2010-07-14July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 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, Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, and Director of Community Development, Mark Graham.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 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.
Mr. Thomas said that yesterday he visited the Rockydale Quarry where blasting was taking place.
They had microphones and seismographs set up onsite for monitoring. He said that he stood on the back
porch of a couple who live off of Earlysville Road, and upon ignition there was a slight vibration and a
sound similar to distant thunder. It was very, very quiet. Mr. Thomas said that they blasted about 50 tons
of rock, and when it fell into the pit you heard a little rumble just as that happened. He (Mr. Thomas) and
Mr. Willis, from Rockydale Quarry, then visited a family on Rio Mills Road, who lives almost adjacent to
the Quarry entrance, who were not even aware that the blasting had already happened. Mr. Thomas said
that Rockydale indicated that they may also do blasting of up to 200 tons, and there may be more of an
impact.
__________
Ms. Mallek said she had provided Board members with a copy of a resolution declaring an
agricultural disaster in the County due to drought conditions. There were no questions from Board
members, so she then moved to adopt the proposed resolution and that it be forwarded to the Governor.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Resolution Requesting that Albemarle County
Be Declared an Agricultural Disaster Area
Due to Drought Conditions
WHEREAS, the drought conditions in the County of Albemarle have severely affected farmers; and
WHEREAS, during the growing season of this year the County of Albemarle has received
considerably less rain than normal while experiencing unseasonably high temperatures; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle/Charlottesville Extension Agent of the Virginia Cooperative Extension has
reported that corn, hay and pasture crops have suffered between 35 percent and 50 percent losses and that
water is in short supply for livestock.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
requests that the County of Albemarle, Virginia be declared a drought disaster area as recommended by the
Virginia Cooperative Extension in accordance with the Virginia Farmer Major Drought, Flood and Hurricane
Disaster Act due to drought conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Executive forward this Resolution to the Governor of
Virginia with a request that he takes all necessary steps to effect the disaster declaration.
__________
Ms. Mallek commented that Mr. Bill Shelton, whose family owns the vintage apple operation south
of town and a member of the Department of Housing and Community Development Board, sent a
congratulatory note to the County for receiving a $712,000 Community Development Block Grant for the
Oak Hill Phase I sewer project. She congratulated all County staff who worked to get the grant.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Robert Brugh, a resident of 235 Terrell Road West, located off Georgetown Road, said that he
recently attended a Planning Commission meeting where Georgetown Road improvements were to be
discussed. Last week he saw surveyors working on Georgetown Road. He is not in favor of
improvements to Georgetown Road because it is “nothing more, nothing less” than a Route 29 Bypass.
When you come out on Terrell Road you cannot make a left turn; you have to turn right and then turn
around in the Hessian Hills residential neighborhood in order to make a left turn. He thinks the whole
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
purpose of improvements to Georgetown Road is to get more traffic off Route 29 to justify Route 29.
Traffic should be encouraged to go back to Route 29. He asked if the project has already been approved.
Mr. Rooker said the Georgetown Road project has been in the County’s plans for 15 years, but
the only improvement being done out there is bringing the sidewalk all the way from Barracks Road to
Hydraulic Road and widening it a bit. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic and children walking to school.
The only other improvement to Georgetown Road is repaving. He said that the County has also been
working on widening Route 29 from Hydraulic Road to the Route 250 Bypass, and adding a ramp at Best
Buy to ensure that the traffic moves better and stays on Route 29. Mr. Rooker noted that when Albemarle
Place is built there will be a continuous right turn lane that starts by the Waffle House and comes down to
Hydraulic Road; there will be a dual left-hand turn lane put in there. There are a lot of resources being
devoted to make certain that Route 29 functions better than it is today.
Mr. Brugh asked the Board to keep in mind that any improvements to Georgetown Road are
resulting in more traffic coming into a residential area.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Mr. Boyd moved approval of Item 6.1 on the Consent
Agenda. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Item No. 6.1. Resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the waiver of
standards for private streets serving 6 or more lots in planned developments under appropriate criteria.
By the above-recorded vote, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the orderly subdivision and development of land includes requiring a subdivider to assure
that streets are properly designed and constructed for anticipated traffic and to promote public safety; and
WHEREAS, County Code § 14-412 establishes the standards for private streets and the applicable
standards for private streets serving six or more lots are the public street design standards established by the
Virginia Department of Transportation (hereinafter, the “VDOT design standards”); and
WHEREAS, the VDOT design standards change from time to time and these changes may
discourage a planned development from achieving certain purposes of planned developments identified in
County Code § 18-8.1 including, but not limited to, promoting an appropriate and harmonious physical
development and creative design, when the planned development is built out over a long period of time; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend County Code § 14-412 to allow the standard for private streets
serving six or more lots in a planned development to be waived under appropriate criteria provided that public
safety is assured.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of
intent to amend County Code § 14-412 and any other regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance deemed
appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board
Decisions on Singleton (AT&T) Tier II Personal Wireless Facility: ARB-201-002 and SDP-2010-003.
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel/metal monopole that would
be approximately 69 feet tall (10 feet above the height of the reference tree), within a 20 x 30 foot lease
area. This application is being made in accordance with section 12.2.1. (16) of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for Tier II personal wireless service facilities by right in the (VR) Village Residential zoning
district. The site is located on 2856 Morgantown Road [St Rt 738] approximately 600 feet from the
intersection of Morgantown Road [State Route 738] and Ivy Road [State Route 250]. The property,
described as Tax Map 58A1 Parcel 40F1, is 2.089 acres in size, and is located in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3.
The following executive summary was forwarded to the Board:
On June 22, 2010 the Planning Commission denied a request to install a Tier II Personal Wireless
Service Facility (“Tier II facility”) with a steel monopole that would be approximately 69 feet tall (10 feet
above the height of the reference tree), within a 20 x 30 foot lease area. The application was made in
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
accordance with section 12.2.1.(16) of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows Tier II facilities by right in the
Village Residential Zoning District. The Planning Commission denied the application solely based on the
technical finding that the Architectural Review Board (“ARB“) had not issued a certificate of
appropriateness for this facility. The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment I) provides the history
and details of the proposal.
Prior to this action, the Board agreed to defer an appeal of the ARB’s denial of the certificate of
appropriateness. The purpose of that deferral was to allow the Planning Commission to act and have all of
the information considered together by the Board.
Appeal of the ARB decision under Section 30.6.8
Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.8(c) provides that the Board of Supervisors “may affirm, reverse, or
modify in whole or in part the issuing, the issuing with conditions or modifications, or the denial of the
certificate of appropriateness.” In considering the appeal, section 30.6.8(c) directs the Board to give due
consideration to the recommendations of the ARB together with any other information it deems necessary
for a proper review of the appeal. A certificate of appropriateness is a certification that a proposed
structure and/or site improvements within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District are consistent with the
applicable design guidelines.
The ARB denied the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed Tier II facility because of its
visibility from Route 250 West for a relatively short period of time when driving westbound and because
the facility’s visibility was not sufficiently mitigated since the top of the facility was skylighted. However,
upon further staff analysis, neither the zoning regulations applicable to the ARB nor the ARB’s design
guidelines provide specific direction as to how the ARB is to evaluate the visibility of a Tier II facility when
considering a certificate of appropriateness. Moreover, the Planning Commission has been delegated the
responsibility for making the relevant determinations regarding the visibility and the location of Tier II
facilities under section 5.1.40(d).
The standards applicable to Tier II facilities under section 5.1.40 establish a number of design
standards to reduce the visibility and visual impacts of a personal wireless service facility. These
regulations govern a wide variety of design issues such as the color of the ground equipment, the
screening of the ground equipment and the monopole, the manner in which antennae are attached to the
monopole, the height of the monopole (limited to up to 7 to 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet),
and the location of the Tier II facility on the site. This latter requirement is found in section 5.1.40(d)(2),
which states in relevant part: “The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance of the
facility.” Some of these standards are further discussed in the context of this proposal in the subsection
below pertaining to the appeal under section 5.1.40. The standards neither compel invisibility nor prohibit
skylighting. Given the requirements of wireless technology, most Tier II facilities will be visible to some
extent. However, the standards developed for Tier II facilities are a compromise between tall towers,
evaluated on a case-by-case basis under a special use permit procedure and the federal mandate that
calls for the rapid deployment of wireless technology. As noted above, the consideration of these
standards has been delegated to the Planning Commission, rather than the ARB. In its review of the
proposed facility under section 5.1.40, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the proposed
Tier II facility satisfied all of the applicable standards for approval. At its June 22, 2010 meeting, the
Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation, denying the application solely on the basis
that the conditions of the ARB had not been satisfied.
Because the proposed Tier II facility satisfies the governing requirements of section 5.1.40, staff
recommends that the certificate of appropriateness be issued.
Appeal of the Planning Commission decision under Section 5.1.40
The Planning Commission denied the application based on the technical finding that the
Architectural Review Board had not issued a certificate of appropriateness. Per section 5.1.40(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission can approve an application for a Tier II facility when:
a) Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) are satisfied
b) The applicant demonstrates that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance
with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
c) All conditions of the architectural review board are satisfied
Staff found that the Tier II facility application met the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and
would be installed and operated in compliance with the standards in section 5.1.40.d(1) through (8).
Because the ARB had denied the applicant’s request for a certificate of appropriateness on May 3, 2010
by a vote of 3:1, staff could not recommend approval of the Tier II facility.
The Tier II facility will not be located in an Avoidance Area, and the lease area is not delineated as
a significant resource on the Open Space Concept Map. The proposed monopole is expected to be visible
for a relatively short period of time at a particular point when traveling west on Ivy Road [State Route 250
west]. Telephone poles, electric and telephone wires, signs, and buildings also appear in one’s view when
descending the hill at Ivy towards the proposed monopole location. Tier II facilities must be sited to
minimize visibility from adjacent parcels and streets. The applicant will fence and plant trees to limit views
from the nearest adjacent property.
The Wireless Policy and Zoning Ordinance aim to mitigate or minimize visual impacts as opposed
to making Tier II facilities disappear from view. The “Java Brown” color of the proposed monopole and
flush mounted antennas will further limit views of the facility. The Wireless Policy states that personal
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
wireless facilities that are well sited will almost always be less visible, but siting does not guarantee
invisibility. Based on the results of the balloon tests, staff recommends approval of the proposed Tier II
facility at 7 feet above the reference tree. The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of Board of
Supervisors that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height of
10 feet above the tallest tree, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the reference tree. If the
Board of Supervisors chooses to deny the application, it shall identify which requirements were not
satisfied, and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement.
This item has no budget impact
Staff recommends that the Board take the following actions in the following order:
1. Staff recommends the Board reverse the decision of the Architectural Review Board
(ARB), grant the certificate of appropriateness without conditions, and clarify that it is the
role of the Planning Commission rather than the ARB to evaluate the visibility of personal
wireless service facilities for future Tier II applications.
2. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed Tier II facility at 7 feet above the
reference tree unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Board that
there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height of
10 feet above the tallest tree, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the
reference tree.
__________
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, reported that the ARB denied the application for a
wireless facility. The Planning Commission also denied the Tier II application and stated that they could
have approved it except for the ARB’s denial – as the ordinance requires the Commission to make certain
findings and find that it meets the conditions of the ARB. The adopted W ireless Policy sets forth
standards for location, siting, and design of wireless facilities and that language was transferred into the
Zoning Ordinance, which contemplated a variety of things including a three-tiered approach. Mr. Fritz said
that a Tier II facility such as this one is currently referred to as a “treetop” facility – no more than 10 feet
taller than a tree within 25 feet of the proposed site. One of the items contemplated in the W ireless Policy
was the concept of “avoidance areas,” places where wireless facilities s hould not go. He said that these
are contemplated when considering impacts, and specific areas such as historic districts are listed as
avoidance areas and automatically bump an application into a Tier Three category; Entrance Corridor
districts were not added as an avoidance area in the Zoning Ordinance. Upon further review of the
ordinance, Mr. Fritz said, staff established that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and ARB’s design
guidelines do not specify the scope of the ARB’s review. The ordinance establishes clear criteria and the
visibility standards contained within the ordinance are the exclusive purview of the Planning Commission.
He added that Ms. Maliszewski would provide a summary of what the ARB did, and Mr. Gatobu would
present on the proposal specifics and Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner, said that on March 15, 2010 and May 3, 2010 the
ARB reviewed the request to install a personal wireless service facility for AT&T at the Singleton property,
located in the Route 250 West Entrance Corridor. The ARB denied the request both times. She
explained that the ARB found that the monopole would not have an appropriate appearance from a
particular vantage point on the Route 250 Entrance Corridor – as one is traveling west descending the hill
into Ivy. She presented an illustration of the view taken from the applicant’s ARB submittal – the length of
the corridor between camera locations one and two. She also provided photographs of the balloon tests
taken from the bottom and top of the hill. She indicated the vantage point from which the visibility of the
monopole was not sufficiently mitigated. Ms. Maliszewski said that the factors contributing to the ARB’s
decision were: the lack of a wooded backdrop for the particular view, making the facility sky-lit; the
reliance on offsite trees to mitigate the particular view; the duration of the view; and the prominence of the
view. She added that the monopole in the proposed location allowed for a prolonged sky-lit view directly in
front of westbound drivers on the corridor, and the duration of the view and prominence of the view were
not appropriate – and those were the findings that resulted in the ARB’s denial of the request.
