2010-04-14April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 14,
2010, at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
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.
Ms. Mallek stated that, as part of a kickoff celebration of the 40th anniversary of Virginia‟s Scenic
River Program, she paddled on the Rivanna River on Saturday. This gave her a whole new view of a
great recreational activity that is not being used very well right now. She encouraged Board members to
focus on promoting the River as a recreational and economic resource.
__________
Mr. Thomas said that on Sunday he saw the Scottsville resident who had previously sent a letter
to Board members regarding closing of the Scottsville Library; he assured him that no libraries were
proposed to be closed.
__________
Mr. Boyd mentioned a letter Board members received regarding funding for the YMCA. He
commented that $1.25 million was removed from the Capital Improvements Program. It is not a $3.25
million expenditure as the addition of a competition pool has been dropped from the proposal.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Liz Palmer, a County resident, said she was present to alert the Board about a story that has
been circulating regarding the area‟s future long-term water supply plan. She recently attended an event
where an area geologist spoke about groundwater availability in Albemarle County and work he did for
Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population. It is the geologist contention that the area of the
County that abuts the Shenandoah National Park is rich in groundwater. He believes that it is reasonable
for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) to consider groundwater as one of the possible
alternatives for the area‟s long-term water supply needs. Ms. Palmer stated that the geologist explained
that at least 100 wells would need to be built and drilled in the area and that a significant portion of the
future water needs could be met. Although she respects this geologist knowledge, she has several things
to say about this idea as opponents to the Water Supply Plan are likely to embrace it and approach
Supervisors individually.
Disregarding the fact that the community has an approved Water Supply Plan that it has been
working on for 15 years and spent millions of dollars of ratepayers money to develop, she said that there is
already a natural distribution system that brings groundwater from the western portions of the County to
the urban area – the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. The river system drains the eastern side of the
mountain of groundwater year-round. Ms. Palmer explained that groundwater percolates up in springs to
make up the river‟s base flow, which is augmented by seasonal rain and snow melt; the SFRR system
drains 260 square miles of the County without the help of drills, well pumps, or pipes – and without
acquisition and maintenance of easements. She emphasized that there is not a water shortage, and
more sources are not needed – as only three to four percent of water that reaches the Reservoir is used
with the rest going over the dam. What is needed is more storage space to get us through the dry
summers. The community is lucky to have the Ragged Mountain Reservoir; it is a natural bowl sitting on a
1.8 square mile watershed. She stated that the dam is over 100 years old and for public safety reasons
must be replaced – so it makes sense to enlarge it in the process, as it is close to a treatment plant and
provides a public amenity for fishing and recreation close to town. Ms. Palmer said that the new pipeline
from South Fork to Ragged Mountain, which replaces the Sugar Hollow pipeline, will allow for faster, more
efficient filling and will bring greater efficiency and redundancy to the system by connecting the two
treatment plants.
Ms. Palmer commented that there have been many suggestions and demands made by
opponents of the approved plan in the last couple of years. The City Council has been kept busy
responding to requests for additional studies. She said that groundwater development in the rural areas
may turn out to be the next on the long list of maneuvers to “Meadow Creek” the community water supply
plan.” Ms. Palmer stated that there is an excellent long-term water supply plan that protects the rivers
while providing adequate water for future population and economic activity. Ms. Palmer said the residents
should remain proud of our community‟s achievement in developing this long-term plan.
__________
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Edward Brooks said he lives in Southern Albemarle, is a native of Southern Albemarle and
was a product of the Albemarle County School system. He has worked in Corporate America and he also
serves on the Albemarle-Charlottesville Budget Review Team – which makes recommendations to the
Board each year as part of funding social services agencies. He has some experience with looking at
efficiencies. Mr. Brooks said that he is generally supportive of keeping the tax rates the same because of
the residents he enacts with in Southern Albemarle. He is also aware that maintaining the tax rates the
same impacts the Capital Improvements Program. With that being said, he is not sure where things stand
with the sharing of principals in the smaller schools and there is some “lack of clarity” as to what will be
done. He emphasized that the one thing that is clear is the lack of understanding as to what a “world
class” school system is, and perhaps these two bodies could get together to determine what kind of
indicators support that premise. Mr. Brooks said that having very good individual schools doesn‟t
necessarily mean the entire system is that way, and it is important that both boards have a consistent
message to the public.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 6.1
and 6.2 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Snow seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Item No. 6.1. Approval of Minutes: February 3, 2010.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the remaining portion of the minutes of
February 3, 2010, pages 39 (beginning with Item #10) – end, as read.
__________________
Item No. 6.2. Resolution to accept Hickman Road into the State Secondary System of Highways.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution as requested by
the County Engineer:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 14th day of
April 2010, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, Hickman Road, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated April 14,
2010, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Hickman Road, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated April 14, 2010, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Hickman Road (State Route 1316) from the intersection of Route 1117 (State Farm
Boulevard) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1485, page 406, with a 60-foot right-of-way width,
for a length of 0.30 miles.
Total Mileage – .30
__________________
Item No. 6.3. Copy of letter dated March 15, 2010 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Jay
M. Courage, Managing Member, Fairway Drive LLC, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOP-
MENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 80, Parcel 61A (property of Fairway Drive LLC) Rivanna Magisterial
District, was received for information.
__________________
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item No. 6.4. 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The following memorandum, dated April 6, 2010, from Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator,
was received for information:
“State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full
public record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body.
The full 2009 annual report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance, special use
permits for certain sign types, and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or her
designee. These appeals can include determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals in 2009 increased by 4, from 7 received in 2008 to 11 in 2009. Three
were affirmed, two were withdrawn, one was moot, one was dismissed as untimely, and two
were deferred by the Board. There are four appeals still pending by applicants‟ request
(including one from 2007 and one from 2008).
The number of variances in 2009 decreased by 2, from 11 in 2008 to 9 in 2009. Of the nine,
three were approved, three were denied, one was deferred indefinitely, and one was void.
One variance is still pending.
The number of special use permits for off-site signs decreased by 1, from 3 in 2008 to 2 in
2009. Both applications from 2009 were approved, but one is still pending from 2008.
The following Circuit Court cases are still pending as of December 31, 2009:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Appeal of
use determination.
2. Scott W. and Caroline F. Watkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of
determination of zoning violation.
3. Ellen Hawkins v Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning
violation.
4. Rickey Lee Baumgardner, Donna G. Baumgardner and Crown Motorcar Company,
LLC v Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of zoning violation.
5. T.E. Wood and Mahmood Pashazadeh v Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of
determination of zoning violation.”
__________________
NonAgenda. Presentation: Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Program.
Ms. Camille Cooper said present with her are two investigators with the Southern Virginia Internet
Crimes Against Children Task Force. She said that the Albemarle County Police Department has a
Memorandum of Agreement with this Task Force, and works in cooperation with them.
Mr. Steve Anders, of the Bedford County Sheriff‟s Office and member of the Task Force, said they
coordinate the task force for most of Virginia, south of Culpeper. Mr. Anders said the task force deals with
a “reprehensible subject” which will be discussed as part of the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Anders
stated that child pornography is sexually explicit images and videos of children. Just doing a public search
of “3 y.o.” brings up many files of children being exploited. There is no finding this information
accidentally. You have to know what you are looking for to find these files and to download them. He said
that the vast majority of child pornography contains pre-pubescent children between 6 and 12, with 39% of
images involving children of 3-5 years old, and 19% being images of children under 3. They are finding
the under 3 more prevalent because those children cannot talk about what is being done to them, nor do
they know how to describe it. Mr. Anders said that 80% of the images involve sexual penetration, and
21% have images of children subjected to bondage, rape or torture – often involving animals as well. Only
1% of those images they come into contact with simply have pictures of children that are nude, not
engaging in any sexual activity. He presented a map of the area the task force covers, with Albemarle
being part of District 4, and showed a geographic area where individual computers have been found with
child pornography being offered for download for other people. Mr. Anders noted that in urban areas more
computers are found in a smaller geographic area that contain these images, and the offenders trade the
images and videos as others would trade “baseball cards or comic book collections.” He reported that
investigators are able to locate the IP address of the computers being used in trading the child
pornography, the last date and time it was seen, the digital fingerprint of each file, and approximate
location. Mr. Anders commented that he and the Chair have a better chance of matching DNA than two of
these files having the same digital fingerprint. He stated that the task force tries to find “the worst
offenders” because there are too many to catch everyone.
