2009-09-09September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
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, Director of Planning, V. W ayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W . Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Slutzky.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd reminded Board members that this Friday evening, in commemoration of the September
11 event the County’s Fire and Rescue Department will host a special ceremony in front of the County
Building on McIntire Road, if weather permits.
__________
Ms. Mallek complimented staff on the new brochure about conservation easements noting that
she has heard many good comments about it.
__________
Ms. Mallek said at the last Mayors & Chairs meeting Louisa County shared a video about their
County. She asked if Albemarle has such a video.
___________
Ms. Mallek said she is the Board’s representative on the Piedmont Workforce Network “One
Stop” Committee. She said Goodwill Industries has the new contract for management of the one stop.
They have a new director and have made some quantum leaps forward in getting all of the various
agencies to work together in a productive way and improve services to clients.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms.
Mallek, to approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 6.1. Approval of Minutes: July 8, 2009.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of July 8, 2009, pages 22 (beginning with the Ordinance to the
end of the minutes) and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: FY 2010 Budget Amendment. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on August 30, 2009.)
Mr. Richard W iggans, Director of Finance, summarized the following executive summary which
was forwarded to Board members: Virginia Code §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its
budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently
adopted budget; provided that any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures
shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and
holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The total of the new requested FY 2010
appropriations, itemized below, is $3,848,351.19. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations
exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Estimated Expenditures
General Fund $ 831,453.00
Special Revenue Funds $ 113,138.00
School Program Funds $ 1,534,988.19
Capital Improvements Fund $ 1,312,902.00
Emergency Communication Center Funds $ 55,870.00
Total Estimated Expenditures – All Funds $ 3,848,351.19
Estimated Revenues
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 43,458.50
State Revenue $ 133,446.00
Federal Revenue $ 2,622,126.19
Other Fund Balances $ 1,049,320.50
Total Estimated Revenues – All Funds $ 3,848,351.19
The budget amendment is comprised of seven separate appropriations, five of which were
approved by the Board at its meeting on September 2, 2009 (Appropriation No. 2010-018 transferring
$91,000.00 for road and drainage improvements to Sun Ridge Road; Appropriation No. 2010-019 totaling
$113,138.00 for a Community Policing grant; Appropriation No. 2010-020 totaling $55,870.00 for grants to
replace equipment at the Emergency Communications Center; Appropriation No. 2010-021 totaling
$831,453.00 to change the way the Office of Facilities Development is funded; and, Appropriation No.
2010-022 totaling $1,535,463.19 for various school programs and grants). The two new appropriations
are Appropriation No. 2010-023 re-appropriating $1,195,760.00 for uncompleted general government
capital projects, and Appropriation No. 2010-024 re-appropriating $116.667.00 for uncompleted school
capital projects. A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A below.
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2010 Budget amendment in the amount of $3,848,351.19
after the public hearing, and then approval of Appropriations No. 2010-023 and No. 2010-024 to provide
funds for various local government and school projects and programs.
ATTACHMENT A:
Appropriation No. 2010-023, $1,195,760.00. Revenue Source: Local Revenue $20,983.50; State
Revenue $77,576.00; Federal Revenue $996,000.00; General Government CIP Fund Balance
$101,200.50. This request re-appropriates the urgent contract costs related to various General
Government Capital Improvement projects that were not completed as of June 30, 2009. The
following projects are included in the appropriation:
• Hillsdale Drive sidewalk $368,468.00
• Rivanna Greenway/Free Bridge Connector Trail $89,950.00
• A space study for the Levy Building, formerly used $30,009.00
as the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
• Relocation of the Sheriff’s Office to the renovated $7,333.00
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
• Crozet Meadows housing rehabilitation project $700,000.00
Appropriation No. 2010-024, $116,667.00. Revenue Source: School CIP Fund Balance
$116,667.00. This request re-appropriates the urgent contract costs of School Capital
Improvement projects that were not completed as of June 30, 2009. This appropriation includes
moving, furniture and change order costs related to the following projects: Brownsville
Elementary $64,350.00; Greer Elementary $47,000.00; and, Albemarle High School $5,317.00.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Hillsdale Drive allocation is for a safety improvement. Mr. Jack Kelsey
explained that this grant money was specifically appropriated for that project’s safety improvements.
Mr. Slutzky said construction on this project is about to begin and it includes a crosswalk at Rio
Road and Hillsdale Drive which is a much needed improvement at that point. Mr. Kelsey said the contract
is ready for final approval.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to
speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to approve the FY 2010 Budget amendment in the amount of
$3,848,351.19, and to approve Appropriations No. 2010-023 and No. 2010-024 to provide funds for
various Local Government and School projects and programs. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010-023
APPROPRIATION DATE 9/9/2009
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating contract costs related to various general government capital projects and
the Crozet Meadows Rehabilitation Project
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 43100 950174 Hillsdale Sidewalk/Imp J 1 368,468.00
1 9010 72030 950520 Rivanna Greenway-Free
Bridge Connector Trail
J 1 89,950.00
1 9010 21000 950135 Court Square Enhancements J 1 30,009.00
1 9010 21050 800901 Building Renovations J 1 7,333.00
2 9010 33030 330035 Hillsdale Dr Imp J 2 296,000.00
2 9010 24000 240447 DEPT CON/REC: REC.
TRAILS
J 2 77,576.00
2 9010 19000 190249 CITY SHARE-COURTS
FESIBTY
J 2 20,983.50
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 101,200.50
0501 Est. Revenue 495,760.00
0701 Appropriation 495,760.00
1 1223 81030 950164 Crozet Meadows Housing
Rehabilitation
J 1 644,000.00
1 1223 81030 300205 Administrative Services J 1 56,000.00
2 1223 33000 330009 Grant Revenue - Federal J 2 700,000.00
0501 Est. Revenue 700,000.00
0701 Appropriation 700,000.00
TOTAL 2,391,520.00 1,195,760.00 1,195,760.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010-024
APPROPRIATION DATE 9/9/2009
EXPLANATION: Re-appropriating contract costs that are moving related at Brownsville and Greer Elementary Schools
and Albemarle High School
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9000 60202 800605 Brownsville Elementary J 1 64,350.00
1 9000 60301 800200 Albemarle High School J 1 5,317.00
1 9000 60204 800605 Greer Elementary J 1 47,000.00
2 9000 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 116,667.00
0501 Est. Revenue 116,667.00
0701 Appropriation 116,667.00
TOTAL 233,334.00 116,667.00 116,667.00
_______________
Agenda item No. 8. Public Hearing: Darden Towe Park Lease Agreement. To consider the
approval of a Lease Agreement for the tenant house located in Darden Towe Park, which is jointly owned
by the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville. The house is proposed to be leased to tenants
who assist in maintenance of the Park. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress
on August 31, 2009.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board
members:
The City and County jointly own a house located at Darden Towe Park which is leased at a
reduced rate in exchange for the tenants providing approximately 50 hours of park maintenance
and security tasks each month. Earlier this year, the City and the County were notified by the
existing tenants that they did not desire to renew their lease and the availability of this rental
property was publicly advertised for two weekends in July in the Daily Progress. Two parties
responded to the advertisement and interviews were conducted by City and County Parks and
Recreation staff. Based upon the outcome of these interviews, the Parks and Recreation
Department is recommending that the City and County enter into a lease agreement with Ms.
Doraine Glidden and Ms. Shelia McMillian.
Under the proposed lease, the tenants would pay a $620 monthly rent to the County and all utility
bills, and perform the following duties:
• Assure that the park entrance gates, greenbelt gate, and restrooms are opened and closed at
posted times and upon special requests;
• Assure that park visitors leave the park at posted closing times;
• During closing rounds, pick up loose litter and check restrooms for maintenance or plumbing
issues, and correct or advise park personnel as necessary;
• Assist the public with information, as needed;
• Clean and stock restrooms and clean-up and remove trash from parking lots and playing areas
on days when park employees are not scheduled to work;
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
• In the absence of park personnel, perform emergency repair(s) or maintenance of park facilities
and grounds, to the extent possible, and contact park personnel;
• In the absence of park personnel, enforce field closures, and unauthorized use of athletic fields
and park areas; and
• Mow and trim grass around the tenant house, as outlined by the Park Foreman.
The initial term of the lease is for one year, beginning October 1, 2009, followed by up to four
additional one-year terms. The monthly rent for the initial year would remain at $620 per month
(determined after review by the County Assessor’s Office) and could be adjusted to reflect any
change in tenant responsibilities. The proposed lease has been reviewed and approved by the
County Attorney. Virginia Code §15.2–1800(B) requires that the Board of Supervisors hold a
public hearing prior to entering into this lease agreement. The Clerk of the Board has advertised
the hearing as required. City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed Lease Agreement on
September 21, 2009.
It is expected that the lease will generate $7,440 in annual income. In addition, having the
tenants perform the listed duties is much more efficient than having County employees perform
these tasks.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Board approve the proposed
lease agreement and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease agreement.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing. No one came forward to
speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, to approve the Residential Lease Agreement for Darden
Towe Park and to authorize the County Executive to sign the lease agreement. Mr. Slutzky seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
R E S I D E N T I A L L E A S E A G R E E M E N T
D A R D E N T OW E P A R K
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of this ____ day of __________, 2009; by and
between the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville (hereafter collectively, the
“Landlord”), whose addresses are 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (hereafter, the
“County”); PO Box 911, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (hereafter, the “City”), respectively; and
Doraine K. Glidden and Sheila M. McMillian (collectively referred to as “Tenant”).
1. REAL PROPERTY AND TERM OF OCCUPANCY. In consideration of the promises and
covenants herein, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant that property located in the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, and known as Towe Park Tenant House together with the fixtures and
personal property listed below, (the Premises) for the term of 1 (one) year(s) commencing at
noon on October 1, 2009. Thereafter, unless otherwise terminated by either party, as
provided herein, this Lease shall renew automatically for four (4) additional one-year terms.
2. PERSONAL PROPERTY. The following personal property is included in the Premises
subject to this lease: Range oven and woodstove.
3. USE OF PREMISES. The Premises will be used by Tenant as a private dwelling and for no
other purpose. The Premises will be occupied by no persons other than persons who have
signed this Lease as Tenant and such person's children under the age of 18.
4. RENT.
a. Tenant agrees to pay as rent the total sum of $7,440.00, due and payable in advance
in monthly installments of $620.00, except as follows: If the lease term begins on a
day other than the first day of a calendar month, the first month's rent shall be
$310.00. If the lease term ends on a day other than the last day of a calendar month,
the last month's rent shall be $310.00. The first month’s rent payment is due October
1, 2009. The monthly installment of rent due for each month thereafter shall be due
on the first day of each month. Rent shall be paid to County of Albemarle
(landlord/agent) at Albemarle County Parks & Recreation, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (address) or at other such place as Landlord or Agent
may from time to time designate in writing. If a monthly installment of rent is not
received before the 6th day of the month, Tenant agrees to pay as additional rent a
charge of late fee of $10.00 for each month that the monthly installment of rent is not
received by the 6th day of such month. The purpose of this late fee is to compensate
Landlord for the expenses of processing such delinquent account. Rent payments
will be applied first to all past due balances of rent and other charges owing under
this Lease. The remaining portion if any of such rent payments will be applied to
current rent. If there are two or more tenants, Landlord shall have the option of
requiring that only one check, cashier's check or money order will be accepted for
each monthly installment for rent.
b. As additional rent, the Tenant shall perform the following duties as long as either of
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
them resides on the Property. The following duties may be modified, as duties may
be added or deleted by mutual written agreement between the County and City and
the Tenant. Failure to perform the following duties on the part of the Tenant shall
constitute a material breach by the Tenant under the Lease Agreement and shall
entitle the Landlord to terminate this Lease or exercise any other remedy under this
lease or available law. The Tenant shall:
i. Assure that the park entrance gates, greenbelt gate, and restrooms are
opened and closed at posted times and upon special requests;
ii. Assure that park visitors leave the park at posted closing times;
iii. During closing rounds, pick up loose litter and check restrooms for
maintenance or plumbing issues, and correct or advise park personnel as
necessary;
iv. Assist the public with information, as needed;
v. Clean and stock restrooms and clean-up and remove trash from parking lots
and playing areas on days when park employees are not scheduled to work;
vi. In the absence of park personnel, perform emergency repair(s) or
maintenance of park facilities and grounds, to the extent possible, and
contact park personnel;
vii. In the absence of park personnel, enforce field closures, and unauthorized
use of athletic fields and park areas; and
viii. Mow and trim grass around the tenant house, as outlined by the Park
Foreman.
c. The County and City reserve the right to agree to certain modifications pertaining to
the foregoing tenant responsibilities during the term of the lease agreement. It is the
intent of the County and City to delegate this responsibility to the Albemarle County
Parks and Recreation Department, and its Director.
d. The County and City further agree that, in the event tenant performs additional duties
at the specific request of the County and City in connection with the property, or for
any other reason in the sole discretion of the County and City, then an adjustment in
the payment of rent under this lease agreement may be made, provided that any
such modifications shall be effective only if in writing between the County, City and
the tenant. It is the intent of the County and City to delegate this responsibility to the
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department, and its Director.
5. BAD CHECKS. Tenant agrees to pay as additional rent a charge of $15.00 for each check
returned for insufficient funds. This charge will be in addition to any late fee, which may be
due. If any of Tenant's checks are returned to Landlord or Agent for insufficient funds,
Landlord will have the option of requiring that further payments must be paid by cash,
cashier's check, certified check, or money order.
6. SECURITY DEPOSIT. Tenant agrees to pay the sum of $620.00 as a security deposit. This
sum will be due when this Lease is signed by Tenant. Prior to the termination or expiration of
this Lease, if Landlord makes any deductions from the security deposit for charges arising
under this Lease or by law, Tenant agrees to pay Landlord such sums as may be necessary
to offset such deductions to replenish and maintain the security deposit in the amount set
forth above. The security deposit will be held by Landlord to secure Tenant's full compliance
with the terms of this Lease. W ithin 30 days after the termination of this Lease, Landlord may
apply the security deposit and any interest required by law to the payment of any damages
Landlord has suffered due to Tenant's failure to maintain the Premises, to surrender
possession of the premises thoroughly cleaned and in good condition (reasonable wear and
tear excepted), or to fully comply with the terms of this Lease, and any balance, if any, to
unpaid rent. Landlord shall provide Tenant with an itemized accounting, in writing, showing all
such deductions. W ithin this 30-day period, Landlord will give or mail to Tenant the security
deposit, with any interest required by law and minus any deductions. To assist Landlord,
Tenant shall give Landlord written notice of Tenant's new address before Tenant vacates the
Premises. During the term of occupancy under this Lease, if Landlord determines that any
deductions are to be made from the security deposit Landlord will give written notice to
Tenant of such deduction within 30 days of the time Landlord determines that such deduction
should be made. This provision applies only to deductions made 30 days or more before the
termination of this Lease. Landlord will maintain itemized records of all security deposit
deductions and these records may be inspected by Tenant, his authorized agent or attorney,
during normal business hours. However, when two years has passed from the time a
deduction was made, Landlord may destroy the record of that deduction. If Landlord sells or
otherwise transfers all or any interest in the Premises during the term of this Lease, Tenant
agrees that Landlord may transfer the security deposit, plus any interest required by law, to
the purchaser who in such event shall be obligated to comply with the provisions of this
section.
