still has a couple of weeks left to work on their project, and if anyone has
any ideas, they would be interested. His email address is ahorton@embarqmail.com. He added that he is
representing a group of approximately seven students.
__________
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 21)
Item No. 7.2. DSS – AmeriCorps Volunteers.
Mr. Slutzky said on behalf of the Board of Supervisors he was very pleased to observe the third
annual AmeriCorps W eek by recognizing two AmeriCorps staffers who are currently working with the
County. AmeriCorps W eek provides an opportunity for AmeriCorps members, alums, grantees, program
partners, and friends to shine a spotlight on the work done by members in communities across the country
-- and to motivate more citizens to join AmeriCorps or volunteer in their communities.
Currently Albemarle County is sponsoring two AmeriCorps staff members working in partnership
with other community agencies. Ms. Reimi Okuyama serves as the coordinator of the 15-member
Thomas Jefferson Area Earned Income Tax Credit Coalition. The position is a partnership between
Albemarle County Department of Social Services and the United W ay-Thomas Jefferson Area with
funding also provided by the Charlottesville Department of Social Services, JABA and the Piedmont
Housing Alliance. In this position, Reimi has coordinated and provided support for free tax preparation
sites at the University of Virginia, Urban Vision, MACAA and the United W ay for local low income families.
Through Ms. Okuyama’s efforts and leadership, in 2009 the EITC Coalition:
• offered two new sites, at U.Va. and the United W ay
• completed 803 returns, an increase of 350 percent over 2008
• saved local low income residents over $160,000 in tax preparation fees
• helped workers receive $384,734 through the Earned Income Tax Credit, an increase of 300
percent over 2008.
• assisted residents to receive nearly $1 million in total tax refunds.
Ms. Okuyama personally filed 178 returns this year and provided advanced tax preparation for the
most difficult cases. She also coordinated an extensive outreach and publicity campaign for the Coalition.
Ms. Rachael Van Acker currently staffs the AmeriCorps Community Access Advantage position in
the Albemarle County Department of Social Services which is designed to serve adults who do not qualify
for mandated programs, such as Adult Protective Services. This year, the AmeriCorps position became a
vital component to meeting the increased demands of its citizens in the midst of a poor economy and job
loss.
Highlights of this position include:
• Direct service provided to eighty-one customers, including help obtaining financial assistance
and additional employment skills
• Successfully met specific requests for eye glasses, beds and mattresses
• Created an on-line resource library, Resources Now, and assisted another agency by creating
a shared resources website
In a typical example, Ms. Van Acker assisted a citizen who was injured and unable to work. W hile
this person was only receiving temporary disability, it was not enough to cover rent, food, and other living
expenses for herself or her adult child in college who also lived in the same apartment. Ms. Van Acker
was able to assist her with finding a community resource to pay the rent to prevent homelessness and
enable to son to continue attending college.
AmeriCorps provides opportunities for 75,000 Americans to give back in an intensive way to their
communities and country each year. The Board very much appreciate the contributions of these two
AmeriCorps workers here in our community providing critical outreach and support services to our citizens
in need. They are a very important resource particularly in a time when our own staff is severely
challenged to meet these pressing service needs. Ms. Okuyama and Ms. Van Acker are making a
difference every day in the lives of our residents, and for that we are very grateful.
Mr. Slutzky then asked Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Service, to come forward to say a
few words and introduce our AmeriCorps workers.
Ms. Ralston introduced John Nafziger from United W ay and Tricia Suszynski from the County
DSS, the day-to-day supervisors of the two workers. These two young women have been very energetic
and creative in their work. They are a tribute to the AmeriCorps program. W hat they have done for the
community would not have been done without them. She also thanked the partners for the EITC coalition,
as United W ay really stepped up to the plate with housing and training for Ms. Okuyama. Ms. Ralston
mentioned the cash match provided by community partners. She then presented a Certificate of
Appreciation and Albemarle County t-shirt to Ms. Van Acker.
Ms. Van Acker stated that it has been a privilege and an honor to work with Social Services and
serve in AmeriCorps, as well as a life-guiding experience that she will regard as an important marker in
her life that has shaped her plans for the future. She thanked the County for allowing her to be here and
be involved.
Ms. Ralston also presented a Certificate of Appreciation and t-shirt to Ms. Okuyama.
Ms. Okuyama thanked Ms. Ralston and Mr. Nafziger for their support and work with her. She said
that being an AmeriCorps volunteer is giving and meaningful as well as inspiring, and teaches a lot to
volunteers about themselves. She hopes the County can continue to support the AmeriCorps programs.
______________
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said on June 29, 2009, the High Growth Coalition will be holding a conference in
Culpeper. The agenda includes: alternative on-site septic systems; presentation from VDoT on the
secondary road acceptance requirements, cutbacks, and what that means for the services that VDoT
provide; and presentations from some legislators who have study committees that deal with growth issues.
She asked that Board members let either her or David Bailey know if they plan to attend.
Ms. Mallek commented that she also plans to attend.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that he met this morning with students from Monticello High School who are also in
the CAP program, and their particular project dealt with transportation. They could not be present at this
meeting but part of their project includes a proposal for additional transit and bus routes on Sunday. The
students rode the bus in the County and polled riders but were kicked off because they did not have
approval from City Council to do a survey on the public transit system. The students were able to get 50
responses to the survey. Mr. Boyd mentioned that the students asked those surveyed if the rate should
be raised from 75 cents to $1.00, but 69 percent of riders said they would not like to see the increase, five
5 percent said maybe, and 26 percent said yes. He noted that the students made the point that if you do
not put exact change in you do not get any money back. The survey also included a breakdown of prices
and whether the riders would like to see more routes. Mr. Boyd said he agreed to bring this forward to the
Board for their consideration in next year’s budget discussions.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the Board does not control CTS fares but would be happy to share
the information with CTS representatives at the next MPO meeting.
__________
Mr. Rooker reported that he and Mr. Slutzky had requested information about the ridership on
Route 5 since frequency had been expanded to include night service, and found that ridership has
increased from 93,000 to 147,000 over the same period the previous year; the night service component of
that is 15,500 riders during that timeframe.
Mr. Rooker also reported that he and Mr. Slutzky have the first reconvened meeting of their RTA
group tomorrow to establish a course of action for this point forward, as the funding component for the
RTA was not approved although the RTA itself was.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Six Year Secondary Road project fund for this year will include
about $1.6 million – compared with over $5 million six years ago, not considering a reduction for inflation.
He emphasized that it is questionable whether any primary road funds will be received, and the entire
VDOT construction plan has been virtually eliminated – including unpaved road funds, revenue-sharing,
and most maintenance budget funds (being reduced from $13 million to $7 million). Mr. Rooker
encouraged attendees to contact their legislators and express any concerns they may have about the
situation.
