2012-10-03October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
3, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher J. Dumler, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas (arrived at 9:14 a.m.).
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were any items Board members would like to add for discussion and/or
action at the end of the meeting.
Mr. Snow said that he would like to report on the town hall meeting he had at Yancey Elementary
School last week, and to provide an update on Century Link moving into the southern part of the County.
_____
Mr. Foley suggested that Item 8.12, from the consent agenda, be moved as part of the discussion
on transportation matters (Item 14).
_____
Ms. Mallek said she would like the Board to reconsider funding to the Sheriff’s Department to
provide assistance to the game warden during hunting season. The Board did approve such a request
several years ago. She said that there is one game warden to handle multiple counties, and in the past
there had been an additional $10,000 appropriated to help out.
Ms. Mallek asked if staff planned to attend any of the upcoming multi-modal transportation
meetings. To her knowledge, the closest one is being held on November 1st in Culpeper.
She said she would also provide an update on the arts impact and the workforce network this
afternoon.
With no further additions, the final agenda was accepted.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions:
Item No. 6a. Digital Government Award.
Ms. Mallek said that for the tenth year in a row, Albemarle County has been named among the top
ten most technologically advanced, cutting edge county governments of its size in the U.S. by the Center
for Digital Government and the National Association of Counties (NACo) in their 2012 Digital Counties
Survey. Albemarle County ranks sixth in the nation in utilizing information technology to deliver high
quality service to its customers and citizens based on a population category of 150,000 or less. All
counties in the United States were invited to participate in the survey.
Albemarle is delighted to be included in the elite communities across the country that are
receiving national recognition for providing quality information technology services to their citizens. This
award reinforces the County’s emphasis on using information and communication technology to create
operational efficiencies and provide cost-effective quality service to County residents in these challenging
times.
Ms. Mallek said that the County is providing convenient access to County government services 24
hours a day, 7 days a week – saving time and reducing impacts to the environment as citizens are more
and more able to do business with Albemarle at the time and place of their choosing.
This honor is a strong testament to the County’s Information Technology staff, who under the
leadership of Mr. Mike Culp continues to keep the County on the leading edge of technology innovations.
It also reflects the hard work of the County W eb Team which is comprised of the Webmaster, Ms. Elaine
Pack; the Web Content Manager, Ms. Lisa Gilliam, and the Departmental Web editors who are so critical
to keeping the website accurate and up to date.
Ms. Mallek then thanked those staff members for their hard work. She then invited Mr. Culp to
introduce the presenter of the award who is kind enough to be with the Board today.
Mr. Culp addressed the Board and accepted the recognition, stating that they had put in a specific
request for public safety providers. Electronic technology has helped to make the community safer. He
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
said that this year the presenter is a representative from Motorola, which provides the 700 MHz system
that allows for wireless communication in the County’s tough terrain. Mr. Culp introduced Mr. Tony
Hansen, the Senior Account Manager for the state.
Mr. Hansen presented the award on behalf of the Center for Digital Government and Motorola
Solutions. He thanked the County for a job well done. He stated that the competition for the award is
really fierce – with over 3,068 counties participating. He said that the Center for E Republic is an
independent think tank that does an evaluation, and after evaluating all of the different technologies
implemented throughout the U.S., Albemarle County is ranked 6th. He again congratulated the County on
a job well done.
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. Hansen. Mr. Culp then introduced other members of his staff who were
present.
_____
Item No. 6b. Officer Pam Greenwood – Community Policing Initiative.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following recognition to Officer Pam Greenwood:
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,
we would like to recognize
Officer Pam Greenwood
for her valuable community policing initiatives in Albemarle County.
We are grateful for the time, energy and dedication Officer Greenwood gave to the Crozet
community on August 7, 2012 when she brought together a very successful community picnic at
the Crozet Mobile Home Village as part of National Night Out.
As part of her efforts, Officer Greenwood took on the challenge to find a willing hostess, to
arrange for onsite cooking, and to arrange for fire department and police department activities for
children and their parents, including distribution of bicycle helmets for many small riders.
Officer Greenwood’s initiatives brought together neighbors who had never met, generations who
had not made recent connections, and an excitement to a neighborhood which had been
struggling in its relationships with the department. Neighbors met police officers and the duty
crew from the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company.
We as a community are strengthened and uplifted by individuals such as Officer Greenwood who
step forward to support improving the quality of life of our residents. We offer our sincere
appreciation to Officer Greenwood for her dedication and for being a great example of living the
spirit of her job while serving citizens of the County of Albemarle.
Signed and sealed this 3rd day of October 2012.
Lieutenant Greg Jenkins addressed the Board to talk about the new “geo-policing strategy” to help
support their community policing philosophy in the Police Department – which would also stay in line with
the Department’s strategic plan and help support the County’s efforts to include more citizen involvement
in local government. Lt. Jenkins explained that geo-policing places a strong emphasis on geographic
patrol sectors, builds accountability and ownership from the command staff down to the officers’ level, and
vice-versa. He said that because of staffing levels, they have decided they could pull this off with two
geographic areas: the Jefferson District and the Blue Ridge District. Lt. Jenkins said that the Jefferson
District would be commanded by Lieutenant Pete Mainzer, who would command sectors 1-4 - the eastern
and northern portions of the County; the Blue Ridge District would encompass sectors 5-8 – the western
and southern portions of Albemarle. He stated that geo-policing gets officers back to the grassroots of
working with the community, working with citizens to problem solve – to address quality of life issues at the
officer’s level. Lt. Jenkins said they would no longer have “time of day policing,” but would still have shifts
of officers who would be designated to work the western and southern part of Albemarle, etc. Their belief
is that this will allow the police officers to get to know communities better; it will allow officers to get to
know community members better and to be able to address these problems at a grassroots level.
Mr. Boyd said that Lt. Mainzer came out to a community meeting with him recently and he was
very well received. He encouraged other Board members to invite the officers to come out to their districts
and to attend events.
(Note: Mr. Thomas arrived at 9:14 a.m.)
_____
Item No. 6c. Proclamation recognizing October 2012 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, violence against women, children, and men continues to become more prevalent as
a social problem in our society; and
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people
but cross all economic, racial and societal barriers, and are suppor ted by societal
indifference; and
WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity, security, and
humanity, due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and
economic control and/or abuse, with the impact of this crime being wide-ranging; and
WHEREAS, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating
violence, we must also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often
suffer grave physical, psychological and financial losses; and
WHEREAS, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront of efforts
to bring peace and equality to the home; and
WHEREAS, no one person, organization, agency or community can eliminate domestic violence
on their own—we must work together to educate our entire population about what
can be done to prevent such violence, support victims/survivors and their families,
and increase support for agencies providing services to those community members;
and
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency has led the way in the County of Albemarle in
addressing domestic violence by providing 24-hour hotline services to
victims/survivors and their families, offering support and information, and
empowering survivors to chart their own course for healing; and
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency commemorates its 33rd year of providing
unparalleled services to women, children and men who have been victimized by
domestic violence;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in recognition of the important work being done by the
Shelter for Help in Emergency, that I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair of the County of
Albemarle Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2012 as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, and urge all citizens to actively
participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by the Shelter for
Help in Emergency, and to work toward the elimination of personal and institutional
violence against women, children and men.
_____
Item No. 6d. Proclamation recognizing October 2012 as Community Planning Month.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning:
COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH
WHEREAS, change is constant and affects the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, community planning and plans can help manage this change in a way that provides
better choices for how people work and live; and
WHEREAS, community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be meaningfully
involved in making choices that determine the future of the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the full benefits of planning requires public officials and citizens who understand,
support, and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation; and
WHEREAS, the month of October is designated as National Community Planning Month
throughout the United States of America and its territories; and
WHEREAS, this month gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and
dedication of the members of planning commissions and other citizen planners who
have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of the County of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, we recognize the many valuable contributions made by the professional planners in
the County of Albemarle and extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued
commitment to public service by these professionals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby recognize October 2012 as
COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH in the County of Albemarle, and call this
observance to the attention of all our citizens.
_____
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item No. 6e. Proclamation recognizing The Kiwanis Club of Charlottesville in Celebration of 90
years.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Mr. Jim Hart:
KIWANIS CLUB OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, Kiwanis International was founded in Detroit, Michigan in 1915; and
WHEREAS, there are over 350,000 Kiwanians and more than 600,000 Kiwanis Family members
in 84 countries around the world. Kiwanis International's current world service
project in conjunction with UNICEF aims to Eliminate Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus
(MNT) from the face of the earth. This project follows Kiwanis International's
previous successful project, also with UNICEF, of ridding the world of Iodine
Deficiency Disorders (IDD); and
WHEREAS, founded in April, 1922, the Kiwanis Club of Charlottesville is celebrating its 90th year
of service; and
WHEREAS, Kiwanis has been a pioneer in empowering community volunteers dedicated to
tackling local and international community issues, especially those that affect young
children; and
WHEREAS, Kiwanis is perhaps best known for its service leadership programs, with Key Clubs at
five local high schools, a K-Kids program at Venable Elementary School, and a
Circle K International (CKI) Club at the University of Virginia. Four hundred youth
are members of these clubs; and
WHEREAS, The Kiwanis Club of Charlottesville is truly committed to serving the children and
youth of the community through volunteer projects, civic engagement, fund-raising,
and leadership development. Kiwanians and Kiwanis Family leaders have been
giants of service and leadership in this community for a third of the span
of this community's history; and
WHEREAS, we, in Albemarle County, value the rich community service and leadership that is
connected with this County.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors, do hereby issue this proclamation honoring the The Kiwanis Club of
Charlottesville as it celebrates its 90th year of “Serving the Children of the World”.
Mr. Hart accepted the recognition on behalf of the Kiwanis Club of Charlottesville, noting that the
Club sponsors an annual Dogwood Pancake Breakfast on parade day and a 5K race to raise money for
Camp Holiday Trails and other nonprofits. Mr. Hart said that what they most wish to emphasize is their
development of the children and youth in leadership and community service over their 90 years through
service leadership programs, which engage 400 youth at the elementary, high school and college level.
He again thanked the Board for its support.
Mr. Thomas commented that he use to be in Kiwanis, and said that they used to get two tractor-
trailer loads of trees to sell in the K-Mart parking lot. He also said he was a Key Club member at Lane
High School, and cannot say enough good things about Kiwanis. He thanked them for all that they do.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Robbie Morrison said that this is her tenth year working with the 4-H. She is present to
recognize and celebrate National 4-H Week which begins October 7. Ms. Morrison said that 4-H is over
100 years old is part of the fabric of this nation. The 4-H emblem is among the ten most recognized
emblems in the world and is the largest youth development organization in the nation. 4-H has been
helping young people develop the skills that will help them be successful in high school, college and in life.
She then highlighted a number of activities and achievements of youth and adult involved in 4-H from
Albemarle County. Ms. Morrison stated that 4-H changes lives and provides opportunities for youth that
they never would have had otherwise, giving them confidence and direction. She thanked the Board for its
ongoing support.
_____
Dr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that Peak Oil was originated by a petroleum
engineer – M. King Huber – in 1956, who predicated at that time that U.S. oil production would peak in
1970. Dr. Battig said that Mr. Huber predicted there would be one billion barrels of oil production, but
there was twice that much. He also stated that in 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the
world contained 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil, but today there have been 1,000 billion (1 trillion)
recovered with another 1.5 trillion in reserve – but estimates now are 10 trillion in reserve. Dr. Battig said
that in the year 2000, there were 12.5 billion barrels predicted but the production topped out at almost
twice as much; natural gas production was also twice what was expected. He emphasized that people
cannot predict the future, including what the climate will do. Dr. Battig said that there are two trillion
barrels of oil in oil shale deposits – a 286-year supply – and by 2020 the U.S. is predicted to be a net
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
exporter. He also said that new research from Russia and Sweden is showing that crude oil and natural
gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. He added that oil may not be a fossil fuel, and the
country may never run out of it.
_____
Ms. Paula Beasley said that she owns a farm in Esmont and is Chair of the Pine Knot Foundation
located in Keene. She said that today, she and her colleagues are part of a large and growing group of
over 130 residents of southern Albemarle who are concerned about the police firing range and tactical
training proposal for the Keene site. She said that they fully support the best possible training of police to
increase public safety, but believe it can and should be done without creating public harm or negating the
public good contributed by rural spaces. Ms. Beasley said that southern Albemarle should not be
burdened with the disparate negative impact created by locating this facility in Keene. The danger, noise,
traffic, toxic substances and commerce resulting from this use is inconsistent with the Comp Plan
mandate to preserve and protect rural, agricultural and forestal areas. She stated that Keene and
surrounding land is zoned rural and is in agricultural/forestal districts or in conservation easements –
much of it set aside in perpetuity as open agricultural or forestal green spaces with the exception of rural
communities. Ms. Beasley said that it is accessed by a scenic byway and a rural rustic road and all lies
within the Southern Albemarle Historic District. The site has wetlands and three perennial streams that
feed into the Totier Creek W atershed – which supplies Scottsville with water.
She said that there are small, sleepy, historic communities” close by, most of which have existed
for 100 years or more – Porter’s Green Mountain, Riding Club Road, Fortune Lane, Glendower, Dyers Mill,
Secretary’s Sand, Esmont and Keene, including five or more churches, two elementary schools (one
within 1.5 miles of the site), a community pool, and many homeschooled youngsters – all will be impacted.
Ms. Beasley said that southern Albemarle farms raise cattle, sheep, horses and goats, produce organic
vegetables and fruits to supply Charlottesville and Scottsville farmers markets, as well as milk and eggs
for residents. They are concerned about the noise, smoke, traffic, and the lead and toxic substances in
their air, soils, and waters. She stated that they need to find a solution that would not endanger neighbors
and expose elementary school children to the sound of incessant gunfire every day, or ruin the value of
their homes in rural places. Ms. Beasley said that the residents want to be part of the solution and not part
of the problem, and to facilitate getting the police the right place to obtain the highest degree of training,
which should be an indoor state of the art facility where this commerce will have a positive rather than a
negative impact. Increased public safety plus public good and no public harm is a win/win solution, and
they have every confidence can be achieved with hard work, rigid analysis of alternatives, and open
minds.
_____
Dr. Bill Tunner said he lives on a farm in southern Albemarle and is a retired surgeon and member
of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He said that the Keene open air police firing range is a flawed
project for many reasons. First, there will be continuous noise pollution generated by over 1,000 gunshots
daily, Monday through Friday, and on several nights periodically. Dr. Tunner said that for children this
leads to attention deficit, learning problems, disturbing cognitive issues, and sleep disruption. He stated
that for adults, noise pollution can cause stress-related problems in the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal
systems. Second, there is a real likelihood of heavy metal pollution of the groundwater, and the three
streams traversing into Totier Creek from the Keene Landfill down into the Scottsville water supply are a
real concern. He said this would include lead, arsenic, copper, nickel, etc., and this is not the Rivanna.
Third, there are also very real traffic issues on the rustic rural Fortune Road leading to the proposed
range, a mostly narrow, one-lane dirt road – which will have 20-40 police cars, two to three school busses
Monday through Friday; this is not good. Fourth, there is also the possibility of ricochets and wayward
rounds to immediate and adjacent uphill neighbors. He asked why put a little child or anyone else in
possible jeopardy. Dr. Tunner stated that police officers deserve a first-rate, state of the art training facility
that they – and all of Albemarle – can be proud of. He said that an indoor facility with a full infrastructure
does exist, and together they can be creative and make it happen.
_____
Ms. Cyndra Van Clief addressed the Board, stating that she opposes locating a firing range in
Keene and encourages the Board to consider alternatives. She said that she and her husband and their
four children have a farm in southern Albemarle, and lots of fruit and nut trees, hay, hardwood trees, deer,
turkeys, and tons of ticks. Ms. Van Clief stated that they love their rural setting, and even though
neighbors are far away they are closer than any neighbors they have ever had. She emphasized that she
knows each Board member and has shared the community with them, adding that she has followed their
campaigns and has been grateful for their service. Ms. Van Clief said that these Board members serve
because they have an intense appreciation for the essence of what is Albemarle, and its rural areas and
way of life – and they are in the position to protect, preserve and promote their rural areas and way of life.
_____
Mr. Barry Van Clief said he was also present to speak about the proposed firing range. He said
that while the residents have had some assurance the firing range would only be used by limited numbers
of the local policemen, the County’s website suggests it would also be used by federal agencies and
others – as well as private security companies on a lease basis. He said that the rule of thumb for the
distance at which gunfire can be heard is five m iles, which means there is a 78-square mile area that
would come under the impact of the noise from shooting. Mr. Van Clief stated that based on his
conversation with the company contracted to do the noise study, no one knows how far the sound would
travel; they only studied out to the perimeter of the site property and not beyond. He said that this is not
within the goal of maintaining the rural character of the County, and asked why the Board would want to
put in a project that could potentially damage or destroy several historic neighborhoods in one fell swoop –
which are communities that rank among the oldest in the entire country. People come from all over the
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
world to settle in the Albemarle. He asked that this project be put somewhere that will not sacrifice entire
communities.
_____
Mr. Michael Sheets addressed the Board, stating that he lives on Fortune Lane in Keene and
shares the concerns expressed by his neighbors. Mr. Sheets said that a quick and easy solution would be
to put it indoors and put a roof on it, although he realizes that would be an additional cost. He stated that
at the Planning Commission meeting the issue of cost came up, but he asked how much the cost would
be compared to losing the life of a person in this community.
Mr. Sheets said that at the Planning Commission he was told by one of the Supervisors that the
rural rustic road would just be improvements with tar and gravel due to the rating of the road, but instead
the contractor has gone in and put new, deeper culverts, and added eight inches of gravel to the road –
making two to three-foot ditches. He stated that there was an accident on Fortune Lane yesterday, and
the woman didn’t realize she had done anything wrong – so he told her that the road was “just not done.”
Mr. Sheets said that VDOT officials told him the project was County engineered and paid for, and that it
was out of their hands. He added that someone from the County needs to go and take a look at what has
been done before tar and gravel is put down. It is a safety issue. In fact, the road was been when it had
the landfill.
_____
Ms. Trish Van Clief addressed the Board, thanking Mr. Snow for arranging the three town
meetings for the district she lives in. Ms. Van Clief said that she lives in southern Albemarle in Esmont,
near Keene and Scottsville on historic Green Mountain Road. She said that for over four generations,
families have shared their lives with neighbors and friends on Esmont Road, Porters Road, Irish Road,
Alberene Road, Secretary’s Sand Road, Fortune Road, Riding Club Road, and on Scottsville Road. Ms.
Van Clief said that in their unique community they share responsibility for each other, and their churches,
schools, roads, lakes, woodlands, farmland, etc. She stated that she is speaking today to address the
possibly tragic consequences of County government’s decision to locate a firing range on one of their
country roads for use by the Police Department. Ms. Van Clief said that they are a designated rural and
historic area, and she encouraged the Board of Supervisors to stop the current plan for this firing range.
They have not learned enough about the impact of the firing range to be certain it is not truly harmful to
their way of life. She stated that the people in the area have a love and a reverence for nature and for its
protection, and the presence of a firing range will greatly diminish and damage this way of life. She asked
the Board to find another location for this much needed facility.
_____
Mr. D.G. Van Clief said that he is also present to talk about the shooting range. He emphasized
that his family is part of a large group with concerns – with over 130 people having signed the petition in
opposition to the range. Mr. Van Clief said the group is diverse and growing, including a wide spectrum of
demographics among the communities and families in Keene, Glendower, Scottsville, Esmont and
surrounding areas. He stated that the local police officers have done the best job they can do in terms of
reaching out to residents, but they have found that the community at large knows very little about the
project. Mr. Van Clief said that the noise issue is of great concern, and the heavy metal/toxin
contamination issue is also of great concern. He said that the stray round hazard often gets diminished,
but it is also a very real threat. Mr. Van Clief emphasized that there are other options for getting a state of
the art facility, and that does not need to happen at the expense of the degradation of the County’s finest
historical districts and some of its most beautiful and productive green space. He asked the Board
members to engage with them in the possibility of a private/public relationship that would be beneficial to
the entire County.
_____
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environment Council, said that the comments about the firing
range are echoing what he is hearing from people in the rural area about noise concerns. He said that
wineries now with expanded events are having an impact, and residents in the rural areas are saying that
many weekends are consumed with noise from bands at nearby weddings – and the shooting range in
Keene would bring similar problems. Mr. Werner said that he gets asked frequently how this type of
activity will affect property values, and he has been doing some research that indicates a reduction of
property values adjacent to shooting ranges. He added that economic development is not a good enough
reason to put things in the rural area, as the Board needs to look at the community as a whole. There is a
reason to have a rural area. Mr. Werner also said he has heard comments that no matter where the
shooting range goes people next to it will be upset, so that raises the question of whether an outdoor
shooting range has to go anywhere in Albemarle County. He encouraged Board members to take a look
at the value situation and the impact of these activities – wineries, shooting range – on people who live in
the rural area.
_____
Ms. Lydia Wilson stated that she is the organizer of a petition that has 441 signatures requesting
cell phone service on the stretch of highway down Route 20 South, in southern Albemarle leading to
Scottsville. Ms. Wilson said that many of the petitioners have expressed safety concerns about traveling
that road without service. She asked the Board to be creative in its attempt to put cell phone service in the
area. Ms. Wilson then read comments from several of the petitioners.
Ms. Mallek said that she was under the impression there were some major poles being installed.
She then asked Ms. Valerie Long to help clarify the timeline for the service improvements.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Rooker mentioned that Board members have received many emails, but they were all sent
from a “do not reply” address and he could not respond.
Mr. Thomas said the same thing happened to him.
Mr. Dumler said that he forwarded all of his responses to Ms. Wilson, who forwarded them to the
list.
Mr. Rooker stated that the County has approved several towers along Route 20 South that have
probably not yet been installed, but the decision as to where the cell towers go is a private decision made
by the cell phone companies.
Ms. Wilson said that her understanding was that they were looking at ways to make that process
go faster and eliminating some restrictions, especially in regard to the historic district.
Mr. Snow said that there was a lot being done to get broadband in that area also, and it is a top
priority for the County. He added that they are working on it from all fronts.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that ultimately the decision to go into an area is a private business
decision by a cell phone company, and they often do not go into areas simply because they do not think
they will have enough users in an area to make it profitable to invest in service.
Mr. Snow asked if it would be possible to get the petitioning group to meet with him and Mr.
Dumler so they can inform them as to what is being done.
Ms. Wilson agreed to have people come together and meet, adding that it is a communication
issue. She added that the industry has indicated it is the restrictions in part that were keeping them from
coming into the area.
_____
Ms. Valerie Long, of the law firm, Williams Mullens, said that she was present to speak about
Consent Agenda Item 8.5, related to this issue – proposed revisions to the wireless ordinance. She said
that her main point was to ask the Board to consider asking the staff to not delay the ordinance revisions
on the wireless. She explained that the memo provided to the Planning Commission several weeks ago
indicated that they would split the ordinance revision into two phases, at the Board’s direction – with the
first phase moving more quickly and involving compliance with new federal rules and regulations; the
second phase will be the “meatier” revisions to the ordinance, streamlining the process, eliminating some
of the unnecessary regulations that do not really benefit anyone, and allowing for some acceleration of
Board review of wireless applications. Ms. Long said that the staff memo indicates that the second part of
that process would not begin until the fourth quarter of next year. They, in the industry, think those
revisions are fairly straightforward, and can be implemented far more quickly – even with the desire to
have as much public input as possible. She emphasized that this is about streamlining, not weakening
regulations, and carriers’ efforts to extend service into communities like Scottsville and Batesville is not
due to lack of customer demand; it is due to the cost of deploying service in those areas, because every
facility in Albemarle takes at least four to six months and they all cost the same amount of money – and
the ordinance has an additional cost on top of it because you have to build more towers here. Ms. Long
said they have built that into their budgets, but it is the additional cost and delay that makes every new
tower so much more expensive. She noted that Ntelos has been working feverishly over the last two
years to build the network in the southern part of the County, but sites take a long time. Ms. Long said
that sites can take as long as a year and a half to get up and running, and about six months of that is
County review process – but the changes staff has recommended can reduce that time period
dramatically, perhaps down to as much as a few weeks.
Ms. Long also stated that Ntelos is in the planning stages of its version of 4G and wants to roll that
out, but they will miss the window if the ordinance does not get fixed for another year and a half – and they
won’t get the benefit of the accelerated review process or any of the changes. She said that she thinks
that if the County waits, it is almost not going to be worth the effort, is my point.
Mr. Foley said that he has asked staff to clarify that it is a year and a half from now that they would
be getting to this. He added that he i not sure that that is accurate.
Ms. Mallek, Mr. Dumler, and Mr. Snow asked to have Item 8.5 pulled from the Consent Agenda to
be discussed at the end of the day.
_____
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said that he understood Ms. Mallek to say there would
be a discussion later on of funding the Sheriff’s office for overtime pay to help the game warden over
hunting season. Mr. Martin said that he moved to the Country in 1997. On his road in Free Union illegal
hunting was really bad for the first few years – spotlighting, shooting across the road, trespassing – and
then a woman was killed on Lonesome Mountain Road. He said that at that time the Board funded
overtime pay for the Sheriff’s office, and deputies started patrolling; it worked. It took about two hunting
seasons, but after that, his road quieted right down. Mr. Martin said that it was money very well invested
for people who live in the rural area. This is not anti-hunting by any means; this is anti-crime. He stated
that the patrolling acts as a deterrent, as everyone knows what a slow-moving Sheriff’s vehicle coming
down the road is there for. He asked the Board to consider the small expenditure of funds.
_____
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that yesterday he attended the first
Virginia Wine Summit, and one of the features was a tasting of 16 wines in an international and domestic
competition. Mr. Williamson said that the 2009 Cabernet Sauvignon from Keswick Vineyards beat Napa
Valley’s Chateau Montelana in this group. He stated that when people move to the rural area, they are not
second class citizens, and do not give up property rights. Mr. Williamson said the question for those in the
rural areas is when a service becomes a utility, and posed the question of whether the rural area should
not have the service or have a lesser service because of an aesthetic reason. He stated that the benefit
of property rights of winery owners who host weddings and bring tourism into the County should be
balanced with the noise ordinance the Board enacted.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is no difference between the applicability of the cell tower
ordinance in the urban areas and in the rural areas. The same ordinance, the same things apply – the
only difference is the economic viability of putting up towers in areas with minimal potential customers.
Mr. Dumler requested that staff prepare, for information, what cost effective mitigation techniques
might be put into place for the firing range, such as limitations on shooting frequencies and uses, the
possibility of an enclosure, alternative locations, etc. – and asked if there were any further information
sessions or roundtables that needed to happen with the community.
Mr. Rooker agreed, stating that the information provided today on the frequency and amount of
shooting that would take place there was far beyond what the Board heard in the presentation when this
was being looked at with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. The Board needs to have a much better
idea as to the parameters of the operation. He also noted concerns over issues raised about potential
shooting deaths – and stated that this should be validated. Mr. Dumler agreed.
Mr. Snow said that he raised these concerns with Mr. Foley, and staff is already looking into the
issues. Mr. Foley stated that this issue is scheduled as an item on the Board’s November agenda, and
those issues could be discussed then – along with clarification of the information circulating among the
public.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to have the Fortune Lane Road issue addressed also. Mr. Foley said
he made a note of that issue to look into.
Mr. Rooker clarified that Fortune Lane is not owned by the County; it is owned and maintained by
the state.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda.
Ms. Mallek noted that the Board would pull the following items from the consent agenda for further
discussion: 8.5 and 8.12.
Mr. Boyd asked that Item 8.14 be pulled for a separate vote.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to approve Items 8.1 through Item
8.13, with the exception of Items 8.5, 8.12 and 8.14, and to accept Item 8.15 as information. (Note:
Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_____
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: September 5 and September 12, 2012.
Mr. Boyd had read his portion of the minutes of September 5, 2012, pages 1-32, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read his portion of the minutes of September 5, 2012, pages 32 (begin
Item #12) – end, and found them to be in order with the exception of some typographical errors.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of September 12, 2012 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_____
Item No. 8.2. Appointment of Travis O. Morris as Senior Deputy Clerk.
In a memorandum dated September 25, 2012, from Ms. Ella W. Jordan, Clerk, it states that the
Code of Virginia, in Section 15.2-1538, states that "The governing body of every locality in this
Commonwealth shall appoint a qualified person, who shall not be a member of the governing body, to
record the official actions of such governing body.”
Travis Morris has successfully completed his probation and is eligible for appointment as Senior
Deputy Clerk. This position is reappointed annually.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
(Discussion: Mr. Dumler commented that he is happy that Mr. Morris is off probation as he is an
excellent addition to the staff, and is doing a great job.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board appointed Travis Morris as Senior Deputy Clerk.
_____
Item No. 8.3. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $1,522,594.96. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not
exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of three (3) FY 12 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012092) totaling $81,459.47 for required County obligations in
FY 11/12 that exceeded initial budgeted amounts;
One (1) appropriation (#2012093) totaling $11,200.00 for various General Government
CIP projects; and
One (1) appropriations (#2012094) totaling $1,429,935.49 for various school division
programs.
Appropriation #2012094 includes an itemization of the School Division’s FY 12 appropriation
requests. (Please note that this process is streamlined for FY 13 appropriations as approved by the Board
on July 11, 2012.)
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2012092, #2012093, and #2012094.
*****
Appropriation #2012092 $81,459.47
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 81,459.47
This request is for an appropriation to fund required County obligations in FY 12 for which costs exceeded
budgeted amounts. This request will appropriate $81,459.47 from the General Fund Balance as follows:
Circuit Court - $21,967.11 – In November 2011, the Board approved a FY11 appropriation to provide
funding for the payment of overtime hours worked by a Circuit Court employee who had worked a
total of 428 overtime hours since her start date. Since discovering the employee’s accumulation of
overtime, the employee’s overtime is now being carefully managed. Because the payout was made in
FY 12, a re-appropriation of these funds is necessary. In addition, this appropriation includes funding
to provide payment for the services of jurors and witnesses. This line was overexpended in FY 12.
General District Court - $3,000.00 – This is to cover costs associated with required furnishings for
the mini-courtroom created by General Services during FY 12 as requested by the General District
Judge.
Magistrate - $216.56 – The actual cost for the Magistrate’s office exceeded budgeted expenses in
FY 12.
Refunds - $56,275.80 – Actual payment of refunds exceeded total budgeted for refunds in FY 12.
This is primarily the result of two large business license refunds made in the Spring of 2012.
Appropriation #2012093 $11,200.00
Revenue Source Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 11,200.00
This request is to appropriate $59,959.10 from the general Library Maintenance/Repair
program and to appropriate $11,200.00 from General Government CIP Fund Balance to the
Central Library Maintenance/Repair program budget. The total increase to the Central
Library Maintenance/Repair program budget is $71,159.10, which will fund the elevator
replacement at the Central Library that was substantially completed earlier than scheduled
in FY 12.
Appropriation #2012094 $1,429,935.49
Source: Local Revenue $ 7,865.34
Federal Revenue $ 1,422,070.15
This request is to appropriate various FY 12/13 School Division funds as approved by the School Board on
August 9 and August 23, 2012. This appropriation request of $1,429,935.49 includes the following:
Albemarle High School is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $1,502.00 from its
student Activity Account for field trip and other expenses incurred in FY 12 as follows:
- $365.10 for Envirothon field trip;
- $607.72 for Senior Class trip;
- $529.18 for Guidance/Graduation practice.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of
$1,850.00. This includes two checks from WAHS. The first check in the amount of $1,250.00 is for
tennis officials for district/regional tournament. The second check in the amount of $600.00 is for the
basketball camp counselors. These funds are to reimburse the School Division for athletic personnel
paid through the School Division budget and are generated from the Activity Accounts at WAHS. This
process assists WAHS in maintaining an overall view of activities in their school.
Walton Middle School is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $4,513.34 from its
student Activity Account for field trip expenses incurred from January, 2012 through May, 2012.
Federal funds were provided to the states pursuant to the federal Education Jobs Fund legislation for
the support of local teacher and other school-level personnel salaries and related costs at the early
childhood, elementary and secondary school levels. There is a fund balance retained by the state
from FY 11 that may be re-appropriated for use in FY 12. These funds were used for payroll expenses
associated with staff used to offset enrollment shifts and class loads for the three comprehensive high
schools. This request is to re-appropriate $1,342,519.06 of available funds for use in FY 12.
Federal funds were provided to the states pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA). These funds were designated to fund capital purchases of technology, improve technology
infrastructure, provide technology staffing and purchase testing materials. There is a fund balance
retained by the state from FY 11 that may be re-appropriated for use in FY 12. These remaining funds
were used to support a portion of technology staffing expenses. This request is to re -appropriate
$33,947.82 of available funds for use in FY 12.
The mission of the federal Title I Grant Fund program is to support reading/language arts instruction
for students with achievement levels that do not meet expected standards in the eight elementary
schools with free – and reduced-lunch program participation percentages which are above the County
average in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Title I Fund is responsible for the following
major programs and/or services: Reading/language Arts Instruction, Parental Involvement; and,
Support for Homeless Students. Expenditures have exceeded appropriations by $35,603.27 for FY 12
due to an increase in staff expenses. There is a fund balance retained by the state in the amount of
$35,603.27 from FY 11 which may be re-appropriated for FY 12. The funds were spent on salaries,
benefits and educational materials.
The federal Preschool Special Education Grant provides supplemental support for the existing
preschool program by funding part-time teaching assistants to serve preschool students during the
regular school year and funding for personnel who provide services to preschool students in an
extended school year program provided during the summer. Expenditures have exceeded
appropriations for FY 12 due to an increase in the number of positions supported. This request is for
an appropriation of $10,000.00 to balance this fund.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved Appropriations #20120-92, #2012093 and
#2012094 as set out below:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2012092 4-1000-21010-421010-120000-1002 12,338.11 Circuit Court - Overtime
2012092 4-1000-21010-421010-580900-1002 9,629.00 Circuit Court - Jurors & Witnesses
2012092 4-1000-21020-421020-332100-1002 911.00 Gen Dist Court - Maint. Contract
2012092 4-1000-21020-421020-800200-1002 857.00 Gen Dist Court - Furniture/Fixtures
2012092 4-1000-21020-421020-800201-1002 1,232.00 Gen Dist Court - Furniture/Fixtures Repl
2012092 4-1000-21030-421030-700003-1002 216.56 Magistrate
2012092 4-1000-92010-492010-580304-9999 56,275.80 Business License Refunds
2012092 3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 81,459.47 Appropriation Fund Balance
2012093 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 11,200.00 App Fund Balance
2012093 4-9010-73025-473010-800949-7146 71,159.10 Central Library Maint/Repair Program
2012093 4-9010-73025-473010-800949-7140 -59,959.10 General Library Maint/Repair Program
2012094 3-2000-62000-318000-189900-6599 7,865.34 MISC REVENUES
2012094 3-3101-63101-333000-384010-6599 35,603.27 TITLE I GRANTS TO LEAs
2012094 3-3162-63162-333000-330038-6599 1,342,519.06 ARRA-EDUCATION JOBS FUND
2012094 3-3163-63163-333000-330203-6599 33,947.82 ARRA-STATE STIMULUS
2012094 3-3205-63205-333000-384173-6599 10,000.00 SPECIAL ED: PRESCHOOL
2012094 4-2000-62254-461101-420100-6254 4,513.34 FIELD TRIP MILEAGE
2012094 4-2000-62301-461101-137100-6301 987.57 PT/WAGES-BUS DRIVERS
2012094 4-2000-62301-461101-210000-6301 75.53 FICA
2012094 4-2000-62301-461101-420100-6301 438.90 FIELD TRIP MILEAGE
2012094 4-2000-62302-461105-301210-6302 1,850.00 CONTRACT SERVICES
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-111400-6599 13,503.27 SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-112100-6599 3,720.00 SALARIES-TEACHER
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-132100-6599 13,427.25 PT/WAGES-TEACHER
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-210000-6599 2,293.04 FICA
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-221000-6599 1,610.97 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYS.
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-231000-6599 422.70 HEALTH INSURANCE
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-232000-6599 15.96 DENTAL INSURANCE
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-241000-6599 37.83 VRS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE
2012094 4-3101-63101-461101-601300-6599 572.25 EDUC. & RECREATION SUP.
2012094 4-3162-63162-461178-112100-6599 1,017,481.42 SALARIES-TEACHER
2012094 4-3162-63162-461178-210000-6599 74,185.81 FICA
2012094 4-3162-63162-461178-221000-6599 119,406.04 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYS.
2012094 4-3162-63162-461178-231000-6599 123,823.33 HEALTH INSURANCE
2012094 4-3162-63162-461178-232000-6599 4,731.44 DENTAL INSURANCE
2012094 4-3162-63162-461178-241000-6599 2,805.26 VRS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE
2012094 4-3162-63162-461178-242000-6599 85.76 GROUP LIFE/PART-TIME
2012094 4-3163-63163-468200-114300-6599 30,172.62 SALARIES-OTHER TECHNICAL
2012094 4-3163-63163-468200-210000-6599 2,185.00 FICA
2012094 4-3163-63163-468200-221000-6599 1,590.20 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYS.
2012094 4-3205-63205-461108-114100-6599 9,289.37 SALARIES-TEACHER AIDE
2012094 4-3205-63205-461108-210000-6599 710.63 FICA
TOTAL 3,045,189.92
_____
Item No. 8.4. Resolution Accepting Conveyance of Scottsville Library Property from Albemarle
County School Board to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
The executive summary states that the Scottsville Library is located on TMP 130A2-90. The
parcel was originally conveyed from J.L. and Helen Pitts to the School Board of Scottsville District No. 3 by
Deed dated June 6, 1918 to be used for a primary school. That deed was not recorded at the time, but the
property was used for many years as the site of an elementary school, which was subsequently
abandoned. In 1965, the local library moved its collection into the building, where a library operated from
1966 to 1980. In 1970, the heirs of Helen Pitts formally conveyed the property to the County School Board
of Albemarle County by Deed dated August 28, 1970. Both the 1918 and 1970 deeds were recorded on
July 23, 1971.
In September, 1980, the building was struck by lightning and almost entirely destroyed. The
County and others proposed to build a new library on the site, and the heirs of Helen Pitts conveyed the
.496 acre parcel property to the County School Board of Albemarle County by corrected Deed and plat
dated May 19, 1981, to be used for a library site. The current Scottsville Library opened on the site on
December 29, 1982.
Although the library is part of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library (JMRL) system, the land is
legally owned by the School Board. Because JMRL branch libraries are owned by the locality they serve,
the County has overseen the maintenance of the library building and grounds over the years. Given the
state of legal title, questions have arisen regarding who legally has maintenance responsibility for the
library. Transfer of the property to the County would clarify the ownership and the maintenance
responsibility for the property, consistent with how the property has been managed, and clarify that a
maintenance agreement for this site is properly between the County and JMRL.
A Resolution approving the conveyance of the property from the School Board to the County and
authorizing the County Executive to sign all necessary documents is attached (Attachment A). The School
Board adopted a similar Resolution at its August 23, 2012 meeting, and the School Board Chair has
executed a Quitclaim Deed, also attached (Attachment B).
There is no expected budget impact, as the County has been maintaining the property for
years.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the
conveyance of TMP 130A2-90 from the School Board, and authorizing the County Executive to sign the
attached Quitclaim Deed (Attachment B) and all documents necessary to accept the conveyance once
they are reviewed and approved by the County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution accepting the
conveyance of TMP 130A2-90 from the School Board, and authorized the County Executive to sign
the Quitclaim Deed and all documents necessary to accept the conveyance once they are
reviewed and approved by the County Attorney:
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 0130A2-00-00-09000
WHEREAS, Parcel 130A2-00-00-09000 contains a building commonly known as the Scottsville
Library and
WHEREAS, the County School Board of Albemarle County, Virginia acquired Parcel 130A2-00-00-
09000 by deed dated June 6, 1918; and
WHEREAS, for many years, the general public has used Parcel 130A2-00-00-09000 for library
services; and
WHEREAS, the County School Board of Albemarle County has offered to convey its interest in Parcel
130A2-00-00-09000; and
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
WHEREAS, the County’s acquisition of Parcel 130A2-00-00-09000 will provide clear title to the County
for its continued use of the site for the Scottsville Library.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
accepts the conveyance of Parcel 130A2-00-00-09000 and authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form
approved by the County Attorney, a deed and all other documents necessary to acquire Parcel 130A2-00-00-
09000 in the County of Albemarle.
*****
This document was prepared by:
Albemarle County Attorney
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code § 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4) and from
Clerk's fees under Virginia Code § 17.1-266.
RETURN TO: Albemarle County Attorney, 401 McIntire Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Tax Map No.: 130A2-00-00-09000
QUITCLAIM DEED
THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, made this 23 day of .August, 2012, between the COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, whose mailing address is 401 McIntire Road, Room 345,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, hereinafter called "Grantor", and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, whose mailing address is 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, hereinafter called
"Grantee", WITNESSETH:
THAT Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($1.00), to it
in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby RELEASE, REMISE
and forever QUITCLAIM unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, all right, title and interest of Grantor, if
any, in and to that certain tract or parcel of land situate, lying and being at 330 Bird Street, Scottsville,
Virginia, (hereinafter "the Premises") on that certain plat by R.O. Snow, C.L.S. entitled "Plat Showing
Survey of 0.496 Acres, the Property of the Albemarle County School Board, Located in the Town of
Scottsville at the Intersection of Page and Bird Streets, Albemarle County, Virginia" (the "Plat"), dated
March 19, 1981 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in
Deed Book 725, page 209. Reference is made to the plat for a more particular description of the location
of the described lands.
Being the same property conveyed to the County School Board of Albemarle County, Virginia, by
deed from Katherine Pitts Phillips and John Randolph Phillips, her husband; Dorothy Pits Jordan, a widow,
Helen Parler McMillan and C.R. McMillan, her husband, Shirley Brooks Parler, Jr., and Helen H. Parler,
his wife, dated August 28, 1970, recorded June 23, 1971 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit County of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 491, page 154.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Premises, and all the estate, right, title, lien, interest and claim
whatsoever of Grantor therein, either in law or equity, and all improvements thereon and appurtenances
thereto, unto the proper use, benefit and enjoyment of Grantee, Grantee's heirs and assigns or
successors and assigns, forever; SUBJECT to reservations, easements, covenants, restrictions and
limitations of record or platted, all existing public utilities and roadways, and all existing encroachments,
ways and servitudes, howsoever created.
AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT PROPERTY: The County, acting by and through its County Executive,
duly authorized by resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the
County Executive's signature hereto and the recordation of this Deed.
GRANTOR: COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
BY: ________________________
Stephen Kolezar
Chair
GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ____________________________
Thomas C. Foley
County Executive
Approved as to form:
_________________
County Attorney
_____
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Item No. 8.5. Adoption of Resolutions of Intent to amend the personal wireless service facilities
regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.
The executive summary states that on September 5, 2012, the Board of Supervisors conducted a
work session on the County’s personal wireless service facilities regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (the
“wireless regulations”). The Board received the report from the County’s wireless consultant, as well as
information regarding recent changes in federal law affecting the review and processing of applications for
wireless facilities and a summary of the results of a roundtable that staff held with representatives of the
wireless industry. Staff provided the Board with a number of recommended changes to the wireless
regulations.
At the conclusion of the work session, the Board directed staff to return to the Board with
resolutions of intent to amend the wireless regulations.
Staff recommends that the Board consider amending the wireless regulations in two phases.
In the first phase, the proposed zoning text amendment would amend the wireless regulations to
ensure that the County’s regulations are consistent with the recent changes in federal law, add relevant
definitions related to those changes in federal law, and delete those requirements that are no longer
necessary. The resolution of intent for the Phase 1 amendments is attached (Attachment A).
In the second phase, the proposed zoning text amendment would amend the wireless regulations
to change certain application requirements, procedures and standards for reviewing and approving
personal wireless facilities, standards for monopoles and the equipment attached to monopoles, and
certain definitions and district regulations. Staff anticipates that the Phase 2 amendments will take longer
to develop than the Phase 1 amendments because extensive research and analysis may be required and
public roundtables with the wireless industry and the public will be held. The resolution of intent for the
Phase 2 amendments is also attached (Attachment B).
Staff recommends that a public roundtable as well as Planning Commission and Board work
sessions occur during the first quarter of calendar year 2013 for Phase 1 work. Work sessions and
Roundtables for Phase 2 work will commence upon completion of Phase 1 which is expected in the early
part of second quarter 2013. This schedule is reflective of the need for staff to complete work on tasks
associated with implementing proposed changes to the Ministerial Process being considered by the Board
in October as well as the Board’s planned review/consideration of proposed changes to Critical Slopes
regulations in November/December of this year.