Mr. Dorrier asked what percentages of offenders are prosecuted. Mr. Anders replied that the
information would come later in the presentation.
Mr. Anders said that the top offenders offer “training videos,” and are at a higher risk of
committing offenses against local children. He then presented information on the areas the task force
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
targets its resources. Mr. Anders also presented information on the “training manual” content. He
presented an image of Scott Forrester, the first arrest in Virginia after Alicia‟s Law was passed by the
General Assembly; his three-year-old daughter was rescued from a “horrible situation,” and he was
eventually sentenced to over 100 years after pleading guilty to 97 counts out of a possible 29,000 felonies
he could have been charged. When investigators interviewed Mr. Forrester after his arrest, they asked
why he did what he did, Mr. Forrester responded “what the „f” business is it of yours what I do with my
daughter.” Mr. Anders said, personally, he has a two-year-old son and he comes to work each day on a
mission to stop these predators.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is evidence this issue is more prevalent and more serious than it has
been in the past. Mr. Anders replied that there is, noting that the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children reports 20,000 new, never been seen, images of child pornography every week.
Ms. Cooper said that she is the Director of Legislative Affairs for the National Association to
Protect Children, which is a political lobby (federal government, state legislature, local governments) with a
single-issue focus of raising funds to stop child exploitation and promote child abuse reforms. She stated
that when this was started in 2006, the Department of Justice came to Congress and testified that they
knew where hundreds of thousands of predators were but simply didn‟t have the resources to catch them.
Ms. Cooper said that her group advocated for more investigators and more forensic analysis, as well as
more prosecutions. She reported that the Protect Our Children Act was passed in 2008, which ramped up
federal spending for the ICAC task forces – of which there are 62 nationwide; they were previously funded
at $15 million annually and at that time there were 750,000 predators identified just on one known
platform. This does not include cyber tips through the tip line at the National Center or reports through the
Child Abuse hotline. Ms. Cooper stated that the group got $50 million dedicated to personnel for the
ICACs, and this is the first stage of capacity building for the task forces – which has doubled the number
of investigations and prosecutions for the Department of Justice.
She said that the Virginia legislature has been “very much engaged” to provide additional state
funding for the tax forces through Alicia‟s Law, but without the actual personnel at the local level it is
difficult to catch the offenders. Ms. Cooper reported that Charlottesville has two dedicated officers now,
and had 32 cases last year – with 16 in the pipeline already this year. She stated that Albemarle County is
basically “starving,” and Chief Miller is already 23 personnel positions down. Ms. Cooper said Albemarle
County is a public safety train wreck; it has 23 men down and literally has hundreds of these predators in
its backyard. Ms. Cooper said if it comes back that the Morgan Harrington killer was an identified offender
in their database, it is going to be a really big problem. She said that the majority of these perpetrators are
hands-on offenders – with Department of Justice estimates at about 55%; Butner Federal Prison‟s study
shows 85% and her group has a more conservative estimate of about 33%. Without personnel, they are
not going to be able to rescue these children.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there were any new laws needed to deal with the problem. Ms. Cooper
responded that they are working on a huge federal bill, but the Protect Act was a 45-page bill that changed
a lot of laws and helped the Department of Justice better pursue the offenders. Albemarle County Police
Department needs investigators. That is what it comes down to, and every day that you do not invest in
public safety is more days where these children are languishing in these situations. Ms. Cooper said their
website address is: www.protect.org and they also have a nonprofit arm that does research and
education: www.promisetoprotect.org. Ms. Cooper invited the Board to email her at any time with
questions and concerns. She has access to all the leading studies on this issue, everything through the
Department of Justice and information they provide to Congress.
Mr. Rooker asked if additional federal resources were targeted specifically for localities to add
personnel. Ms. Cooper replied that at this time it hasn‟t, but her job is to get “all hands on deck.” She
added that if these were fires, the National Guard would be on every corner; it would be a national
emergency. Ms. Cooper said that it is not just the federal government‟s job to solve a local problem – as
there are hundreds of predators right here in Albemarle County. They are working very hard to reign down
literally hundreds of millions of dollars to these task forces so that they can ramp up capacity. She added
that there are just two task forces in Virginia to work with every local police department and sheriff‟s office,
to get these people trained and there are retention and matriculation issues. They need dedicated
officers; they are not going to be able to eradicate this problem until they have dedicated officers in
Albemarle.
Mr. Rooker commented that if there were two officers added tomorrow, Chief Miller would
determine where they were assigned – but one way to assure that resources are devoted to this is to have
funding allocated specifically for this purpose.
Mr. Boyd asked if any localities in Virginia were getting any of the stimulus money for this purpose.
Ms. Cooper explained that there was $50 million in stimulus money – which went to all 62 ICAC
task forces which enabled them to maintain positions or to hire new positions. There was capacity
building. She said that Albemarle County Police Department can get training and technical assistance
from the investigators hired and paid through the stimulus funding. This year Alicia‟s Law received some
dedicated funding for the two task forces in Virginia. Ms. Cooper stated that there is an ongoing technical
learning curve and matriculation issue, so new officers need to be trained constantly – which is what the
state funding is addressing, including technology that tends to be expensive.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Tucker if the County is really 23 officers down. Mr. Tucker responded that the
County is down officers, and the Chief has indicated that if additional funding were provided the first
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
priority would be to put policemen on the street. If the Board wants to discuss this further, he can bring
back representatives from the Police Department another day for a discussion.
Mr. Rooker indicated that if the goal of 1.5 officers per thousand is used, then the County is down
23 positions.
Ms. Cooper said that the Board and Police Department will hopefully come to some consensus
that the children who are being victimized are a priority. There needs to be a real honest discussion with
the Police Department to determine the priorities. She is doing as much as she can to bring money into
the district, but at some point Albemarle needs to take responsibility for its‟ own problems.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it is not just a question of money, but an issue of the true depth of the
problem here. He thinks they look at the statistics closely and then target the most critical areas.
Ms. Mallek stated that she is sitting here “horrified,” and there is a lot more to learn. She said
there should not be an allowable limit.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Boyd commented on the sobering nature of the presentation.
Mr. Boyd said that if the problem could be solved by two officers dedicated to this function, that‟s
something tangible for the Board to work on. If the problem cannot be solved until the issue of the 23
officers is resolved, that is a different funding problem.
Ms. Cooper responded that the two officers in the City of Charlottesville have put a huge dent in
the problem. She added that Albemarle could take a leadership role by hiring two officers dedicated for
this purpose.
Mr. Rooker asked how many cases involved a live victim. Ms. Cooper replied that the data for
those cases is currently being processed, but there was at least one person in that batch who admitted to
contact with family members and another offender responsible for the gang-rape of a five-year-old boy.
She is confident in saying that that arrest that Nick Rudman made saved a child‟s life.
Mr. Rooker said that most cases he reads about pertain to images, and not live victims. Ms.
Cooper responded that it is a common practice to leave out the specifics of abuse because it might “out
the victim.”
Mr. Dorrier commented that when Ted Bundy was interviewed, he indicated that pornography was
what helped drive him to commit murders.