__________
Ms. Mallek announced that 10 County students have been designated as National Merit Scholars
– two from Monticello High School (Patricia Fernandez and Timothy Penanta), three from W estern
Albemarle (Joshua Duggan, W esley Swank, and W hitney W enger), and five from Albemarle High School
(Roger Fan, Caitlin Schuler, Cameron Hill, Valentina Mochnikova, and Amy Pugh). That is a tremendous
accomplishment for the students and recognition of the quality of the school system.
______________
Agenda Item No. 9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Tom Olivier, Conservation Chair of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, said that over the
objections of the Sierra Club, the Rivanna River Task Force report did not develop recommendations
regarding capacity-restoring dredging of the Reservoir. He said that in March, at a meeting to receive the
report from the SFRR Task Force, members of the Charlottesville City Council expressed the view that
more information on feasibility, costs, and benefits of dredging – including dredging for restoration of
water-storage capacity – were needed. Before the meeting ended, members of the Board agreed with the
proposal that the City would review an RFP for a dredging feasibility study developed in 2008 by the
RW SA and never issued; the City would amend the RFP and submit it to the Board and others for
consideration. He said that since then, the RW SA has developed a new draft request for proposals, that
the City has proposed amendments, and that the Board has not yet responded. Mr. Olivier indicated that
the next RW SA Board meeting is May 18th and the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club urges the Board to
pass a resolution tonight confirming their support for issuance of an RFP for a study of feasibility of
dredging the Reservoir – including dredging to restore water-storage capacity. He added that controversy
has surrounded dredging for over a year now, and this issue will be resolved in a fashion that serves the
public interest only if better information on dredging the Rivanna Reservoir is obtained.
__________
Mr. W ill Yancey addressed the Board on behalf of the owners of R. A. Yancey Lumber
Corporation, which is located at the intersection of I-64 and Route 250. Mr. Yancey said that on
September 2, 2008 he submitted a CPA to the County and the Board voted unanimously on December 3,
2008 to consider that request in conjunction with the previously scheduled five-year review of the Crozet
Master Plan. Since that time, they have met with interested parties in Crozet and throughout the County,
the Crozet Advisory Council and Crozet Community Association, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 23)
Southern Environmental Law Center, W estern Albemarle High School, the Department of Parks and
Recreation and the Albemarle County School Board, as well as neighboring landowners and stakeholders,
and have held two public open houses. Mr. Yancey said that they believe meeting with as many people as
possible serves a valuable public purpose. He stated that he recently received the timeline for the Crozet
Master Plan revision process and final reauthorization is not slated to come back to the Board until the fall
of 2010. He suggested that once specific focus areas – including the Yancey Mills Business Park
component of the plan – are done, the item come back to the Board for public hearing. He asked the
Board to consider moving up this component of the plan and do it a more timely fashion.
__________
Mr. Kevin Lynch said that more than five weeks ago, City Council sent the Board and the ACSA
Board a copy of the request for proposals for dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. He said that
the Authority discussed the RFP at its April 22nd meeting – which is available at
charlottesvilletomorrow.org. He said that “the behavior of the Service Authority at that meeting was an
affront to any decent person in this community and especially to County water rate-payers. Mr. Lynch
encouraged people to listen to the meeting and ask themselves if the Authority Board behavior was
productive and a typical representation of County rate-payers, and whether the attitudes are the true
nature of Albemarle County. He commented that it’s the “blatant obstructionist intent of the Board that is
most disturbing. He asked the Supervisors if they condone this obstruction and support further delay – or
if they will join the City and ask Rivanna to put the RFP out immediately. There is really no excuse for not
moving forward with the RFP.
__________
Ms. Betty Mooney said that she supports the request to go ahead and approve the draft RFP so it
can move forward, noting that City Council is waiting for the County’s response. The City clearly feels the
need for more information. She feels that all the City rate payers will bear the burden of this cost; while
many residents of the County will not. She hopes that the Board will move this RFP along for the good of
the whole community; the tone of this debate has probably gotten out of hand. Ms. Mooney added that the
City cannot move forward on any water plan until they have this information, and if there is a joint authority
this needs to be done cooperatively, adding that the information is wrong and it is flawed. She said that if
that cannot be done, then perhaps there should not be a joint authority. The Board then needs to think
about dealing with water and growth issues for the County differently. She urged the Board to get the RFP
out as quickly as possible.
__________
Mr. Francis Fife said he attended a meeting about year ago at which Gahagan & Bryant, experts
in dredging, stated they believed a dredging study could be performed for $275,000. At that time, Mr. Tom
Frederick, Executive Director of RSW A, mentioned a fund of $300,000 that could be used for that
purpose. Mr. Fife stated that he left that meeting assuming that by August of 2008 the RW SA would be
going out for bids and the study would proceed shortly thereafter, but after one year that has not
happened. He commented that it is difficult to explain to people what has happened, and the County
should ask the RW SA immediately to take the steps necessary to pursue the dredging study. He added
that a Supervisor told him directly that the RW SA would be dredging. He believes that this study is the
first step in a plan that could possibly lead to the saving of many millions of dollars. The people of the
County and City could benefit greatly.
__________
Ms. Collette Hall said she echoes comments made by former speakers regarding water supply
and dredging. She lives in the City and has no choice to drill for a well. She must also use the City’s
sewer system as she cannot put in a septic tank. Ms. Hall encouraged the Board to move expeditiously in
working with City Council to move this forward, as this has been going on for a year now.
__________
Mr. Rooker commented that the County has representatives on the RW SA who are prepared to
discuss this issue and vote on it at the next meeting.
Ms. Thomas said, since this Board appoints the ACSA Board members, she is very impressed
with how they are looking out after the rate-payers best interests in both short-term and long-term.
______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of Items 10.1 through 10.5 on the Consent Agenda, with the
exception of the minutes as noted, and to accept the remaining items as information. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. (Discussions on individual items are included with that item.)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
__________
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 24)
Item No. 10.1. Approval of Minutes: February 25, March 2, March 4 and March 5, 2009.
Ms. Mallek had read her minutes of February 25, 2009 and found them to be in order, with the
exception of some typographical errors.
Mr. Rooker had read his minutes of March 2, 2009 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Slutzky had read his minutes of March 4, 2009 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd asked that his minutes of March 5, 2009 be pulled and carried forward to the next
meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
__________
Item No. 10.2. Set public hearing for July 1, 2009 to consider proposed ordinance to amend
County Code Chapter 7 to revise regulations pertaining to noise and to change references to County
departments and officers.