7. PARKING. Tenant agrees to comply with such parking rules and regulations as Landlord
may issue from time to time, and deliver to Tenant; provided that Tenant shall be given a
reasonable opportunity to comply with any parking changes made during Tenant's term of
occupancy under this Lease. Vehicles parked on or about the Premises in violation of such
rules and regulations may be towed at the owner's expense.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
8. PETS AND ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS. The Tenant shall not be allowed to have pets or
additional residents without Landlord’s prior written consent, which may be withheld in the
Landlord's sole discretion. If such permission is granted the tenant agrees to be responsible
for all damages to the property and third parties (persons and property) caused by pets or
additional residents. It is understood that if this approval is given that it may be rescinded in
the event a problem develops related to a pet or an additional resident.
9. UTILITIES. The Tenant is responsible for all utilities.
10. ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Tenant agrees that no alterations; installations,
repairs or decoration (including painting, staining and applying other finishes) shall be done
without Landlord's prior written consent. However, Landlord may require Tenant to return the
Premises to its original condition when this Lease terminates or expires. In addition, Landlord
may require that any change, alteration or improvement to the Premises will become a
permanent part of the Premises which may not be removed upon the termination or
expiration of this lease. Such changes or improvements will include, but not be limited to,
locks, light fixtures, shutters, built-in shelves or bookcases, wall-to-wall carpeting, flowers and
shrubs.
11. INSPECTIONS AND ACCESS. Landlord may enter the Premises to make inspections,
repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, and to show the Premises to prospective
tenants, purchasers, mortgagees, workers and contractors and shall have the right to erect or
place "For Sale" or "For Rent" signs thereon. Except in case of emergency or when it is
impractical to give notice, Landlord will give Tenant reasonable notice of Landlord's intent to
enter and may enter the Premises only at reasonable times.
12. MOVE IN INSPECTION. Within 5 days after Tenant takes possession of the Premises,
Landlord agrees to provide Tenant with a list setting forth all of the defects and damages to
the Premises, its equipment and appliances. The list shall be treated as correct unless
Tenant objects to the list by written notice given to Landlord within five days after Tenant
receives the list.
13. COVENANTS BY LANDLORD. Landlord covenants and agrees to maintain all electrical,
plumbing, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and other facilities and appliances, including
elevators, in good and safe working condition; and comply with applicable building and
housing code requirements materially affecting health and safety. Landlord's failure to comply
with the above requirements will not be grounds for Tenant's termination of this Lease unless
Tenant has given Landlord written notice of the defective condition and Landlord has failed to
remedy the condition within 21 days. However, Tenant may not terminate the Lease if
Tenant, a member of Tenant's family or some other person on the Premises with Tenant's
consent intentionally or negligently caused the defective condition. Such defective conditions
will be repaired at Tenant's expense. Any termination by Tenant shall be made in accordance
with the section of this Lease concerning breach by Landlord.
14. COVENANTS BY TENANT. Tenant covenants and agrees to keep the Premises clean and
safe; use all electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating and air-conditioning facilities and
appliances in a reasonable manner; conduct himself or herself, and require guests to conduct
themselves, in a manner that will not disturb Tenant's neighbors; and to take care not to
intentionally or negligently destroy, damage or remove any part of the Premises, and that he
or she will not permit any person to do so. The County and City reserve the right to request
the Tenant to remove from the site any personal property that is inconsistent with the scenic
natural beauty of the park (inoperable vehicles, appliances, etc.). The County and City
reserve the right to request the Tenant to cease any activity that is inconsistent with the park
or surrounding neighborhood. Tenant covenants and agrees to care for, maintain and repair
the Premises, equipment, appliances and fixtures. Upon the expiration or termination of this
Lease, Tenant agrees to deliver the Premises in good and clean condition, ordinary wear and
tear excepted. Tenant agrees to pay the cost of all repairs and cleaning required by wear and
tear beyond the ordinary. During the duration of this Lease, Tenant agrees to give Landlord
prompt written notice of any defects in the Premises, its equipment, appliances and fixtures. If
further damage occurs between the time Tenant learns that a defect exists and the time
Landlord learns of such defect. Tenant will be liable for the costs of any repairs of such
additional damage, which might have been avoided, had Tenant promptly notified Landlord of
the defect. Tenant agrees to pay all costs resulting from the intentional or negligent
destruction, damage or removal of any part of the Premises by Tenant or by any of Tenant's
guests or other persons on the Premises with Tenant's consent. Tenant further agrees to
release, indemnify, protect, defend and hold the County and City harmless from all liability,
obligations, losses, claims, demands, damages, actions, suits, proceedings, costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether suffered,
made, instituted or asserted by any entity, party or person for any personal injury to or death
of any person or persons and for any loss, damage or destruction of the Premises, arising out
of, connected with, or resulting directly or indirectly from the negligent or intentional acts of
Tenant, Tenant's guests or other persons on the Premises with the consent or permission of
Tenant. The foregoing agreement to indemnify shall continue in full force and effect
notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement. Tenant further agrees to release,
indemnify, protect, defend and hold the County and City harmless from all liability,
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
obligations, losses, claims, demands, damages, actions, suits, proceedings, costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether suffered,
made, instituted or asserted by any entity, party or person for any personal injury to or death
of any person or persons and for any loss, damage or destruction of the Premises, arising out
of, connected with, or resulting directly or indirectly from the negligent or intentional acts of
Tenant, Tenant's guests or other persons on the Premises with the consent or permission of
Tenant. The foregoing agreement to indemnify shall continue in full force and effect
notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement.
15. TENANT TO CLEAN PREMISES WHEN LEASE ENDS. Upon the termination or expiration
of this Lease, Tenant will remove all of Tenant's property from the Premises and deliver
possession of the Premises, thoroughly clean and in good condition, reasonable wear and
tear excepted, and in compliance with such reasonable conditions as may be set forth in
Landlord's rules and regulations. Tenant's compliance with this section is necessary to
insure that the Premises will be in good condition for the next tenants to whom Landlord
leases the Premises. Tenant will be liable for any damages Landlord may suffer due to
Tenant's failure to leave the Premises thoroughly clean and in good condition, reasonable
wear and tear excepted.
16. MOVE OUT INSPECTION. Upon the termination or expiration of this Lease, Landlord will
inspect the Premises to determine whether Tenant has properly maintained the Premises and
has left Premises thoroughly cleaned and in good condition, reasonable wear and tear
excepted. Grease accumulation and unreasonable marks, holes, nicks or other injury to
walls, ceilings, floors or appliances will not be considered ordinary wear and tear. This
inspection will be made to determine what portion of the security deposit will be returned to
Tenant and whether Tenant may be liable for damages exceeding the amount of the security
deposit. This inspection will be made with 72 hours after the termination of Tenant's
occupancy of the Premises. For the purposes of this section, the termination of Tenant's
occupancy of the Premises will not be deemed to have occurred until all or substantially all of
Tenant's property has been removed from the Premises. Tenant will have the right to be
present during this inspection, provided Tenant gives Landlord written notice of Tenant's
desire to be present during the inspection. Upon receiving such notice, Landlord will notify
Tenant of the time and date when the inspection will be made. However, Tenant's delay in
notifying Landlord of Tenant's desire to attend the inspection will not require Landlord to delay
making the inspection more than 72 hours after the termination of Tenant's occupancy. If
Tenant attends the inspection, an itemized list of damages known to exist at the time of the
inspection will be provided to Tenant by Landlord immediately upon the completion of the
inspection.
17. ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY. Any personal property Tenant leaves on the Premises
after the termination or expiration of this Lease may be treated by Landlord as abandoned
property. Landlord will prepare an itemized list of such property and may immediately remove
the property from the Premises and place it in storage for safekeeping for a period not less
than one month from the date this Lease terminates and possession of the Premises is
delivered to Landlord. Tenant may reclaim the property during this one-month period,
provided that tenant pays the cost of its removal and storage. Upon expiration of the one-
month period, Landlord will be free to dispose of the property as Landlord sees fit, provided
written notice of Landlord's intent to dispose of the property is given to Tenant at least 10
days before such disposal occurs. This notice must be sent to Tenant's last known address,
address correction requested. In addition, Landlord must keep the itemized list of Tenant's
property for two years after Landlord disposes of that property. Any funds received by
Landlord from the disposal of Tenant's property may be applied to Tenant's indebtedness to
Landlord for unpaid rent or other damages, including charges for removing, storing and
selling the property. Any remaining funds will be treated as security deposit.
18. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES. If, through no fault or negligence of Tenant
or Tenant's guest, fire or other cause destroys or damages the Premises to the extent that
Tenant's enjoyment is substantially impaired, Tenant may immediately vacate the premises
and within 14 days thereafter give written notice to Landlord of Tenant's intention to terminate
this Lease. In such cases, the Lease will terminate as of the date of termination of Tenant's
occupancy and Landlord will return Tenant's security deposit, any interest required by law,
and prepaid rent covering the period after Tenant vacated the Premises - subject to any set
off for charges or damages Tenant owes to Landlord. If, through no fault or negligence of
Tenant or Tenant's guests, fire or other cause damages the Premises to the extent that
Tenant's enjoyment is somewhat impaired, though not substantially impaired, Landlord will
have a reasonable period of time in which to repair the Premises. Landlord's duty to repair
will not arise until Tenant gives Landlord written notice of the damage to the Premises. If
Landlord fails to repair the Premises within a reasonable period of time after having received
written notice from Tenant, Tenant will be entitled to a reduction in rent for that period of time
beginning 30 days after notice was given to Landlord and ending on the date Landlord
successfully repairs the Premises. In any dispute concerning Tenant’s right to terminate this
Lease or receive a rent reduction, Tenant will be required to prove that the condition of the
Premises justifies such relief.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
19. BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE. Landlord is not an insurer of Tenant's person
or property. Except to the extent provided by law, Landlord will not be liable to Tenant for any
bodily injury or property damage suffered by Tenant or Tenant's guest.
20. RULES AND REGULATIONS. Tenant agrees to comply with Landlord's reasonable and non-
discriminatory rules and regulations which concern the use and occupancy of the Premises,
which intend to promote the convenience, safety or welfare to tenants or preserve Landlord's
property from abusive conduct. Landlord agrees to give Tenant reasonable notice of any
new rules or regulations before enforcing such rules and regulations against Tenant.
21. EARLY TERMINATION OF OCCUPANCY. Tenant will not be released from liability for all
rent and other charges due under this lease unless Landlord signs a written statement on
which Landlord agrees to release tenant from such liability.
22. EARLY TERMINATION OF LEASE BY MILITARY PERSONNEL. If Tenant is a member of
the United States armed forces and (i) receives orders for a permanent change of station to
depart 50 miles or more (radius) from the Premises or (ii) is prematurely and involuntarily
discharged or relieved from active duty with the United States aimed forces, Tenant may
terminate this Lease by serving on Landlord a written notice of termination. This notice must
state the date when termination will be effective and that date shall not be less than 30 days
after the date Landlord receives the notice. In addition, the termination date shall not be
more than 60 days prior to the date of departure necessary for Tenant to comply with the
official orders or any supplemental instructions for interim training or duty prior to the transfer.
Tenant's written notice of termination must be accompanied by a copy of the official orders. If
Tenant exercises this right to terminate this Lease, Tenant shall be obligated for rent prorated
to the date of termination. Rent for the final month or portion thereof shall be due on the first
day of such month. On account of Tenant's early termination of this Lease, Landlord may
require Tenant to pay liquidated damages as follows:
a. If Tenant has completed less than 6 months of the tenancy under this Lease as of the
effective date of termination, liquidated damages may be no greater than one-
month's rent.
b. If Tenant has completed at least 6 months but less than 12 months of the tenancy
under this Lease as of the effective date of termination, liquidated damages may be
no greater than one half of one month's rent. Any amount owed; as liquidated
damages by Tenant shall be due on the first day of the month in which the effective
termination date occurs. This section shall not relieve Tenant of any other liabilities,
which have accrued as of the date of termination.
23. TERMINATION, RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF LEASE. This Lease will automatically
terminate at the end of the lease term on the date on which Tenant's occupancy ends. In
addition, Landlord may terminate this lease for any reason by giving at least thirty (30) days
written notice to Tenant. The termination of this Lease will terminate Tenant's right to
occupancy but it will not terminate any claims Tenant or Landlord may have arising out of
events occurring during the Lease term or during any holdover by Tenant. No agreement
renewing or extending this Lease will be effective unless that agreement is in writing and
signed by Tenant and Landlord. If Tenant remains in possession of the Premises after the
lease term is terminated or expires and Landlord consents to such holdover but does not
enter into a written agreement extending this Lease or substituting a new written lease,
Tenant shall have a month to month lease subject to termination by either party upon 30 days
notice. The monthly rent during such holdover period shall be at the same rate as under this
Lease or as otherwise agreed in writing.
24. ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLET. Tenant will not assign this Lease or sublet the Premises
without Landlord's prior written consent, which will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
Tenant agrees to pay Landlord a $ N/A fee if Tenant assigns or sublets the Premises, or any
part thereof. No assignment or sublet will release Tenant from continuing liability for the full
performance of this Lease unless Landlord signs a written statement clearly releasing Tenant
from such liability.