Mr. Snow asked where the picture presented is being taken from, noting that it doesn’t look like
it’s on the road.
Ms. Maliszewski responded that it was taken from the road, and is just zoomed in using the
computer to show a closer look.
Mr. Thomas asked what color the tower would be, noting that the test balloon is red.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that it would be brown.
Mr. Rooker commented that over the years, he has never seen a tower that wasn’t more visible
than the picture. He said that the lattice tower at Keswick, off of I-64, was depicted quite differently in
simulation than it looks in reality. He said that the visibility is not as great as when you are standing there
looking at it.
Mr. Snow noted that a person would not be riding down the road and zooming in on the tower.
Mr. Thomas said he personally would have to stop in order to see the balloon.
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner, presented photographs where staff was trying to get an
idea of visibility for a passenger who is driving towards the balloon, and try to capture every single angle
that provides a view of the proposed tower. He showed a picture of the tower location, stating that there
have been issues with visibility in terms of the adjacent property. He also indicated the “reference tree”
which provides the tallest point nearby. He said that he must evaluate the possibility of the tower falling
down, as it must fall within its own property boundaries; the neighboring property belonging to Mr. Gibson
is about 127 feet – so the tower has about 58 feet to spare. Mr. Gatobu added that the applicant has
submitted a tree conservation report that shows the quantity of trees and the proposed preservation efforts
during construction.
Mr. Rooker said that part of the reason for ARB denial was that part of the screening was provided
by trees that were not on the property, and asked Mr. Gatobu to show what trees are being referred to.
Mr. Gatobu provided an example, noting that it is about 300-400 feet away from the property. The
tree conservation report submitted by the applicant covers an area of at least 100-feet radius. He said
that with inclement weather trees can fall, and neighbors can change their trees and thus provide
increased visibility.
Ms. Mallek asked if the ordinance provided a standard for the number of trees onsite that provide
a minimum threshold.
Mr. Gatobu responded that there is no set number. During the building permit stage a tree
conservation plan is used to ensure there is no tree damage; the arborist usually presents a list of trees,
their height, etc.
Mr. Boyd asked if any of the trees shown have been removed.
Mr. Gatobu said that to his knowledge, all the trees are still on site; none of the trees on the list on
are on the neighbor’s property.
Mr. Snow asked how many of the trees are removed in order to clear a ground space for this
tower.
Mr. Gatobu replied that probably seven trees would be removed to allow the applicant access to
the site, and the base would be fenced from visibility. The fence would be eight feet high and the exterior
is painted brown so it blends in better with its surroundings. He then reviewed the requirements by which
the Board must evaluate the appeal: the applicant must meet Subsection 5.1.40, which is the application;
must meet items 1-8 in the staff report; and all conditions of the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Gatobu
presented on the screen a list of staff recommendations.
Mr. Davis pointed out that this is a Tier II application, noting that Tier One is administratively
approved and Tier Three requires a special use permit. He stated that a Tier II requires the Board to
make the findings as outlined by Mr. Gatobu. If the Board makes those findings, it is stepping into the
shoes of the Planning Commission, which – if the findings are made – the Planning Commission could
only approve it without conditions as there is no authority under a Tier II to impose additional conditions
beyond what the ordinance specifies. If all the criteria are met, the Board should approve the Tier II
proposal. If the criteria are not met, the Board cannot approve the request.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Planning Commission did vote to deny this, and the question is whether
or not the Board overturns that decision.
Mr. Davis said that the Board needs to consider the appeal of the ARB decision – the denial as
explained by Ms. Maliszewski; and the appeal of the Planning Commission denial, which was based solely
upon the ARB denial of the permit. He added that one of the findings the Commission had to make was
that the plan met all the requirements of the ARB, which could not be met as the ARB had denied the
Certificate of Appropriateness. The Board needs to first act on the ARB appeal. If the Board denies the
ARB appeal, it could deny the site plan appeal on the same basis as the Commission. If the Board
approves the Certificate of Appropriateness, it needs to consider the Commission appeal and decide
whether all the other criteria have been met. The key issue is whether the tower has been sited in a way
to minimize satisfactorily its visibility.
Mr. Boyd commented that the subjective question here is whether the applicant has satisfied the
requirements of the Architectural Review Board, and the Commission says it does not satisfy those.
Mr. Davis confirmed that, adding that some explanation is needed as the ARB denied the
application because they didn’t think that the visibility had been properly minimized. He said that the
scheme of the ordinance that has been adopted places that decision in the hands of the Planning
Commission and not the ARB. The ARB should have confined their review to the guidelines that it
operates under to minimize the impact on the historical character of the Entrance Corridor. The problem
is there aren’t many specific guidelines that relate to a treetop cell tower. He added that the ARB looked
at it from the perspective of the impact of visibility, but that should not have been a criteria that they based
their decision upon and the visibility determintion should have instead been made by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Rooker commented that visibility is not limited to the road, and could reference the property
next door or the neighborhood in general.
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Davis responded that the ordinance provides that the visibility needs to be adequately
minimized from adjacent parcels and streets – so that is a determination for the Board to make, it is a
standard they need to evaluate in light of the evidence before them.
Mr. Boyd stated that it appears the Planning Commission seems to have denied this solely on the
basis of the ARB’s denial – which based the visibility only from Route 250, as that is their only purview.
The Planning Commission must have thought that the visibility from all other angles was OK.
Mr. Rooker responded that they didn’t really look into that, as they believed at the time that they
had to have an ARB approval in order to approve the request.
Mr. Davis said that the issue was framed for the Commission in a way that they were evaluating
all the criteria, but Mr. Fritz may have more information.
Mr. Fritz clarified that when the presentation was made to the Commission, it was made clear that
regardless of the outcome they had to deny the request because they had the ARB’s denial; however, it
was known that the applicant had already appealed the ARB’s decision so an appeal from the
Commission was likely and they were advised to independently analyze the eight criteria and make their
own conclusion as to whether this facility met those – and what their own independent outcome would be
if the ARB had approved the application. He said that their finding was that it met the eight criteria in the
ordinance for approval, but didn’t have ARB approval.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the ARB denied it because of height.
Ms. Maliszewski responded that the ARB denied it because they didn’t think the visibility was
sufficiently mitigated and it is the height that makes it visible.
At this time, the Chair asked the applicant for comments.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing AT&T, said that the fence proposed to be located around the tower
is wooden and would be eight feet tall. AT&T is also proposing the addition of shrubs along the outside of
the fence to screen it from adjacent property owners – 17 holly trees on each side. Ms. Long said that
AT&T asked the Gibson’s next door with what they wanted, and they requested those as the plants would
provide screening year-round and would be low-maintenance. She added that the top of the cabinets that
are in the inside of the fences are not quite six feet tall. The fences are designed to be tall enough to
screen the ground equipment from the adjacent parcels and then the landscaping is added to soften the
look. She stated that the trees are usually 4-6 feet at the time they are planted. They are happy to work
with the neighbors to install an appropriately sized landscaping tree. She added all the trees shown on
tree conservation plans are all onsite – but there are trees from other properties that can be seen. They
have sufficient screening onsite; they are not relying on any trees that are offsite for screening and the
ordinance doesn’t provide for that. Ms. Long added that the ARB denied this request based on visibility,
but as Mr. Davis said that it should not have been criteria relied upon in making their denial. The ARB
should not have denied it based on visibility thus making it an improper denial– that is the purview of the
Planning Commission. She added that the Commission was very clear that their denial was based solely
on the ARB’s decision, as the Commission had considered visibility of the proposed facility from multiple
angles. There was significant input from the public at the Commission hearing and a number of pictures
shown by the applicant and several adjacent property owners.
Ms. Long said AT&T is proposing this facility because there is a significant gap of coverage in this
area that has been there for a long time, and it is a challenging site to cover. She said that when the other
sites nearby were installed 10 years ago, they were expected to suffice but with treetop towers it is difficult
to predict how well they are going to work until they are actually built and turned. This location’s low
terrain was prohibitive to adequate coverage. She presented AT&T computer models that indicated that
the facility at this location will fill the hole and provide good coverage on Route 250 and provide in-building
coverage for nearby residences and businesses that rely on wireless coverage.
Ms. Long presented a picture of onsite trees, noting that it is one of the most heavily wooded
parcels in the area and pointing out the parcel’s location. She added that the proposed facility is 94 feet
from the closest property line, and there are seven trees and two shrubs in the lease area that will need to
be removed. There is a significant amount of tree preservation screening that will installed during and
after construction. Ms. Long pointed out the location of neighboring properties and their homes; noting
that the Vigilante house is approximately 750 feet to the west and the Gibson’s property is approximately
120 feet to the corner of their garage. She added that an old garage on Ms. Singleton’s property would be
removed to accommodate the tower and clean up the area. She provided and described various
photographs of the lease area, reference tree and property. She noted that Ms. Singleton’s driveway
would serve as the access for maintenance vehicles, so no additional driveway would be needed and
maintenance is done about once per month.
Ms. Long said that there have been four or five balloon tests done since January. AT&T originally
proposed ten feet above the tallest tree but was not able to obtain ARB staff support as they
recommended four feet. She stated that AT&T paid a significant amount of money to a graphics company
to create photo simulations. Ms. Long provided numerous photographs from various property locations
taken during different seasons. She added that they were not able to recreate images every time there is
a change in season or proposed tower height. Ms. Long added that the pole might stick out above the
existing trees, but certainly no worse than any existing power line poles along the road. Ms. Long
presented a view from the Gibson property, which is closest to the leased area, and said that the brown
pole would be much less visible than the red balloon. She said that this is a busy area, but they believe
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
that because of the pole design and location – brown pole and flush mounted antennas - it will blend in
well with everything else around. Ms. Long said they are not relying on trees from the adjacent property
for screening, although they may add to the screening.
Mr. Snow said that the comment was made several times in the Planning Commission minutes
that the balloon was being blown in the photos and the location would actually be different.
Ms. Long replied that the balloon tests are not an exact science, and were repeated several times
for this project. She said that they do the tests early in the morning when the wind is lowest. The balloon
cannot be launched from the exact location where the pole will be because of the tree cover above it; the
balloons pop. Ms. Long explained that after the first denial from the ARB, she and a colleague did an
exhaustive search on the site and came back to the proposed location – but launched the balloon from
right next to the reference tree, about 25 feet from the actual pole location. She added that they are very
careful to not take pictures unless the balloon is straight up because it is not an accurate depiction.
Mr. Snow asked if there was any noise associated with the proposed tower.
Ms. Long responded that there is absolutely no noise, just some typical construction noise while
the site is being installed. She said that she would be showing a short video taken from her car during
one of the balloon tests, using a hand-held video recorder; she indicated that traveling at the posted speed
limit down the road, the view is visible for less than 10 seconds and is not visible at all driving east unless
you stop and get out of your car.
Mr. Thomas asked what the distance is from the tower site to the Singleton residence.
Ms. Long replied that it is much closer to that residence than the Gibson residence.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone is living in the Singleton house.
Ms. Long said Ms. Singleton has been living in the residence some of the time. Ms. Singleton is
elderly and during the winter, she had a problem with her heating system, so she lived with some family.
Also, she does not have air conditioning, so has stayed with family during the hot weather.
Mr. Snow commented that she was not at the residence when he went by there.
Ms. Long said they started visiting the site last summer and two of the three times they were there
assessing the site, Ms. Singleton was there mowing her grass with her push lawn mower. She may not
live there every day of the year, but it is her primary residence.
Mr. Thomas asked what the communicative results were when the pole was four feet above the
tallest tree.
Ms. Long responded that it did not work at that height, noting that the bottoms of the antennas
must be free of blockage from the trees just like the top.
Mr. Thomas asked the distance of the antennas from the pole.
Ms. Long said that the antennas are flush-mounted to the pole, and in the County’s definition of
flush mounting, no more than 12 inches between the outside face of the pole and inside face of the panel
is allowed; it must be mounted with a bracket and must be tilted just slightly to tilt and angle towards the
coverage objective.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the Planning Commission minutes and said that it is clear they made no
finding at all on anything having to do with visibility. The sole basis for their decision was that the ARB had
not approved this. He emphasized that Mr. Loach said in their meeting that his “main problem was not
from Route 250 because of all the light poles, but what was shown from Mr. Gibson’s house and its visual
impact”. Mr. Rooker also said that the minutes indicate Mr. Loach asked if the ARB’s concern was only
the view from the Route 250 perspective, and the ARB responded that it was because that is the limit of
their purview. Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Zobrist makes it clear that the sole basis for his motion is that the
ARB denied it and even stated at the meeting that the “political decision is being moved from the Planning
Commission to the Board of Supervisors”. At that point, Mr. Rooker reported, Mr. Lafferty said the
“Commission was passing the buck” and Mr. Zobrist agreed. Mr. Rooker said that Ms. Carmichael asked
for clarification of the motion and if it would have been approved had it not been a technical denial; Mr.
Kamptner replied that the stated reason in Mr. Zobrist’s motion for denial was because the ARB had not
approved the Certificate of Appropriateness yet. Mr. Zobrist then said that was the sole basis for the
motion. The motion for denial passed 6-0. Mr. Rooker said there was no finding at all by the Planning
Commission, at least in these minutes, on the visibility issue looking at it from adjacent properties or from
any other perspective; the only thing they considered was that the ARB had denied it. They couldn’t
approve it, and they said they were passing it on to the Board of Supervisors for the Board to basically
deal with the political issue. He said that he wanted to clarify that because it was presented differently.