No budget impact is anticipated.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions of Intent (Attachments A and B)
and direct staff to proceed with work on the zoning text amendments.
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek asked that this item be pulled for further discussion at the end of the
meeting.)
_____
Item No. 8.6. Public Safety Recruitment and Retention Programs.
The executive summary states that in early 2010, staff became concerned about growing
difficulties in recruiting quality applicants in the Police and Fire/Rescue Departments as evidenced by the
fact that both departments were experiencing a decrease in the number of quality and/or experienced
applicants while at the same time both were witnessing an increase in the number of individuals
unsuccessfully completing their probationary periods. Staff determined that the primary causes for these
trends were insufficient entry-level salaries and the lack of effective strategic career development
programs and initiatives.
On January 4, 2012, The Board approved the Public Safety Classification and Pay Review
recommendations, which resulted in a majority of positions in the Police Department and the Fire/Rescue
Department being classified into higher pay grades. While this reclassification effort boosted entry-level
salaries, which has improved recruitment results, the County continues to face challenges in recruiting
qualified applicants when competing against other jurisdictions and agencies. Additionally, the County’s
ability to successfully manage succession in those departments is a significant challenge, partially due to
the small number of employees with college degrees. In addition, the County’s Fire/Rescue Department
currently lacks a career development program to promote technical proficiency in staff. Largely, staff
receives training to maintain their current certifications, with little opportunity or incentive to obtain higher
level certifications that would contribute to a decrease in staff overtime, improve staff morale, and attain a
more consistent level of service to citizens.
The FY 13 adopted budget includes $125,000 to be utilized for public safety recruitment and
retention efforts. A team of Human Resources and Public Safety staff worked together to identify the most
immediate barriers to the County’s recruitment and retention of quality public safety personnel so that
recruitment and retention efforts could be focused and enhanced. These barriers include the Police
Department’s inability to attract applicants with undergraduate education, the Fire/Rescue Department’s
inability to provide professional development opportunities for its staff and the inability of public safety to
compensate staff for fluency in Spanish. The team evaluated strategies for compensation and incentives
from other localities. This research revealed that other public safety agencies are successful with
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
recruiting entry level employees by offering additional pay for education, experience, and skills while
ensuring parity with existing employees.
To this end, the following programs have been found in other public safety departments and are
being recommended for implementation to improve the County’s recruitment and retention for these key
public safety positions:
1. Education Compensation for Police Personnel – Through this program, Police personnel
would receive a 5% salary increase for obtaining a bachelor’s degree and a 2.5%
increase for holding an associate’s degree. To enable this change in practice equitably,
all current eligible personnel would receive the appropriate percentage increase. It’s
important to note that historically other departments have credited relevant education in
determining salary, while this has not been the case in the Police Department. Based on
current information, 38 certified police officers have some post-high school degree: 14
have an Associate’s degree and 24 have a Bachelor’s degree. This program is designed
to increase the County’s competitiveness in attracting candidates with higher levels of
education. This program allows for the short-term benefit of improving recruitment by
offering higher starting salaries and promotes the viability of future leadership.
2. Career Development Program for Fire Rescue Personnel – This program is designed to
provide County firefighters with a three-rank structure (Firefighter, Senior Firefighter, and
Master Firefighter). Fire/Rescue personnel would receive a 5% salary increase with
attainment of each rank. Rank is achieved by obtaining certifications in areas and skills
that are central to Fire Rescue operations and by meeting a minimum employment
requirement of five years for the Senior Firefighter rank and seven years for the Master
Firefighter rank. This program seeks to improve the viability of attracting experienc ed
applicants and improve retention. It is also designed to positively impact the succession
management of staff to the position of Captain.
Given the needs of both departments and the amount of funding available to aid these initiatives,
these two programs allow for focus on the greatest needs of each department in a fiscally responsible
manner. Thus, funding for compensating staff for fluency in Spanish (total estimated first year cost:
$25,000) is not being recommended at this time. Nonetheless, this program element is being submitted
by Human Resources as a Strategic Funding initiative for the FY2014 budget process.
The Board approved $125,000 in funding for public safety retention and recruitment purposes
during its FY 13 budget process. If approved by the Board, the cost to implement these two programs
(Education Compensation for Police Personnel and Fire/Rescue Career Development Program) effective
October 2012 is approximately $93,000 which includes increases in benefits costs. Current year costs are
below the level of allocated funds approved by the Board because the program will not be effective for the
full year. Salary increases associated with implementation are an on-going cost and will be built into future
annual budgets and will be based upon the $125,000 authorization originally approved by the Board.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the two programs as set forth above.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the two programs as presented above.
_____
Item No. 8.7. Authorize County Executive to Execute Agreement for the Jefferson Madison
Regional Library.
The executive summary states that in February 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a work
session on the County’s contractual and funding obligations to the Jefferson Madison Regional Library
(JMRL) system. During this work session, staff presented an analysis of the current cost structure and
service levels for JMRL, as well as background information on federal, state and local mandates related to
the operation of regional libraries, the County’s existing contractual obligations under the JMRL
agreement, CIP impacts and a comparison of services and costs in peer community libraries.
Following that work session, the Board directed staff to proceed with forming a work group
consisting of JMRL staff and administrators from all participating JMRL jurisdictions to update the regional
library agreement to address specific recommendations made in the analysis and discussed at the work
session, including evaluating the feasibility/need to:
Review and update the agreement on a more consistent basis; at least every five (5)
years
Establish an out-of-area user fee for users from non-member localities that utilize JMRL
facilities and services
Evaluate the funding formula for regional services to determine if circulation is the most
effective/reasonable metric
Formalize a written agreement with the City for library extension services: Monticello
Avenue, McIntire library and the Bookmobile
Provide clear direction related to the roles and responsibilities of appointed JMRL Board
representatives
Consider changing the composition of JMRL Board members so Albemarle has greater
representation for its share of circulation
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
More clearly delineate budget and funding decisions/responsibilities of member
jurisdictions
Clarify procedures for a locality to withdraw from the regional library
JMRL staff coordinated the formation of this work group and provided all meeting logistical
support. The work group met seven (7) times between July 2011 and August 2012 and considered four
draft versions of the proposed updated agreement. At its August 2012 meeting, the committee resolved
all remaining outstanding issues regarding agreement language. Following circulation of a final draft
version of the agreement reflecting changes discussed at that meeting, work group representatives
indicated they were prepared to submit the agreement to their respective governing bodies for adoption.
The recommended agreement is proposed to be effective on January 1, 2013.
Approvals by four of the five participating localities are scheduled at regular meetings of the
localities in October.
The recommended agreement:
Maintains the existing composition of the Regional JMRL Board
Establishes a budget review committee to convene each fall to review JMRL’s financial
requirements for the upcoming year and determine the level of funding that may be
available from each Participating Locality to meet these needs
Maintains a funding formula based on circulation
Expands the scope of JMRL annual budget presentation meetings to Participating
Localities to include formal presentation of JMRL’s annual audit and
operating/performance measures
Establishes a formal process for JMRL to consider adjustments to funding requests that
Participating Localities may have to make during annual budget deliberations
Recognizes the need for separate contracts between Participating Localities and JMRL
for bookmobile and extension services
Clarifies a process for Participating Locality consideration of non-recurring capital funding
requests by JMRL
Establishes an out-of-area user fee
Clarifies provisions for ownership of library facilities and provides additional clarification
regarding the required means/methods for a Participating Locality to withdraw from the
JMRL system
Establishes a Library Agreement Review Committee to convene at least once every five
(5) years to consider possible amendments to this agreement
Other libraries that have instituted an out-of-area user fee have experienced decreased out-of-
area use. With the institution of such fees by JMRL, it is estimated that out-of-area usage will decline to
30 percent of current out-of-area usage. If this reduction occurs, JMRL estimates that Albemarle County
will realize annual savings of approximately $33,200 each year. This projected annual savings reflects
both the impact of the County no longer absorbing out-of-area usage costs that is offset, in part, by a
change in the formula for calculating the County’s share of Central Library reference costs.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the attached
Agreement for Jefferson Madison Regional Library dated January 1, 2013 (Draft date August 31, 2012)
(Attachment A).
(Discussion: Mr. Dumler commended staff for working so hard on the agreement, noting the
challenges of finding compromises sometimes with the Board, County staff, and JMRL Board. He noted
that the JMRL unanimously passed a resolution against the imposition of out of area fees, and all of the
reasons given in the emails sent to him concerned him. Mr. Dumler said that approximately 33% of
Scottsville’s circulation is out of area, and the numbers in the library’s report anticipate a 70% reduction in
out of area usage – which is the median between the best and worst case scenarios. He stated that a
70% reduction in Scottsville would mean a 25% reduction in business and volume at that branch, and from
a budgetary standpoint he would not blame JMRL for cutting hours there. Mr. Dumler asked if there was a
willingness on the part of the Board to have staff sit down and look for some alternatives, noting that John
Halliday had suggested something like a “cap” on the number of circulations an out-of-area person could
take out.
Mr. Snow said that for $30 people are getting access to a library, internet, videos, books, and
Albemarle County citizens are paying for it – whereas other counties are not willing to step up and donate
toward this service that their citizens are using.
Mr. Dumler said he totally agrees, and recognizes that it is not just a Scottsville issue.
Mr. Snow said that sometimes he takes his kids into the City to swim during the winter, and he
pays the out-of-City fee – but that does not stop him from eating downtown or participating in any of their
events. He said that he strongly support the out of area fee. In fact he thinks it is a bargain for those that
live in other counties - $30 for all those services for a year.
Mr. Rooker stated that he agrees with Mr. Snow, because everything is not “free.” County citizens
are paying taxes to support that service, and it is the same reason schools charge out of area fees for
students to enroll in schools out of their jurisdiction. He said that there is an expense involved with
operating the library, no matter where the citizens are coming from. Mr. Rooker stated that this whole
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
issue arose because Albemarle County was being allocated all of the out-of-area circulation in terms of
computing its expense share of the total library expenses that are allocated based on circulation. He said
that if the other communities had agreed to share in that expense, the Board might not be here today, but
this agreement continues to allocate all of the out of area circulation expense to Albemarle County. He
said that in his mind, that is unfair. If that were changed, he might think entirely differently about imposing
a cost, but Albemarle is getting it both ways. Albemarle is getting an increased expense as a result of
large out of area users, but not getting any revenue from those users and all of the expense from that is
being allocated to Albemarle and none to the other four jurisdictions. He thinks that the entire
arrangement is unfair to Albemarle County.
Ms. Mallek said that this has been a constant in the discussion over the past many months, and
the fact that the other jurisdictions seem to be outright rejecting cost sharing. Albemarle has little choice
to bring about change except to do this and hope that after a year people will be willing to readdress the
issue. She does support this.
Mr. Dumler suggested having staff come back in a year with information as to what the drop-off
has been, how much these fees have actually collected, so the Board can determine if the policy balance
was appropriate – and revisit it if necessary.
Mr. Foley said that staff could certainly do that, although it may take more than the first year to see
how the process transactions. He suggested having Mr. John Halliday present that information to the
Board.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
following Agreement for Jefferson Madison Regional Library dated January 1, 2013 (Draft date
August 31, 2012):
AGREEMENT FOR JEFFERSON-MADISON REGIONAL LIBRARY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1st day of January, 2013, by and among the
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (“Charlottesville”), ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
(“Albemarle”), GREENE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (“Greene”), LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINIA (“Louisa”), and
NELSON COUNTY, VIRGINIA (“Nelson”), each of which is hereinafter referred to as a “Participating
Locality”, and all of which are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Participating Localities”.
RECITATIONS:
R-1 The Participating Localities are members of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (“Regional
Library”), a regional free library system for the areas (“Region”) of the Participating Localities, established
by an agreement of the Participating Localities dated August 11, 1972.
R-2 The Participating Localities have heretofore amended the August 11, 1972 agreement for the
funding and operation of the Regional Library by further agreements executed in 1974, 1982, and 1991.
R-3 The Participating Localities have concluded that it would be to their mutual benefit to enter into a
new Agreement for the terms and conditions on which the Regional Library shall be funded and operated
and to address other relevant matters.
R-4 The Participating Localities make and enter into this Agreement for the purpose of evidencing the
terms and conditions agreed to among them for the establishment, operation and maintenance of a
regional free library system.
WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the mutual and reciprocal benefits inuring to the
parties hereunder, and in further consideration of the duties imposed on the parties hereby, the parties
covenant and agree as follows:
1. CREATION OF REGIONAL LIBRARY: The Participating Localities, each of which has
qualified for participation in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s regional library program, all of
which have heretofore been recognized as a Region by the State Library Board, and each
of which has heretofore made the minimum local appropriation of funds recommended by
the State Library Board, hereby exercise their statutory authority to enter into this
Agreement to ratify and reaffirm their creation of the Regional Library and the Board of
Trustees for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (“Board of Trustees”) to administer
and control the Regional Library services within the Region.
2. MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
a. The members of the Board of Trustees shall be appointed by the respective
governing bodies of the Participating Localities pursuant to § 42.1-39 of the Code
of Virginia.
b. The Participating Localities have agreed that there shall be nine (9) members on
the Board of Trustees, appointed as follows: three (3) members appointed by the
governing body of Charlottesville; three (3) members appointed by the governing
body of Albemarle; one (1) member appointed by the governing body of Greene;
one (1) member appointed by the governing body of Louisa; and one (1) member
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
appointed by the governing body of Nelson. Each Participating Locality may
appoint one alternate member who may attend all meetings but may vote only in
the absence of a voting member of that Participating Locality.
c. The members currently serving on the Board of Trustees are confirmed and shall
continue for the four (4) year terms or the remainder of the four (4) year
unexpired term for which they have been appointed.
d. No member shall be eligible to serve more than two (2) consecutive terms;
however, if a member is appointed to fill an unexpired term, that appointee shall
be eligible for appointment to two (2) full, successive terms.
e. A member of the Board of Trustees may be removed for misconduct, or neglect
of duty, by the governing body which appointed that member. After conclusion of
each Fiscal Year, the Board of Trustees shall provide to the governing body of
each Participating Locality a report of the Board of Trustees’ meetings conducted,
and the attendance at each such meeting by the Board of Trustees members
from the Participating Locality to which such report is submitted, for the
immediately-preceding Fiscal Year.
f. The Board of Trustees shall recommend qualifications for candidates for
appointment to the Board of Trustees and shall provide orientation information for
new appointees to the Board of Trustees
3. POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
a. The Board of Trustees shall have all of the powers vested in such boards by law,
and shall have the authority to determine all matters of policy for the Regional
Library not otherwise limited by this Agreement.
b. The Board of Trustees shall elect officers, and adopt such By-Laws, rules and
regulations for their own guidance and for the governing of the Regional Library,
as may be expedient. It shall determine hours and places of library service and
all Regional Library policies, in accordance with State statutes and State library
regulations. Policies shall govern the selection, emphasis and distribution of
library books, periodicals, and other library materials, the provisions of
supplementary services to schools and other institutions, the use of public
meeting rooms, and every other question of service, policies, or expenditures
within the limits of annual appropriations by Participating Localities.
c. The Board of Trustees shall have the right to accept donations and bequests of
money, personal property, or real estate for the establishment and maintenance
of the Regional Library, or endowments therefore, or for use or benefit of the
particular library branch or locality designated by the donor.
d. The Board of Trustees shall employ a Regional Library Director who meets state
certification requirements and shall maintain an ongoing performance appraisal
process for the Regional Library Director.
e. The Board of Trustees shall adopt personnel policies and provide an adequate
salary scale and fringe benefits for all Regional Library employees.
f. The Board of Trustees shall maintain, in force at all times, a policy of broad form
general public liability insurance issued by an insurer qualified to do business in
Virginia, having a single limit coverage of at least three million dollars
($3,000,000). Such policy shall name each Participating Locality, and its officers
and employees, as additional named insureds for branch libraries of that
Participating Locality.
g. The Board of Trustees shall maintain, in force at all times, a policy of public
officials liability insurance with coverage deemed adequate by it to protect the
interests of the Board of Trustees.
4. BUDGET AND COSTS FOR THE REGIONAL LIBRARY:
a. The Board of Trustees shall submit the annual budget request for the Regional
Library to each Participating Locality by January 15th of each year in a format
generally in accordance with the Uniform Financial Reporting System of the
Auditor of Public Accounts for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In preparation of its
budget request, and by no later than October 15th of each year, the Regional
Library Director shall convene and meet with a committee consisting of at least
one member of the executive branch of each Participating Locality to explain the
Library’s anticipated financial requirements for the upcoming year, to determine
the level of funding that may be available from the Participating Localities, and to
discuss potential means and methods to adequately fund the Regional Library
(the “Strategic Planning Meeting”). Each Participating Locality shall consider the
budget request as part of its normal budget process.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
b. Funding requests by the Board of Trustees pursuant to this section shall be in the
amount determined by the Board of Trustees to provide library services for the
Participating Localities on as equitable a basis as possible, consistent with the
service levels requested by the Participating Localities, and to the extent
reasonably necessary to maintain the Regional Library’s eligibility for State aid.
c. All costs of operating the Regional Library shall be designated as either a regional
cost, Charlottesville-Albemarle cost, or a local cost.
d. Regional costs shall include all costs of providing regional reference services,
book purchasing, cataloging and automation services, financial management,
branch coordination and related expenses, fiscal agent fees, and the fair market
rental value of space (which shall be based upon the current assessed value for
that space) required in any library to provide the foregoing regional services.
Unless otherwise agreed to by the Participating Localities, regional reference
service costs shall equal ten percent (10%) of the costs of the reference service
costs of the Central Library branch. A separate cost accounting of the Central
Library branch reference services shall be established and maintained for this
purpose.
e. Charlottesville-Albemarle costs shall include all costs of providing facilities to
house the collections at the Central Library, Gordon Avenue Library, and
Northside Library branches, which shall be deemed local libraries serving
Charlottesville and Albemarle, and shall include the compensation and related
expenses for personnel who work in those three branches, except those
personnel working in the Central Library branch or any other branch library who
are engaged primarily in rendering the services described in subparagraph 4(d),
above.
f. Local costs, which shall be borne by the Participating Locality incurring said costs,
shall include all costs of housing local book collections in all branches of the
Regional Library other than the Central Library, Gordon Avenue Library, and
Northside Library branches, and shall include compensation and related
expenses for personnel who work in such other branches.
5. FUNDING REQUEST FOR THE REGIONAL LIBRARY:
a. Regional costs shall be determined by the Board of Trustees consistent with this
Agreement. Each Participating Locality shall pay a percentage of the regional
costs equal to the percentage of the circulation by its residency of the Regional
Library system’s total circulation.
b. Charlottesville-Albemarle costs shall be determined by the Board of Trustees
consistent with this Agreement. These costs shall be allocated between
Charlottesville and Albemarle in direct proportion to their respective shares of the
percentage of the circulation by their residency at the Central Library, Gordon
Avenue Library, and Northside Library branches.
c. Local costs shall be determined by the Board of Trustees consistent with this
Agreement. Local costs shall be paid by the Participating Locality for which they
are incurred.
d. Bookmobile and other extension services shall be contracted separately by a
Participating Locality and the Board of Trustees. The costs of these services
shall be allocated upon such terms and conditions as the Participating Locality
and the Board of Trustees find mutually agreeable.
e. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “circulation” shall be defined as the total
number of items checked out from any branch library, bookmobile, or other point
of circulation within the Regional Library system, including but not limited to,
books and electronic media. The circulation percentage to be used for any fiscal
year shall be based on the circulation figures for the previous three fiscal years.
Circulation from University of Virginia students shall be classified by their place of
local residence. Circulation for users whose residence is from out of the Region
shall not be included in the calculation of circulation unless and until an “Out-of-
Area Library Card Fee” has been established pursuant to paragraph 8 of this
Agreement. Thereafter, the circulation for users of local branches whose
residence is from out of the region shall be included in the calculation of the
participating locality’s circulation in which the local branch is located; provided,
however, the circulation for users of the Central Library, Gordon Avenue Library,
and Northside Library branches whose residence is from out of the Region shall
be included in the calculation of Albemarle’s circulation.
f. The Board of Trustees will retain all fines and fees, excluding Out-of-Area Library
Card Fees, in a separate equipment fund to be used for maintenance,
replacement, and purchase of equipment, and purchase of books and other
library materials.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
g. Non-recurring capital items identified for a Participating Locality branch library or
for a Charlottesville-Albemarle branch library shall be submitted to the
Participating Locality as a part of its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Capital
items include (i) land acquisition, and construction of new facilities; (ii)
renovations to existing facilities; (iii) major additions or rehabilitations of buildings;
(iv) major studies such as facility assessments, engineering or feasibility studies
related to facility needs; and (v) equipment requirements. Funding for capital
items shall be subject to approval by the Participating Locality. Each Participating
Locality shall be responsible for its facility capital costs for its branch library or
libraries. Charlottesville and Albemarle shall be jointly responsible on an equal
basis for the capital costs for the Central Library and Gordon Avenue Library.
Project management costs for Charlottesville-Albemarle capital item projects
shall be governed by a separate Memorandum of Understanding between
Charlottesville and Albemarle.
h. The Regional Library may retain a year-end fund balance not to exceed five
percent (5%) of the total annual operating budget. The Board of Trustees will,
after each Fiscal Year audit, return to each Participating Locality its share of any
carryover funds in excess of those amounts necessary to fund the reserve fund.
The return of such funds to each Participating Locality will be prorated on the
same basis in which the funds were contributed for Regional, Charlottesville-
Albemarle and Local costs. In lieu of returning such funds, the Board of Trustees
may formally request alternative uses for such carryover funds, subject to the
approval of the Participating Locality.
i. In conjunction with the submittal of the annual budget request as stated in
Paragraph 4(a), the Regional Library Director or his designee will report to each
Participating Locality statistics of use, status of programs, results of an annual
audit, and a summary of Regional Library activities for the prior Fiscal Year.
6. FUNDING BY PARTICIPATING LOCALITIES:
a. Participating Localities shall provide funding consistent with this Agreement;
provided, however, any funding by a Participating Locality shall be subject to its
annual appropriation to the Regional Library.
b. Subject to final approval by each governing body, it shall be the intent of each
Participating Locality to appropriate their proportional share of regional costs at an
amount equal to the budget request for the Regional Library provided such costs
are reasonable, justifiable and in general conformance with the level of funding
anticipated to be available pursuant to the committee process set forth in Section
4(a) or as otherwise determined by the governing bodies of the Participating
Localities. If a Participating Locality does not fund its proportional share of
regional costs, the Regional Library Director shall present to the executive branch
representative for that Participating Locality a plan for how the Regional Library
intends to modify services funded as local costs or in the case of Charlottesville
or Albemarle, services funded as local costs or Charlottesville-Albemarle costs, in
order to provide services within the funding level to be appropriated by the
Participating Locality. The governing body of the Participating Locality may make
an evaluation and indicate the particular areas of service it wishes to be reduced.
Final decisions regarding service reductions shall rest solely with the Board of
Trustees; however, the Board of Trustees shall give consideration to the
Participating Locality’s request for service reductions required to reduce
Charlottesville-Albemarle and/or local costs to meet the funding level provided for
such Charlottesville-Albemarle and/or local cost services. No Participating
Locality shall be required to fund regional or Charlottesville-Albemarle costs at an
amount greater than its proportional share as determined pursuant to Section 5
unless such Participating Locality elects to provide supplemental funding on a
non-matching basis.
c. In making funding determinations, Participating Localities shall make a good faith
effort to maintain the Regional Library’s eligibility for State Aid.
7. OWNERSHIP OF REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITIES:
a. Each Participating Locality shall own or lease the real property within that
Participating Locality which is used for Regional Library purposes.
Charlottesville-Albemarle branch facilities may be jointly owned or leased by
Charlottesville and Albemarle. Such real property shall be provided for use by the
Regional Library at no cost to it pursuant to separately executed lease
agreements with the exception of the Northside branch which shall be a sub-
lease to the Regional Library and funded as a Charlottesville-Albemarle cost.
b. Each Participating Locality shall, during the term of this Agreement, maintain in
force general public liability insurance and property insurance for the properties
owned or leased by it for use by the Regional Library in amounts equivalent to
coverage for its other public buildings and facilities or such greater amounts
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
deemed necessary, and shall name the Regional Library as an additional named
insured. The cost of this insurance shall be the responsibility of each
Participating Locality. The Board of Trustees shall maintain in force an insurance
policy providing contents coverage for all Regional Library materials, fixtures, and
equipment in such amounts as shall be adequate to insure replacement coverage
for such items.
8. OUT-OF-AREA LIBRARY CARD FEE:
a. The Board of Trustees shall establish an “Out-of-Area Library Card Fee” effective
no later than January 1, 2013. This fee shall be required to be paid annually by
any person who is not a resident of the Region prior to the issuance of a Regional
Library card to that person. The minimum annual fee for such card shall be thirty
dollars ($30).
b. Out-of-Area Library Card Fees shall be separately identified and accounted by the
branch library location at which the fees are collected.
c. Out-of-Area Library Card Fees shall be credited to the Participating Locality at
whose local branch the fee was collected, except that the fees collected at the
Central Library, Gordon Avenue Library, and Northside Library branches shall be
credited to Albemarle.
d. Out-of-Area Card Fees collected during the Fiscal Year shall be credited toward
the budgeted second quarter payment of the ensuing Fiscal Year for each
Participating Locality due such fees.
9. FISCAL AGENT:
a. Charlottesville shall act as the fiscal agent for the Regional Library. As fiscal
agent it shall act as the Regional Library’s accounting and disbursing office,
provide personnel services and maintain personnel and payroll records, provide
information technology services, provide procurement services and maintain
purchasing accounts and monthly statements, and contract for annual audits.
b. Charlottesville shall be paid an annual sum equal to two percent (2%) of the
annual operating budget of the Regional Library for fiscal services rendered.
c. Each Participating Locality shall pay its share of the Regional Library’s approved
costs, as provided for in this Agreement, on a quarterly basis.
10. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE REGIONAL LIBRARY:
a. No Participating Locality shall have the right to withdraw as a member of the
Regional Library without providing two years’ notice, pursuant to § 42.1-42 of the
Code of Virginia, to each Participating Locality except by consent of all the
Participating Localities.
b. In the event of withdrawal by a Participating Locality, the withdrawing locality shall
retain for its use or disposal all library books and other media permanently
assigned to its local branch library at the time the notice to withdraw is given. For
the Central Library, Gordon Avenue Library, and Northside Library branches,
Charlottesville or Albemarle shall be entitled to a pro rata distribution of such
books and media based on its percentage of contribution for the acquisition of
such property. In addition, the withdrawing locality shall be entitled to a pro rata
distribution of the personal property purchased during the operation of the
Regional Library based on its percentage of contribution for the acquisition of
such property, unless otherwise agreed to by such locality. Buildings and
property shall remain under the ownership of the locality owning or jointly owning
such property unless otherwise agreed to by such locality.
c. Upon receiving notice by a Participating Locality of its intent to withdraw from the
Regional Library, the chief executive officer of each Participating Locality shall
appoint one member to a joint committee to oversee the withdrawal and
distribution of assets as provided for in this Agreement or as otherwise provided
by unanimous mutual agreement.
11. REGIONAL LIBRARY AGREEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE:
a. A Regional Library Agreement Review Committee (“Review Committee”) shall be
convened and shall meet no less than once every five (5) years beginning in
calendar year 2017. The Review Committee shall meet to review this Agreement
and recommend any amendments that it may propose thereto.
b. The Review Committee shall also be convened and meet at any time that a
request is received from a new locality to become a member of the Regional
Library or there is a proposal to add additional library facilities that are not local
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
branch libraries. The Review Committee shall meet to review such requests and
make recommendations as to the merits of the proposal.
c. The chief executive officer of each Participating Locality shall appoint one (1)
member to the Review Committee. The Regional Library Director shall provide all
necessary information and support required for the Review Committee to perform
its functions.
d. The Review Committee shall report its recommendations to the governing bodies
of the Participating Localities and to the Board of Trustees.
12. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT:
a. On January 1, 2013, all terms and conditions hereof shall become effective,
whereupon all terms and conditions of the 1991 Amended Regional Library
Agreement shall automatically terminate.
b. Until January 1, 2013, the Regional Library shall continue to be operated under
the current agreement and practices.
13. CONTROLLING LAW: The parties acknowledge that the terms and conditions hereof
shall be interpreted, construed and enforced under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
14. MODIFICATIONS OR AMENDMENTS: The parties agree that any modification or
amendment of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by all parties before such
modification or amendment shall have force or effect.
15. BINDING AGREEMENT: The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on
the parties hereto, their assigns and successors in title.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Participating Locality has caused this Agreement to be
duly executed on its behalf in counterparts, with the express provision that the five (5) separate
signature pages hereto, taken together, shall constitute one complete document, binding among
all parties.
On behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia, the undersigned signature constitutes the duly
authorized execution of the Agreement dated January 1, 2013, by and among the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Greene County, Louisa County, and Nelson County, which
Agreement consists of fourteen (14) pages.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By:______________________________
Name: Thomas C. Foley
Title: County Executive
Date:____________________________
Approved as to form:
________________________
County Attorney
On behalf of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, the undersigned signature constitutes the
duly authorized execution of the Agreement dated January 1, 2013, by and among the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Greene County, Louisa County, and Nelson County, which
Agreement consists of fourteen (14) pages.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
By:______________________________
Name: Maurice Jones
Title: City Manager
Date:____________________________
Approved as to form:
________________________
City Attorney
On behalf of Greene County, Virginia, the undersigned signature constitutes the duly
authorized execution of the Agreement dated January 1, 2013, by and among the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Greene County, Louisa County, and Nelson County, which
Agreement consists of fourteen (14) pages.
GREENE, VIRGINIA
By:______________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________
Date:____________________________
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Approved as to form:
________________________
County Attorney
On behalf of Louisa County, Virginia, the undersigned signature constitutes the duly
authorized execution of the Agreement dated January 1, 2013, by and among the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Greene County, Louisa County, and Nelson County, which
Agreement consists of fourteen (14) pages.
LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By:______________________________
Name: Robert Dubé
Title: County Administrator
Date:____________________________
Approved as to form:
________________________
County Attorney
On behalf of Nelson County, Virginia, the undersigned signature constitutes the duly
authorized execution of the Agreement dated January 1, 2013, by and among the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, Greene County, Louisa County, and Nelson County, which
Agreement consists of fourteen (14) pages.
NELSON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By:______________________________
Name: Stephen A. Carter
Title: County Administrator
Date:____________________________
Approved as to form:
________________________
County Attorney
_____
Item No. 8.8. Set public hearing to consider amending lease agreement between the County and
the Field School of Charlottesville to increase the square footage to be leased by the Field School in the
Old Crozet School.
The executive summary states that the County currently leases the Old Crozet School to two
tenants. The Field School of Charlottesville (“Field School”) currently leases 11,360 square feet pursuant
to a lease agreement dated February 10, 2010 (Attachment A). The Field School’s lease was renewed on
July 1, 2012. The second tenant, the Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”), currently leases 4,826 square
feet. The OCSA’s lease was renewed on August 1, 2012.
The Field School has identified a need for additional space to be used for storage. Specifically, it
would like to lease an additional 33.75 square feet of currently unused space in the older section of the
facility as soon as possible. The lease must be amended to include this additional space. The current
rental fee is $4.28 per square foot. Use of this space by the Field school would have no foreseeable
impact on the OCSA’s operations.
A lease amendment, which has been approved by the County Attorney’s Office and signed by the
Tenant, is attached (Attachment B). A public hearing is required pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800
prior to the leasing of County owned property.
The approval of this lease amendment based on a rental fee of $4.28 per square foot would
result in a revenue increase of $93.89 in FY13.
Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing on November 7, 2012 to receive
comment on the proposed lease amendment (Attachment B).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board scheduled a public hearing on November 7, 2012 to
receive comment on the proposed lease amendment.
_____
Item No. 8.9. Road Name Change of Holly Fork Lane Road to Merifields Road.
The executive summary states that pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road
Naming and Property Numbering Manuel, road name change requests shall be forwarded to the Board for
approval upon validation of the following:
That the landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by the road have signed
a petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
the road name guidelines set forth in the Manual (i.e., that it is not a duplicate name, is limited to three
words, and does not exceed sixteen characters and/or spaces).
The landowner of the property served by Holly Fork Lane has submitted a request to change the
road name of Holly Fork Lane to Merifields Road (Attachment A). Holly Fork Lane, which intersects with
Gordonsville Road (Rt. 231), has been extended to intersect with Merifields Farm Road which allows the
requested road name to be used pursuant to the Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual
guidelines. A map showing the location of the road is attached (Attachment B).
There is no anticipated budget impact. The landowners will be responsible for the costs
associated with new signage.
Staff recommends that the Board approve changing the road name of Holly Fork Lane to
Merifields Road and authorize staff to implement the change.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved changing the road name of Holly Fork
Lane to Merifields Road and authorized staff to implement the change.
_____
Item No. 8.10. Voting Credentials for the 2012 VACo Annual Business Meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved Ann Mallek as the voting delegate and
Duane Snow as the alternate delegate for the 2012 VACo Annual Business meeting.
_____
Item No. 8.11. Resolution Authorizing Submission of Application to the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation for Recreation Trails Program Funding Assistance Grant for Preddy Creek
Trail Park Phase II Project.
The executive summary states that the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is a matching
reimbursement grant program established for the purposes of providing and maintaining recreational trails
and trails-related facilities. It is funded through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
administered by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The grant applicant must
front the funds for the project and submit periodic reimbursement requests for 80% of the qualifying costs.
All projects must have at least a 20% match. Grants are awarded for projects that enhance trail
opportunities that are not otherwise possible. Funding available from the RTP is limited to projects costing
$31,250 to $250,000.
The proposed County grant request totals $69,000 representing 80 percent of an $86,250 project
for a pedestrian bridge over Preddy Creek and seven miles of new and restored trails in Preddy Creek
Trail Park. The grant process requires a 30-day public comment period initiated by an advertisement
requesting written comments. The public comment period ends September 26, 2012. As of the writing of
this executive summary, no public comments have been received by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
In 2004, the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department conducted a Needs
Assessment Study which revealed that natural areas and trails ranked #1 as the most needed and
important facilities to respondent households from a list of 27 possible recreational facilities. In 2006, the
Board formally designated Preddy Creek as a public park. Phase I was completed and the park opened in
May of 2011. Since May of 2011, there have been well over 22,000 visitors.
The proposed project includes the construction of a 70 foot pedestrian bridge over Preddy Creek
that connects the newly opened part of Preddy Creek Trail Park with a portion of the property which is
currently undeveloped. The grant funded improvements would allow the Parks and Recreation
Department access to the undeveloped part of the Park to expand park management and oversight, to
begin the repair and restoration of that part of the Park, and to meet the enthusiastic demand for
recreational trail opportunities with seven miles of new sustainable multi-use trails that further enhances
the eight miles of existing trails in the Park.
The application package for Phase II, the Environmental Review and Public Comment stage of
the grant process, requires a resolution of support from the governing body. The County Attorney’s Office
has reviewed and approved the Resolution, and the grant documents are under review as to form and
content.
The estimated total cost of this project is $86,250.00. The grant would reimburse the County for
80% of the project cost, or $69,000.00. The County would fund the remaining 20% of the project cost, or
$17,250.00 out of the $46,250.00 balance in the Greenway Trails Fund. If the grant is awarded to the
County, an appropriation request for $86,250 ($69,000 Grant Funding and $17,250 Greenway Trails
Funding) will be presented to the Board for approval.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the
County Executive to apply for and accept the RTP grant.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing the
County Executive to apply for and accept the RTP grant:
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Recreational Trails Program Authorizing Resolution
A resolution authorizing application(s) for federal funding assistance from the Recreational T rails
Program (RTP)to the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR).
WHEREAS, under the provisions of RTP, federal funding assistance is requested to aid in financing
the cost of construction and rehabilitation of trails and trail related amenities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, Virginia considers it in the best public interest to complete the
trail project described in the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1 The County Executive be authorized to make formal application to DCR for funding assistance;
and
2 Any fund assistance received be used for implementation and completion of the construction of a
pedestrian bridge over Preddy Creek and seven miles of sustainable, multi-use trails at Preddy Creek Trails
Park located on State Route 641, Burnley Station Road, within the specified timeframe; and
3 The Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that project funding is currently available and is
committed for this project; and
4 We are aware that the grant, if approved by DCR and the Federal Highway Administration, will be
paid on a reimbursement basis. This means we may only request payment after eligible and allowable costs
have already been paid to our vendors and evidence of such has been provided to DCR in the format required;
and
5 We acknowledge that any property utilizing RTP funding that is not in public ownership will require
evidence of landowner permission for use of the property for trail purposes and that the associated easement
allowing the use is for a time period comparable to the nature and magnitude of the investment of the federal
funds associated with the project; and
6 We acknowledge that we are responsible for compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act, Endangered Species Act, Historic Preservation Act and all other applicable state and federal laws; and
7 We acknowledge that appropriate opportunity for public comment has been provided on this
application and evidence of such is a required component for approval; and
8 This resolution becomes part of a formal application to the Virginia Department of Conservation &
Recreation.
_____
Item No. 8.12. Resolution – VDoT Notification for Spraying.
(Discussion: Pulled for discussion with transportation matters.)
_____
Item No. 8.13. SUB-2011-00111. Belvedere Phase 2 Preliminary Plat – Zoning Ordinance Waiver
& Variations from Belvedere Code of Development.
The executive summary states that the Belvedere development is located off of Rio Road, just
west of Dunlora. Belvedere was rezoned to Neighborhood Model District, with an associated application
plan and Code of Development, in October 2005 (ZMA2004-00007). Site Plans for the Belvedere Town
Center and The Reserve at Belvedere, and a Subdivision Plat for Phase 1 have been previously approved
and are under construction. This application is for Phase 2, which includes the remainder of Block 5 and
portions of Blocks 7 and 9. The proposal includes the creation of 51 single-family detached lots, with 24-
36 carriage houses. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the critical slopes provisions and variations
from the approved Belvedere Application Plan and Code of Development. Staff is recommending
approval of all of the waiver and variation requests.
1. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER
The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow
critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the subdivision can be approved by staff. The
applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver, and this request has been
reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section
4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section
4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. However, due to a recent State
Supreme Court decision, the waiver must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a
Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 31.8.
The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be natural. Staff is recommending
approval of this waiver request. This recommendation for approval is based on staff’s assessment
which finds that the critical slopes being disturbed have substantially met the requirements listed
in Section 4.2.5(a):
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
Analysis for all three parcels: 61-160, 62-03, and 62-05
Areas Acres
Total site 27.75 acres approximately
Critical slopes 0.86 3.1% of site
Critical slopes
disturbed
0.56 65% of critical
slopes
Project Area as delineated by the Applicant
Areas Acres
Total site 14.86 acres approximately
Critical slopes 0.53 3.6% of site
Critical slopes
disturbed
0.44 83% of critical
slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
It is possible to make the argument that the critical slope disturbance to construct the stormwater
management facility may be considered exempt. However, because of the modifications made to
the concept plan, I do not think the exemption should be extended to these disturbances.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
“excessive stormwater runoff”
“siltation”
“loss of aesthetic resource”
“septic effluent”
Based on the review above, there are no concerns that would cause engineering to object to the
approval of the current critical slope disturbance request.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon
finding that:
A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;
B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and
purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting
the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use
of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or
D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
Based on the review above, there are no concerns that would cause staff to object to the approval
of the current critical slope disturbance request. Staff is recommending approval of this
critical slope waiver request.
2. VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development will require two variations from the approved Application Plan and
Code Development approved with the rezoning of the property. These variations are necessary
before the subdivision can be approved by staff. The applicant has submitted a request and
justification for each variation, and these requests have been reviewed for Zoning, Engineering
and Planning aspects of the regulations. Section 8.5.5.3(a) authorizes the Director of Planning to
grant variations from the approved application plat and/ or code of development. However, due to
a recent State Supreme Court decision, these variations must now be approved by the Board of
Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 31.8. Staff is recommending
approval of both variation requests (#45 and #48).
VARIATION #45:
The applicant submitted the following: Request reconfiguration of stormwater management
facility and Park G with the addition of Road X (Griffin Grove) as shown generally on the
Preliminary Plat dated 8/13/12, an update of Table 4 from the Code of Development to reflect
changes to the conservation, preservation and open spaces, the inclusion of retaining walls within
Phase 2, and the removal of trees in Park E due to the site grading required in order to create
usable areas within the park. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
The design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan while
recognizing the practical engineering realities of this development.
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of
any other development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved
rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application by allowing the
development to proceed as originally intended.
VARIATION #45 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #45 as described above, with the
following conditions:
This variation approval is only for changes to Block 5 and portions of Blocks 7 and 9,
including: a 0.07 acre reduction in ‘Park E,’ the swap of open space between ‘Park G’ (-
1.15 acre) and ‘Open Space Block 9’ (+1.26 acre); and a modest increase in the
conservation (0.02 acre) and preservation (0.17 acre) areas in ‘Block 9, Preservation
Easement.’ No other deviations from Table 4 or the application plan have been reviewed
or approved with this variation.
The remaining conservation and preservation areas approved in ‘Open Space Block 9’
will be platted when the remaining portions of Block 7 and 9 are developed, including the
conservation area between the last lot in Block 9 and the 50’ reserved R/W for connection
to Dunlora.
Prior to final subdivision plat approval for Belvedere Phase 2, a landscape plan must be
provided for the required amenity areas shown on the general development plan and
described in the code of development. The plan must show the minimum features as
required by the Belvedere Code of Developm ent for Parks E (Dabney Park) and G
(Griffen Park).
Provide an updated Table 4 showing only the changes listed above must be provided as
part of an updated Code of Development and Application Plan reflecting all variations
approved since February 2, 2010 (the latest Code revision date) comprehensively prior to
Final Plat approval.
VARIATION #48:
The applicant submitted the following: Request to revise various road sections from the approved
road sections. Table 8 from the Code of Development has been revised to reflect the changes
proposed which consist of the following:
A. Section (4) from the rezoning plan incorrectly calculated the total r/w width – it has been
revised from 52’ to 53’. Face of curb to face of curb dimension of 28’ does not change.
Design speed is proposed to change from 20 mph to 25 mph. This applies to road G
(Colbert Street). Parking is to be allowed on one side.
B. Road X (Griffen Grove) is a new road and Road R (Dabney Grove) was not originally
specified in the rezoning. They have been designed with a 32’ f/c-f/c, and a 57’ R/W in
consultation with VDOT, Fire Rescue and Engineering Staff. Design speed is proposed at
25 mph with parking allowed on both sides. This design corresponds to Section (5) on
the preliminary plat.
C. Roads H (Barnett Street) and I (Shelton Street) were originally designed as section (4)
from the rezoning plan with a r/w width of 52’ and f/c to f/c of 28’. Because the applicant
would like to provide ample parking and encourage interconnectivity throughout this area,
these roads have been designed to conform to a modified version of section (5) with a r/w
of 57’ and a f/c – f/c width of 32’. Design speed has been changed from 20 mph to 25
mph.
D. Section (6) from the rezoning plan has been revised to 34’ f/c-f/c and 59’ R/W, to satisfy
VDOT. The proposed section now allows parking on both sides of the road whereas the
rezoning plan allowed parking on only one side. This applies to Road D (Farrow Road).
On-street parking bump-outs have been removed from the plan.
Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
The design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan while
recognizing the practical engineering realities of this development. It allows greater
interconnectivity and more access to parking for residents and visitors. The design
changes were also recommended and/or required by VDOT and Fire Rescue.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
Density is not increased.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of
any other development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved
rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application while also
addressing the concerns of VDOT, Fire Rescue, and the parking realities that have come
to light in Phase 1.
VARIATION #48 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variation request #48 as noted above, with the following
conditions:
Shift the Phase line for Phase 2 to include the entire R/W for Road I, including the
planting strip and sidewalk.
An updated Table 8 showing all of the changes listed above must be provided as part of
an updated Code of Development and Application Plan reflecting all variations approved
since February 2, 2010 (the latest Code revision date) comprehensively prior to Final Plat
approval.
31.8 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon special exceptions as
follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter
shall be considered and acted upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this chapter shall
be considered and acted upon by the board. For the purposes of this section, a decision
by the planning commission does not include the consideration and action by the
commission on a preliminary or final site plan under section 32 of this chapter or any
action provided in section 32 enabled under Virginia Code § 15.2-2242(1).
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the factors,
standards, criteria, and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter,
provided that the board shall not be required to make specific findings in support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable conditions to
address any possible impacts of the special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within ninety (90)
days after the date of the request, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use
permit, or site plan appeal, whichever is longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the applicable
section of this chapter.
Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver and variations #45 and #48, both
variations with conditions as recommended in this report.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the critical slopes waiver and variations
#45 and #48, subject to the conditions as set out in the above executive summary.