25. BREACH BY TENANT. If (a) Tenant fails to pay rent within five days after the date when
due, (b) Tenant commits a material breach of this Lease, (c) Tenant denies Landlord's
exercise of any rights under this Lease or arising by law, (d) legal proceedings are begun by
or against Tenant to levy upon or dispose of Tenants leasehold interest in the Premises, or
(e) the Premises is used by Tenant or others for any illegal purposes, Landlord will have the
right to sue for rent and to enter and take possession through legal proceedings or, if the
Premises is abandoned, to enter and take possession by any lawful means. In addition,
Landlord will have the right to pursue all other remedies available, including a claim for
damages. If Landlord pursues any such remedies (and regardless of whether such remedies
are prosecuted to judgment), Tenant will be liable as follows:
a. For all past due rent and other charges
b. For all additional rent (future rent) that would have accrued until the expiration of the
term of occupancy under this Lease or until a new lease term begins, provided (i) that
this will not affect Landlord's duty to minimize the damages by making reasonable
efforts to enter into a new lease as soon as practical, and (ii) that if Landlord obtains
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
a judgment for future rent, Landlord shall apply as a credit towards that judgment all
funds received by Landlord as rent for the Premises for those months for which the
judgment for future rent was awarded.
c. For all expenses Landlord may incur for cleaning, painting and repairing the
Premises due to Tenant's failure to leave the Premises thoroughly clean and in good
condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted;
d. For any court costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Landlord (i) in
collecting rent, other charges or damages, and (ii) in obtaining possession of the
Premises;
e. For a collection fee equal to 25% of the judgment amount for rent, damages, court
costs and attorneys fees. Tenant understands and agrees that this amount
represents damages Landlord will be likely to incur in efforts to obtain a judgment
against Tenant (including time and effort spent in case investigation,
correspondence, filling suit, discussions with lawyers, case preparation and court
attendance) and to collect such a judgment. If Tenant has breached the Lease by
failing to pay rent when due, Landlord shall give a written notice to Tenant stating
that the Lease will terminate within 5 days if the rent is not paid. If Tenant fails to pay
the rent within that 5 day period, Landlord may terminate the Lease and proceed to
obtain possession of the Premises by filing an unlawful detainer proceeding. In that
proceeding, Landlord may pursue a claim for rent and other damages. In connection
with breaches other than failure to pay rent, if a material noncompliance with this
Lease exists or if there is a violation materially affecting health and safety, Landlord
may serve Tenant with a written notice stating that acts or omissions constituting the
breach and stating (i) that the Lease will terminate upon a date not less than 30 days
after Tenant receives the notice unless the breach is remedied within 21 days, and
(ii) that the lease will terminate as set forth in the notice. If the breach is remedial by
repairs or the payment of damages and Tenant adequately remedies the breach
within 21 days or such longer period of time as Landlord may allow, the Lease shall
not terminate. On the other hand, if the breach is not remedial, Landlord's written
notice to Tenant may state the acts and omissions constituting the breach and state
that the lease will terminate upon a specific date, which date may not be less than 30
days after Tenant receives the notice.
26. BREACH BY LANDLORD. If Landlord (a) commits a material breach of this Lease, or (b)
fails to a substantial extent to comply with any laws with which Landlord must comply and
which materially affect Tenant's health and safety, Tenant may give written notice to Landlord
identifying the acts and conditions on the Premises concerning Landlord's breach and stating
that this lease will terminate upon a specific date (which must be 30 days or more from the
date Landlord receives the notice) unless Landlord remedies the breach within 21 days. If
Landlord remedies the breach within that 21 day period, this Lease will not be subject to
termination by Tenant in that instance. Tenant will not have the right to terminate this Lease
because of conditions caused by the intentional or negligent acts of Tenant or persons on the
Premises with Tenant's consent.
27. RENT WITHHOLDING. Tenant may not withhold rent because of conditions on the Premises
that Landlord is required to repair unless Tenant has given Landlord written notice of the
condition and Landlord has failed to successfully repair the condition within a reasonable
period of time. If Tenant withholds rent because Landlord has breached the Lease, Tenant
must immediately give Landlord a second written notice of the breach and of any conditions
of the Premises which Landlord is required to remedy or repair and must state that rent is
being withheld for such reasons. If Landlord then sues Tenant for possession of the
Premises or for withheld rent, Tenant must promptly pay the rent to the court, which will hold
the rent until it decides what portion, if any, should be paid to Landlord. If conditions exist
which Landlord is required to remedy and which creates a fire hazard or serious threat to the
health or safety of Tenant, Tenant may file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to
terminate the Lease, to require Landlord to repair the Premises, or to obtain other relief. In
such an action, Tenant may pay rent to the court to be held until Tenant's action is decided.
If Tenant withholds rent or pays rent into court under this section and the court finds (a) that
Tenant has acted in bad faith, (b) that Tenant, Tenant's family or guests have caused the
conditions or have refused unreasonably to allow Landlord or Landlord's written notice of the
condition, Tenant will be liable for Landlord's reasonable costs, including costs for time spent,
court costs, any repair costs due to Tenant's violation of the Lease, and attorneys fees.
28. NOTICES. All notices in writing required or permitted by this Lease may be delivered in
person, or sent by mail (postage prepaid) to Landlord, Tenant or Agent at such party's
address, as set forth above or at such other address as a party may designate from time to
time by notice given in accordance with the terms of this section.
29. HEADINGS. The headings of the sections of this Lease are inserted for convenience only
and do not alter or amend the provisions that follow such headings.
30. GOVERNING LAW. This Lease is entered into and shall be construed under the laws of the
State of Virginia.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
31. SEVERABILITY. Any provision of this Lease which is prohibited by, or unlawful or
unenforceable under, Virginia law shall be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition
without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Lease.
32. FAILURE TO ENFORCE LEASE NOT A W AIVER. Landlord's waiver of a breach by Tenant
shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any subsequent breach or noncompliance, and this
lease shall continue in full force and effect.
33. AMENDMENTS. This lease may not be amended or modified except by prior written consent
of the Landlord. All amendments or modifications shall be in writing and signed by both
parties.
34. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This lease shall constitute the full and complete agreement between
the parties, and no other writings or statements (other than amendments or modifications
pursuant to Section 33) shall be of any consequence or have any legal effect.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
BY:____________________________(seal)
City Manager
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
BY:____________________________(seal)
County Executive
TENANT
_______________________________(seal)
_______________________________(seal)
_______________
Agenda item No. 9. Public Hearing: SP-2008-060, Albemarle Baptist Christian School.
Proposed: Private school with up to 40 students and up to 5 teaching staff on a 6.26-acre
property in conjunction with the existing Albemarle Baptist 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: 10.2.2.5 Private schools.
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: 1685 Roslyn Ridge Rd. at n/w corner of Hydraulic Rd (Rt. 743) and Roslyn Ridge Rd.
Tax Map/Parcel: 061000000001E0.
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31,
2009.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a request for a special use permit to
operate a private school in Albemarle Baptist Church facilities serving a maximum of 40 students with five
teaching staff members. He showed a concept plan on the screen depicting existing building and parking
areas on the site. The entrance to the property is from Roslyn Ridge Road close to the Hydraulic Road
intersection.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there is an area shown on the church’s approved plan that may be
used for a future building, but can be used now as a playground area. There is also an area that has
been blacktopped that can be used for playing basketball. He said this request is small scale in terms of
number of students, but is typical of private schools in rural areas using an existing building.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff does not anticipate any detrimental impacts to adjacent property given the
distance of the school from neighboring residents. Also, there will be no site development changes or
new construction on the property. VDOT has confirmed that the proposed school would not significantly
impact traffic on Hydraulic Road. Based on the potential operating times presented by the applicant, the
VDOT analysis shows 36 trips in the 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. time period and 24 trips in the 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. time
period. Peak traffic hours on Hydraulic Road are from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. with the afternoon peak hours
being from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. He said there is an existing left turn from Hydraulic Road into Roslyn Ridge
and a dedicated bike turn lane. Based on the VDOT analysis there would be a possible five-second delay
to exit onto Hydraulic for turning vehicles.
Mr. Cilimberg said this application requires no new support infrastructure. The well and septic
system is sufficient to handle the school as proposed. The applicant is proposing a playground where the
Phase 3 building is shown on the concept plan. The applicant is aware that a playground in that area will
require an amendment to a previously approved site plan; if, and or when Phase 3 is built, relocating the
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
playground recreational area to another area on the site would require an amendment to this special use
permit.
Mr. Cilimberg noted favorable factors to the application as: no detrimental impacts to the
adjacent property, an expanded educational opportunity for the community, and minimal impacts to the
existing character of the area and the church building. The unfavorable factor noted was an increase in
vehicle trips on Hydraulic Road during the peak morning hours, but VDOT indicated that the minor delays
expected are acceptable but said that any expansion beyond what is proposed would require a traffic
impact analysis.
Mr. Cilimberg said the relatively small-scale of the school and with no physical expansion of the
church, its general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the facts demonstrating there will be no
impact on health, safety and welfare as provided by the Health Department, VDOT and the County
reviewers, staff recommended approval. However, the Planning Commission at its hearing by a 4:3 vote,
recommended denial based on the following factors: existing traffic concerns as represented by the
neighbors, the potential of expansion as outlined by the applicant, and the potential negative impacts on
the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. He said if the Board chooses to approve this special use permit, staff
has the conditions that were supplied to the Planning Commission including the reference to their plan,
the maximum enrollment for staff and students, and that the hours of operation (as requested by the
applicant) be between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, from September 1 to June 15
(excluding special events), with students arriving no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and leaving no later than 4:00
p.m. to avoid peak travel times on Hydraulic Road. He said they also suggest that existing Condition No.
6 continue to be included as a reference although no physical improvements are planned except for the
possibility of the playground area where a building is shown on the site plan. Staff felt that keeping
existing Condition No. 6 which references the ARB’s indications on the plan of the existing tree line and
specific trees that should be saved and retained would be a good condition to keep. Staff also suggests a
Condition No. 10 which simply says: “There shall be no daycare center without the approval of a separate
special use permit.”
Mr. Rooker said that before the public hearing is opened he would like to disclose that he owns
property located at 1800 Roslyn Ridge Road and has a financial interest in Roslyn Ridge LC which owns
property identified as Tax Map Parcel 45-18 located near the property subject to this application. He is
also the registered agent for Roslyn Ridge LC at 1421 Sachem Place, Unit 3, Charlottesville, Virginia. He
declared that he is a member of the following business, profession, occupation or group, the members of
which are affected by this transaction: the group of numerous persons with personal interest in the
ownership of property located in Roslyn Ridge subdivision and in property in close proximity to the
Albemarle Baptist Church. However, he believes he is able to participate in this transaction fairly,
objectively and in the public interest.
Mr. Boyd asked if an existing site plan has approval to add an additional building on the property.
Mr. Cilimberg said according to the church’s original plan, in conjunction with their special use permit and
subsequently a site plan, the applicant showed all the buildings they could ultimately build, although they
have only built one so far. He said that site plan was approved as part of the expectation for the growth
of the church and future development. At the time it was approved that approval was not based on a
school locating on the property.
Mr. Boyd said he did not quite understand – will that approval be changed based on conditions
being placed on this special use permit to restrict that as the next step? Mr. Cilimberg said the church
has that approval – if they were to build a playground instead of that new building, the plan would need to
be amended.
Mr. Boyd said it would then be a playground, and the plan would have to be amended if they were
going to build a building. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct. They would have to either give up the
playground, or if it were put in another location, amend the special use permit.
Mr. Boyd said the Planning Commission seemed to have a concern about the potential of future
expansions, but the conditions clearly say they cannot do any future expansions without coming back for
further approvals. He just does not understand the Commission’s concern.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the two other churches in the vicinity of this one. Mr. Cilimberg replied
that including this church, there are four churches on the west side of Hydraulic between Earlysville Road
and Lambs Road and there is another church on the east side, but it is located in the development area.
Mr. Dorrier asked if all of these churches have special use permits. Mr. Cilimberg said the Unity
Church and the church on the corner of Hydraulic/Lambs Roads and the church at Hydraulic/Earlysville
Roads have a permit. None of these churches are grandfathered - they have all gone through the special
use permit process.
Mr. Rooker said this request is different from a church. The church is already there and is in
operation. This request is for potential use of the property for a private school.
Mr. Dorrier said the school is located inside of the church. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be located
inside of that building.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Ms. Thomas said she had a question about the septic system. In the earlier special use permit
request it was a special situation. She asked if it has worked fine. Mr. Cilimberg said according to the
Health Department everything is okay, and it is suitable for a school of this size.
Mr. Boyd said in reviewing the materials in the packet, he wanted to be sure it was staff that
recommended approval of the request. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed for Mr. Boyd that staff did recommend
approval.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing and explained the public
hearing process to those in the audience. He then invited the applicant to speak first.
Mr. Ray Jones asked that everyone in the audience who had come on behalf of the applicant
stand to show support (approximately 90 people stood). He is with the law firm of Martin Wren
representing the applicant. He said this matter is very important to him and his family. All three of his
adult daughters attended such a church school. It is the foundation stone of his faith and is the core
purpose of this church – to engage in activities and conduct ministries that may include – but are not
limited to – an elementary and a secondary day school. With that purpose in mind, they contracted to
purchase the current property in 2000.
Mr. Jones said that on May 15, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved a three-phase, 435-seat
sanctuary church at this location. On August 30, 2002, a proposed deed from the sellers, Roslyn Ridge,
included restrictions which forbade the applicant from exiting onto Roslyn Ridge. At that time the sellers
wanted the church to have a separate entrance from the property directly onto Hydraulic Road. In
October, 2002, VDOT and the Albemarle County Department of Engineering rejected that option and
ruled that for safety concerns access to Hydraulic Road from their property should come from Roslyn
Ridge Road because of its lower volume and lower speed.
Mr. Jones said there were three options on the table at that time – the seller could have rejected
the contract, the seller could have restricted access during different days and different times, or the seller
could have waived those restrictions. He explained that for the final deed dated December 16, 2002, all
restrictions were removed by the owners in Roslyn Ridge, meaning the seller removed any restrictions for
the church’s stated use for Roslyn Ridge Road. He said Albemarle Baptist Church paid for the use of
Roslyn Ridge Road and when you pay for the use of a road you also pay for the delays or waiting time
caused by the other people using that road.
Mr. Jones said the present request for a special use permit for a church school does not ask for
any new buildings. They ask only to use the existing buildings for all school functions – that is something
which is encouraged by Albemarle County. They have an approved 435-seat church building in Phase 2.
The septic system and well can easily handle this and it is all contained on their property. He said that at
this time they only have five children committed to attending this school in the fall of 2010.
Mr. Jones said he would address the concerns of the Planning Commission. First, they had
traffic concerns. VDOT has approved using Roslyn Ridge Road to come out onto Hydraulic Road. Traffic
generation from the proposed school, as well as the public school complex, impacts the morning peak
traffic for Hydraulic Road but does not impact the evening peak traffic. VDOT determined that there
would be a minor delay for vehicles departing Roslyn Ridge onto Hydraulic Road – an additional five
seconds for a delay of approximately 40 seconds. He said that when the church paid for the property, it
paid for those delays.
Mr. Jones said the Commission’s second concern had to do with the environmental impact. The
Health Department has stated that the current well and sewage disposal system is sufficient for the
proposed school with 40 students and five teaching staff. Plus, their property is well landscaped and well
drained to control any rainwater that falls onto the property. There will be no impact to the reservoir which
lays approximately three-quarters of a mile in a straight line from their property. He emphasized that they
are not changing or adding any structures to the property, or changing the layout of the property, not
moving any dirt or any asphalt or any cement. Everything stays as is.