Ms. Cooper thanked the Board for allowing her to come and for their thoughtful questions.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Six Year Secondary Road Plan. To receive comments
on the County‟s Priority List of secondary road improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary
Construction Program Budget. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on March 28 and April 5, 2010.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning summarized the following executive summary that had been
forwarded to Board members:
“This public hearing is to receive input on the County‟s Priority List of Secondary Road
Improvements (Attachment A) and the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program
Budget (Attachment B). The County‟s Priority List establishes the priorities for road improvements for
roads in the State‟s Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Secondary Construction Program is based on the
County‟s Priority List and is reflective of available State road funding allocated to the County. The
County‟s Priority List and the VDOT Construction Program Budget are typically reviewed annually.
Two documents are before you for review and action, the County‟s Priority List of Secondary Road
Improvements and VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget. Each is discussed
below.
County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements – There are three (3) changes
proposed to this year‟s Priority List:
1) Brown‟s Gap Turnpike/Headquarters Lane (Routes 629 and 624) has been added to the
“Rural Rustic Road” paving list (Attachment A, page 3). This is a public request to pave
this approximately .5 mile section of road. The annual average traffic count on this road
is 50 trips. While this dead-end road provides access primarily to properties located
along the road, it also provides an informal access (no signage, no parking) to the
Shenandoah National Park. Based on a preliminary assessment by VDOT staff, the road
is eligible for paving under the rural rustic road standards. The combination of the road‟s
traffic volume, existing condition and location, along with the fact that it is a new request,
lead to a low priority ranking on the County‟s Priority List. It should be noted that there are
no State unpaved roads funds being allocated to the County (or Statewide), so there are
no new unpaved road projects scheduled in the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road
Construction Program Budget.
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
2) Removal of the Hatton Ferry from the “Strategic Priorities” list (Attachment A, Page 1)
based on VDOT‟s elimination of the ferry service and the discontinuance of maintenance
of that portion of State Route 625 in Albemarle and Buckingham Counties.
3) Two bridge improvements (over the N. Fork Rivanna River and over Jacobs Run) that
were part of the Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) paving project have been added to the list of
bridge projects. This is an update that reflects a prior Board action to remove the
Dickerson Road paving project from the VDOT Six Year Construction Program. These
bridge improvements had been listed as part of the Dickerson Road paving project on the
County‟s priority list and had not been previously noted on the Bridge Priorities page
(Attachment A, Page 2).
Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget – Due to the significant reduction in
state funding over the next six years, there are no new projects proposed to be added to the Program
Budget. The total projected funding per year for the six years of the Program is $324,624. In the
proposed Six Year Program, the total allocations for FY11 and FY12, along with previous existing
allocations of State funds to the “Countywide Projects” cost center, are being used to cover the remaining
funding shortfall for the Jarman‟s Gap Road project ($920,178).
For the remaining out years of the Program (FY13 to FY16) the annual funding is proposed to be
allocated to the Broomley Road bridge project (Rt. 677). This bridge is the third highest priority bridge
improvement project. The two higher priority projects, Dry Bridge (Rt. 708) and Black Cat Road (Rt. 616),
are already programmed for funding utilizing mostly Federal Bridge Funds and are scheduled for bid in
2013 and 2015, respectively. The Broomley Road bridge project is not yet programmed for full funding.
The Board transferred unused unpaved road funds to the Broomley Road bridge project last year with a
mid-year amendment to the Six Year Program (October 14, 2009) in order to advance this project. County
and VDOT staff are recommending that the remaining out year funding be applied to this project
consistent with the priorities established by the Board during last year‟s six year program review and mid-
year update.
VDOT Revenue Sharing Program – The VDOT Revenue Sharing Program will again be
available this year and would be a source for additional funding that could support transportation/road
improvement projects. The Revenue Sharing Program will match, dollar-for-dollar up to $1.0 million, a
locality‟s contribution toward funding of transportation projects. The County‟s application would achieve a
higher ranking for funding in the Program (“Tier 2”) if the county‟s contribution is greater than dollar-for-
dollar match. The County has traditionally participated in this Program, resulting in as much as $2.5
million in additional funds provided toward transportation projects ($1.0 million Revenue Sharing funds,
$1.5 County match). Should the Board choose to pursue Revenue Sharing Program funds this year, staff
would recommend requesting funding to cover the shortfall in the Jarman‟s Gap Road project ($500,000
County match, $421,000 Revenue Sharing funds). If awarded, this amount of secondary road
construction funds allocated in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 could be moved from Jarman‟s Gap Road to
the Broomley Road bridge project, further advancing the funding and ultimate construction of that project.
A decision on whether the County will apply for Revenue Sharing funding is NOT needed at this
time or with the Board‟s action on the Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget. The deadline
for submitting an application for Revenue Sharing Funds is June 18, 2010.
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County‟s priorities for the expenditure of
State/VDOT secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding. Should the County
also decide to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program the County‟s match would be funded from
existing appropriations in the CIP‟s “Transportation-Revenue Sharing Supplement” cost center (41020).
Mr. Benish said after the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the County‟s
Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) and authorize the County Executive to sign
the VDOT Secondary System Construction Program Budget for Albemarle County consistent with the
County‟s Priority List (Attachment B).
Staff also recommends that the County continue to participate in the VDOT Revenue Sharing
Program and will bring back additional information for the Board to consider in order to move forward with
an application prior to the June deadline.
Mr. Boyd asked if the additional funds to the Broomley Road bridge project are enough to
complete the project. Mr. Benish responded that it would not, but it would allow it to be moved forward a
little more quickly. He added that the hope is to fund and advertise the project by 2017, but it has not
gone through any detailed design work so the true cost is not known.
Ms. Mallek said if the bids for Jarman‟s Gap come in lower, as anticipated, that extra money
would also go to Broomley Bridge. Mr. Benish said that is correct.
Mr. Benish added that the VDOT Plan presented here does fund Georgetown and Jarman‟s Gap
Roads, and revenue-sharing monies are not needed for those.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is no real advantage to letting the $500,000 sit in the CIP and
not be used earlier rather than later. He thinks it would be wise to bring back information on Revenue
Sharing in June. In terms of the new funding of $325,000 a year for the Secondary Road Plan, Albemarle
used to have $5.5 million a year of secondary road funds.
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Snow referred to the $500,000, and asked if it would be matched at that level. Mr. Benish
responded that it could be matched up to $1 million. He added that last year the County received funding
for Jarman‟s Gap which helped reduce the shortfall from the loss of $4.5 million in State funding. He said
that it looks “less optimistic” that there would be funding available for Albemarle because of the reduced
amount of money in the Program. The first highest priority cut is to localities that administer their own
projects. The County is in a “Tier Two” priority level, but it is still worth investigating.
Ms. Mallek commented that, given the severe winter the area just went through, she hopes the
Rural Rustic Road Program is revived and funded, as it is much less expensive to do the paving than it is
to constantly replace gravel.
At this time the Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so the public
hearing was closed.
Ms. Mallek noted that the Advance Mills Bridge is officially complete, and would be open Friday for
traffic after 2:00 p.m. It is a great-looking bridge, and they have done a fantastic job with our local
company – Fielder‟s Choice – who built it for the County.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the County‟s
Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements, as set out in Exhibit A, and to authorize the County
Executive to sign the VDOT Secondary System Construction Program Budget, as set out in Attachment B,
for Albemarle County consistent with the County‟s Priority List. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The Plan is set out below:)
STRATETIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2010-11 through 2015-16
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES (Projects 1 – 22)
VDOT's County's Route Number/ Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Justification for Year Project Most Current Traffic
Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Project/ Source of was placed On Count and Year of
Plan Ranking Date Request Priority List Count _
Y 0 County wide County wide varies County services/improvements: signs,pipe,plant mix
projects, raised median, crosswalks, restripe, lighting,
etc
safety, maintain function/staff,
public req.
Y 0 County wide Traffic mgmt.
Program
varies Designated for traffic calming projects throughout the
County that meet requirements and sidewalk
improvements.
Safety/Public Request,
studies-plans
Y 1 Meadow Creek Pkwy Melbourne Rd to
Rio Rd
under constr. $30,162,877 Two lane design approved by County and Comm.
Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR
Capacity/ CHART 20,000-2006
Y 2 691 Jarmans Gap Road Rt 240 to Gray Rock Jan-11 $16,026,149 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk/bikelanes, turn lane
improvements
Capacity,safety/Land Use Plan 2,700-2006 anticipates 4,500
in future
Y 3 656 Georgetown Road Rt 654 to Rt 743 Feb-11 $3,001,450 Curb &Gutter, sidewalk/crosswalk, improvements to
certain turn lanes
Capacity,safety/G'town Rd
Plan, Public
17,000-2007
4 649 Proffit Road Rt 29 to 1.6 miles
east
improve alignment, urban x-section with
bikelanes/sidewalk and multi-use path
Capacity, safety/Land Use Plan 6,800-2007
5 781 Sunset Avenue Fontaine/Sunset Connector Improvements to Fontaine Ave. and Fontaine/Sunset
Ave. Connector
Area B Study,Capacity/ LU
Plan
2007 4,600-2006
6 Berkmar Dr Ext. Bridge End of Berkmar Dr to HTC New parallel road in the Rt. 29 Corridor UnJAM 2025 2006 23,500
7 631 Old Lynchburg Rd 1.35 MI. S. I-64 to Rt 708 Spot improvements at various locations to serve
development in Southern DA/County
Capacity/Land Use Plan 2,300-2007
Y 8 Bridge Improvement Projects Various locations (See Att. A) Improve/replace low sufficiency rated bridges based on
County and VDOT priority
varies
9 726 James River Road Rt 795 to Rt 1302 Spot improvement to improve sight distance Safety/Scottsville 1,900-2006
10 Hillsdale Drive Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq. New connector between Greenbrier Dr. and Hydraulic
Rd; constructed with urban system funds
Capacity/Hillsdale Drive Extension Study
11 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Rd to 250/29 Byp Widen, improve alignment , coordinate with UVA
Gateway project
Capacity/Land Use Plan 6,900-2007
12 Southern Parkway Avon St to Fifth St Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and
Neighborhood street design/speed
Capacity/Southern City Study 15,000-2004
13 795 Blenheim Road Intersection of Rt 790 Intersection improvement. Safety/Scottsville Request 670-2007
14 Eastern Avenue Rt 240 to Rt 250 Interconnect future neighborhood streets, includes RR
underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk
Capacity/Crozet Master Plan 4,100-2003
15 631 Rio Road Rio Rd @ Pen Park Ln Improve substandard intersection (may be funded in
part with City/private developer funds)
Safety/City 26,000-2007
16 643 Polo Grounds Road Rt 29 to Rt 649 Improvement alignment, spot improvements. Safety/Public Request 1,300-2006
17 Main Street Crozet Ave to Eastern Ave New road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan,
to be built with development of site
Capacity/Crozet Master Plan 2003 3,600-2003*
18 743 Hydraulic Road Intersection with Rt 29 (29H250) Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2
Study
Capacity,safety/29H250 Study 2003 18,000-2007
19 866 Greenbrier Drive Intersection with Rt 29 (29H250) Improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2
Study
Capacity,safety/29H250 Study 2003 8,200-2006
20 Eastern Connector Rt 250 to Rt 29 Initial study of new road concept completed. Further
study of alignment on hold
Capacity/CHART 2006
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
STRATETIC PRIORITIES FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2010-11 through 2015-16
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES (Projects 1 – 22)
VDOT's County's Route Number/ Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Justification for Year Project Most Current Traffic
Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Project/ Source of was placed On Count and Year of
Plan Ranking Date Request Priority List Count _
21 702 Reservoir Road Fontaine Ave. Ext to Dead end Paving and spot improvements, to be done as part of
the reservoir reconstruction project
Safety/Public Request 2003 2,000-2006
22 Dickerson Road N. of Rt 805 to just S. of Rt 1030 Paving of unpaved road segments--no state
unpaved road funds available for the foreseeable
future
UnJam 2030; DA location; 2008
Rt 29 alternate route
200-2003
Projects in bold are in the Development Area.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS 2010-11 through 2015-16
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
BRIDGE PRIORITIES – IN PRIORITY ORDER
VDOT’s Route Number, Route Name Location From - To Sufficiency Traffic Count Description/Comments Estimated cost/funding source
Secondary Rating**
__Plan_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Y Route 743, Advance Mill North Fork Rivanna River closed 969 under construction $3,715,368 / federal bridge funds
Y Route 708, Dry Bridge Road Buckingham Branch Railroad 26 1128 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 2013 $2,736,912 / federal bridge funds
Y* Route 616, Black Cat Road Buckingham Branch 54.4 1479 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 2015 federal bridge funds
Y Route 677, Old Ballard Road Buckingham Branch 42.2 1267 suff rating, high traffic count -- EAD 2017 $4,499,373 / federal bridge and secondary funds
Route 637, Dick Woods Road Ivy Creek 36.1 1251 suff rating, high traffic count
Route 795, Presidents Road Hardware River 19.4 147 low sufficiency rating
Route 745, Wheeler Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 20.9 87 low sufficiency rating
Route 641, Frays Mills Road Marsh Run 49.6 391 low sufficiency rating
Route 649, Proffit Road Norfolk Southern Railroad 35.2 5094 upgraded in Summer 2007, has high traffic count
Route 606, Dickerson Road Jacobs Run 200 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29
Route 606, Dickerson Road North Fork of Rivanna River 200 low suff. Rating; in Devel. Area; parallel road to Rt. 29
NOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changes.
* Programmed into future allocations of federal bridge funds in Culpeper District.
**Sufficiency Rating is utilized by VDOT to rate the bridge structure.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS 2010-11 through 2015-16
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
POTENTIAL ROAD PRAVING PROJECTS
RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.
Route Number, Location Funding Estimated Cost Most Current Description/Comments Year Project Estimated
Road Name From - To Status Regular/RRR Traffic Count/ Placed on Advertisement
County Priority Year of Count Priority List Date
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt 732 to Dead End Not Funded $97,596 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
704 Fortune Lane Rt 715 to Dead End Not Funded $142,443 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
672 Blufton Road Rt 810 to Dead end Not Funded $92,017 170-2006 School Request in 2007 2003 no date
608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646 Not Funded $108,333 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
662 Bleak House Road Rt 660 to Rt 665 Not Funded 320-2003 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
774 Bear Creek Road NCL to dead end Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
703 Pocket Lane Rt 715 to Dead end Not Funded 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date
637 Dick Woods Road Rt 691 to Rt 758 Not Funded 110-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date
747 Preddy Creek Road Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded 110-2006 School request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
769 Beam Road Rt 1484 to dead end Not Funded 60-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
629/624 Browns Gap
TP/Headqrters Ln
Rt 810 to end of Rt 624 Not Funded 90/50-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2010 no date
NOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changes
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS 2010-11 through 2015-16
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS
REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.
Route Number, Location Funding Estimated Cost Most Current Description/Comments Year Project Estimated
Road Name From - To Status Regular/RRR Traffic Count/ Placed on Advertisement
County Priority Year of Count Priority List Date
_______
643 Rio Mills Road Rt 29 to Rt 743 Not Funded $3,218,665 650-2003 Staff request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2003 Dec-15
784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Rt 640 Not Funded $1,842,855 260-2006 School Request in 2007, public request as well Aug-11
688 Midway Road Rt 635 to Rt 824 Not Funded $213,513 300-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
689 Pounding Creek Rd Rt 250 to Rt 635 Not Funded 590-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
731 Keswick Drive Rt 744 to Rt 22 Not Funded 310-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date
787 Gillums Ridge Rd. Rt 682 to Rt 708 Not Funded $1,427,288 290-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 674 Not Funded 820-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date
685 Bunker Hill Road Rt 616 to Dead end Not Funded 310-2003 Public request. No longer qualifies for RRR due to align-
ment and utility problems, will have to be reg. paving project.