Ms. Long added that the Commission members also did not express any objection to visibility.
Mr. Rooker responded that they did not consider it. He added that there is no point in the minutes
where the Commission makes any finding about whether they would have approved it based on visibility
had they considered all those issues. Mr. Rooker emphasized that they couldn’t make that decision
because of the technical fact that the ARB had not made a decision, but the comments are clear that there
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
are concerns about visibility. They commented on that when it came down to making the motion; they do
not say what they would have done had the ARB approved it.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Commission should have made a decision on the visibility before they
made a decision on the ARB’s decision.
Mr. Rooker replied that it is irrelevant because ultimately it would have to come back to the Board
if someone had appealed the decision.
Ms. Long stated that the applicant specifically asked for some direction, and her colleague asked
for clarification as to the reason for denial – and the Commission said that the sole reason was because
the ARB had denied it.
Mr. Rooker said that the Commission made it clear that they were not dealing with the visibility
issue and were passing it on to the Board.
Ms. Long commented that the W ireless Policy was developed when Mr. Rooker and Mr. Thomas
were on the Commission, and she became involved in 1999 when representing AT&T’s predecessor. The
policy is a compromise. She added that wireless companies would prefer larger galvanized steel towers,
but they were not working for Albemarle County and thus the policy and the treetop facilities were
established. AT&T was following the Wireless Policy long before it was adopted and has worked hard
over the years to comply with the Policy. Ms. Long emphasized that when these towers are only ten feet
above the tops of the trees and you are trying to provide coverage along the road, they must be closer to
the coverage objective at the site and won’t work otherwise. That is why the W ireless Policy allows these
treetop facilities in every single zoning district. This is an infill site and is challenging. They worked hard
to find a location that would work. She then showed the aforementioned video of the tower site and the
balloon visibility. Ms. Long asked to have an opportunity to respond to public comments as part of the
applicant’s response time.
At this time, the Chair asked for other public comments.
Ms. Mary Newton said that she lives at 2900 Morgantown Road and her house is an 1880s
property in the vicinity. She said that due to critical slopes, the five acres she own is only suitable for one
building spot where she hopes to build a house. The location is also on the site line of proposed cell
tower. Ms. Newton stated that she will be impacted by the tower placem ent, but it seems that the focus
here is on visibility from the Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Rooker responded that the visibility from adjacent properties is just as important as it the
visibility from the Entrance Corridor.
Ms. Newton expressed concern that a tower placement could destroy her property, adding that
due to critical slopes in the Village of Ivy the tower is going to be right in their face. She said that her
neighbors are also concerned emphasizing that she has lived there for 15 years and Ms. Singleton has not
lived there in many years.
Ms. Dianna Gibson said she lives on the adjacent property, 2852 Morgantown Road. She said
some of the photographs shown earlier didn’t really do justice to how big and right in their sight line the
pole is going to be. She said that it concerns her that having this monstrosity right here as they view it
every morning may impact their property values and way of life. Ms. Gibson stated that many surrounding
neighbors are concerned with the visibility and what this might lead to in Ivy. People are very up in arms
about what is going on here.
Mr. Trevor Gibson thanked Board members for their time. Mr. Gibson said that the tallest tree on
the tree survey is 57 feet, and the proposed monopole is 69 feet. He stated that the applicant is proposing
to remove seven trees, and they happen to be the tallest in the area. Mr. Gibson reiterated that the
Planning Commission did not opine on the appropriateness of the tower, adding that the critical slopes are
a significant issue. The balloon float was inaccurate given the sway of the wind; it is more like 13
seconds. He mentioned that Ms. Singleton does not live on property, and they have only seen her once or
twice in the 15 years they have lived there. He is not even sure if the electricity is on, the mailbox has
been removed, and the lawn has not been serviced. Mr. Gibson said that AT&T states they have “good
coverage” in Ivy already, and “best service” at the proposed site. The residents believe this will have more
negative impact than positive impact because of the small amount of area this would actually cover. He
stated that there is no demand from Ivy residents, only opposition – and there are no visible towers from
other carriers. They live there because Albemarle County does not put the interest of big business ahead
of its own residents. He presented a coverage map taken from the AT&T website, noting locations of
“best” and “good” coverage in that area, and highlighting the visibility of the proposed tower. He provided
photographs showing that the tower would be clearly visible from his kitchen and patio. He stated that
this tower is plopped right in the middle of the two houses – his house and the Singleton house. Mr.
Gibson added that this is residential area – not a 300-acre farm. The proximity to the Gibson house is
less than 100 feet and visible from all outside angles. Mr. Gibson stated that the tower would have
significant implications to his quality of life and financial health of his family.
Mr. Jim Sofka said that he had attended the Planning Commission. The Commission did not
render an opinion on visibility – but instead left it for the Board to decide and did not pass on any guidance
on that matter” He explained that he lives in the corner lot facing Morgantown Road, forming a triangle
with Route 250. Mr. Sofka stated that the tower would be situated right between his tree line, and pointed
out the hemlock tree and one other tree that AT&T would be relying on for screening. They are his trees
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
and both are diseased and he has been treating them for four years, and should he have to remove them
the tower would stick out like a sore thumb. Mr. Sofka said that one tree is 360 feet east of the tower, and
Tier II requirements are clear; the applicant cannot rely on offsite trees for screening. He noted that AT&T
is using his trees and some on the Gibson property to satisfy some of their requirements without consent
or any kind of compensation. Both of these properties form the view shed for Ivy. Mr. Sofka emphasized
that this is a compact neighborhood, and the houses are closer than they appear in the photograph. He
added that there has not been a light bulb on in Ms. Singleton’s house for the last three years. The trees
on the Singleton property are small and not visible. In 2009 Dominion Power removed a lot of trees when
they did routine clearing by the power poles. He thinks the ARB acted correctly. The ARB couldn’t rule on
the neighborhood visibility but could not approve based on the view from Route 250.
Mr. Roy Van Doorn, next on the list to speak, said he would forego speaking at this time.
Mr. Paul Wright, a member of the ARB, said he would be speaking for himself and not that Board.
He said that the ARB unanimously rejected the request because they believed that the tower would be
visible. He added that he does accept Mr. Davis’ opinion that visibility is not under their purview. If they
cannot see something, they cannot view it, but he believes if they can see it, they can view it. He
suggested that the ARB be removed from the process of considering future cell towers, if visibility is not an
ARB issue. Mr. Wright stated that they do not have a problem with the base or the poles, and the photos
do not really show what the tower would be like. It was not a capricious thing that the ARB did – it is
simply in their purview that they unanimously decided that this was inappropriate given the historical
conditions of this area. He added that nine seconds is supposed to be the length of time that you can see
the tower from Route 250. The reason the ARB did not have a problem with the other view is because it
was mitigated. He looked at the other view and it in no way compromises the overall visual integrity of the
County. He rejects the idea that the Commission should be the sole determinant of visibility in this case
as it makes no logical sense. Mr. Wright said he has an AT&T phone, would love to have better coverage
in many other places and he wants them to build more towers, but he wants them to do it within the rules.
As a group, the ARB decided that they had not done that.
Ms. Long clarified that the reference tree is 57 feet and the proposed pole is 69 feet, noting that
there is a slight difference in elevation between the reference tree and the pole location. She said that the
69-foot pole is ten feet above the top of the reference tree. Ms. Long stated that AT&T would not invest
the significant amount of funds in this location if there were not a very strong customer demand for
coverage in this area. She said that this facility meets all the requirements of the wireless ordinance, and
the issue is whether the Board finds there is sufficient onsite screening. She said they are not relying on
screening of any offsite trees; they cannot control how offsite trees help. The tower will not be invisible,
but the wireless policy and the wireless ordinance do not require that it be invisible. If it’s invisible it will not
work. Ms. Long added stated that the policy requires that visibility be mitigated, but not eliminated, and it
speaks to that by following the County’s design requirements – including using a brown pole with flush-
mounted antennas and limiting the height of the pole to no more than 10 feet above the tops of the trees.
She purports that that is all consistent with what they are doing. Ms. Long emphasized that these facilities
are permitted by-right in every zoning district in the County. If the County had contemplated that it did not
want towers in rural residential areas, they would not have been allowed in the areas. She thanked the
Board for the opportunity to comment and can respond to any other comments.
There being no other public comments, the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Thomas said that in his understanding of the wireless policy, he can support the application
under Tier II criteria.
Mr. Rooker said that he and Mr. Thomas served on the Commission at the same time the policy
was established, but he would have a great deal of difficulty supporting the application. He stated that
Section 5.1.40(d)2 specifically makes “visibility from adjacent parcels” a factor to be considered as to
whether it is appropriate – whether the visibility from those parcels is mitigated, as well as other streets.
Mr. Rooker said that the ARB unanimously ruled that it was visible from Route 250. He thinks it would be
hard to find differently than the ARB on the Route 250 perspective and especially if the offsite trees were
removed. If those trees are removed the view from Route 250 would be even clearer. Regardless of that
issue, the Board is supposed to take visibility from neighboring parcels into consideration. He thinks the
Board would set a precedent for allowing cell towers tight in to neighborhood situations, close to houses,
which they have the ability not to allow because they are supposed to take into consideration visibility from
adjacent parcels. He does not think people are going to appreciate it if the Board creates a situation in the
County where they open up their door and they are going to be looking at a cell tower on their neighbor’s
property - 50 feet from their property line. He added that the cell tower is practically right outside the
Gibson’s door, and that is why this is in the ordinance; the Board is supposed to consider that. Mr. Rooker
said he thinks the tower would be inappropriate from Route 250 and with respect to adjacent parcels. He
said he thinks it would be a big mistake. This is a two-acre lot in a residential area where the neighbors
object, it would be highly visible from their properties and the ordinance specifically contemplates that it
should be a criteria.
Mr. Boyd agreed, stating that the visibility is inappropriate in this case and he cannot support it.
Ms. Mallek noted that localities are permitted to rule based on aesthetics, and she was struck by
the photos from the neighbors’ homes.
Mr. Dorrier said that the County spends a lot of money conducting these tests, as does the
applicant, and the balloon is visible 10 feet above the highest tree. It’s got to give impetus to denying the
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
application, because it is the sole criteria that the Board uses to determine whether it’s right or not. If the
Board throws those criteria out, they have nothing left.
Mr. Snow commented that he was considering the tower based on what someone could see on
Route 250, and said it is unlikely anyone would see it. He stated that it is clear that the neighbors would
be able to see it though, and that negates the approval. He could support the tower from the standpoint of
mitigating the site from Route 250, but he understands the argument from what the Gibson’s and Sofka’s
would see.
Mr. Rooker then moved that the Board uphold the ARB decision with respect to visibility. He
asked if that was what the Board needed to do procedurally.
Mr. Davis said that there are two appeals: the ARB decision, which would be approved if the
Board follows staff’s recommendation. Mr. Davis said he appreciates Mr. Wright’s comments; there was
some confusion for the ARB in the staff’s presentation to them. He stated that under the statutory scheme
in place with this ordinance and this particular consideration, he does not believe that visibility alone is the
purview of the ARB.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and then deny the
Tier II approval based on the visibility from the adjacent property owners and the recommendation of the
ARB that the visibility is an issue in the Entrance Corridor. He does not think there is a basis to deny the
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Rooker then moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness based solely on the fact
that the County Attorney’s opinion is that visibility alone was not a basis for ARB denial. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker moved to deny the Tier II application, based on the provision in the second criteria in
the ordinance that the facility has not been adequately minimized for visibility purposes from adjacent
property owners and based on the findings of the ARB it has not been minimized from an Entrance
Corridor. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Ms. Long asked if action on this item could be deferred until she has an opportunity to consult with
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Rooker responded that the motion has been made. He asked that the motion be voted on.
Mr. Dorrier said he seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis said that the rules of a zoning application or special use permit do not apply to this
application, so it would be purely at the discretion of the Board to entertain a deferral.
Mr. Snow commented that when the item came before the Board tonight, he was under the
impression that this should be considered for visibility from the Entrance Corridor – and perhaps Ms. Long
was only prepared for a presentation in one area. The Board is now changing the rules in what it is
looking at.
Mr. Rooker replied that if you read the Planning Commission minutes, that is not the case. He
stated that Ms. Long addressed the visibility issues, as did neighbors. That is part of the ordinance. The
Board is not changing the rules as it is one of the criteria in the ordinance. It’s mentioned throughout this
application.
Mr. Snow said that when the ARB denied this, it was because of the view from Route 250.
Mr. Rooker stated that the reason is because that is their only area of purview, but that is not the
Board’s only area of purview.
Mr. Snow commented that that was not covered in any of the minutes he read. The minutes did
not state that the denial was based on visibility from the neighbors.
Mr. Rooker said the Commission denied the request because technically they did not feel they
could approve it because the ARB had denied the request. He added that the applicant understands the
ordinance and the Board’s role.
Mr. Thomas said he would like Ms. Long’s opinion on the Board’s current discussion.