Mr. Jones said the Commission’s third concern had to do with future expansion, but the only
issue before the Board today is 40 students and five staff as a cap. They only have five children
registered for this fall and there are three sets of parents involved. One is the pastor and he comes to the
church everyday. There is another person who lives at W hitewood, and another parent who has two
children. He said that on Sunday mornings they have between 150 and 200 people attend, and there are
between 90 and 110 people who attend on Sunday evenings, with between 75 and 120 people present
on Wednesday evenings. During vacation Bible school there are between 50 and 100 students arriving
daily at about 5:15 p.m. and leaving at about 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Jones said he has never been made aware of any complaints about traffic related to their
church activities. He said County staff mentioned to him that this application is subject to the First
Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise clauses and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000. One key provision in that Act states: “No government shall impose or implement a
land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person,
including a religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the
burden on that person assembly or institution a) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest
and b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Jones stated that this school is important to him. He is a grandfather and he wants to allow
his grandchild to go to a church school so he can take her to school and pick her up in order to be an
active part of molding her heart and her life. He asked that the Board unanimously approve this special
use permit.
Mr. Shane Seymour said he has been a member of the church for three years and its Assistant
Pastor for about two years. He travels to the church six or seven days a week during peak traffic times
and has never had any issues with traffic. He does not believe their vision for a church school will affect
traffic in any way. He has five reasons why the church should be allowed to have a Christian school –
they want to teach their children the word of God, give the children a great education, they want to
cultivate in their children good character traits, they want to nurture their children in a healthy
environment, and to instruct their children in a way of righteousness. He asked that the Board vote “yes”
on their request.
Ms. Star Palmore said the church’s day school will utilize existing facilities and will not interfere
with the daily functions of Roslyn Ridge Road and VDOT has confirmed that it would not significantly
impact traffic on Hydraulic Road. School activities would not impact the residential properties given their
distance from the school. She said the Health Department has confirmed that the existing well and septic
system are currently sufficient for the proposed school. The Albemarle Service Authority noted that the
site is not on public utilities and will in no way upset the ecological balance of the reservoir and local
groundwater. In the past year and a half they have planted trees by local licensed landscapers who
adhere to the best ecological practices available for the area. She said there are different functions at the
church on different days of the week, and even week-long events, and the additional traffic has been
negligible. She encouraged the Board to vote in favor of the application.
Mr. Mark Harris said he lives in Scottsville, but is an active member of Albemarle Baptist Church
and teaches in its teen ministry. He said they have all required permits from Albemarle County to gather
up to 300 people in the existing building. All they request now is the ability to title their daytime
gatherings as a school. Two years ago he worked landscaping this property and while there for many
hours during the day he never saw more than three cars use Roslyn Ridge Road. They have a program
on Friday evenings which requires them to gather at the church between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m., a busy time
for Hydraulic Road, but he has never experienced delays either entering or leaving Roslyn Ridge Road.
He understands that people do not like change but this special use permit brings change in name only, it
does not allow them to meet anymore than at present. He understands that all of the Board members are
education-friendly and family-friendly, so he encouraged the Board members to support the application.
Mr. Mark DeLoach said he is the pastor of the church. He brought his wife and two sons tonight,
and they wanted him to express their disappointment in not being able to attend the school this year, but
they are hopeful for this coming year. They do not understand traffic concerns, but do understand that
this school is a part of faith. He said their church highly values the right to call upon their God to seek his
assistance in all matters, particularly educational endeavors. They are home schooling their children in
order to pass their Christian values to them. It has always been his goal to establish a church school in
order to provide an excellent education for them in a safe Christian environment. This church was
founded 11 years ago with a goal of teaching. He asked that the Board consider their application
carefully and to vote “yes.”
Ms. Tina DeLoach said she is the pastor’s wife and they have two children – ages 14 and 12.
She said she is home schooling her boys and allowing them to go to a church school is her religious right.
She indicated that she has never had difficulty entering or exiting Roslyn Ridge Road onto Hydraulic
Road during various church activities. She implored the Board to look at their proposal objectively and
without partiality realizing that VDOT and the Health Department have both given their consent. She said
the church had met all requirements necessary in order to move ahead with the church school. She
requested that the Board approve this request.
Mr. Peter Cheage said he has been involved with Albemarle Baptist Church for many years. He
is currently serving as the assistant to the pastor for the Albemarle Baptist Church of Africa International,
which is a ministry to minister to the African people in Charlottesville. He introduced his wife and two
children and stated that his children would attend the new school if it is approved. He said he frequents
church facilities throughout the week and has never been delayed on entering or leaving the church
premises on any occasion. He emphasized that the school would not significantly impact the traffic on
Hydraulic Road or Roslyn Ridge Road. He thinks the school would make a positive impact on the
community in this and future generations.
Mr. B.J. Yost stated his support for the church’s school proposal. He said a mission of the church
is to assist parents and to support students in discovering and developing their individual uniqueness and
talents. He emphasized that the church has the capacity to support ongoing services and meetings each
day of the week with little or no impact to the environment or current system. He said that an ongoing
Christian environment has the liberty to address the social, physical and spiritual aspects of the Bible –
which in turn reaches the possibility of excellence in a child’s life. He encouraged the Board to approve
this proposal, as it’s been recommended by VDOT, the Health Department and the County’s Planning
staff. He also encouraged the Board to approve this extension of the home school education based on
the positive, godly guiding principles Christians hold dear.
Ms. Beatrice Brown said she is a member of the church and is employed by the Albemarle
County Public Schools. She expressed her support for the special use permit to operate a church school.
According to the staff’s report, the County Planning staff recommended approval of the application citing
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
the fact that VDOT found that their school would not affect traffic or safety. They also cited the Health
Department as saying the current well and sewage disposal system is sufficient for the proposed school
of 40 students and five teaching staff. The school is requesting a maximum of 40 students at this time.
She requested that the Board approve their request.
Ms. Pamela Harrington said she is a church member and works as a physician at UVA. She
supports the church’s application for a special use permit to operate a church school. She said the
County’s planning staff recommended approval of their application. She asked that the Board follow their
recommendation and vote “yes” on the request.
Mr. Eddie Giles said he attends this church and has since last December. He encouraged the
Board to approve the application for a school. He lives across the street from the church and he has
never noticed it having any impact on his use of Hydraulic Road. He is not in such a hurry that a 40-
second delay will harm him in any way.
Mr. Michael Roberts said he is employed at the Seminole Trail post office and is a member of the
church. He said the issue of most concern has centered on traffic. He said there is an average of 21,000
vtpd at this location. W ould an increase of 36 to 40 vehicles affect the traffic flow on Hydraulic Road?
That would add only one vehicle to every 525 vehicles traveling on Hydraulic Road, or .2 percent which is
very small in comparison to other projects approved in the County. VDOT has confirmed that it will not
have an affect on this road. Most of the families who have children who will be enrolled in the school
have more than one child. That alone will cut the volume of vehicles by one-third or more. He has
grandchildren that are being home schooled and this would extend their resources for a better education,
a safer environment, and an overall Christian atmosphere. He said it seems that the Roslyn Ridge
community has been misled to thinks the church wants to make the neighborhood different in some way,
but that is not true. They have gone out of their way to keep the area as neat as possible and to be good
neighbors. They just want a safe place for their children to be able to extend their education. There was
also a concern expressed about water and the strain on the watershed and contamination of the
reservoir. Their facility is almost three-quarters of a mile from the reservoir. He asked the Board to vote
in favor of the proposal.
Ms. Debbie Roberts she is a church member. The church has two employees who come to the
building every day. Between the two of them they have six of the 40 students that could possibly attend
this school. Also, the wives of both the pastor and assistant pastor are degree teachers, so there would
be 10 people in two vehicles. Even if every one of the 25 school-aged children who are members of the
church attended the school, only 11 vehicles would be involved. She said this would be only nine extra
vehicles a day if all the children attended the school. However, at this time there are only five students
committed to attending the school. She said they have activities almost every day of the week and
regular church activities where 30+ cars enter the church property each night. She asked that the Board
approve this special use permit for a church school.
Mr. David Bradley encouraged the Board to follow the recommendations of the Planning staff and
approve the application.
Ms. Joy Joyner said that Christian education has an impact on the lives of young people and their
future influence on communities. She had the benefit of attending a like-minded church school where she
received a solid foundation in academics. That has allowed her to succeed as a professional. She said
this day school will give its students a strong academic foundation which will enable them to become
ethical and moral professionals who seek to serve future needs of the community. As to the concern
about traffic on Hydraulic Road, that traffic is minimal compared to that on Seminole Trail and other
roads. She asked that the Board review the VDOT report which confirmed that traffic from the church
school will have a minimal impact on the road. In evidence of the church’s desire to be a good neighbor,
the church has offered to adjust the hours of the school’s operation and the Planning staff made a
recommendation as to what those hours should be. She asked the Board to consider staff’s
recommendation and approve this request.
Ms. Nora Kennon W inky said she is a member of the church as well as a Sunday school teacher.
She emphasized that the church provides a lot of opportunities for members like her, and she supports
the church school. She has never heard of or seen any impact on traffic on Hydraulic Road from the
church and she does not believe that having 40 students will cause any undue traffic issue, complaints or
burden to the road. In order to fulfill the church’s mission and purpose as a learning center, she asks that
the Board vote unanimously for their church school.
Ms. Lindsie W are said she and her family live in the Rio District. Her child is one year old today
and they are at this meeting instead of having a birthday party because they feel this Christian school is
important. She emphasized the importance of a Bible-based education which they feel will serve him
throughout his life. W hile they are not opposed to home schooling their son, they would prefer to send
him to a school where he can learn and play with other children, and a school with small class sizes
where he can get individual attention. Also, they will not have to worry about the background of the other
children in the school. She understands the neighbors in Roslyn Ridge have expressed concerns about
additional traffic on Hydraulic Road, but the results of the VDOT traffic study showed there is no need for
that concern. If the Board approves their application tonight, it will be making a wise decision that will
have a positive impact on the parents and children of the church for many years to come.
Ms. Karen Herndon said she has been an active member of Albemarle Baptist Church since her
daughter was four years old – she is now a student at Jack Jouett Middle School. Her daughter has
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
participated in every activity possible at the church. This school would be a blessing for her daughter,
and she would not have to worry about her daughter as she will get the Christian background training she
needs and a good education. She asked the Board to approve this request for a school to make that
possible.
Mr. John Snyder said he is a member of the church. He read the Planning Commission’s report
and noted their traffic concerns but VDOT has said the school would not significantly impact traffic on
Hydraulic Road. They also had a concern about potential expansion of the school, but if the church
should want to expand they would have to submit another request for that expansion so it is not an issue
today. The Commission also noted a potential negative impact on the reservoir. The church has a water
well and a septic system and both have been determined to be adequate. The neighbor’s concern about
traffic and safety was addressed by the appropriate departments and determined to have no significant
impact. As to the Commission’s concerns about an impact on the environment, having a maximum of 40
students and five teaching staff occupying the facility Monday through Friday would cause no additional
impact on the environment since the facility has been approved for a capacity of 435 in Phase 3 of its
development. At this time, Phase 1 of the church has a capacity of 200 in the sanctuary and 110 in the
fellowship hall. There was no restriction in the original approval as to when the total capacity could be
used. He asked for unanimous approval by the Board. He mentioned that he has seven great-
grandchildren. One lives in the area and he would like to have the opportunity to take her to a Christian
School at Albemarle Baptist Church.
Mr. Dan Zacharias said he is the Executive Director of the Old Dominion Association of Church
Schools, which was founded in 1976 as an association of Christian schools operated under the ministries
of independent Baptist churches. He said the association provides a wide range of services and activities
for member schools, including opportunities for professional growth at their annual educator’s convention
– to be held in Charlottesville in November at the Doubletree Hotel. He is present to support the church
and ask that the Board grant the special use permit that would allow the church to open their Christian
school. He said their association is convinced that the Nation’s children and their parents are served best
when they can choose an educational setting from a variety of options. The existence of private religious
schools in the community is a desirable and a beneficial thing, and the history in Albemarle of granting
many such special use permits indicates this Board’s agreement with their benefits and desirability.
Parents who want their children to be in an academic institution whose philosophy is consistent with their
own deeply-held religious beliefs deserve the freedom to make such a choice. He encouraged the Board
to grant the special use permit because it will afford several families in Albemarle the freedom to have
their children educated in a distinctly Christian and Baptist setting – a setting they believe is best for their
children.
Mr. Dennis Morris said he lives in Tom Brooks, Virginia. He serves on the Shenandoah County
Board of Supervisors. He said they have two similar private schools in their county. One was established
in 1976 and another established three years ago. They also have two additional private schools and a
military academy in Woodstock, and another academy in New Market. In their county they have seen
over the years that the Christian schools provide a good, healthy environment. He related several stories
relating to those Christian schools. He came to let the Board and the neighbors of Albemarle Baptist
know that in Shenandoah County they have a good healthy environment with their two Christian schools,
the neighborhoods are healthy, and the neighbors have accepted them. He has never received a
negative comment about these schools from the neighbors, VDOT or the Sheriff’s Department. He asked
that the Board act favorably on this request since he thinks the Albemarle Baptist Christian School will be
an asset to the neighborhood.
(Note: At 7:30 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 7:42 p.m.)
Mr. Thomas McFarlin, a member of Albemarle Baptist Church, addressed the Board. He believes
in God, the protection of the family, and the principles of the country. His basic and primary education
came from the church members at his home church. He said they were not a legal setting but the
education he received was life-sustaining. He is proud of his 21 years of active service as an enlisted
soldier. He still serves with the Department of the Army at the JAG School at UVA. He understands the
concerns of those who might disagree with their church, but he also understands the reports and the facts
that have been presented. He requests the Board’s approval of this church school.
Mr. Timothy W eber said he and his wife Debbie live in Earlysville. He is employed by PRA
International and he serves as deacon, treasurer, choir director, song leader, and part-time Sunday
school teacher at the church. He said the church sponsors many other activities that can take place on
the church site at almost anytime during any day of the week. The activities generate more traffic than
what the school in its current state will produce. The school will be small – currently there are only five
children who will be enrolled in 2010 - four of them belong to families who already make daily trips along
Hydraulic Road. He said the Health Department granted its approval of the church’s special use permit
and said the church could have up to 40 students and five teachers in a school setting. They have only
indicated interest in having a school within the church facility. They did not ask for a 40-student cap.
That cap was set by the Health Department based on their objective assessment of the sewer, the water
flow, etc. In order to have more than 40 students, it would require a new permit. He noted that his house
in Earlysville is actually much closer to the reservoir than is Roslyn Ridge. He said they understand the
concerns about traffic and water quality but feel the extensive, objective analyses performed by VDOT
and the Health Department demonstrate that those concerns will not be realized. He urged the Board to
unanimously approve this application for a church school.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Debbie W eber said she teaches Sunday school at the church. She teaches four to six-year
olds and a number of them come from disadvantaged homes with little parental direction. Because they
are at an impressionable age, it is important to instill values in them such as telling the truth, being
friendly and sharing with their peers, not taking things that do not belong to them, showing respect to their
parents, and being helpful. These are hard concepts for small children to understand, so she believes
that a Bible-based Christian education can make a significant difference in their lives. She asked that the
application be approved.