The executive summary states that traditionally, noise has been regulated by ordinances based
on one or more of three approaches: (1) by prohibiting sounds that exceed prescribed sound levels,
measured in decibels, and monitored by using instruments (the County’s Zoning Ordinance regulates
noise generated by land uses under this approach); (2) by prohibiting noise levels that are unreasonable
and which are measured by determining whether the noise is a nuisance to a reasonable person (County
Code Chapter 7, Health and Safety, regulates noise under this approach); and (3) by prohibiting sound
levels that are audible from a specified distance or location, for a specified period, as determined by a
person with normal hearing.
The noise regulations under Chapter 7 regulate nuisance noises, including but not limited to noises
created from: (1) motor vehicles and motorcycles; (2) sounds from electronic devices such as radios,
televisions, musical instruments and sound amplification equipment generated from cars, private property
and places of public entertainment; and (3) sound generated near institutions such as schools, courts and
hospitals. Compliance with Chapter 7’s noise regulations is determined by the sound’s impact on the
recipient of that sound using standards such as “unreasonably loud, disturbing, raucous or unnecessary
noise” and noise “which unreasonably disturbs or annoys the quiet, comfort or repose of any person”
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “nuisance noise standards”). Chapter 7 also prohibits the
creation of sound which causes a 15 decibel (A-weighted average) increase in the sound level above the
ambient sound level.
The nuisance noise standards established in Chapter 7 are similar to standards utilized in noise
ordinances that have been adopted in approximately 73 other Virginia localities, including the Cities of
Virginia Beach and Richmond. Ordinances using nuisance noise standards similar to those in Chapter 7
also are common throughout the country and have been upheld in most states. On April 17, 2009,
however, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the City of Virginia Beach’s noise ordinance, holding that
the language in its regulations was unconstitutionally vague because it did not inform a person of ordinary
intelligence from knowing what conduct was permitted or prohibited and because the City’s nuisance noise
standards allowed subjective application. Because of the similarities between the language of the City of
Virginia Beach’s noise ordinance and the County’s noise regulations in Chapter 7, the Police Department
was immediately informed of the Virginia Supreme Court decision and advised not to charge any person
under Chapter 7’s noise regulations, except for sounds prohibited by exceeding the 15 decibel standard,
until Chapter 7 is amended. Other localities throughout Virginia with similar ordinances have reacted
similarly.
The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 7 and replace the nuisance noise standards with
objective standards that do not require sound levels to be measured by instruments but are instead based
on one or more of the following standards: (1) the duration of the sound; (2) the distance at which the
sound can be heard; and (3) the time of day during which the sound is being created. County staff has not
completed its research of the appropriate duration, distance, and time of day for the sounds prohibited in
sections 7-104 and 7-105, but the attached draft ordinance provides a framework as to how the regulations
would be amended. For example, music emanating from a parked car could be a violation of Chapter 7 if it
was audible from a distance of 100 feet for any duration. In the alternative, the applicable standard could
be further refined so that a sound would be prohibited if the sound was audible from a defined distance for
a specified time period. W ith this approach, the general nuisance noise standard in section 7-104 would
make some or all of the specific nuisance noise standards in section 7-105 unnecessary. Another issue
requiring additional research is establishing a reasonable standard for determining the audibility of noise
within a building, particularly a dwelling, generated from an outside sound source or an adjoining or nearby
dwelling. The attached draft proposes that audibility within an occupied structure would be based on the
structure’s doors and windows being closed, but further research is required.
The proposed ordinance also would amend Chapter 7 to revise the references to County
departments and officers so that they conform to current department names, officer titles and assignments
and make other necessary technical changes.
W hile the animal noise regulations in Chapter 4 are distinct from the Chapter 7 noise regulations,
the animal noise regulations use the same “reasonableness” language used in Chapter 7. The Police
Department has been advised not to charge any person under the animal noise regulations until Chapter 4
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 25)
is amended. Staff will be presenting an update on the County’s animal regulations in June, and a
discussion of the animal noise regulations will be part of that review.
Staff will complete its research and consult with other localities and then recommend specific
standards to be incorporated into this ordinance framework.
Staff recommends that the Board set a July 1, 2009 public hearing for the attached ordinance.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set a July 1, 2009 public hearing for the proposed
ordinance.
__________
Item No. 10.3. Set public hearing for June 3, 2009 to approve Telecommunications Tower Lease
on Buck’s Elbow Mountain.
The executive summary states that the County owns a 120-foot telecommunications tower and
tower site located on Buck’s Elbow Mountain. This tower hosts equipment used by the Charlottesville-
U.Va.-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center (“ECC”) as part of the regional 800 MHz.
public safety radio system. From 1996 to 2001, the County leased excess space on the tower, as well as
ground space for an equipment shelter, to Charlottesville Cellular Partnership, the local licensing entity for
U.S. Cellular Corporation. In July, 2001, the County renewed the lease for another five-year term that
ended in July, 2006. Since the expiration of the lease, U.S. Cellular has remained on-site and continued
to make payments according to the lease terms. Payments for FY 2007 and FY 2008 totaled $16,348.29.
After obtaining a fair market value study from RCC Consulting, a firm that the ECC has contracted
for various telecommunications matters, staff began negotiating a new lease in the spring of 2008. The
resulting lease, attached to this summary, has been accepted by U.S. Cellular. Virginia Code § 15.2-1800
requires the Board to hold a public hearing prior to approving a lease of this County property.
In the proposed lease, U.S. Cellular agrees to significant retroactive rent increases for FY 2007
and 2008, as well as significantly higher rental rates for the new, 5-year term of the lease. These
increases reflect the fair market values determined by RCC Consulting. See Attachment A, Section 7 –
Rent. For the first year of the new term (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009), U.S. Cellular will pay $24,189—a
roughly 296% increase in rent from the approximate annual rent of $8,174 for FY 2008. In addition, U.S.
Cellular will pay the difference between the new rental rate and the rate paid in years 2006 and 2007 as
retroactive rent. W ithin ten days of lease execution, U.S. Cellular will pay both the retroactive rent
increases and Year 1 rent for a total of $54,124.71. During the 5-year term, rent will increase by 3% each
year. Following this initial term, the parties may extend the lease for up to two renewal terms of five years
each. Rental rates for these renewal terms will be negotiated based on then prevailing fair market values
for the tower space.
In addition to the $54,124.71 payment for the retroactive increase and Year 1 of the lease, the
following payments will be made in subsequent years of the 5-year term:
Year 2: $24,915
Year 3: $25,662
Year 4: $26,432
Year 5: $27,225
Should U.S. Cellular choose to locate an additional 10 foot microwave dish on the tower, the
above annual rents will increase by the following amounts:
Year 2: $8912
Year 3: $9179
Year 4: $9454
Year 5: $9738
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for June 3, 2009 to consider the attached
lease proposal in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-1800.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said this is a tower the County owns. She added that although it is
important for the County’s radio communication, it is very ugly and sticks out. If this were a private tower
there would be a stipulation that the tower be taken down when it is no longer being used for its primary
purpose. She asked if the County has that understanding with itself and asked for assurance that it would
be taken down when emergency services are no longer dependent on it, and not be enticed by the fact
that the County could get $35,000 a year from U.S. Cellular to keep it there.