Ms. Long said she is respectfully asking that the request be deferred to continue to consult with
her client and Mr. Davis on the issues. This request is being made out of respect for the fact that AT&T
has been working with the County policy for over ten years. They want to work with the policy. They have
a number of facilities coming through the system. Despite what went on tonight, procedurally this case
has been like no other she has been involved with regard to the ARB, questions about jurisdiction and the
role of the Commission. This has been an unusual process and out of respect for the time and investment
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
AT&T has put into this application, she asked for deferral so they can consult and decide on the best
course of action. She wants to continuing working with the County’s wireless policy. When everyone
understands the rules and procedures, things can work well. They still think this is a good site. They want
to understand what would happen if the request is denied and how they may be able to work with the
County to get it approved. Although it may not be a viable option, they do want that opportunity.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it is inappropriate for someone to speak in the middle of a motion. If
they are going to allow the applicant to speak on the deferral issue, they also need to hear from the other
side. These folks have also had to show up for numerous meetings and they are entitled to have a final
decision.
Mr. Boyd said he is not opposed to hearing more arguments on the issue, but regardless of
procedures, this neighborhood has dealt with this issue for a long time. He is not going to change his
mind based on a deferral. If they have to deal with process and procedures, he will deal with the next
case, but he is ready to proceed and vote.
Mr. Dorrier then called for the question.
An unidentified person said these rules are clear to him. On June 9th he was present when the
applicant tried to get the Board to discuss this issue at which time Mr. Davis explained procedures. He
has looked at Tier II. He attended the Commission meeting and they made it clear the Board was going to
decide the matter. It was abundantly clear that they were all unanimously of the view that this would be
decided. Now with the Board ready to make a motion, Ms. Long wants to pull the request so she can
consult and start to strategize. He does not think that is right. It is the Board’s decision and it is clear to
him the circumstances.
Mr. Davis then clarified that this is a motion to deny the Tier II application because of its visibility
from adjacent properties and because of its visibility on Route 250, with the finding that it has not been
adequately minimized for purposes of this application.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Davis then explained, for the benefit of the audience, that the Board has approved the
Certificate of Appropriateness but denied the Tier II application, so the application is denied.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement
for the Meadows Community Center. To consider leasing to Jordan Development Corporation the
Crozet/ Meadows Community Recreation Building, located at 5735 Meadows Drive, Crozet, Virginia
(Parcel 05600-00-00-014B0), for use as a leasing and management office for the Meadowlands
Apartments and as a community center. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5, 2010.)
Mr. Tucker then summarized the executive summary that was forwarded to Board members. In
1977, the County of Albemarle entered into an agreement appointing Jordan Development Corporation
(Jordan) as the County’s agent for the construction and management of the Meadows housing project in
Crozet. The original Meadows project included the construction of residential units and a community
center on 27.9 acres of property. Under this agreement, the County maintained ownership of the
community center and the land upon which the center was constructed while the remainder of the property
was transferred to Jordan. Upon completion of the community center, the County was to lease the center
to the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging or other appropriate agency under a separate agreement. Upon
completion of the residential units, Jordan assumed sole responsibility for the management of those units.
While no evidence of a formal agreement can be documented, the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging did
originally operate the community center but ceased operations in 1981 due to funding reductions. Absent
any other interested appropriate agency, the Parks and Recreation Department assumed responsibility for
the operation of the community center on January 1, 1982. Jordan has historically maintained an office in
the community center for leasing and management of the Meadows residential units at no cost to Jordan.
During the FY 10/11 budget process, each department carefully reviewed program expenditures
and services and identified potential budget reductions based on those reviews. The Meadows
Community Center is primarily used by the residents of the Meadows with some weekend and evening
use by the community. With the rehabilitation and expansion of the Meadows housing complex which is
currently underway, the activity in Jordan’s leasing and management office and the overall use of the
community center by Meadows residents will be increasing. Therefore as a budget reduction measure,
the Parks and Recreation Director recommended transferring the responsibility for operating the center to
Jordan or closing the center. After review by the Leadership Council, County Executive’s staff and the
Board of Supervisors, this recommendation was ultimately approved and no funds are budgeted in FY
10/11 for the annual operations of the Meadows Community Center.
Discussions between County Parks and Recreation and Housing staffs with representatives of
Jordan, Management Services and the Piedmont Housing Authority have resulted in the proposed lease
arrangement between the County and the Jordan Development Corporation.
Virginia Code § 15.2 – 1800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to
leasing County-owned property.
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Meadows housing project. Jordan will assume responsibility for the supervision and operation of
the community center during the Monday through Friday daytime hours the leasing office is open. In
addition, Jordan will pay annual rent in the amount of $6,000 to the County in equal monthly installments.
The rent amount was determined to offset the estimated annual electric, water and routine maintenance
and repair costs for the community center building which will remain the County’s responsibility. Jordan
will be responsible for paying for telephone service for the building. After-hours use of the community
center, typically weekends and evenings, will still be managed and supervised by the Parks and
Recreation Department. After-hours use of the community center by Meadows residents or for the benefit
or Meadows residents will be managed and supervised by Jordan. All reservations for after-hours use of
the community center will be requested through the Parks and Recreation Department, who will maintain a
master calendar of building use. Jordan and the County will share trash collection and janitorial expenses
based on use.
Funding for the operation of the Meadows Community Center was eliminated from the Parks and
Recreation Department budget for FY 10-11. This lease arrangement allows the community center to
remain open to support the Meadows housing project and provides for the continued use of the center by
the community while providing sufficient revenue to offset the County’s routine operating expenses.
Mr. Tucker said after the public hearing, staff recommends the Board approve the lease with the
Jordan Development Corporation and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease on behalf of the
County. He added that all parties involved in the lease are in support.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, the public hearing was
closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved that the Board approve the lease with the Jordan Development Corporation
and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease on behalf of the County. Mr. Dorrier seconded the
motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made this 1st day of August, 2010, by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Tenant.
ARTICLE I. PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS
In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant, and
Tenant hereby rents from Landlord, the premises described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof together with any and all improvements thereon (the "Leased Premises”). The Leased Premises shall
be occupied by the Tenant.
ARTICLE II. TITLE: QUIET ENJOYMENT
So long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant shall have peaceful and quiet enjoyment, use
and possession of the Leased Premises without hindrance on the part of the Landlord or anyone claiming by,
through, or under Landlord.
ARTICLE III. TERM
Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The term of this Lease shall commence on August 1,
2010 (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire July 31, 2015. All references to the “term” of this Lease
shall, unless the context indicates a different meaning, be deemed to be a reference to the term described
herein.
Section 3.2. Renewal. This Lease may be renewed for an additional period as may be mutually
agreed by the Landlord and Tenant. If renewal is not agreed upon by the Landlord and Tenant, this Lease
shall expire upon expiration of the initial term.
Section 3.3. Early Termination. At any time during any term of this Lease, upon six months’ written
notice to the Tenant, provided pursuant to Section 18.3 herein, the Landlord may terminate this Lease at its
discretion, without further obligation after said termination.
ARTICLE IV. RENT
Section 4.1. Annual Rent. Commencing upon the Date of Commencement, during the first three
years of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00),
payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof. After
the third year of this Lease, the rent for subsequent years of the Lease shall be indexed for inflation and shall
be calculated by first establishing a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the level of the CPI Index (as
defined herein) as of the first day of that month which is two months before the month in which the Date of
Commencement occurs in the subsequent years, and the denominator of which shall be the level of the CPI
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Index as of the first day of that month which is two months before the initial Date of Commencement. The
resulting fraction shall be multiplied by the rent agreed upon or established for the first year of the term of the
Lease to determine the annual rent due for the year. The rental figure shall be revised each year based upon
this formula. The CPI Index shall be the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (all items, all
urban consumers, 1982-1984 = 100). If the CPI Index shall be discontinued, Landlord shall designate an
appropriate substitute index or formula having the same general acceptance as to use and reliability as the
CPI Index and such substitute shall be used as if originally designated herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
in no event shall the rent due for any lease year decrease below the rent payable for the first year.
Section 4.2. Address for Rent Payment. All payments of rent due Landlord pursuant to Section
4.1 shall be made to Landlord at the address specified for “Notices” herein, or to such other party or at such
other address as hereinafter may be designated by Landlord by written notice delivered to Tenant at least ten
(10) days prior to the next ensuing monthly rental payment date.
ARTICLE V. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
The Landlord shall provide water, sewer, electricity, heating and cooling. The parties shall share the
trash collection and janitorial expense as outlined below. The Tenant shall provide telephone and all other
services.
ARTICLE VI. USE OF PROPERTY
Section 6.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall have use of the Leased Premises for a leasing and
management office and community center, as detailed below.
(a) The Tenant shall maintain an office in the Leased Premises for leasing and management of
the Crozet Meadows and Meadowlands Apartments (hereinafter, the “Apartments”).
(b) A Community Center shall operate in the Leased Premises under the supervision of the
Tenant during the hours that the leasing office is open.
(c) Residents of the Apartments may enjoy use of the Community Center during the Tenant’s
hours of operation, as allowed and supervised by the Tenant.
(d) Other uses of the Leased Premises may be allowed by the Tenant at its discretion to provide
services for the residents of the Apartments and surrounding community during the normal
hours of Tenant’s leasing office.
(e) The Tenant may make appropriate charges for the use of the Community Center during the
normal hours of Tenant’s leasing office as determined by the Tenant.
(f) After-hours use is understood to be any hours that the JDC leasing office is not scheduled to
be open.
(g) The Landlord’s Parks and Recreation Department shall arrange and manage any after-hours
use of the Community Center by the community.
(h) The Tenant shall arrange and manage any after-hours use of the Community Center by the
residents of the Apartments.
(i) The Tenant may make appropriate charges for the after-hours use of the Community Center
by residents of the Apartments as determined by the Tenant.
(j) All reservations for the after-hours use of the Community Center shall be requested through
the Landlord’s Parks and Recreation Department, who will maintain a master calendar of
building use.
(k) Reservations requests for use by Apartment residents or for the sole benefit of Apartment
residents shall be requested through the Tenant. The Tenant’s representative shall contact
the Landlord’s Parks and Recreation Department to schedule such requests.
(l) The Landlord shall waive the reservation fee for any reservation scheduled by the Tenant.
(m) The Tenant shall be responsible for the routine cleaning and necessary janitorial supplies
incurred (i) during the Tenant’s hours of operation and (ii) by after-hours use scheduled by
the Tenant.
(n) The Landlord, through its Parks and Recreation Department, shall be responsible for the
routine cleaning and necessary janitorial supplies for after-hours community use.
Section 6.2. Parking. Tenant shall be entitled to the use of parking spaces in the parking lot and an
access easement to the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE VII. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, FIXTURES AND SIGNS
Section 7.1. Installation by Tenant.
(a) Tenant may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any interior non-structural
alterations, additions or improvements which do not damage or alter the Leased Premises,
provided that Landlord's consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and provided that
Tenant shall obtain all required governmental permits for such alterations, additions or
improvements.
(b) Tenant may, from time to time, make interior structural alterations, additions or
improvements, only with Landlord's prior written consent to plans and specifications therefor,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Upon the expiration or sooner termination
of this Lease, Landlord shall have the option (exercisable upon sixty (60) days notice to
Tenant except in the case of a termination of this Lease due to a default by Tenant, in which
case no such notice shall be required) to require Tenant to remove at Tenant's sole cost and
expense any and all improvements made by Tenant to the Leased Premises or to elect to
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
keep such improvement as Landlord's property. In the event Tenant is required to remove
any improvements, (i) Tenant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage caused by the
installation or removal thereof, and (ii) if Tenant fails to properly remove such improvements
or provide for the repair of the Leased Premises, Landlord may perform the same at Tenant's
cost and expense.
Section 7.2. Signs. Tenant shall have the right to place signs on the interior or exterior of the Leased
Premises with the prior written approval of Landlord.
ARTICLE VIII MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES
Section 8.1. Maintenance. Landlord shall be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for the
Leased Premises, whether ordinary or extraordinary, structural or non-structural, foreseen or unforeseen,
including, but not limited to, plumbing, heating, electrical, air conditioning, plate glass and windows.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall be responsible for all maintenance and repairs necessitated by
the negligence of Tenant, its employees and invitees. Landlord’s representative shall perform a monthly
inspection of the Leased Premises with the Tenant’s representative to discuss any immediate or long range
maintenance concerns. The Tenant shall notify the Landlord’s Parks and Recreation Department promptly if it
becomes aware of repairs that require immediate attention and appropriate Landlord staff shall respond.
Section 8.2. Right of Entry. Landlord reserves the right for itself, its agents and employees to enter
upon the Leased Premises at any reasonable time to make repairs, alterations or improvements; provided,
however, that such repairs, alterations, or improvements shall not unreasonably interfere with Tenant's
operations. Such right to enter shall also include the right to enter upon the Leased Premises for the purposes
of inspection.
Section 8.3. Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby created, Tenant
shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys for the Leased Premises to Landlord at the place then fixed
for the payment of rent and shall inform Landlord of all combinations on locks, safes and vaults, if any, which
Landlord has granted permission to have left in the Leased Premises. At such time, the Leased Premises
shall be broom clean and in good condition and repair, commensurate with its age. If Tenant leaves any of
Tenant's personal property in the Leased Premises, Landlord, at its option, may remove and store any or all of
such property at Tenant's expense or may deem the same abandoned and, in such event, the property
deemed abandoned shall become the property of Landlord.
ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE
Section 9.1. Liability Insurance of Tenant and Landlord. Tenant covenants and agrees that it will, at
all times during the term of this Lease, keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability and property
damage insurance with respect to the Leased Premises and the business operated by Tenant and any sub-
tenants of Tenant on the Leased Premises in which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and property
damage shall not be less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident, combined single limit. The policy
shall name the Landlord as an additional insured. The policy shall provide that the insurance thereunder shall
not be cancelled until thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to all named insureds.