_____
Item No. 8.14. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Resolution.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said that the Board is asked occasionally by advocacy groups to endorse
issues that have nothing to do with local government which this does not.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of Item 8.14.
Mr. Boyd said he was going to suggest removing it from the agenda because it has nothing to do
with local issues, and said it is an advocacy position the Board is being asked to take.
Mr. Rooker said that it is the same situation with the Constitutional amendment Mr. Boyd had
asked the Board to vote on last week.
Mr. Boyd responded that imminent domain does have something to do with local jurisdictional
government.
Mr. Rooker asked if equal rights does not.
Ms. Mallek said that everyone who lives here has a role in this, and it absolutely has local
implications. Ms. Mallek then seconded the motion.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Boyd said that he does not feel this is an issue that has something to do with local
governance. He does not think this community has a problem with any of the things that are mentioned in
the resolution. He does not think the implication that somehow the Constitution of the United States does
not cover the rights of women is a valid point. He stated that there is a reason this particular amendment
has been languishing out there and has not passed at the state or national level for the last 40 years. Mr.
Boyd said he supports equal rights, but he cannot support this legislation because of its ramifications. He
has voted for this resolution in the past, but he has never really taken a look at the legislation before.
Mr. Rooker said that about 54% of citizens locally are women, so they do comprise a large group
of the people in the community who have been disadvantaged in many ways over the years. He said that
he thinks it is appropriate for the Board to vote on it.
Mr. Snow asked for several examples of how women are disadvantaged.
Ms. Mallek said that this is the first job she has had in her 62 years where she received equal pay,
and the reason given was that men were supporting their families. Given times when she was the only
“bread winner” in her family, it still did not matter. She thinks this is very important for the future of her
daughters and granddaughters.
Mr. Snow said that the issue has been taken care of through legislation. Ms. Mallek responded
that it is still going on.
Mr. Boyd asked if anyone in County government was paid less because they were fem ale.
Ms. Mallek said that it is more in the marketplace than at the County level.
Mr. Snow said that he does not see where women are being discriminated against, and he is
concerned about the other things that might come out of this.
Mr. Rooker asked him for examples.
Mr. Snow said that with a military draft, women do not have to serve but they do have the option to
go as far as they want in the service.
Mr. Dumler said that actually is not true, as there are a number of MOS units in which women
cannot serve.
Mr. Snow cited an example of someone he talked to from NGIC who seemed to be on top of it
and enthusiastic about the women’s rights and abilities to move forward in the military. He added that he
does not want it to be used against women in a draft situation. He said he does not know if that is a real
possibility, but he does not feel it is something this Board has to decide today. He will not support the
resolution.
Mr. Boyd said that there are a number of things the Board has been asked to take a position on –
abortion rights, gay rights – but these are not debates he wants to have. He said that he will not get into
the middle of that debate and is not willing to endorse a resolution that takes a position on those issues.
Mr. Rooker said the Board voted on a property rights amendment at their last meeting, and he
believes an equal rights amendment is every bit as important as a Constitutional amendment having to do
with imminent domain.
Mr. Thomas asked why the amendment referred to “state Constitutional statements of gender
equality generally do not provide the strict scrutiny of equal protection for the matters of gender, as is now
accorded race, religion, and national origin.”
Mr. Dumler responded that in 1971 there was a case – Reed vs. Reed – that was the first instance
where the Supreme Court declined to put strict scrutiny on sex discrimination. It is not held to the same
standard under which typical protected class is under the 14th Amendment.
Mr. Boyd asked why this was even being discussed as a part of local business.
Mr. Rooker said that you have more protection if you are discriminated against because of religion
than you do because of sex, because of the strict scrutiny standard being applied by the Supreme Court
for some categories and not others.
Mr. Boyd said that a lot of people have argued that this would take state’s rights away and put
them into the federal government. He said that it has never been ratified, and he does not want to take a
position on it.
Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Rooker noted that this is the first time in the history of this Board that they have failed to
endorse a resolution supporting the amendment.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Snow said he would like to put forth another resolution supporting “equal rights for women.”
Ms. Mallek said he should bring it back another day with some specifics as to what that would
mean without what he just voted against.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that people have worked on it for years, and the reason it has not moved
forward in all the state legislature is because of who controls the legislatures.
Mr. Boyd said that means it is bad law. He comm ented that both sides have controlled the
legislature.
_____
Item No. 8.15. Board-to-Board, A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was received for information.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2012-00008. Daylily Preschool (Signs
#44&89).
PROPOSAL: Request for special use permit amendment to increase maximum number of
children from 10 to 20 in private preschool located within existing Mountain Plain Baptist Church,
but not affiliated with Church.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.7 Day care, child care or nursery facility.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 4281 Old Three Notch'd Road, at intersection of Brown's Gap Turnpike (Rt. 680) and
Seven Hills Lane.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05700-00-00-02600.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 2012.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that this is a proposal to increase the maximum
enrollment for an existing preschool facility from 10 to 20 children. He said that the school is housed in
the Mount Plains Baptist Church. The site is located on Old Three Notch Road near the intersection of
Brown’s Gap Turnpike, east of Crozet and approximately one-third mile south of Beaver Creek Reservoir.
Mr. Benish said that the operation will be from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and will ultimately operate on two
floors – with the school currently operating in the Sunday School building in one floor. He said that to be
able to expand to the second floor some improvements will be required as stipulated in conditions of
approval, including a smoke detector and upgrading the stairwell to meet building code requirements for
such a facility.
Mr. Benish stated that there are tot lot facilities located behind the building, and there is an
adequate parking area for this proposed use in a marked lot and grassed area. He said that the
surrounding area is comprised of large-scale properties and farmland, with one residence located nearby.
Mr. Benish said that favorable factors include the use’s consistency with the Comp Plan, provision
of a daycare option for residents in the area. There are no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties.
There will be some renovations that will bring the building up to code for this use. He said that there are
no factors that cannot be accommodated through conditions. Staff has noted the issues on the site that
require some conditions. There are some limitations on the septic system for the site, but it is adequate
for the proposed use at this time.
Ms. Mallek commented that the Health Department limitations were only if there were further
requests. Mr. Benish replied that that was correct. He added that some of the conditions speak to
insuring there is not overuse of the septic system. For the number of employees and students, the use if
fine.
Mr. Benish said that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval with the conditions
that are identified in the September 21st action letter.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Elizabeth Claman addressed the Board, stating that she is the teacher/director of the Daylily
Preschool located in Mountain Plain Baptist Church. She said that her plan is to expand the capacity to 20
children per day with two teachers and a teacher’s assistant. The ages will remain the same – 16 months
to five years of age. Ms. Claman said that the preschool will continue to play an essential role in the
community, preparing children socially, cognitively and physically for kindergarten. She stated that the
children will learn basic skills in a safe and nurturing environment. The children will be actively involved in
small group learning instruction on a daily basis, with individualized reading instruction. Ms. Claman
stated that there would be no changes to the exterior building or parking lot, adding that a preschool option
in western Albemarle helps reduce traffic from Crozet to Charlottesville as well as meeting daycare needs
in the growing community.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Boyd asked about the condition restricting the number of children under age two and one-half
to five. Mr. Benish responded that it reflects building code requirements, as children are considered
ambulatory at that age – which affects access and fire code provisions in the event children needed to be
carried out.
Ms. Mallek thanked Ms. Claman for her work.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek offered motion to approve SP-2012-0008 subject to the ten conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use
Permit 200900022 Daylily Preschool,” prepared by the County of Albemarle, signed by the
applicant and dated December 4, 2009, and amended by the applicant and re-submitted on July
2, 2012 under SP201200008 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development:
• Location of buildings and preschool
• Location of parking area and entrance to be used for the preschool
• Relation of buildings and parking to the street
• Site access including pick-up and drop-off locations and circulation as shown on the plan.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The maximum enrollment shall not exceed twenty (20) children.
3. The maximum number of children and staff shall not exceed the capacity determined by the
Health Department.
4. The hours of operation for the preschool shall be limited to four (4) hours each day, Monday
through Friday.
5. The use shall not operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of Social
Services, as required by Section 5.1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The stairway enclosure and smoke detector installation improvements noted in the Building
Official’s letter of July 19, 2012 shall be completed, inspected, and approved by the Building
Official, prior to the use occupying the upper floor.
7. No portion of the building shall be used without Albemarle County Fire Official approval.
8. No more than five (5) children under the age of two and one-half (2-1/2) years are permitted.
9. No food preparation is permitted on-site.
10. No washing of clothes is permitted on-site.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2012-00014. Free Union Baptist
Church Extension (Signs #39&41).
PROPOSAL: Expansion of fellowship hall of existing church on 2 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
LOCATION: 3608 Brook Mill Ln.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04800-00-00-00400.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 2012.)
Mr. Benish reported that this is a special use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing
church. The proposal is to add an approximately 600-square foot, 24x24 foot fellowship to an existing
1,700 square foot church. He said that the existing church predates the requirement for a special use
permit, so this action brings the church into compliance and allows for the expansion to take place. Mr.
Benish said that the property is located off of Doctors Crossing Road in the Stony Point area. The
immediate area is characterized by a mix of large and small residential lots and moderately sized farm and
forestal parcels. He presented an aerial of the site showing the location, noting the direct access point to
the site off of Brookmill Lane. Mr. Benish also presented a conceptual plan of the expansion. Mr. Benish
said that the addition would be 600 square feet and would not increase the area of assembly but would be
used to accommodate meetings and special events. No additional parking requirements are necessary.
Mr. Benish said that favorable factors include having the existing nonconforming use being
brought into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. There are no significant impacts created by the
proposal and there are no negative impacts. He stated that staff and the Planning Commission both
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
recommend approval, with the Commission proposing conditions with their September 11, 2012 approval.
Mr. Benish said that the issues raised by a neighboring property owner and provided to the Commission
before their meeting were addressed in a letter from the church.
Mr. Boyd said that the issue seemed to be a communication problem, as the response from the
church seemed very reasonable – with agreement to share in the cost of maintaining the road.
Mr. Benish agreed, and said they tried to contact the adjacent owner but she had no answering
device. He said he assumes her concerns have been addressed, as she was not present at this meeting.
At this time the Chair opened the public hearing.
Minister Louie Carr addressed the Board, stating that he is Associate Minister of the Church. He
thanked staff for outlining the purpose of the expansion. Minister Carr said that everything has been taken
care of as far as responding to the letter.
Mr. Snow said it looks like a good project, and thanked him.
Reverend Mary Carey, Pastor of Free Union Baptist Church, thanked the Board members and the
Planning Commission for their work. Rev. Carey said that the church understands the need to be
community friendly. She said that one of the church trustees contacted the neighbor – Mrs. Paula Brown
Steedly – and addressed the issues with her. Rev. Carey said that the problems were resolved and the
family was invited to come to the church. She added that there have been times when they wanted to
have events at the church but have been unable to do so because of the size and the condition of the
facility.
Mr. Boyd said that he received a copy of the response sent to Mrs. Steedly and felt it was very
appropriate.
Mr. Duane Morris said that he would be doing the contracting work on the project. He said that
the new structure would not be adding to the chapel area, but would be used for special events and would
be more handicapped accessible. He thanked the Board for their time and asked for their approval.
A gentleman who did not identify himself addressed the Board, stating that he was the person who
talked to Mrs. Steedly, and said she was surprised the sign was an issue – as that was put there by
VDOT. He said that Mrs. Steedly told him that the sign issue was left from 18 years ago, and they were
not sure who she dealt with at that time. He added that they did cut the brush at the road and have tried to
get in touch with VDOT officials about the sign, but as of yet they have received no reply. Church officials
also decided that they were willing to give a donation to the individuals for the past work they have done
on maintaining the road. He asked for the Board’s approval of the request.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd offered motion to approve SP-2012-00014 subject to the three conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. No new construction shall occur on the site except for the proposed addition to the church
building.
2. The floor area of the addition to the existing church building shall not exceed six hundred (600)
square feet.
3. Construction of the addition shall not commence until the Virginia Department of Transportation
has approved the location of the church sign on Route 784.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2012-00017. NTELOS Wireless -
Llandaft Property - Tier III PWSF.
PROPOSAL: Tier III personal wireless service facility on 19.8 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 10.2.2.48 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for Tier III
personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT to protect properties of historic, architectural, or
cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
LOCATION: 4319 Scottsville Rd (Route 20).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 11200-00-00-00900.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 2012.)
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, said that this request and the next one are before
the Board because the applicant is requesting a tower height that is greater than seven feet above the
reference tree, and because they are located in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. He said
that the Board would take two actions with each application, stating that both properties are located on
Route 20 South. He presented a rendering of the location of the tower site, and pointed out the limited
visibility of the proposed tower as it just appears near Carter’s Bridge but otherwise is pretty invisible.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the unfavorable factors related to the tower’s location in the rural historic
district along an entrance corridor with an ag/forestal district adjoining, but staff feels all of those issues
can be addressed through conditions. He added that the ARB is not opposing the site. He said that there
is a recommendation for approval of the special exception granting the tower height and the special use
permit. There are conditions for the special use permit that refer to the conceptual plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that should the Board approve this request, its’ first action would be to allow the
facility to be up to 10 feet above the reference tree; the second action would be approval of the special
use permit with the conditions presented.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board, stating that she is representing Ntelos Wireless on this
application. She said that Mr. Cilimberg’s presentation confirmed their finding as well that the tower is only
visible at a great distance just above the tops of the trees from the bridge, looking north. Ms. Long said
that the wooded, 20-acre parcel has very high elevation and an existing driveway that make this an
attractive site. The only reason this facility is a Tier III, and not a Tier II, is because it is in the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District – as is most of the Route 20 corridor.
Mr. Dumler commented that he found the propagation map provided by Ntelos to be very helpful
in determining where the towers would be located along the corridor.
Ms. Mallek asked if the poles are shared by the companies, or if they are more proprietary. Ms.
Long responded that each carrier must have its’ own antenna, but they could share the pole. She
explained that most of the time co-location on these treetop poles, when they are only 10 feet above, do
not work – but sometimes they do. She added that each carrier has different technology. Ms. Long
presented a slide showing the proposed “seamless coverage area” from Charlottesville to Scottsville along
the Route 20 corridor.
Mr. Snow asked if those towers had already been approved. Ms. Long replied that there are a few
more in the pipeline, including one more under review by County staff in addition to the two before the
Board today. She also mentioned the other co-locations that the Board reviewed a few months ago, and a
very tall tower in Buckingham County that Ntelos recently collocated on – which provides service
throughout Scottsville.
Mr. Snow asked if it would be possible to get an updated propagation map once the towers are in
place, of the total area being covered. Ms. Long responded that it is on her next slide presentation, and
she would also send him a copy by email.
Mr. Snow asked how long before they would get service into Schuyler and Porter’s. Ms. Long
responded that she does not know if service has been planned for those locations yet; she will need to
consult with Ntelos representatives.
Mr. Snow asked if there were any broadband grants available through programs like Connect
America. Ms. Long responded that she was not aware of any but she is not the expert – and it really
comes down to the cost effectiveness of providing service, which involves a lot of factors.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dumler offered motion to approve the special exception to allow the facility to be up to 10’
above the reference tree for reasons outlined in the staff report for Section 5.1.40(d)(6) under the special
exception criteria of Section 31.8 and mentioned in the presentation. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dumler then offered motion to approve SP-2012-00017 subject to the condition
recommended by staff. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out in full below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Carter’s Bridge
(Llandaff, LC Property) CV828” prepared by Brian Crutchfield latest revision date 8/7/12 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on
the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
b. Mounting type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment and monopole
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2012-00020. NTELOS (CV830)
Glendower/Schmidt Property Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility (Signs #42&45).
PROPOSAL: Request for a special use permit to allow a 91.3 foot steel monopole, painted brown,
with a flush-mounted antenna array of three panel antennas and associated ground equipment.
The proposed monopole is approximately 20 feet above the reference tree and is located in an
avoidance area (Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning
District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: east side of Rt. 20, just north of Glendower Road at 6507 Scottsville Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 12100-00-00-082H0/12100-00-00-08200 (access).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 17 and September 24, 2012.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a tower to be located along Route 20, which is before them as a
special use permit due to location in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District and also subject to the
special exception. In this case, he said, the request is for the top of the tower to be 20 feet above
reference tree, which would make it a 91-foot monopole. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the location of the
adjacent ag/forestal districts on a map provided, as well as a conservation easement nearby and the fact it
is in the historic district. He said there is an existing AT&T tower at the site, but there was not an
opportunity for co-location. Mr. Cilimberg noted the lease area and presented images from the balloon
test, which showed that the tower was skylit at the intersection of Riding Club Road with Route 20 – but
was not visible along Route 20 and was minimally visible through a break in the trees off of Route 20.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the unfavorable factors are related to its location, considering
avoidance area, the minimal visibility and skylit nature of the view from Scottsville Road and Riding Club
Road. He said that the ARB had no objections, as this is a heavily shielded location and there were no
adverse impacts anticipated in the avoidance areas. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff and the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the special exception for the facility to be 20 feet above the tallest
tree, as well as approval of the special use permit with the condition regarding the conceptual plan and
any modifications to that plan.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Long said she was again representing ntelos. She presented some slides showing the
entrance to the farm and existing access road that AT&T built just along the inside of the trees to access
the site – which ntelos will be able to use. She said that there is a 20-foot difference in elevation between
the requested height of the monopole and the reference tree, so that the facility can make the connection
to the sites on either side of it. Ms. Long presented a photo showing dense vegetation along Route 20,
which shields the AT&T pole from Route 20. She showed a photo simulation from the viewpoint of the
intersection of Riding Club Road looking across Route 20 to the facility, noting how short the AT&T facility
is relative to the trees nearby. Ms. Long said that co-location was an option, but it wasn’t a feasible option.
Collating below the AT&T tower was not an option. She also presented a photo taken from the
perspective of inside the Schmidt family partnership property, and a photo from a location along Route 20
South. She presented a map showing the location of the Glendower property, and the ultimate level of
coverage ntelos is working towards along the Route 20 corridor.
Mr. Snow commented that it appears they could move the towers a bit further apart if they had
additional height, and said that would be a great tradeoff.
Ms. Long explained that the tower proposed to the north is currently under review by the staff and
has not been seen by the Board yet, but it is a location where the Board approved an application for AT&T
about four to six months ago – the Keene site/Flatwoods Land Trust. She said that the Board approved it
at 30 feet above the reference tree because the site is so heavily wooded that even at 30 feet when they
did the balloon test with staff they still could not see the balloon. Ms. Long stated that this is a perfect
location for a wireless facility, and because it is ntelos wanted to use the same site for its pole – but the
distance between the two is a little bit longer than what works, so when they first tested the Glendower
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
pole at 10 feet above it did not meet their standards for coverage between the gap. She said that that’s
when they made the decision to go up to 20 feet, because it was still hardly visible but would make a
stronger and more reliable connection for the Keene site. Ms. Long added that there is an incredible
benefit to carriers, because the difference in service between a 10-foot pole and a 20-foot pole is
tremendous.
Mr. Rooker noted that it depends on terrain also. Ms. Long agreed, stating that the thick
vegetation on Route 20 is a real challenge.
Mr. Dumler said it can also make it more financially feasible for the company by providing co-
location opportunities for other companies. Ms. Long responded that it could, but in these locations the
real money to the carrier is the cost in the ground equipment. She said they always try to balance what
would have the lowest level of visibility – a single high pole with two to three carriers, or two poles next to
each other that are not really visible at all. Ms. Long said that with this application, the two poles located
next to each other – neither of which has much visibility – met the goals of the policy and the ordinance.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Dumler offered motion to approve the special exception to allow the facility to be up to 20’
above the reference tree for reasons outlined in the staff report for Section 5.1.40(d)(6) under the special
exception criteria of Section 31.8. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dumler then offered motion to approve SP-2012-00020 subject to the two conditions
recommended by staff. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site
construction plans, entitled “nTelos Glendower (Schmidt Family Limited Partnership Property)
CV830”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 7/30/12.
2. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “nTelos
Glendower (Schmidt Family Limited Partnership Property) CV830” prepared by Brian Crutchfield
and dated 7-18-12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
h. Height
i. Mounting type
j. Antenna type
k. Number of antenna
l. Distance above reference tree
m. Color
n. Location of ground equipment and monopole
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not consider this 20-foot extension to be a precedent, as the
Ordinance is really about visibility, and as with the 30-foot extension visibility with these towers is very
minimal, and these are good sites.
Mr. Dumler stated that the Planning Commission had shared concern about the precedent-setting
nature, but he also agrees about the visibility.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: FY13 Budget Amendment. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on September 23, 2012.)
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, summarized the following
executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate
amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided,
however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the
currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a
public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General
Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
The total of the new requested FY 2013 appropriations, itemized below, is $12,224,350.45.
Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted
budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
The proposed increase of this FY 2013 Budget Amendment totals $12,224,350.45. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 417,080.73
Special Revenue Funds $ 1,212,976.06
School Fund $ 80,000.00
School Programs $ 52,500.00
Capital Improvements Funds $ 8,037,314.80
Stormwater $ 1,570,248.40
ECC $ 854,230.46
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 12,224,350.45
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue (Non-Tax)* $ 144,603.65
State Revenue $ 63,852.00
Federal Revenue $ 625,087.30
Loan Proceeds $ 97,967.00
General Fund Balance $ 385,687.93
Other Fund Balances $ 10,907,152.57
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 12,224,350.45
*The local revenue included in this amendment includes $130,000.00 in School Division donations,
$7,355.00 from the City of Charlottesville, $3,747.00 from the Community Criminal Justice Board,
$3,206.65 in rent and $295.00 in interest.
The budget amendment is comprised of twenty-seven (27) separate appropriations as follows,
seventeen of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved August 1, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2013020) to distribute funding from the budgeted Salary Reserve
to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for increased personnel costs set forth in the terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding. This appropriation reallocated funding and did not
increase the total appropriated budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2013022) totaling $80,000.00 for School Division grants,
donations, and activity account revenues;
One (1) appropriation (#2013025) totaling $11,201.00 to continue to provide a part-time
officer working under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office for the Offender Aid and
Restoration’s Drug Court program;
One (1) appropriation (#2013026) totaling $22,214.50 for Department of Voter
Registration and Elections re-appropriations;
One (1) appropriation (#2013027) totaling $90,852.00 to reappropriate the Grants
Leveraging Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2013028) totaling $64,327.00 for two grants awarded to the
Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013029) totaling $70,000.00 for professional services to assist
the Finance Department; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013030) totaling $9,999.00 for a grant awarded to the
Emergency Communications Center (ECC).
Approved September 6, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2013031) totaling $3,206.65 for rental income and expenses
related to the Old Crozet Elementary School;
One (1) appropriation (#2013032) totaling $7,355.00 for City-funded programs provided
by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service;
One (1) appropriation (#2013033) totaling $74,947.00 for a Department of Criminal
Justice Services grant awarded to Offender Aid and Restoration;
One (1) appropriation (#2013034) to appropriate $53,640 from the Reserve for
Contingencies to Virginia Supportive Housing fund. This appropriation did not increase
the total budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2013035) totaling $9,560.38 to re-appropriate a grant and
contributions to the Sheriff Department’s volunteer reserves programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2013036) totaling $15,608.00 for a grant awarded to the Police
Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013037) totaling $67,986.00 to re-appropriate three public safety
grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2013038) totaling $817,387.46 to appropriate and re-appropriate
Emergency Communication Center projects; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012039) totaling $50,000.00 for revenue associated with School
Division grants, donations, and School Activity Funds.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
The ten (10) appropriations requested for Board approval on October 3, 2012 are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013040) totaling $224,250.88 to re-appropriate funding for
various General Fund projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013041) totaling $652,688.38 to re-appropriate various internal
service funds, grants, donations, and seized asset accounts;
One (1) appropriation (#2013042) totaling $6,749,113.32 to re-appropriate funding for
various General Government CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013043) totaling $1,167,376.48 to re-appropriate funding for
various School CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013044) totaling $1,570,248.40 to re-appropriate funding for
various Stormwater CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013045) totaling $41,625.00 for various General Government
CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013046) totaling $337,460.00 to appropriate a FEMA SAFER
grant and related operating and capital costs for the Department of Fire Rescue;
One (1) appropriation (#2013047) totaling $57,600.00 to appropriate expenditures related
to volunteer staffing at Ivy Fire Station;
One (1) appropriation (#2013048) totaling $2,500.00 for various school division programs;
and
One (1) appropriation (#2013049) totaling $26,844.00 for various Emergency
Communication Center projects.
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2013 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $12,224,350.45 and approval of appropriations #2013040, #2013041, #2013042, #2013043,
#2013044, #2013045, #2013046, #2013047, #2013048 and #2013049 to provide funds for various local
government and school projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2013040 $224,250.88
Source: General Fund Balance $ 220,590.58
Federal Revenue $ 3,660.30
The following requests are for the re-appropriation of FY 12 funds to the following projects. These requests
are planned to be one-time expenditures.
County Executive’s Office: Requests $17,100.00 to conduct a citizen survey in 2013 utilizing the
International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA) National Citizen Survey tool and the
Weldon Cooper Center’s Jefferson Area Community Survey. Past citizen surveys have been
conducted biennially from 2002 to 2008 and again in 2011.
County Attorney’s Office: Requests $2,417.31 for payment of annual updates to the Virginia Code.
These updates were planned as a FY 11/12 expense; however the updates arrived in FY 12/13.
Information Technology (IT): Requests $15,800.00 for consultant services to assist IT and the
Office of Management and Budget to migrate and upgrade the County’s Performance Management
website to the 2010 Team Services platform, which will allow for enhanced system and mapping
capabilities, and integration with the County’s web for performance data related to County services
and the Strategic Plan.
Police:
o Requests $10,597.00 for security improvements for the Evidence Unit. These improvements
are the result of recommendations from an audit completed in FY 11/12 and will provide for
the installation of a pass through-window and an improved key storage system.
o Requests $62,897.69 for traffic safety programs based on FY 11/12 revenues related to the
PhotoSafe Program. These revenues are intended to only fund traffic safety programs and
not general local government operations.
Fire Rescue:
o Requests $12,350.00 to fund the replacement of “knox boxes.” These boxes allow Fire
Rescue personnel to enter commercial and other buildings when unoccupied. This funding
will provide two updates per station (both Fire Rescue Department and volunteer stations).
o Requests $67,614.88, the remaining balance in the Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP) fund.
This program was approved and initially appropriated in FY09. In FY09, the VIP Committee
worked out details of the program and began providing training with the funds in FY10. The
Board anticipated that these funds would be used over multiple years.
General Services:
o Requests $4,049.00 for payment of contracts for projects started in FY 11/12 and completed
in FY 12/13.
o Requests $14,825.00 to fund one-time contractual services costs to perform an audit of the
County’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) program. This audit will seek to
improve the program in advance of an anticipated Environmental Protection Agency audit.
Social Services: The following requests will be partially funded by $3,660.30 in federal revenue:
o Requests $9,600.00 for replacement furniture and fixtures. This includes replacement of
broken chairs that cannot be repaired and replacement conference tables.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
o Requests $7,000.00 for contractual services to assist the department by conducting a
customer service experiential audit and an assessment of the department’s management
structure’s alignment with Baldrige standards for High-Performing Organizations.
Appropriation #2013041 $652,688.38
Revenue Source Local Revenue (Interest) $ 295.00
State Revenue $ 29,050.00
Federal Revenue $ 81,798.22
Other Fund Balance $ 541,545.16
This request is to re-appropriate and appropriate funding associated with Special Revenue Funds, including
seized asset accounts, grants, donation funds, proffers, and internal service funds. The funding requested for
re-appropriation has not been expended as of June 30, 2012. These expenditures are expected to occur in
FY 13. No additional local funding is required.
This request is to re-appropriate $108,495.76, the FY 11/12 balance remaining in seized asset
funding received from the Department of Criminal Justice Services, for the Police Department and the
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, and to appropriate $29,345.00 in additional funding anticipated to
be received in FY 12/13 for a total appropriation request of $137,840.76. These monies will be used to
purchase evidence equipment and traffic enforcement items for the Police Department and office
supplies, furniture, and training/conferences for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office.
This request is to re-appropriate $10,205.12, the remaining balance in Department of Justice grant
funding for the investigations of Internet Crimes Against Children. In FY 09/10, the Department of
Justice awarded Bedford County a grant to assist in the investigations of Internet Crimes Against
Children. Bedford County designated Albemarle County as being an area district in the fight against
internet crime and provided Albemarle County with $80,000.00. Half of the funds are to be used by
the Albemarle County Police Department, while the other half is distributed by the Albemarle County
Police Department to other agencies.
This request is to re-appropriate $373.55 in donations received by the Fire/Rescue Department. In
FY 07/08, the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department received $12,000.00 from the J&E Berkley
Foundation. In FY 10/11 a second donation in the amount of $578.67 was received. This re -
appropriation is for the balance of those donations to be used for the continuation of a free smoke
detector program to bring single family residences into compliance with the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) recommendations. This program targets households that are at risk and usually
cannot afford smoke detectors.
This request is to re-appropriate $71,593.10 in funding from the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program. The County, due to its population
size, is a formula recipient of $406,000.00 from the DOE’s EECBG program. The purpose of the
EECBG program is to support the investment of resources into energy efficiency, renewable energy
and climate protection. The DOE has approved the County's Strategy, finalized in Fall, 2009 by the
Albemarle County grants committee, with proposed adjustments in Summer 2012 in response to
actual project costs and expenditures. The Strategy includes: 1) $250,450.00 towards energy
efficiency measures for the County's facilities (e.g. lighting retrofits, equipment replacement,
renewable energy generation; 2) $60,000.00 towards funding County residential energy audits through
the local energy alliance program (LEAP); 3) $83,000.00 towards a temporary, part-time, not-to-
exceed 36 months staff position to help manage and administer the grant and associated projects and
programs, and towards additional work hours performed implementing the County’s Energy
Management Strategic Plan by a part-time employee (<10 hours per week) and the Environmental
Compliance Manager; and 4) $12,550.00 towards administrative costs.
This appropriation also reallocates $15,519.00 to support staff costs that will be directly and fully
expended through the EECBG fund. Previously, these costs were planned to be expended in the
General Fund and offset by a transfer from the EECBG fund.
This request is to appropriate $4,625.00 in donations received by the Fire/Rescue Department (FR).
This includes $2,850.00 for the replacement of worn station furnishings at Monticello and Hollymead
Fire & Rescue Stations, $1,500.00 for the Child Safety Seat Program, and $275.00 to purchase
materials for Fire Prevention Week. In 1998, a Special Revenue Fund account was established for
donations received by FR. This request is to appropriate $4,625.00 from this account to fund these
costs.
This request is to re-appropriate $1,083.65 to support the work of the Natural Heritage Committee
(NHC). This is a private donation that was originally appropriated in July 1, 2009, that was made to
specifically support the work of the NHC. The Chair of the NHC has requested the donated funds be
re-appropriated so the committee can make use of the funds to support its mission, which is to
maintain and restore the County's native biological diversity and provide a healthy environment for the
citizens of Albemarle County.
This request is to re-appropriate $15,859.68, the remaining balance from FY 11/12, into the Old
Crozet School Fund. The County leases out space at the Old Crozet Elementary School. The rent
revenue provides funding for operating costs of this facility, and funds required major capital
replacement and repairs.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Belvedere Drive Bond Project: This request is to re-appropriate $304,244.92 of bond proceeds for the
Belvedere Drive Bond Project. The County demanded payment on six letters of credit in January 2009
that secured performance bonds totaling $3,675,790.00 for Belvedere Phase 1 and Belvedere Phase
1, Blocks 3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A covering water protection (erosion control & stormwater management),
roads, drainage and related site work, and water and sewer improvements. Phase 1 Belvedere Blvd.
(Rio Rd to Free State Rd) was bid and a contract awarded to S. L. Williamson Company, Inc., in
December 2011. In January 2012, quality issues were discovered with the lower portion of the base
asphalt. Based on evaluation of asphalt core samples, VDOT has required removal of all of the base
asphalt. At this time, the Phase 1 Belvedere Blvd. project is on hold pending resolution of the quality
issues and funding required to complete the improvements. Final bid documents for the Phase 1,
Blocks 3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A are currently being reviewed and it is anticipated that this phase will be bid
in September, 2012. The majority of the funds were re-appropriated in July, and this request is for the
remaining FY12 balance and supports purchase orders that were encumbered for the design
contracts and the Phase 1 construction contract with S. L. Williamson. Staff is currently reviewing the
contract with S. L. Williamson to determine if it should be terminated due to the quality & funding
issues described above.
This request is to re-appropriate $106,862.60 in funding for replacement vehicles for the Police
Department. This includes an undelivered purchase order totaling $52,897.30 and the unexpended
balance of $53,965.30 in the Police Department’s replacement vehicle line at the end of FY 11/12.
Appropriation #2013042 $6,749,113.32
General Government Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests
Source: Loan Proceeds $ 97,967.00
Other Fund Balance (Proffer) $ 64,596.33
Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 6,586,549.99
The County’s current practice for re-appropriating General Government CIP project funding is for staff to
present to the Board a list of General Government Capital Improvement projects to which funds were
previously appropriated in the General Government Capital fund in a prior year but were not expended in that
year. The following projects are either: 1) active CIP projects that remain unfinished at year end, 2) routine or
on-going maintenance CIP projects/programs that staff recommends should continue to be funded, or 3) CIP
projects which are planned to be completed in FY 13 or CIP contingencies that staff recommends remain
available in the following fiscal year. This re-appropriation process will change beginning in FY 14 when the
County moves to a multi-year CIP budgeting process pursuant to the Board’s approval on July 11, 2012.
A re-appropriation of the qualifying FY 12 fund balances is necessary at this time to fund the continuation
and/or completion of certain capital projects in FY 13.
Many of the following projects may also have received a portion of funding after the fiscal year-end adjustment
period. For those projects which require additional funding to complete or continue these projects, the
remaining balances are requested for re-appropriation.
1. Re-appropriation requests for active or encumbered General Government CIP Projects that remain
unfinished at year end:
Description Amount
County View Project: This request is to re-appropriate $8,339.32 to support CountyView
Updates as detailed in the County View Management Plan, including enhancements to the
CountyView Web application to facilitate public access for viewing/processing applications
on-line.
$8,339.32
COB Brick Repointing: This request is to re-appropriate $305,753.45 to support brick
and masonry repairs to the McIntire County Office Building which includes three separate
projects: 1) brick repointing - removal and replacement of existing damaged grout and
expansion/caulk joints at the exterior; 2) masonry repairs - partial brick veneer
replacement and installation of new spiral ties; and 3) waterproofing and repair of the front
entry stairs. These funds support the purchase order balances on the design and
construction contracts for the brick repointing and masonry repair projects.
The brick repointing and masonry repair projects are currently underway. The contractual
substantial completion date for the masonry repairs project is November, 2012. A change
order is currently being routed for approval on the brick repointing project for installation of
helical brick ties to stabilize brick facade and prevent further movem ent. This change
order would extend the substantial completion date to January 2013.
The waterproofing and repair of the front entry stairs is currently in design. Once the
design is complete, the project will be advertised for construction and will take
approximately 45 days to complete.
$305,753.45
Crozet Library: This request is to re-appropriate $130,429.43 to support design and
construction of the 23,000 square foot, 2-story, library facility in Downtown Crozet,
including design and construction of a parking lot for 53 vehicles. The majority of the
funds were re-appropriated in July and this request is for the remaining FY12 balance and
supports the purchase order balance on the design contract, including a change order to
restore construction administration. The parking lot construction was completed and the
$130,429.43
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
lot opened to the public in November, 2011. Construction funding for the library facility
was appropriated in FY13. MB Contractors, Inc., was given a Notice to Proceed on July 1,
2012, with substantial completion of the project expected to be achieved by June, 2013.
Crozet Streetscape Phase II: This request is to re-appropriate $61,425.84 to support (a)
construction and utility-related work for the relocation of overhead electric and utility lines
to underground lines along and adjacent to Crozet Avenue, (b) a new stormwater drainage
system, (c) pedestrian/vehicular/streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from
The Square to Tabor Street, and (d) the first block of “Main Street” (a.k.a. Library Avenue).
All CenturyLink and Dominion Virginia Power easements have been obtained and County
staff is currently awaiting updated plans and cost estimates. Staff anticipates proceeding
with the utility relocation work within the next month with completion by December, 2012.
The County is working with 3 property owners on remaining right-of-way/construction
easement dedications. Once the remaining right-of-way/easement dedications have been
obtained, plans can be finalized and the streetscape project put out to bid. Once the
project is bid and the contract is awarded, completion will take approximately 14 months.
The first block of Main Street (a.k.a. Library Avenue) has been completed and opened to
the public. As-built drawings and repairs requested by VDoT have been completed. The
County is preparing documentation for VDoT acceptance. The Office of Facilities
Development anticipates completing acceptance process by the 2nd quarter of FY13.
The majority of the funds were re-appropriated in July and this request is for the remaining
FY12 balance and supports the purchase order balance on the design contract, including
a change order for finalizing the streetscape construction documents.
$61,425.84
GIS Project: This request is to re-appropriate $372,836.86 to fund the priorities identified
in the five-year GIS implementation plan and schedule as recommended by the GIS
Steering Committee. Funding planned GIS initiatives will result in efficiencies with respect
to access, use and maintenance of the County's geographic resources.
$372,836.86
Ivy Fire Station: This request is to re-appropriate $75,759.17 to support a fire-rescue
facility of approximately 5,800 square feet, within an existing warehouse, consisting of 3
apparatus bays and support facilities for a crew of six. A lease agreement with the
University of Virginia for the County’s use of a portion of the Kirtley Warehouse for the fire
station was signed in March, 2011. The target construction start date is October/
November, 2012 with the new station to be online by Spring, 2013. The majority of the
funds were re-appropriated in July and this request is for the remaining FY12 balance and
supports the purchase order balance on the design contract.
$75,759.17
Fire Department Mobile Data Computer: This request is to re-appropriate $16,015.49 to
support the installation of mobile data computers that are mandated by the Virginia Office
of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for electronic reporting of EMS incidents, which is
scheduled to be complete by December, 2012.
$16,015.49
Police Firing Range: This request is to re-appropriate $79,690.00 to support the design
and engineering costs associated with constructing the Firearms Range. These funds
specifically support the purchase order balance on the design contract.
The facility will be located in the southern part of the County on the old Keene Landfill site
and will include three firearm ranges, classroom, toilet facilities, security fencing and
gates, and an access road and parking lot. The most recent project cost estimate
indicates that additional funding will be required for construction of the facilities, and this
will be addressed during the FY14 CIP submission.
$79,690.00
Police Technology Upgrade: This request is to re-appropriate $290,448.13 for on-going
Police Technology software (Mobile Data Computer Software) system implementation. A
portion of the custom system software did not meet the Police Department's requirements,
and they are currently in negotiations with the vendor regarding project balance and future
license fees. Following negotiations, the Police Department will pay a portion of the
remaining balance and license fees to the vendor as appropriate. It will be necessary to
retain some of these funds in FY 13 for emergency modem/docking station purchases and
installs if needed.
$290,448.13
Police Video Equipment: This request is to re-appropriate $7,863.75 to support the
ongoing replacement purchases of video cameras in police vehicles and to fund
emergency repairs of video cameras and equipment. Video cameras are a crucial tool in
the prosecution of various traffic and criminal cases.
$7,863.75
Records Management: This request is to re-appropriate $196,323.12 to support the
purchase of equipment/software, professional services and temporary labor for assistance
in document conversion in the County's Community Development Department. This
request also includes services/training required to implement the new Laserfiche Records
Management System.
$196,323.12
Sidewalk-Avon Street: This request is to re-appropriate $70,992.22 to support the design
and construction for sidewalk, curb and gutter at Avon Street from Lakeside Apartments to
the City limits. It is anticipated that easements will be required for construction. The start
date is unknown at this time and is dependent on funding for design and construction.
Possible funding sources for this project include a request for Revenue Sharing Funds in
FY14 or local transportation funds. An appropriation request will be made at a later date
once the source of full construction funding is identified.
$70,992.22
Sidewalk, Crozet Ave North: This request is to re-appropriate $291,350.91 to support
the replacement (construction) of approximately 1,100 feet of sidewalk, a pedestrian $291,350.91
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
crossing, and drainage improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint
George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School.
Design plans are being finalized and right-of-way plats are in progress. Construction is not
fully funded; however, a portion of the construction will be funded by Revenue Sharing
Funds recently awarded to the County. (A separate appropriation request will be prepared
for the allocation of those funds.) Once the plans and right-of-way acquisitions are
completed, and construction funding appropriated, the project will be advertised for
construction and will take approximately six months to complete.
Safe Routes to School: A portion of this appropriation request is related to the Safe
Routes To School Grant and will be used towards encumbered design and easement
acquisition services. The grant is to be used to improve pedestrian crossing at the Crozet
Elementary school and extend the sidewalk to Ballard Drive. It is anticipated that this
portion of the project will be advertised for construction in Fall, 2012 and will take
approximately four months to complete.
Sidewalk, South Pantops: This request is to re-appropriate $11,012.68 to support the
design and construction of 3,500 feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the north side of
South Pantops Drive and the west side of State Farm Boulevard. Design plans are being
finalized. Construction is not fully funded; a portion of the construction will be funded by
Revenue Sharing Funds recently awarded to the County. (A separate appropriation
request will be prepared for the allocation of those funds.) Once the plans, right-of-way
acquisitions, and temporary construction easements acquisitions are completed, and
construction funding has been appropriated, the project will be advertised for construction
and will take approximately six months to complete.
$11,012.68
Tourism-Park, Byrom: This request is to re-appropriate $1,117.00 to support uniform
signage (regulation, directional, naming) for new/additional trails at Byrom Park, which
would enhance the existing trail system. The project is scheduled to be undertaken in the
early Fall of 2012 and completed by March/April of 2013.
$1,117.00
Tourism-Park, Preddy Creek: This request is to re-appropriate $6,659.76 to support
uniform trail signage (regulation, directional, naming), kiosk, footbridges, and boardwalks
for the new/additional trails funded by a Department of Conservation and Recreation grant.
(Signage was not included in the grant application.) This project is scheduled to be
undertaken in late Winter of 2012 and completed by June, 2013.
$6,659.76
VFD-Stony Point Engine 61: This request is to re-appropriate $628,781.00 to support the
purchase/installment of equipment for the Stony Point Engine 61; the engine is still being
manufactured, and the County anticipates delivery of the tanker in the Fall of 2012.
$628,781.00
2. Re-appropriation requests for routine or on-going maintenance General Government CIP
Projects:
Description Amount
Court Facilities Repair and Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $58,538.74 to
maintenance projects that were delayed due to unforeseen emergency repairs in 2012
totaling approximately $66,000. The maintenance projects include ADA upgrades, interior
painting and carpet replacement, and engineering of an HVAC overhaul. These projects
will be completed within FY 13.
$58,538.74
Court Square Enhancement: This request is to re-appropriate $7,248.06 to support the
evaluation of the County's future Court needs. These funds specifically support the
purchase order balance on the consultant contract. The Office of Facilities Development
and the County Executive's Office have begun a series of meetings (late Summer to early
Fall, 2012) to formulate information to better understand the magnitude of the need for
expansion.
$7,248.06
Health Department Repair/Maintenance: This request is to reappropriate $32,940 so that
it remains available for unscheduled repairs and preventative maintenance of the jointly-
owned Health Department building maintained by the County and City.
$32,940.00
Old Jail Facility Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $23,201.83 to continue
monitoring the stability of the wall, and to respond to deteriorations identified and
environmental issues within the building, such as the presence of asbestos, lead paint, etc.
$23,201.83
Parks & Recreation Maintenance: This request to re-appropriate a total of $54,273.09. Of
this request, $27,073.09 supports various maintenance and replacement projects for
County Parks & Recreation and school facilities used for community recreation. Work
includes athletic field improvements, baseball backstop replacement, and security fencing
repairs. Locations will be determined based on need. The remaining $27,200.00 supports
a sidewalk replacement project in the Scottsville community which was completed in
August, 2012.
$54,273.09
Public Works Facilities Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $27,365.79 to
address the unforeseen emergency repair of the floor at the Old Crozet School caused by
the August, 2011 earthquake. This work is scheduled to be completed by September 30,
2012.
$27,365.79
Voting Machine Replacements: This request is to re-appropriate $305,175.77 to support
the purchase of replacement voting machines over the course of the next several years to
meet legal requirements based on anticipated County precincts.
$305,175.77
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
3. Re-appropriation requests for General Government planned CIP allocations or contingencies:
Description Amount
Greenways, Crozet: This request is to re-appropriate $14,577.00 to support the various
Crozet Greenway Recreational trail systems. This request supports the construction of
two foot bridges at Licking Hole Basin connecting Westhall, Cory Farms and the
Western Ridge trail system. The projects are to be undertaken and completed by
October, 2012.