Mr. Slutzky commented that there has not been good coverage in the western part of the County,
and asked if it had been discussed with U.S. Cellular the possibility of sharing the tower with other cell
companies.
Mr. Tucker responded that he does not think there have been any requests for sharing that tower.
He added that the County’s policy is to encourage collocation on that tower, if a request was made by
another company in that area.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Forestry emergency generator has been moved to this location.
Mr. Tucker said he would have to check on that.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 26)
Mr. Rooker said that it is fairly common in leases for a portion of the tower lease to the second or
third collocator to come to the owner of the ground, so it might be wise to include a provision in this that a
percentage of that additional revenue would go to the lease owner – in this case, the County.
Mr. Davis said he would look at that issue.
Mr. Slutzky asked if another company could come to the County directly or if they have to get
permission from U.S. Cellular.
Mr. Davis responded that, assuming there is space on the tower and it did not conflict with the
lease rights, they would come to the County. It is not an exclusive lease.
Mr. Rooker said his concern is if it is a Tier I application, it would not come to this Board, and it
could get approved as a collocation without any revenue sharing. He would prefer that something be put
in the lease that says if collocation on the tower is approved.
Mr. Davis said a cell phone company cannot put up any more antennas without an additional
lease arrangement with the County. Any assignment of a lease must be approved by the County.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing for June 3, 2009 to consider
the proposed lease proposal in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-1800.
__________
Item No. 10.4. Resolution to Recognize Albemarle County’s Volunteer Fire and Emergency
Rescue Agencies Pursuant to the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act.
The executive summary states that the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (“PSOB”) Act of 1976, 42
U.S.C. §§3796, et seq., provides one-time monetary benefits to the eligible survivors of public safety
officers whose deaths result directly from traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty, or from certain
cardiac conditions. The PSOB Act also provides disability benefits for public safety officers who have
been permanently and totally disabled by a catastrophic injury sustained in the line of duty, if that injury
permanently prevents the officer from performing any gainful work. The United States Department of
Justice administers all benefits granted under the Act.
As defined by the Act, a qualifying “public safety officer” is an individual “serving a public agency in
an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law enforcement officer, as a firefighter, as a
chaplain, or as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew.” 42 U.S.C. §3796b(9). Before deeming
the individuals who serve volunteer fire or emergency rescue agencies “public safety officers,” the
Department of Justice requires local governments to affirm that those organizations are legally organized
and authorized to provide fire and emergency rescue services. The Board may accomplish this by
adopting the attached Resolution. The Board does not need to take any action regarding career staff or
County volunteers at the Hollymead and Monticello stations because they already qualify as “public safety
officers” under the Act.
After receiving information about the PSOB Act, the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory
Board (“ACFRAB”) voted at its March 25, 2009 meeting to request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a
resolution recognizing the fire and emergency rescue agencies for purposes of receiving benefits under
the Act. The County Attorney’s Office has prepared a single resolution recognizing all of the County’s
volunteer fire/rescue organizations for the Board’s review and adoption.
The adoption of this Resolution has no budgetary impact on the County.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE ALBEMARLE COUNTY’S VOLUNTEER
FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESCUE AGENCIES PURSUANT TO
THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS’ BENEFITS ACT
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes the invaluable services provided by the County’s seven volunteer
fire agencies and three volunteer emergency rescue squads to the citizens of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Board seeks to ensure that the men and women who volunteer their services through
these agencies, and their families, are eligible for benefits under The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits (“PSOB”)
Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §§3796, et seq., should death or disability occur in the line of duty; and
WHEREAS, the PSOB Act requires that elected officials of the locality served by volunteer fire and
emergency rescue agencies formally acknowledge the legal organization and service of its volunteer agencies
prior to the receipt of any benefits under the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following organizations are hereby recognized to be
legally organized and authorized by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to act on behalf of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia to provide fire services, as their primary functions, to the community of Albemarle
County: Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Company, North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Seminole Trail
Volunteer Fire Department, and Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company; and
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 27)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following organizations are hereby recognized to be legally
organized and authorized by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to act on behalf of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia to provide emergency rescue squad services, as their primary functions, to the community
of Albemarle County: Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, and
W estern Albemarle Rescue Squad.
__________
Item No. 10.5. Resolution to Support Georgetown Road Improvements.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT GEORGETOWN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Georgetown Road (Route 656) corridor is well developed with an existing high-
volume mix of pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle and bus traffic; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, the Charlottesville-Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPC) have recognized the need for improvements to this
corridors for bicyclists and pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, VDoT held a Design Public Hearing to solicit input on the proposed improvements for
consideration of the preliminary design for proposed pedestrian facility improvements on Georgetown Road
(Project: #0656-002-254,PE101, RW 201, C501) (Federal Project #STP-002 – UPC 12982), located in
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, 24 respondents commented at or following the Public Hearing held on March 24, 2009;
and
WHEREAS, 88 percent of respondents support the project; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the options and considering all aspects of the proposed project, VDoT
recommends approval of the project design as presented at the public hearing to provide safer pedestrian
facilities between two major roadways, Barracks Road and Hydraulic Road; and
WHEREAS, the project will include replacing the existing sidewalk with a five foot wide concrete
sidewalk, and the construction of three mid-block pedestrian crossings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does
hereby support the improvements to Georgetown Road as proposed by the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
__________
Item No. 10.6. Copy of 2009 First Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the
Community Development Department, was received for information.
The report states that during the first quarter of 2009, 58 building permits were issued for 58
dwelling units. There were no permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks. There were no permits
issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
__________
Item No. 10.7. Copy of 2009 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Community
Development Department, was received for information.
The report states that during the first quarter of 2009, 94 certificates of occupancy were issued for
104 dwelling units. There were 23 certificates of occupancy issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at
an exchange rate of $2,500 for a total of $57,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the
conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
______________
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2008-029. South Plains Presbyterian
Church.
PROPOSED: Addition of new fellowship hall and sanctuary to existing church.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots);
EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access.
SECTION: 10.2.2.35, 35, church building and adjunct cemetery.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 410 Black Cat Road, at the intersection of Black Cat Road (Route 616) and Louisa
Road (Route 22).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 80 Parcel 116.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27 and May 4, 2009.)