Mr. Adam W estfall said he is a member of the church. He said there were three aspects for
denial of this request. First, was a concern about additional traffic on Hydraulic Road during peak traffic
hours. He said the VDOT report indicates that the addition of the school traffic will not have a negative
impact on traffic. He then read some VDOT comments archived in minutes of the Planning Commission.
He said the current application is for Phase I of the school and should be treated as such. He then read
more comments from the archived minutes of the Commission. Third, were the possible negative impacts
on the reservoir. He said since the church uses a private well, that should not be an issue. The other
had to do with contaminants from runoffs – the church was designed by a civil engineer and approved by
the Board to self-contain any contaminated water or runoff. He said all three negative items have been
addressed by the respective professional entities and he would implore the Board to vote “yes” on this
request.
Mr. Justin Goodman said he lives in Roslyn Ridge subdivision. He speaks on behalf of his
neighbors as well as himself. He stated that despite what the VDOT report says, it is difficult to make a
left-turn out of or into the subdivision at 9:00 a.m. As to the number of students, their lack of success in
enrolling students should be a factor in the approval. It should be approved as if the 40 students were
coming from 40 different households because this school has that potential. Additionally, all of the church
members who have said the traffic is easy at all times are talking about off-peak hours. As to the point
that a compelling government interest is needed because this is a religious institution, the fact is that the
church is located in a no-growth area and that is a compelling government interest – not one of the
church members mentioned that it is a no-growth (rural) area, but they have not refuted that and the
church knew that when they bought the property. That is also something that was considered when the
neighborhood sold the property. As to the concern about parents being able to teach their children what
they want - he does not see how this Board’s vote will have an impact on what parents teach their
children. He thanked the Board for their time.
Mr. Germaine Battle gave his support for the church school. He came to support them because
he believes in what they believe in. He said taking everything into consideration (traffic, septic system,
approvals of other boards), although those things are important, the character of the people who will
attend the school is more important. This will not just be 40 students learning what God wants them to
do, but about how they will live and tell others about living their life according to the Bible. He requested
that the Board vote “yes” on the application.
Mr. Jason Haddock said he lives across the street from the church in the Garden Court area.
Instead of repeating what so many others have said tonight, he would like to refute what a Roslyn Ridge
neighbor might have concerns with. He thinks there are more people living in Garden Court than there
are in Roslyn Ridge, and they all share the same issue about getting onto Hydraulic Road. Everyone who
uses that road is subject to the traffic there. He does not see the school as having an impact. They have
offered to adjust the operating hours of the school so it will not affect the neighbors in Roslyn Ridge. He
reiterated that the application for the special use permit has met the requirements of all agencies
involved. These agencies found no reason to deny the founding of Albemarle Baptist Christian School.
While all members of his family were educated in the public schools, he believes that all should have a
choice as to where they receive their formal education. The curriculum will be taught by teachers with
years of experience in either public schools or church schools or by parents who now home school. He
asked that the Board vote affirmatively on this request.
Ms. Linda Haddock said she is a member of the church. She will not speak about traffic which
can be congested at peak times, but they are willing to change the hours of operation of the school to
alleviate that problem for the neighbors and others using Hydraulic Road. Her main request is that the
Board grant them the opportunity to serve the Christian children in their church. She is a special
education teacher with the public schools and she knows it is tough for some kids who do not fit into the
pattern of being in “the in” crowd. It is nice to have the kids relate to children who have their own interest
and their own ideals. As a member of the church and a mother she is asking that the Board approve the
special use permit so they can offer an education to the children in the church and the community.
Mr. James R. Haddock said he lives in Garden Court. He said the Board has just heard from
other members of his family who have all been educated in the public school system. He has been
employed by public schools for 39 years as a special education teacher, as a principal, as a special
education director, and has been teaching special education classes at Albemarle High School for the last
11 years. He is very supportive of an alternative type of education for those children and youth, and for
the parents who chose to have an alternative to the public school. He has been involved in the planning
of the church school for the last year and a half. He has talked with representatives from VDOT, also with
the Health Department and discussed the various concerns with this application. The final proposal they
presented to the Planning Department was the result of the input from those agencies. He said they
worked hard on meeting the concerns of the various people who represent the County in different
capacities. The Planning Department gave them various conditions and he will say that the officers of the
church who will serve as its Board of Education and the others involved as administrators and teachers
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
have accepted those conditions and agree to them without any kind of argument or concern. He thanked
the Board for its time and urged it to support establishment of the school.
Mr. Donald Jones said he joined this church based on three things. First there is a healthy
respect for women, racial prejudice is not welcome, and this church embraces a diversity of people from
many walks and backgrounds. He believes these values are best passed on by example. He said they
are not seeking approval for a large Christian school. Their vision is to fulfill their responsibility to the next
generation. They need to have the tools to succeed in the modern world, and the character to do right
even when it is not easy. They seek to meet the needs of parents who are members of Albemarle
Baptist. He does not think there should be a concern with their septic system because it is capable of
handling a congregation of 400 so should be able to handle a few dozen students during the week. He
asked the Board to consider the recommendations of staff and the experts in each of the agencies
mentioned, and approve their request for a special use permit.
Mr. Dan Dobbs said he and his wife are members of the church. They both strongly support the
application for the church school. Although they do not have children, it is important that there be the
opportunity to attend a faith-based school in which students can get an education in both
reading/writing/arithmetic and training in the Bible. He said the church is not on an enrollment drive – this
is because there are only 25 school-aged children in the church and only five of them have committed to
attending the school. He asked the Board members to vote in favor of this church school.
Mr. John W right had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Ms. Hyacinth Vickerman said she is a member of the church and is speaking in support of the
school.
Mr. Lewis Martin said he and Mr. Ray Jones represented the church when they negotiated the
contract with the Roslyn Ridge LLC which was ably represented by Mr. Dennis Rooker. He thinks that
those negotiations of seven years ago are relevant to the decision today. At that time, the seller’s primary
concern was that the church’s access to Hydraulic Road be straight off of the church property. That was
their main condition in the contract. The church’s main condition was that their intended use of the
property be permitted by the utilities that serve the property and the title restrictions on the property. With
those two primary restrictions, they moved forward. At a critical point just before settlement, and shortly
before Mr. Rooker had presented the draft of the first deed provided to the Board members by his
associate today, they learned from VDOT that they would not approve an entrance directly off of
Hydraulic Road. Looking at the first draft deed, one can see that a full paragraph in that deed has a well-
crafted, restrictive covenant imposed by Mr. Rooker to preclude the church’s use of Roslyn Ridge Road,
and the church was fine with that, but VDOT said “no.” He explained that at that point, the sellers had
three choices. First was to terminate the contract – they could keep the property and preserve their
access, but they would not get the purchase price so they did not choose that option. The second choice
was to propose an addendum to the contract which would require that the road access be restricted to
certain days of the week and certain hours of the week, and this would have required that the church get
less than they originally bargained for. The church might have agreed to this if they wanted to reduce
price. They may have disagreed and insisted on what they had originally bargained for, but those
negotiations never occurred. W hat happened is that the Roslyn Ridge lot owners elected a third
alternative which is the recorded deed the Board members have a copy of today - it has absolutely no
restriction on the use of Roslyn Ridge Road. If the Board votes to approve the church’s application
tonight, it insures that the church gets the benefit of its bargain just as the Roslyn Ridge property owners
got the benefit of their bargain when the church paid them the full consideration for the property.
Ms. Amber Roberts said she is a product of Christian education. She started in kindergarten and
went all the way through college in Christian schools. She would like the same opportunity for her
daughters. Currently she home schools her daughter who is in the fourth grade this year. Her three-year
old daughter thinks she would like to go to school, and she and her husband have decided the only
school she would be allowed to attend is the church’s school. They have looked at other Christian
schools and at private schools, but they are not comfortable with them. They want her at a small school.
She asked the Board to vote “yes” today.
Ms. Marylou Fowler had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Mr. David Nielsen said he and his wife attend Albemarle Baptist Church and are both retired. He
stated that they support the special use permit request. He read the staff’s report and the one thing that
stood out was fear. He thinks the objections are based on fear. He asked that the Board not let fear be a
motivating force and that they approve the request.
Mr. Mark Covey had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Mr. Biff Rossberg said he actually came to speak about the Music Festival, but as a product of
Christian schools he would like to support the Albemarle Baptist application.
Mr. Mike Leo had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Mr. John Updive had signed to speak, but was not present at this time.
Mr. Kam Khare said he lives in the Roslyn Ridge subdivision. He went to Tandem School which
started out very small. It had less then 50 students, and now it has about 200. The residents are
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
concerned with safety. There are many churches located along Hydraulic Road in terms of different
needs and requirements. Soon Albemarle Place will be at the corner of Route 29 and Hydraulic. The
residents see the issue as traffic and growth in the area. They don’t want to stop any kind of education,
but they want to be sure it is safe. He said the fact that the school will grow should be considered – it’s
about safety, it’s about traffic and about doing it in a way that is best for everybody.
Ms. Roseanne Ford said she has lived in Roslyn Ridge for 18 years. She came to express
concern about traffic congestion in the area – particularly with respect to entering and exiting the
subdivision off of Hydraulic Road. It has been her experience that the road is congested between 8:30
and 9:00 a.m. and the rush hour between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. She appreciates the church taking that into
account and adjusting its hours of operation. One concern is that there might be before-school or after-
school activities. Even a few additional cars could make a significant impact, particularly left-hand turns
in and out of the subdivision. She opposes approval of this application.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Slutzky closed the public hearing and placed
the matter before the Board.
Mr. Davis suggested the applicant be allowed to speak again.
Mr. Boyd said he also has a question for the applicant.
Mr. Ray Jones said he understood he had five minutes for a rebuttal at the end of the hearing.
He said there is no evidence that granting the special use permit will make things unsafe or cause traffic
headaches. That is speculation and he understands the concern. No one has said there have been any
delays caused by anything the church has done to date. None of the speakers from Roslyn Ridge have
made such an indication and the man who attended Tandem School is not opposed to them having a
church school. W ith regard to rush hour, he personally travels that road during that time period and often
stops by the church, but has never experienced more than a 15 to 20-second delay in getting out of the
road. He said the church is actually complying with all of the Roslyn Ridge residents’ concerns. They are
not adding traffic or increasing use of the building, they are simply replacing a greater capacity with a
lesser capacity. They are actually bringing in a lesser use of the church facility thus trumping larger uses
for other purposes later. He said the church is doing exactly what the Comprehensive Plan calls and that
is having a small-scale operation that complies with the rural area.
Mr. Jones said the impact will be minimal. If the Board could never approve anything that called
for up to a 40-second delay, everything would shut down immediately. If all they have is up to a 40-
second delay, five seconds per vehicle according to VDOT, that is a very small inconvenience to those in
Roslyn Ridge especially since the church bargained and paid for that property and the use according to
their mission and their purpose. He said this school is a part of their faith, and part of their faith is also
being good neighbors to members of Roslyn Ridge, good neighbors to other people along the highway,
and they have been. He said the officers of the church have already agreed to comply with what County
staff recommended. He asked that the Board vote unanimously to approve up to a 40-student school
with no more than five staff members. He asked the Board to do that - all the facts support them, and all
the evidence, and all the studies support their position.
Mr. Boyd said a couple of the conditions had been tweaked tonight – he asked if the applicants
had reviewed the recommended conditions. Mr. Jones asked if he was talking about beginning school at
9:30 a.m.
Mr. Boyd said that was correct. Mr. Jones said that is not a problem.
Mr. Rooker said that is something the church submitted and agreed to.
Mr. Rooker said he appreciates all of the comments made tonight. He said the church has been
a good neighbor. They keep their property nicely and he admires the goals of the church and its
parishioners. However, this is not a religious decision – this is a land use decision. He said most people
hold their religion as a very important thing in their lives. But, from the Board’s standpoint, this is a land
use decision.
Mr. Rooker said this property lies in the rural areas. In the past he has had at least one private
school come to him asking if he would support them going into a lot off of Hydraulic Road virtually
adjacent to this property. He had indicated he would not support that request because it was an
expanded facility in the rural area. He has heard the comments tonight on both sides of the traffic issue,
but he would say that during rush hour if you want to make a left-hand turn out of any place on the west
side of Hydraulic Road, you need to make a right-turn and travel down the road to a place where you
essentially turn and come back.
Mr. Rooker said there is virtually no money in Virginia for transportation improvements. Six years
ago, the County’s funds for State Secondary roads were over $5.0 million; this year they will be only $1.5
million. The Board expects that amount will be cut in half in the next three or so months. The Board
recently received a “talking point” sheet from the Secretary of Transportation which indicated that soon
they plan to provide no funds for transportation construction in the state. This is a remarkable decline in
transportation funding which is supposed to be paid for by the State and Federal governments. It will be
a huge problem for the County. He said Hydraulic Road is one of the parallel roads to Route 29 and it
presently has about 20,000 vtpd.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Rooker said there are points of difference between this request and the Charlottesville Day
School which was the school that approached him about potentially using the Roslyn Farm property.
There will be no new facilities added as a result of this application. The conditions on the time of pick-up
and drop-off of students is very important because assuming the conditions are adhered to, this will not
add traffic during the time of day when the road is overburdened. That is a significant point of distinction.
In light of the conditions, he will support the application, but it is unlikely that he would support an
expansion of the application beyond 40 students.
Mr. Rooker said there has been little talk tonight of the distinction between the growth areas and
the rural areas – that is a significant distinction in the Comprehensive Plan. The County provides for what
are called “hard edges” between the rural areas and the growth areas. There should be a significant
difference between what is seen on one side of the line and the other side of the line. He said Hydraulic
Road is the dividing line between the growth area and the rural area. W hen people speak of the growth
they have seen along Hydraulic Road, that growth is on the east side in the growth area. The County
needs to be extremely cautious about discretionary approvals which will add any significant traffic to
Hydraulic Road especially during rush hour.
Mr. Rooker said the Comprehensive Plan and the master plan which is being brought forward
(Places29) call for significant additional density on the east side of Hydraulic Road and on the east side of
Rio Road. Capacity needs to be preserved on those roads for that growth. If all of that capacity is used
up approving discretionary things in the rural area, there will be no capacity left and there is no money to
build additional facilities to accommodate the growth that is coming in that area. He said this is a minimal
traffic increase as long as the cap is maintained on the number of students. It is important that traffic will
not be put on the road during peak hours when it is presently over capacity. After saying all of that, he
supports the application.