$14,577.00
Keene Landfill: This request is to re-appropriate $100,000 in order for funding to
remain available to respond to emergency environmental issues and/or repairs to the
cap of the fill.
$100,000.00
Neighborhood Contingency Funds: This request is to re-appropriate $50,239.61 to
provide contingency funds for 1) shortfalls in ongoing community development related
capital projects and/or 2) to provide a source of funds to address emergency or
unanticipated priority issues/capital projects that may arise during the fiscal year.
Alternatively, a portion of these funds may be allocated for needed improvements in
other master plans (pedestrian improvements on US250 at Clover Lawn/Harris Teeter in
Crozet, walkway improvements connection to Brownsville/Henley school complex in
Crozet, or pedestrian crossings of US250 in Pantops) or to match VDOT Revenue
Sharing Program funding/award for FY14.
$50,239.61
Pantops Master Plan: This request is to re-appropriate $108,731.45 to continue
implementation of the Pantops Master Plan. Various projects identified include: priority
crosswalk improvements (at Rt 250/Rt 20 and Rt. 250/Rolkin intersections); Old Mill
Trail and other Greenway related improvements; Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection
improvement design; other pedestrian crossings improvements at various locations;
traffic calming/management improvements on connector roads South Pantops
Boulevard and Fontana.
$108,731.45
Parks - Recreation Facility: This request is to re-appropriate $2,030,000.00 to support
the County's contribution towards the YMCA Aquatics & Recreation. If the Circuit Court
decision is upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court, the YMCA will be requesting the
County’s contribution in the Fall/Winter of 2012.
$2,030,000.00
Places 29 Master Plan: This request is to re-appropriate $1,185,000.00 to implement
the Places 29 Master Plan, including the location and design of Berkmar Drive
extending from the South Fork of the Rivanna River/Western Bypass to Airport Road;
priority sidewalk and crosswalk improvements in various locations (including Rio and
Hydraulic Roads, Hollymead Community); transit stop improvements (benches, shelters,
trash cans, turn-outs); and the Northtown Trail design and construction.
$1,185,000.00
Rivanna Master Plan: This request is to re-appropriate $50,000.00 to begin
implementation of the Rivanna Master Plan. These funds are to be used towards the
Rivanna Greenway/Old Mill Trail design and/or construction in Pantops and eastward to
Rivanna Village. These funds may also be used to fund emergency or unanticipated
priority issues/capital projects that may arise during the fiscal year in the Village of
Rivanna.
$50,000.00
Roadway Landscape Program: This request is to re-appropriate $90,625.00 to
maintain the entrance corridor roadway landscaping as required by the VDOT land use
permit.
$90,625.00
Street Lights Project: This request is to re-appropriate $35,231.74, the project
balance, to support the design and installation of streetlights on US 250 West at the
Clover Lawn/Harris Teeter/Cory Farms subdivision area to address traffic and
pedestrian safety issues and/or to address unforeseen priority lighting issues that may
arise during the fiscal year.
$35,231.74
Tourism-Greenway Program: This request is to re-appropriate $21,167.11 to support
the County’s match for a grant with the Department of Conservation and Recreation -
Recreation Trails Program to enhance trails at Preddy Creek Trail Park. The scope of
the work includes one (1) 70-foot pedestrian bridge and 7 miles of new recreation trails.
The grant is anticipated to be awarded in December, 2012. Upon award, the project is
scheduled to begin in late W inter of 2012 and to be completed by June, 2013.
$21,167.11
Appropriation #2013043 $1,167,376.48
School Division Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests
Source: School CIP Fund Balance $ 1,167,376.48
The County’s current practice for re-appropriating School Division CIP Project funding is for staff to
present to the Board a list of School Division Capital Improvement projects to which funds were previously
appropriated in the General Government Capital fund in a prior year but were not expended in that year.
The following requests are either: 1) active CIP projects that remain unfinished at year end, 2) routine or
on-going maintenance CIP projects/programs that staff recommends should continue to be funded, or 3)
CIP project balances that are requested to be reappropriated for other uses. A re-appropriation of the
qualifying fund balances is necessary to fund the continuation and/or completion of the projects in the next
fiscal year.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
1. Re-appropriation requests for active or encumbered School Division CIP Projects that remain
unfinished at year end:
Description Amount
Brownsville Elementary School Renovation: This request is to re-appropriate
$34,400.00 to support the renovation of the media center. The majority of the work was
completed during the summer of 2012, but additional items (furniture, misc. paint, etc.)
are needed to complete the project. Work will be completed by the end of the 2012
calendar year.
$34,400.00
Greer Elementary Phase II: This request is to re-appropriate $1,027,471.52 to support
the Greer Phase II addition. This project broke ground in the Fall of 2012 and was
substantially completed in August, 2012. Final completion is expected by October, 2012.
$1,027,471.52
Instructional Technology: This request is to re-appropriate $1,017.88 to support the
replacement of student laptops. $1,017.88
2. Re-appropriation requests for routine or on-going maintenance School Division CIP Projects:
Description Amount
School CIP Maint-General: This request is to re-appropriates $88,345.14 to support
general maintenance work. Work may include, but is not be limited to, roof repair and
HVAC maintenance. The funding also supports summer maintenance projects that
came in over budget (i.e. Monticello High School Parking Lot).
$88,345.14
3. CIP project balances that are requested to be combined or reappropriated for other uses:
Description Amount
School CIP Maint-Albemarle High School: This request is to appropriate $2,860.07
from the Albemarle High School project to the Albemarle High School maintenance
project to support work on a student commons area, including paint, electrical work, and
furniture. This project was substantially completed in August, 2012. The maintenance
project will occur in the Fall of 2012 and be completed by the end of the 2012 calendar
year.
$2,860.07
School CIP Maint-Crozet Elementary: This request is to appropriate $4,282.54 from
the Crozet Elementary School project to the Crozet Elementary School maintenance
project to support modifying the front entrance of the school to become ADA compliant.
The Crozet Elementary School project was substantially completed in August,
2012.Punch list items are underway, and the Crozet Elementary School maintenance
project is scheduled to be completed by October , 2012.
$4,282.54
School CIP Maint-VMF: This request is to appropriate $8,999.33 from the Vehicle
Maintenance Facility (VMF) project to the VMF maintenance project to support
maintenance-related work. The VMF project was substantially complete in August, 2012.
The work includes installing a safety beam to assist in servicing equipment from above
and meeting all protection requirements. The maintenance project will begin in the Fall
of 2012 and be completed by the Spring of 2013.
$8,999.33
Appropriation #2013044 $1,570,248.40
Stormwater Division Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests
Source: Stormwater CIP Fund Balance $ 1,570,248.40
The County’s current practice for re-appropriating Stormwater CIP Project funding is for staff to present to
the Board a list of Stormwater Capital Improvement projects to which funds were previously appropriated
in the Stormwater Capital fund in a prior year but were not expended in that year. The following projects
are either: 1) active CIP projects that remain unfinished at year end or 2) CIP projects which are planned
to be completed in FY 13 or CIP contingencies that staff recommends remain available in the following
fiscal year. A re-appropriation of the qualifying fund balances is necessary to fund the continuation and/or
completion of the projects in the next fiscal year.
1. Re-appropriation requests for active or encumbered Stormwater CIP Projects:
Description Amount
Downtown Crozet Wetlands Project: This request is to re-appropriate $80,423.62 for
stormwater management through pipe and channel improvements and the construction of
a stormwater wetland system to treat runoff from existing and future development in
Downtown Crozet. These funds will support the purchase order balances on the design
and construction contracts. The project’s substantial completion is pending the
contractor's receipt and installation of pedestrian bridges over the channel, which is
anticipated to happen by September, 2012.
$80,423.62
Woodbrook Lagoon Improvement: This request is to re-appropriate $52,255.07 to
support stormwater management for a 250 acre urban watershed through channel
improvements, wetlands, and biofiltration. This project is substantially complete except for
plantings to be done in the Fall of 2012. These funds support the purchase order balance
$52,255.07
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
for the construction contract and additional anticipated expenditures, including the
installation of a safety fence for safety purposes.
2. Re-appropriation requests for General Government planned CIP allocations or contingencies:
Description Amount
Stormwater Control Improvements: This request is to re-appropriate $1,437,569.71 to
support projects that are currently or will be under contract, to include offsetting the cost
of the Crozet Avenue Improvement Project, and other stormwater facilities. Projects
identified and estimated for FY 13 and 14 include Church Road Basin Improvements
($426,000); Multi-pond Sediment Removal projects ($360,000); and COB 5th Stormwater
Improvements ($384,000).
$1,437,569.71
Appropriation #2013045 $ 41,625.00
Source: State Revenue $ 11,200.00
Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 30,425.00
This request is to appropriate various FY 13 General Government CIP projects:
ACE Program: This request is to appropriate $30,825.00 to reimburse the County for fifty percent of
the cost incurred for the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement. The purchase, through
the County's Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program, totals $61,650.00.
The $30,825.00 currently included in the fund balance originated from the Local Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) Program Grant Matching Funds that were received in FY 2012 from the
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Farmland Preservation.
Central Library Maintenance: This request is to reduce the Central Library Maintenance/Repair
program budget by $51,200.00. The elevator replacement at Central Library was anticipated to be
completed in FY 13, but was substantially completed in FY 12. An associated request for an
amendment to the FY 12 budget is included in the FY 12 appropriation executive summary that is also
before the Board on October 3, 2012.
Voter Registration Pollbooks Replacement: This request is to appropriate $62,000.00 to replace
the voter registration department's 100 electronic pollbooks used in the County's 28 voting precincts.
The department switched from paper pollbooks to electronic pollbooks in 2009, assisted by fund ing
from the State Board of Elections (State Board). The State Board obtained older laptop computers
from other state agencies, refurbished them, and sold them to localities. These pollbooks will reach
the end of their life expectancy in 2-3 years, have a limited amount of memory, and are operating a
Windows program that won't be supported by Microsoft after next year. Because of this, the State
Board has recommended that localities with these electronic pollbooks upgrade to newer, more
powerful laptop computers, and has provided an incentive. The State Board will reimburse localities
for some of the costs of upgrading if they have available funding. The reimbursement offer expires in
March, 2013.
The estimated cost of each pollbook is $620.00, for a total of $62,000.00. The State will reimburse
localities up to 50% ($200.00 maximum) of the cost for each laptop, up to two per precinct. With 28
voting precincts, the County has 56 pollbooks eligible for the reimbursement, for a total savings of
$11,200.00. This would bring the total net cost to the County to $50,800.00.
The purchase of the replacement pollbooks will begin in November, 2012 and will be completed in
January, 2013.
Appropriation #2013046 $337,460.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 315,860.00
CIP Fund Balance $ 21,600.00
Grants Leveraging Fund* $ 42,270.00
*The “Grant Leveraging Fund” component of this appropriation will not
increase the County Budget
At its September 5, 2012 meeting, the Board approved the County’s acceptance of a Staffing for Adequate
Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant totaling $1,261,305.00 that was awarded by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the Department of Fire Rescue. This two-year grant will provide
additional staffing for four personnel at the Ivy Fire Station and five personnel at the Seminole Trail Volunteer
Fire Department. This request is to appropriate the following revenues and expenditures in FY 13:
$315,860.00 in federal revenue for the salaries and benefits for six months of eight firefighters and
one fire captain;
$21,600.00 in Capital Improvements Program (CIP) fund balance for the initial purchase of turnout
gear; and
$42,270.00 from the County’s Grants Leveraging Fund for related operational costs such as overtime,
training, uniforms and health services. This appropriation of funding from the Grants Leveraging Fund
to Fire Rescue will not increase the total County budget.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Appropriation #2013047 $57,600.00
Source: CIP Fund Balance $ 57,600.00
Reserve for Contingencies* $ 45,600.00
*The “Reserve for Contingencies” component of this appropriation will not increase the County Budget
This request is to appropriate the following for the 24 volunteers planned to begin at the Ivy Fire Station in FY
12/13:
$57,600.00 in Capital Improvements Program (CIP) fund balance for the initial purchase of turnout
gear; and
$45,600.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies for uniforms, apparel and health services. This
appropriation of funding from the Reserve for Contingencies to Fire Rescue will not increase the total
County budget.
Appropriation #2013048 $2,500.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 2,500.00
This request is to appropriate FY 13 School Division funds as approved by the School Board on A ugust 9,
2012. This appropriation request of $2,500.00 is federal revenue and includes the following:
The HealthierUS School Challenge (HUSSC) is a voluntary national certification initiative for schools
participating in the National School Lunch Program. It supports First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s
Move campaign by recognizing schools that are creating healthier school environments through their
promotion of good nutrition and physical activity. Sponsored by the USDA Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), the initiative encourages all schools to take a leadership role in helping students to make
healthier eating and physical activity choices that will last a lifetime. Schools awarded receive a
monetary incentive (Bronze $500, Silver $1000, Gold $1500, and Gold Award of Distinction $2000),
an award plaque signed by a USDA official, a banner to display in their school, and their name listed
on the Team Nutrition Web site.
Albemarle County is one of three divisions in the state to have a school receive USDA’s Gold with
Distinction Award. Red Hill Elementary School earned the recognition for the quality of their nutrition
education, healthy school lunch food choices, percentage of meal participation, and for a broad range
of physical education activities offered to students, including P.E. time. Meriwether Lewis Elementary
School received a Bronze Award. Only eight school divisions in the state have received a HealthierUS
School Challenge Award.
These funds will be used to support the schools wellness initiatives and provide materials for nutrition
and physical education. General discussion ideas included cafeteria promotion kits, resources to
support a health fair, nutritious snacks and educational material such as books regarding nutrition,
wellness and agriculture. The School Principal and Director of Food Services will meet to further
discuss specific needs.
Appropriation #2013049 $26,844.00
Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 26,844.00
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC,
appropriate funding from the ECC’s fund balance for the following requests:
$7,120.00 for a lease of approximately 382 square feet of office space at the County Office Building
located on 5th Street that is being used as a back-up emergency 911 facility in the event something
would require abandonment of the primary facility on Ivy Road because of an emergency situation.
$19,724.00 for an upgrade of the ECC’s Cassidian Reverse 911 Notification System. This upgrade
will move the system to a hosted solution in order to provide more refined calling capability and offer a
self-registration portal where citizens will be able to register to receive SMS text messages.
Notifications will also be delivered via landlines, mobile phones, SMS messaging, e-mail, pager and
Blackberry’s. Under this upgrade the equipment will be housed and maintained away from
Charlottesville at multiple geographically diverse data centers.
_____
The Chair then opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Rooker said there was an item in this amendment as part of a total $137,000 appropriation,
and he said it would be helpful to get some understanding from Police Chief Sellers as to how this occurs
– perhaps a year by year total over the last three or four years.
Mr. Foley responded that staff could easily provide that as a follow-up to the meeting today.
Mr. Boyd said it seem this would be a good source of money for things like additional
appropriations for the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Davis and Mr. Foley said there were some restrictions on
the funds, and Mr. Foley said staff would include that information.
Mr. Rooker noted that in some areas of the country, the seized assets program has been abused.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Rooker moved to approve of the FY 2013 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$12,224,350.45 and to approve appropriations #2013040, #2013041, #2013042, #2013043, #2013044,
#2013045, #2013046, #2013047, #2013048 and #2013049 to provide funds for various local government
and school projects and programs as described. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2013040 3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 220,590.58 App Fund Balance
2013040 3-1000-33000-333000-330020-1005 3,660.30 Pass Through Revenue (DSS)
2013040 4-1000-12010-412010-312391-1001 17,100.00 Citizen Survey
2013040 4-1000-12040-412040-601200-1001 2,417.31 Books and Subscriptions
2013040 4-1000-12200-412200-312701-1001 15,800.00 data process consultants
2013040 4-1000-31013-431010-690010-1003 62,897.69 Traffic safety programs
2013040 4-1000-31013-431010-800100-1003 10,597.00 Machinery & Equipment
2013040 4-1000-32015-432010-800120-1003 12,350.00 Equipment/materials
2013040 4-1000-32020-432020-392000-1003 67,614.88 Contractual services
2013040 4-1000-42040-442040-390001-1004 2,700.00 Contract Services Keene Landfill
2013040 4-1000-43205-482040-301210-1004 14,825.00 Contract Services
2013040 4-1000-43207-443200-600700-1004 1,349.00 Repair and Maintenance Supplies
2013040 4-1000-53011-453010-312210-1005 7,000.00 Contract services
2013040 4-1000-53011-453010-800200-1005 9,600.00 Furniture and Fixtures
2013041 3-1234-51000-351000-510100-9999 46,383.53 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 3-1234-24000-324000-240403-1003 10,000.00 Aid - State
2013041 3-1234-15000-315000-150101-9999 100.00 Interest
2013041 4-1234-22010-422010-320000-1002 18,483.53 Temporary Help
2013041 4-1234-22010-422010-550100-1002 15,000.00 Travel/Training
2013041 4-1234-22010-422010-600100-1002 3,000.00 Office Supplies
2013041 4-1234-22010-422010-800200-1002 7,500.00 Furniture/Fixtures
2013041 4-1234-22010-422010-800700-1002 12,500.00 ADP Equipment
2013041 3-1235-51000-351000-510100-9999 235.70 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 3-1235-24000-324000-240403-1003 50.00 Aid - State
2013041 3-1235-15000-315000-150101-9999 5.00 Interest
2013041 4-1235-39000-439000-580905-1003 290.70 State Seizures
2013041 3-1236-51000-351000-510100-9999 58,050.82 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 3-1236-24000-324000-240403-1003 15,000.00 Aid - State
2013041 3-1236-15000-315000-150101-9999 140.00 Interest
2013041 4-1236-39000-439000-580905-1003 73,190.82 State Seizures
2013041 3-1238-51000-351000-510100-1003 3,825.71 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 3-1238-24000-324000-240403-1003 4,000.00 Aid - State
2013041 3-1238-15000-315000-150101-1003 50.00 Interest
2013041 4-1238-31013-431010-800100-1003 7,875.71 Machinery & Equipment
2013041 3-1523-33000-333000-330033-1003 2,226.28 DOJ - Pass Thru
2013041 4-1523-31013-431010-120000-1003 2,055.97 Overtime
2013041 4-1523-31013-431010-210000-1003 170.31 FICA
2013041 3-1528-33000-333000-330033-1003 7,978.84 DOJ - Pass Thru
2013041 4-1528-39000-439000-560010-1003 7,978.84 Contribution - Other Localities
2013041 3-1576-51000-351000-510100-9999 373.55 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 4-1576-31092-432010-800100-1003 373.55 Smoke Detector Grant
2013041 3-1583-33000-333000-330103-1004 71,593.10 Federal Block Grant
2013041 4-1583-43007-443200-510140-1004 33,789.10 Energy Efficiency (EE) Programs
2013041 4-1583-43007-443200-560421-1004 27,489.17 Community Energy Efficiency (LEAP)
2013041 4-1583-43007-443200-190000-1004 20,394.08 Staff
2013041 4-1583-43007-443200-300205-1004 5,439.75 Admin Services
2013041 4-1583-43007-493010-930009-9999 -15,519.00 Transfer to General Fund
2013041 3-1000-51000-351000-510315-9999 -15,519.00 Tr. From Energy Block Grant
2013041 4-1000-43207-443200-110000-1004 -10,850.75 Salaries - Regular
2013041 4-1000-43207-443200-210000-1004 -830.08 FICA
2013041 4-1000-43207-443200-221000-1004 0.00 Virginia Retirement System
2013041 4-1000-43207-443200-231000-1004 -3,372.50 Health Insurance
2013041 4-1000-43207-443200-232000-1004 -151.00 Dental Insurance
2013041 4-1000-43207-443200-241000-1004 -143.23 VRS Group Life Insurance
2013041 4-1000-43207-443200-270000-1004 -171.44 Worker's Compensation
2013041 3-8405-51000-351000-510100-9999 4,625.00 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 4-8405-93010-493010-930009-9999 4,625.00 Transfer to General Fund
2013041 3-1000-51000-351000-512008-9999 4,625.00 Tr. From FR Cont. Fund
2013041 4-1000-32015-432010-580015-1003 2,850.00 Operations donations
2013041 4-1000-32015-432010-561415-1003 1,500.00 Child Safety Seat Program
2013041 4-1000-32013-432010-580015-1003 275.00 Fire Prevention donations
2013041 3-8407-51000-351000-510100-9999 1,083.65 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 4-8407-79000-479000-568755-9999 1,083.65 Natural Heritage Committee
2013041 3-8610-51000-351000-510100-9999 15,859.68 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 4-8610-91081-496010-800949-9999 15,859.68 Maintenance Projects
2013041 3-9011-51000-351000-510100-9999 304,244.92 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 4-9011-91000-491000-940080-9999 304,244.92 Belvedere
2013041 3-9200-51000-351000-510100-9999 106,862.60 Appropriation Fund Balance
2013041 4-9200-31013-412560-800500-9999 106,862.60 Police Replacement Vehicles
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
2013042 4-9010-13020-413020-800736-1170 305,175.77 Voting Machine Replacement
2013042 4-9010-21005-421005-331000-2180 58,538.74 Court Facilities Repair and Maint
2013042 4-9010-21005-421005-950301-2180 23,201.83 Old Jail Facility Maint
2013042 4-9010-21006-421005-950135-2110 7,248.06 Court Square Enhancement
2013042 4-9010-31010-431010-800714-3110 290,448.13 Police Technology Upgrade
2013042 4-9010-31010-431010-800733-3110 7,863.75 Police Video Cameras
2013042 4-9010-31029-431010-312405-3110 79,690.00 Police Firing Range
2013042 4-9010-32010-432010-800317-3140 16,015.49 Mobile Data Computers
2013042 4-9010-32020-432020-950360-3140 628,781.00 VFD-Stony Point Engine 61
2013042 4-9010-32021-432010-312350-3140 75,759.17 Ivy Fire Station
2013042 4-9010-41000-481020-950110-1240 196,323.12 Records Management
2013042 4-9010-41023-441200-312350-9999 61,425.84 Crozet Streetscape Ph II
2013042 4-9010-41026-441200-800960-9999 35,231.74 Street Lights
2013042 4-9010-41350-441200-950510-9999 11,012.68 Sidewalk, South Pantops
2013042 4-9010-41350-441200-950511-9999 70,992.22 Sidewalk, Avon Street
2013042 4-9010-41350-441200-950514-9999 291,350.91 Sidewalk, Crozet Ave North
2013042 4-9010-42043-442040-950059-1210 100,000.00 Keene Landfill
2013042 4-9010-43100-443200-800666-9999 27,365.79 Public Works Fac Maint
2013042 4-9010-43100-443200-950103-1100 305,753.45 COB Brick Repointing
2013042 4-9010-43100-443200-950169-9999 90,625.00 Roadway Landscape Program
2013042 4-9010-43100-443200-950222-4400 32,940.00 Health Department
2013042 4-9010-71020-471020-800949-7100 54,273.09 Parks and Rec Maintenance
2013042 4-9010-71020-471020-950074-7100 2,030,000.00 Parks and Rec YMCA Contribution
2013042 4-9010-71020-471020-950202-7100 14,577.00 Crozet Greenways
2013042 4-9010-72030-471010-950026-7100 21,167.11 Tourism-Greenway Program
2013042 4-9010-72030-471010-950177-7270 1,117.00 Tourism- Byrom Park
2013042 4-9010-72030-471010-950233-7280 6,659.76 Tourism-Preddy Creek Park
2013042 4-9010-81010-481020-950147-1240 372,836.86 GIS Project
2013042 4-9010-81010-481020-950178-1240 8,339.32 City View Project
2013042 4-9010-81110-481020-950550-1240 1,185,000.00 Places 29 Master Plan
2013042 4-9010-81110-481020-950560-1240 108,731.45 Pantops Master Plan
2013042 4-9010-81110-481020-950565-1240 50,000.00 Rivanna Master Plan
2013042 4-9010-81110-499900-999999-9999 50,239.61 Contingency Funds
2013042 4-9010-94160-494070-312350-7140 130,429.43 Crozet Library
2013042 3-9010-51000-351000-512055-9999 64,596.33 Proffer, Avon Park
2013042 3-9010-41000-341000-410500-9999 97,967.00 Loan Proceeds
2013042 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 6,586,549.99 App Gen. Gov't. CIP Fund Balance
2013042 4-8534-93010-493010-930010-9999 64,596.33 Avon Park-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
2013042 3-8534-51000-351000-510100-9999 64,596.33 Avon Park Fund Balance
2013044 4-9100-82040-482040-800975-9999 1,437,569.71 Stormwater Control Improvement
2013044 4-9100-82062-482040-312353-9999 2,000.00 Downtown Crozet Wetlands Project
2013044 4-9100-82062-482040-800605-9999 78,423.62 Downtown Crozet Wetlands Project
2013044 4-9100-82060-482040-800605-9999 52,255.07 Woodbrook Lagoon Improvement
2013044 3-9100-51000-351000-510100-9999 1,570,248.40 Stormwater Fund Balance
2013045 4-9010-81010-481020-580409-1240 30,825.00 ACE
2013045 3-9010-24000-324000-240125-1170 11,200.00 Reimbursement SBE
2013045 4-9010-13020-413020-800738-1170 62,000.00 Voter Pollbooks
2013045 4-9010-73025-473010-800949-7146 -51,200.00 Maint-Central Library
2013045 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 30,425.00 App Gen. Gov't. CIP Fund Balance
2013046 4-1000-32012-432010-550100-1003 3,325.00 Travel/Training/Education
2013046 4-1000-32015-432010-550100-1003 1,400.00 Travel/Training/Education
2013046 4-1000-32015-432010-311000-1003 7,200.00 Health Services (Physicals)
2013046 4-1000-32015-432010-120000-1003 14,625.00 Overtime Wages
2013046 4-1000-32015-432010-210000-1003 1,119.00 FICA (for OT impact)
2013046 4-1000-32015-432010-360000-1003 500.00 Advertising
2013046 4-1000-32015-432010-510300-1003 351.00 Water & Sewer Services
2013046 4-1000-32015-432010-600500-1003 250.00 Laundry/Janitorial Sup.
2013046 4-1000-32015-432010-601100-1003 13,500.00 Uniforms & Apparel:
2013046 4-1000-99900-499000-999974-9999 -42,270.00 Grants Leveraging Fund
2013046 3-1595-33000-333000-330042-1003 315,860.00 FEMA - GRANT
2013046 4-1595-32015-432010-110000-1003 224,374.00 SALARIES-REGULAR
2013046 4-1595-32015-432010-210000-1003 17,165.00 FICA
2013046 4-1595-32015-432010-221000-1003 31,390.00 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYS.
2013046 4-1595-32015-432010-231000-1003 30,353.00 HEALTH INSURANCE
2013046 4-1595-32015-432010-232000-1003 1,359.00 DENTAL INSURANCE
2013046 4-1595-32015-432010-241000-1003 2,670.00 VRS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE
2013046 4-1595-32015-432010-270000-1003 8,549.00 WORKER'S COMPENSATION
2013046 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 21,600.00 App Fund Balance
2013046 4-9010-32010-432010-601104-3140 12,000.00 Turnout gear - Fire Rescue
2013046 4-9010-32021-432010-601104-3140 9,600.00 Turnout gear - Ivy (FEMA & Vols)
2013047 4-1000-32020-432020-601100-1003 36,000.00 Uniforms & Apparel
2013047 4-1000-32020-432020-311000-1003 9,600.00 Health Services
2013047 4-1000-99900-499000-999990-9999 -45,600.00 Reserve for Contingencies
2013047 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 57,600.00 App Fund Balance
2013047 4-9010-32021-432010-601104-3140 57,600.00 Turnout gear - Ivy
2013049 3-4100-51000-351000-510100-9999 26,844.00 App fund balance
2013049 4-4100-31041-435600-540000-1003 7,120.00
2013049 4-4100-31041-435600-800712-1003 19,724.00
2013043 4-9000-69980-464600-301210-6301 2,860.07 School CIP Maint-Albemarle High
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
School
2013043 4-9000-69985-466730-800605-6102 34,400.00 Brownsville Elementary
2013043 4-9000-69980-464600-800665-6103 4,282.54 School CIP Maint-Crozet Elementary
2013043 4-9000-69980-464600-800949-6599 88,345.14 School CIP Maintenance-General
2013043 4-9000-69980-464600-301210-6522 8,999.33 School CIP Maint-VMF
2013043 4-9000-69985-466730-312350-6104 320,498.89 Greer Elementary Phase 2
2013043 4-9000-69985-466730-800200-6104 204,939.20 Greer Elementary Phase 2
2013043 4-9000-69985-466730-800605-6104 235,780.43 Greer Elementary Phase 2
2013043 4-9000-69985-466730-999999-6104 266,253.00 Greer Elementary Phase 2
2013043 4-9000-69990-468300-800700-6599 1,017.88 Instruction Technology
2013043 3-9000-69000-351000-510100-6599 1,167,376.48 Approp Fund Bal
2013048 3-3000-63000-333000-330650-6599 2,500.00 HUSSC Monetary Awards
2013048 4-3000-63000-465101-601300-6106 250.00 Meriwether Lewis - Ed/Rec Supplies
2013048 4-3000-63000-465101-600220-6107 1,000.00 Red Hill - Student Snacks/Meals
2013048 4-3000-63000-465101-600220-6106 250.00 Meriwether Lewis - Student
Snacks/Meals
2013048 4-3000-63000-465101-601300-6107 1,000.00 Red Hill - Ed/Rec Supplies
_________________
Recess. At 11:28 a.m., the Board recessed, and then reconvened at 11:36 a.m.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 14. VDoT Quarterly Report, Joel DeNunzio.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio addressed the Board, stating that he is now the Acting Residency
Administrator. Mr. DeNunzio said he has a couple of updates to VDoT’s monthly report that the Board has
already received. VDoT will start its third and final round of mowing in mid-October, beginning with the
primary roads under contract and then VDoT crews mowing the secondary routes. The July storm
cleanup was completed in mid-September, with significant damage especially in the southern area of the
County. Mr. DeNunzio said that the Charlottesville residency spent about $1.6 million in cleaning up
debris, for all four counties that they oversee – specifically in the Scottsville area, they spent $600,000 just
for the Keene area.
He reported that last week VDoT installed a berm on Rio Road, where there was a drainage
issue. Mr. DeNunzio said VDoT has been receiving complaints about the Route 250/Route 20
intersection, and crews are going to check the signal out there. This has consistently been a problem
area, but VDoT is working on changing the lane configuration coming out of Riverside Drive, so there
would be two left turn lanes and a through right – which they hope will alleviate some of the Riverside
traffic going into the City during rush hour.
Mr. Boyd said that he goes through that intersection, and it would help. Mr. DeNunzio said VDoT
is going to change the paving markings, which is an easy fix, and want to change the traffic signal heads –
which is more difficult because of funding.
Ms. Mallek suggested changing the existing left turn light into the center, and make a sign that
indicates it is for both lanes. Mr. DeNunzio explained that the requirements are that you must have a
signal for both lanes on the side streets, and even on the through lanes you must have a minimum of two
signals.
Ms. Mallek said that in other states there is a pole on the corner, and everybody figures it out.
Mr. Boyd said what throws him at the intersection are the number of people that come down that
way from State Farm, and he does not know why they do not go straight out to Route 250.
Mr. Snow commented that making a left turn onto Route 20 when heading east on Route 250, a
U-turn is allowed, and a lot of people have complained to him about how hazardous this is and how much
it slows traffic down. Mr. DeNunzio said that the U-turn must yield to right-turning traffic.
Mr. Boyd said the traffic normally does not yield even though it says to do so. Mr. Snow
suggested eliminating the U-turn option to improve traffic flow. Mr. Boyd added that when the traffic does
yield, it backs up the left turn lanes. Mr. DeNunzio said he will ask VDoT officials to look at it.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that he has received the Route 2708 traffic report. The right of way is
owned by Walton Middle School so they will need to get a right of entry there. He said VDoT is also going
to increase the size of the signs and put flashing beacons on the Route 20 approaches; they are seeking
safety improvement funds for the projects. He added that he does not think with the accident report that
VDoT should have any issue getting the funding. Mr. DeNunzio said VDoT would begin immediately with
clearing the site distances, and the flashing beacons would be done a little bit later.
_____
Mr. Dumler asked what the process is for finding what the target areas are for guardrails along
Route 20.
Mr. DeNunzio responded that he and the traffic engineer would look at the accident data along
there and the likelihood of someone going down an embankment and hitting a tree versus hitting the
guardrail – because the guardrail is still a hazard. He said that he is going out onsite to do his own review.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Dumler commented that there does not seem to be a system in place for gathering accident
data electronically, so he has been going through the reports manually. Mr. DeNunzio said that VDoT
does have a database that keeps all of that data, and he could get the report from them.
_____
Mr. Dumler asked about the two different statuses given for Fortune Lane. Mr. Snow said he has
the same question.
Mr. DeNunzio said that residency staff reviewed that on Friday and the district staff reviewed it on
Monday, and he was meeting with them onsite after the Board meeting. He has the same concerns and
hope they can come up with a solution this afternoon. He added that when VDoT moves forward with
these other rural rustic roads, they are not going to let these issues happen. He added that his concern is
with the rip rap and very deep ditches, which need to be removed from the road along with getting the
paved surfaces as wide as possible so people can pass.
_____
Mr. Dumler asked if the engineering study recommending signing adjustments for Route 250, east
of Shadwell, has anything to do with Luck Stone. Mr. DeNunzio said he has to get back to the Board on
that issue.
_____
In terms of the Black Cat Road bridge, Mr. Boyd said that the Board is in the process of revising
the request to VDOT to put no through trucks on the road, and given the success of that the Board might
want to reconsider the request of the width of the bridge.
Ms. Mallek said that the bridge in the packet is at least as big as the one in Advance Mills, with
two full travel lanes and a three-foot pedestrian bike lane on each side.
Mr. Boyd stated that the recommendations were for five feet.
Mr. DeNunzio said that the shoulder width on the bridge – both at Advance Mills and at Black Cat
Road – does accommodate bicycles and pedestrians; however, that is not necessarily its only intention as
the bridge standards provide that the width of bridge between the parapet walls should be the same width
as the roadway with the shoulders. He does know that the request has been received to make the bridge
as narrow as possible, but does not know the status.
Mr. Boyd stated that one main concern from the community is they do not want the chain-link
fence, but would rather have something like what was used at Advance Mills. Mr. DeNunzio responded
that because the bridge goes over the railroad, they are required to have fencing like that.
Mr. Rooker said that the design for the Broomley Bridge does not have that, and people generally
do not want that because it is an eyesore and looks institutional. Mr. DeNunzio stated that he would look
into it.
Mr. Boyd said that given the possible success of the no-through trucks, the neighborhood would
be okay with wider pedestrian and bicycle paths if that is a standard.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that in order to accommodate the request to reduce the shoulders, VDoT
would have to get a design exception to the roadway and bridge – which would have to be approved by
the State Location and Design Engineer in Richmond. It is one of the 13 factors that need a design
exception.
Mr. Boyd said that the whole idea behind that was to restrict through truck traffic, but if the County
can address that through signage the neighbors would be okay with a wider bridge.
Mr. Davis noted that there is no guarantee that the no truck traffic restriction would even be
approved, as there are some minimum criteria for threshold consideration.
Ms. Mallek said that the other question is whether there are really five-foot shoulders on the road.
Mr. DeNunzio responded that perhaps not on the existing road, but when the road is rebuilt on the
approaches to the bridge you meet the current standard for shoulder width.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is appropriate level terrain for it to remain. Mr. DeNunzio said that he
would talk to the location design staff and the bridge engineer to let them know a wider bridge is desired if
truck traffic is restricted, and a narrower bridge is desired if it is not.
Ms. Mallek asked about the timetable on the CTB decision.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Transportation Engineer, said that he spoke with VDoT Project Manager, Brian
Arnold, and based on the comments they received at the public hearing, they were requesting an
exception from the State Bridge Engineer to allow the two 11-foot lanes with a three-foot separation
between the lanes and the parapet wall. On the approaches to the bridge, he said, VDoT would grade the
shoulders at five feet but set the guard rail at three feet from the edge of the pavement so there would be
a three-foot shoulder.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Ms. Mallek asked what the timeframe would be for the restriction process. Mr. Kelsey responded
that he does not know because he has never done one before. As far as the Office of Facilities
Development taking on these responsibilities they are guessing 40-80 hours to get through the process.
Mr. Boyd said that he understood that the citizens would need to petition the Board before they
could move forward.
Ms. Mallek said that part of the process should be quick.
Mr. Davis stated that it is the Board’s policy that requires that type of initiation, with the reason
being it wanted to make sure it had the entire community behind it before undertaking the process. The
rest of the process really depends on the amount of public participation anticipated. He said that there is a
requirement to have an advertised public hearing and a resolution adopted by the Board making the
request. There are certain findings that have to be made regarding the minimum number of residential
homes on the road, an alternative for the trucks to travel if this is restricted, and ultimately a resolution
from the Board requesting it – with that record transmitted to VDoT along with a transcript of the public
hearing. It is then in VDoT’s hands as far as how long it would take them to approve or deny it.
Ms. Mallek said that it also has to go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Davis
responded that it is reviewed by CTB staff, and in some instances, if it is a secondary road, it can be
administratively approved. He said that his understanding has been that VDOT usually takes these before
the CTB.
Mr. Boyd said it seems the Board has already taken the first step as far as being requested by the
community to do something.
Mr. Davis said that if the Board is comfortable that it expresses the majority opinion on that road, it
can certainly move it forward without that citizen process – but that is contrary to Board policy in the past.
Ms. Mallek stated that if the Board is kicking it back just to get a petition that could be done
quickly.
Mr. Rooker said that the problem is that the design of the bridge may depend on whether or not
truck traffic can be removed, so the bridge is essentially being held up for the decision on that. He noted
that the restriction is just on through truck traffic, not emergency or service truck traffic. He added that he
cannot imagine it would not satisfy the requirements.
Ms. Mallek commented that she hoped there were enough houses along there.
Mr. Davis explained that under the VDoT criteria, there must be at least 12 dwellings combined on
both sides within 150 feet of the roadway centerline per 1,000 feet of roadway. That may be a close call
out there, but he is not sure.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem scheduling a town hall meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that it might be good to confirm whether it can satisfy the physical requirements.
Mr. Thomas asked if tractor trailer traffic is restricted, would that also mean horse trailer traffic.
Ms. Mallek said that would be considered local traffic.
Mr. Kelsey emphasized that you do have to be careful, because if you say the restriction is for
“trucks,” there is a different definition for that – and it could mean you are restricting vehicles you did not
intend to restrict. He said that some of it refers to gross vehicle weight.
Mr. DeNunzio said that if you restrict trucks, according to the Virginia Code you are restricting all
trucks that are meant to carry goods on their frame over 7,500 pounds. He stated that the Code of
Virginia that talks about restricting through trucks on roadways may apply to truck, truck and trailer, or
semi-trailer combinations. It is his understanding that you can actually restrict certain trucks based on
those definitions.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Kelsey to check into the requirements so they can get the process going.
_____
Mr. Boyd said that his second item of concern is a reference in the VDoT report to “the widening
of Route 29 from Ashwood Boulevard to the Hollymead Town Center,” and asked why it was not written
from Polo Grounds Road.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that he would look into it. His understanding is that initially the project for
the six lanes of Route 29 was to be from Polo Grounds to Hollymead – but it has been adjusted it to be
from Ashwood. It is also his understanding that the six lanes from Polo Grounds up to Ashwood, is being
considered to be put into the Western Bypass project. He added that the widening would essentially be
accomplished through a combination of the two projects.
Mr. Rooker said that they kind of messed around with it in the RFP for the bypass – they had it in,
then they took it out – and the Jack Jouett Committee raised the issue. He stated that the Skanska design
does not show widening through there, and it also does not show any change in the geometry of the road
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
through there – which is a major issue. It almost appears that the flyover lane is coming in as the third
lane on Route 29; it does need to be addressed.
Mr. Boyd said that is why he brought it up.
_____
Mr. Boyd also asked about the Brock’s Mill Road rural addition. Mr. DeNunzio responded that he
and Mr. Kelsey need to meet and talk about the scope of the survey. That project is rural addition so the
County is responsible for acquiring the right of way. Because they are going off the centerline of the road,
it will need to be surveyed.
Mr. Boyd noted that the money the County has set aside for it is enough to cover it.
Mr. DeNunzio said his intent is to have this as a “no plan project”.
_____
Mr. Boyd asked about the McIntire Road Extended completed construction date of 6/10/13, and
assumed that was just the bridge.
Mr. DeNunzio explained that it is the phase from Melbourne Road to the bridge, about four-tenths
of a mile before reaching McIntire Road or the bypass there. The interchange is actually a City project.
Mr. Boyd asked how this was matching up with the City’s work, as they have not even decided on
a design yet.
Mr. Rooker said that VDoT obviously has an interest in seeing those projects coordinated so they
get completed in reasonably close proximity, otherwise there is a road that just ends.
Mr. DeNunzio explained that it is his understanding that the City’s plan is to advertise the
interchange project this fall. He said that the bridge would traverse the creek there and is not part of the
interchange.
Mr. Boyd asked if the completion date of June 10, 2013 means the portion of the road would be
done by then. Mr. DeNunzio said it does mean that portion of the road is expected to be done.
Mr. Rooker said that hopefully VDoT is pushing to try to coordinate and get those things done
simultaneously and not too far apart, otherwise you have a lot of money invested in a section of road that
does not have any outlet. He stated that they need to make certain they are far enough along on the
project that the money is not subject to being raided.
Mr. Thomas asked if Senator Warner said anything about the money being pulled. Mr. Boyd
responded that he is out of the loop now, but he did not say anything to that effect.
Mr. Rooker said that until you reach a certain point in a project where money has been committed,
projects are subject to being canceled and the money goes unspent. He stated that with this project they
are in the process and they have acquired right of way, and they condemned a corner lot, but there is a
point where an earmark will not be pulled.
Mr. DeNunzio responded that he thought they have been acquiring the right of way, because the
house that got hit by a car in the last few months was owned by the City at that point. He said that he
would request information and get that back to the Board.
_____
Mr. Snow thanked Mr. DeNunzio for coming, stating how helpful it was to have information
presented.
_____
Ms. Mallek said she has a technical question about how things are “falling off the rails” with speed
studies, because the most recent one – Greenwood Station Road – has the roads outside the village at 25
mph, and they asked to have the speed reduced in the village but VDoT decided to keep it at 40 mph. Ms.
Mallek said people are going 50 mph, and the houses are five feet from the road, and this is the fourth or
fifth issue like this where the people are blown off when requesting a change. She asked for help to
understand what is going on.
Mr. DeNunzio said that VDoT does get a lot of speed study requests, and when they get them
they do not always have a solid scope of understanding as to what the issues are – so they go out and do
speed studies then come back with a recommendation. He stated that he is working at making some
changes, so they can better coordinate these requests and get a full understanding of what the issues are.
Sometimes the actual issues are not solved by a speed study or changing the speed limits. Mr. DeNunzio
said that VDoT is really looking at making Greenwood Station more pedestrian friendly, and in looking at
that he is having someone review the speed limit decision because the report he saw indicated that the
speed limit had been a statutory 55 mph lowered to 40 mph.
Ms. Mallek commented that she has a problem with the “85th percentile rule” because people look
at the sign and end up going faster. The County needs to make a standard that puts safety of residents
first.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Rooker said that the problem with the 85th percentile rule is that people look at the speed limit
and decide to drive five miles over it. It almost has nothing to do with safety. He noted that on Hydraulic
Road where it is four lanes with bike lanes and sidewalk the speed limit is 35 mph – but when you cut
down the hill toward the reservoir where it is two lanes and hilly, it becomes 45 mph.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that the reason VDoT uses the 85th percentile rule is that VDoT studies show
that people are more likely to drive a speed they are comfortable with on a road based on the road
conditions versus the posted speed. He added that pedestrian traffic may have played a part in the 35
mph speed on Hydraulic Road.
_____
Mr. Boyd brought up the issue of the traffic light at Polo Grounds and Route 29, and said he spoke
with Mr. Jim Utterback about “intelligent traffic lights” but he said that would not work there because the
data needs to build up over time. He said that something needs to be done there though, because the
traffic problem there does need to be addressed.
Mr. Rooker suggested having the In-Synch representatives come to a Board meeting, or call them
directly, because it is his understanding that it is a system that continually adjusts based on the existence
of traffic on the main road and side roads by the camera input.