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 28)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this application is to add a fellowship hall and new sanctuary for the
South Plains Presbyterian Church, which is located at the corner of Louisa Road, Black Cat Road, and
Routes 22 and 616. He presented an aerial that depicts the property, noting the particulars of what is
being proposed – the location of the fellowship hall, planned for Phase I, which is not planned to be
connected to the existing chapel; the sanctuary, planned for Phase II; a stream that runs through the
property; and an open area that would include more formalized parking established in association with the
church. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there would be four trees removed as part of the plans for the fellowship
hall, and other trees would need to be removed for the new sanctuary and parking area.
Referring to the photographs, Ms. Thomas asked if the largest tree between the existing building
and main highway is not going to be removed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct.
Mr. Cilimberg then provided a rendering of what the finished site will look like. He indicated that
there are no significant physical limitations that would prevent the expansion. Staff’s main concern had to
do with the potential impact on the historic character of the church and site as well as its relationship to the
Entrance Corridor; including location of buildings, new buildings are more prominent than the historic
church; character of parking area; and provision of additional landscaping. He said that staff’s
recommendation to the Planning Commission did not include the plan itself as a condition, but rather have
the plan determined through the site plan process with the ARB’s review and not limit how the ARB might
propose buildings and parking be located. Mr. Cilimberg stated that in their conditions, staff did
recommend the footprint areas, the maximum parking area setbacks, and a condition for the planting of
the open area show on the photographs and plans.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission recommended including the plan as part of their conditions.
The Commission felt the ARB’s review be about the more particular things that result from the plan rathr
than having discretion over how buildings and parking are located. He noted that staff has suggested
some additional language in the conditions that further clarifies how that plan would be used – including
referencing the actual page that the conceptual site plan is, and the page that references preservation of
existing trees as shown on the tree survey. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff included a sentence that says
plantings that occur between the parking lots shown on the conceptual plan and Routes 22 and 616 would
be provided as required by the ARB as part of site plan approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the remainder of the
conditions is as recommended by staff with the exception of condition #5, which was not recommended by
the Commission.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain why the Planning Commission omitted condition #5:
“Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this use.
Plantings for screening of the church facilities, to consist of a naturalistic pattern of multi-species trees and
shrubs, as listed in the brochure titled “Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping:
Piedmont Plateau,” published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, are to fill the
open area shown on Attachment C of the staff report . These plantings are to be arranged in a density that
would mitigate views of the new church facilities, with a spacing allowing the natural form/habit of the plant
material to be recognized.”
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Commission did not feel that the condition would necessarily
accomplish much in terms of the relationship of the church property to the adjacent property in providing
screening, but their decision was not unanimous. A majority of the Commissioners felt that area may be
utilized in other ways by the church.
Mr. Davis noted that the expansion will require a certificate of approval before final site plan
approval from the ARB.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that he met with church officials and neighbors today and they came to an
agreement. He commended them and staff for their cooperative efforts. He said that the one final point
had to do with the screening, and they just in the last hour came to an agreement on what would be
planted there. Mr. Boyd stated that the neighbors have agreed to allow the trees to be planted on their
property, with the church paying for them, subject to a private agreement between them. This agreement
could take the place of condition #5.
Ms. Mallek asked if this agreement could be part of the approved conditions that allow this to go
forward.
Mr. Davis said that a landscape plan that meets the planting requirements could be included as a
condition of final site plan approval, and how they work out the private agreement would be an issue
between the property owners and would not have to be conditioned.
Ms. Thomas asked if a provision could be made that it be pervious surface where the parking is, if
not the roadway, noting that a neighboring church just has gravel.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the ordinance has standards for parking in a separate section, so
however both the travel way and parking is addressed by the applicant, the ultimate development would
be based on approval by the County Engineer in accordance with the ordinance.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the parking lot would have to meet ordinance requirements when the
expansion is made. It is his understanding that the ordinance would require a hard surface, and may not
allow a gravel parking lot.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 29)
Ms. Thomas said it seems that is something that should be reconsidered if the ordinance requires
permanent impervious pavement out in a rural church.
Mr. Cilimberg said, to the extent it can be done in the ordinance, it will be approved by the County
Engineer.
Ms. Thomas added that she would like to see the ordinance changed.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to know which trees are being removed and which trees are
staying.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bill Atwood, the Project Architect and representing South Plains Church, addressed the
Board. He mentioned that he has built a replica of this church in Japan as part of a village representing
the continuity of good friendship between Japan and America. This is the postcard for Keswick. There is
a lot of responsibility for this building in the neighborhood. Mr. Atwood explained that his project team
sees the South Plains Church as three parts – the 190 year-old sanctuary, the adjacent cemetery, and the
great white oak tree that “guards both.” He said that they did an independent canopy study by Roger Ray,
and the two largest trees are the one behind the sanctuary and the one behind the manse – and they are
critical to the form of the plan as it made them make major adjustments. The site itself has an 18,000
square foot gravel parking lot, the sanctuary, the manse, and a 27,000 square foot cemetery along with a
small stretch of critical slope. Two-thirds of the site is covered with something that they are trying to work
around. He said that their first schematic four years ago showed the fellowship hall – Kirk Hall – placed
adjacent to the sanctuary, and it became apparent that that would encroach on one of the large trees; the
bigger problem with that scheme was it had a major negative impact on the view shed outside the
windows, which are only 32 inches off of the floor.
Mr. Atwood explained that they came back with a solution that kept the paved area by the road as
it is and put the parking in the rear of the property behind the sanctuary. He said that they held a town hall
meeting that included the neighbors, and came up with another solution that attempted to create a more
sensitive relationship with the bordering tracts – including a buffer – but still a lot of damage to trees,
particularly the two large ones. Mr. Atwood stated that the architectural piece discussed at the town hall
meeting was positively received, and the front of the church was turned away from Route 22 with the trellis
work going in front of the church but never touching it. At the end of that third scheme, he said, they found
they could not go to the back of the property without killing the two large trees. Mr. Atwood said that they
visited many churches to do a parking study, finding that most congregations were parking right on the
grass in front of the church. He noted that they submitted the grass-paved area as open space but that
was rejected by staff, so now they have agreed to a pervious surface that was acceptable to the County.
All the trees from the manse back towards the Rintels are saved and untouched. Mr. Atwood also added
that they plan to save the one red oak that is just forward to the entry of the sanctuary. They are losing the
two trees on the grass-paved area and the tree along the critical slope. Mr. Atwood indicated that the
village of forms of their proposed expansion actually enhances the site, and no building will rise above the
existing ridgeline. He said that they have worked as a church and a community to protect the character of
the area. He asked for support of their application.