784 Doctors Crossing Rt 600 to Dead End Not Funded 260-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date
720 Harris Creek Road Rt 20 to dead end Not Funded 250-2006 Public request 2007 no date
736 White Mtn Road Rt 636 to dead end Not Funded (sect. btwn Rt 635 &
636 doesn't meet VDOT
requirements)
230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
731 Keswick Road .60 ME Rt 744 to Rt 744 Not Funded (short road seg. btwn
P.O & K.C.C.-may be eligible for
RRR)
230-2003 Public request. ranking due to traffic count. Possible
RRR
2004 no date
683 Shelton Mill Road Rt 751 to dead end Not Funded 230-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date
712 North Garden Lane Rt 692 to Rt 29 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
712 Coles Crossing Rd Rt 713 to Rt 795 Not Funded 220-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
712 North Garden Lane Rt 29 to Rt 760 Not Funded 220-2006 This project will be paved as part Rt. 712 -btwn Rt. 713
to Rt. 795
no date
671 Wesley Chapel Rd Rt 609 to Rt 749 Not Funded 100-2006 School transportation request 2007 no date
829 Horseshoe Bend Rd Rt 601 to Dead End Not Funded 210-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date
645 Magnolia Rd Rt 608 to Orange CL Not Funded 190-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
637 Dick Woods Rd Rt 691 to Rt 635 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2006 no date
674 Sugar Ridge Road Rt 614 to Rt 673 Not Funded 180-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
761 Briery creek Road Rt 622 to County Line Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2005 no date
682 Broad Axe Road Rt 637 to to current
paved sections
Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
678 Decca Lane Rt 676 to Rt 614 Not Funded 160-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
640 Gilbert Station Road Ashleigh Way Dr to
paved section
Not Funded $1,500,000 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
856 Burton Lane Rt. 711 to dead end Not Funded 120-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date
687 Shifflett Mill Road Rt.601 to Rt 810 Not Funded 45-2006 School Department Request 2007 no date
668 Fox Mountain Trail Rt 601 to Rt 810 Not Funded 30-2006 School Department Request 2007 no date
NOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changes
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR PAVING PROJECTS 2010-11 through 2015-16
[Some projects may not be completed as prioritized due to project complexity and/or available funding]
POTENTIAL ROAD PAVING PROJECTS
REGULAR PAVING PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER (HIGH TO LOW)
VDOT makes the determination on whether a road is eligible for RRR paving. All projects are placed on the regular paving list until the determination is made by VDOT.
Route Number, Location Funding Estimated Cost Most Current Description/Comments Year Project Estimated
Road Name From - To Status Regular/RRR Traffic Count/ Placed on Advertisement
County Priority Year of Count Priority List Date
_______
605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt 743 to Swift Run
(including bridge)
Not Funded 140-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
633 Cove Garden Rt 29 to Rt 712 Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date
707 Blair Park Road Rt 691 to Dead end Not Funded 130-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
698 Hungrytown Road Rt 633 to DE Not Funded 90-2006 School transportation request 2006 no date
813 Starlight Road Rt 712 to Dead End Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date
600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles west to Rt 20 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. no date
634 Spring Valley Road Rt 633 to Rt 635 Not Funded 80-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date
637 Dick Woods Road Rt 151 to Nelson CL Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2007 no date
721 Old Dominion Rd Rt 6 to Rt 630 Not Funded 70-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2006 no date
776 Buck Mtn Ford
Lane
Rt 667 to Rt 664 Not Funded 20-2006 Public request. At current ranking due to traffic count. 2004 no date
NOTE: Bold Italics are proposed changes
Staff and VDOT will further evaluate the cost closer to construction, which may decrease or increase.
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
__________________
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2009-00027. Grayson Farm Airstrip
(Signs #1&3). PROPOSED: Construct private 1600' grass airstrip for single-engine airplanes. 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 (19) Private airport. 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: 6507 Scottsville Road (Rt. 20 South), north of Scottsville Road and
Glendower Road junction. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 12100000082H0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on March 28 and April 5, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that this request is for a 1600-foot private grass airstrip. The applicant plans to
utilize his single-engine airplane, which he proposes to use only in the daytime and not on Sunday
morning from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the usage would be limited to a maximum of
250 takeoffs and landings per year. The applicant only needs to perform minor fill activity and a small
amount of landscaping along the landing strip with a few trees along a fence line slated for removal. He
explained that the applicant plans to convert a hay barn to the hanger for the plane. Mr. Cilimberg said
that there are letters of no objection that the applicant has provided from eight adjacent owners as well as
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and Federal Aviation Administration.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the surrounding area is mostly large forested parcels intermixed with
agricultural land, and several parcels are located in the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, or
are under conservation easement. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are also several parcels located in the
Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, and along an Entrance Corridor. He said that there are no
Comprehensive Plan provisions regarding private airstrips, and there are no permanent improvements
proposed for the site to accommodate the strip – the proposed use would have only a minimal impact on
the rural character of the area. Mr. Cilimberg stated that as required in Supplemental Regulations, there
are no residents within 500 feet horizontally or 1,000 feet longitudinally of the airstrip. He noted the line of
the airstrip on a schematic, and pointed out the vegetation the applicant would like to remove. Mr.
Cilimberg said that the airstrip would only minimally impact the character of the site and existing area, and
there are no anticipated detrimental impacts to adjacent properties.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval with a
total of 12 conditions, including some additional language that was added at the Commission‟s request as
part of their action. He confirmed that this would remain a grass airstrip, with just a little fill activity to even
out the area.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tim Schmidt said he is the applicant. He indicated that the parcel is 275 acres, and this
proposal is purely for recreational use for his single-engine propeller plane. Mr. Schmidt stated that he
would only fly under Visual Flight Restriction (VFR) conditions, so there would be no instrument
approaches or nighttime flying. He said that it will not be visible from Route 20, and no additional
structures built, as well as no lighting. Mr. Schmidt stated that decibel readings and calculations of
distances show the highest decibel level at any adjacent property line to be just over 55 decibels – under
the 60 decibels allowed under the Zoning Ordinances. He added that most noise would only be audible
during landing and takeoffs, and there would be very little if any environmental impact. There will be no
paving or change in drainage patterns. Mr. Schmidt reiterated that it is a hayfield and only part of it will be
cut shorter.
Mr. Dorrier asked if he was familiar with the Bundoran Farm accident. Mr. Schmidt responded
that they were flying in a fog and there are no lights out there, so they were essentially doing an instrument
approach to an unlit strip.
Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Schmidt has a beautiful piece of property.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2009-00027 subject to the twelve conditions as
recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan entitled, “Concept Plan,”
prepared by Tim Schmidt, and submitted October 13, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”),
as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with
the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• location of airstrip and
• location of buildings and structures
as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan which do not
conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
2. The airstrip shall be located not less than five hundred (500) feet horizontally nor one thousand
(1,000) feet longitudinally to any existing dwelling on adjacent property;
3. No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted;
4. The airstrip shall not be paved or graded;
5. Approval and registration with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Virginia Department of
Aviation, and approval from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport shall be required and must be
kept current;
6. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours only, and shall not be permitted between
the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Sundays;
7. All maintenance, repair, and mechanical work, except that of an emergency nature, shall be
performed in an enclosed building;
8. Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be permitted on-site in conjunction with the
airstrip;
9. No fuel shall be stored on-site;
10. Aircraft usage shall be limited to a single-engine, fixed-wing aircraft;
11. The airstrip shall be limited to Visual Flight Restricted (VFR) flying; and
12. No more than five (5) takeoffs and landings shall be allowed per week.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2009-00028. Augusta Lumber (Sign
#14). PROPOSED: Amend SP200100034 to include an existing lumber storage structure and an
additional .267 acres with the approved special use permit. Waiver of Section 5.1.15(a) to reduce required
setbacks has been requested. 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(14)
Sawmills, planning mills and woodyards (reference Sec. 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in
Sec. 4.14). 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: 4303 Plank Road (Rt. 712) at the
intersection of Starlight Road (Rt. 813), North Garden. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 099000000049A0 and TMP
099000000049A3. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on March
28 and April 5, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request is for an existing operation on Plank Road where a
building was built in 2009. A Zoning violation was noted regarding an unpermitted building. He explained
that the operation goes back to the 1950s. The special use permit was initially approved in 1982 – with
amended SPs approved in the early 1990s and 2001. There was a Zoning violation regarding conditions
of approval in 1992.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the proposal would amend the existing special use permit to add about
one-quarter acre and a 3,600 square foot building that has been previously constructed which is used for
storage and sorting of lumber. He noted that there is a condition of approval to ensure that future uses of
the building would be restricted to that storage, and noise-generating equipment would not be used. The
approval would bring the business into compliance and permit the processing of a boundary line
adjustment application.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that favorable factors include: 1) the lumber storage building is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan as it supports forestal uses in the rural area; 2) there would be no
production activities contained within the building therefore noise-generating uses would not result; and 3)
no additional traffic or pollution would be associated with the area added. He said that the unfavorable
factor would be the potential negative impacts resulting generally from this use in the rural area; however,
conditions in the past and those proposed here would mitigate or prohibit those impacts.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff and the Planning Commission both recommend approval of the
special use permit subject to four conditions; a fifth condition of approval of a waiver was granted at the
Commission‟s March 16th meeting.
Ms. Mallek asked if access to the new building would be through the lumber yard and parcel next
door. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant would have to respond to that question.
Ms. Mallek asked about a previous boundary line adjustment that was done on this property. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that there was an adjustment in 2008, but not where this particular building is located.
Mr. Snow pointed out that the problems on the property were there when the new owner bought
this property two years ago. Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Chris Schooley of Novak-Schooley Design, addressed the Board on behalf of Augusta
Lumber LLC. He reported that the Carr family owned Augusta Lumber and owned both properties – the
main lumberyard on parcel TMP 99-49A and another parcel with a house on TMP 99-49A3. Mr. Schooley
explained that the Carr family built the building on property they already owned, but they did not get a
building permit as they thought it was a storage shed. He said that when they sold the property in 2006,
the GIS map showed the property line in the wrong location. The new owner owns the lumber yard and
the Carr family still owns the other property – which they are trying to sell to someone who works at the
lumber yard. Mr. Schooley added that the well is on the lumberyard side of the property, and everything is
accessed from that portion of the property – with the house using a private driveway that goes out to Plank
Road.
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to approve SP-2009-00028 subject to the four conditions as
recommended by staff and the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mallek. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Approval of SP-2009-00028 is for the addition of one (1)- three thousand, six hundred (3,600)
square foot lumber storage/sorting building only. Any other uses, buildings, and/or enlargement of
buildings shall require amendment of this special use permit;
2. The subject storage shed shall be located on the property in general accord with the sketch plan
entitled “Plat of Boundary Line Adjustment Tax Map 99 Parcels 49A and 49A3” dated September
25, 2008” (thereinafter the “Plat”) subject to standards within Section 5.1.15 of the Albemarle
Zoning Ordinance;
3. The subject storage shed shall be restricted to the following purposes:
a) storage of lumber and
b) sorting of lumber; and
4. No noise generating production equipment shall be used within the building proposed with
SP-2009-00028, as shown in Attachment A the “Plat” (yellow) or within 100‟ of the property line of
TMP 99-49A3.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: AFD-2010-00001. Batesville Agricultural and
Forestal District Review: 10-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Periodic review of the
Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District and consider amending section 3-207, Batesville Agricultural
and Forestal District, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance would identify
TMPs 85-21D and 85-21D1 as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the
district), would remove the reference to TMP 85A-1 (whose land was added to TMP 85-21), would remove
any parcels from the district for which a request for withdrawal is received before the board acts on the
proposed ordinance, and would continue the district and set the next district review date deadline of April
14, 2020. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on March 28 and April 5, 2010.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that this is the ten-year review for this district, created in 1990, originally with
approximately 1,015 acres and now including 34 parcels and 1,155 acres – 982 of which are enrolled in
land use. He explained that the property consists of large forest and farm parcels, with five parcels in
conservation easements. The Batesville Historic District is located to the east of this Ag/Forestal District.
There are two small clusters of parcels that are old planned residential development zoning that abuts the
northernmost parcels in the District. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there are no landowners requesting
withdrawal from the District. In February the Ag/Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended
renewal of the District for ten years – until April 14, 2020. Staff and the Planning Commission support
renewal of the District for ten years.
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to approve AFD-2010-0001, for renewal of the Batesville
Agricultural and Forestal District for an additional ten-year period, and to adopt the following ordinance
amending County Code § 3-207 to update the parcels in the District and establishing the next review
period. The motion was seconded Mr. Snow. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-03(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS, 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 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, D ivision 2, Districts, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
CHAPTER 3
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 70, parcels 40, 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24B, 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A,
26B, 26B1, 26B2, 26C, 27A, 29C, 29D, 29E, 29G, 29H, 29I; tax map 84, parcels 35A, 69; tax map 85, parcels
3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 21D, 21D1, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31. This district, created on May 2, 1990 for not
more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 14, 2010, shall next be reviewed prior to April 14, 2020.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 01-3(2), 7-11-
01; Ord. 04-3(1), 3-17-04; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(1), 4-14-10)
__________________
Agenda Item No. 11. SDP-2009-09. Arden Place, Discussion to reconsider construction of trail
from Arden Place development to the Woodbrook Lagoon Project.
The following executive summary was provided to Board members:
“On November 4, 2009 the Board of Supervisors granted a density increase in return for the
dedication of open space and the construction and maintenance of a path running from Rio Road, to the
Gardens Shopping Center (Carmike) and ending at land owned by the County which is the site of the
Woodbrook Lagoon. This path would also connect to the Arden Place development and then by the
Arden Place path system to other residential development in the area.
The Planning Commission had recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the path be only
five (5) feet wide and end at the Gardens Shopping Center (Carmike) with no connection to the
Woodbrook Lagoon. The Board of Supervisors required that the path be eight (8) feet wide and extend to
the Woodbrook Lagoon.
The proposed open space with a path helps achieve several Comprehensive Plan goals.
Pedestrian paths are important features in designated development areas because of their ability to create
pedestrian orientation and interconnections (goals from the Neighborhood Model) and an alternate
transportation option (Land Use Plan). The approved open space with a path will provide a pedestrian
connection between the approved but unconstructed apartment complex and public facilities. The path
also will provide the opportunity for pedestrians to walk to the Carmike movie theater and the Albemarle
Square shopping center and Rio Road. Pedestrian access to the mentioned public amenities will provide
an alternative to automobile transportation. The pedestrian path will be built to ADA standards, will be
eight (8) feet in width, and will meet the County‟s standards established in the Design Standards Manual.
The 8-foot width is the width recommended for mixed pedestrian and bicycle use. The owner/applicant of
the apartment complex has agreed to maintain the path and the open space.
Staff has visited the site and notes that a system of informal paths already exists on the property.
This path system links the site to the Woodbrook Lagoon area, the Gardens Shopping Center (Carmike)
and the Woodbrook subdivision. If the County required path is not extended to the Woodbrook Lagoon, it
is staff‟s opinion that an informal path will continue to be used by the residents of the area, linking all the
features of the area together.
Arden Place will dedicate the trails and open space after it purchases the property from its current
owner and before it applies for any building permits for the project. The Board may recall that when this
matter was last before it, Arden Place needed to complete the dedication and obtain building permits by
March 1, before the Albemarle County Service Authority‟s new and higher tap fees became effective.
Arden Place was able to reach an agreement with the Authority and purchase the required connections
before the new tap fees took effect.
There is no budget impact. Applicant has agreed to maintain the open space and path.