Mr. Boyd said that the traffic is mostly associated with the soccer traffic being let out, especially
when there is a storm and everyone leaves at the same time. The people are also concerned about the
one-lane bridge going the other way on Polo Grounds Road under the railroad. He stated that if you are
going west on Polo Grounds and the soccer fields letting out, you could be there a long time waiting for the
line of cars.
Mr. DeNunzio said that the intelligent lights control more along the corridor, not in a single light
application; it controls the flow on the corridor as platoons and allows the side streets to change their
phasing and no longer has to go sequentially. He will make a request that the traffic engineers take a look
at the area as there may be other traffic solutions.
Mr. Boyd stated that there are also no stop signs coming out of the SOCA fields, but it is a private
road so he is not sure what VDOT can do, if anything.
Mr. DeNunzio said that VDoT does not put stop signs on private roads normally, but it is state law
to yield to traffic when you enter a state highway.
_____
Mr. Rooker said that he has spoken a number of times about mowing and maintenance issues,
and the mowing never took place along Hydraulic Road. The grass is growing through the sidewalk so he
knocked it down by hand with a stick. He said that VDoT did not spray all summer to kill weeds in the
sidewalks, but things are dying back naturally now. It is really disappointing in the County’s entrance
corridors.” Mr. Rooker stated that someone finally cut the grass along Berkmar Drive, but it was one of
the worst jobs he has ever seen, with very uneven cutting.
Mr. Thomas agreed that it was a really bad job.
Mr. DeNunzio said that the only certified sprayer they have is in the Madison County area
headquarters, and so he requested that they cut instead. He will take another look at this.
Mr. Rooker also noted that the area across from Woodburn Road, just south of there is a bus stop
where the growth is so heavy people cannot stand off of the road to wait for the bus. These things have
not been addressed and need to be.
_____
Mr. Rooker said he would like to get an idea on the timing of the BestBuy ramp project, as
Stonefield will be opening some stores in November. Two years ago it was turned over the VDoT and
they said they could move forward with it in a hurry – the widening from Hydraulic Road south – and he
would like to know what the schedule is for the BestBuy project.
Mr. Thomas said it was supposed to move forward in 2014, but they have moved some of the
proffers around.
Mr. Rooker said that was because the City delayed so long, and if it had moved forward
expeditiously with the plans for that project, it would have gotten $1 million and it would have been a done
deal. He said that he thinks the money is covered, but this is obviously a very important project.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that they are scheduled for a design public hearing on the project in
November 2012, with the advertisement date of November 2014 and construction probably beginning in
spring 2015.
Mr. Benish said that the project is funded, and they used revenue sharing to cover the costs.
Ms. Mallek asked what happens in the 24 month time frame, after the public meeting.
Mr. DeNunzio responded that typically VDoT schedules 24 months for right of way acquisition. He
said that he is not sure what the extent of it is in that area or whether it might be possible to move the
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
advertisement date up. He said that after the design public hearing they move to design approval and
take that information back, then they will work on right of way plans based on the approved design. Mr.
DeNunzio said that once that is done, the right of way division begins to acquire the right of way.
Mr. Rooker said that what he has trouble with is understanding how a bypass at $250 million and
six bridges can be moved forward faster than a one-mile project with no right of way. He added that
everybody supports this project and wants to see it done and reasonable speed to move it forward is not
being shown.
Mr. DeNunzio responded that he would look into why the date was set, adding that his
understanding was that Mr. Brent Sprinkel said the project was $700,000 short.
Mr. Foley said that he and Ms. Mallek have met with a smaller group about this, including Mr.
Utterback and Mr. Sprinkel, and it seems like a good idea for everybody to get connected on the timeline.
He stated that the issue about funding is being resolved, as there was a challenge to that which Mr.
Sprinkel and Mr. Utterback know about.
Mr. Rooker said it has been known for over a year that the developer had decided to do the other
improvements at the intersection on Hydraulic Road and Route 29 first. He stated that part of the issue
with this is there are neighborhoods in the City that are really concerned about the potential for cut-through
traffic, and the closing of North Berkshire Road wreaked havoc. If the project starts getting delayed, there
is increased pressure to start closing roads in the neighborhoods. He does not want to see that happen.
_____
Mr. Rooker asked for an accident report for Route 29 in the County from county line to county line
– from Nelson to Greene – as the last one he has is from 2005-07. He would also like to get the report for
Hydraulic Road and Rio Road.
Mr. DeNunzio said that there is an internal VDoT report, and it does not necessarily have the
police report information – but does include property damage, injury and fatality information.
_____
Mr. Rooker stated that at Roslyn Ridge Road, which is where he lives, the pavement is separating
right down the middle of the road. He said that he previously spoke to Mr. Alan Sumpter and Mr. Jamie
Glass who said they would take care of it and while it is okay now, as winter comes it will continue to break
up. It is a state maintained road. He asked if VDoT could look into that issue.
_____
Mr. Rooker said that in the VDoT report the Broomley Road Bridge public hearing is scheduled for
October 30, and he wants to make sure that is an actual date. Mr. DeNunzio said he would look into it, but
it should be the set date. He will confirm that information with Mr. Rooker. Mr. Rooker also asked for the
location of the public hearing.
Board members thanked Mr. DeNunzio for his report and for answering questions.
_____
Mr. Benish mentioned that the County had been contacted about maintenance on Brown’s Gap
Turnpike, which is the road that provides access near the headquarters by the Doyle’s River up to the
National Park. He said that a resident has requested permission to do the work himself, and the result of
that request is that VDoT would be doing that maintenance work.
Mr. DeNunzio commented that it is Route 629.
Ms. Mallek said there were major washouts and major equipment required there.
Mr. DeNunzio agreed, stating that they need to replace a culvert. He commented that there are
no houses beyond the first one on the right so up to now that is all they had been maintaining. VDoT will
be replacing the culvert and removing the washout issues.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the residents who initiated the request would like to continue the
maintenance work beyond the end of state maintenance, which is in the County right of way. He said that
the state maintenance would be done first, and staff would be coming back to the Board with what the
property owners are proposing.
Mr. Davis said that the property owners would need legal permission from the County to enter into
the County-owned right of way in order to perform maintenance.
Ms. Mallek said that at the end of that road there is no place to turn around or get through to the
Park, and asked if VDOT has considered having it only being used during daylight hours. It is a very
rough track.
Mr. DeNunzio said that he does not recall talking about a turnaround at the end of the state
maintenance, but he would look into it. He asked Mr. Benish what the right of way width was through
there. Mr. Benish responded that it is minimal; there is no room for a turnaround.
Ms. Mallek said that it would probably require a construction easement from the abutting property
owner in order to do the culvert work.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Benish said staff will be coming back to the Board on the next steps in that request.
_____
Mr. Benish clarified that existing funding for the BestBuy ramp is $4.2 million, with $3.5 million
projected to be available in FY14, and $2.7 million of that is federal safety improvement monies. It is
programmed for full funding based on the schedule for construction but it is based on funding being
available in FY2014.
Mr. DeNunzio said that information indicates to him that the schedule is based on when the
funding comes on line, versus right of way. He will confirm that information.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Board needs to make certain that everything possible is being done to
get that project moving forward.
_____
Mr. Foley suggested that the Board take up Item 8.12 from the consent agenda at this time.
Ms. Mallek said that she is meeting with Mr. DeNunzio are meeting tomorrow with representatives
from Culpeper to get more information about the spraying. She suggested that the Board hold off on the
resolution regarding spraying until next week’s meeting.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 15. Black Cat Road (Route 616) Bridge Replacement and Through Truck
Restriction Update.
The following executive summary was received by Board members:
The existing bridge on Black Cat Road (Route 616) constructed and maintained by Buckingham
Branch Railroad, is in substandard condition with a posted weight limit of only three tons. VDOT is making
the necessary improvements to this bridge so that it will be accepted and maintained as part of the State
system. The bridge will be raised up to meet the Railroad’s current standards for vertical clearance from
the tracks and will also be lengthened to allow the Railroad to construct a set of parallel tracks in the
future.
During VDOT’s public hearing and public comment period for this project, a request was made to
consider restricting trucks from using Black Cat Road. At the September 5, 2012 Board meeting, several
residents spoke about the bridge replacement project and prohibiting through truck traffic. The Board
requested that this item be added to the October 3, 2012 meeting agenda and that staff provide an update
on the bridge project and a summary of the process for requesting VDOT to consider a Through Truck
Restriction.
Staff contacted VDOT and prepared a summary of the bridge replacement project status. This
summary is attached (Attachment A).
Staff has reviewed VDOT’s “Guidelines for Considering Requests to Restrict Through Trucks on
Primary and Secondary Highways” (Attachment B), the County’s guidelines for requesting a Through
Truck Restriction (approved by the Board on December 6, 2000), and the files for through truck traffic
restrictions that were requested for Earlysville Road (Route 743) and Routes 22/231. Using this
information, staff has identified the steps involved in the processing of a Through Truck Restriction
request from the initial request by a Resident or Owner’s Association to VDOT’s notification to the County
of its approval or denial of the request. This process is attached (Attachment C).
Office of Facilities Development estimates the entire process for truck restriction requests typically
requires 40 to 80 hours of staff time. These OFD charges will be allocated against “Local Government
Projects” and are not expected to increase the department’s budget.
According to the process required for this to move forward, the request for through truck
restrictions must be initiated by the community. Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed
with identifying a contact person for the residents who are requesting a Through Truck Restriction.
Pursuant to the process, staff will mail the County’s “Through Truck Restriction” letter (Attachment D) to
the contact person explaining the process.
Note: This item was discussed during the above-VDoT report presentation.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 16. FY14 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Participation.
Mr. Benish summarized the following executive summary which provided to Board members:
VDOT has established November 1, 2012 as the deadline for receipt of applications/proposals for
the FY 14 Revenue Sharing Program. VDOT is accelerating its application deadline for its FY14 Program
in order to determine the level of state funds needed to maximize local participation in this program.
Please see the attached August 27, 2012 letter from VDOT for further explanation of this year’s
application process (Attachment A). For FY14, it is anticipated that the Revenue Sharing Program will
potentially match, dollar-for-dollar, up to $10.0 million, a locality’s contribution toward funding
transportation projects. At this time, VDOT does not know what the final allocation for the FY14 program
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
will be. The Board has programmed $1.0 million in the FY 14 CIP budget for the local match for the FY14
Revenue Sharing request.
In the summer of 2012, VDOT awarded the County $1.0 million in FY 13 Revenue Sharing
Program funds. This allocation, along with the County’s match, will be used for the construction of
sidewalk projects identified in the County’s CIP. Those projects are: Crozet Avenue North to Crozet
Elementary School, South Pantops Boulevard and State Farm Boulevard, Barracks Road from City Limits
to the Barracks West Apartments, and Hydraulic Road from Stonefield to Georgetown Road.
County and VDOT staff have met to review the FY14 Revenue Sharing Program requirements
and guidelines, the County’s priority lists of road projects and State priorities for project funding. As a
result of these discussions, staff has determined that the majority of the County’s higher priority projects
are not at a stage where they can qualify for the FY 14 program due to the total cost of the projects, and
the length of time needed to secure funding, and to design and construct the project (i.e. Berkmar Drive
extension, Proffit Road improvements). Staff has identified several potential projects for the FY14
program which are described below:
Enhanced signal synchronization on US 29 north (City Limits to Hollymead)—this project
would install a state of the art signal synchronization system on US 29. At this time, this
improvement is not yet identified in VDOT’s Six Year Improvement Program. While both
County and VDOT staff consider this a good and viable project for funding, the scope,
total cost and overall benefit of such a system upgrade to the corridor is not known at this
time. Also there may be other sources of funding which could be used to implement this
project, such as Highway Safety Program funds. Staff opinion is that this may be a better
candidate project for next year’s (FY15) Revenue Sharing Program request once the
project can be more fully scoped and evaluated. VDOT is now in the process of
developing some preliminary cost estimates that will hopefully be available by the October
3, 2012 meeting.
Construction of sidewalks identified in the Capital Improvements Program —this would
continue efforts to use Revenue Sharing funds to complete sidewalk/pedestrian
improvements in the Development Areas. The recommended projects for funding are
noted below (and on Attachment B):
a. Ivy Road (from the city Limits to UVA Police Offices/Old Kluge Center)
($1,100,000) – This project would provide for sidewalk, bike lanes and drainage
improvements in a highly developed area of commercial and residential
development.
b. Old Lynchburg Road Asphalt Walkway Upgrade (from Region10 Offices to Fifth
Street) ($250,000) – the existing walkway system is incomplete and in disrepair.
The walkway connects Region 10 offices and high density residential areas to
existing bus service of Fifth Street.
c. Rio Road (from Stonehenge to Pen Park Road and Pen Park Road) ($550,000) –
This project would connect sections of sidewalk completed with the Treesdale
affordable housing project to Pen Park, the Catholic School and serve a rapidly
developing area
Although the FY 14 Revenue Sharing Program allows a locality to request matching funds for
maintenance projects, the County has traditionally not funded maintenance projects and has not identified
maintenance projects as an appropriate use of Revenue Sharing funds.
Participation in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program leverages matching funds from VDOT to
advance important transportation projects. The Board has programmed $1.0 million in the FY 14 CIP
budget for the local match for the FY14 Revenue Sharing request (4-9010-41020-441200-950081-9999,
Revenue Sharing Road Program).
Given the uncertainty of enhanced signal synchronization at this time, staff recommends that the
Board approve the County’s application for the FY14 Revenue Sharing Program and request $1.0 million
in matching funds for the construction of sidewalk improvements on Ivy Road (from the city Limits to UVA
Police Offices/Old Kluge Center), Old Lynchburg Road Asphalt Walkway Upgrade (from Region10 Offices
to Fifth Street), and Rio Road (from Stonehenge to Pen Park Road & Pen Park Road).
If the Board approves the County’s participation in the Program, staff will prepare a resolution
required to be adopted by the Board to formally request to participate in the Program for the Board’s
consideration at its November 7, 2012 meeting.
_____
Mr. Benish reported that the Revenue Sharing Program has not changed significantly, although
there are some changes to some projects that are now eligible – as maintenance projects are now eligible
for revenue sharing. He said that the County did not get any information from the Residency office or the
District office as to any need to support funding for maintenance this year, but that could be an option for
future revenue-sharing requests. Mr. Benish noted that although requests are due this year by November
1, a Board resolution is not needed until December 3. He explained that revenue sharing is intended to
supplement funding for projects that are ready to go, and the program is designed in a way that expects
the monies to be expended within a two to four-year window.
Mr. Benish said that one of the challenges staff has in looking at road projects is that there are no
priority projects that are at that stage currently. In FY13 staff did use the funds for sidewalk projects – and
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
$1 million would go towards Crozet and Pantops, along with sidewalk improvements on Barracks Road to
improve access to Barracks West apartments and from Commonwealth Drive to Georgetown Road on
Hydraulic. Mr. Benish stated that he did ask the City if there was any value in revenue sharing for the
BestBuy ramp project, but it did not seem to be necessary because the project was already funded.
He said that regarding the enhanced signalization system, he did not start looking into it until after
the MonU Park approval. The Board expressed interest in addressing that particular intersection – but in
talking with VDoT representatives, there were a number of factors that caused them not to recommend
pursuit of the project at this time. Mr. Benish said that the ACTS system is a pilot system . The Pantops
improvements were a part of a statewide program where they were evaluating 13 different corridors for the
system. He stated that the results from that pilot project are somewhat mixed, and there are some
successful projects like Pantops with one or two others that were marginally successful, and at least one
that was not successful. Mr. Benish said that VDoT felt that it would be more worthwhile to wait until the
pilot project is completed and the results from it were available before moving forward on a project on
Route 29. Route 29 had been considered as part of the pilot project, but due to certain parameters it
ended up not being a good candidate. He stated that one of those factors was volume of traffic, and this
system tends to work better with an inconsistent traffic pattern.
Mr. Rooker said that is exactly what the side roads like Polo Grounds, Hydraulic Road and Rio
Road are experiencing.
Mr. Benish stated that in looking at it as a corridor, VDoT felt it was not a good initial candidate,
but seeing the pilot study results will better inform what corridors the system will work on. He said that the
third issue is that the corridor is subject to a regular review every three years to evaluate the performance
of the system, and the last review was in 2011 with the overall results being that the corridor was
functioning adequately and did not warrant any changes to the timing of the lights. Mr. Benish noted that
there may be lights that are deficient, but in terms of a comprehensive application of this system, VDoT
felt that the US 29 corridor was not functioning bad enough that there would be a good cost benefit from
the program. From a timing standpoint, it did not seem to be a viable project this year.
Mr. Rooker said that while he does not disagree with everything that was said; VDOT had the
system in 12 or 13 locations but they pulled the data out of one. He stated that from a national
perspective, the system has been installed in many places and there are several corridors that seem very
similar to Route 29 where significant reductions in travel time have been achieved. Mr. Rooker said that
the person from In Synch knows the corridor very well and knows the system that is currently in place, and
said that given the system here now the cost would be $30,000-$33,000 per intersection – so 18
intersections, which would include the Whole Foods light and some other off -route intersections – the cost
would be around $600,000. Mr. Rooker said that his concern is that this would be a comparably
affordable project and they could at least get a cost estimate to determine whether it is something they
want to go forward with. This is something that might provide a significant improvement in traffic flow in
the busiest corridor in the County. The County is not bound to do any project until a contract is signed to
do it. He suggested exploring the option, get the cost estimate and then determine whether to move
forward with it.
Mr. Benish said that the cost estimate is $40,000 per intersection for a total of $720,000.
Mr. Rooker responded that that was the original estimate, but there are existing elements in place
that the firm could use so the cost would come down somewhat. He emphasized that it is a dynamic
system that will change the flow based on traffic.
Mr. Snow suggested bringing someone in from the company to answers questions.
Mr. Boyd said it may not be possible to bring him in by November 1.
Mr. Foley said that there is a timing issue for revenue sharing.
Mr. Rooker suggested increasing the revenue-sharing request, because the Board would not be
obligated to use it if it did not go forward with the project – and then prioritize what it has on the list.
Mr. Benish said that localities must prioritize if they do multiple projects, and this application is in
the front end of the budget process so the state can deliberate as to how much to allocate to revenue
sharing.
Mr. Rooker noted that he was not suggesting displacing other priorities, but was suggesting
adding $360,000 or so to the revenue sharing request to see if they get it – then the Board can decide
whether to do the project. The project would be the lowest priority in the request.
Mr. Foley stated that if the Board wants to proceed with this, staff could simply change the request
to $1,360,000, and it would make that the priority to add under what staff has already recommended.
Mr. Boyd said that he was fine with that approach, and Mr. Snow agreed.
Mr. Benish confirmed that he would submit the request November 1 for all four projects, with the
signalization as the last priority at $360,000.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Ms. Mallek said the list also includes Cloverlawn/Harris Teter/Route 250 improvements and states
limited funding. She asked what that means. Mr. Benish said staff has requested reappropriation of
between $50,000 and $100,000 for the OFD staff to work on that project.
Mr. Dumler mentioned that a sidewalk project currently in the plan is the Old Lynchburg Road
project by Region Ten, and in comparing that to the walkways along Mill Creek and Avon Street seems
that it is not as high a priority. He said that the goal would be to extend the sidewalk on the west side,
along Mill Creek South and south of the Southern Parkway where the Mill Creek Industrial Park is – and
putting in crosswalks so the kids can get across the street to school.
Mr. Benish said that staff would see those projects as relatively the same priority. The reason Old
Lynchburg is higher is because it serves Region Ten and a bus stop – and there is a bit of a bias when
there is transit service, but they are seen basically as equal projects so one could be bumped ahead of the
other.
Mr. Dumler stated that he would go with the Mill Creek project based on community feedback he
has been receiving, and it would be another $80,000.
Mr. Boyd suggested bringing this back as a motion in order to change the revenue sharing
request overall.
Ms. Mallek asked what contribution the University is making for the sidewalk on Ivy Road that is
99.9% for the benefit of their businesses and students.
Mr. Benish said that the section would be from the U-Heights entrance to the old Kluge Center,
and at this time they are not contributing any amount, although they had expressed great interest in doing
so. He stated that the focus on their funds and efforts have been within the City section inward to Emmet
Street and the work being done there. Mr. Benish said that they have discussed over the last several
years the possibility of an enhancement grant application for that, but the University’s priorities right now
focus on other sections of Ivy Road.
Mr. Rooker said that the University has kind of pulled back on its plans to improve that area, and
he is not sure why the County is moving forward.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would like to suggest coming back with that pushed further down on
the priority list, so they have more incentive to help out and get it back to the top.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that when he was on the PACC Committee, it used to be an important project
for them.
Ms. Mallek said it seems they are assuming the County is going to do it anyway, without their
assistance.
Mr. Rooker said that UVA had proposed an enhancement project at one time and wanted the City
and County to join in it, but there were other priorities so the County did not go along with it at that time.
He stated that it would be helpful to find out who the projects would serve, and the amount of pedestrian
traffic in that area.
Mr. Benish stated that staff has received a number of requests from students at the University
Village to have access, as they use the commercial areas along the frontage, and the new townhouse
development near the old Kluge Center. He said that a number of cyclists have also made requests for
improvements along the Route 250 West corridor. This improvement was seen as one sidewalk on one
side of the road and wider shoulders for bike lanes. Mr. Benish stated that the University’s position is
similar to that of the County’s several years ago, where priorities have changed. In terms of an
investment, it is not as high a priority any longer.
Ms. Mallek said that means it is not as important to them now as other things.
Mr. Benish said it is one of the major cost projects on this list, so if the Board thinks it is not a
good one to move forward on and they want to vet it with the University more then it may not need to be at
the top of the list.
Ms. Mallek stated that it could cover two or three projects as higher priorities, and encourage
them to join in.
Mr. Rooker said he thought it was part of something larger going on with the University, but it
sounds like just a piecemeal project.
Mr. Benish stated that this project is constrained because the other side is a railroad right of way,
and it is probably going to be difficult to get that, so the landscaping envisioned along that corridor a
number of years ago has been abandoned as a realistic concept. This really is improvements on one side
of the road to allow people to walk along that commercial corridor in the residential areas. He said that the
University sees it as an important entrance corridor from an attractive entrance standpoint, but from an
investment standpoint it is pretty far down on their list.
Mr. Foley asked if the Board wanted to move it down the list or remove it altogether.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Benish said it seems the Board wants to take it off altogether, and staff can reengage with the
University to see if they are interested in this project next year. He said they could retain the Old
Lynchburg project and add the other project from Mr. Dumler, and then could make both requests within
the $1 million already appropriated.
Mr. Foley said staff would bring back the list of options later in the meeting.
_____
In terms of Black Cat Road, Mr. Foley said that staff would look at VDOT requirements and
whether they could be met as a starting point, before they go off to the petition process.
Mr. Boyd said that he would pick up on the petition process and work with the community to get
that done, with the idea of coming back at the November meeting with as much done as possible.
Mr. Kelsey asked if the Board wanted him to relay back to VDOT not requesting the narrower
shoulder width.
Mr. Boyd responded that Mr. DeNunzio clarified it well – it depends on the decision on the through
truck traffic.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks the Board needs to leave it alone because it may not get the truck
restriction.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 17. Charlottesville/Albemarle County Inter-City Leadership Visit.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The County has been approached by a group comprised of several community members and
representatives from the Charlottesville Albemarle Chamber of Commerce regarding an inter-city
leadership visit to Austin, Texas, along with representatives from the City of Charlottesville and the
business community, among others. Several weeks ago the group met with Board Chair Ann Mallek,
County staff and community representatives to present the basic concept of the proposal, including a draft
itinerary, and is now requesting a response from the County as to its participation in the trip.
A complete explanation of why the organizing group selected Austin for the inter-city leadership
visit is attached for the Board’s review, along with a preliminary itinerary (approximately 90% confirmed at
this point). An overview of the justification is below:
“Austin is a community which over the past twenty years has significantly improved its financial
and economic vitality. Although much larger in population than the Charlottesville/Albemarle County
community, Austin has dealt successfully with issues and taken advantage of opportunities that have
much in common with our region. While our community has no desire or aspiration to mirror the
population growth experienced in Austin, we can benefit from learning about how Austin leaders leveraged
their assets and advantages to provide greater prosperity for their citizens.”
Proposed dates for the trip are February 26-28, 2013, with an estimated cost of $1,200 per
person, plus air fare, which is currently approximately $350 for a round-trip. This cost includes hotel
accommodations for two nights, two dinners, two receptions, two breakfasts, two lunches, four breaks and
ten sessions. As staff has previously communicated, the public hearing on the County Executive’s
Proposed FY14 budget is currently scheduled for February 27th, although it could potentially be
rescheduled.
County officials could be subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act for public
meetings if more than two officials from any public body participate and meetings include the discussion of
public business of that public body.
The total budget impact will depend on the number of County representatives that participate.
The cost per person is approximately $1,550, as outlined above. There are adequate funds in the Board of
Supervisors budget to cover the cost of two members if the trip is supported by the Board.
Staff recommends that the Board provide direction regarding the County’s participation in this trip,
including size of the group and whether the group should include staff, if the trip is supported by the Board.
_____
Mr. Foley reported that several weeks ago he and Ms. Mallek met with Mr. George Benford,
representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, and community members, about an inner-city
leadership visit to Austin, Texas. He said that at that time staff told them it would be helpful to get some
more information about the purpose of the trip, and that has been provided to the Board. Mr. Foley stated
that the trip is planned for February 26-28, 2013 and the estimated cost per person is included. There is
one conflict that would need to be changed if the Board wants to move forward with it. He added that
there are sufficient funds in the Board of Supervisors’ budget for two members to go.
Mr. George Benford asked if Board members had any questions.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Rooker asked if members of the City’s staff were going on this trip. Mr. Benford responded
that the City Manager is interested in attending, along with two Council members – which will come before
them in two weeks.
Mr. Boyd said that when he first heard the proposal he was soft on it, but now that he has seen
the agenda he is much more enthusiastic about it.
Mr. Benford stated that the City of Austin has been great to work with, including the Mayor’s office.
They have also received sponsorships for most of the meals to keep costs down – from Virginia National
Bank, Payne Ross and others – and they will continue to do look for additional sponsors.
Mr. Snow asked what could be accomplished there that could not be done through a webinar. Mr.
Benford responded that there is always the camaraderie of being there, working face to face, and talking
about issues. He said that the City of Richmond did this with Austin two years ago and felt the results
were dramatic for them; Chesterfield and Henrico also agreed, because there are many similarities in the
region. Mr. Benford said that the University is very supportive of this program, as is Dr. Friedman at
Piedmont – as there are a lot of similarities between the two cities.
Mr. Snow reiterated why a series of webinars could not be held and made available to the entire
Board. He understands the “fuzzy feelings” people get by meeting face to face.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were representatives from the University and PVCC going on this trip.
Mr. Benford responded that that was his understanding.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to approve participation in the program.
Mr. Snow said he would like to have more discussion. He is not ready to vote.
Ms. Mallek said she is open to more discussion.
Mr. Rooker said that the cost is $1,200 per person plus airfare.
Mr. Benford confirmed the cost as $1,200 plus airfare of about $350 round-trip from
Charlottesville.
Ms. Mallek said that it is important to have a staff component there, if anyone needs to go.
Mr. Rooker stated that the goal here is to garner new ideas for economic development
improvement in the community, and Austin shares some of the same target areas.
Mr. Snow agreed, but said he is not sure why they have to travel to Texas to do this. He said he is
also concerned about the image here that the County is “flush with money.” Mr. Snow stated that there
were cuts in many departments, and when you add the cost of the trip up “it is real dollars.”
Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree, but is trying to understand the cost. He does not think he
would support sending more than two people, if he supports it. He stated that the Board would want to
make sure that the public benefit derived from this is worth the cost of the trip, and he does not see it as a
trip to have four or five people go on.
Mr. Dumler stated that perhaps Board members could contribute a little bit toward the trip. He
agrees with the appearance issue, but thinks Austin is a perfect fit in almost every way for where the
County hopes to go as a community. Again, he thinks it is a worthwhile endeavor.
Ms. Mallek said, except for the million people.
Ms. Mallek also stated that it would be great if some people could go and some back home could
be involved via webinar.
Mr. Benford responded that webinars are not his area of expertise, but he could certainly look into
it.
Mr. Rooker said that the City of Austin does not have a huge incentive to put on seminars for
other communities around the country, and it is a little bit different when someone says they want to come
and visit.
Mr. Snow stated that he would like to know what Richmond gained from this, specifically.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek agreed.
Mr. Benford said that Richmond took 175 people from their community for the event, and a lot of
people gained a lot of different avenues – with some of the City people feeling that they gained more than
Henrico. He said that there were two Supervisors from Chesterfield, two from Henrico, and four City
Council representatives – so in their case it also included civic and business leaders.
Mr. Rooker said the Board wants to think about it a little bit. He added that the Sister City situation
is always a positive experience that is said to “justify the trip,” but he has yet to see any dollars come back
to the community based on those trips.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Benford said that this trip has specific goals that have been targeted, and most of them have a
direct relevance as to what is happening in the County and the City, so they are focusing on the type of
“low-hanging fruit” and ideas they would like to collect and bring back.
Mr. Boyd said that when he first heard about it he was skeptical as well, but what turned him
around was seeing the agenda and the speakers – because there is indeed some value there. He stated
that to him it makes some sense to participate in, and the face to face issue is relevant as well.
Mr. Snow stated that there is Darden Business School right here, and McIntire, and if he could
see some results from the Richmond trip he might feel differently.
Mr. Boyd said it might be difficult to quantify the return on investment.
Mr. Benford said that Austin is very advanced in its use of innovative technology, and that is done
through the University and community college system. The idea is to sit down to talk to people with similar
dynamics that have been successful in things they have done and be able to converse with them.
Mr. Foley stated that the Board has a lengthy closed meeting coming up. Ms. Mallek said the
Board could continue this conversation at the end of the day.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 18. Crozet Library First Floor Space.
Note: Due to time constraints, this item was discussed after lunch.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 19. Closed Meeting.
At 1:28 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss and consider appointments
to specific boards, committees, and commissions; under subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of real
property for a public park because an open meeting discussion would adversely affect the bargaining
position of the County; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal
matters requiring legal advice relating to the negotiation of an agreement for implementing a cooperative
cost recovery program for emergency service transports; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice relating to the coordinated fire and
rescue system ordinance. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:47 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler to certify the closed meeting by a recorded vote
that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from
the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Mr. Boyd
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dum ler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 21. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to that the Board make the following appointments/
reappointments:
appoint Mr. Robert Gest III to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging with said term to expire
March 31, 2013.
reappoint Mr. James H. McGrath III to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging with said term
to expire October 20, 2014.
appoint Mr. Whit Faulconer to the Places 29 Community Advisory Council with said term
to expire January 31, 2014.
appoint Ms. Heather Stokes to the Places 29 Community Advisory Council with said term
to expire January 31, 2013.
appoint Ms. Yris Vaca to the Social Services Advisory Board with said term to expire
December 31, 2015.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 18. Crozet Library First Floor Space.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The Board provided guidance to County staff regarding the size of the new Crozet Library in 2007,
and that direction was reconfirmed on a number of occasions prior to the final design and construction of
the facility which began in June, 2012. In 2007, the Board was presented with several size options,
including building the library to the size required to meet library needs through 2027 based on a method
developed in coordination with the Jefferson Madison Regional Library which analyzed service area for the
library, minimum library standards and the projected population in that service area.
The option to construct a larger building up front assumed the use of some of the resulting space
for complementary activities that would not create impacts to the design/construction project or conflict
with the library’s primary mission until the space is needed for library functions. This approach allowed
the library to consolidate the programming aspects of their function on one floor, which was their
preference, and dedicated the downstairs level to what was identified at that time as a temporary
“community-oriented use”, with the idea that the downstairs space would transition into public meeting
rooms and community space associated with the library when the need arises.
Given the construction savings that were realized by building the necessary square footage
upfront together with the library’s commitment to fund raise approximately $1.6 million to keep the project
close to its original budget, staff recommended and the Board concurred that the building be designed and
built at approximately 23,000 square feet, the size required for a 20 year horizon. This decision included
the understanding that the space beyond what is currently required by the library would be dedicated to a
temporary compatible community-focused use until it is required for library functions. Now that the library
is under construction and is scheduled to be completed in August 2013, staff is actively working on
developing options for use of the available space and is seeking feedback from the Board on guiding
principles and preliminary concepts.
The first floor of the library is comprised of approximately 4,796 gross square feet (gsf) of
available space, and includes restrooms and a 700 gsf entrance/lobby area and windows fronting Crozet
Avenue. The design has the lower level split into a larger tenant area of 1,697 gsf and smaller tenant
space of 1,038 gsf. Staff considers the space, with its visual connection to the street and its co -location
with the library in a prime area of downtown Crozet, to be an important potential catalyst for activity and
vitality in downtown. The space is separately metered for utility usage and billing, and will be finished out
at a basic level.
In order to guide decision making on use of the space, staff has been working within the following
guiding principles:
Create foot traffic/pedestrian activity for downtown Crozet to maximize activity and
revenues for other downtown businesses
Generate enough revenue to at a minimum cover the County’s expense for upfitting the
space to the desired use and to pay ongoing operating expenses (electricity, water, etc.)
Avoid competing with private sector property owners in downtown Crozet
Create a lively street front presence for this important frontage on Crozet Avenue
Insure that all space usage would be compatible with the library’s mission and operations
Maintain flexibility in the space and operate under the understanding that at some point in
the future the space could convert to library usage
Preliminary Concepts
Based on public preferences, the guiding principles mentioned above and staff’s preliminary
analysis, several concepts have been identified for further review and consideration. These uses are not
necessarily mutually exclusive depending on the space that may be needed to effectively support the
particular use.
Tourism support – use at least a portion of the space to market and support the
significant tourism assets that are immediately available in the Crozet and general
western Albemarle County vicinity, including the Blue Ridge Parkway, Shenandoah
National Park, Skyline Drive, Monticello Wine Trail, Monticello Artisans Trail, and the
Brew Ridge Trail. The agreement establishing the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention
and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) mandates that CACVB operate and maintain “at least one
visitor center within the City and at least one visitor center in the County.” Currently there
is not a visitor center in the County, and a location in the Crozet Library could satisfy that
requirement.
Crozet history/heritage – a portion of the space could be used to document and
celebrate the history of Crozet including displays, etc. Several local residents have
already offered to provide artifacts that may be appropriate for some type of historic
function in the building.
Collaborative workspace – many communities are finding ways to offer collaborative
workspace, defined as places where independent workers, small businesses and
corporate workgroups can gather to share ideas, team up on projects and get some work
done. Collaborative workspaces offer casual and flexible workspaces to support
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
freelancers, entrepreneurs and mobile workers among others. UVA’s Open Grounds
facility is a local example of this approach.
Private sector venture – as mentioned, staff has been focused on finding community-
oriented uses like those above to meet the original concept of the space as directed by
the Board in 2007, including not encouraging direct competition with existing commercial
property owners in Crozet. However it is important to note that there have been several
inquiries from citizens and others as to whether the space would be appropriate for a
private sector venture.
Public Engagement
The library is a critical new investment and focal point in downtown Crozet and the use of the first
floor space will have important ramifications for Crozet residents and downtown businesses. Crozet
residents and business owners were invited to a roundtable discussion on September 19, 2012 to hear an
update on the library project and to provide comment on potential concepts and uses for the available
space. There was strong endorsement by those present to continue exploring the tourism,
history/heritage, and collaborative workspace concepts, along with questions from one attendee about the
possibility of renting the space to a private business. This issue has been reviewed with Jeffers on
Madison Regional Library (“JMRL”) Director John Halliday, and JMRL will be kept apprised as the process
moves forward.
The existing Crozet Library (1900 sq ft) is also owned by the County, so a concurrent discussion is
going on regarding possibilities for that space, which is also very central to downtown but has some
significant constraints, including parking and accessibility.
Use of the first floor space is intended to generate enough revenue to at a minimum cover
ongoing operating costs of the first floor space along with costs associated with upfitting the space from its
basic finish to what is required to support the selected use. Those exact costs have not yet been
determined.
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the goals/guiding principles for determining appropriate
uses for the space and direct staff to continue analysis of the tourism support, Crozet history/culture, and
collaborative workspace options described above, with the understanding that additional desirable uses
may emerge from that analysis. A complete recommendation will be brought back to the Board for
discussion and final direction in the spring.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships,
addressed the Board, stating that she and Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of Office of Facilities Development,
were with them to talk about potential uses for the first floor space of the Crozet Library. Ms. Catlin
explained that in 2007, the Board provided guidance to County staff regarding the size of the new Crozet
Library – and at that time the Board was presented with several size options. She said that one of them
was building the size needed for the next five or so years and then adding on as necessary, and another
one was building to the size required to meet needs through 2027 based on methodology done in
cooperation with JMRL. Ms. Catlin stated that the option to construct a larger building up front assumed
the County would use some of the resulting space for a community-oriented use until which time it was
needed by the library for their operations. Approaching it this way, she said, allowed the library to
consolidate the programming part of the library on one floor – which was very important to them – and
dedicate the downstairs level to a temporary community use with the idea that the County would transition
the downstairs space into public meeting rooms and community space associated with the library when
that need arose.
She said that that was the decision that was made given the construction savings realized and the
commitment of the community at that time to fundraise $1.6 million, which was the difference in the
budgets for the two sizes. Ms. Catlin said that the decision was made to go with the 23,000 square foot
size, with the idea that the Board would be looking at this temporary compatible community-focused use.
She stated that the County is now at a point where they need some specificity about what’s appropriate for
the first-floor space. Ms. Catlin explained that the library is right in the bulls-eye with what is happening in
downtown Crozet, and the space has great potential as a focal point and a catalyst for things happening in
downtown. She presented a rendering of what it looks like from the Crozet Avenue view, and there has
been a little bit of change as to the windows in one corner.
Ms. Catlin said that staff has been guided by some over-arching principles in consideration of use
of the space, with the first being to consider a use that will create activity and foot traffic and other things
that will maximize activity and revenues for other downtown businesses. She said the second
consideration was that at a minimum, the space would generate enough revenue to cover the County’s
expense for up-fitting the space to whatever would be required for the use and pay the ongoing operating
expenses of the space – so it would be at least a self-supporting operation. Ms. Catlin stated that there
have been several conversations about the space not being perceived as actively and directly competing
with private sector property owners in downtown Crozet. She said another goal for the space is that there
be a liveliness and dynamic aspect to the space’s use given its location on the street front, and also that
the use be compatible with the library’s mission and operations. Ms. Catlin stated that staff doesn’t know
exactly what the timeframe is, but at some point the use may need to be converting back to a library
usage.
Ms. Catlin reported that the first use that seemed apparent to staff was a tourism gateway use, as
that is an entry point to significant tourism generators such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, Shenandoah
National Park, Skyline Drive, the Monticello Wine Trail, Brew Ridge Trail, the Artisans Trail, the
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Appalachian Trail, etc. She stated that the agreement that created the Charlottesville Albemarle
Convention and Visitors Bureau mandates that the CACVB operate a tourism center in the City and in the
County, and there is currently not a tourism presence in the County after the closing of the site near
PVCC. Ms. Catlin explained that tourism centers around the country have become very dynamic and
energetic places around the country, noting that Asheville offers an onsite concierge service, deals of the
day, an Asheville shop, tickets to attractions, a tour, etc. out of their center. She said that some tourism
centers were becoming very engaged with their artisan scenes and markets, so there is a very natural
partnership with that kind of activity; others are hosting programming, such as a quilt show at a visitors’
center in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Snow asked what the total square footage of the first floor is. Mr. Henry responded that it is a
net 2,700 square feet.
Ms. Catlin said that another use staff felt was important to consider was a historic/cultural kind of
center, as Crozet has a rich background – and a number of residents have stepped forward and said they
have artifacts that they would be willing to display. She stated that staff has also thought about its use as
a collaborative work space, and are seeing it around the country the idea of co-working space. Ms. Catlin
said there were a lot of models for that type of arrangement, with some charging a membership fee for
renting a space or dedicating a space, and some communities have partnered with other organizations to
offer it without a charge. She stated that the number of home-based businesses and entrepreneurs,
which are the people looking for this kind of space, continues to grow.
Ms. Catlin stated that staff has been focused on finding more community-oriented uses, based on
the original charge from the Board given back in 2007, but there have been inquiries as to whether the
space would be appropriate for a private sector or commercial venture.
Mr. Henry reported that he and Ms. Catlin had presented to the Crozet Community Advisory
Council several weeks earlier and received some very positive feedback as to possible uses. He stated
that the lower level was a total of 2,700 square feet, split with an entrance and a vestibule to create two
spaces. Mr. Henry said the larger space – a corner office – is just under 1,700 square feet; the smaller
space is just over 1,000. He presented a picture that showed the lower level and the construction, a photo
taken from Library Avenue looking into the building site, and he emphasized that they have gone vertical
on the project with fairly rapid progression on the overall construction schedule. Mr. Henry said that the
offices spaces would be roughed in as part of the construction contract with MB, and some work will be
needed to finish them off. He stated that the vestibule/lobby areas will be finished and there will be access
via the upper level and the elevator during library business hours.
Ms. Mallek said that the elevator would not be included now. Mr. Henry responded that it’s part of
the contract. Ms. Catlin clarified that it had originally just been the elevator shaft, but now the elevator
itself is also included.
Ms. Mallek commented that it would probably save money in the long run, and Mr. Henry
confirmed that that’s why the decision was made.
Mr. Henry reported that the project is on schedule and the library will be under roof in late January
or early February, with a scheduled opening date of July.
Ms. Catlin said that staff do have established principles that have been guiding the space/use
analysis to this point, and have been focused on community-oriented uses as explained – with the tourism
gateway, the history/cultural center, and the collaborative workspace being the possibilities that have
excited the most interest from the community and from the people who have been putting some of the
work together. Ms. Catlin said staff needed further analysis as to the ultimate feasibility of the uses and
associated costs to keep this from having a revenue impact on the County.
Mr. Rooker asked what kinds of uses were proposed with the private sector inquiries for the
space. Ms. Catlin responded that those inquiries were for the existing library and the new library, and one
of those was for professional office space with the other one for a small commercial art-related venture.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was anything legally that prevented the County from renting that space to
the private sector, because it seems like conflicting objectives to say that the Board wants something that
pays for itself when everything proposed today would be paid for by tax dollars.
Ms. Mallek said that the tenants would be community groups.
Mr. Boyd responded that they are funded by tax dollars.
Mr. Davis stated that for a public building that uses tax exempt bond money, there are certain
restrictions on the amount of the space that can be used for non-public purposes, but he does not think it
would be a problem in this case because of the amount of borrowing that this would include as a package
of projects. He said that the other issue is that you can’t subsidize private sector projects, so it should be
fair market value rent – and then you get into the issue of competing with the private sector, which is a
related concern.
Mr. Rooker said that if you had open space work areas and charged some kind of minimum
membership fee, you would at least generate revenue to cover expenses – and asked if that would be a
permitted use. Mr. Davis responded that if it was operated as a public facility that would provide access
for that purpose, that would be different from renting it to a private entity.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Ms. Catlin said that there are some work space arrangements that are done privately and some
that are done publicly.
Mr. Boyd commented that he sympathizes with the idea of not competing with the private sector,
but he doesn’t know if he’s willing yet to exclude a fair market rental for that property from the options that
are available. He said that he does not see anybody else investing private sector dollars into downtown
Crozet; all of the projects that were shown were tax dollar supported things the County is doing, like
stormwater, streetscaping, and all that kind of stuff.”
Ms. Mallek noted that Claudius Place still has several thousand square feet of available rental.
Ms. Catlin said that one thing staff is considering is something that would stimulate business and
activity for other businesses in the area, with a spillover effect of increasing revenues for private sector
through a public sector use that would create that kind of an activity level.
Mr. Rooker said that he liked the idea of open workspace concept because it brings people in and
allows people who might be driving further to stay in that area, and it provides activity for other businesses
in downtown Crozet.
Ms. Mallek stated that it may be able to evolve, and one thing that had been discussed was to
have the 1,000 square foot part be the place where the open space would start – with the other side being
shared by the tourism gateway, which could be staffed by different groups. She also noted that the
Artisan Center of Virginia had lost their lease for the large retail outfit in Arlington, so there could be a retail
gallery that would carry some of the artisans’ crafts.
Mr. Davis said that the visitors’ center concept could be structured similarly to what the City has
done with its transit station, where there is a significant contribution to the cost of that building that’s
funded through the tourism funds – and that would be revenue to generate the cost recovery that the
County needs for the facility.
Mr. Boyd said that it seemed to be a fine line between competing with the private sector, and he
wouldn’t want to approve a proposal that stipulates only uses that are nonprofit.
Mr. Snow suggested leaving all options open, while pursuing some of the ideas presented.
Mr. Rooker said that a project wouldn’t have to meet every single goal articulated here.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to consider some proposals from the private sector.