Ms. Marian Thompson said she would like the Board to look into the past, as it is important when
considering the future. Ms. Thompson said that she has been associated with South Plains for 30 years,
and a member of the church for 23 years; her husband served as a Supply Pastor for South Plains and
both of them were on the staff of Miller School. She mentioned that she was asked in 1994 to write the
history of the church for their 175th anniversary, and found that the church was organized in 1819 in
W alker’s Chapel – which is now Grace Episcopal Church in Cismont – and there were three men who
were leaders in this church: Farmer John Rogers, Thornton Rogers, and John Kelly (a Charlottesville
merchant). Ms. Thompson said that Thornton Rogers built the little new church with the manse built later;
the property was not a part of South Plains’ property until 1871. The purpose of South Plains was to
enrich the worship and study opportunities for the people in the Keswick area; and that mission remains
the same. She encouraged the Board to support the expansion, as Kirk Hall will solve their problems for
space.
Mr. David Garth said he is the Pastor of the South Plains Church. He found the church as he and
his wife were passing by on their way home from a wedding. Mr. Garth said that the church members
have been highly enthusiastic, and since 1980 South Plains has increased its congregation as well as its
outreach activities in the community and across the nation. He commented that the church will never be a
“massive church” on the five-acre site, and there are not adequate facilities for young people or the
elderly. Mr. Garth said that the entire area on the corner of Black Cat and Louisa Road is going to be
substantially enhanced by the building of Kirk Hall. He asked for the Board’s support and approval.
Mr. Travis Taylor said he is a member of South Plains. He and his family live in the Boyd Tavern
area. He urged the Board to approve this plan as it is entirely keeping with the historic nature of the
community.
Mr. David Horvac said he and his wife have lived in the area for 16 years. Mr. Horvac said that
the manse of this church was built in the early 20th Century, and it was never intended for anything other
than a home for the minister – yet it is used for everything else the church needs now including classes,
meetings, storage, choir practice, etc. It is severely limited and the rooms are very small. They need a
place to get together.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 30)
Mr. Ed Lee said he is a resident of the Keswick area and member of South Plains Church. He
commented that statistics show that children who have experience with religious education have lesser
problems with the law or the mental health system than those who have not had this benefit. Kirk Hall will
be good for the future of Albemarle County – both for the well-being of families and for the potential
reduction in tax burden of overloaded children’s service facilities and agencies. He said that South Plains
has a small congregation that has waxed and waned over the decades, but is now growing and adding
young families whose children can benefit greatly.
Mr. W illiam Orr said that he has lived close to South Plains for the last 40 years, attending the
church for the last 20. Mr. Orr said that the church has been a source of support and strength for his
family, and three years ago his 26 year-old son was buried in the church cemetery. In the 190 years of
South Plain’s existence, it has never had a bathroom. He indicated that the bathroom in the manse is
unisex and is not handicap-accessible. As an urologist he spent a lot of time worrying about whether
people can go to the bathroom. He would imagine that in those 190 years there have been a great number
of people who sat in the church in a great deal of pain before they were able to go to the bathroom. He
asked the Board to approve their request to build a fellowship hall, Sunday School rooms, minister’s office
and bathroom facilities, as approved by the Commission.
Ms. Mary Howard said she is a retired federal employee and she lives at W estminster Canterbury
of the Blue Ridge. She has been a church member since 1987. South Plains is only about five minutes
away from W estminster. She stated that South Plains needs meeting space and restrooms that are on
the same level as the present sanctuary. At least half of church members are 65 or older – and those who
walk with canes and walkers have a difficult time navigating the sidewalk to the manse and the stairs once
they get there. Ms. Howard said that many in the congregation would like to see Kirk Hall become a reality
while they’re still here to enjoy it.
Mr. Frank Kiplinger said he has been a church member for 15 years. Mr. Kiplinger said that his
family too suffered a loss and received comfort and support from South Plains. He mentioned that the
pervious surface being recommended is similar to that at Montpelier, and the proposed landscaping
addresses the concerns of the neighbors. The landscaping is very inspirational. He asked the Board to
support the proposal as approved by the Commission.
Mr. Carl Buck said that he and his wife have lived in Albemarle for the last 20 years. For the past
11 years they have lived in the Boyd Tavern area. There is a fine balance between honoring the history of
a particular structure and maintaining relevance within today’s society for modern conveniences. They
have two sons and chose South Plains as a place of worship because they enjoy the congregation,
ministry and the historic nature of the essence of the little church. In their time with the church, South
Plains have been working hard to adapt its structures for families with children. Their yearning is to make
sure they are developing a structure and history of the church to allow the youth to be able to step in, learn
the word of Christ and move forward.
Mr. Jeff Buck said that Kirk Hall is important for the church’s expansion. He noted that he is in a
youth group with South Plains and other churches, and the meetings have to be held at Grace Episcopal
because South Plains does not have the space. Mr. Buck added that there is limited space for Sunday
School classes as well. The purpose of the manse was not for meeting or storage, it was supposed to be
a house.
Mr. Chad W einer said he and his family have been members of South Plains for four years. Mr.
W iener said that staff had advised the Commission to approve the permit subject to a landscaping plan
and fill the southeast portion of the property with a buffer of trees and shrubs. He explained that the
Commission decided against this recommendation, deciding that planting trees in an open grassy field
would not provide a buffer or screen for neighboring properties. The open field lies at the back of the
property at a low point and even large trees would not be tall enough to screen the view of the neighbors.
The Commissioners also determined that the current line of hardwood trees at the rear of the property
currently provide a viable buffer. Mr. W einer commented that any landscaping plan at the back that
included a dense line of evergreens would actually detract from the natural beauty of the site, and the best
way to keep the property “natural and rural” would be to leave the current tree line as it is. He said that the
Commission also established that planting hardwood trees in the grassy field would “impose significant
costs” on the church and would limit their ability to use the property for outdoor activities. Also,
Commissioner Edgerton noted that if the neighbors wanted an evergreen screen to block their view of the
church, they could plant those trees on their property at their leisure. Mr. W einer asked the Board to
affirm the Commission’s recommendations, not include a landscaping condition as part of the approval
and to approve the special use permit.
Mr. Jay Kronister said he and his wife have been members of the church since 1994 and he is a
church elder and chair of long range planning. Mr. Kronister stated that the plans before the Board
represent many years of planning, fundraising, and careful work by the congregation and Mr. Bill Atwood.
He said that in 2007 the congregation endorsed a long-range plan that included Kirk Hall, and shortly
thereafter they raised the funds to build it. Mr. Kronister stated that the church does not intend to become
large, but wants to maintain their facilities, support the congregation, and serve the community. He added
that the plans recognize potential future growth of the congregation and the need for a larger sanctuary.
As a congregation they have tried to be sensitive to the historic sanctuary in which they take a great deal
of pride and spend a lot of time maintaining. The historic sanctuary will continue to be the focal point of
the ministry of the church. Mr. Kronister noted that when the property was deeded to the church on June
15, 1871, it was with the specific intent that the property was given “in trust for the use and benefit of a
religious congregation usually worshipping on said premises in connection with the Presbyterian church.”