This executive summary is provided for information and review at the request of the Board of
Supervisors.”
__________
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, reiterated that this project came before the Board in
November, 2009, with a request for open space dedication that would allow for density increase. The
Planning Commission had recommended a path system five-feet wide ending at the Garden Shopping
Center (Carmike). The Board approved the path with an eight-foot connection ending at the Woodbrook
Lagoon property. He is present to respond to any questions.
Mr. Thomas said that he would recommend that the path be reduced to five feet, and not extend it
to the lagoon.
Mr. Rooker commented that this was a 5-1 vote last time, with Ms. Thomas being the strongest
proponent and Mr. Boyd being the only one opposed. He said that he could support the shorter route,
having it stop at the Carmike, but he does think it should be eight feet wide. Mr. Rooker said that the
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
paths in Humphris Park, which was originally opposed by neighbors, are eight feet wide – is necessary for
joggers, strollers, and bicycles. He emphasized that this is being built at private expense, and the
residents who will live there are not here yet as the property (Arden Place) has not been built. Mr. Rooker
stated that this is a good connection to make to allow pedestrians, bicyclists, and others to get to the
shopping center without having to go out on Route 29.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would support that measure. She has spoken with staff from Parks
and Recreation, and they have no listing of the future lagoon property as a park of any sort as it is a
stormwater facility.
Mr. Snow said that a five-foot wide path should be sufficient, but he‟d like to hear from Woodbrook
residents. The only argument possibly for a wider path is if there is need to back a truck into the area to
remove brush and debris.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Meadow Creek Parkway will have an eight-foot multi-purpose
path, and that has been VDOT‟s recommended width. He added that you could technically get by
somebody at five feet – the typical width of a sidewalk – but it is pretty tight.
Mr. Boyd said his previous objection was because the Board did not give the residents of
Woodbrook an opportunity to speak. He would like to hear from them.
At this time, the Chair opened the discussion for public comment.
Mr. John Gallagher said that the lagoon project is “Woodbrook‟s old cesspool.” A lagoon project
is a storm drainage project that will add a filtering berm, it is not a park. He said that residents are not
against the County fixing the cesspool area, but are against the County “destroying their security” by
opening up a part of Woodbrook that is currently closed. In response to children walking to school, there
is no funding for the lagoon cesspool project to be completed or funding for a bridge. Mr. Gallagher stated
that the Woodbrook neighborhood worked closely with the Planning Commission and the developer and
reached a mutually agreeable solution, but a Supervisor with limited information wanted to change the
parameters of that agreement. He asked the Board to listen to the Commission and undo their actions.
Ms. Susan Reed said that the Woodbrook community is upset and concerned with the Board‟s
decision in November to overturn the Commission‟s unanimous recommendation – which agreed that a
connecting road to Woodbrook would be disastrous for a one-way in, one-way out neighborhood. She
said that at their second meeting they unanimously agreed that a walkway should only be five feet wide
and should end at the Carmike. Ms. Reed stated that residents were shocked at the Supervisors‟ decision
in November, with no notice given to the neighborhood, the plans were discussed and changed. It was
clear with some of the comments made at the Supervisors meeting that some Board members were
unfamiliar with the area. It makes no sense to have a sidewalk go to the lagoon and stop and calling it a
lagoon does not take away from the fact that it is a steep wooded area that was the cesspool of their
neighborhood. She said that an eight-foot wide walkway is not necessary for cyclists, walkers, and
runners, especially since it essentially dead-ends. Ms. Reed noted that Albemarle Square has already
indicated they would build a fence to prevent access. A recent crime had a perpetrator steal things from
the mall, but checks and cash were found in Woodbrook as an accomplice must have cut through the
woods. She said that “this is what makes people mistrust government,” as there is a small group of
people who will never have to live with the consequences of the decision they make. Ms. Reed is
especially concerned about the Supervisors overturning the unanimous Planning Commission decision.
This was not a logical decision. She asked the Board to reverse its prior decision.
Ms. Anne Hobson said that she has lived in Woodbrook almost 40 years – back when there was a
lagoon. Ms. Hobson said that she is frightened at the prospect of a park behind her, as this will just be an
entrance way to the malls and putting her in danger. She does not feel safe to walk her little dog
particularly at night, because there is traffic through Woodbrook now. She commented that this is a poorly
conceived development on very poor land. She encouraged the Board to think about what they are
opening residents up to with free access from the m alls in a dark, wooded area. Ms. Hobson said she is
very appalled at the whole thing; W oodbrook is a good community. It has a good tax base. It has good
schools. She said she thinks Arden is going to be a disaster eventually. She asked the Board to consider
what they already have in Woodbrook.
Mr. Ron Berube said he is a Woodbrook resident and just wants to add his voice to those of his
neighbors. He is dismayed about how the Board has come to ignore the opinions of its own Planning
Commission as well as the neighborhood. He urged the Board to disapprove the walkway down to the
lagoon. It seems to him that five feet would be plenty; there is no need for eight feet.
Mr. Gerry Petencin said that this all started out with the Arden developer‟s plan for a road through
Woodbrook for commercial traffic – essentially through one cul-de-sac. He stated that the second hearing
at the Planning Commission yielded a five-foot path, and the Board revisions caused a loss of trust in the
process. Mr. Petencin emphasized that this is not a beautiful park setting, but is “nasty” and “overgrown
with ticks.” He added that Woodbrook residents are not opposed to having anyone else come into the
neighborhood, but just not in the way that is being discussed.
Ms. Jenny Matthews said that decisions are often made based on the bottom line – and the
bottom line here is that Woodbrook will stay a good place to live with good property values if there is not
another entrance. She said that the only people who would benefit from this entrance are those who don‟t
exist yet, as future tenants of the residences that are not yet built. She thinks it behooves the County to
keep it as it is.
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Mike Mueller said he has been a resident of Woodbrook for about a year and a half. In prior
meetings the developer seemed to be willing to sign away his right-of-way for street access into
Woodbrook, but there have been no further discussions on that. He does not understand how the path
provides a benefit to the County in the long-term. Mr. Mueller added that he understood that the County
would maintain the path. Why would the County take on that long-term responsibility? There is already a
garbage problem in that area.
Mr. Fritz clarified that the applicant has indicated he is the one to maintain the path.
Mr. Rooker commented that this project started with a proposed road going into the Woodbrook
neighborhood from the adjoining property, which he opposed – and he contacted Commissioners to
indicate he thought it would be a disaster for the Woodbrook neighborhood. He added that there was
discussion of a 10-foot path to connect to the Woodbrook neighborhood, then an eight-foot path that
connected to the lagoon, and then a five-foot path connecting behind the Carmike. Mr. Rooker stated that
several Commissioners called him and said they had made a mistake when they approved what they had
approved. He said that there are no tax dollars to be spent on the path, but would be built and maintained
by the developer of Arden Place. Mr. Rooker emphasized that a connection would allow people living in
this area without going out onto Route 29, and it is proposed as an asphalt, multi-purpose path. He
indicated that the staff report says the pedestrian path “will be built to ADA standards, will be eight feet in
width, and will meet the county standards established in the design standards manual….the eight-foot
width is recommended for mixed pedestrian and bicycle use. The owner/applicant of the apartment
complex has agreed to maintain path and the open space.” Mr. Rooker added that in recent years where
tax dollars have been allocated for mixed-use paths, the recommended width has been eight feet. He
thinks the Board would be remiss not to have a path built, with private dollars, to the recommended
specifications for mixed use. He added that he supports shortening of the path, but it is not intended for
use by Woodbrook – it is intended for use by Arden Place residents. He hopes the Board will support
staff‟s recommendation.
Mr. Davis clarified that there would be two motions required to change the conditions of the
acceptance – one to rescind the November 4, 2009 action of the Board in regard to the Arden Place open
space acceptance.
Mr. Thomas said he would like to make that motion.