Ms. Mallek said that she wouldn’t like to see something like a law office that is competing with
other properties in the neighborhood.
Ms. Catlin responded that staff would want to look at the other principles – liveliness, bringing
people in, and engaging the street – so some of those uses would fall out because they do not do what the
street presence does.
Mr. Foley said that at some point the Board will need to decide how to proceed because staff will
have to work out a lease agreement with the potential tenant, and some work needs to be done to ensure
there is something in there when the library opens next year.
Ms. Mallek commented that she sees nothing wrong with the criteria presented, and said it’s a
great start.
Mr. Rooker then moved to endorse the criteria, recognizing that they are not exclusive. Mr. Snow
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 22. ZTA-212-0009 Site Plan Process Improvements (deferred from September
5, 2012).
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects, summarized the following executive summary that was
forwarded to Board members:
On September 5, 2012, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on ZTA 2012-009,
Site Plan Process Improvements. The Board deferred acting on the ordinance until its October 3, 2012
meeting and asked staff to incorporate some changes to clarify certain provisions of the ordinance. The
ordinance (Attachment A) has been revised to incorporate those changes. Attachment B is composed of
those sections that have been revised, and the revisions are highlighted. An additional public hearing is
not legally required.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
The August 28, 2012 draft of the zoning text amendment has been revised as follows:
Special use permits, special exceptions and variances and their conditions: Sections 3.1
(definition of requirements), 32.4.1.3(a), 32.4.1.4(a), and 32.5.2(a) have been revised to clarify that the
references to special use permits, special exceptions and variances include “and conditions thereof.”
Conditions that must be satisfied before a grading permit may be issued: Sections 32.4.2.2(a) and
(b)(3) have been revised to authorize the site review committee and the ARB to recommend to the agent,
rather than to the program authority, conditions required to be satisfied before a grading permit may be
issued by the program authority. Sections 32.4.2.5(c) and 32.4.2.8(b) and (c) have been correspondingly
revised.
Correction of when grading permit may be issued in a conventional zoning district that is also in an
entrance corridor overlay district: Section 32.4.2.8(b) has been revised to allow a grading permit to be
issued in a conventional zoning district upon approval of the initial site plan, even if the site is also within
an entrance corridor overlay district. The revision removes an inadvertent limitation and treats
conventional and planned development zoning districts the same on this issue.
ARB requirements regarding structures: The August 28, 2012 draft of section 32.4.2.2(b)(1)
authorized the ARB to identify requirements pertaining to the location, configuration, area, and orientation
of structures in its review of initial site plans. Section 32.4.2.2(b)(1) has been revised to authorize the ARB
to identify requirements pertaining to any of the elements in section 30.6.4(c)(2) (the location,
configuration, area, orientation, mass, shape, bulk and height of structures) if it has the information to
evaluate those elements at the initial site plan stage. The revisions to section 32.4.2.2(b)(1) address
questions raised at the September 5, 2012 public hearing as to why the ARB would be authorized to
identify requirements pertaining to certain elements in section 30.6.4(c)(2) but not others. Staff expects
that location, configuration, area and orientation are the elements that the ARB will be able to evaluate at
the initial site plan stage. Those elements are two-dimensional in nature and, therefore, would be shown
on the initial site plan. The ARB could evaluate those elements without the developer providing additional
information. In comparison, the elements of height, mass, shape and bulk are generally three-dimensional
in nature, at least in the context of ARB review. The ARB’s evaluation of those elements would require
more information from the developer than would be available at the initial site plan stage. However, staff
recognizes that height and shape also have two-dimensional qualities that could be evaluated at the initial
site plan stage. Therefore, the revisions to section 32.4.2.2(b)(1) provide the ARB with the flexibility to
identify requirements for any elements if the information is available at that stage.
Expansion of information considered by ARB during its review of the initial site plan: Section
32.4.2.2(b)(2) has been revised to clarify the information considered by the ARB during its review of the
initial site plan to include not only the plan itself, but other information provided by the developer as part of
its initial site plan application.
ARB recommendations: Section 32.4.2.2(b)(3) has been revised to clarify the ARB’s authority to
make recommendations, consistent with the proposed revisions to section 32.4.2.2(b)(1).
Grandfathered review: The ordinance has been revised to change the reference date for the
current site plan regulations from September 4, 2012 to October 2, 2012.
Staff also has made a minor stylistic change in the ordinance’s cross-references to other chapters
and sections of the County Code by deleting references to “of the Code.” Those references are
unnecessary under County Code § 1-104.
Staff does not anticipate that this ordinance will result in the need for additional staff or funding.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) with an effective
date of January 1, 2013.
_____
Mr. Fritz addressed the Board, stating that staff has prepared the revised executive summary. At
the September 5 meeting there were a number of changes identified by various members of the public
and discussed by the Board, and those changes have been made. He said that the most signific ant ones
were to ensure that conditions could be placed on the issuance of a grading permit, and the ordinance has
been updated to reflect that and to ensure that the ARB could also include conditions. Mr. Fritz stated that
the primary focus of the conversation was related to the ARB’s review of the applications, and that’s been
revised to identify the requirements pertaining to the things they will review – and what the ARB will be
reviewing is the things that are required to be shown on the site plan including location, configuration,
area, etc. W hat the ordinance requires to be submitted with the initial plan is really a two-dimensional
review, which includes the building location and height to some degree – but the mass, bulk and shape is
saved for the certificate of appropriateness.
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Fritz for including the two-dimensional reference, as it helps clarify what is
under review.
Mr. Snow asked for a step by step scenario as to how time is saved when someone brings a
project in.
Mr. Fritz said that it would be helpful to first review the current process, in which the applicant may
or may not come in for a pre-application conference – which is a purely voluntary meeting – and may or
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
may not have any plans associated with that. He stated that it may just be a conversation. He said the
applicant would then submit a preliminary site plan, and that would go to the site review committee –
which would then identify any changes that needed to be made; revisions would be submitted, and those
revisions would be reviewed. If the project was appealed to the Planning Commission, he said, it would
then be presented to the Commission; if it wasn’t appealed to the Planning Commission, it would be acted
on administratively. Once the preliminary is approved, he said the applicant would then submit the final
and go through the final review process – which includes ARB review.
Mr. Fritz explained that the new policy includes a much more formalized pre-application
conference, where an applicant can find out what information might need to be submitted for a waiver or
variation or any particular issues known about the property. He said that it was a voluntary process, but
an applicant can get much better information through this formalized step. Mr. Fritz said the applicant
submits the initial plan, which goes to the site review committee, and there would be no revision – so one
round of revisions is saved there, including the review time associated with that.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. Fritz about the composition of the site review committee.
Mr. Fritz responded that it was comprised of 11 different agencies – including VDOT, the
Albemarle County Service Authority, Development, Engineering, Fire and Rescue, building officials, the
Health Department, etc. – and these are spelled out in the ordinance. He said that the project would be
reviewed by the site review committee and acted upon, and either approved or denied at that point. When
the action is taken, Mr. Fritz said, the applicant may be able to get an early grading permit providing
certain conditions are met before they get their final. He stated that the ARB would now be reviewing the
initial plan and making a recommendation prior to approval of that plan and issuance of a grading permit.
Mr. Fritz said that just to that point, the County has saved the applicant one round of revisions,
and saved the County one round of reviews. He said that staff have included and maintained the public
involvement, so there is no decrease there, and that will save time and effort on the part of the applicant.
Mr. Fritz said that the ordinance has allowed grading to occur much earlier than it could now under the
existing ordinance because under the proposed ordinance you’d be able to get a grading permit after the
initial plan was approved, and now you can’t get it until every detail has been worked out. He stated that
included in the ordinance is a much more detailed and focused process for the final review, and it is a
much easier process to understand particularly if it is an applicant’s first time through. Mr. Fritz said that
the ordinance itself has been revised so it’s much easier to read.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was no longer site plan review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fritz
responded that that was correct.
Mr. Boyd asked who could call up a site plan. Mr. Fritz responded that the only way an item could
be called up is if the project is denied or approved with conditions the applicant finds objectionable, then
the applicant can appeal it; abutting owners cannot appeal it.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff is replacing the Planning Commission site review with a superpower ARB
review. Mr. Fritz responded, no staff is not – it is still the agent
Mr. Boyd said that the ARB under the new ordinance controls where the buildings are placed, the
shape they are, where the parking is, etc. He said that that’s a lot more powerful unelected body than he
would like to see out there. He said that the ARB should stick to landscaping, colors, etc. but not size and
shape of the development.
Ms. Mallek stated that it’s the ARB’s charge to review those things.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see that changed.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Boyd has said that before, but he didn’t think there was support for
eviscerating the ARB. Mr. Rooker stated that the whole site review process was a cleaner process under
this new proposal, and would save significant time for staff and the public, as well as applicants. He said
that one of the problems with the ARB review under the current system is that an applicant will go through
the site review process and then find out things later that the ARB wanted them to do, things the applicant
should have been told about earlier. Mr. Rooker said that now the ARB input comes at the two-
dimensional level, so their review after site plan approval is much more limited and focused on the other
details.
Mr. Boyd asked how this new process would impact the 5th Street/Avon project, and what would
be different that would help the applicant get through the process sooner.
Mr. Fritz said that the applicant can’t submit a site plan now because the applicant doesn’t know
who the tenants are.
Mr. Boyd asked if an applicant could just submit a partial site plan. Mr. Fritz responded that the
applicant certainly could phase the project and just bring forth a plan with a few of the tenants in place –
that’s routinely and normally done.
Mr. Boyd asked if the ARB could now say whether they like that or not. Mr. Fritz said that it is very
important to note that the new process does not in any way, shape or form change the authority of the
Architectural Review Board. He said that staff neither granted them additional authority nor removed the
authority the ARB had. He said that staff simply changed the point in time the ARB is providing comment
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
– from the certificate of appropriateness only to the initial plan state. He said that with 5th Street/Avon, and
with any planned development, the ARB must also abide to the extent those things may be proffered as to
where building locations are, and frequently have to work within those parameters – otherwise the
development wouldn’t be in accord with the approved application plan.
Mr. Snow stated that he agreed with having the ARB involved from the beginning – it’s going to
make a large difference to the applicant, as it would prevent a situation that’s occurring now where an
applicant gets very far along before realizing the ARB review will change their plan.
Mr. Thomas agreed, but also said that the ARB had created a lot of problems for the applicant the
way it had been working.
Ms. Mallek noted that the ARB’s role is upholding community standards.
Mr. Rooker said that he questions the portion of the new ordinance that allows for early grading
permits in the rural area, as this would allow an early grading permit in a rural area subdivision.
Mr. Fritz explained that a subdivision and site plan are two different things, and with a subdivision
you can get a grading permit once your preliminary subdivision plat is approved and your road plans are
approved. He said that one of the proposals was not to allow early grading when site plans were in the
rural areas, but staff did not support that change because in cases where a site plan is coming into a rural
area there would have been some other action that took place – such as a special use permit. Mr. Fritz
said that it could be put in as a condition of a special use permit, but staff did not see it as necessary for a
site plan.
Mr. Rooker said that what Mr. Fritz is saying is it has no applicability to subdivision plans, and
would pertain to something that required an SP or rezoning.
Mr. Fritz said that he couldn’t think of a situation where there would be a by-right use involving a
site plan. He stated that site plans come into play when there is multi-family development, which typically
would not be in the rural areas, and when you are establishing a new use that requires a new entrance
and/or additional parking. Mr. Fritz said that building a church in the rural area, for example, would trigger
the need for a site plan – but some uses, such as farm wineries, would have no site plan.
Mr. Thomas asked if the initial site plan was the same as the preliminary. Mr. Fritz responded that
it really is, and staff just used the word “initial” to try to underscore it’s a different process from the past.
He said that once all the conditions are met, the applicant can move onto the final site plan – which would
involve getting the certificate of appropriateness and getting a building permit.
Mr. Boyd said that the way the changes are set up, the ARB can’t come back later on and make
changes.
Mr. Thomas said that sometimes the Planning Commission would approve a site plan without an
ARB review, so the Commission would approve it with the condition of ARB approval.
Mr. Boyd asked if the ARB would still have to come back and talk about landscaping.
Mr. Fritz explained that those things would be under the second phase of reviews.
Mr. Rooker said this essentially divides when the ARB weighs in, and on what matters.
Mr. Snow said it avoids the situation where they come back in and say, “Rotate this building.” He
added that it really brings it down to issues that do not require major revisions.
Mr. Thomas asked if the ARB could change the color of the building.
Mr. Rooker responded that in the final review, the ARB’s role is reduced to things that would not
require an applicant to redo a plan.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board is leaving an awful lot of discretionary decisions to an unelected
body. He said that that just really bothers him a lot.
Mr. Rooker said that the ARB has a set of guidelines, and Mr. Boyd said the Board needs to look
at those. Mr. Rooker said that the Board did that with the sign ordinance, adding that he looks at the
improved aesthetics in the community as a credit to the ARB. He cited Pantops as an example, and Free
Bridge, and Browns on Route 29.
Mr. Boyd stated that it’s in the eye of the beholder, and people he has talked to think that
Stonefield is “an abomination” with its big white buildings.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek pointed out that Stonefield is not done yet.
Mr. Rooker said that a community with some unified aesthetic appeal, with some reasonable
landscaping requirements in their main corridors, etc., is going to be a community that is a place people
like to visit and live in – and the Board has seen many presentations about how an attractive community
can attract businesses.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
Mr. Boyd stated that different people have different views on what is attractive, but he cannot
imagine a business wanting to put up an unattractive business.
Mr. Rooker said that in Knoxville, Tennessee along their Route 29 corridor there is no planning in
place and a million banners up for their car dealerships, creating a bit of an eyesore.
Mr. Snow stated that he’s had numerous things he has disagreed with the ARB on, and the idea
of ensuring there are tasteful colors and landscaping, and making a project fit into what’s around it is very
important and a valuable function that the ARB performs.
Ms. Mallek said there was a big commotion over the color of the Red Lobster restaurant, so the
company ended up changing it and it “turned out fine.”
Mr. Rooker noted that the Red Lobster changed it in many other communities as well.
Mr. Thomas said he felt there was too much control with the ARB, but that was only his opinion.
Mr. Snow then offered motion to approve ZTA-2012-0009. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-18(6)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, ADMINISTRATION, AND ARTICLE
IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, Administration, and Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 35.1 Fees
Sec. 35.2 Calculation of fees in special circumstances
By Repealing:
Sec. 32.1 Intent
Sec. 32.2 When site plan is required; waiver of drawing of site plan
Sec. 32.3 Administration
Sec. 32.3.1 Review by planning commission; agent review; site review committee
Sec. 32.3.2 Agent
Sec. 32.3.3 Site review committee
Sec. 32.3.4 Untitled
Sec. 32.3.5 Improvements – construction and bonding
Sec. 32.3.6 Untitled
Sec. 32.3.7 Untitled
Sec. 32.3.8 Revisions
Sec. 32.3.9 Fees
Sec. 32.3.10 Modification, waiver, or substitution
Sec. 32.4 Procedure
Sec. 32.4.1 Preliminary conference with staff
Sec. 32.4.2 Preliminary plan submittal (Amended 10-3-01)
Sec. 32.4.3 Final site plan submittal (Amended 10-3-01)
Sec. 32.5 Preliminary site plan content
Sec. 32.5.1 Untitled
Sec. 32.5.2 Untitled
Sec. 32.5.3 Untitled
Sec. 32.5.4 Untitled
Sec. 32.5.5 Untitled
Sec. 32.5.6 Untitled
Sec. 32.5.7 Groundwater assessment information
Sec. 32.6 Final site plan content
Sec. 32.6.1 Untitled
Sec. 32.6.2 Untitled
Sec. 32.6.3 Untitled
Sec. 32.6.4 Untitled
Sec. 32.6.5 Untitled
Sec. 32.6.6 Untitled
Sec. 32.7 Minimum standards for improvements
Sec. 32.7.1 Comprehensive plan
Sec. 32.7.2 Safe and convenient access; circulation; pedestrian ways; parking and loading
Sec. 32.7.3 Streets; roads
Sec. 32.7.4 Drainage; stormwater management; soil erosion
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Sec. 32.7.5 Water, sewer and other utilities
Sec. 32.7.6 Fire protection
Sec. 32.7.7 Recreation requirements
Sec. 32.7.8 Signs and lighting
Sec. 32.7.9 Landscaping and screening requirements
Sec. 32.7.9.1 When required
Sec. 32.7.9.2 Administration
Sec. 32.7.9.3 Variation; waiver
Sec. 32.7.9.4 Contents (Amended 10-3-01)
Sec. 32.7.9.5 Minimum standards
Sec. 32.7.9.6 Street trees
Sec. 32.7.9.7 Parking lot landscaping
Sec. 32.7.9.8 Screening
Sec. 32.7.9.9 Tree canopy
Sec. 32.7.10 General
By Adding:
Sec. 32.1 General Provisions
Sec. 32.1.1 Purposes
Sec. 32.1.2 Relation of section 32 to other laws and private contracts
Sec. 32.1.3 Rules of construction
Sec. 32.2 Applicability
Sec. 32.3 Administration
Sec. 32.3.1 Designation of agent; powers and duties
Sec. 32.3.2 Establishment of site review committee; powers and duties
Sec. 32.3.3 Amendments to a site plan
Sec. 32.3.4 Fees
Sec. 32.3.5 Variations and exceptions
Sec. 32.3.6 Appeals of decisions pertaining to variations and exceptions
Sec. 32.4 Procedures for submittal, review and action on site plans
Sec. 32.4.1 Procedure for review of preapplication plans
Sec. 32.4.1.1 Submittal of preapplication plan and other information
Sec. 32.4.1.2 Form and style of preapplication plan
Sec. 32.4.1.3 Contents of preapplication plan
Sec. 32.4.1.4 Review of preapplication plan
Sec. 32.4.2 Procedure for review and action on initial site plan
Sec. 32.4.2.1 Submittal of initial site plan; determination of completeness
Sec. 32.4.2.2 Review of initial site plan by site review committee and architectural review board
Sec. 32.4.2.3 Revisions to address required changes
Sec. 32.4.2.4 Deferrral of review; when application deemed withdrawn
Sec. 32.4.2.5 Review and action on initial site plan by agent
Sec. 32.4.2.6 Appeal and judicial review
Sec. 32.4.2.7 Period of validity of approved initial site plan
Sec. 32.4.2.8 Effect of approval of initial site plan on other future and pending approvals
Sec. 32.4.3 Procedure for review and action on final site plan
Sec. 32.4.3.1 Submittal of final site plan; determination of completeness
Sec. 32.4.3.2 Review of final site plan by site review committee
Sec. 32.4.3.3 Review of final site plan by architectural review board; certificate of appropriateness
Sec. 32.4.3.4 Revisions to address required changes
Sec. 32.4.3.5 Deferral of review; when application deemed withdrawn
Sec. 32.4.3.6 Review and action on final site plan by agent
Sec. 32.4.3.7 Appeal and judicial review
Sec. 32.4.3.8 Period of validity of approved final site plan
Sec. 32.5 Initial site plan; form and content
Sec. 32.5.1 Form and style of an initial site plan
Sec. 32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan
Sec. 32.5.3 Response to information during preapplication process
Sec. 32.5.4 Groundwater assessment information
Sec. 32.5.5 Parking structure information
Sec. 32.6 Final site plan; form and content
Sec. 32.6.1 Form and style of a final site plan
Sec. 32.6.2 Contents of a final site plan
Sec. 32.6.3 Parking structure elevations
Sec. 32.7 Minimum standards for improvements
Sec. 32.7.1 Dedications and reservations
Sec. 32.7.1.1 Dedication of land for vehicular access parks, schools and open space
Sec. 32.7.1.2 Reservation for future dedication of land for public use
Sec. 32.7.1.3 Reservation of land for streets, alleys, walkways, waterways or public areas shown on
official map
Sec. 32.7.2 Vehicular access to site; streets, sidewalks and other pedestrian ways
Sec. 32.7.2.1 Vehicular access to site
Sec. 32.7.2.2 Streets and travelways composing the internal road network
Sec. 32.7.2.3 Sidewalks and other pedestrian ways
Sec. 32.7.3 Parking
Sec. 32.7.4 Water and soil protection
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Sec. 32.7.4.1 Erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and other water regulations;
water pollution; soil characteristics
Sec. 32.7.4.2 Easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control
Sec. 32.7.5 Water, sewer and other utilities
Sec. 32.7.5.1 Water supply and sewage system
Sec. 32.7.5.2 Location of utilities above and below ground
Sec. 32.7.5.3 Dedication of public water and sewer facilities
Sec. 32.7.5.4 Easements for cable television and public service corporations
Sec. 32.7.6 Fire protection
Sec. 32.7.7 Recreation
Sec. 32.7.8 Signs and outdoor lighting
Sec. 32.7.9 Landscaping and screening
Sec. 32.7.9.1 Purposes
Sec. 32.7.9.2 Submittal of landscape plan, timing
Sec. 32.7.9.3 Review and action on landscape plan by agent
Sec. 32.7.9.4 Contents of a landscape plan
Sec. 32.7.9.5 Landscaping along streets
Sec. 32.7.9.6 Landscaping within a parking area
Sec. 32.7.9.7 Screening
Sec. 32.7.9.8 Tree canopy
Sec. 32.7.9.9 Installation and maintenance of required landscaping and screening
Sec. 32.8 Completion of on-site improvements and surety
Sec. 32.8.1 Completion of on-site improvements required prior to final site plan approval
Sec. 32.8.2 Agreement and surety
Sec. 32.8.3 Release of surety
Sec. 32.8.4 Effect of acceptance or approval of improvements
Sec. 32.8.5 Inspections; right of entry
Sec. 32.8.6 Improvements completed at expense of developer; exception
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. Administration
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Recommendations: As used in section 32, suggestions for design change as may be deemed in the
public interest by site review committee members in the area of their respective expertise or by the
architectural review board.
. . .
Requirements: As used in section 32, the regulatory provisions of this chapter, including all applicable
proffers, special use permits and conditions thereof, special exceptions and conditions thereof, variances
and conditions thereof, application plans, codes of development and other applicable laws, and the rules,
regulations and design guidelines identified by the architectural review board as being required to be
satisfied in order to obtain a certificate of appropriateness.
. . .
Submit. To pay the applicable required fee and to have an application or other required document marked
by the county as “received.”
. . .
Turnaround. An area for vehicles to reverse movement at the end of a street or travelway.
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 32.1 General Provisions
Sec. 32.1.1 Purposes
The purposes of section 32 are to:
a. Improve the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the citizens of the county by
assuring the orderly development of land;
b. Provide residential areas with healthy surroundings for family life by assuring that land being
developed for residential uses is developed in a manner that is harmonious with its surrounding
lands;
c. Implement the policies of the comprehensive plan through the standards and procedures
established herein;
d. Assure that the development of the county is consonant with the efficient and economical use of
public funds;
e. Assure that all required improvements are designed, constructed and maintained so as not to
become an undue burden on the community; and
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
f. Establish standards for development that are specific to, and most appropriate for, the lands
within the county.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2200, 15.2-2240 et seq., § 15.2-2283.
Sec. 32.1.2 Relation of section 32 to other laws and private contracts
The requirements of section 32 are:
a. Separate from, but supplementary to, all other applicable requirements of the Code. Compliance
with the requirements of section 32 shall not be deemed to be compliance with other applicable
ordinances or regulations.
b. Separate from, but supplementary to, all other applicable requirements of state or federal law. If
the requirements of section 32 are in direct conflict with mandatory state or federal requirements,
then the state or federal requirements shall apply.
c. Separate from the requirements, terms or conditions of any private easement, covenant,
agreement or restriction, and nothing in this chapter authorizes the county or any of its officers,
employees or agents to enforce a private easement, covenant, agreement or restriction.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
Sec. 32.1.3 Rules of construction
Section 32 protects paramount public interests and shall be liberally construed to effectuate its several
purposes. In addition to the rules of construction set forth in section 1-101 of the Code, the following rules
of construction apply to the construction of section 32, unless the application would be contrary to the
purposes of this chapter or the context clearly indicates otherwise:
a. All references to any statute, regulation, guideline, manual or standard are to that statute,
regulation, guideline, manual or standard as it exists on the date of adoption of this chapter, and
includes any amendment thereafter or reissue in a subsequent edition.
b. The word “days” means calendar days, unless otherwise expressly provided.
c. All distances and areas shall be measured in a horizontal plane unless otherwise expressly
provided.
d. The word “current” means the point in time at which a matter is under consideration and shall not
mean the date of adoption of the most recent amendment to section 32.
e. All provisions requiring that improvements be designed or constructed to prescribed standards, or
otherwise comply with delineated standards, refer to the minimum standard and nothing in section
32 shall prohibit an improvement from exceeding the standard.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
Sec. 32.2 Applicability
Any construction, use, change in use or other development is permitted in any zoning district only with an
approved site plan complying with the requirements of section 32, other applicable requirements of this
chapter, and all other applicable laws; provided that no site plan shall be required for the following:
a. The construction or location of any single-family detached dwelling on a lot on which not more
than two (2) dwellings are located or proposed to be located if the lot has public street frontage, or
the construction or location of one (1) dwelling unit on a lot that does not have public street
frontage.
b. The construction or location of a two-family dwelling on any lot not occupied by any other
dwellings.
c. Any structure that is accessory to a single-family detached or two-family dwelling.
d. Any agricultural activity except as otherwise provided in section 5.
e. Any change in or expansion of a use unless: (i) the change or expansion requires additional
parking under section 4.12; (ii) additional ingress/egress or alteration of existing ingress/egress is
required by the Virginia Department of Transportation based on the intensification of the use; or
(iii) additional ingress/egress or the alteration of existing ingress/egress is proposed by the
developer.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.3 Administration
Sec. 32.3.1 Designation of agent; powers and duties
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
The director of community development is hereby designated the agent of the board of
supervisors for the purpose of administering section 32 except as otherwise expressly provided. The
agent shall have the powers and duties to:
a. Receive, process and act on site plan applications as provided in section 32.
b. Establish reasonable administrative procedures as deemed necessary for the proper and efficient
administration of section 32.
c. Make all determinations and findings and impose all applicable requirements in reviewing a site
plan.
d. Consider and act on requests to vary or except the regulations of section 32 as provided in
section 32.3.5.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.3.2 Establishment of site review committee; powers and duties
A site review committee is hereby established and it shall be composed of representatives of the
department of community development, including a planner to evaluate the issues relevant to a certificate
of appropriateness that will be considered by the architectural review board for those site plans for sites
within an entrance corridor overlay district, the department of fire rescue, the Albemarle County Service
Authority, the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the United States
Department of Agriculture, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Each member of the site
review committee shall identify the requirements and may make recommendations on those matters
within the authority of the bodies and entities that they represent. The site review committee shall have the
powers and duties to:
a. Meet from time to time to review site plans as provided in section 32, including requests for
variations or exceptions.
b. Transmit to the agent the requirements and recommendations it has identified regarding each site
plan, and information and recommendations on each request for a variation or exception.
c. Transmit recommended conditions to the agent and the program authority regarding any grading
permit that may be sought in conjunction with an approved initial site plan.
d. Propose rules for the conduct of its business to the agent, which shall be established and
approved as administrative procedures under section 32.3.1(b).
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.3.3 Amendments to a site plan
Changes, revisions or erasures (collectively, “amendments”) to a site plan, including amendments to a
landscape plan, may be made as follows:
a. Prior to approval. Before a site plan is approved by the agent, the developer may amend a site
plan or accompanying data sheet that has been submitted to the county if the agent authorizes the
amendment in writing or if the site review committee requires the amendment in its review of the
site plan. The procedures and requirements for initial and final site plans apply to amendments to
a site plan.
b. After approval. After a site plan is approved by the agent, the developer may amend the site plan
if the amended site plan is submitted, reviewed and approved as provided in section 32.4;
provided that the agent may approve amendments to an approved final site plan without
proceeding under section 32.4 as follows:
1. Minor amendments. The agent may approve the amendment as a minor amendment if he
determines that the site plan, as amended: (i) complies with all requirements of this
chapter and all other applicable laws; (ii) is substantially the same as the approved site
plan; and (iii) will have no additional adverse impact on adjacent land or public facilities; or
2. Letters of revision. The agent may approve the amendment by a letter of revision if he
determines that the site plan, as amended, complies with subsections (b)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii)
and that the proposed amendment is de minimis and requires only limited review.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.3.4 Fees
The developer shall pay the applicable fees as provided in section 35.1.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
Sec 32.3.5 Variations and exceptions
The requirements of section 32 may be varied or excepted as follows:
a. Exception from requirement to provide certain details in site plan. The agent may except certain
details of a site plan and any amendment to a site plan otherwise required by sections 32.5 and
32.6 as provided herein:
1. Request for exception. A developer requesting an exception shall submit to the agent a
written request stating the reasons for the request and addressing the applicable finding
in subsection (a)(2).
2. Finding. An exception may be approved if the agent finds that unusual situations exist or
that strict adherence to requiring the details in sections 32.5 or 32.6 would result in
substantial injustice or hardship. This finding shall be supported by information from the
site review committee that all of the details required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 are not
necessary for its review of the proposed development, and from the zoning administrator,
in consultation with the county engineer, that the details waived are not necessary to
determine that the site is developed in compliance with this chapter and all other
applicable laws.
3. Action by the agent on a request. The agent may approve or deny the request. In
approving an exception, the agent shall identify the details otherwise required by sections
32.5 and 32.6 that are excepted.
b. Variation or exception from any requirement of section 32.7. Any requirement of section 32.7 may
be varied or excepted in an individual case as provided herein:
1. Request for a variation or exception. A developer requesting a variation or exception shall
submit to the agent a written request stating the reasons for the request and addressing
the applicable findings in subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3). When a variation is requested, the
developer also shall describe the proposed substituted technique, design or materials
composing the substituted improvement. The request should be submitted before the site
review committee considers the initial site plan. The agent may request that the site
review committee provide information and a recommendation on any request for a
variation or exception.
2. Findings required for a variation. The agent may approve a request for a variation to
substitute a required improvement upon finding that because of an unusual situation, the
developer’s substitution of a technique, design or materials of comparable quality from
that required by section 32.7 results in an improvement that substantially satisfies the
overall purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of
the requirement in section 32.7.
3. Findings required for an exception. The agent may approve a request for an exception
from any requirement of section 32.7 upon finding that: (i) because of an unusual
situation, including but not limited to the unusual size, topography, shape of the site or the
location of the site; or (ii) when strict adherence to the requirements would result in
substantial injustice or hardship by, including but not limited to, resulting in the significant
degradation of the site or to adjacent properties, causing a detriment to the public health,
safety or welfare, or by inhibiting the orderly development of the area or the application of
sound engineering practices.
4. Findings required for a variation or exception of any requirement of section 32.7.5.2. If the
developer requests a variation or exception of any requirement of section 32.7.5.2, the
agent shall consider whether the requirement would unreasonably impact the existing
above-ground electrical network so that extensive off-site improvements are necessary. In
approving a variation or exception, the agent shall find, in addition to the required findings
under subsection (b)(2) or (3), that requiring undergrounding would not forward the
purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest and that granting the
variation or exception would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to
the orderly development of the area, and to the land adjacent thereto.
5. Action by the agent on a request; conditions. The agent may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the request. If a request is approved, the agent shall prepare a written
statement regarding the findings made. If a request is denied, the agent shall inform the
developer in writing within five (5) days after the denial, and include a statement
explaining why the request was denied. In approving a request, the agent may impose
reasonable conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.
c. Appeals. The decision of the agent may be appealed as provided in section 32.3.6.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2242(1).
Sec. 32.3.6 Appeals of decisions pertaining to variations and exceptions
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
A denial of a request for a variation or an exception or the approval of a variation or exception with
conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed by the developer as follows:
a. To the planning commission. A developer may appeal the decision of the agent to the planning
commission by submitting a written request for appeal to the agent within ten (10) days after the
date of the agent’s decision. In acting on an appeal, the commission shall consider the
recommendation of the agent and all other relevant evidence, and apply the applicable findings
provided in section 32.3.5. The commission may approve or deny the request. In approving a
request on an appeal from a decision under section 32.3.5(b), the commission may impose
reasonable conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.
b. To the board of supervisors. A developer may appeal the decision of the planning commission to
the board of supervisors by submitting a written request for appeal to the clerk of the board of
supervisors within ten (10) days after the date of the commission decision. In acting on an appeal,
the board shall consider the recommendation of the agent and all other relevant evidence, and
apply the applicable findings provided in section 32.3.5. The board may approve or deny the
request. In approving a request on an appeal from a decision under section 32.3.5(b), the board
may impose reasonable conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or
welfare.
c. Effect of filing appeal. An appeal shall suspend the running of the time by which the agent must
act on a site plan under sections 32.4.2.5 and 32.4.3.6 from the date the appeal is submitted until
the date the planning commission or the board of supervisors acts on the appeal, whichever takes
the last action.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2242(1).
Sec. 32.4 Procedures for submittal, review and action on site plans
Sec. 32.4.1 Procedure for review of preapplication plans
Sec. 32.4.1.1 Submittal of preapplication plan and other information
A developer may request a preapplication review by submitting the following to the department of
community development in accordance with the submittal schedule established by the agent:
a. Preapplication plan. A preapplication plan meeting the requirements of sections 32.4.1.2 and
32.4.1.3.
b. Other information. A letter stating which provisions of this chapter the developer believes will
require a variation or exception under section 32.3.5 or a special exception. The letter need not
include a justification or any supporting information.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.4.1.2 Form and style of preapplication plan
Each preapplication plan submitted shall comply with the following:
a. Number of copies. Three (3) clearly legible copies in blue or black ink of the plan shall be
submitted.
b. Scale and size. The plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or
to another scale approved by the agent in a particular case. No sheet shall exceed forty-two (42)
inches by thirty-six (36) inches in size. The plan may be prepared on one (1) or more sheets. If
prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the several sheets
join. The top of the sheet shall be approximately either north or east.
c. Dimensions. The plan shall be dimensioned to at least the following standards for accuracy:
1. Boundary, setback and zoning lines: One foot in one thousand (1:1,000) feet.
2. Existing contours: One-half (½) of the contour interval required in section 32.5.2(d).
3. Proposed contours: Within five (5) feet horizontally and vertically.
4. Existing structures, utilities and other topographic features: Within five (5) feet.
5. Proposed structures, roads, parking lots and other improvements: Within five (5) feet.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.4.1.3 Contents of preapplication plan
Each preapplication plan shall contain the following information:
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 74)
a. General information. The name of the development; names of the owner, developer and individual
who prepared the plan; tax map and parcel number; boundary dimensions; zoning district;
descriptions of all proffers, special use permits and conditions thereof, special exceptions and
conditions thereof, variances and conditions thereof, application plans, codes of development and
bonus factors applicable to the site; magisterial district; county and state; north point; scale; one
datum reference for elevation (if the site includes land subject to section 30.3, flood hazard
overlay district, United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or correlated
to plan topography); the source of the topography; departing lot lines; minimum setback lines,
yard and building separation requirements; the source of the survey; sheet number and total
number of sheets; and the names of the owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel numbers and
present uses of abutting parcels.
b. Information regarding the proposed use. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate
that the site can accommodate the proposed uses, including proposed uses and maximum
acreage occupied by each use; maximum number of dwelling units by type including the number
of bedrooms for multi-family dwellings; gross residential density; square footage of recreational
areas, percentage and acreage of open space; maximum square footage for commercial and
industrial uses; maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage for industrial uses; maximum height of
all structures; schedule of parking including the maximum amount required and the amount
provided; the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site; and whether a landscape plan is
required under section 32.7.9.
c. Phase lines. If phasing is planned, phase lines.
d. Topography and proposed grading. Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope,
maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours)
for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite
features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site
unless otherwise approved by the agent; proposed grading (maximum five [5] foot contours)
supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are
critical slopes.
e. Landscape features. The existing landscape features as described in section 32.7.9.4(c).
f. Watercourses and other bodies of water. The name and location of all watercourses and other
bodies of water adjacent to or on the site; indicate whether the site is located within the watershed
of a public water supply reservoir.
g. Onsite sewage system setback lines. The location of onsite sewage system setback lines from
watercourses including intermittent streams and other bodies of water.
h. Flood plain. The one hundred (100) year flood plain limits as shown on the official flood insurance
maps for Albemarle County.
i. Streets, easements and travelways. The existing and proposed streets, access easements, alley
easements and rights-of-way, and travelways, together with street names, state route numbers,
right-of-way lines and widths, and pavement widths.
j. Existing sewer and drainage facilities. The location and size of existing water and sewer facilities
and easements, the storm drainage system, and drainage easements.
k. Proposed sewer and drainage facilities. The proposed conceptual layout for water and sewer
facilities and the storm drainage system, indicating the direction of flow in all pipes and
watercourses with arrows.
l. Existing and proposed utilities. The location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including existing telephone, cable, electric and gas easements.
m. Ingress and egress. The location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the site,
showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection.
n. Existing and proposed improvements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed
improvements including buildings (maximum footprint and height) and other structures; walkways;
fences; walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting; landscaped areas and open space; recreational
areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas; and loading and service areas.
o. Areas to be dedicated or reserved. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
p. Symbols and abbreviations. A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.4.1.4 Review of preapplication plan
Each preapplication plan meeting the requirements of sections 32.4.1.2 and 32.4.1.3 and each letter
provided by section 32.4.1.1(b) shall be reviewed by the agent. Within ten (10) days after the submittal,
the agent shall send written comments to the developer addressing the following:
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 75)
a. Compliance with zoning. Whether the proposed use and density complies with this chapter and all
applicable proffers, special use permits and conditions thereof, special exceptions and conditions
thereof, variances and conditions thereof, application plans and codes of development.
b. Variations, exceptions and special exceptions. Identify all variations and exceptions that will be
required under section 32 and all special exceptions that will be required, including references to
the sections in this chapter under which the variation, exception or special exception will be
sought, the sections authorizing the variation, exception or special exception, and the sections
identifying the information the developer must submit in order for the variation, exception or
special exception to be considered.
c. Fees. The amount of the fees required for reviewing the site plan and any request for a variation
or exception.
d. Required changes. Identify any features on the plan required to be changed in order to comply
with this chapter or any applicable requirement of a proffer, special use permit, special exception,
variance, application plan or code of development.
e. Recommended changes. Identify any features on the plan recommended to be changed to
address components of the comprehensive plan or sound planning, zoning or engineering
practices.
f. Additional information. The agent may require additional information to be shown on the initial site
plan as deemed necessary in order to provide sufficient information for the agent to adequately
review the plan including, but not limited to, information from a traffic study, landscaping, historic
resources and groundwater.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2283, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.4.2 Procedure for review and action on initial site plan
Sec. 32.4.2.1 Submittal of initial site plan; determination of completeness
Each initial site plan shall be submitted to the agent and processed as follows:
a. Date of official submittal. An initial site plan shall be deemed to be officially submitted on the date
of the next application deadline established by the agent after the submittal of the plan and the
agent’s determination that the plan is complete.
b. Timing of review to determine completeness. The agent’s review to determine whether an initial
site plan is complete shall be made within ten (10) days after the application submittal deadline.
c. Determination that plan is incomplete; notice. An initial site plan omitting any information required
by section 32.5 shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted for official submittal
by the agent. The agent shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons for the disapproval,
with citation to the applicable section of this chapter or other law, and what corrections or
modifications will permit acceptance of the plan. The agent shall notify the developer or his or her
agent of the disapproval in writing by first class mail, personal delivery, or, if consented to by the
developer in writing, by fax or email.
d. Resubmittal. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the notice of disapproval was mailed or
delivered by the agent, the developer may resubmit the initial site plan. The date of the next
application deadline after the resubmittal of the plan shall be deemed to be the date upon which
the plan was officially submitted. In the event the developer fails to resubmit the plan within the
fifteen (15) day period, the plan shall be deemed to be disapproved and a new application and fee
shall be required for submittal of the plan.
e. Transmittal to site review committee, architectural review board, and state agency . An initial site
plan deemed officially submitted shall be transmitted to the site review committee and, for plans
for sites within an entrance corridor overlay district, the architectural review board as provided in
section 32.4.2.2. If state agency approval of an initial site plan is required, the agent shall forward
to the state agency all documents necessary to allow it to conduct its review within ten (10) days
after the initial site plan is deemed officially submitted.
f. Notice; recipients. When the agent determines that an initial site plan is officially submitted, he
shall send notice that the plan has been submitted to the owner of each lot abutting the site and to
each member of the board of supervisors and the planning commission. The notice shall describe
the type of use proposed; the specific location of the development; the appropriate county office
where the plan may be viewed; and the dates the site review committee and, if applicable and if
known, the architectural review board will review the plan.
g. Notice; how provided. The notice required by subsection (f) shall be mailed or hand delivered at
least ten (10) days prior to the site review committee meeting and, if applicable, the architectural
review board meeting at which the initial site plan will be reviewed. Mailed notice shall be sent by
first class mail. Notice mailed to the owner of each lot abutting the site shall be m ailed to the last
known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real
estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed to be compliance with this
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 76)
requirement. If a lot abutting the site is owned by the developer, the notice shall be given to the
owner of the next abutting lot not owned by the developer.
h. Notice; defect does not affect validity of site plan. The failure of any person to receive the notice
required by subsection (f), or any error in the notice, shall not affect the validity of an approved site
plan, and shall not be the basis for an appeal.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2260.
Sec. 32.4.2.2 Review of initial site plan by site review committee and architectural review board
Upon receipt of an initial site plan from the agent, the site review committee and the architectural review
board shall review the plan as follows:
a. Site review committee review. The site review committee shall review each plan for compliance
with the technical requirements of this chapter and other applicable laws. Upon completion of its
review, the site review committee shall transmit to the agent its requirements and
recommendations. The site review committee also may recommend to the agent conditions of
initial site plan approval, including conditions required to be satisfied before a grading permit may
be issued under chapter 17. Any recommended conditions shall pertain to any requirements of
this chapter and other applicable laws.
b. Architectural review board review. The architectural review board shall review each plan for sites
within an entrance corridor overlay district proposing development that is not exempt from review
under section 30.6.5 as follows:
1. Purpose and scope of review. The architectural review board shall review the plan for
consistency with the design guidelines. The scope of review by the board shall be to
consider: (i) those elements delineated in section 30.6.4(c)(2) that may be evaluated
under the initial site plan and which may include, but not be limited to, the location and
configuration of structures; (ii) the location and configuration of parking areas and the
location of landscaped areas under section 30.6.4(c)(3); and (iii) to identify existing trees,
wooded areas and natural features that should be preserved under section 30.6.4(c)(5).
The specific types of landscaping and screening to be provided on the site under section
30.6.4(c)(4) shall not be considered by the board for consistency with the design
guidelines during its review of the plan.
2. Submittal requirements. The architectural review board’s review shall be based on the
initial site plan and the information provided with the initial site plan under sections 32.5.2,
32.5.3, 32.5.4 and 32.5.5. The developer shall not be required to submit any other
information.
3. Transmittal of requirements and recommendations. Upon completing its review, the
architectural review board shall transmit to the agent: (i) its requirements resulting from its
review of the elements of sections 30.6.4(c)(2), (3) and (5) delineated in subsection (b)(1)
in order to satisfy the design guidelines; (ii) any recommendations including, but not
limited to, recommendations pertaining to those elements of sections 30.6.4(c)(2), (3) and
(5) for which requirements were not identified under subsection (b)(3)(i); and (iii) any
recommended conditions of initial site plan approval, including conditions required to be
satisfied before a grading permit may be issued under chapter 17. Any recommended
conditions shall pertain to ensuring compliance with the design guidelines under the
elements of sections 30.6.4(c)(2), (3) and (5) delineated in subsection (b)(1).
4. Appeal. The architectural review board’s identified requirements under subsection (b)(3)
is a decision that may be appealed as provided in section 30.6.8.
c. Consistency; reconciliation of conflicts. Any requirement of the architectural review board shall be
consistent with the requirements of this chapter. If there is a conflict between any requirement of
any applicable law and any requirement identified by the architectural review board, the
requirement of the applicable law shall control. If there is a conflict between a requirement and a
recommendation, the requirement shall control.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2260, 15.2-2286(A)(4),15.2-2306.
Sec. 32.4.2.3 Revisions to address required changes
Each initial site plan for which changes are required shall be revised as follows:
a. Requirements identified; letter to the developer. If the site review committee or the architectural
review board require or recommend revisions to the initial site plan, the agent shall promptly issue
a letter to the developer stating the required changes that must be made and the recommended
changes that may, in the developer’s discretion, be made. The letter shall be sent by first class
mail, be personally delivered or, if consented to by the developer in writing, by fax or email.
b. Plan revised to address required changes. The developer shall revise the plan to address all of
the required changes before approval of the initial site plan by the agent. The developer is not
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 77)
required to revise the plan to address any recommendations of the site review committee or the
architectural review board.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2260.