They are requesting the Board’s approval of the plans before them tonight.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 31)
Mr. Ken Edwards said he is Pastor of nearby Union Grove Church, in Keswick. His church
supports South Plains’ plans because of the contribution Kirk Hall will make for the community and will
provide for the community. They have been fellowshipping with South Plains for about nine years and
they have vacation bible school for the youth in the community once a year. They encourage the Board to
approve these plans. Kirk Hall will be an asset to the surrounding community and area.
Mr. Peter Hallock said he is a neighbor from across the road; been living there for about 60 years.
The County is entrusted with a final plan that addresses both roadways and landscaping for the site. The
landscaping does not have to be huge but it would soften the view. He also said that the parking lot
should be paved in situations like this without asphalt so that it does not dump a lot of rainwater into their
country creeks.
Mr. John Rintels, the adjacent landowner to South Plains, said he is “thrilled” with the plan for
landscaping in the rear of the site. They have the utmost respect for the members of the church and their
issue has always been to balance the interest of their rural property with the church’s non-rural use. Mr.
Rintels said that the agreement they have arrived at works in a lot of ways because it does not take away
the use of the open space, but it does screen his property from the use. The green arborvitae can grow
up to 50 feet and will enhance the screening of a distance, particularly in the winter. He asked if the
screening would be conditioned in the plan and enforceable, adding that he wants to make sure it is
maintained. Mr. Rintels also said that he understood that the existing tree screen would be protected, but
the staff edited the Commission’s stipulation for this and added some verbiage to that condition. He
believes it was part of their agreement that the existing tree buffer in the back be preserved, and that
should be an explicit condition. He commented that there is “good will on both sides” and feels confident
that any details can be resolved.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the specific pavers to be used would need to be approved by the County
Engineer during site plan review to ensure the materials are appropriate, and that is mentioned in the staff
report. He added that language was included to ensure that the plan showed the wooded area as
remaining, and that it specifies exactly which trees would be removed. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the trees
to be removed, and indicated that if the Board wants assurance of maintenance there would need to be
another condition. It seems to him that if the plan before the Board tonight is referenced in the conditions,
the trees that can be removed have been identified.
Ms. Thomas asked what would happen if heavy equipment running over the roots would kill them.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that that would be a violation of the special use permit.
Mr. Davis noted that they would have to be replaced with suitable replacement trees.
Ms. Mallek said the Board has learned a lot about how to protect trees during construction by
fencing off all the way to the drip edge and not allowing parking of vehicles under it. Since those large
trees cannot be replaced she hopes that a condition can be included to insure that kind of treatment so
there are other places they can park their trucks and equipment.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the proposed language is very similar to what is used for cell
towers, and includes the conservation plan that is used before building permits are issued and must be
followed during development of the site.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that a provision be added for the building permit itself that the builder signs
to protect the trees.
Mr. Rooker asked if that condition would be acceptable to the church.
Mr. Atwood replied that the work of a certified arborist protects both sides.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the comments tonight were very eloquent and he found the history
very interesting. He stated that the proposal is not for a mega-church, but for an expansion of a facility
that will fit into the rural character of the community and is needed in order for the church to continue to
grow and contribute to the community as they have in the past. Mr. Rooker said that the plan is sensitive
both to the history of the property and the environment. He thinks the church has done a terrific job of
balancing all of the various features of this site in the interest of their neighbors and he applauds them for
the way they have approached this. He added that the only remaining issue seems to be the incorporation
of a condition regarding the buffer area.
Mr. Davis stated that the tenth condition added would be for the tree conservation plan, and an
eleventh condition to capture the agreement would state: “Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be
required before approval of the final site plan for this use. The landscape plan shall provide a planting of
trees along the Rintel property, with the following requirements: 1) the plantings will be evergreen trees
five to six feet tall planted a minimum of eight feet on center or spacing distance as recommended by the
American Nurserymen’s Association; 2) the tree choices are arborvitae or trees of comparable value; and
3) the trees will run along the property line and will be planted on the Rintel’s property provided that the
property owner agrees to permit the landscaping to be planted and maintained on that property.”
Mr. Slutzky asked if the condition was acceptable to the applicant and Mr. Rintel.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 32)
Mr. Garth commented that the landscapers they have spoken with have indicated that spacing of
eight feet will eventually kill the trees because they are two close – they were told 12 to 15 feet apart.
Ms. Mallek said that you could thin the tree stand in the future.
Mr. Davis stated that if the American Nurserymen’s Association recommends a different spacing
distance, then that would be used – subject to staff approval.
Mr. Rintel pointed out that he researched spacing on the internet and found varying opinions
ranging from five feet and up, with closer distance yielding a “fast privacy screen”, otherwise ten to twelve
feet apart. He is interested in a fast privacy screen and the church is interested in a greater width. They
settled on eight feet because that is in the center and is a good faith compromise.
Mr. Slutzky suggested leaving the language as recommended because it allows for some
discretion.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Boyd for getting the parties together on this application.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it is very rare that there is such a showing of community support.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve SP-2008-029 subject to the nine conditions presented, the addition of
Condition 10 as shown by Mr. Cilimberg and Condition 11 as read by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis said that Condition 1 had been modified, and suggested that the motion include the nine
conditions on the screen along with Condition 10 and Condition 11.
Mr. Boyd amended his motion to reflect that. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below. Please note that there were actually
eight original conditions; the original numbering were incorrect:)
1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the “Conceptual Site Plan” (page SP
4) prepared for South Plains Presbyterian Church by Atwood Architects, Inc., dated January 19,
2009. In addition, the following elements shall be in strict accord with and conform to the
Conceptual Site Plan: the location of the parking area, the location of the new sanctuary and
fellowship hall, and the preservation of existing trees as shown on "Tree Survey, Trees to be
Removed" (page SP 3). Plantings between the parking lot shown on the "Conceptual Site Plan"
and Routes 22 and 616 shall be provided as required by the Albemarle County Architectural
Review Board as part of the site plan approval;
2. The footprint of the new sanctuary shall not exceed three thousand five hundred fifty (3,550)
square feet. The footprint of the new fellowship hall shall not exceed five thousand seven hundred
fifty (5,750) square feet;
3. Provided parking shall not exceed seventy-five (75) spaces;
4. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance,
shall be maintained adjacent to properties zoned Rural Areas;
5. Storm water facilities and parking lot surface meeting the approval of the County Engineer shall
be required before approval of the final site plan for this use;
6. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit;
7. Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems;
8. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval;
9. A tree conservation plan in accordance with the "Tree Survey, Trees to be Removed" (page SP
3), prepared by a certified arborist, shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
Development of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the tree conservation plan; and
10. Staff approval of a landscape plan shall be required before approval of the final site plan for this
use. The landscape plan shall provide a planting of trees along the property line of the Rintels’
property with the following requirements:
(i) The plantings will be evergreen trees, five (5) to six (6) feet tall, planted a minimum of
eight (8) feet on center or spacing distance as recommended by the American
Nurseryman’s Association;
(ii) The tree choices are arborvitae or trees of comparable value; and
(iii) The trees will run along the property line and will be planted on Mr. Rintels’ property
provided that the property owner agrees to permit the landscaping to be planted and
maintained on that property.