Mr. Fritz emphasized that the area [shown on map] is a stormwater management facility, and the
applicant will have to construct a means to access it – although it does not have to be paved or graveled.
He added that this is solely for access to this facility, regardless of any path.
Mr. Snow asked for clarification as to the location of Woodbrook and the lagoon. Mr. Fritz
indicated the location on the map – with a portion of the path removed from the plan and another area still
providing access to the stormwater management facility. He explained that the path will come in adjacent
to Albemarle Square Shopping Center, will go into Arden Place and run behind it, and end behind the
Carmike.
Mr. Dorrier asked if putting lights on the path might make residents feel safer.
Mr. Rooker responded that he does not think residents would want that, adding that this proposed
path is very similar to the path that was built through Humphris Park that connects Webland Drive to
Whitewood Road – used almost exclusively during the day.
Mr. Dorrier asked about crime in the area. Mr. Rooker said he does not think there is any more
crime here than other similar areas.
Mr. Fritz added that there is an internal sidewalk adjacent to the Arden Place apartments and
there will be lighting of the parking lots, but not lighting of the path between Arden and Albemarle Square.
Mr. Snow asked if the path could be fenced. Mr. Fritz said the accessway to the stormwater
management facility could be gated. Although the applicant is not present, he thinks the applicant would
agree. He added that the applicant‟s representative called him today and stated they are willing to
construct whatever is agreed upon.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Thomas to rescind the November 4, 2009 action of the Board in
regard to Arden Place open space acceptance. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Davis stated that the motion necessary now is a motion to approve the density bonus in
exchange for the dedication of open space as shown in Attachment D, and to authorize the County
Executive to accept the dedication after the County Attorney has approved the deed of dedication and plat
as to form and substance, along with whatever conditions are to be placed on the pathway.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve the density bonus in exchange for the dedication of open space as
shown on Attachment D (set out below:); to authorize the County Executive to accept the dedication after
the County Attorney has approved the deed of dedication and plat as to form and substance along with the
conditions that the path terminates as originally recommended by the Planning Commission, and that it
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
continue to be an eight foot path; and to request that the developer gate or block access through the
stormwater pond. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________________
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Agenda Item No. 12. University of Virginia Health Services Foundation Agreement for Payment in
Lieu of Taxes.
Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary that was provided to Board members:
“The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation (“HSF”) is a Related Foundation of the
University of Virginia created in 1981 to support the University of Virginia. In 1993, the HSF acquired real
property for its use in the Fontaine Research Park (“Fontaine Property”) and on Ivy Road (“Northridge
Property”). In May of 1993, the County and HSF entered into an Agreement For Payment In Lieu Of
Taxes which acknowledged that HSF was exempt from local real estate taxes but established that HSF
would make an annual payment in lieu of taxes for the Fontaine Property. In 2009, HSF acquired
additional properties on Fontaine Avenue for its use. As a result, the County initiated a review of the
property tax-exempt status of HSF.
HSF has again provided the County sufficient documentation supporting its exemption from
taxation. However, because of the acquisition of additional property since 1993 and changes in how the
HSF property is used, a new Agreement For Payment In Lieu Of Taxes is proposed (ATTACHMENT A).
HSF acknowledges that it benefits from significant public services provided by the County. The
premise of the new Agreement is that HSF will make payments in lieu of taxes for the real property that it
owns that is not directly used by the University of Virginia for scientific, educational, or literary purposes.
The proposed Agreement provides that HSF would make annual payments to the County equal to the
amount of real estate taxes that would be due on any of its real property not directly leased to the
University of Virginia or the University of Virginia Foundation for the direct benefit of the University of
Virginia for literary, scientific or educational purposes. Currently, the Northridge Property and one-floor of
the building on the Fontaine Property are leased to the University of Virginia.
Under the proposed Agreement, the amount of the payment in lieu of taxes for the Fontaine
Property and Northridge Property will not significantly change. The remainder of the HSF property will
continue to generate a payment equal to the amount of taxes that would be due on the full assessed
value of the HSF property.
Mr. Davis said staff recommends that the Board approve the University of Virginia Health
Services Foundation Agreement For Payment In Lieu Of Taxes and authorize the County Executive
to execute the Agreement.
Ms. Mallek asked if new buildings would fall under this agreement or if they would have an
agreement of their own.
Mr. Davis replied that this agreement would cover all property acquired in the future, unless it is
leased to the University of Virginia.
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to authorize the County Executive to sign the University of
Virginia Health Services Foundation Agreement for Payment in Lieu of Taxes. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Snow. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The agreement is set out in full below:)
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
This Agreement For Payment In Lieu Of Taxes is made this 14th day of April, 2010 by and between
the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION (the “Foundation”), a Virginia non-stock
corporation, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the “County”), a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
RECITALS:
R- 1. For purposes of this Agreement, the parties agree that pursuant to Title 58.1 of the Code of
Virginia the Foundation is exempt from property taxation on its property, and the Foundation has supplied the
County with sufficient information supporting its entitlement to exemption from taxation.
R-2. The Foundation owns certain real property that is not directly used by the University of Virginia
for scientific, educational, or literary purposes. Because the Foundation acknowledges it benefits from
significant public services provided by the County, the Foundation agrees to make annual payments equal to
the amount of real estate taxes that would be due on any of its real property not leased to the University of
Virginia or its governing body, or to the University of Virginia Foundation if such property is to be used for the
direct benefit of the University of Virginia for literary, scientific or educational purposes, under the terms set
forth in this Agreement
NOW THEREFORE, WITNESSETH that in consideration of the premises, the mutual promises made
herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the parties hereby
acknowledge, the County and the Foundation hereby agree as follows:
April 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
1. The Foundation, and its successors and assigns, shall make annual payments to the County
in lieu of taxes for any real property, or any portion thereof, that the Foundation owns that is not leased to the
University of Virginia or its governing body, or to the University of Virginia Foundation if such property is to be
used for the direct benefit of the University of Virginia for literary, scientific or educational purposes, on
January 1st of the tax year. The Foundation shall make such annual payments based upon the general real
estate tax rate then in effect; such payments being due and payable in two (2) installments, the first being due
and payable on or before June 5th of the year for which such payments in lieu of taxes are assessed and the
second being due and payable on or before December 5th of the year for which such payments in lieu of taxes
are assessed. Penalty and interest applicable to Albemarle County real estate taxes shall be applied if the
installments are not paid when due.
2. The supplemental tax assessment made by the County and billed in the County of Albemarle
Tax Statement dated January 05, 2010 for tax parcels 07600-00-00-017B2 and 05900-00-00-023B0 shall be
abated. No payment is or will be due from the Foundation as a result of such supplemental tax assessments.
3. This Agreement shall be effective for tax year 2010, and shall continue in full force and effect
for each subsequent tax year for so long as the Foundation‟s property remains tax exempt pursuant to the
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the County and the
Foundation.
4. This Agreement supersedes and replaces the May 1993 Agreement For Payment in Lieu of
Taxes between the County and the Foundation for tax year 2010 and all tax years thereafter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first
written above.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker said Board members have received an invitation from Connie Brennan, Chair of
Nelson County‟s Board of Supervisors, to attend a VaCo regional meeting in Fluvanna on April 20th at 6:00
p.m. The invitation asks this Board to designate a speaker from the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
Ms. Mallek said she plans to attend the meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that perhaps some remarks that are consistent with the letter the Board sent to
Governor McDonnell on April 7, 2010, would be appropriate for this meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he has attended these meetings before as Chairman, representing positions of the
Board. He supports the Chair attending.
Mr. Rooker said he could also attend the meeting if no other Board members are going.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to Saturday, April 24, 2010, 1:30 p.m., Jefferson Madison Regional
Library.
At 8:00 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Rooker, seconded by Mr. Snow, to adjourn the meeting to Saturday, April 24, 2010, 1:30 p.m., Jefferson
Madison Regional Library. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 07/07/2010
Initials: EWJ