Landlord covenants and agrees that it will, at all times during the term of this Lease, keep in full force
and effect a policy of public liability and property damage insurance with respect to the Leased Premises and
the business operated by Landlord and any other sub-tenants of Landlord on the Leased Premises in which
the limits of public liability for bodily injury and property damage shall not be less than One Mil lion Dollars
($1,000,000) per accident, combined single limit. The policy shall name the Tenant as an additional insured.
The policy shall provide that the insurance thereunder shall not be cancelled until thirty (30) days after written
notice thereof to all named insureds.
Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coverage. Landlord agrees that it will, during the initial and any
renewal term of this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of Landlord and its respective successors
in interest, the Leased Premises, or any portion thereof then in being. Such policy shall contain coverage
against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other hazards as are covered and protected against, at
standard rates under policies of insurance commonly referred to and known as "extended coverage," as the
same may exist from time to time. Landlord agrees to name Tenant as an additional insured on such policy,
as its interest may appear.
Section 9.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of the insurers) for
insurance required to be maintained by Tenant and Landlord pursuant to Sections 9.1 and 9.2 shall be
delivered by Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, to the other upon the issuance of such insurance and
thereafter not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dates thereof.
Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. Tenant hereby releases the Landlord from any and all liability or
responsibility to Tenant or anyone claiming through or under it, by way of subrogation or otherwise, from any
loss or damage to property caused by any peril insured under Tenant’s policies of insurance covering such
property (but only to the extent of the insurance proceeds payable under such policies), even if such loss or
damage is attributable to the fault or negligence of Landlord, or anyone for whom Landlord may be
responsible; provided, however, that this release shall be applicable and in force and effect only with respect
to loss or damage occurring during such time as any such release shall not adversely affect or impair the
releasor's policies or insurance or prejudice the right of the releasor to recover thereunder.
ARTICLE X. WASTE, NUISANCE, COMPLIANCE WITH
GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Section 10.1. Waste or Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste or
any nuisance upon the Leased Premises.
Section 10.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall, at Tenant's
sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all county, municipal, state, federal and other
applicable governmental authorities, now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Leased
Premises or Tenant’s use and occupancy thereof.
ARTICLE XI. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY
If the Leased Premises shall be damaged so as to render two-thirds (2/3) or more of the Leased
Premises untenantable by fire or other casualty insured against under the insurance required to be carried by
Landlord pursuant to Section 9.2, Landlord may elect to either terminate this Lease as of the date of damage
or repair the Leased Premises. Unless Landlord elects to terminate this Lease, such damage or destruction
shall in no way annul or void this Lease except that Tenant shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction of the
rent payable under Article IV while such repairs are being made, such proportionate reduction to be based
upon the proportion of the Leased Premises rendered untenantable as a result of such damage.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any damage or destruction from any cause whatsoever has not been
repaired and such repairs have not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date thereof,
Tenant may, as its exclusive remedy, terminate this Lease upon thirty (30) days written notice to Landlord.
ARTICLE XII CONDEMNATION
If the whole or any part of the Leased Premises shall be taken under the power of eminent domain,
then this Lease shall terminate as to the part so taken on the day when Tenant is required to yield possession
thereof, the Landlord shall make such repairs and alterations as may be necessary in order to restore the part
not taken to useful condition; and the rent payable under Article IV shall be reduced proportionately as to the
portion of the Leased Premises so taken. If the amount of the Leased Premises so taken is such as to impair
substantially the usefulness of the Leased Premises for the purposes for which the same are hereby leased,
then either party shall have the option to terminate this Lease as of the date when Tenant is required to yield
possession.
ARTICLE XIII DEFAULT OF TENANT
Section 13.1. Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall be deemed a "default" under this
Lease:
(a) Tenant fails to pay when due any amount of rent, additional rent or other monies due under
this Lease, including Articles IV and V, and such payment is not received by Landlord within
ten (10) days after written notice of such failure is received by Tenant; or
(b) a default in any of the other provisions of this Lease, and such default continues uncured for
a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from Landlord.
Section 13.2. Remedies. In the event of any default or breach hereof by Tenant, Landlord shall have
the right (in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law) to terminate this Lease or to re-enter and
take possession of the Leased Premises, peaceably or by force, and to remove any property therein without
liability for damage to and without obligation to store such property, but may store the same at Tenant's
expense, and to collect from Tenant all rent then due and which would accrue for the unexpired portion of the
term hereof, together with reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, in the event of a failure to pay rent,
additional rent or other money within five (5) days of its due date, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the greater of
Twenty-Five and no/100 Dollars ($25.00) or one half (1/2) of one percent (1%) of such sum for each day after
the fifth day such rent or other money is late.
ARTICLE XIV HOLDING OVER, ASSIGNS, SUCCESSORS
Section 14.1. Holding Over. Any holding over after the expiration of the term hereof, with the consent
of Landlord, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month-to-month at the same rent herein specified
(prorated on a monthly basis) and shall otherwise be on the terms and conditions herein specified as far as
applicable. If Tenant remains in possession without Landlord's consent after expiration of the term of this
Lease Agreement or its termination, the Tenant shall pay to Landlord its damages, reasonable attorney's fees
and court costs in any action for possession. Tenant shall pay to Landlord as liquidated damages a sum equal
to 110% of the Base Rent then applicable for each month or portion thereof Tenant shall retain possession of
the Premises or any part thereof after the termination of this Lease.
Section 14.2. Showing the Leased Premises. During the last ninety (90) days of the term hereof,
Tenant shall allow Landlord, or its agents, to show the Leased Premises to prospective tenants or purchasers
at such times as Landlord may reasonably desire.
Section 14.3. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the respective
parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns
of the parties. All covenants, representations and agreements of Landlord shall be deemed the covenants,
representations and agreements of the fee owner from time to time of the Lease d Premises and Landlord
shall be automatically released of all liability under this Lease from and after the date of any sale by Landlord
of the Leased Premises. All covenants, representations and agreements of Tenant shall be deemed the
covenants, representations, and agreements of the occupant or occupants of the Leased Premises.
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
ARTICLE XV. BROKER’S FEES
Tenant and Landlord hereby warrant that there are no brokerage commissions due in connection with
this Lease.
ARTICLE XVI. NO ASSIGNMENT
Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Leased Premises, either directly
or indirectly, without the prior written consent of Landlord. No assignment, sublease or transfer of this Lease
by Tenant shall (i) be effective unless and until the assignee, subtenant or transferee expressly assumes in
writing Tenant's obligations under this Lease, or (ii) relieve Tenant of its obligations hereunder, and Tenant
shall thereafter remain liable for the obligations of the Tenant under this Lease whether arising before or after
such assignment, sublease or transfer.
ARTICLE XVII. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE
This Lease and all rights of Tenant hereunder are and shall be subject and subordinate in all respects
to (1) any mortgages, deeds of trust and building loan agreements affecting the Leased Premises, including
any and all renewals, replacements, modifications, substitutions, supplements and extensions thereof, and (2)
each advance made or to be made thereunder. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly
upon the request of Landlord execute and deliver an instrument in recordable form satisfactory to Landlord
evidencing such subordination; and if Tenant fails to execute, acknowledge or deliver any such instrument
within ten (10) days after request therefor, Tenant hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints Landlord as
Tenant's attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, to execute, acknowledge and deliver any such instruments
on behalf of Tenant. Tenant further agrees that in the event any such mortgagee or lender requests
reasonable modifications to this Lease as a condition of such financing, Tenant shall not withhold or delay its
consent thereto.
ARTICLE XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 18.1. Waiver. The waiver by Landlord or Tenant of any breach of any term, covenant or
condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition or any
subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein. The subsequent
acceptance or payment of rent hereunder by Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall not be deemed to be a
waiver of any breach by Tenant or Landlord, respectively, of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease
regardless of knowledge of such breach at the time of acceptance or payment of such rent. No covenant,
term, or condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by Tenant or Landlord unless the waiver
be in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby.
Section 18.2. Entire Agreement. This Lease, and the Exhibits attached hereto and forming a part
hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings between Landlord
and Tenant concerning the Leased Premises; and there are no covenants, promises, agreements, conditions
or understandings, either oral or written, between them other than as herein set forth. Except as herein
otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Lease shall be binding
upon Landlord or Tenant unless reduced in writing and signed by them.
Section 18.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other instrument which may be, or is required
to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by United States certified mail,
postage prepaid, and shall be addressed:
(a) if to Landlord, at
County of Albemarle
County Executive’s Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as Landlord may designate by written notice;
(b) if to Tenant, at
Jordan Development Corporation
Forrest D Kerns, President
111 Monticello Avenue Ste 104
Charlottesville, VA 22902
or at such other address as Tenant shall designate by written notice.
Section 18.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions and section numbers appearing in this
Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit, construe or describe the scope
or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way do they affect this Lease.
Section 18.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the application
thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or condition to persons or circumstances other than those as
to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, or condition
of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 18.6. Recording. Upon request of either party, a memorandum of lease will be executed and
recorded. Such memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease which either party requests except
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
for the provisions of Article IV, which shall not be included. The cost of recording such memorandum of lease
or a short form hereof shall be borne by the party requesting such recordation.
Section 18.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 18.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year first
above written.
TENANT
JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
By: _____________________________________ _____________________________
Forrest D Kerns, President Date
LANDLORD
This Lease is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, following a duly-held public hearing, and authorization by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ____________________________________ _____________________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Date
Approved as to form:
_______________________
Albemarle County Attorney
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES
All that certain building located at 5735 Meadows Drive, Crozet, Albemarle County, Virginia, consisting of
2,400 square feet, more or less, commonly known as the Crozet/Meadows Community Recreation Building,
and more particularly shown on the attached Attachment A.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HARING: Oak Hill Sewer Phase 1 Project. To receive comments
on the installation of sanitary sewer in the Oak Hill neighborhood through a Community Improvement
Grant. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 28, 2010.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary which was forwarded to the Board. In March
2010, Albemarle County submitted a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) requesting funding for the
installation of a sanitary sewer system in the Oak Hill neighborhood. On June 23, 2010, Governor
McDonnell issued a press release regarding CDBG awards announcing that the County had been
awarded $712,500 for this project. County staff and Albemarle County Service Authority staff will work
with DHCD over the next few months to complete all requirements necessary for the execution of a
contract between the County and DHCD.
Completion of an Environmental Review Record is required prior to the execution of a contract
with DHCD for this project. Most of the environmental review has been completed with no impacts noted
with the exception of the possibility that approximately 300 square feet of wetlands could be temporarily
impacted during construction of the sewer system. Any adverse impact to wetland areas will be mitigated
and returned to their natural state upon completion of the project.
Draper Aden, the project engineer, made inquiries to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(VMRC), the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Army Corp of Engineers regarding
potential wetland disturbances. Responses indicated that the project does not fall within the jurisdiction of
the VMRC and that a Virginia Water Protection permit is not required by DEQ. However, the use of CDBG
funds makes this project a federal-action requiring additional public input on impacts to wetlands, including
a 15-day comment period and a public hearing. The public notice was published on June 28, 2010 with
the public comment period ending on July 14, 2010. After receipt of any comments prior to or during this
public hearing, the County is required to publish a Notice of Explanation on how the project will go forward
mitigating or minimizing impacts to the wetlands.
There is no impact on the general fund budget. Publishing costs will be covered by
administrative funds provided with the CDBG project funding.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors conduct a public hearing to
obtain public input regarding wetland impacts for the Oak Hill Sewer project.
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Tucker added that to date, no comments have been received.
Ms. Mallek asked if design has been done as to how the wetlands would be reconstructed.
Mr. Tucker responded that it would be established during negotiations with DEQ and DHCD.
Mr. Rooker commented that the County is very fortunate to have obtained this grant, as it is
solving a significant problem for this neighborhood.
Ms. Mallek added that it will also improve the water quality of the water body at Biscuit Run.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak and the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, said he was present to answer any questions.
Mr. Davis said no action is required by the Board at this meeting.
__________________
(NonAgenda. At 7:52 p.m., the Board recessed, and then reconvened at 8:05 p.m.)
__________________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Economic Development Action Plan. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on June 28 and July 5, 2010.)
Ms. Lee Catlin, Community Relations Director, said that staff will review public input received
since the last meeting, briefly explain how it has shaped the revisions to the Plan presented, and then
answer any questions prior to the Board opening up its public hearing. Mr. Mark Graham and Ms. Susan
Stimart are also present to answer any questions.
Ms. Catlin said that at the May 5th meeting the Board heard an overview of the draft plan and
scheduled a work session for June 2nd. At that work session the Board received public input and made
some revisions to the Plan as well as directing staff to conduct two roundtable sessions to allow members
of the public to comment on the Plan, and scheduled this public hearing. Ms. Catlin said that since July
5th, the County provided several opportunities for public input which generated a very, very strong and
enthusiastic response. She stated that all comments received from the roundtables, the emails, and the
written comments from individuals and organizations from June 5th until now are provided in Attachments
B and C of the Executive Summary. Ms. Catlin noted that the roundtables were well attended and
involved very energetic and very insightful dialogue, and occurred in a really respectful and civil
atmosphere. She said that because there is such a significant amount of material, staff did provide some
level of analysis to try to identify major themes and areas of consensus that appeared to fit the intent and
scope of the proposed Plan. Ms. Catlin stated that those have been incorporated into the revised plan,
along with some wording and formatting changes mentioned at the roundtables and in other public
comments that make the document clear, more usable and provided a better final product. She reiterated
that all comments have been provided to the Board.