________________
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 33)
Agenda Item No. 12. Boards and Commissions: Appointments.
Ms. Thomas moved that the Board reappoint John Martin to the Rivanna River Basin
Commission, with said term to expire April 30, 2013. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________
Agenda Item No. 13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas noted that there has been a new round of demolitions of older structures in the
County, including one that is going to be burned on Saturday that has old wainscoting, heart of pine floors,
and old Bible and Cross doors. She said that an ordinance to get a permit that would require a landowner
to wait for ten days or so, so that people could come in and buy those elements, it might impede the
destruction of historic properties and their contents. The County does not have an ordinance or any way
of slowing down that process. She does not want to prevent a landowner from doing something with their
property that they want to do.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be possible to make a policy with the Fire Department that they have
a period of delay and must make some outreach to potential materials buyers.
Ms. Thomas said that this will take some education, as someone did approach the fire company
and was told they could not take the doors because they were needed so that firemen could learn how to
tear them down.
Mr. Slutzky suggested this be discussed with ACFRAC.
Ms. Mallek commented that there is significant monetary value in these materials that is being
lost. She said that it should come to the County, not be the responsibility of the Fire Department.
Ms. Thomas explained that a landowner must come to the County for a demolition permit, but
there is no mechanism in place to delay destruction of an historic structure. An ordinance could be done
by district, age of building, date of building, etc. The Historic Preservation Committee is looking at
ordinances that other counties and cities in Virginia have, but there is currently no staff to work on an
ordinance, and this is being done as volunteers.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not understand why the County could not ask fire companies, when they
get a burn request for a property that is more than 50 years old, that they be asked to reach out to some
salvage companies and let them know there might be some useful materials on the property.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that when the County had its Historic Preservation Planner they were
notified of demolitions of historic structures, and she was consulting with them before the demolition on
the opportunities to salvage.
Mr. Davis added that that was based on a working arrangement with the Building Official,
triggered by application for demolition. W hen the County recognized the building as historic, the Official
would delay the issuance of the permit until consultation with the Planner – who would reach out to the
property owner to give them some guidance.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the position is frozen now.
Ms. Thomas said that what happens now is someone on the Historic Preservation Committee will
send out an email and hope someone finds it – occasionally it will end up with Margaret Maliszewski.
Mr. Rooker asked why the notice cannot go to Ms. Maliszewski and the Historic Preservation
Committee.
Ms. Thomas said normally there is not enough time.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board can make that policy decision tonight.
Mr. Tucker stated that he would find out why that isn’t being done now and pursue it. If the
County needs an ordinance, we will see. He does not know if the County has the authority to even do it.
Mr. Davis explained that there is no authority to achieve it under the Building Code, but there is
some enabling authority for historic preservation ordinances.
Ms. Thomas suggested using the practical approach and Board members suggest to volunteer
fire companies that they not be quick to burn a building that someone regards as historic or having
valuable components.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Ms. Maliszewski may ask the Historic Preservation Committee to make the
contacts necessary, noting that in the past Julie Mahon would educate people on their options.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 34)
Mr. Davis pointed out that it is up to the property owner in the end as to what they do with their
buildings.
Mr. Slutzky said the County’s policy makes it possible, it doesn’t make it certain, and that’s the
best the Board can do right now.
Ms. Mallek stated that the fire chiefs meeting is May 27th and she would mention the issue then.
Mr. Tucker commented that making them aware of it would at least be helpful.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned that there are ongoing talks about protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the University is making an effort to stop illegal dumping by students
leaving town, and is sponsoring a “sofa shuffle” where equipment and furniture can be dropped off at
convenient locations for delivery to the Salvation Army and other locations.
Mr. Rooker said that there are some communities that have an online service whereby you put
your name in, and someone comes by and picks it up.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked for an update on home occupations and what levels of inspection are involved,
suggesting to other Board members that they contemplate whether the County is going to enough effort to
ensure the operations are meeting what the permits allow. She cited concerns about chemicals and
metals being used in construction operations, where there may not be a disposal plan in place.
Mr. Davis responded that there was a report prepared about a month ago that was on the
Consent Agenda.
Ms. Mallek said that the report essentially said there was no inspection being done on the inside.
She would like to have others tell her if they agree or not about whether the County should be doing more.
Mr. Rooker said that program operates on a complaint basis. He does not think the County has
the staff availability to go in and inspect all special use permits, even periodically.
Ms. Mallek said she has been told that the County will not go inside and inspect even if it is a
complaint.
Mr. Rooker said there is a question as to whether someone had the legal authority to go inside
someone’s house if there was a complaint that a special use permit was being violated.
Mr. Davis said that if there was probable cause that there was a problem, they would ask for
consent; without that they would have to obtain an administrative search warrant. He is not aware of this
being a problem with people.
Mr. Tucker commented that they would not automatically inspect, and it would have to be based
on complaints that constitute probable cause.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked for an update on housing proffers and dividing them into the three income level
categories.
Mr. Slutzky responded that the Housing Committee has been working on that, and a number of
complex issues have emerged in their discussions with respect to what the secondary mortgage markets
will allow. He indicated that he has chaired that committee and he is hoping the item will come back
before the Board soon.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that other counties have mentioned having appreciation picnics and events for
committee members, and suggested Albemarle might do the same.
Mr. Slutzky stated that this may not be the year for it in this year’s budget.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is a nice thing to do for those volunteers.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned that he found the conversation about the integration of an historic church
with a new facility “refreshing.”
Mr. Boyd added that South Plains has done an excellent job of involving their neighbors and the
community, noting that they were very complimentary of County staff.
Ms. Thomas said that the church was caught in a bind because of the possibility of tree removal in
order to site the new building, but found an acceptable solution.
May 13, 2009 (Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 35)
Mr. Rooker also commented that the earlier discussion brought to light the County’s lack of an
Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the inability to prevent someone from tearing down a building – or
cutting trees down. The approval of this plan preserves the historic property as well as numerous
important trees on the property. He thinks the County actually has in some ways a much better protected
area there now than it did before.
Ms. Mallek noted that having a tree preservation plan is an investment well worth it.
________________
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned their meeting at 8:40 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 07/01/2009
Initials: EW J