Ms. Thomas said she recalls when Hydraulic Road was made the boundary line between the
rural and the growth areas. Because of the possible effect on the reservoir, it was important that there
not be public water and sewer in an area where a lot of people said, if you don’t want septic tanks you
should have public water and sewer. At the time, the Board realized that would allow greater growth and
in the end, the impact from the stormwater from that growth would be worse than septic tanks. She is
glad that the septic tank situation, which is an unusual one at this church, is working. For the people who
are concerned about the threat of growth, the County Attorney has advised that something now which is a
matter of supposition can’t be used as a reason in a case like this. The Board is not ignoring that
because case law says that it must. She said if the church is considering 40 students as a starting point,
they might do well to discuss that with members of the board before they make lots of plans for growing
beyond that point, particularly since the Health Department suggested 40. She does not want anyone to
think about growing beyond that point – she will warn people that expansion is unlikely to be met with
approval by the Health Department or by this Board. When she went out and looked at the road, she felt
it was ironic because Roslyn Ridge probably provided those turn lanes that make it possible to have this
additional traffic. She said she will support the proposal.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the congregation has made an effort to show their good faith in abiding
with their plans. It appears that the Planning Commission based their decision on the potential for
expansion and the potential negative impacts on the reservoir. He doesn’t see the potential for expansion
as part of this application. That is really not something the Board can consider at this time. As to
negative impacts on the reservoir, he does not see that this church is impacting the reservoir that much,
probably because it is just one of many churches in the neighborhood. The road itself is a four-lane road,
and he does not see this one church as having a negative impact. Traffic concerns were the third reason
given by the Commission. The 40-member school is a new use by the church and it does not appear it
will be that significant compared to the 22,000 vtpd on Hydraulic Road today. He said staff has
recommended approval, and when the Board decided in 2002 to allow a church to go on that property,
“the die was cast at that time” to make a use of the property that would be compatible in the rural area,
but also could be compatible in a suburban area which is what he considers this area to be.
Ms. Mallek said she is sensitive to the Comprehensive Plan and the rural area restrictions and the
County’s goals for where uses will take place. This is an ideal location for a congregation that comes
from so many different parts of the County. She appreciates the changes the church has made and the
way they’ve addressed those rural area issues. Since many of the same children coming to the school
are ones that already come for special events, the operating hours will provide a more structured
environment in terms of traffic and road usage. She said she will support the application.
Mr. Boyd said he supports the church and what they are trying to do. He appreciates Mr. Rooker
pointing out that this is a land use decision. W hen he looks at land use, he considers the economic value
of the land and what that can do to keep taxes low. But, it’s equally important for character development.
This is a case of land use being used for character development. He said he is solidly behind what the
church is doing.
Mr. Slutzky said he shares most of the thoughts that have been shared tonight. He views this as
not specifically pertaining to a church school – it is a land use decision. He is appreciative of Mr. Rooker
having shared the frustration of the Board members with the lack of funding for transportation
infrastructure that does relate to the slightly increased use of this particular location. He loves public
hearings because he always learns something – he was not familiar with this church before tonight. He
said that tonight the Board members got a feeling of what the church is about and it is clear the
congregation has a great deal of interest in not just having a church school, but an environment through
which children can be taught to be good citizens. He said this Board has to make political decisions as
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
elected officials. The Board is not supposed to be unduly influenced by the emotional relationships with
the request. He thinks this boils down to an interesting balance between wanting to preserve what is
meant by the term “rural area.” It means there should be no increased activity in those rural areas. All of
the development activities have been concentrated inside the development areas to protect the rural
areas. The church location is in a rural area so that suggests to him that the Board should be very careful
about permitting any increased intensity of the use. It was interesting that when confronted with the
concerns of the community about the impact the church school might have on the transportation in the
neighborhood, the response was to adjust the request by scheduling the church school at a time when it
would not create those negative impacts. He applauds the church’s willingness to be responsive to those
concerns. He thinks they have been addressed adequately. He appreciates that fact because it made it
easy for him to make his decision.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to approve SP-2008-0060 with the conditions as presented by
staff tonight. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The school is limited to the existing building and grounds, as indicated on the concept
plan (Attachment A). Any additional building or site changes beyond those shown on the
approved site plan for SP-2001-47, prepared by Dex A. Sanders and dated November
28, 2007, will require an amendment to this Special Use Permit;
2. Maximum enrollment of students and staff shall be limited to forty (40) students and five
(5) staff. Any increase in enrollment and/or staff shall require an amendment to this
Special Use Permit (SP-2009-60) and a traffic study shall be required to
be submitted with the amendment;
3. Hours of operation for the school shall be between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday from September 1 to June 15, excluding special school events. Students
shall arrive no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and shall leave no later than 4:00 p.m.;
4. No additional outdoor lighting shall be allowed without an amendment to this Special Use
Permit;
5. Food preparation for the private school use shall not be conducted without an
amendment to this Special Use Permit;
6. All requirements of the Architectural Review Board shall be met, including the site plan
indicating the existing tree line and specific trees of six (6) inches or greater and retaining
significant trees;
7. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum four-hundred-thirty-five (435) seat
sanctuary;
8. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Chapter 18, 21.7.2 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or
residentially zoned properties;
9. Any number of parking spaces in excess of the required minimum shall not be paved;
and
10. There shall be no day care center without the approval of a separate special use permit.
(Note: The Board recessed at 8:47 p.m., and reconvened at 8:54 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda item No. 10. Public Hearing: SP-2008-066, 20 South (Amendment).
Proposed: Amend SP-2002-0022 (Home Occupation-Class B) to allow three storage sheds for
an existing catering business.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Section: 10.2.2 (31) Home Occupation Class B.
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: No.
Location: 1156 Roundtop Farm; east side of Rt 20 Scottsville Road, approx. 1400 feet north of Rt.
708 Red Hill Rd.
Tax Map/Parcel: 102000000017E0.
Magisterial District: Scottsville.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31,
2009.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request is to allow three sheds to be added
to a previously approved special use permit for a catering business. The three sheds already exist as the
applicant was not aware they required an amendment to the original permit. The property is located in
the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. Approval of this permit would allow this business which
has been operating out of the site since 2002 to expand; it is a catering business that relies on local
growers, it supports agricultural uses in the rural areas and promotes economic viability for rural
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
landowners. He then showed pictures on the screen of the sheds, noted that the square footage of all
three totals 1,035 square feet. There is no plumbing or electrical wiring associated with the sheds. One
is shown as a workshop on the concept plan, but is used as a tool shed. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend approval with five total conditions – two of which are added or amended to
reflect the request before the Board. He offered to answer questions.
With no questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
speak first.
Mr. Pierce McClesky indicated that he didn’t have anything to add.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he knows the McClesky family and the three sheds serve a useful
purpose and don’t disrupt the landscape. He then offered motion to approve SP-2008-066 subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Special Use Permit SP-2008-66 20 South Office shall be developed in general accord with
the concept application plan, provided by the applicant and received March 16, 2009
(Attachment D-on file). However, the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the
concept application plan to allow conformance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. There shall be no on-site sales;
3. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials;
4. All requirements of the Health Department shall be satisfied; and
5. No additional outdoor lighting shall be allowed without an amendment to this Special Use
Permit.
_______________
Agenda item No. 11. Public Hearing: SP-2009-006, Kenridge.
Proposed: Amendment to SP-2004-52 to change the approved application plan. Modification
consists of revised location for access road and parking for the commercial building and the
elimination of one of the single family attached units. Approved uses remain unchanged.
Zoning Category/General Usage: CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and
service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre).
Section: 23.2.2(9) R-15 residential-15 units/acre.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use/Density: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research,
limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots) in Neighborhood 7.
Entrance Corridor: Yes.
Location: North side of Ivy Road (Route 250 West across from Birdwood Golf Course)
approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Ivy Road and the 29/250 By-pass.
Tax Map/Parcels: 60K/61 & A2.
magisterial district: Samuel Miller.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31,
2009.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this project is located off of Ivy Road W est in an
area that was subject to a prior approval for residential development. Most particularly, it is the area that
incorporates the old carriage house which was associated with the manor house. He showed the original
plan, which is being revised by this request, on the screen. On that plan the manor house had its own
existing driveway and parking area, and the carriage house was to have access from Kenridge Lane on
the east side of the project. He pointed to an area on the plan where a total of six units were originally
proposed with the entrance off of Kenridge Lane to be between the single-family detached and attached
units. The applicant’s request now is to have the carriage house which has served as a sales facility,
accessed instead off of the west side of the property instead of the east side. That would involve the loss
of one unit on that side bringing the number of units down to five. He said the driveway as it exists now
was initially created when the existing building was being used as a sales facility. According to the plan
and the notes on the plan, the driveway would be eliminated beyond the parking area unless it is brought
up to appropriate standards.
Mr. Cilimberg said factors supporting the original special use permit have not changed, the
applicant has made the revisions recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; the staff and the
Commission recommend approval with the revised conceptual plan and 17 conditions. He said all of the
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
conditions were carried over from the original approval; the changes actually occur in the first condition
which makes reference to the conceptual plan he described. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd said since there will be the loss of one lot, he wondered if one would be picked up on
the other side once the driveway is moved. Mr. Cilimberg said on the other side they show eight lots
where there were originally eight lots, but he believes it is the applicant’s intent to widen the lot sizes.
Ms. Thomas said the neighbors are interested in the traffic light that is to be placed on Route 250
when VDOT says there is enough traffic to warrant the light. She asked if this will increase traffic in any
way. Mr. Cilimberg said what they propose to do would not increase traffic.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to speak.
Mr. Scott Collins, representing Kenridge LLC, offered to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd asked if Kenridge had any problems with the conditions. Mr. Collins replied that they do
not.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this is a positive change in the plan.
Ms. Thomas said she checked with staff to be sure the neighbors had been sufficiently notified of
this hearing, and whether staff had received any concerns. There were only a couple of comments, but
they had nothing to do with this plan. She then offered motion to approve SP-2009-006 with the
amendment and the conditions as presented.
Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with the revised Conceptual Plan
prepared by Collins Engineering, revision date August 25, 2009 (“Conceptual Plan”) (See
Attachment). Parking for the office use shall be limited to the area and number of spaces
shown on the Conceptual Plan. If additional parking is required for the office use, an
amendment of this special permit shall be required;
2. There shall be a minimum front yard of two hundred seventy-five (275) feet between the
southern-most structure (the “Main House”) and the property line adjacent to Route 250
as shown on the Conceptual Plan; side and rear yards shall be as shown on the
Conceptual Plan;
3. All streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties as shown on the Conceptual
Plan shall be constructed by the applicant to an urban section with the intent that such
streets on the property connecting to adjacent properties will be built to a standard
consistent with the connecting street on the W hite Gables property. All streets and
pedestrian accesses shall be constructed to a standard acceptable to the County
Engineer in accordance with the highlighted sections of Attachment A, revised and dated
August 30, 2005, and initialed as CTG;
4. The connecting road extending from the former ITT property (Tax Map 60, Parcel 28) and
across the Kenridge property to its entrance at Ivy Road, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan, shall be established as a private street in conjunction with the final subdivision plat
or site plan. As a condition of final subdivision plat or site plan approval, the applicant
shall grant all easements deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development
to assure the public's right to use the connecting road for purposes of ingress to and
egress from Tax Map 60, Parcel 28;
5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the VDOT related to design and
construction of the entrance to the property, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, and shall
pay its pro rata share of the cost for signalization of this infrastructure contributed by
traffic from the development as follows:
(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall place funds in
escrow or provide other security (“security”) acceptable to the County in an
amount equal to its pro rata share of the cost of the signal which amount shall be
calculated by the Director of Community Development in the year in which the
security is provided. The security shall continue so that it is available to pay for
the cost of the signal until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special
use permit; security provided that is not in an interest-bearing account shall be
annually renewed, and the amount of the security shall be adjusted each year
according to the consumer price index, as determined by the Director of
Community Development; and
(b) If, at any time until ten (10) years after the date of approval of this special use
permit, VDOT authorizes in writing the installation of the signal, and VDOT and
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
the County’s Engineer approve the signal’s installation before the applicant has
obtained a building permit, the County may demand payment of the applicant’s
pro rata share of the cost of the traffic signal, and the applicant shall pay its pro
rata share of the cost to the County within thirty (30) days of that demand;
6. Screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and along the west and east sides of the
project shall be provided and maintained as depicted on the Conceptual Diagram of
Perimeter Screen and Privacy Planting, dated May 12, 2005, by Charles J. Stick,
attached as Attachment B. The continuous evergreen trees noted as Leyland Cypress
Hedge along the north, east and west sides of the project shall be installed at ten (10)
feet to twelve (12) feet in height after lot grading but prior to issuance of a building permit
for any dwelling unit construction. The Leyland Cypress Hedge also shall be planted on
eight (8) foot centers. Underground irrigation shall be provided for all the planting areas.
Screening deemed acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be
provided adjacent to the railroad to mitigate the impact of this development on adjacent
property and the impact of the railroad on this development;
7. Prior to any alteration or demolition of any building, a reconnaissance level
documentation to include black and white photographs and a brief architectural
description shall be provided to the satisfaction of the County's Historic Preservation
Planner;
8. Regardless of the ownership of the open space and amenities, they shall be made
available for use by all residential and commercial units in the development;
9. Except for those attached single-family buildings located in Zone (A) the exteriors of
blocks of attached single-family buildings shall be either red brick, or white painted brick,
with gable roofs. The exteriors of attached single-family buildings in Zone (A) shall be
red brick with gable roofs. The features in Zone (A) shall be reviewed and approved by
the ARB during its review of the site plan for these buildings. The exteriors of detached
residences shall be either red brick or painted white brick. These materials shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Planner before the issuance of a building permit
for the buildings (See Attachment C);
10. Exterior roof surfaces shall be constructed of either copper or synthetic slate;
11. The new villa and town home units shall include garden improvements, generally as
depicted on the Front Garden Diagram, dated August 24, 2005, by Charles J. Stick,
Landscape Architect (See Attachment D). Maintenance of these areas shall be provided
for and required by the Homeowner’s Association which shall be set forth in the
Covenants for this development. The decorative walls, steps and walks shall be
constructed of either brick or stone;
12. To ensure the retention of the majority of the existing trees in the two hundred seventy-
five (275) foot front yard setback described in Condition 2 (located between the main
house and the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor), the applicant shall submit for review
and approval by the County’s Design Planner a tree conservation plan prepared by a
state certified arborist that meets the requirements of Section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance. This plan shall be required for all erosion and sediment control plans, site
plans, and subdivision plats;
13. The site wall immediately adjacent to Route 250 West shall be included on all drawings
that include its context. All grading, road alignments, turning lanes, and other
improvements shall be adjusted to insure that impacts to the wall only include closing the
existing entrance and adding a single entrance. Notes shall be included on the grading,
site plans and subdivision plats that state: “The existing site wall shall remain.