Ms. Catlin reported that a number of significant issues were identified in productive suggestions
made by the public that are not incorporated in this document but will be very important for implementation
of the Plan. She suggested that all public input be held onto, and as the Plan is further developed that
input will be very important. Ms. Catlin said that while the School Division didn’t provide specific
comments during the roundtable sessions, they did pass along some material to the Board and staff
believes they are an integral component of a successful economic development action plan. She stated
that staff recommends they be included in all appropriate stages of the Plan’s implementation as a very
important partner.
Ms. Catlin said that one of the most overriding concerns heard was that the Plan did not provide
adequate references to resource protection and possible impacts and concerns about quality of life. She
stated that they added a new section in the preamble about consistency with the Comp Plan and revised
language in Objective 2 to address that. Ms. Catlin noted that there was a lot of comment about the
existing preamble, as it seemed to overstate the County’s success in achieving managed growth; so this
was addressed by revising the preamble to reflect the roundtable language. She said that there were
concerns that the Plan didn’t talk enough about jobs, the primary goal didn’t mention it, and it didn’t
adequately stress jobs for current County residents; so that was addressed in a revised primary goal and
in revisions to Objective III. Ms. Catlin said that there was a lot of discussion about the rural economy and
the fact that there really wasn’t a measure of that in determining the Plan’s success, so staff
recommended that rural economy measures be added to the Primary Goal area. She said that there was
also a lot of discussion that the Plan’s focus should be on nurturing existing enterprises and “home-grown”
businesses, as opposed to a primary focus on attracting new businesses into the community, and that was
also addressed by revisions to language in both Primary Goal and Objective III areas. Ms. Catlin noted
that there was a lot of discussion about the concept of “target industries” and what the criteria for that
might be; staff addressed that by revising the language in Objective III – including adding an ecological
dimension to the idea of criteria that should be considered. She added that there were concerns about
whether the Plan encourages expansion of the development areas, and this was addressed by revising
Objective IV. Ms. Catlin said that there was a lot of discussion about the rural economy and whether
agriculture was adequately represented apart from agribusiness and tourism, and that was addressed by
revising the language in Objective V. She noted that the information was too detailed for inclusion in the
Plan, but would be very helpful in plan implementation.
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. Catlin summarized that the public input process resulted in some very productive and
thoughtful revisions to the action plan, and staff feels that public input in the Plan should continue as a
very integral part of every objective. There is a lot of language in the Plan about broad based task forces,
roundtables, partnerships, collaborations to show that that valuable information received to date across
diverse perspectives need to be an important element as the Plan moves forward. She concluded by
stating that staff recommends approval of the proposed revised action plan.
Mr. Dorrier noted that home-based businesses are not mentioned in this document, adding that
there seems to be a growing trend of these.
Ms. Catlin responded that there was a lot of discussion regarding entrepreneurial businesses, and
there was some language regarding home-based businesses in that section.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that under Strategy 2, the second bullet states “strongly cultivate home-
grown businesses.”
Ms. Mallek asked if it referred to locally owned or home occupation businesses.
Mr. Dorrier replied that he was referring more to home occupation.
Ms. Catlin explained that there was discussion, particularly under Objective V, on the need to
consider home-based businesses.
Mr. Boyd noted that this isn’t any kind of ordinance, it is just an action plan, so if things are
missing in the language it doesn’t mean they won’t be considered during implementation. This will take a
lot more work over the next three years to get the Plan completed.
Ms. Mallek suggested that there be a detailed presentation in the future on what happens next, as
that will help the public better understand the process.
Mr. Boyd responded that some of the items in this plan will require more work, and any changes
to the Comp Plan or specific ordinances would require an independent process.
Ms. Mallek said that there doesn’t seem to be a mention as to the number of jobs anticipated.
Ms. Catlin pointed out that under the Measures section, the third bullet states that “following
additional indicators – sales tax, transient occupancy tax, meals tax, and job growth by sector.”
Mr. Snow asked how the Board will continue to incorporate thoughts and ideas that come forth if
the Board approves this tonight.
Mr. Rooker suggested having the public hearing and then bringing it back at the next meeting for
a vote, as it would be somewhat chaotic to try to incorporate changes tonight.
Mr. Boyd said that he isn’t opposed to that, but the comments must be cut off at some point.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Board could agree on a final date for specific recommendations,
adding that the letter he received from the Center for Nonprofit Excellence just arrived yesterday.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but emphasized that this is an action plan and not an ordinance, and needs to
take “front and center” and move forward.
Ms. Catlin stated that the mood of the roundtables was that ideas were not being excluded by
omission, as there is still the possibility to flesh some things out. She emphasized that this was not
viewed by participants as a “cast in stone” document.
Mr. Boyd replied that it will be a living document that can be enhanced as it moves forward.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joseph Thomas addressed the Board, stating that he is here as a City resident to applaud
their efforts in creating a more economically vibrant area. He said that residents in his area – Frye
Springs, Johnson Village, and Tonsler Park – would greatly benefit from the actions here, especially more
opportunity and access to blue-collar jobs. Mr. Thomas stated that the Board and Council have repeatedly
discussed affordable housing, which is impacted by better earning potential. He said that he hopes the
process will be more amenable for business to be created and nurtured, and the document reflects an
intent to give citizens access to opportunities. Mr. Thomas stated that Mayor Norris agreed with him that
no more retail space is really needed at this point, but there are blue-collar industries that are not factory
jobs that would greatly enhance opportunities here.
Mr. Gregory Quinn said that if the area doesn’t become more friendly to businesses then schools
will suffer with inadequate funding. Mr. Quinn stated that children need to be educated through a system
that employs common sense and prudent budget controls, but added that his biggest fear is that the
schools will be funded primarily from residential taxes. He said that the federal government is almost
bankrupt and more pressure will fall on the states for unfunded mandates in education, healthcare, and
Medicaid. Mr. Quinn commented that this snowball effect might cause State funding for schools to climb,
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
even though there was a State surplus this year, somehow. He said that the County has turned its back
on many industries due to insane regulations, overdone environmental controls, high taxes, complicated
zoning permitting, and businesses give up and go elsewhere. Mr. Quinn added that many in the County
don’t want a “dirty old business,” but some people need a factory job, mechanic job, or steel fabrication job
– but to get building and zoning permits for these is almost impossible. He also said that common sense
plans would still protect farms and forests through land use deferrals and conservation easements. Mr.
Quinn said that property owners should be able to do whatever they want with their property, including
putting up a sawmill or subdividing. He just think they need to look at the common man and help him out
so he’ll have a place to live, and get well educated in high school and have a good job.
Mr. Richard Collins, a City resident, said that he was sorry he missed the roundtables because he
was in China for six weeks. Mr. Collins quoted the Premiere of China – “It doesn’t matter whether it’s a
white cat or a black cat as long as it catches mice.” He said that what was meant was it doesn’t matter if
you are capitalist, communist, or socialist, the issue is about growth. Mr. Collins stated that it shouldn’t be
called an Economic Development Plan because while the economy is important it is not apart from the
social and cultural realities we face. He added that this is nothing but a growth plan. Mr. Collins also
quoted Governor McDonnell’s comment in response to why he had put so many businessmen on the
Council for Higher Education – “Universities are now nothing but big corporations.” Mr. Collins said that
everyone knows that U.Va. is responsible for who we are and what we have accomplished, but it’s time
that they come out front as a multi-conglomerate institution and their goals should be incorporated more
into planning – such as the universities in California do. There are ways that the U.Va. planning should be
part of the region’s planning.
Mr. Thomas encouraged him to attend PACC-TECH meetings and discuss that. He would be
happy to call him and provide the information.
Mr. Keith Drake, Chairman of the Albemarle Truth in Taxation Alliance, congratulated the Board,
and Mr. Boyd in particular, on making business vitality a top priority. Mr. Drake said that the Primary
Goals section identifies several measures to be “utilized in monitoring and regularly reporting on success,”
such as the percentage mix of commercial versus residential taxes and various other taxes. He stated
that the Plan lacks a stated frequency in producing and reporting these measures, a requirement for
benchmarking the initial state of these measures, and quantified goals or timelines for achieving the goals.
Mr. Drake said that if the commercial real estate tax percentage is now 13%, quantified goals for that
percentage in the future need to be set. He also asked how facilities such as NGIC should be measured
as it won’t be directly benefited by this plan. Being able to objectively measure success is a critical
element that needs to be included in the Action Plan. He also said that the Plan should include a
comprehensive review of County assets that are not generating revenue, as there is quite a bit of property
not being utilized right now. Mr. Drake suggested that the Plan implement actions to transition these
assets to the private sector so that they become revenue producing. He added that a lot of work went into
this Plan and there was a lot of input, but it begs the question as to whether the County government is
trying to do too much. He asked if the County is staying out of the way of business growth, which
sometimes is the best thing to do. Mr. Drake recommended an approach similar to the General
Assembly’s requirement to perform a fiscal impact review, and the action plan should include an economic
impact review for all ordinances, resolutions and plans. It is fantastic to see this change in attitude, and as
a local business person he is very excited to see the progress of the County government and the
community in moving forward.
Mr. Dennis Mockler addressed the Board, stating that despite the efforts of some to portray the
action plan as more than what it is, it is an important step for the County and it does not replace the
policies that were adopted by the Board in March 2009 nor will it solve all of the area’s problems –
financial and otherwise. Mr. Mockler said that the Plan is an important part of a process to make the
County stronger for all area residents to help balance the tax base. It will help relieve the heavy burden on
homeowners and help fund the educational system – and may actually enhance the quality of life here.
He commented that the Plan is consisted with the Comp Plan and is not some dramatic change of course.
It’s an outline of how the County is going to do what it said it was going to do when it adopted its
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that as a person now unemployed for a number of months, it is
somewhat discouraging and disappointing to meet with well-respected personnel and staffing
professionals and have them explain that you will probably have to go out of town to get a job. They do
not have the employers or the positions in this community, even under the best economic times – that is
not just the case for him. Mr. Mockler commented that businesses are made up of people, and people
want to live in good communities and make them better communities. He thanked the Board for moving
forward with this Plan and hopes that it will be put into action soon.
Ms. Dawn Story, a County resident, said that she is present to advocate for the elevation of the
status of agriculture in the Action Plan. She said that if the goal is adding jobs, strengthening the economy
and promote the health and well-being of citizens, then they need to look no further than their fields. Ms.
Story stated that the fact that there has been an increase in spending for local goods shows that there is
security in investing in a strong agricultural component. She said that agriculture is already a big business
in the County, as there is a thriving network of small farmers, farmers markets, and consumers that love
them. In addition to having unlimited potential as an economic driver, by creating a viable, resilient and
sustainable agricultural system they also benefit by addressing so many of the other confluent crises that
the world is facing. She added that the County should slow down and find out what strengths and
weaknesses in the agricultural sector are, and form a task force of representatives from the agricultural
and food sector to study this area.
Mr. Lonnie Murray said that during this process he really appreciates how closely staff worked
with citizens to reach something close to consensus – especially something that addressed the
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
relationship between natural resources and economic stability. Too often people see those two concepts
as in contradiction or in conflict. Mr. Murray said that it was a great achievement to recognize that those
goals are complimentary, not competing. He stated that the Natural Heritage Committee conditionally
supports this Plan, with some reservations and recommendations for language revisions. Mr. Murray
commented that economic vitality through the rural economy should be elevated in the plan and is the key
to sustainability, because without it land cannot be protected. He presented an example of a “ramp,” a
spicy/sweet root similar to onion or garlic that sells for $10 to $20 a pound; chanterelles sell for $75 a
pound; morels sell for $100 per pound. Mr. Murray said that the wariness over the Plan has to do with
waivers because of a perceived lack of ability to follow through with the existing promises in terms of the
rural area and natural resources. He also presented a sample of a Turk’s Cap Lily, which he cut from his
garden; County policies currently provide no means to protect the lily when it grows in the wild. Mr. Murray
suggested that he would support a plan that incentivizes better practices in terms of stormwater mitigation,
critical slopes, and stream buffers. He added that the State has authorized a program to trade credits in
terms of stormwater mitigation, and taking advantage of that might yield a plan that could also provide
flexibility, conservation, and economic vitality.
Mr. Carlton Ray said that a well thought out, long-term economic development plan is desirable
for the County, and it is refreshing to read that the revised plan now includes language stating that “the
County strives to manage growth in a manner that protects and preserves the area’s abundant natural
resources without sacrificing the quality of life.” Nevertheless, in his opinion, three assumptions persist.