Sec. 32.4.2.4 Deferrral of review; when application deemed withdrawn
The review of, and action on, an initial site plan may be deferred, and an application for an initial site plan
may be deemed withdrawn, as follows:
a. Request to defer by developer. A developer may request that review or action on its application for
an initial site plan be deferred for a specified period up to six (6) months. If during the deferral
period the developer does not request the agent to take action on the initial site plan as provided
in section 32.4.2.5 within six (6) months after the date the deferral was requested, the application
shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn.
b. Failure to submit revised plan. If a developer fails to submit a revised initial site plan to address all
of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of the letter from the agent as provided in
section 32.4.2.3, the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the
developer.
c. Extension of deferral period or period to submit revised plan. Before the deferral period in
subsection (a) expires, the developer may request that the agent extend the period before the
application is deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn. The request must be received by the
agent before the deferral period expires. The agent may grant one extension for a period
determined to be reasonable, taking into consideration the size or nature of the proposed
development, the complexity of the review, and the laws in effect at the time the extension request
is made.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.4.2.5 Review and action on initial site plan by agent
The agent shall review and act on an initial site plan as follows:
a. Review. The agent shall review the initial site plan for compliance with all requirements, and shall
make a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies, if any, during review of the plan. The agent
shall consider the recommendation of the site review committee as to whether the plan complies
with all applicable requirements and any statement by the developer. The agent also may
consider any other evidence pertaining to the plan’s compliance with the requirements of this
chapter as deemed necessary for a proper review of the plan.
b. Time for action. The agent shall act on the initial site plan within sixty (60) days after the date the
plan was officially submitted, provided:
1. Alternative time for action if state agency approval is required. If approval of a feature on
the plan by a state agency is required, the agent shall approve or disapprove the plan
within thirty-five (35) days after receipt of approvals from all state agencies, and not more
than ninety (90) days after the date the plan was officially submitted.
2. Suspension of running of time for action. The running of the time by which the agent must
act on a plan shall be suspended: (i) from the date the appeal of a decision on a request
for a variation or exception is submitted under section 32.3.6 until the date the planning
commission or the board of supervisors, as the case may be, acts on the appeal,
whichever takes the final action; (ii) from the date of the letter to the developer until the
date the revised initial site plan addressing the required changes is submitted under
section 32.4.2.3(b); (iii) from the date of the developer’s request for a deferral under
section 32.4.2.4(a); and (iv) during any extension granted under section 32.4.2.4(c).
c. Action to approve and notice of approval. If the agent determines that the initial site plan complies
with all applicable requirements, he shall approve the plan and promptly issue a letter to the
developer informing the developer of the approval and stating the requirements that must be
included with submittal of the final site plan and those conditions which must be satisfied prior to
approval of the final site plan and, where applicable, those conditions which must be satisfied prior
to issuance of a grading permit under section 17-204(E). The agent shall mail the letter by first
class mail, personally deliver it to the developer, or, if consented to by the developer in writing,
deliver it by fax or email.
d. Action to disapprove and notice of disapproval. If the agent determines that the plan does not
comply with all applicable requirements, he shall disapprove the plan and promptly issue a letter
to the developer stating the reasons for disapproval by identifying the plan’s deficiencies and citing
the applicable sections of this chapter or other applicable laws, and what corrections or
modifications will permit approval of the plan. The agent shall mail the letter by first class mail,
personally deliver it to the developer, or, if consented to by the developer in writing, deliver it by
fax or email.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 78)
e. Action to disapprove because of failure to make required revisions; notice of disapproval;
opportunity to resubmit. If the developer submits a revised plan under section 32.4.2.3 that fails to
address all of the required changes, the plan shall be disapproved. Within fifteen (15) days after
the date the notice of disapproval required by subsection (d) is mailed or delivered by the agent,
the developer may resubmit the initial site plan. The date of the next application deadline after the
resubmittal of the plan shall be deemed to be the date upon which the plan was officially
submitted. In the event the developer fails to resubmit the plan within the fifteen (15) day period,
the plan shall be deemed to be disapproved and a new application and fee shall be required for
submittal of the plan.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2260.
Sec. 32.4.2.6 Appeal and judicial review
The disapproval of an initial site plan may be appealed as follows:
a. Appeal to commission and board of supervisors. If an initial site plan is disapproved by the agent,
or is approved with conditions that the developer objects to, the developer at its sole option may
appeal the decision of the agent to the commission and, if the commission disapproves the initial
site plan or affirms the objectionable conditions, to the board of supervisors. The appeal shall be
in writing and be filed with the agent within ten (10) days after the date of the decision by the agent
or by the commission, as the case may be. The action by the commission and the board shall
comply with subsections 32.4.2.5(c), (d) and (e), as applicable.
b. Judicial review. If an initial site plan is disapproved by the agent, the commission or the board of
supervisors, the developer may appeal the disapproval to the circuit court as provided in Virginia
Code § 15.2-2260(E). No developer is required to appeal the disapproval of the plan under
subsection (a) before appealing it to the circuit court.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2260.
Sec. 32.4.2.7 Period of validity of approved initial site plan
An approved initial site plan is valid as follows:
a. Valid for five years; prerequisites. An initial site plan shall be valid for: (i) a period of five (5) years
from the date it is approved pursuant to this chapter, provided that the developer submits a final
site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the approval as provided in section
32.4.3.1, and thereafter diligently pursues approval of the final site plan; and (ii) any additional
period as may be provided by state law.
b. Revocation of approval after three years. After three (3) years following initial site plan approval,
the agent may, after ninety (90) days’ written notice provided by certified mail to the developer,
revoke the approval of the initial site plan upon a specific finding of fact that the developer failed to
diligently pursue approval of the final site plan.
c. Approval null and void if final site plan not submitted within one year. The failure of a developer to
officially submit a final site plan as provided in section 32.4.3.1 within one (1) year after approval
of the initial site plan shall render the approval of the initial site plan null and void. For purposes of
this section, the date the initial site plan is approved shall be the date that the letter of approval
required by section 32.4.2.5(c) is mailed or otherwise delivered as provided therein.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2209.1, 15.2-2261
Sec. 32.4.2.8 Effect of approval of initial site plan on other future and pending approvals
The approval of an initial site plan affects the following pending and future approvals:
a. Issues pertaining to a certificate of appropriateness. An approved initial site plan that has
complied with the architectural review board’s requirements identified under section 32.4.2.2(b)
shall be deemed to be consistent with the applicable design guidelines pertaining to the elements
of sections 30.6.4(c)(2), (3) and (5) delineated in section 32.4.2.2(b)(1).
b. Erosion and sediment control plan and grading permit; conventional zoning districts. On any site
within a conventional zoning district, including any conventional zoning district also within an
entrance corridor overlay district, an approved initial site plan is an “approved site plan” within the
meaning of section 17-204(E). As such, an erosion and sediment control plan and corresponding
grading permit may be approved under chapter 17, provided that the developer has satisfied the
conditions of approval identified by the agent in the letter required by section 32.4.2.5(c).
c. Erosion and sediment control plan and grading permit; planned development zoning districts.
Notwithstanding section 8.5.5.4(c), on any site within a planned development zoning district,
including a planned development zoning district also within an entrance corridor overlay district, an
approved initial site plan is an “approved site plan” within the meaning of section 17-204(E). As
such, an erosion and sediment control plan and corresponding grading permit may be approved
under chapter 17, provided that the developer has satisfied the conditions of approval identified by
the agent in the letter required by section 32.4.2.5(c). Nothing in this section shall affect the ability
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 79)
of a developer to obtain approval of an erosion and sediment control plan and corresponding
grading permit prior to approval of an initial site plan as provided in section 8.5.5.4(b).
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 10.1-563, 15.2-2241, 15.2-2286(A)(4), 15.2-2306.
Sec. 32.4.3 Procedure for review and action on final site plan
Sec. 32.4.3.1 Submittal of final site plan; determination of completeness
Each final site plan shall be submitted to the agent and processed as follows:
a. Prerequisites to submittal. A final site plan shall not be submitted unless: (i) an initial site plan was
approved for the development and it remains valid; (ii) the final site plan satisfies all of the
requirements of section 32.6; and (iii) the final site plan satisfies all of the conditions delineated in
the letter provided under section 32.4.2.5(c) required to be satisfied prior to submitting the final
site plan.
b. Date of official submittal. A final site plan shall be submitted for approval within one (1) year after
the date of approval of the initial site plan was mailed or delivered as provided in section
32.4.2.5(c). A final site plan submitted ten (10) days or less before the one (1) year period expires
shall be deemed to be officially submitted on the date it is submitted provided that it is complete
by satisfying the requirements of subsection (a). A final site plan submitted more than ten (10)
days before the one (1) year period expires shall be deemed to be officially submitted on the date
of the next application deadline established by the agent after the submittal of the plan and the
agent’s determination that the plan is complete.
c. Timing of review to determine completeness. The agent’s review to determine whether a final site
plan is complete shall be made within ten (10) days after it was submitted.
d. Determination that plan is incomplete; notice. A final site plan not satisfying the requirements of
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted for official submittal by
the agent. The agent shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons for the disapproval, with
citation to the applicable section of this chapter or other law, and what corrections or modifications
will permit acceptance of the plan. The agent shall notify the developer or his or her agent of the
disapproval in writing by first class mail, personal delivery, or, if consented to by the developer in
writing, by fax or email.
e. Resubmittal. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the notice of disapproval was mailed or
delivered by the agent, the developer may resubmit the final site plan together with payment of the
fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application deadline after the resubmittal
of the plan shall be deemed to be the date upon which the plan was officially submitted. In the
event the developer fails to resubmit the plan within the fifteen (15) day period, the plan shall be
deemed to be disapproved and a new application and fee shall be required for submittal of the
plan.
f. Transmittal. A final site plan deemed officially submitted shall be transmitted to the site review
committee. If state agency approval of a final site plan is required, the agent shall forward to the
state agency all documents necessary to allow it to conduct its review within ten (10) days after
the final site plan is deemed officially submitted.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2259, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.4.3.2 Review of final site plan by site review committee
Upon receipt of a final site plan from the agent, the site review committee shall review the plan and make
its recommendations as follows:
a. Review for compliance with section 32. The plan shall be reviewed to determine that it complies
with the requirements of section 32 in effect when the initial site plan was approved.
b. Review for compliance with chapter 18 and other laws. The plan shall be reviewed to determine
whether it complies with the requirements of chapter 18 and other applicable laws in effect at the
time of final site plan review, including but not limited to sections 17-403 and 17-404; provided that
the developer may establish that its rights have vested to have the final site plan reviewed under
prior versions of chapter 18 or other applicable laws.
c. Review for compliance with conditions of initial site plan approval. The plan shall be reviewed to
confirm that it satisfies all of the conditions required to be satisfied prior to submitting the final site
plan, and all of the conditions required to be satisfied prior to final site plan approval, delineated in
the letter provided under section 32.4.2.5(c).
d. Recommendation. Upon completion of its review, the site review committee shall transmit to the
agent its recommendation for approval if it determines that the plan satisfies the requirements of
subsections (a), (b) and (c), or its recommendation for required changes if it determines the plan
does not satisfy the requirements of subsections (a), (b) or (c).
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2121, 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2259, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 80)
Sec. 32.4.3.3 Review of final site plan by architectural review board; certificate of appropriateness
Prior to approval by the agent of any final site plan for a development within an entrance corridor overlay
district, the developer shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness for the development from the
architectural review board as follows:
a. Submittal requirements. The developer shall submit an application for review under sections
30.6.6 and 30.6.7.
b. Scope of review. The scope of review by the architectural review board shall be as provided in
section 30.6.4, subject to the following:
1. Effect of initial site plan approval. If the final site plan satisfies the requirements of the
architectural review board identified during its review under section 32.4.2.2(b), it shall be
deemed to be consistent with the applicable design guidelines pertaining to the elements
of sections 30.6.4(c)(2), (3) and (5) delineated in section 32.4.2.2(b)(1) and they shall not
be reconsidered by the board during its review of the application for a certificate of
appropriateness.
2. If final site plan varies from approved initial site plan. A final site plan may vary from the
approved initial site plan and not satisfy the requirements of the architectural review board
identified during its review under section 32.4.2.2(b). In such a case, the board shall
consider all of the issues under section 30.6.4 during its review of the application for a
certificate of appropriateness.
c. Failure to incorporate recommendations. The architectural review board shall not deny a
certificate of appropriateness on the sole ground that the final site plan failed to incorporate any
recommendation of the board during its review of the initial site plan under section 32.4.2.2(b).
d. Reconciliation of conflicts. Conflicts among the requirements of this chapter and other applicable
laws and recommendations shall be reconciled as provided in section 32.4.2.2(c).
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2286(A)(4), 15.2-2306.
Sec. 32.4.3.4 Revisions to address required changes
A final site plan for which changes are required shall be revised as follows:
a. Requirements identified; letter to the developer. If the site review committee identifies required
changes to the final site plan, the committee shall promptly issue a letter to the developer stating
the changes required to be made. The letter shall be sent by first class mail, be personally
delivered or, if consented to by the developer in writing, by fax or email.
b. Response to address requirements. The developer shall revise the plan to address all of the
required changes before approval of the final site plan by the agent.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2259.
Sec. 32.4.3.5 Deferral of review; when application deemed withdrawn
The review of, and action on, a final site plan may be deferred, and an application for a final site plan may
be deemed withdrawn, as follows:
a. Request to defer by developer. A developer may request that review or action on its application for
a final site plan be deferred for a specified period up to six (6) months. If during the deferral period
the developer does not request the agent to take action on the final site plan as provided in
section 32.4.3.6 within six (6) months after the date the deferral was requested, the application
shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn.
b. Failure to submit revised plan. If a developer fails to submit a revised final site plan to address all
of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of the letter from the agent as provided in
section 32.4.3.4, the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the
developer.
c. Extension of deferral period or period to submit revised plan. Before the deferral period in
subsection (a) expires, the developer may request that the agent extend the period before the
application is deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn. The request must be received by the
agent before the deferral period expires. The agent may grant one extension for a period
determined to be reasonable, taking into consideration the size or nature of the proposed
development, the complexity of the review, and the laws in effect at the time the extension request
is made.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.4.3.6 Review and action on final site plan by agent
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 81)
The agent shall review and act on a final site plan as follows:
a. Review. The agent shall review the final site plan for compliance with all requirements, and shall
make a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies, if any, during review of the plan. The agent
shall consider the recommendation of the site review committee as to whether the plan complies
with all applicable requirements and any statement by the developer. The agent also may
consider any other evidence pertaining to the plan’s compliance with the requirements of this
chapter as deemed necessary for a proper review of the plan.
b. Time for action. The agent shall act on the final site plan within sixty (60) days after the date the
plan was officially submitted, provided:
1. Alternative time for action if state agency approval is required. If approval of a feature on
the plan by a state agency is required, the agent shall approve or disapprove the plan
within thirty-five (35) days after receipt of approvals from all state agencies, and not more
than ninety (90) days after the date the plan was officially submitted.
2. Alternative time for action if certificate of appropriateness required. For sites within an
entrance corridor overlay district for which a certificate of appropriateness is required for
the development under section 30.6 et seq., the agent shall approve or disapprove the
plan within seven (7) days after the certificate is issued or sixty (60) days after the date
the plan was officially submitted, whichever is later.
3. Suspension of running of time for action. The running of the time by which the agent must
act on a plan shall be suspended: (i) from the date the appeal of a decision on a request
for a variation or exception is submitted under section 32.3.6 until the date the planning
commission or the board of supervisors, as the case may be, acts on the appeal,
whichever takes the final action; (ii) from the date of the letter to the developer until the
date the revised initial site plan addressing the required changes is submitted under
section 32.4.3.4(b); (iii) from the date of the developer’s request for a deferral under
section 32.4.3.5(a); and (iv) during any extension granted under section 32.4.3.5(c).
c. Action to approve and notice of approval. If the agent determines that the final site plan complies
with all applicable requirements, he shall approve and sign the plan, and may issue a letter to the
developer informing the developer of the approval. The agent shall mail the letter by first class
mail, personally deliver it to the developer, or, if consented to by the developer in writing, deliver it
by fax or email.
d. Action to disapprove and notice of disapproval. If the agent determines that the plan does not
comply with all applicable requirements, he shall disapprove the plan and promptly issue a letter
to the developer stating the reasons for disapproval by identifying the initial site plan’s deficiencies
and citing the applicable sections of this chapter or other law, and what corrections or
modifications will permit approval of the plan. The agent shall mail the letter by first class mail,
personally deliver it to the developer, or, if consented to by the developer in writing, deliver it by
fax or email.
e. Submittal of corrected or modified plan. Any developer who has received a notice of disapproval
under subsection (d) may submit a corrected or modified final site plan addressing the
deficiencies identified in the notice of disapproval, as follows:
1. Deadline for submittal. The developer shall submit the corrected or modified plan within
sixty (60) days after the date of the notice of disapproval.
2. Time for action. The agent shall act on the corrected or modified plan within forty-five (45)
days after it was submitted.
3. Action to approve or disapprove. The agent shall approve or disapprove the corrected or
modified plan and provide notice of the action to the developer as provided under
subsections (c) and (d).
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2259.
Sec. 32.4.3.7 Appeal and judicial review
The disapproval of a final site plan maybe appealed as follows:
a. Appeal to planning commission and board of supervisors. If a final site plan is disapproved by the
agent, the developer at its sole option may appeal the disapproval to the planning commission
and, if the commission disapproves the plan, to the board of supervisors. The appeal shall be in
writing and be filed with the agent within ten (10) days after the date of the disapproval by the
agent or by the commission, as the case may be. The action by the commission and the board
shall comply with sections 32.4.3.6(c) and (d).
b. Judicial review. If a final site plan is disapproved by the agent, the planning commission or the
board of supervisors, the developer may appeal the disapproval to the circuit court as provided in
Virginia Code § 15.2-2259(D). No developer is required to appeal the disapproval of the plan
under subsection (a) before appealing it to the circuit court.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 82)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2260.
Sec. 32.4.3.8 Period of validity of approved final site plan
An approved final site plan is valid as follows:
a. Valid for five years or longer. An approved final site plan shall be valid for: (i) a period of not less
than five (5) years after the date of its approval or for a longer period as the agent may, at the time
of approval, determine to be reasonable, taking into consideration the size and phasing of the
proposed development; and (ii) any additional period as may be provided by state law. A plan
shall be deemed to be approved once it has been signed by the agent and if the only requirement
remaining to be satisfied in order to obtain a building permit is the posting of any bonds and
escrows.
b. Request for extension. Upon application by the developer submitted prior to expiration of the final
site plan, the agent may grant one or more extensions of the approval for additional periods as the
agent may, at time the extension is granted, determine to be reasonable, taking into consideration
the size and phasing of the proposed development, and the laws, ordinances and regulations in
effect at the time of the request for an extension. If the agent denies the request, he shall promptly
issue a letter to the developer stating the reasons for the denial. The agent shall mail the letter by
first class mail, personally deliver it to the developer, or, if consented to by the developer in writing,
deliver it by fax or email.
c. Judicial review if request for extension denied. If the agent denies an extension requested under
subsection (b) and the developer contends that the denial was not properly based on the
regulation applicable thereto, the considerations for granting an extension delineated in
subsection (b), or was arbitrary or capricious, the developer may appeal the denial to the circuit
court as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2261.
d. Rights attached to valid approved final site plan. For so long as the final site plan remains valid in
accord with the provisions of this section, no change or amendment to any county ordinance,
map, resolution, rule, regulation, policy or plan adopted after the date the plan was approved shall
adversely affect the right of the developer or its successor in interest to commence and complete
an approved development in accordance with the lawful terms of the approved plan unless the
change or amendment is required to comply with state law or there has been a mistake, fraud or a
change in circumstances substantially affecting the public health, safety or welfare.
e. Effect of minor amendments. The developer’s application for a minor amendment to the approved
final site plan during its period of validity shall not constitute a waiver of the provisions of this
section. The agent’s approval of a minor amendment shall not extend the period of validity of the
final site plan.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2209.1, 15.2-2261.
Sec. 32.5 Initial site plan; form and content
Sec. 32.5.1 Form and style of an initial site plan
Each initial site plan shall comply with the following:
a. Number of copies. Sixteen (16) clearly legible copies in blue or black ink of the plan shall be
submitted.
b. Scale and size. The plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or
to another scale approved by the agent in a particular case. No sheet shall exceed forty-two (42)
inches by thirty-six (36) inches in size. The plan may be prepared on one (1) or more sheets. If
prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the several sheets
join. The top of the sheet shall be approximately either north or east.
c. Dimensions. The plan shall be dimensioned to at least the following standards for accuracy:
1. Boundary, setback and zoning lines: One foot in one thousand (1:1,000) feet.
2. Existing contours: One-half (½) of the contour interval required in section 32.5.2(d).
3. Proposed contours: Within five (5) feet horizontally and vertically.
4. Existing structures, utilities and other topographic features: Within five (5) feet.
5. Proposed structures, roads, parking lots and other improvements: Within five (5) feet.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 83)
Each initial site plan shall contain the following information:
a. General information. The name of the development; names of the owner, developer and individual
who prepared the plan; tax map and parcel number; boundary dimensions; zoning district;
descriptions of all proffers, special use permits and conditions thereof, special exceptions and
conditions thereof, variances and conditions thereof, application plans, codes of development and
bonus factors applicable to the site; magisterial district; county and state; north point; scale; one
datum reference for elevation (where section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, is involved, United
States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or correlated to plan topography); the
source of the topography; departing lot lines; minimum setback lines, yard and building separation
requirements; the source of the survey; sheet number and total number of sheets; and the names
of the owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel numbers and present uses of abutting parcels.
b. Information regarding the proposed use. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate
that the site can accommodate the proposed uses, including proposed uses and maximum
acreage occupied by each use; maximum number of dwelling units by type including the number
of bedrooms for multi-family dwellings; gross residential density; square footage of recreational
areas; the percentage and acreage of open space; maximum square footage for commercial and
industrial uses; maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage for industrial use; maximum height of
all structures; schedule of parking including the maximum amount required and the amount
provided; the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site; and if a landscape plan is
required, the maximum amount of paved parking and other vehicular circulation areas.
c. Phase lines. If phasing is planned, phase lines and the proposed timing of development.
d. Topography and proposed grading. Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope,
maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours)
for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite
features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site
unless otherwise approved by the agent; proposed grading (maximum five [5] foot contours)
supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are
critical slopes.
e. Landscape features. The existing landscape features as described in section 32.7.9.4(c).
f. Watercourses and other bodies of water. The name and location of all watercourses and other
bodies of water adjacent to or on the site; indicate whether the site is located within the watershed
of a public water supply reservoir.
g. Onsite sewage system setback lines. The location of onsite sewage system setback lines from
watercourses including intermittent streams and other bodies of water.
h. Flood plain. The one hundred year flood plain limits as shown on the official flood insurance maps
for Albemarle County.
i. Streets, easements and travelways. The existing and proposed streets, including proposed bike
lanes, access easements, alley easements and rights-of-way, and travelways, together with street
names, state route numbers, right-of-way lines and widths, centerline radii and pavement widths.
j. Existing sewer and drainage facilities. The location and size of existing water and sewer facilities
and easements, the storm drainage system, drainage channels, and drainage easements.
k. Proposed sewer and drainage facilities. The proposed conceptual layout for water and sewer
facilities and the storm drainage system, indicating the direction of flow in all pipes and
watercourses with arrows.
l. Existing and proposed utilities. The location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including existing telephone, cable, electric and gas easements.
m. Ingress and egress. The location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the
property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection.
n. Existing and proposed improvements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed
improvements including buildings (maximum footprint and height) and other structures; walkways;
fences; walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting; landscaped areas and open space; recreational
areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas; loading and service areas; signs; and the
proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways.
o. Areas to be dedicated or reserved. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use
under sections 32.7.1.1, 32.7.1.2 and 32.7.1.3, and shall include a note on the plan stating that
the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
p. Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9, if it is required to be
submitted with the initial site plan.
q. Traffic generation figures. If deemed appropriate by the agent due to the intensity of the
development, estimated traffic generation figures for the site based on current Virginia
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 84)
Department of Transportation rates; indicate the estimated number of vehicles per day and the
direction of travel for all connections from the site to a public street.
r. Symbols and abbreviations. A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan.
s. Additional information. The agent may require additional information to be shown on the initial site
plan as deemed necessary to provide sufficient information for the agent and the site review
committee to adequately review the plan.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.5.3 Response to information during preapplication process
The application for an initial site plan shall include a response to all information for which a response was
requested under section 32.4.1.4.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.5.4 Groundwater assessment information
The application for an initial site plan shall include draft groundwater management plans and aquifer
testing workplans required by sections 17-403 and 17-404, if applicable. The requirements of sections 17-
403 and 17-404 shall be satisfied prior to final site plan approval.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2121.
Sec. 32.5.5 Parking structure information
The application for an initial site plan shall include architectural elevations, drawings, photographs or other
visual materials showing any parking structure proposed on the site and surrounding structures and land
uses.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.6 Final site plan; form and content
Sec. 32.6.1 Form and style of a final site plan
Each final site plan shall comply with the following:
a. Authorized preparer. The plan, and any amendments to a plan, shall be prepared and sealed,
signed and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or certified landscape
architect, each of whom shall be licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
b. Number of copies when first submitted. Two (2) clearly legible copies in blue or black ink of the
plan, in the scale and size required by subsection (d), and one (1) reduced copy of the plan no
larger than eleven (11) by seventeen (17) inches in size shall be submitted.
c. Number of copies when submitted for final signature approval. When submitting the final site plan
for final signature approval, four (4) print copies of the plan shall be submitted.
d. Scale and size. The plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or
larger, or to another scale approved by the agent in a particular case. No sheet shall exceed forty-
two (42) inches by thirty-six (36) inches in size. The plan may be prepared on one (1) or more
sheets. If prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the
several sheets join. The top of each sheet shall be approximately either north or east.
e. Dimensions. The plan shall be dimensioned to at least the following standards for accuracy:
1. Boundary, setback and zoning lines: Within one one-hundredth (0.01) of a foot.
2. Existing contours: Within one-half (½) of the contour interval required in section 32.6.2(c).
3. Proposed contours: Within one (1) foot horizontally and vertically.
4. Spot elevations: Within one-tenth (0.10) of a foot.
5. Existing critical structures including utilities and other topographic features: Within two (2)
feet, provided that for critical structures, which include, but are not limited to, gas lines,
other utilities, pipes, conduits, walls and buildings to be preserved, within one-tenth (0.10)
of a foot.
6. Proposed structures, roads, parking lots and other improvements: Within one one-
hundredth (0.01) of a foot.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 85)
Sec. 32.6.2 Contents of a final site plan
Each final site plan shall contain the following information:
a. Information required. All of the information required to be on an initial site plan, as provided in
section 32.5.
b. Demonstrate compliance with chapter. Specific written schedules or notes as necessary to
demonstrate that the requirements of this chapter are satisfied.
c. Proposed grading. Proposed grading (up to twenty [20] percent slope, maximum two [2] foot
contours; over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum five [5] foot contours).
d. Water and sewer facilities. Detailed plans for proposed water and sewer facilities, including all
pipe sizes, types and grades; proposed connections to existing or proposed central water supplies
and central sewage systems; location and dimensions of proposed easements and whether they
are to be publicly or privately maintained; profiles and cross sections of all water and sewer lines
including clearance where lines cross; all water main locations and sizes; valves and fire hydrant
locations; all sewer appurtenances by type and number; the station on the plan to conform to the
station shown on the profile and indicate the top and invert elevation of each structure.
e. Drainage and grading plans. Detailed construction drainage and grading plans:
1. Profiles of all ditches and channels whether proposed or existing, showing existing and
proposed grades, and invert of ditches, cross pipes or utilities; typical channel cross
sections for new construction; and actual cross sections for existing channels intended to
remain;
2. Profiles of all storm sewer systems showing existing and proposed grades;
3. Plan view of all drainage systems with all structures, pipes and channels numbered or
lettered on the plan and profile views. Show sufficient dimensions and bench marks to
allow field stake out of all proposed work from the boundary lines;
4. A drainage summary table for culverts, storm sewer and channels as described in the
following example:
Structure
Number
Description
Length
Invert
In
Invert
Out
Slope
Remarks
1 42” RCP
Class III
50’ 424.50 424.00 100.00% Provide
2, EW
2 DI-3B L=8 426.00 432.00 - IS-1
Top
3 PG-2A 400’ 420.00 400.00 5.00% D=12”
4 Grade
Swale
200’ 420.00 415.00 2.50% D=18”
5. A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan;
6. General notes, typical sections, and details of all items not covered by Virginia
Department of Transportation standard drawings; and
7. Flood plain limits for the one hundred (100) year storm for all watercourses with an
upstream drainage area of fifty (50) acres or more provided that the county engineer may
waive this requirement for drainage areas of less than one hundred (100) acres upon
determining that the information is unnecessary for review of the proposed development.
f. Street sections. Typical street sections together with specific street sections where street cut or fill
is five (5) feet or greater; centerline curve data; radius of curb returns or edge of pavement;
location, type and size of proposed ingress to and egress from the site together with culvert size;
symmetrical transition of pavement at intersection with existing street; the edge of street surface
or face of curb for full length of proposed street; when proposed streets intersect with or adjoin
existing streets or travelways, both edges of existing pavement or travelway together with curb
and gutter indicated for a minimum of one hundred (100) feet or the length of connection,
whichever is the greater distance.
g. Public facilities and utilities. All public facilities, utility and drainage easements outside the right-of-
way of public streets, provided that new easements may be generally shown and accurately
dedicated by separate plat. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the
easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be
dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority.
h. Signature panel. Signature panel for signature by each member of the site review committee.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 86)
i. Parking and loading areas. For all parking and loading areas, indicate the size, angle of stalls,
width of aisles and specific number of spaces required and provided, and method of computation.
Indicate type of surfacing for all paved or gravel areas.
j. Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9
k. Outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location,
description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire.
l. Recreational facilities. Specifications for recreational facilities.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.6.3 Parking structure information
If the site will have a parking structure, the application for a final site plan shall include any revised
architectural elevations, drawings, photographs or other visual materials submitted with the initial site plan
under section 32.5.5. The elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.7 Minimum standards for improvements
Sec. 32.7.1 Dedications and reservations
Sec. 32.7.1.1 Dedication of land for vehicular access, parks, schools and open space
Each developer shall dedicate to the county a part of the site abutting an existing street determined to be
required for vehicular access from that street and may dedicate to the county a part of the property for
parks, schools, and open space, as follows:
a. No compensation if dedication required. The board of supervisors shall not be required to
compensate the developer for the land dedicated if the dedication: (i) is required in conjunction
with an improvement required by the Virginia Department of Transportation or by this chapter; (ii)
is a gift; or (iii) is required by a proffer as part of a conditional rezoning, or a condition imposed in
conjunction with the approval of a special use permit, special exception, variance, or other
approval.
b. How accomplished. The dedication of land shall be accomplished by a subdivision plat satisfying
the requirements of chapter 14 and may be accompanied by a deed of dedication in a form and
having the substance approved by the county attorney.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(5).
Sec. 32.7.1.2 Reservation for future dedication of land for public use
Any developer may reserve for future dedication to the county a part of the site suitable for parks, schools,
and open space, as follows:
a. No compensation if dedication required. The board of supervisors shall not be required to
compensate the developer for the reservation of land if the future dedication: (i) is a gift; or (ii) is
required by a proffer as part of a conditional rezoning, or a condition imposed in conjunction with
the approval of a special use permit, special exception, variance, or other approval.
b. Land need not be identified in comprehensive plan. Land may be reserved for public use even
though it is not identified in the comprehensive plan for a future public use, provided the land is
acceptable to the county for reservation.
c. Reserved in a usable manner. The agent shall not require that land be reserved in a manner that
would render it unusable to the developer if it will not be used for the intended public purpose.
d. Release of reservation. The developer may petition the board of supervisors to release a
reservation if the land will not be used for a public purpose.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(5).
Sec. 32.7.1.3 Reservation of land for streets, alleys, walkways, waterways or public areas shown
on official map
The agent may request a developer to reserve for future dedication to the county a part of the site suitable
for streets, alleys, walkways, waterways or public areas if they are shown on an official map adopted
under Virginia Code § 15.2-2233, as follows:
a. Shown on site plan. Land reserved for future dedication under this section shall be set apart on
the final site plan and be identified by a note on the plan stating that the land is reserved for future
dedication for public use. The land reserved shall not be developed except as provided in this
section.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 87)
b. Procedure when site plan submitted to develop reserved lands. When a site plan to allow the
reserved land to be developed is submitted to the county, the plan shall be reviewed and acted on
as provided in section 32. If the plan is disapproved for the sole reason that the county wants the
land to be dedicated to public use, the county shall have sixty (60) days to request that the land be
dedicated to public use and the dedication shall be completed within one hundred twenty (120)
days after the date of disapproval. If the county has not acted within the one hundred twenty (120)
day period, the plan shall be approved provided that all other requirements of law have been
satisfied.
c. Release of reservation. The developer may petition the board of supervisors to release the
reservation if the official map is amended to remove the street, alley, walkway, waterway or public
area from the lands reserved on the approved final site plan.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2233, 15.2-2241.
Sec. 32.7.2 Vehicular access to site; streets, sidewalks and other pedestrian ways
Sec. 32.7.2.1 Vehicular access to site
Any vehicular access to and from a site shall comply with the following:
a. General. The agent may specify the number, type, location and, subject to subsections (b) and
(c), the design of all streets or travelways providing vehicular ingress to and egress from a site for
the purpose of reducing or preventing congestion on offsite streets, minimizing conflicts and
friction with vehicular traffic on offsite and onsite streets or travelways, minimizing conflicts with
pedestrians, and providing continuous and unobstructed access for emergency services such as
police, fire and rescue vehicles.
b. Design. Each entrance onto any public street shall be designed and constructed as required by
the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Each entrance onto a public street
shall be subject to approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Each entrance onto a
private street shall be subject to approval by the county engineer.
c. Principal means of access to residential development; design to avoid obstruction during flooding.
If discharge water of a twenty-five (25) year storm could be reasonably anticipated to inundate,
block, destroy or otherwise obstruct a principal means of access to a residential development, the
following also shall apply:
1. The principal means of access shall be designed and constructed so as to provide
unobstructed access at the time of flooding; and/or
2. An alternative means of access which is not subject to inundation, blockage, destruction
or obstruction, and which is accessible from each dwelling unit within the development
shall be constructed.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(2), 15.2-2241(4).
Sec. 32.7.2.2 Streets and travelways composing the internal road network
Streets and travelways within a development shall be subject to the following:
a. Minimum design. Each public street and travelway within a development shall be designed and
constructed to the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Each private street and
travelway within a development shall be designed and constructed to the standards for private
streets in chapter 14.
b. Geometric design. The agent may vary street geometric design standards as provided under
section 32.3.5 for public local, collector and minor loop streets, provided that:
1. Approval of the proposed variation is obtained from the Virginia Department of
Transportation where applicable;
2. Off-street parking spaces are provided to compensate for the loss of on-street parking
due to varying the geometric design standards; and
3. The developer shall be responsible for placing “no parking” signs on all travel lanes,
driveways or streets to prohibit parking on the streets. Where turnarounds are used, if the
right-of-way radius is fifty (50) feet and the paved radius is forty (40) feet, the developer
shall install “no parking” signs for the complete circle where those signs are required by
the agent. If the right-of-way radius is increased to sixty (60) feet and the paved radius is
increased to fifty (50) feet, parking on the turnaround may be permitted.
c. Turnarounds. All turnarounds shall have a turning radius required by the standards of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. In the case of any private street, the agent may require that at least
one sign of a type approved by the county engineer be posted giving notice that the street is not a
through street.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 88)
d. Coordination. All streets within a development shall be coordinated as to location, width, grades
and drainage with other streets, as follows: (i) by coordinating with existing or planned streets
within the general area of the development, including but not limited to existing or future adjacent
subdivisions or developments, or subdivisions or developments contiguous to adjacent
subdivisions or developments; and (ii) by continuing the streets to planned, existing, or platted
streets into adjoining areas by dedication or reservation of right of way adequate to accommodate
continuation of the streets.
e. Extension. All streets within a development shall be extended and constructed to the abutting
property lines to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on
adjoining lands, terminating within the development with a temporary turnaround. The
arrangement of the streets shall provide adequate access to adjoining lands within the
development where necessary to provide for the orderly development of the county including, but
not limited to, reserving temporary construction easements of sufficient area to accommodate the
future completion of the street when the adjoining lands are developed.
f. Interconnectivity of bicycle ways. The agent may require that any bicycle way connect to existing
bicycle ways on abutting parcels.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(2), 15.2-2241(4), 15.2-2242(3).
Sec. 32.7.2.3 Sidewalks and other pedestrian ways
Sidewalks and pedestrian ways within a development shall be provided as follows:
a. Sidewalks along streets. The agent may require sidewalks on one or both sides of streets in
residential developments having a proposed density of two (2) or more dwelling units per acre and
in commercial, industrial and mixed-use developments whenever he determines that sidewalks
are reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. All sidewalks along
streets, including all ramps for persons with mobility impairments, shall be designed and
constructed to the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
b. Other sidewalks and pedestrian walkways. The agent may require sidewalks and pedestrian
walkways which will enable pedestrians to walk safely and conveniently between buildings on the
site and from the site to adjacent property and, where appropriate, to onsite private areas of
recreation and open space and offsite public areas of recreation and open space such as schools,
parks, gardens and similar areas. All sidewalks and pedestrian walkways that may be required by
this subsection shall be designed and constructed to the standards established in the design
standards manual, provided that all ramps for persons with mobility impairments shall be
designed and constructed to the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
c. Interconnectivity of sidewalks or pedestrian ways. The agent may require that any sidewalk or
other pedestrian way connect to existing sidewalks or pedestrian ways on abutting parcels.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2201, 2241(4), 15.2-2242(3), 15.2-2280.
Sec. 32.7.2.3 Parking
Onsite parking shall be subject to the following:
a. Design and construction. Onsite parking and internal circulation shall be designed and
constructed as provided in section 4.12.
b. Parking structures. In addition to all other applicable requirements, each parking structure shall be
subject to the following:
1. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be
screened from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the agent with materials
harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from public
view.
2. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining
residential development.
3. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting
fixtures will not routinely shine directly outside the structure.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2- 2241(3), 15.2-2241(4), 15.2-2280.
Sec. 32.7.4 Water and soil protection
Sec. 32.7.4.1 Erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and other water
regulations; water pollution; soil characteristics
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 89)
Each site plan shall comply with the following:
a. Erosion and sediment control, stormwater management and other water regulations. Each site
plan shall comply with all applicable requirements of chapter 17.
b. Water pollution. In addition to the provisions of section 4.14 and other applicable laws, each site
plan shall provide for minimizing the pollution of downstream watercourses and groundwater
where on-site measures are deemed warranted by the county engineer. In determining whether
and what measures, if any, are warranted, the county engineer shall consider the character of the
proposed use including, but not limited to, whether petroleum products, pesticides, poisons,
synthetic organic compounds or other substances would be stored or used on the site which, if
improperly stored or inadvertently discharged, may reasonably be anticipated to pollute surface
water or groundwater.
c. Soil characteristics. In reviewing site plans, the site review committee shall refer to the U. S.
Department of Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia,
August, 1985 in commenting on soil suitability for the intended development and, in particular,
Table 10 Building Site Development, Table 12 Construction Materials, and Table 16 Soil and
W ater Features. If soils are rated as “poor” or “severely limited” for a proposed use, or where
high seasonal water table and/or hydrologic group D soils are encountered, the site review
committee shall notify the agent of these conditions and provide recommendations for special
design measures.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 10.1-560 et seq., 10.1-603.2 et seq., 10.1-2108, 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2283.
Sec. 32.7.4.2 Easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control
The agent shall require each developer to dedicate easements to the county for facilities for stormwater
management and drainage control as follows:
a. Easements required. The following easements shall be required:
1. An easement for all stormwater management facilities and drainage control
improvements located on the site shall be established whenever the improvement is
designed and/or constructed beyond a street right-of-way or access easement, and shall
extend from all drainage outfalls to an adequate channel as defined in 4 VAC § 50-30-10
that satisfies the minimum standards in 4 VAC § 50-30-40(19) to the boundary of the site.
2. An easement along any natural stream or man-made waterway located on the site that
will be used for drainage purposes.
b. Area of easement. The area of each easement shall be sufficient, as determined by the county
engineer, to: (i) accommodate the facilities and the drainage characteristics from each drainage
outfall from a drainage control facility; and (ii) allow access to a natural stream or man-made
waterway to allow widening, deepening, relocating, improving, or protecting the natural stream or
man-made waterway for drainage purposes.
c. Right of ingress and egress. Each easement shall include the right of ingress and egress for
installation, maintenance, operation, repair and reconstruction of any improvement within the
easement. The agent also may require that an easement be provided through abutting land under
the same ownership as the site.
d. Compensation not required. The board of supervisors shall not be required to compensate the
developer for any easement or any improvements thereon.
e. Not considered part of street width. No easement shall be considered part of any required street
width.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3).
Sec. 32.7.5 Water, sewer and other utilities
Sec. 32.7.5.1 Water supply and sewage system
The water supply and sewage system serving a development shall comply with the following:
a. Whether a public or private water supply and sewage system required. Whether the developer
shall install or construct a public or private water supply and sewage system shall be determined
under section 4.1.
b. Public water supply and sewage system. All public water and sewer facilities required to be
constructed to serve the development shall be designed and constructed to the standards of the
Albemarle County Service Authority. The water supply also shall satisfy the requirements of
section 32.7.6(a) to provide fire protection. To ensure that public water and sewer service is
available to abutting parcels that would rely on those systems, the agent may require the
developer to construct the water and sewer facilities to the boundary lines of the development with
abutting lands. Sewer facilities constructed to the boundary lines of the site shall be constructed at
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 90)
a depth and location that allows gravity sewers to provide service to the developable land draining
towards the sewer.
c. Private water supply and sewage system. All private water and sewer facilities shall be designed
and constructed to the standards of the Virginia Department of Health and be approved by the
Health Director. The water supply also shall satisfy the requirements of section 32.7.6(b) to
provide fire protection.
d. Dedication of public water and sewer facilities. The developer shall dedicate any public water and
sewer facilities as provided in section 32.7.5.3.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2241(4).
Sec. 32.7.5.2 Location of utilities above and below ground
All utilities, including but not limited to wires, cables, pipes, conduits and appurtenant equipment for
electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone or similar service, shall be located within a site as follows:
a. Conforming to natural topography. Each utility shall be located, to the extent practicable, in a
manner that conforms to the natural topography, minimizes the disturbance of critical slopes and
natural drainage areas, and allows vehicular and pedestrian interconnections within the site and
existing or future development on adjoining lands.
b. Undergrounding. All new utilities shall be located underground except the following, which may be
located above ground: (i) electric transmission lines and facilities; (ii) equipment, including electric
distribution transformers, switch gear, meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, outdoor lighting
poles or standards, radio antennae and associated equipment, which is, under accepted utility
practices, normally installed aboveground; (iii) meters, service connections, and similar equipment
normally attached to the outside wall of a utility customer’s premises; and (iv) satellite dishes.
c. Within public street right-of-way. If it is necessary to locate a new or existing public utility within the
right-of-way of a public street, the developer shall first obtain a permit from the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
d. Allowing street trees and landscaping. Installation of utilities in or adjacent to the right-of-way shall
not preclude the installation of street trees or required landscaping.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(4).
Sec. 32.7.5.3 Dedication of public water and sewer facilities
The agent shall require each developer to dedicate to the Albemarle County Service Authority for public
use all water and sewer facilities required by this chapter that are designed, constructed and approved to
be dedicated as public water supply and public sewage systems, and to establish an easement on the
land appurtenant thereto and extending to any abutting property identified by the agent. The board of
supervisors and the service authority shall not be required to compensate the developer for the dedicated
facilities or the establishment of the easement.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(5).
Sec. 32.7.5.4 Easements for cable television and public service corporations
The agent may require a developer to convey, where appropriate, common or shared easements to
franchised cable television operators furnishing cable television and public service corporations furnishing
cable television, gas, telephone and electric service to the site, as follows:
a. The location of each easement shall be adequate for use by the franchised cable television
operators and public service corporations which may be expected to occupy them.
b. Each easement shall include the right of ingress and egress for installation, maintenance,
operation, repair and reconstruction of any improvement within the easement. The agent also may
require that an easement be provided through abutting land under the same ownership as the
site.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(6).