Disturbance shall be limited to the closure of the existing entrance and the opening of the
proposed entrance into the site." Any changes to the wall shall be minimal and
articulated to blend with the character of the existing wall to the satisfaction of the
Architectural Review Board. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in the final
block, the stone pillars shall be replaced at the new entrance from Route 250;
14. The design of all single-family detached residences, including but not limited to colors,
roofing, siding and foundation material selections, shall be coordinated with the
Architectural Review Board-approved designs of the attached residential units, as
determined by the Design Planner;
15. The owner agrees to voluntarily contribute a sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) cash
per new dwelling unit to the County for funding affordable housing programs [including
the Housing Trust Fund]. The cash contribution shall be paid at the time of the issuance
of the Building Permit for such new unit. The acceptance of this special use permit by the
owner shall obligate the owner to make this contribution;
16. Pedestrian access deemed acceptable by the Director of Community Development shall
be provided to the Manor Home and the Carriage House; and
17. With the exception of the entrance road, all streets within the development shall conform
to the neighborhood model matrix deemed appropriate by the Director of Community
Development.
_______________
Agenda item No. 12. Public Hearing: SP-2009-016, Music Festival.
Proposed: Special Use Permit to allow a special event at the Misty Mountain Camp Resort.
Zoning Category/General Usage: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
Section: 10.2.2.50 Special events.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
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: 56 Misty Mountain Road, approx. three-quarters of a mile west of 64E junction.
Tax Map/Parcel: 07100000000300.
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31,
2009.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office with the
permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this request is for a special permit that would
allow one three-day music festival per year at the Misty Mountain Resort off of Route 250 West; he noted
that a festival has already been scheduled to be held there from October 2 to October 4, 2009. He
presented on the screen a concept plan for the festival area, which is separated from the campground
and is accessed from a road entering from Route 250 - it includes the parking, vending and staging areas.
The Planning Commission added language to insure that this specific area is denoted by the conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said a portable stage would be used and there would be no more than 500 people
in attendance each day. There is a condition which would restrict noise levels to no higher than 65
decibels during the event as measured from any adjacent property. The hours of operation would be
from noon to 10:00 p.m. All the festival parking would be onsite. They have contracted for trash removal
and recycling. Security would be required onsite at all times during the entire festival. Camping outside
of the designated camping areas would not be allowed. There is a provision for emergency exits. He
said staff offered a condition to limit the validity of the special use permit to allow a trial period consisting
of two events – one in the fall of 2009 and one in the fall of 2010 – in order to monitor the impacts of the
festival and to insure that no unforeseen impacts arise that would jeopardize the health, safety and
welfare of the general public. He said if they applied to have the permit re-approved, staff would be able
to judge what conditions should be changed, altered, removed or added based on what had been
experienced at those two events.
Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT has determined that the proposed use would not have a detrimental
impact on traffic in the area. He showed on the screen a rendering of the campsite where the festival
would be held. He mentioned that factors favorable to the request as the minimal impact the site would
have given that the festival is a temporary special event and no permanent structures or improvements
would be constructed and no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the use.
He said the added language in the condition that the Planning Commission recommended was to address
concerns raised by a couple of property owners in an adjacent subdivision regarding any activities that
could drift toward the subdivision.
Mr. Cilimberg said the unfavorable factor is that there would be increased traffic in the area during
the three days of the festival. He said staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval
subject to the conditions, including the added language by the Commission to insure that the area he
noted earlier would be the area within which the festival would be held, and only within that area. He said
there are a total of 17 conditions recommended. Staff made a slight alteration on the tenth condition just
to have the language read clearer as to the parking on the site for this special event and the maximum
amount of parking each day. He then offered to answer questions.
Mr. Slutzky asked what happens if the decibel level exceeds 65 decibels on an offsite property.
Is there a plan between staff and the applicant as to what the response would be? Mr. Cilimberg said that
Mr. Higgins from the Zoning Office is present and may want to respond to that question.
Mr. Slutzky asked what would happen if more than 500 people attend on a given date. Is there a
plan in place to address that condition? Mr. Cilimberg handed to the Board members a copy of the one
letter received in opposition to this request from an owner about 2,000 feet away. It is not an adjacent
property.
Mr. Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning, said staff has actively talked about a decibel level limit; staff will
have to get some baseline measurements before the festival occurs and from adjacent properties during
the festival. They will work with the applicant to find a way to dampen the sound. If the permit is
approved for two years and they find that the decibel levels are exceeded this year, the organizers would
need to come up with more substantial measures to limit the sound. They will get baseline
measurements so it will help the applicants know what to measure from.
Mr. Slutzky said he would encourage staff to take measurements at different times. He is hopeful
the County is getting good data. Mr. Higgins said it is hoped that they will find something on which the
organizers can base their own management.
Mr. Slutzky asked about the 500 person, 224-car limit. Mr. Higgins said the applicant has a
limitation method of his own. They will sell 500 tickets – with an additional number of attendees possible
by the campers on the property. It is possible that they could have 1100 people on the property at one
time. The applicants do not expect that to happen, but the limitation condition would allow that. Mr.
Cilimberg noted that if any of the 600 campers go to the festival, they have to buy a ticket and are thus
included in the 500 attendees. Because of that, the maximum number would self-lower.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Thomas asked if the ABC Board is involved with this event, and is there a need for police to
direct traffic on the highway, and if so, is there a provision to pay overtime for the police. Mr. Higgins said
the applicant can give the details as to what is planned for that because there is a lot involved. Mr.
Cilimberg mentioned that Condition No. 11 sets out the requirements for security, parking and traffic
control. It does not speak to police in particular.
Mr. Boyd asked about the origin of the 65-decibel level. Mr. Higgins responded that in the rural
area, the typical limitation is 55 decibels for nighttime and 60 decibels for daytime. They will not be
operating in any of the nighttime hours. Because of the nature of the use and the applicant’s request for
a waiver of the sound limits, staff recommended imposing the commercial sound limit which is 65 decibels
day and night.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any precedent for granting a waiver of the sound ordinance. Mr.
Cilimberg said there have been waivers granted for sound associated with kennels, but he’s not sure
about general decibel variations.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that it is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly. He said another
concern he had is raised in the letter from the Clarks. It is not about this special use permit so much as
about the existing operation. They make some factual statements about the existing operation. He
questions whether there has been any examination of those allegations about the current use of the
property or whether there is a violation of the existing special use permit or the zoning. Mr. Higgins
responded that he did a brief investigation of the previous special use permit. He was told that there were
people living on the property and children catching the school bus from that property. He said it is
interesting that a condition on the earlier special use permit said that four of the cabins could be used as
dwelling units, while another condition said the cabins would not be used between November and March.
He said staff will look into that, but he does not think there is a violation.
Mr. Boyd said originally the Board said a music festival would need a special use permit, and then
Misty Mountain got a special use permit to hold events like this, and he wondered how it all ended up the
way it did. Now, it appears the music festival is the entity. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the permit runs
with the land, not the landowners. There is the campground as well as the concert both allowed by
special use permits.
Mr. Boyd said he understands that other events have been going on too, and that was the reason
for Misty Mountain to get this special use permit. Now it appears that they will be limited to two music
festivals a year. Does that mean they can’t use it for any other purposes? Mr. Higgins said there are two
answers to this question. First, it became complicated and the applicants were concerned that the permit
might not be granted in time for the October music festival. They felt it was better to separate the two
issues. Second, Misty Mountain has other events - they make their campground available on a regular
basis throughout the season to, as an example, an antique car club, a dog show, a blue grass festival,
etc. They rent the campground out for these events and have the event themselves. W hether outside
people come in has been the subject of debate. They were trying to operate the music festival as an
accessory to the campground, but said it would be looked at this year as to whether a separate special
use permit should be pursued to expand beyond the campground.
Mr. Slutzky said the staff report suggested that this special use was not particularly enhancing the
quality of life. One of the reasons he is comfortable with a trial basis waiving the 60-decibel threshold
during the daytime hours is the notion that there is some value in having this (from a cultural perspective)
in the rural area. If this became just a commercial enterprise disguised as a one-off event, he would think
differently. It is not entirely inconsistent with a rural area use to have a single event that is well managed
only once a year. If it became an ongoing commercial enterprise, he would think differently. Mr. Cilimberg
said from the standpoint of the Comprehensive Plan the plan does not say much about events and
assembly of people in the rural area. In the Rural Area update next year, that will be addressed more
specifically.
Mr. Dorrier said a good model is the Blue Grass Festival at the Graves Mountain Lodge in
Madison County. He said Scottsville had a blue grass festival a few years ago and it was successful, but
not successful enough to have it again. They could not afford the high paid acts that must be paid in
advance of the festival.
With no further questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing and asked the applicant
to speak first.
Mr. Mike Leo, owner and property manager of Misty Mountain Camp Resort, addressed the
Board. He said there was a mention of kids catching the bus; those are his children. There are no
permanent residents on the property; the cabins are strictly rental units for no more than 30 days at a
time. There is that same restriction on campers. He said they did the music festival last year and it went
off without a hitch – there were no complaints or law enforcement issues. They provided their own
security using 12 people. The ABC officer came out last year and said it was a well-run festival.
Mr. Leo said the festival is not designed as a commercial entity. It is designed for the local
community with eight of the local vineyards, local breweries and local restaurants coming out, with 80
percent or so of the bands being local. It is designed to get them more exposure in the community for
their camping facilities. He noted that Mr. Bill Rossberg, who is the festival promoter, is in attendance to
answer any questions about the bands and music part of the event. As to how they handle the facility
and people, there are currently between 400 and 600 people on site and there has seldom been any
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
incident which required the police. They are cautious as to letting things get out of hand. He offered to
answer questions.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is parking across Route 250. She knows that in past years that land
was available to use upon approval by that landowner and Mr. Leo had insurance to cover it. Mr. Leo
responded that Seven Oaks Farm – which is directly across 250 – last year granted permission to use it
for parking if their festival parking became full. He noted that last year there was room to park all
vehicles, with the number of people allowed for the festival. He said it would be nice to have that as an
overflow parking area, but they think all parking can be handled on site. If necessary, they could use the
land across the street and perhaps run a small bus across the road so people did not walk across Route
250.
Ms. Thomas said she did not think that is allowed with this list of conditions.
Ms. Mallek said that is something that needs to be discussed. Mr. Leo said he was not
requesting offsite parking.
Mr. Rooker asked what kind of music would be offered. Mr. Rossberg replied that Friday is rock
and roll day, Saturday is family day, and Sunday is retro day.
Mr. Rooker asked if local bands will be playing. Mr. Rossberg said that about 60 percent of the
bands are from Charlottesville, with another 20 percent from the Afton/Greenwood area.
Mr. Slutzky asked what happens if the sound level carries. Mr. Leo said the way the property is
laid out, the only possibility of sound traveling out of the property would probably be toward the camping
area or on the other side where the creek is located, but that sound would travel toward steep slopes and
woods. To the west of the stage, there are no residences within 1,000 feet. If an issue arose the
soundman would need to adjust the sound level.
Ms. Thomas asked if County police would be needed to augment the applicant’s security people.
Mr. Leo said that last year there was no need for police. There is a deceleration lane on Route 250.
There is no ticketing or parking fees when cars pull into the property so there is no backup of traffic onto
the highway.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an indoor stage and an outdoor stage. Mr. Leo said there is a
community building which is 120’ by 70’ which holds about 120 people.
Mr. Thomas said it was pointed out earlier that the special use permit runs with the property and
not the applicant, so after the two-year trial there might be more conditions placed on any renewal. At
that point, it would be to codify what the applicant is doing right. She said the Board must make sure that
any owner subsequent to Mr. Leo would also be doing things right so don’t be insulted if conditions are
added.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the applicant requested that the Board take out the offsite parking. Mr.
Leo said he feels they can handle the parking for the size they are requesting; if that is an issue as to
approval of this request that is not a major issue for him. He can park the cars onsite, but it would be nice
to change the condition to reflect the possibility of having overflow-parking offsite; he agreed to commit to
a shuttle bus, if necessary.
Mr. Slutzky asked the County Attorney to suggest language. Mr. Davis suggested adding
language to Condition No. 8: “... except in authorized parking lots from which people are transported to
the special event by shuttle or comparable vehicles.”
Mr. Rossberg said there would be security present to be sure people don’t walk across Route
250.
Mr. Rooker said there is a limit of 224 parking spaces. He asked if that is 224 onsite. Mr. Leo
said there is a huge Christian event on that weekend that will use 30 of his parking spaces. All of their
cabins are booked and all of their tent sites are booked for the music festival.
Ms. Thomas asked if the people staying overnight in the campground would still have to be
counted within the 500. Mr. Leo said if they are going into the designated festival area.
Mr. Slutzky asked if they are part of the 224 cars. Mr. Leo said “not necessarily.” Each campsite
can have a car on that campsite. In addition to that parking, they also have 224 parking spaces.
Mr. Rooker asked if the offsite parking would only be needed if there were more than 224 cars.
Mr. Leo said that is correct.
At this time, Mr. Slutzky invited the public to speak.
Mr. Rossberg said he is one of the producers of the music festival. He offered to answer
questions.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a designated recipient for the festival proceeds. Mr. Rossberg
responded that the money will go to the W estern Albemarle Rescue Squad, the Crozet Park for a dome to
make their pool a year-round facility, and to the Mountainside Senior Living benevolent fund. As to the
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
letter of complaint from the Clarks, he has visited them six times in an attempt to make contact to
ameliorate their concerns. They are anxious to get along with their neighbors. He said the festival staff
will work with the County to try to be sure the 65-decibel limit is not exceeded. They would actually like to
stay significantly under that level.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Slutzky said he is sympathetic but would want the “relief valve” in the conditions which seems
like relief for an unlikely exigency and he thinks the inclusion of Mr. Davis’ additional language would
satisfy the needs.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks it is a good idea.
Mr. Slutzky said it is a two-year experiment. He asked if it did not work this year because there
were violations of the conditions, could the festival be shut down for the next year. Mr. Davis replied that
if there is “substantial noncompliance” there are two remedies. One is that the organizers could be cited
with a zoning violation and they could be fined for that violation. Second, if there were substantial
noncompliance the Board could establish a revocation procedure for the permit. He said that if health
and safety issues arise during the course of the event, the County could go the Circuit Court and get an
injunction to shut it down. None of those things are anticipated.