The first is that the County maintains abundant natural resources. Mr. Ray said that as an ecologist, this
is really more of a restoration and repair rather than more development. He stated that how the plan will
adhere to other chapters of the Comp Plan remains in doubt, as there is currently no land use plan that
identifies the many areas where development is inappropriate – such as water supply sponge areas, areas
of high biodiversity, large blocks of un-fragmented forest, scenic areas worth preserving, etc. Mr. Ray
added that a third erroneous assumption is that economic development automatically results in social and
environmental well-being, but recent history shows that it’s true up to a point – but beyond that point, costs
surpass benefits and environmental health is diminished. He said that it appears the County is at a tipping
point, as this plan moves the County’s policies and priorities more towards businesses interests and less
towards environmental health and social well-being. Mr. Ray said an economic development plan is good
to pursue, but as Hurricane Katrina and Deepwater Horizon dramatically illustrate, economic development
and environmental quality are inextricably connected. Until and unless these two sides of the coin are
explicitly integrated, they will continue to face an uncertain future. Mr. Ray suggested that the Board
develop a parallel, comprehensive environmental management plan. In other words, the plan is not yet
ready to draw a vote.
Ms. Jerry McCormick-Ray said that the proposed plan doesn’t meet its intended goal of translating
the purpose and goals of the economic policy into concrete and measurable action – and it doesn’t show
how the Comp Plan will be incorporated. She said that the Comp Plan is supposed to be integrated and
development should be a part so that they do not lose intended objectives. As it, this Plan promotes swift
action now that will generate cost. The Plan assumes it will increase economic vitality from future
revenues generated from an expanded commercial base. Ms. Ray stated that there is no evidence that
quality jobs will be created, or how they will be created. This is not only a development issue, but it is also
a land use issue. If they want to sustain their quality of life, they need to take into count environmental
factors that are continuous – the water that runs through the area, the water that accumulates in the
ground. This development plan falls short. She added that there is also no clarification as to what the
timeframe and intended expansion of the commercial tax base from a starting point would need to be
generated to create and sustain a sufficient economy for the County. Ms. Ray asked how quality jobs will
be assured, and what the cost is to implement the action plan and who will cover interim costs before
future revenues are generated. What County authority or department will carry out each of the stated
objectives, and at what cost for staff time, expenditure, and resources? She asked if the Comp Plan
would be compromised as this plan seeks to reduce or eliminate unnecessary requirements without
benefit of knowledge needed to make a good decision. Ms. Ray stated that rezoning land for industry
requires good land use information in order to protect the surface water and groundwater quality, and to
avoid stormwater impacts, groundwater pollution, natural resource degradation, and protection of the
Chesapeake Bay. She asked who would pay if the commercial tax generated isn’t sufficient to meet the
cost of the development – the County taxpayers.
Mr. Tom Strassburg, an Earlysville resident, complimented the Board and staff on the tremendous
process and tremendous amount of work in gathering opinions to be incorporated into this plan. He
supported Mr. Rooker and Mr. Boyd’s agreement on taking tonight’s comments and incorporating them
into the Plan, and suggested that after that is done the Plan move forward.
Mr. Tom Olivier, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, acknowledged
improvements in the Plan such as recognition of commitment environmental protection as well as other
sections of the Comp Plan. He said that the primary goal of the Plan also now includes economic well-
being of residents, adding that the Sierra Club commends all who have worked to make the Plan better as
it has gone through drafts. Mr. Olivier expressed concern that the plan calls for elimination of
unnecessary requirements and development approval, adding “without compromising environmental
safeguards.” Given the recent reductions in Planning and rural areas staff, he asked how the County will
determine whether changing or removing a regulation maintains environmental safeguards. Mr. Olivier
stated that the Sierra Club believes that frozen rural areas planning positions should be filled before new
burdens are placed on staff. He added that agriculture is primarily about producing food – not facilitating
an agrarian lifestyle that attracts tourists – and County agricultural policy should focus on promotion of a
local food system that connects producers, marketers, and consumers. Mr. Olivier noted that the food
policy councils described by Dan Stay in the roundtables deserve a further look.
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
He also said that the Sierra Club believes the Plan should emphasize development of economic
opportunities for current low-income, working poor residents, as described recently by Mr. Mike Harvey of
TJPED. Mr. Olivier added that they would like to see expansion of training opportunities in skill
occupations for current residents without college degrees. He stated that recent research by ASAP shows
that the community is already larger than what can be supported biologically by the landscape, and the
Sierra Club believes the Plan should stipulate that the County will not target enterprises that promote
population growth – such as companies that must bring most or all of their personnel f rom the outside.
Mr. Olivier commented that the cost of educating students in newly resident families may well offset
increases in tax revenues from the relocated companies, and ASAP has proposed that the County’s fiscal
impact model be applied more broadly to identify more fully the fiscal impacts of development proposals.
He noted that the engagement of the County in local economic development as proposed in the draft plan
is an expansion of government and an intrusion on the workings of local markets. Mr. Olivier emphasized
that those who support this Plan cannot credibly argue in the future that proposals for environmental
protection are unacceptable because they enlarge government or interfere with free markets.
Ms. Wren Olivier, a resident of Southern Albemarle County, said that the community is no more
prosperous now than it was when she grew up here – but now there is development all the way to
Ruckersville and Greene County. The idea that if we can just attract enough big businesses we will solve
our financial woes is a false one. She said that most of these companies bring their highly skilled
employees with them and do not employ many local residents, and the services needed to support this
influx are not paid for in taxes from these new residents. Ms. Olivier stated that the focus should be
developing local businesses and providing training for people who already live here to give them more
economic opportunities. She added that the marketing and sale of local agricultural projects also needs to
be supported, along with support for cottage industries. Ms. Olivier said that with streamlining the
development review process, the County must be cautious not to eliminate needed environmental
protections. She mentioned that when considering new businesses and developments, a thorough fiscal
impact study should be done.
Ms. Margie Sheppard, a County resident and teacher, said that there is something fishy going on
with this action plan – given the somewhat clandestine, business-friendly way it was initiated. She also
said that she applauds the statements seeking quality businesses requiring highly educated and trained
workforces, but the commitment in the plan to great education and environmental sustainability is only
lauded in the preamble. The document is riddled with terms used to bypass any comprehensive vision of
the County’s commitment to these goals – waivers, modifications, remove obstacles, and rezone RA and
RI properties to L1 only where property owners agree. The Board’s cuts in education and other areas in
this budget cycle says something different from commitment. She totally supports promoting good jobs in
the County but not at the expense of the County. Ms. Sheppard added that counties that have sold out to
businesses and taken the fast and dirty road to make a buck are not attractive places.
Mr. Tim Rose said that the University Research Park was rezoned 14 years ago and now has
about 17 companies and 1,200 employees in the Research Park. Next month a local businessman will be
opening a new restaurant in the Park. Mr. Rose thanked the County for supporting the rezoning that
enabled the project to go forward. He reported that over the past year, about 120 jobs in two of the
companies have been lost – and he is usually contacted once or twice a week by people looking for a job.
Mr. Rose said that to the extent the County Administration can partner with its citizens in helping to
facilitate a healthy business climate, it is commendable. He thanked the Board for the Plan that County
staff worked on. He emphasized that the community needs a vibrant business environment, and a vote
for this document will send a positive signal to many.
Mr. Gary Grant said that he has lived in Earlysville for 24 years and is speaking on his own behalf
tonight. Mr. Grant reported that a 2004 study in Florida conducted by the University of Pittsburgh, the
University of North Carolina, and Florida State discovered a return on investment of $6.54 cents for every
dollar spent on an item that is not currently in the Plan. A 2005 study by the University of South Carolina
discovered a return on investment of $4.48 for every dollar spent by state and local governments again on
an item not included in this Plan. A 2007 study conducted by Indiana University’s Kelley School of
Business discovered that that state’s communities benefitted by $2.38 from every dollar spent on this item
that is not included yet in your plan. In 2007 he said, there was a national study of 54 metropolitan areas
in the country by the Urban Institute in D.C. – and they discovered a missing item as well that “strengthens
community capacity to address urgent issues related to economic development”. Mr. Grant reported that
a Western Illinois University study in 2008 found that this same item had a benefit to the communities that
kept it in and kept it strong. This item is a natural partner in local economic development efforts, usually
centrally located in communities, provides a variety of resources designed to foster for human growth and
development, promotes early literacy and school readiness, and develops workforce capacity. Mr. Grant
stated that the missing item is public libraries, as there is no mention of them at all in this economic
development action plan. He asked that the Board reference the strength of public libraries in helping
develop economic development in this area.
Mr. John Dean, a County resident, thanked County staff for statements made at the roundtable
discussions and for revisions to the Plan. He stated that he is not sure how important every work in the
Plan is. He said that what’s important is what happens next with the Plan and what happens on account
of this Plan. He encouraged the Board and public to have a healthy distrust of the process. Mr. Dean said
that he objects to the secret and private method by which the Plan was initiated, although having such a
plan is important. He believes the County needs to promote economic development. He stated that he
would like to see the public engaged in a conversation about what economic development is, adding that
most of the economic development he’s seen in his 40 years here is sprawl development with retail jobs.
Mr. Dean commented that it is the duty of this Board to serve the public interest, not to serve the interest
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
of some undefined entity known as the business community. He encouraged the Board to vote “no” until a
more democratic process has been engaged for development of this initiative.
Mr. Robert Hodous, a resident of 1309 Lester Drive in the City, commended the Board for their
work on the Plan. He emphasized that this is not a plan for paving over the County or sprawl, but it needs
to be realized that businesses come and go – and there is a lot of focus on businesses that are here now,
which could possibly hamstring efforts to build a vital economy. Mr. Hodous added that a lot of times
development involves replacement, such as that at Albemarle Square, and those new businesses may not
necessarily add to sprawl; the new businesses may provide better jobs.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert said that the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce now has 1,000
members – with 85% of those employing ten or less people, and all combined employing 45,000 people
total. Mr. Hulbert said that he is meeting with someone tomorrow who is looking for a job, and he talks
with people frequently who are seeking employment. The natural course of commerce is that the area will
lose businesses from time to time and will gain businesses from time to time. The best way is to hom e
grow a business. He stated that the Plan is an action plan, and Ms. Catlin deserves tremendous credit for
synthesizing the comments and helping to draft the new version. Mr. Boyd deserves credit for bringing
this to the floor on January 6, 2010. Mr. Hulbert added that there are people in the community who have
been struggling for the last few years. He said that his hope is to get a report every year from the County
Executive and from the Business Development Facilitator with progress on the goals.
Mr. Kurt Burkhart, Executive Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors
Bureau, addressed the Board, noting that the CACVB has primary and niche market segments that it
messages to through public relations, advertising, and online marketing with the primary objective of
increasing visitation to the area. He said that visitation equates to direct economic impact where goods
and services are exchanged, jobs are not just supported but created, and generated revenues add to the
local economic base. Mr. Burkhart added that while the Bureau is not an expert in all things agricultural, it
does have an acknowledged level of marketing expertise including promotion of key elements of the local
agriculture industry. He said that nationally and statewide there is increasing interest on the part of
travelers and prospective visitors to enjoy wineries, beekeepers, farmers markets, orchards, farm tours,
and to better understand and appreciate the farm -to-table experience. These folks want the full
complement of farm -to-table where they can enjoy a complete culinary experience that takes product from
the farm directly to local restaurants and eateries. Mr. Burkhart noted that there are tours throughout the
country that provide visitors with that experience, and the popularity of the tours is increasing. They
envision these kinds of experiences to be included in a variety of future vacation package offerings that
they can eventually have available online with their new website, visitcharlottesville.org.
Mr. Burkhart said that the CACVB is also interested in gaining valid market research to learn
where similar product offerings have occurred, success stories from those destinations, best practices and
sustainability. They also have provided grant funding to support the first annual Grace Church historic
farm tour, which was very successful. Mr. Burkhart said that his office has also been involved in the
planning of the State Agribusiness Conference to be held in Charlottesville in March 2011. He reported
that the CACVB has joined with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Virginia Tourism Corporation as the
third underwriting sponsor of “Vintage: The Winemaker’s Year,” to be aired on PBS nationally this fall. It
made sense for everyone to come on board as an underwriter to promote a key agricultural industry for
the County especially when ten of the twelve vineyards shown in the film are in Albemarle County. Mr.
Burkhart added that the Bureau can work to identify the successes enjoyed by other destinations that have
an agricultural market and to help identify what an appropriate role would be for the CACVB in working
with local businesses to further promote the agriculture experience for County visitors.
Mr. Roy Van Doorn said that he is here to talk about the impact of process. Mr. Van Doorn
explained that he bought about five acres up around Hollymead near the pond that separates Target and
CVS. He said that about five years ago, he sold a parcel to Bob Evans – which is a national company with
500 locations in the U.S. that also owns the upscale chain Mimi’s. Mr. Van Doorn stated that after two
years of working with the County, in a planned development with preapproved plans, they gave up
because they said the process was so impactful and costly that they “couldn’t serve enough pancakes to
ever make a dime.” He said that he has talked to a lot of independent restaurants here, and most of them
say they cannot build a restaurant like Bob Evans because of the cost of the development. Mr. Van Doorn
stated that he grew up in Palm Springs and Monterey, California – where there are very strict standards,
but they are clearly stated. They spent months with the ARB talking about the color of red on the Bob
Evans’ signs. He emphasized that process doesn’t always give you the outcome you want, and if the goal
is growing independent businesses the cost must be reduced for applicants – with aggressive
development only in focused areas.
Mr. Jim Kennan said that he is excited about this. He was born here and returned here after a
career in the Army. Mr. Kennan said that his perspective is based upon a 45 year career in public health,
both in the military and civilian with30 years at the U.Va. Health Sciences. He stated that some group has
skillfully pointed out the different systems that are in place and how they interact with one another, such as
education, health, business, etc. In working as a community volunteer for 30 years, Mr. Kennan said, that
anything done through philanthropy is just a band-aid, and the ultimate solution is economic development.