Sec. 32.7.6 Fire protection
Fire protection shall be provided as follows:
a. Public water reasonably available. Where public water is reasonably available as determined
under section 4.1(a):
1. Verification of capability. Prior to final site plan approval, the Albemarle County Service
Authority and the division of fire rescue shall verify that adequate capability exists to
provide adequate fire protection to serve the site, including required fire flows, together
with all other developments to be served by the system.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 91)
2. Required improvements. Fire hydrants and distribution systems shall be installed and
constructed by the developer. Hydrant locations and fire flow requirements shall be as
prescribed by Insurance Service Offices (ISO) standards and shall be subject to approval
by the division of fire rescue, provided that if the standards of the Albemarle County
Service Authority are greater than the ISO standards, then the standards of the Albemarle
County Service Authority shall apply.
b. Public water not reasonably available. Where public water is not reasonably available as
determined under section 4.1(a), the division of fire rescue may require the improvements and
alternative provisions it deems reasonably necessary to provide adequate fire protection to serve
the site.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3).
Sec. 32.7.7 Recreation
Recreational areas shall be provided as required by section 4.16.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3).
Sec. 32.7.8 Signs and outdoor lighting
Signs and outdoor lighting shall be provided as follows:
a. Signs. All signs shall comply with the requirements of, and shall be subject to approval as
provided in, section 4.15.
b. Outdoor lighting. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of section 4.17.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3).
Sec. 32.7.9 Landscaping and screening
Sec. 32.7.9.1 Purposes
The purposes for requiring landscaping and screening as part of a development are to:
a. Ensure orderly development that is consistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive
plan related to natural resources and with the plan’s environmental and land use policies and
goals, as implemented in this chapter;
b. Promote the public health, safety and welfare;
c. Conserve energy by providing shade and wind breaks;
d. Provide pervious area which helps to reduce the quantity of stormwater and to recharge
groundwater;
e. Improve air quality;
f. Minimize noise, dust and glare;
g. Promote traffic safety by controlling views and defining circulation patterns;
h. Protect and preserve the appearance, character and value of the site’s neighboring lands; and
i. Protect the unique features of the site which could otherwise be irretrievably lost due to careless
site design, but to implement these regulations so as not to prohibit development of the site.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2200, 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2283, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.7.9.2 Submittal of landscape plan, timing
A landscape plan shall be submitted as follows:
a. Prior to final site plan approval. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the agent prior to final site
plan approval, unless it is required to be submitted prior to initial site plan approval as provided in
subsections (b) or (c).
b. Prior to initial site plan approval; impervious area exceeds 80% or site within entrance corridor
overlay district. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the agent prior to initial site plan approval if
the impervious coverage of the site exceeds eighty (80%) of the gross area of the site or if the site
is within an entrance corridor overlay district.
c. Prior to initial site plan approval; special site conditions. A landscape plan shall be submitted to
the agent prior to initial site plan approval if the agent determines that review of the plan at that
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 92)
time is warranted because of unusual circumstances, conditions of the site, or the character of the
proposed use.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.7.9.3 Review and action on landscape plan by agent
The agent shall review and act on a landscape plan as follows:
a. Review. The agent shall review the landscape plan for compliance with the requirements of
section 32.7.9, and shall make a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies, if any, during review
of the plan. The agent shall consider the comments from other agencies before approving the
plan, including the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Albemarle County Service
Authority.
b. Revisions to address required changes. The agent may require the developer to revise the
landscape plan as provided in section 32.4.3.4.
c. Time for action. The agent shall act on the landscape plan prior to final site plan approval.
d. Action. If the agent determines that the landscape plan complies with all requirements of section
32.7.9, he shall approve the plan and promptly issue a letter to the developer stating so. If the
agent determines that the plan does not comply with all requirements of section 32.7.9, he shall
disapprove the plan and promptly inform the developer of the disapproval. A notice of disapproval
shall state the reasons for disapproval by identifying the landscape plan’s deficiencies and citing
the applicable sections of section 32.7.9 and what corrections or modifications will permit approval
of the plan. The agent shall notify the developer or his or her agent of the disapproval in writing by
first class mail, personal delivery, or, if consented to by the developer in writing, by fax or email.
e. Authority of agent in approving a landscape plan. In approving a landscape plan, the agent may
require the following:
1. Agreement with surety. The agent may require that installation of the landscaping be
subject to an agreement with surety as provided in section 32.8.2.
2. Preservation of features. The agent may require that any or all features shown on a
landscape plan be preserved upon determining after a site inspection that the features
contribute significantly to the character of the Albemarle County landscape and that the
preservation of those features is necessary to satisfy the purpose and intent of this
chapter.
f. Submittal of corrected or modified landscape plan. Any developer who has received a notice of
disapproval under subsection (d) may submit a corrected or modified landscape plan addressing
the deficiencies identified in the notice of disapproval.
g. Appeal. The developer may appeal the disapproval of a landscape plan as part of its appeal of the
disapproval of a final site plan as provided in section 32.4.3.7.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.7.9.4 Contents of a landscape plan
Each landscape plan shall contain the following information:
a. Proposed plant materials. The landscape plan shall show the location, size and type of all
proposed plant materials. The types of plant materials may be identified by using generic terms
such as “large shade tree,” “medium shade tree,” “screening tree,” “screening shrub,” or “street
shrub.” The required plant materials shall be chosen from a recommended species list approved
by the agent.
b. Existing trees; preservation in lieu of new plant materials. Existing trees may be preserved in lieu
of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of
section 32.7.9, subject to the agent’s approval. In such a case:
1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the
trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing,
grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond
the limits of clearing.
2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the
agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as
otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall
conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
pages III-393 through III-413, and as hereafter amended.
c. Existing landscape features. The landscape plan shall show the existing landscape features on
the site, which shall include:
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 93)
1. Wooded areas. All wooded areas, identifying whether they are composed of evergreen,
deciduous, or a mix of type, and showing the location of the tree line;
2. Small groups of trees and individual trees. Small groups of trees and individual trees of
six (6) inch caliper or greater, or ornamental trees of any size, identified by common name
and approximate caliper and showing their location;
3. Natural features. Natural features which distinguish the site, such as prominent ridge
lines, rock outcroppings or water features;
4. Man-made features. Man-made features of local, historic or scenic importance; and
5. Scenic vistas. Scenic vistas across the site from a public street.
d. Verification of compliance. The landscape plan shall verify that it satisfies the minimum
landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.7.9.5 Landscaping along streets
The minimum landscaping standards along streets are as follows:
a. When street trees required. Street trees shall be required along existing or proposed streets in
any development subject to section 32.
b. Street tree species. Street trees shall be selected from a current list of recommended large shade
trees approved by the agent, provided that medium shade trees may planted instead when the
agent determines that site conditions warrant smaller trees. All street trees to be planted shall
meet the specifications of the American Association of Nurserymen.
c. Minimum caliper of street trees. Large street trees shall be one and one-half (1 ½) inches to one
and three-quarters (1 ¾ ) inches minimum caliper (measured six [6] inches above ground level)
when planted. Medium street trees shall be one (1) inch to one and one-quarter (1 ¼ ) inches
minimum caliper when planted.
d. Location and spacing of street trees. Street trees shall be planted with even spacing in a row
within the public street right-of-way or adjacent to the public street right-of-way if not permitted
therein by the Virginia Department of Transportation, and within the private street right-of-way.
One (1) large street tree shall be required for every fifty (50) feet of street frontage, or portion
thereof, if twenty-five (25) feet or more. Where permitted, one (1) medium shade tree shall be
required for every forty (40) feet of road frontage, or portion thereof, if twenty (20) feet or more. If
required street trees cannot be planted within the parking setback or within ten (10) feet of the
street right-of-way due to sight distance, utility easements or other conflicting requirements, then
the planting strip shall be enlarged to accommodate the trees. If this requirement creates a
hardship by causing the relocation of required parking spaces, then the additional planting area
may be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement.
e. Shrubs along public streets. When a parking area is located so that the parked cars will be visible
from an off-site street, the agent may require additional planting of low street shrubs between the
street and the parking area, subject to the following:
1. Minimum size of shrubs. Shrubs shall be a minimum of twelve (12) inches in height when
planted.
2. Spacing of shrubs. Shrubs shall be in a single row planted five (5) feet on center.
3. Alternatives. The agent may authorize different landscaping designed to minimize the
visual impact of the parking area.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.7.9.6 Landscaping within a parking area
The minimum landscaping standards for each parking area having five (5) or more parking spaces are as
follows:
a. Minimum area. An area of at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and vehicular circulation
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. Neither the areas of street trees and shrubs
required by sections 32.7.9.5(d) and (e) nor shrubs planted between a parking area and a building
on the site shall be counted toward the minimum area landscaped area for a parking area.
b. Types of plant materials. The plant materials may be a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and
shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if
five (5) spaces or more. The shade trees shall be selected from a current list of recommended
large shade trees approved by the agent or other species approved by the agent and the agent
may allow trees smaller than medium shade trees to be planted when site conditions warrant
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 94)
smaller trees. All shade trees to be planted shall meet the specifications of the American
Association of Nurserymen.
c. Minimum caliper of street trees. Large street trees shall be one and one-half (1 ½) inches to one
and three-quarters (1 ¾ ) inches minimum caliper (measured six [6] inches above ground level)
when planted. Medium street trees shall be one (1) inch to one and one-quarter (1 ¼ ) inches
minimum caliper when planted.
d. Spacing. The plant materials shall be located in reasonably dispersed planting islands within the
parking area or abutting areas.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.7.9.7 Screening
The minimum landscaping standards for required screening are as follows:
a. When required. Screening shall be required in the following circumstances:
1. Commercial and industrial uses. Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened from
the adjacent rural areas zoning district. Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened
from residential uses when deemed necessary by the agent upon considering the
proximity of the commercial or industrial use to the residential use, the nature of the
commercial or industrial use, whether the uses are in single-use or mixed use
developments, and other considerations he determines to be relevant under sound zoning
principles.
2. Parking areas. Parking areas consisting of four (4) spaces or more shall be screened
from adjacent residential and rural areas districts.
3. Features that may have negative visual impacts. Features that may have negative visual
impacts including, but not limited to, the following shall be screened from adjacent
residential and rural areas districts and public streets: (i) loading areas; (ii) refuse areas;
(iii) storage yards; (iv) detention ponds; and (v) recreational facilities determined to be of
objectionable character by the agent, other than children’s play areas where visibility is
necessary or passive recreation areas where visibility is desirable.
4. Double frontage residential lots. Double frontage residential lots shall be screened
between the rear of the residences and the public right-of-way when deemed necessary
by the agent.
5. Uses that may have negative visual impacts on historic properties. The agent may require
screening of any use, or portion thereof, upon determining that the use would otherwise
have a negative visual impact on a property listed on the Virginia Historic Landmarks
Register.
b. Types of screening permitted. Screening shall consist of a planting strip, existing vegetation, a
slightly opaque wall or fence, or a combination thereof, to the reasonable satisfaction of the agent.
c. Minimum sizes of plant materials. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum four (4) feet in height when
planted. Shrubs shall be a minimum eighteen (18) inches in height when planted. All trees to be
planted shall meet the specifications of the American Association of Nurserymen.
d. Minimum depth and spacing requirements for a planting strip or existing vegetation. If only a
planting strip or existing vegetation is provided as screening, the planting strip or the existing
vegetation shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth. If a planting strip is provided, the plant
materials shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on
center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center, or an
alternative vegetative screening approved by the agent.
e. Minimum height of fence or wall; supplemental plant materials. Each fence or wall provided as
screening shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and the agent may require plantings at
intervals along the fence or wall.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.7.9.8 Tree canopy
The tree canopy required to be established and maintained is subject to the following:
a. Minimum tree canopy. Each site shall have a tree canopy covering the minimum percentage of
the site as follows:
1. Commercial or industrial uses. If the site is to be developed for commercial or industrial
uses, the minimum tree canopy is ten (10) percent.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 95)
2. Residential uses, density of 20 dwelling units per acre or more. If the site is to be
developed for residential uses at a gross density of twenty (20) dwelling units per acre or
more, the minimum tree canopy is ten (10) percent.
3. Residential uses, density of between 10 and 20 dwelling units per acre. If the site is to be
developed for residential uses at a gross density of more than ten (10) but less than
twenty (20) dwelling units per acre or more, the minimum tree canopy is fifteen (15)
percent.
4. Residential uses, density of 10 dwelling units per acre or less. If the site is to be
developed for residential uses at a gross density of ten (10) dwelling units per acre or
less, the minimum tree canopy is twenty (20) percent.
b. Composition of tree canopy. The tree canopy required by subsection (a) shall be composed of all
areas of the site that would be covered by trees and other plant materials exceeding five (5) feet
in height at a maturity of ten (10) years after planting. The trees and plant materials composing
the tree canopy are those required to be planted under sections 32.7.9.5, 32.7.9.6 and 32.7.9.7,
the existing trees preserved under section 32.7.9.4(b), and all additional trees selected from a
recommended species list approved by the agent that are planted in order to satisfy the minimum
tree canopy coverage required by subsection (a).
c. Calculating the area of the site. For the purposes of calculating the area of the site to determine
the minimum tree canopy coverage under subsection (a), the area of the site shall be its gross
acreage less, at the option of the developer, one or more of the following on the site:
1. Farm land or other areas devoid of wooded areas on June 20, 1990.
2. Recreation areas required under section 4.16.
3. Open space areas required under section 4.7.
4. Land dedicated to public use.
5. Playing fields and recreation areas provided at schools, day care centers, and other
similar uses.
6. Ponds or lakes determined by the agent to be a desirable open space amenity.
7. Areas required to preserve wetlands, flood plain or other areas required to be maintained
in a natural state by this chapter or other applicable law.
8. Other areas approved by the agent under section 32.3.5.
d. Deductions cumulative. The deductions allowed by subsection (c) are cumulative but shall not be
duplicative.
e. Canopy bonus. Where existing trees are maintained, the agent shall grant a canopy bonus as
follows:
1. The area of canopy coverage shall be calculated at a maturity of twenty (20) years after
planting; and
2. The area calculated in subsection (e)(1) shall be multiplied by a factor of 1.25.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.7.9.9 Installation and maintenance of required landscaping and screening
All landscaping and screening required by section 32.7.9 shall be installed and maintained as follows:
a. Timing of installation. All landscaping shall be installed by the first planting season following the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the development, or a phase thereof.
b. Method of installation. All trees shall be planted in accordance with either the standardized
landscape specifications jointly adopted by the Virginia Nurserymen’s Association, the Virginia
Society of Landscape Designers and the Virginia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape
Architects, or the road and bridge specifications of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Planting islands shall contain a minimum of fifty (50) square feet per tree, with a minimum
dimension of five (5) feet in order to protect the landscaping and allow for proper growth. Wheel
stops, curbing or other barriers shall be provided to prevent damage to landscaping by vehicles.
Where necessary, trees shall be welled or otherwise protected against change of grade. All
pervious areas of the site shall be permanently protected from soil erosion with grass or other
ground cover or mulch material.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 96)
c. Maintaining and replacing landscaping and screening. All landscaping and screening shall be
maintained in a healthy condition by the current owner or a property owners’ association, and
replaced when necessary. Replacement material shall comply with the approved landscape plan.
d. Maintaining trees if site not under single ownership. In the case of development with units for sale,
the trees shall be maintained by a property owner’s association. Prior to final site plan approval,
the developer shall submit to the agent an instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of the
trees. The instrument shall be subject to review and approval by the county attorney and shall be
in a form and style so that it may be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the
county. The agent may require that the instrument be on a form prepared by the county attorney.
e. Maintaining street trees planted within a public street right-of-way. If street trees are planted within
the public street right-of-way, the trees shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(6).
Sec. 32.8 Completion of on-site improvements and surety
Sec. 32.8.1 Completion of on-site improvements required prior to final site plan approval
Except as provided in section 32.8.2, all on-site improvements required by section 32.7 shall be completed
prior to approval of a final site plan. Prior to approval of the final site plan:
a. Certification regarding all completed improvements. The developer shall submit to the agent a
certificate of completion of all of the improvements prepared by a professional engineer or a land
surveyor, to the limits of his license; and
b. Certification of payment. The developer shall certify to the agent that all of the construction costs
for the improvements, including those for materials and labor, have been paid to the person
constructing the improvements.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(5), 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.8.2 Agreement and surety
Any developer who does not complete all required improvements as provided in section 32.8.1 shall, prior
to approval of a final site plan, enter into an agreement with the county to complete the construction and
installation of all improvements required by section 32.7 within a period of time agreed to by the parties,
and shall provide a surety to guarantee the completion of the improvements, as follows:
a. Form of the agreement. The agreement accompanying the surety shall be on a form prepared by
the county attorney and any proposed amendment to the agreement shall be subject to review
and approval by the county attorney.
b. Type of surety permitted and amount. The developer shall furnish to the agent a certified check,
official check, bond with surety, letter of credit, or collaterally assign funds in a manner satisfactory
to the county attorney (collectively, the “surety instrument”), in an amount sufficient for and
conditioned upon the completion of the construction and installation of the improvements, as
determined under subsection (b). Any proposed surety instrument shall be subject to being
acceptable to the county engineer, shall be in a form and have the substance approved by the
county attorney, and shall be subject to review and approval by the county attorney.
c. Estimate. The developer shall submit a request for an estimate of the surety amount to the county
engineer. The county engineer shall prepare a cost estimate of all improvements, based upon unit
prices for new public or private sector construction in the county, and a reasonable allowance for
estimated administrative costs, including inspection fees required by section 35.1, inflation, and
potential damage to existing streets or utilities, which shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the
estimated construction costs.
d. Use of surety. The county may make use of monies guaranteed by the surety instrument if either:
(i) the developer fails to timely renew the bond with surety, letter of credit, or the collaterally
assigned funds; or (ii) the county engineer, in his discretion, determines that any of the
improvements have not been completed in a timely manner and the completion of the
improvements is deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or general welfare. The
county’s use of the monies guaranteed by the surety instrument shall not terminate the agreement
accompanying the surety instrument.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(5), 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.8.3 Release of surety
Any surety provided under section 32.8.2 shall be released as follows:
a. Partial releases, generally. Upon written request by the developer, the agent shall make periodic
partial releases of the surety as provided in Virginia Code § 15.2-2245.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 97)
b. Request for partial or final release; response. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written
notice by the developer of completion of part or all of any improvements required to be
constructed by this chapter, the agent shall respond in writing to the developer in one of the
following ways: (i) grant the partial or final release, if the applicable state agency, county
department, or any applicable authority or other entity has accepted the improvements; or (ii)
inform the developer that the improvement has not been accepted by the applicable state agency,
county department, authority or other entity and/or identify any specified defects or deficiencies in
construction and suggested corrective measures.
c. Failure to respond to request. If the agent fails to take action within the thirty (30) day period
provided in subsection (b), the request of the developer shall be deemed approved and a partial
release shall be granted to the developer. No final release shall be granted until after expiration of
the thirty (30) day period and there is an additional request in writing sent by certified mail by the
developer to the county executive. The agent shall act within ten (10) working days after receipt of
the request by the county executive. If he fails to timely act, the request shall be deemed
approved and final release shall be granted to the developer.
d. Final release. Upon final completion and acceptance or approval of the improvements and upon
receipt from the developer of a certification of final completion from a professional engineer, land
surveyor, or the county engineer, the agent shall release any remaining surety to the developer. A
public improvement shall be deemed to be accepted when it is accepted by and taken over for
operation and maintenance by the county, an authority, or a state agency or department
responsible for maintaining and operating the improvement. A private improvement shall be
deemed to be approved when the agent determines that the improvements are completed.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2245, 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.8.4 Effect of acceptance or approval of improvements
Nothing in this chapter, including the approval of a final site plan, shall obligate the county, any authority,
any state agency or department, or any other public body to accept and take over for operation and
maintenance any improvements completed by a developer required by this chapter. Acceptance or
approval of an improvement shall be made only if the improvement satisfies all applicable statutes,
regulations, ordinances, guidelines and design and construction standards for acceptance or approval of
the improvement, upon completion of inspections as provided in section 32.8.5.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.8.5 Inspections; right of entry
Improvements required by section 32.7 shall be inspected as follows:
a. Application deemed consent. The submittal of an initial site plan by a developer shall constitute
consent given by the developer to all officers and employees of the county, the Albemarle County
Service Authority, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Virginia Department of Health,
and any other authority, and any state department or agency, responsible for permitting, approving
and/or accepting any improvement required by section 32.7, to enter upon the site at all
reasonable times for the purpose of making periodic inspections related to the review of the initial
or final site plan for compliance with this chapter and to the completion of all improvements
required by section 32.7. The deemed consent shall expire when all improvements required by
section 32.7 are completed, permitted, approved, or accepted as the case may be, and all surety
is finally released as provided in section 32.8.3(d).
b. Notice prior to request for inspection. Each developer shall notify the zoning administrator when
each stage of the development is ready for inspection.
c. Scope of inspections. Any inspection of improvements required by section 32.7 shall be
conducted solely to determine compliance with the requirements and specifications provided by
law and the approved design plan.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2255.
Sec. 32.8.6 Improvements completed at expense of developer; exception
All improvements required by section 32.7 shall be completed at the expense of the developer, except
where the developer and the county, or any authority, state agency or department, or any other public
body, enter into a cost-sharing or reimbursement agreement prior to final site plan approval.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2255.
Sec. 35.1 Fees.
Each applicant shall pay the following applicable fees, provided that neither the county nor the county
school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant:
a. Zoning text amendments: $1000.00
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 98)
b. Zoning map amendments:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission: $2500.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission: $1250.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission: $3500.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission: $1750.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00
c. Special use permits:
1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, public utilities, day care center, home occupation
Class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit;
application and first resubmission: $1000.00
2. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1, public utilities, day care center, home occupation
class B, to amend existing special use permit, or to extend existing special use permit;
each additional resubmission: $500.00
3. Signs reviewed by the board of zoning appeals: See subsection 35.1(f)
4. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission: $2000.00
5. All other special use permits; each additional resubmission: $1000.00
6. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00
7. Farmers’ markets without an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation or without existing and adequate parking - $490.00
8. Farmers’ markets with an existing commercial entrance approved by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and with existing and adequate parking - $110.00
d. Site plans:
1. Initial site plans: $1200.00 plus $15 per dwelling unit and $0.015 per square foot of
nonresidential structure; the fee paid for preapplication plans shall be applied to the fee
for initial site plans
2. Preapplication plans: $500.00
3. Final site plans: $1500.00
4. Exception to drawing of site plan under section 32.3.5(a): $1500.00
5. Site plan amendments under section 32.3.3(b): $500.00 (minor); $100.00 (letter of
revision)
6. Site plan amendments under section 32.3.3(b) (major): $1500.00
7. Appeals under section 32.4.2.7 32.4.2.6: $240.00
8. Reinstatement of review under sections 32.4.2.1(d) and 32.4.3.1(e) : $240.00
9. Reinstatement of review under section 32.4.2.5(e): $80.00
10. Extension of period of validity: $475.00
11. Inspections pertaining to secured site plan improvements; per inspection: $280.00
12. Deferral of scheduled public meeting at applicant’s request: $180.00
e. Certificates of appropriateness considered by the architectural review board (“ARB”):
1. For a site plan; per review by the ARB: $1000.00
2. For a building permit; per review by the ARB: $590.00
3. Amendment to approved certificate of appropriateness: $225.00
f. Matters considered by the board of zoning appeals:
1. Variances: $500.00
2. Appeals: $240.00
3. Special use permits for signs under section 4.15.5: $500.00
g Matters considered by the zoning administrator or other officials:
1. Official determinations regarding compliance: $185.00
2. All other official determinations, including development rights: $100.00
3. Zoning clearance for tourist lodging: $100.00
4. Zoning clearance for a home occupation, class A, a major home occupation, or a minor
home occupation: $25.00
5. Zoning clearance for temporary fundraising activity: No fee
6. All other zoning clearances: $50.00
7. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; no ARB review required: $25.00
8. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; ARB review required: $120.00
h. Groundwater assessments:
1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401: $50.00
2. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $510.00
3. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1100.00
i. Miscellaneous:
1. Change in name of development or change in name of street: $80.00
2. Relief from conditions of approval; modification or waiver of requirements: $425.00
3. Tier II personal wireless service facilities: $1820.00
j. Required notice:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: $200.00, except for uses under
sections 5.1.47 and 5.2A, for which there shall be no fee.
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00 plus the actual
cost of first class postage.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 99)
3. Published notice: cost based on a cost quote from the publisher, except for farmers’
markets under section 35.1(c)(7) and (8) for which there shall be no fee.
The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.” An application
presented without the required fee shall not be deemed to be submitted and shall not be processed. If the
zoning administrator determines after a fee has been paid that the review and approval to which the fee
pertains is not required to establish the use or structure, the fee shall be refunded to the applicant in full.
(Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; Ord. 10-18(7),
adopted 8-4-10, effective 1-1-11; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(7), 6-1-11)
Sec. 35.2 Calculation of fees in special circumstances.
The provisions of 35.1 notwithstanding, the required fee shall be calculated in the special circumstances
below as follows:
a. If an initial site plan or preliminary subdivision plat is supportive of and will be reviewed
simultaneously with an application for a zoning map amendment or a special use permit, the
applicant shall pay the fee for the zoning map amendment or the special use permit, but not the
fee for the initial site plan or preliminary subdivision plat.
b. If multiple special use permits are required to establish a single use, the applicant shall pay only
the largest single fee for a special use permit for the review of all of the special use permit
applications.
(§ 35.0, 12-10-80; 5-5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; * to be effective
1-1-94; Ord. 02-18(4), 7-3-02; Ord. 04-18(3), 10-13-04; Ord. 04-18(4), adopted 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05;
Ord. 10-18(7), adopted 8-4-10, effective 1-1-11)
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2013; provided that: (i) any preliminary or final
site plan submitted before January 1, 2013 shall be reviewed and acted upon under the site plan
regulations in effect on October 2, 2012, (ii) the preliminary or final site plan submitted before January 1,
2013 is approved by April 1, 2013, and (iii) any final site plan submitted on or after January 1, 2013 for
which a preliminary site plan was approved prior to January 1, 2013 shall be reviewed and acted upon
under the site plan regulations effective on and after January 1, 2013.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 23. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
(Note: The Board took up Item 8.5 - Wireless Resolution of Intent at this time.)
Mr. Dumler noted that there was a concern about the timeline stated previously – how quickly the
revisions were going to take place.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that there was an implication earlier
that the County wasn’t going to start with the second phase until the fourth quarter of 2013, but that is not
correct – staff is planning to start it in the second quarter of 2013, but it’s really whenever they finish with
phase one. He said that with respect to phase one, there was a long list of changes the Board went
through, and staff took the simple things first to get those out of the way along with regulatory changes
needed to comply with federal law; phase two would include the more controversial parts of the initiative.
Mr. Dumler asked why there needed to be a separate work session and roundtable on items that
were non-controversial.
Ms. Mallek responded that the Board hasn’t heard from the public yet.
Mr. Fritz said that with the first phase, 99% of it involves a review of information, and there is one
component that is part of the law – defining “substantial increase” – and staff wants to get some input on
that issue. He stated that staff would be bringing the critical slopes work session in November, and the
ordinance that was just adopted needs a lot of work before implementation – and that pushes them into
the holiday season for holding a roundtable, which historically has meant low turnout. Mr. Fritz said that
given that, that will push them into January.
Mr. Foley noted that staff is also in the process of finishing the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek said that at some point in the last several presentations there has been discussion of
items that come to the Board with ARB approval, such as the cellular tower poles, and asked if staff is
anticipating a change in process with that.
Mr. Fritz stated that those things would be part of the phase two discussions.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board should go forward with what is recommended here.
Mr. Foley noted that the beginning of the process is the beginning of the second quarter so staff
can get phase one done and what was being referenced was allowing six months because of the
roundtables. He said that the beginning of the fourth quarter is when the item comes back to the Board
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 100)
and to the Planning Commission, so the reference to one year from now is the quarter staff is delaying to
get phase one done, and another quarter before it gets to the Board.
Mr. Fritz said that the fourth quarter would be when the Board or Commission holds their work
sessions.
Mr. Boyd stated that staff has had held roundtable discussions on this and had brought in people
to address the changes required by law, and he was having trouble understanding why it would take six
months to get through the process.
Mr. Foley said that staff has only had roundtables with industry, not with the community at large.
Mr. Boyd responded that if it is required by law, the public can’t really do much.
Mr. Fritz emphasized that the only focus was trying to get a definition of “substantial increase.”
Mr. Rooker asked why it couldn’t be addressed in phase two.
Mr. Fritz said that staff recommend that it be done as part of phase one, because the law says
that the County must approve a project that does not constitute a “substantial change.”
Mr. Greg Kamptner clarified that the County “must approve applications to collocate, replace, or
remove equipment, or antennas if they will not substantially change the appearance of the tower.” He said
that the industry will assert that “substantial change” is the programmatic agreement that was attached to
an FCC decision, which speaks in terms of 10% increases in height or 20-foot increases in width “which
really has no relevance to a co-location or replacement of equipment.”
Mr. Dumler asked for the reason for doing that in phase one rather than phase two.
Mr. Fritz responded that it’s part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that the
County must approve projects that don’t result in substantial change.
Mr. Dumler said that the differentiation relates to federal requirements versus local requirements.
Mr. Davis said that it’s trying to get to the process issues, rather than the substantive issues.
Mr. Snow asked if the Board is approving phase one now, or approving the move to do phase one
first.
Mr. Fritz said that the Board is directing staff to do both: work on phase one first, which will start
in January, and then move onto the second phase. He said that staff sees that being done no later than
the second quarter, and then staff starts the “heavy lifting” for the phase two work – which includes a
much broader range of options to consider changing the wireless facility process, design standards ,
whether to allow things by-right, etc. Mr. Fritz noted that very few of those things would be addressed in
phase one, because they have nothing to do with the federal law – it’s a decision on how to handle things
locally.
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t think there would be masses of people coming out to talk about what
constitutes “substantial change”.
Ms. Mallek responded that Mr. Boyd might be surprised at how many people are concerned about
visual impacts.
Mr. Boyd said that people are busy with their own lives, and that’s why they elected the Board. He
suggested that staff have the public hearing next month, and get the thing done before the end of the
year. He said that if staff’s plate is too full to get phase one done now, that’s understandable.
Mr. Foley said that phase one is being delayed until January because of those workload issues,
including the update to the Comp Plan. He stated that starting it in January, it would be done in three
months with March or April for Board approval.
Mr. Snow stated that he would like to get coverage into the rural areas as soon as possible, and if
that means finding a way to expedite it – while maintaining the quality assurance – he would support it.
Mr. Foley said that the Board could skip the roundtable step and go directly to a joint public
hearing.
Mr. Snow said that comments could be taken at that point.
Mr. Foley stated that it would be “a pretty dramatic change,” but it is an option. He said that staff
would strongly advise against that for phase two, and the phase one step regarding the definition is going
to yield “some big differences” between what the industry and the public want.
Mr. Fritz said that it is brand new, and staff has only found one other jurisdiction that’s addressing
it right now.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 101)
Mr. Kamptner said that the problem is that the language in the federal law, “substantially change,”
is different than the term used in the programmatic agreement relied upon by the FCC. He stated that
since staff has been dealing with the issue since late February when the law became effective they’ve had
a few instances where they’ve had to look at this on a case by case basis, so there have been
opportunities to evaluate what “substantial change” means – at least under current regulations. Adding
that staff isn’t starting from scratch.
Mr. Davis stated that staff can meet the targets and get it done no later than what Mr. Fritz
outlined.
Mr. Boyd said that there was a woman at this meeting who brought forth 425 signatures that
wants the Board to do their job and get this thing resolved so they can get some cell service.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that she didn’t know anything about the 10 towers approved in the last year
that would change that service.
Mr. Rooker noted that towers are being approved at almost every Board meeting, and the
changes being made aren’t going to dramatically increase the number of towers over what’s being
approved today. He said that the industry makes these decisions based on a cost benefit analysis of
whether or not they can make money by putting in service.
Mr. Snow said that if the County drives the cost up through its process that affects the bottom line.
Mr. Rooker said that the cost of another month of process versus the cost of the equipment,
lease, etc. is not a high percentage of the total cost – now the industry would make you think that. He
stated that the biggest part of the cost is not the process of getting them approved, it’s the equipment.
Mr. Boyd said that that’s not what the industry is telling the County.
Mr. Rooker stated that he had actually put together a partnership that applied for and received a
number of cell tower licenses, so he does know something about the industry. He added that he works for
a company that owns some licenses, and while he’s not an expert in the area he realizes that the industry
will always push for higher towers and more equipment. Mr. Rooker said that the County does not want to
be a hindrance on the industry, but most of the things the Board is talking about here isn’t going to make a
huge difference in whether a company makes a decision to put a tower in Schuyler or not.
Mr. Dumler said that everyone appreciates staff’s time on this, and anything that staff can do to
shave off some time would be welcomed.
Mr. Foley said that the Board just needed to adopt the resolutions of intent, and staff will try to
accelerate the process as much as possible.
Mr. Snow moved to adopt the resolutions of intent reflecting phase one and phase two. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted resolutions are set out below:)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-5.1.40, which is part of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
establishes regulations pertaining to personal wireless service facilities; and
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-3.1 defines a number of the terms used in County Code
§ 18-5.1.40; and
WHEREAS, recent changes in the law, including the Federal Communications Commission’s “Shot
Clock” declaratory ruling, and the enactment of Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012, affect
the time within which the County must act on certain applications for personal wireless service facilities, and
compel the County to approve certain qualifying applications for the co-location, replacement or removal of
equipment on existing wireless “towers”; and
WHEREAS, practical experience resulting from administering County Code § 18-5.1.40 since it was
adopted in 2004 has allowed the County to identify several requirements of that section that are no longer
necessary; and
WHEREAS, in order to promote the efficient and effective administration of the County’s regulations, it
may be desirable to amend County Code §§ 18-3.1 and 18-5.1.40 to expressly incorporate recent changes in
the law, amend and add definitions related to those recent changes in the law, and to delete those
requirements that are no longer necessary.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 102)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code §§ 18-3.1 and 18-5.1.40 and any other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate, to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
*****
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-5.1.40, which is part of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
establishes regulations pertaining to personal wireless service facilities; and
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-3.1 defines a number of the terms used in County Code
§ 18-5.1.40; and
WHEREAS, the district regulations in County Code §§ 18-10 through 18-30 delineate those personal
wireless facilities permitted by right and by special use permit within the particular zoning district; and
WHEREAS, practical experience resulting from administering County Code § 18-5.1.40 since it was
adopted in 2004 has allowed the County to identify several standards and procedures that may be appropriate
for amendment; and
WHEREAS, in order to promote the efficient and effective administration of the County’s regulations, it
may be desirable to amend County Code §§ 18-3.1 and 18-5.1.40 to change certain application requirements,
procedures and standards for reviewing and approving personal wireless facilities, standards for monopoles
and the equipment attached to monopoles, certain definitions of terms used in County Code § 18-5.1.40, and
the district regulations in County Code §§ 18-10 through 18-30.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code §§ 18-3.1, 18-5.1.40, 18-10 through 18-30,
and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate, to achieve the purposes described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to know about the increase in activity in the Community
Development department and its impact on staff.
Mr. Graham said that the department is pushing up against their limits at this point.
Mr. Foley agreed, stating that the department is at capacity. He stated that if things do pick up
quickly at some point, staff will need to talk to the Board all about that. He said that the five-year plan
discussions could address some of those issues.
Mr. Rooker said that when the Board talked about engaging a private consultant, he envisioned
having some information from them on what the industry needs to provide a particular kind of service –
and what it doesn’t need.
Mr. Graham emphasized that the report did make it clear that within the framework of the existing
ordinance, the industry can provide the service – it was simply the question of how much additional
flexibility does the County want to provide the industry, and how much control the County thinks is
necessary to retain to address the issues identified with tower visibility.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that anyone representing an industry is going to push their case, and that’s
to be expected, but the difficulty is not having someone to turn to that has expertise as it puts the County
in the position of not knowing the answers from a neutral arbiter.
Mr. Davis said that these are the same arguments as those heard in 1999.
Mr. Rooker responded that the County had the neutral expert at that point.
_____
Ms. Mallek asked for an update on the southern Albemarle town hall meeting.
Mr. Snow reported that he had about 125 people at the town hall meeting, with a good
representation of speakers – Joel DeNunzio of VDoT, Eric Strucko of the County School Board, two police
officers, and Ronde Ferguson from Century Link. He said that Century Link is hoping to connect by
December, and they hope to have 95% of the County with broadband by early 2014.
Mr. Snow said that in the Esmont area there are a few roads with lighting on them, and there are
seven or eight lights that need to go in to complete that project. He said that Larry Jackson of AEP stated
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 103)
that AEP could install the poles and lights, but the County had been paying for the other lights. Mr. Snow
asked how much this would cost and whether it was in the budget.
Mr. Foley responded that there is some money in the capital fund for street lights, and there is a
program around it.
Mr. Davis stated that there is a petition process that the Board has had in place for 20 years or
more, and the last one the County had was about 10 years ago.
Mr. Rooker said that he had tried to bring some forward, but the cost estimates were cost
prohibitive.
Mr. Davis said the process sets the parameters for how the County considers these requests, and
Mr. Foley said there was a pot of money with an accompanying set of procedures.
Mr. Snow stated that attendees at the meeting were very interested in everything on the agenda,
the schools, the firing range, the storm cleanup and changes planned by AEP, broadband, etc.
_____
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to talk about the Sheriff’s assistance to the Game W ardens.
Mr. Foley said that in the past there was $10,000 in the budget, but that had been cut out.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to know what that would mean in terms of additional service.
Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Foley would talk to the Sheriff.
Mr. Dumler stated that it’s probably about 250 man hours, as the reimbursement rate in the
Sheriff’s Department is $41 per overtime hour.
Mr. Foley said that staff would do a quick report for their next meeting, and the funding would
have to come out of the Board reserve.
_____
Ms. Mallek reported that the Workforce One-Stop Center had met all of its federal and state
benchmarks for the first time ever with adults entering employment, job retention, and average earnings
being at 93%, 98% and 100% respectively. She said Workforce One-Stop Center is over 100% for
dislocated worker measures including employment rate, retention and earnings; youth training went from
40% to 85%. She credited the Goodwill, which has been managing the one-stop, and Heather Foor from
TJPED.
Ms. Mallek also reported that the economic benefit from arts had been evaluated by an Arts
Economic Prosperity study, and the Charlottesville area was found to generate $114 million per year in
economic activity, with 1,900 FTE jobs, $9.5 million in local and state revenue, etc.
Mr. Thomas said that he was blown away by the $114 million figure.
_____
Mr. Dumler reported that in April the Board passed an ordinance that allowed police officers to act
as agents on behalf of landowners, and he had attempted to get a form from the Police Department – but
he doesn’t know if one exists. He said that he has had 50 people along Jefferson Mill say they want to
have a “hunting-free corridor”, and are willing to sign off with other landowners.
Ms. Mallek said that there was a similar problem in Earlysville.
Mr. Davis stated that there is a form, but it wasn’t designed for hunting. It was intended to be
used for businesses. He said that the police generally do not go out to enforce hunting situations, and
staff would need to look into whether the ordinance covers that.
Mr. Rooker said that trespassing is trespassing, and it should not matter if trespassers are there
to hunt.
Mr. Davis said that the policy may have applicability, but it wasn’t what it was designed to do.
Mr. Dumler stated that it seems this would remove an evidentiary hurdle for police officers to tell
people to get off the property.
Ms. Mallek said that once word gets out, the activity will greatly decrease.
Mr. Dumler said that if the ordinance can cover the issue then he would like the mechanism by
which it can be facilitated.
Mr. Foley stated that staff will follow up with the Chief Sellers and talk to him about it.
_____
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 104)
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board had resolved the Austin trip matters. He said that the trip is more
City-oriented than County-oriented, but it might be worth sending two people on the trip with at least one of
them being staff.
Mr. Foley said that there wasn’t an immediate urgency to the decision, but staff is trying to plan
who is going as far in advance as possible.
Mr. Snow said that the Board should go ahead and vote on it, and to him it’s a matter of being
consistent as far as policy for taking these types of trips. He stated that if the Board is going to set up a
policy then it’s up to the Board of Supervisors to set an example.
Mr. Rooker stated that schools already have their own budget, and they have trips in their budget,
and the question is how judiciously to spend that. He said that there is professional development money
in the local government budget.
Mr. Foley said that had been reduced, but there is still some in there.
Mr. Rooker stated that the question is whether this is a wise investment of public money based on
the fact that the Board thinks there will be a return for the community for the expenditure made. He said
that he could support sending two people for the cost negotiated here, which to him seems pretty
reasonable, given the schedule of activities and the fact that a few good ideas may come out of it that
could be implemented here.
Mr. Boyd said that he sees it as an effort to talk directly to a locality that has been very successful
in its marriage between the private sector, government, and a major University. He stated that he was not
excited about it at first, but the agenda sold him – and he thinks the County should send two Supervisors
and one or two staff members. He said that he thinks the Board can find the money to do that in a $300
million budget.
Mr. Rooker said that Board members come and go, so their attendance would be “primarily
ceremonial”, but in terms of ideas being generated and implemented the focus should be on staff.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board members are the policy makers, and staff doesn’t make policy.
Mr. Rooker stated that the County already has an economic vitality plan, and the question is
whether there will be concrete ideas garnered by staff at the meeting, then turned into action and
community improvement.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board has been taking away money from the agencies that bring about
this specific change, and asked if the Board is willing to change their ways and make investments in the
groups that can bring about economic benefits.
Mr. Boyd moved to send three people to the meeting in Austin, to be determined at a later date.
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
_____
Mr. Benish presented the revenue-sharing update, stating that staff has eliminated the Ivy Road
project and added the Avon Street project that Mr. Dum ler suggested. He said that the three projects plus
the adaptive traffic control system total $1.96 million, so it falls within the range of the $1 million revenue-
sharing request.
Mr. Snow moved for approval of the priority list. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Mr. Benish asked if a resolution could be bought back and put on the consent agenda of the next
meeting as the resolution itself isn’t due until December.
Ms. Mallek stated that her only hesitation is if the Board wants to spend another week to look
more at the other projects that are unfunded on the list that was presented – and see what the Board
could do if they got a little more investment and got a little bit more match.
Mr. Benish said that he had looked at the projects with Jack Kelsey and explained that staff have
suggested projects that are “ready to go,” although there are other target items for consideration in the
future – and the only other project to be considered would be the Harris Teeter crossing.
Ms. Mallek said that the Harris Teeter crossing has been an issue, with one fatality already
occurring there and lighting issues in that area.
Mr. Benish explained that the reason staff did not include the Harris Teeter crossing is because
the project had not been cost out – so the cost estimate is unknown.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would have to be cost out in detail before December.
October 3, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 105)
Mr. Benish explained that the application has to include the dollar amount and when the award
comes back – the award is based on the projects that are on the list. He said that staff had a little bit of
time to consider other items, but it would push the budget over $2.2 million.
Mr. Boyd commented that only $1 million is budgeted.
Mr. Foley stated that this is programmed money in FY14, as opposed to budgeted money.
Mr. Snow asked if the $10 million from the state is per locality.
Mr. Rooker said that it was and said that it was pro-rated based on the number of applicants.
Mr. Davis noted that it’s not funded yet, as that would be a decision for the next General Assembly
session.
Mr. Snow said that he would like to do the Harris Teeter crossing if staff could find the money.
Mr. Rooker asked if that was ready to go.
Ms. Mallek responded that it wasn’t designed, but it had been talked about for 2 ½ years.
Mr. Benish said that he has talked to Jack Kelsey, who felt that if the Board wanted to do a fourth
project and the streetlights that could be done. He said that it’s new to the list, but is not a huge project.
Mr. Benish stated that when the Crozet project is added, the total cost for the four sidewalks plus the
signalization would be $2.12 million, with the County’s share being half.
Mr. Davis suggested giving Mr. Benish approval for the priority list, and having staff bring back a
revised resolution for the Consent Agenda on November 7th.
Mr. Dumler then amended the motion to approve the priority list as amended, to include the four
sidewalk projects and the signalization. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that previously the Board had someone go to the multi-modal meeting
in Culpeper and speak on the Six-Year Program, but staff was just planning to forward written priorities by
the end of November so they are on the record.
Board members agreed.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn to October 10, 2012, 1:30 p.m., Room 241.
At 4:31 p.m., Ms. Mallek offered motion, seconded by Mr. Rooker to adjourn to October 10,
2012, 1:30 p.m., Room 241.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 12/05/2012
Initials: EWJ