Ms. Mallek then moved for approval of SP-2009-016 with the conditions recommended and with
the additional language to Condition No. 8 as read by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The use shall conform to any existing applicable special use permits, including but not
limited to SP-1994-30, whose terms are hereby incorporated by reference;
2. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Concept Plan entitled Misty
Mountain Camp Resort SP-2009-16 Music Festival, prepared by Albemarle County Office
of Geographic Data Services, and signed by Mike Leo and dated August 6, 2009,
(hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator;
To be in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features
within the development essential to the design of the development:
• location of temporary parking areas 1,2, and 3
• location of temporary stage
All activities related to the music festival shall take place within the area of the site bound
by the Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Misty Mountain Road, Stockton Creek and the western
parcel boundary. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
3. A music festival special event shall be permitted once every twelve (12) month period, for
a maximum of three (3) consecutive days consisting of one (1) week day and two (2)
weekend days. Any increase in the number of special events shall require an
amendment to this special use permit;
4. A maximum of fifteen (15) vendors shall be allowed to operate on any given day during
the music festival;
5. Written approval from the Police Department, Fire and Rescue, and the Health
Department shall be required each year prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance to
allow the special event use;
6. No tree removal, grading, or disturbance shall take place within the driplines of the trees
as shown on the Concept Plan prepared by Mike Leo, and dated March 25, 2009. Any
grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a
"Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No
grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline shall be permitted until: a) a
survey and fencing have been completed, and, b) the Planning Director approves a plan
which shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed dripline of the existing trees;
7. Hours of operation for the music event shall be between 12:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
8. Off-site parking shall not be permitted except in authorized parking lots from which
people are transported to the special event by shuttle or comparable vehicles;
9. The maximum number of people allowed on the site for the special event on each day
shall not exceed five hundred (500) persons.
10. The maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on the site for the special event
on each day shall not exceed two hundred twenty four (224).
11. A minimum of twenty (20) private security, parking, and traffic control staff members shall
be required on site each day of the music festival;
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
12. Overnight camping outside the designated camping areas shall be prohibited;
13. 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;
14. The maximum level of noise shall not exceed sixty-five (65) dBA as measured from an
adjacent property;
15. The applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site(s) as required by the zoning
administrator within thirty (30) days of the last day of the special event;
16. The site shall be restored and cleared of all trash, debris, and temporary structures
associated with the special event within two (2) days after the final day of the special
event; and
17. Special use permit 2009-016 shall be valid until June 30, 2011.
_______________
Agenda item No. 13. Public Hearing: EMS Revenue Recovery Ordinance. Proposed
ordinance to amend Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Albemarle County Code by adding a new Article V,
Emergency Medical Services Cost Recovery. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 32.1-111.14, the proposed
ordinance would authorize and establish a framework for charging reasonable fees for emergency
medical services vehicle transports provided by the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue
and by any volunteer rescue squad that applies for and has been issued a permit by the County to charge
fees. If the ordinance is adopted, it is anticipated that fees could begin being charged in calendar year
2010. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31,
2009.)
Mr. Davis said this ordinance would authorize and establish a framework for emergency medical
services billing for ambulance transports. A similar ordinance to this one has been adopted in over 40
jurisdictions throughout Virginia which implemented revenue recovery programs. The ordinance, if
adopted, would authorize the County to establish fees for ambulance transports provided by the County’s
Department of Fire and Rescue and by any volunteer rescue squad that elected to participate in the
program and which receives a permit from the County to do so.
Mr. Davis said the ordinance provides that the fee amounts be set by resolution of the Board of
Supervisors after additional information is provided to them as to the customary fees charged by such
programs. It specifically provides that no person shall be denied emergency medical services due to an
inability to pay the fee. It also requires that policies and procedures implementing the revenue recovery
program include payment standards for persons demonstrating economic hardship – that is commonly
referred to as a compassionate billing program.
Mr. Davis said adoption of this ordinance would be the first of several tasks before a program
could be fully implemented. Additional tasks would include securing a billing contractor, continuing
discussions with volunteer rescue squads about their participation in the program, adopting fees by
resolution of this Board, creating and executing a comprehensive public information plan to inform the
public of the fees, easing public fears about how the fees would be collected, and then implement the
program.
Mr. Davis said these fees are primarily paid for by Medicare, Medicaid and insurance providers
and are routinely included in the costs for those programs. One additional task for the County before fully
implementing the program would be to get approvals from Medicare and Medicaid – that approval would
allow the County to have provider numbers to bill those programs. Once the ordinance is adopted,
regulations are implemented, the program is laid out, and that approval is accomplished, the program
could be unfolded. He said the proposed ordinance is Attachment “A” to the Executive Summary for
tonight’s meeting (on file). After holding the public hearing, staff recommends adoption of the ordinance
so it is authorized to proceed.
Mr. Rooker said that he and Ms. Mallek have met regularly with representatives from the
volunteer squads and they have had good discussions about this ordinance. They hope that if this
ordinance is adopted, eventually those squads will choose to participate.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this ordinance allows for the rescue squad to handle the money or does the
County handle the money.
Mr. Rooker responded that any action taken tonight will not address that question at all. That
would be part of a plan worked out with the rescue squads if they decide to participate. All this does is to
authorize the Board to adopt a plan which still requires working through all of the details.
With no more questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing and invited the public to
speak.
Mr. David Zimmerman said he did not come to speak on behalf of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Rescue Squad although he is a life member and spent thousands of hours donating to this County and
the City running calls. He said there is a world-renowned rescue squad in place here that doesn’t cost
the County anything more than its normal contribution. He said the County chose to donate that money,
and they would not turn down money because they are a volunteer agency. He is speaking as a taxpayer
in the County. He said the County got into the ambulance business several years ago and he thinks the
Squad advised that it would cost a lot of money. He believes the sentiment was that the County would do
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
what it wanted to do, and he does not appreciate that, or do a lot of people who are not present tonight.
He said there is a fine fire department, but keep it as a fire department. The Rescue Squad takes care of
the rescue squad part of that operation. He is concerned about the money spent there and does not think
it makes any difference what a fire truck looks like as long as it can make it to the house that’s on fire. It
doesn’t need extra money spent on paint. He does not think a lot of supervisors are needed to supervise
professionals. He asked that the County get out of the ambulance business. The Board is taking money
out of his pocket as a taxpayer and everybody else in the County running a rescue squad that is already
in operation. He said the rescue squad has been operating on donated money for many years and it
should be able to continue doing so. A paid rescue squad service is not needed in this area because
there is something that already takes care of that. He asked that the Board remember the taxpayers in
Albemarle County. He said too much money is being spent, and the Board needs to get a handle on
spending and stop charging the taxpayers more than what is needed.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said the County substantially supplements the rescue squads – the County is paying
their operating expenses and most of their capital expenses. This ordinance would enable the County to
move some of the expense that is currently on the taxpayers to insurance companies, Medicare and
Medicaid. He thinks that is a wise decision.
Mr. Rooker said there are some statistics that are fairly impressive about what is being done
nationwide. He said that 85 percent of the people in the U.S. live in areas that have revenue recovery
programs in place. Eighty percent of the people in Virginia live in communities that have revenue
recovery programs in place – Louisa, Nelson and Orange have revenue recovery programs in place.
Albemarle County is behind the curve on this, but out in front of things concerning land use and protection
of natural resources. Local people are supplementing areas that have revenue recovery programs in
place because they are paying insurance premiums and Medicare and Medicaid contributions that are
going to support rescue squads in other communities, but do not go to support local rescue squads.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees that the Board needs to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money,
and he thinks this program would contribute toward doing that. The Board has had many good
discussions with the rescue squads and will continue to do so; hopefully everyone will decide to
participate. He said everyone knows about the bleak state of finances for all localities. He said about 33
states are now furloughing employees. Virginia just joined those ranks. He said some Board members
may have received calls the other day because sheriff’s departments in Virginia have been notified that
their funding will be cut by five-percent. He was asked if the County would hold the department harmless
from that loss. Looking at the current financial situation, the County does not have the money to hold any
agency harmless for state cutbacks, so it is a difficult financial time. This is one place where the County
can obtain some fees for services that are generally picked up by third parties, other than County citizens.
Ms. Mallek said if the volunteer agencies join in, in situations where they have a call in adjacent
counties where there is no revenue sharing to help cover the cost that Albemarle taxpayers are putting
into those rescue squads, those out-of-the-county residents can be billed and their insurance will be
billed. That is revenue the County cannot claim at all at this time.
Mr. Rooker said the Scottsville Squad runs a large number of calls into Fluvanna and
Buckingham counties and neither county makes a contribution toward that squad’s expenses.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to clarify one point. There is no intention on the part of the County
to chase down the payment from people who do not have Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance. Mr.
Tucker said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said one attempt must be made to collect that fee in order to maintain the County’s
ability to bill Medicare and Medicaid.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the speaker was saying that some money may be wasted on the items
he mentioned, like the paint on the truck. He said if money is not being spent wisely, the County needs to
at least be aware of that fact.
Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Dorrier is a member of the CIP Committee. He does not know how much
detail that committee goes into on items like that, but he thinks it is appropriately addressed during the
budget process. The Board should absolutely be looking at any example of potential waste that the
public brings to its attention. W hile that is an interesting observation, it is not directly on point with the
ordinance before the Board tonight.
Mr. Dorrier said there should be some way the Board can look into that eventually.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees. One place where it can be brought up for discussion is in the CIP
Committee when looking at the various items in that budget.
Ms. Thomas said it is not said often, but she would like to emphasize how much the County
appreciates its volunteers. It absolutely needs and depends on those volunteers. This action today in no
way is intended to send a message to the contrary.
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Slutzky said the County ultimately benefits from the number of volunteer hours that are
provided to the benefit of the public.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 09-6(1), An Ordinance to Amend and
Reordain Chapter 6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Article V,
Emergency Medical Services Cost Recovery.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. She also expressed her gratitude to Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek
and Mr. Boyd for their work on this issue.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 09-6(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 6, FIRE PROTECTION, 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
6, Fire Protection, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Adding:
Article V Emergency Medical Services Cost Recovery
Sec. 6-500 Purpose
Sec. 6-501 Definitions
Sec. 6-502 Permits Required
Sec. 6-503 Fees for emergency medical services vehicle transports
CHAPTER 6. FIRE PROTECTION
ARTICLE V: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COST RECOVERY
Sec. 6-500 Purpose.
Pursuant to Virginia Code §32.1-111.14, it is hereby determined that the powers set forth
herein must be exercised in order to assure the provision of adequate and continuing emergency
services and to preserve, protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare.
State law reference—Virginia Code § 32.1-111.14
Sec. 6-501 Definitions.
"Agency" means any person engaged in the business, service or regular activity, whether or not
for profit, of transporting persons who are sick, injured, wounded or otherwise incapacitated or
helpless, or of rendering immediate medical care to such persons.
"Ambulance" means any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, which holds a valid permit issued by the
Office of Emergency Medical Services, that is specially constructed, equipped, maintained and
operated, and is intended to be used for emergency medical care and the transportation of
patients who are sick, injured, wounded, or otherwise incapacitated or helpless. The word
"ambulance" may not appear on any vehicle, vessel or aircraft that does not hold a valid permit.
"Emergency medical services vehicle" means any vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or ambulance that
holds a valid emergency medical services vehicle permit issued by the Office of Emergency
Medical Services that is equipped, maintained or operated to provide emergency medical care or
transportation of patients who are sick, injured, wounded, or otherwise incapacitated or helpless.
State law reference—Definitions, Virginia Code § 32.1-111.1
Sec. 6-502 Permits required.
No agency shall charge fees for transport services provided by a private emergency
medical services vehicle within the county in response to a call for service originating from the
county without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this section. Permits shall be issued in
accordance with section 32.1-111.14 of the Virginia Code, as amended, by the county executive
or his designee, upon such terms and conditions as may be needed to ensure the public health,
safety and welfare. No permit shall be required for any person acting pursuant to a mutual aid
agreement with the county or while assisting the county during a state of emergency. Agencies
permitted pursuant to this article shall comply with all terms and conditions of their permits.
State law reference—Virginia Code § 32.1-111.14
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Sec. 6-503 Fees for emergency medical services vehicle transports.
(a) Reasonable fees shall be charged for transport services provided by emergency
medical services vehicles operated by the department of fire and rescue or by any private agency
permitted under this article. The schedule of fees shall be established by resolution of the board.
In no event shall a person be denied transport for emergency medical services due to his or her
inability to pay.
(b) The county executive shall establish policies and procedures to implement this
section in accordance with applicable law, including payment standards for person’s demon-
strating economic hardship.
______________
Agenda item No. 14. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Slutzky wished Ms. Thomas well on her trip to Italy on the Board’s behalf. Ms. Thomas said
she will give the Board’s best wishes to them, and will bring back a report.
__________
Ms. Mallek said the Board discussed the timetable for the Crozet Master Plan several months
ago. She said the final projected report date is July, 2010. She wanted to mention it so the Board might
have a discussion and a resolution of support to adhere to that date.
Mr. Slutzky said one reason there are concerns about the length of time needed for the review
process is that the new green jobs initiative is getting started. It is hoped this initiative will create 1,000+
green jobs and they will largely require light industrial land to accommodate expansion in the business
market. There needs to be sufficient light industrial land in one place for this program. There is the
possibility of having additional light industrial land near the Crozet Master Plan area. He hopes the
community can be encouraged to discuss that topic early in their cycle of discussions. If staff could
arrange for that to happen early in the cycle so the Crozet community can weight in, that might be helpful
to the community’s effort.
Ms. Mallek said the item that must come next is staff’s inventory of existing light industrial land –
that is expected to be completed in November.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Community Relations Director, said staff will present the focus areas in October;
the Focus Area schedule is near the top of the work list.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the inventory of light industrial land had already been done.
Ms. Mallek said the boundaries of some of that land was not what was requested. Ms. Catlin said
some work was done on that when it went to the Planning Commission. The Board did not see all of that
staff work, so it is being updated for presentation to the Board.
Ms. Mallek said this was discussed when the Board discussed economic development several
months ago. Another reason to keep this matter on track is that the committee wants to solve existing
dilemmas and fix the places that need fixing “before things start to heat up.” She thinks there will be a lot
of heated discussion when the new plan is presented to the public. They want this work wrapped up in a
timely way so there is no chance the text will say one thing and the map show something different. There
is a lot to gain by getting all work completed in a timely fashion.
__________
Mr. Dorrier asked for clarification of the meeting scheduled for September 22 at 10:45 a.m. Mr.
Tucker said it has been scheduled to hear the ASAP (Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population)
report.
Mr. Slutzky said that some Board members – likely more than two – will possibly be briefed on
the findings of the growth study the ASAP group contracted out. In case more than two Board members
will be present, the Board will adjourn to that date.
Mr. Boyd said he cannot attend.
Mr. Slutzky said he also has a conflict with that date.
______________
September 9, 2009 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda item No. 15. Adjourn to Sept 22, 2009, 10:45 a.m.
At 9:59 p.m., Mr. Rooker offered motion to adjourn to September 22, 2009, at 10:45 a.m. in
Room 241. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 12/02/2009
Initials: EWJ