He emphasized that until people are employed or no longer underemployed, there will be burdens from
the issues of poverty. Mr. Kennan stated that in public housing, there are now third generations living
there. He can remember when agriculture was the major industry of this area which is not the case today.
He said that the new Commissioner of Agriculture stated that most farmers had to go out and get another
job in order to retain their farming practices. He asked that the Board remember this as it makes public
policy in connection with agriculture. The Plan is also outstanding in the area of retention in terms of
retaining current businesses. This Plan to achieve a vision is outstanding. Mr. Kennan commented that
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
no plan is ever implemented as written, and he urged the Board to implement it immediately. It is a work
in the right direction.
Mr. John Chavan said that there is a lot of economic down turn in the country which has also
trickled down to the County. He said that he works as a nurse in the local hospital – and there have been
a lot of layoffs there. He said that he does not want stores and restaurants right next door, and families
need to prioritize their needs. Mr. Chavan pointed out that someone tonight said he is having to leave
after 40 years to seek employment, adding that the Plan isn’t perfect but needs to move forward. This
plan will only enhance their lives. He also said that a friend of his here wanted to open a restaurant, but
there were too many restrictions. People worked hard to put this plan together and he commends Mr.
Boyd for bringing this forward.
Ms. Lillian Mezey asked the Board to vote “no” on the action plan at this time, as the issues of
land use and conservation need to be better addressed first. She said that this plan is based on a widely
held but false assumption that economic development and population growth with lower residential
property taxes, but in fact the opposite has been true. Ms. Mezey cited Loudoun County as an example of
a locality with explosive growth that cannot be managed because of the consequences fiscally in terms of
infrastructure costs – school costs, crowed roads, police, fire and rescue services, etc. She said that her
in-laws live in Central New Jersey, which has very high property taxes, very low quality of life, and not a
low unemployment rate. Even with all the strip malls and bumper to bumper traffic, property taxes are
significantly higher than they are here in the County. If this community is not careful, it could quickly
recreate that toxic environment. She stated that trying to mitigate the County’s budget problems by
promoting further growth does not make fiscal sense, as attracting new businesses brings new residents –
who cost more in services than they pay in taxes. Ms. Mezey said that the County should be focused on
solving traffic problems, especially Route 29. Despite rapid growth in the last five to ten years, fiscal
strength has not increased. She emphasized that her son’s class at Western Albemarle is the biggest
class that’s ever been there and they are still cutting teachers. She asked the Board to slow down, and
vote “no” until some of these consequences can be better addressed.
Mr. Jay Willer, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, thanked Mr. Boyd for his
efforts in bringing this Plan to the community. He also thanked Ms. Mallek for attending the roundtables
so she could hear the public input firsthand, and Mr. Lee Catlin for keeping the sessions organized and
incorporating all the comments into the draft plan. This is the starting point; not the final document. This
Plan opens the door to answering questions to developing plans and finding ways to make this a better
community. He comm ended everyone for their willingness to consider the Plan. He said that quality of life
is important, and this plan is an important piece of it – creating good jobs that pay well, have a future and
career ladder to them so that people can afford a house and enjoy the benefits and attributes of the
County.
Mr. Rod Gentry, a life-long resident, banker, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and Co-
Chair of the Workforce Investment Board, seconded Mr. Willer and Mr. Hulbert’s comments. He
reminded those who feel things are moving too fast to recall when they arrived here. Mr. Gentry stated
that 26,000 people have come into the Workforce Investment Center looking for jobs this year – 46,000 in
Workforce Area 6. This is a time of great crisis and he is thankful for the great educators in this
community - Dr. Pam Moran and Dr. Rosa Atkins - who are working closely with the Chamber, with
business and with the community to make sure that they address the needs of the children coming along
so that they can start finding jobs and creating opportunities for them in the future. He suggested that the
plan refer to “economic vitality,” as the term “development” conjures up a terrible image for some people.
He would all like to see our children and our children’s children have the same opportunity to live and work
in this great place that they live, just as they have had. Mr. Gentry stated that he objects to seeing the
business community vilified, as they are providing jobs for the people who are vilifying them. He thanked
the Board and Ms. Catlin for their work. They view the County as a partner in this effort.
Mr. Morgan Butler, on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that the SELC
supports maintaining an economically vibrant community with good jobs and rising incomes for a wide
array of citizens. Mr. Butler said that hasty actions aimed at increasing tax revenue could backfire if they
end up undermining the natural and rural resources, the scenic view sheds, the top notch school system,
and the many other qualities that define Albemarle and make it such a desirable place for people to live
and do business. He stated that if new businesses create more strain on infrastructure than revenues can
pay for, the most pressing problems become even worse. Mr. Butler said that the SELC encouraged the
Board to broaden the scope of input from different factions of the community, and appreciates the two
public forums and revisions to plan language. Many of the changes made in response to this input have
improved the plan and clarified some of the language that seems to conflict with the County’s growth
management policies. In their view, one key improvement is the addition of language clarifying that the
options for increasing the industrial inventory pertaining to the County’s existing and already designated
growth areas. They also support related changes made to other sections of the Plan confirming that any
actions taken will adhere to the County’s growth strategies and its land use and rural area plans. He
offered additional recommendations that the task force formed to identify target enterprises must include a
wide and diverse array of community interests and public viewpoints. Mr. Butler stated that related to that,
the criteria the task force will consider should include an industry’s potential impact on communities and
particularly on the County’s transportation network. He also said that the SELC strongly supports the
plan’s final objective in promoting local agriculture, and urged the Board to tap into this base more
thoroughly moving forward.
Mr. Jack Marshall, President of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), said
that they are grateful that the roundtables gave the community a chance to suggest changes in the action
plan; the current version of the plan is clearly better than the original. ASAP applauds the greater attention
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
that the proposed Plan now devotes to support existing small enterprises and to agricultural-related
businesses. Mr. Marshall said that ASAP is concerned with the implications that the community somehow
needs to be marketed to the outside in order to attract businesses, and feels the Plan overestimates the
benefits of economic development – while underestimating the cost. He asked what the actual benefits
are, as there has been no data presented that shows this type of development will significantly improve
the local job market. As the G.E. Fanuc experience indicates, he said, outside companies bring in their
own employees. Mr. Marshall stated that there is no evidence either that economic development will
reduce residential property taxes, adding that each business will accelerate population growth and fuel
further demands on infrastructure. He said that there will also be serious long-term environmental
impacts of future commercial and residential expansion, and the accompanying expanded infrastructure,
as several recent studies supported in part by Albemarle County have revealed.
Mr. Marshall said that primarily because the action plan includes efforts to attract outside targeted
businesses to come here, ASAP urges the Board not to support it because the economic, social, and
environmental implications, the overall balance of the costs and the benefits, are not compatible with the
County’s expressed long-term goal of creating a sustainable community. Mr. Marshall added that if the
Board does decide to adopt the action plan, the County should undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis of each possible targeted business – using the wide range of existing expertise in the community
and examine not just fiscal benefits and costs, but social and environmental costs and benefits as well.
Mr. Bryant Harrison, a small business owner in Charlottesville, said that he and his family – with
six children – depend on other small businesses and their vitality. Mr. Harrison said that he read the
revised Plan and really liked the emphasis on strengthening the quality of the economy here in the County.
He has been looking at population densities versus per capita costs. He stated that there are many
studies out that show that population densities hurt in the long run by costing more per capita and
providing less services overall. Mr. Harrison added that for his small business, there is a simple action
plan – make more people happy + make their businesses work like a dream= make more money. He
expressed concern that bringing in more people may actually end up costing everyone more. He is
concerned about that aspect of the Plan.
Mr. Neil Williamson, President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately-funded public policy
organization, said that the Forum wasn’t involved in the drafting of this plan but was involved in the public
roundtable process. Mr. Williamson said that there was significant concern at the roundtable that
government should not be picking winners and losers, and the Forum believes that all businesses should
be on a level playing field when being considered to come into the community. He added that the impact
of businesses here, regardless of whether they come from the outside or not, is positive in most cases.
Mr. Williamson stated that all actions in this plan must work within the Comp Plan, and the preamble calls
out five sections of the Comp Plan. The Forum suggests that the section regarding consistency with the
Comp Plan read: “This action plan is intended to work within the guidelines and stated goals and
objectives of all relevant chapters of the Comprehensive Plan.” Mr. Williamson said that Section IV,
Strategy II states “considers options for increasing industrial inventory within already designated
development areas.” He stated that the Forum believes development should be targeted in the
development area, but if the Board of Supervisors chooses to change the designated development area
then the area changed should also be considered. Mr. Williamson said that he word “already” should be
stricken from the document. He stated that today one in four school children in the County receive free or
reduced lunch, and 30% of the region’s job generate $22,000 – with those families rely on social services.
Mr. Williamson provided his own definition of economic development and vitality: the logos you see on
the backs of shirts with business names when you’re at the SOCA fields on Polo Grounds Road.
Mr. L. F. Wood, Chairman of the North Charlottesville Business Council, said the Council Board is
100% behind these efforts and encourages the Board of Supervisors to adopt the action plan. This Plan
will help every citizen in the community. This is a huge step in the right direction. He thanked the Board
and staff for their work.
With no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Boyd commented that his understanding is there would not be another public hearing, and the
Board would vote on it at their next meeting after final changes are made.
Mr. Rooker said that is also his understanding.
Ms. Catlin asked for clarification from the Board as to the remaining timeframe for public input.
Mr. Rooker responded that if the public wants to weigh in anymore, they should get their
comments to Board members within the next few days. He said that the Board should get a final draft in
the first August meeting so that changes are minimal and they can go ahead and vote.
Ms. Catlin indicated that the official public comment period would need to end by this week, and
the Board would have a week to get comments to staff. She said that if there are comments that come
from the majority of the Board, they can be worked into the document.
Mr. Rooker suggested that he would like to underline changes he would like to see, and other
Board members could do the same and share them with one another.
Mr. Thomas asked if this would have to go through Mr. Tucker’s office.
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Tucker said that Ms. Catlin needs to have changes in hand by next Wednesday, July 21st, in
order to put it all together by July 26th for the Board’s August 4th meeting.
Mr. Boyd agreed with that timeframe.
Mr. Tucker suggested sending all changes out to everyone on the Board and Ms. Catlin.
Ms. Catlin asked how she would handle “conflicting” comments.
Mr. Boyd suggested that she handle it in the same way as the roundtables – incorporating
commonality of response into the document and putting differences of opinion in a trailing document.
Mr. Dorrier commented that if this is an action plan, it’s supposed to produce results.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that this is not some final document, as a lot of speakers pointed out, and it
doesn’t change the fact the County is bound by the Comprehensive Plan. He said that it is possible that
changes to the Plan may come forward, but they would have to go through the normal process. This is to
get to a goal, to provide economic vitality to the community. This is not an idea to increase population, but
an opportunity to provide jobs for County residents.
Ms. Catlin commented that the actions are all about bringing stakeholders together, such as the
agriculture portion of the Plan. When the Board held its’ Strategic Planning Retreat, they talked about
Board roles and staff roles and what gets flushed out; it does not all have to get done in the higher level
framework of the action plan.
Mr. Boyd stated that he does not know of anyone in this community who is surviving strictly off of
farming, and most property here being preserved as family farms is being done so because those families
have other jobs. He does not think it ought to be a main focus of the Board because he does not think
they can make a sustainable living off of farming; that is the reality of America today.
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. Rod Gentry’s suggestion to change the name to “Economic Vitality
Action Plan.”
Mr. Boyd and other Board members supported that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker noted that whatever is done, words are meaningless if the resources are not behind
them. He said that people don’t come here and live here because of an action plan, and the Board needs
to make certain that they are doing the things it needs to do. Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is no
Capital Improvement Plan, and transportation funding statewide and locally is ridiculous. He added that
the Board is supposed to provide the infrastructure, education, safety, protection of natural resources, and
create a regulatory framework in which individuals and businesses can thrive. That’s what government is
supposed to do. Mr. Rooker said that the changes have made the Plan much more acceptable to the
community, but the Board needs to make sure it’s following its role as government. He stated that Virginia
fell from #1 to #2 in CNBC’s best state in which to do business, adding that the rationale for the drop, in
part, was the loss of critical points in the education category, dropping six places to #13 as class sizes
rose and school spending fell. Mr. Rooker emphasized that education is right at the top, and if the County
doesn’t keep doing a good job with that, infrastructure, and safety – the words on the page will mean
absolutely nothing.
Mr. Boyd responded that he agrees, but does not think this Plan is going to solve all of those
woes. The Plan is about dealing with very specific issues.
Mr. Thomas commented that the opportunity to do more has passed the County by, as there is
very little money now like there was 20 years ago.
Mr. Rooker replied said that it hasn’t gone by the County, but the only projects possible are those
that were already funded. He added that that is not the future. One of the problems with people who
spoke against the plan is the potential growth they see, and there is no money to take care of that.
Ms. Catlin then reviewed the timeframe for comments and the final draft.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the wine industry had not been mentioned much in this document.
Ms. Catlin replied that given the definition in the Comp Plan that wineries are considered part of
agriculture, it is covered under that industry.
Mr. Rooker agreed. He added that Ms. Catlin has done a great job in pulling this all together.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
__________________
July 14, 2010 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn.
At 10:04 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 11/3/2010
Initials: EWJ