Loading...
2012-12-12December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 12, 2012, at 6:00 p.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. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Chief of Planning, David Benish, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. Ms. Mallek asked Board members if there were items to add to the agenda. Board members had none. The final agenda was accepted. _______________ Agenda Item 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. Ms. Mallek said that there was a very successful roundtable held earlier in the day with bed and breakfast operators discussing recent improvements to zoning regulations. One of the issues of concern was the growing number of unlicensed, uninsured, uninspected, non fire approved rentals happening through the internet. She stated that the County’s zoning is complaint-based, but she hopes Board members will think about other ways to address the issue. _____ Ms. Mallek reported that last Saturday, December 8th, the Crozet School of the Arts had a sensational concert with two young Crozet residents who are University professors in music at several different Central Virginia schools. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6a. Recognitions: Reaccreditation Certificate – Emergency Communications Center. Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, reported that the County is “one organization committed to excellence”, and its culture, employees, and services are all focused on delivering excellent public services to the citizens of Albemarle County. He said that the culture of excellence is alive and thriving in many of the jointly-operated County/City/University partnerships and organizations, and tonight they are celebrating the success of one of these partnerships. Mr. Elliott said that he is here with fellow ECC Board members, past board members, and other local officials to acknowledge the untiring efforts of dedicated ECC employees as they are recognized for providing the highest level and quality public safety and emergency communication services to the region through achievement of national reaccreditation. He then introduced Ms. Maya Mitchell, the Regional Program Director for the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Ms. Mitchell addressed the Board and presented the November 2012 Accreditation Certificate to the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center. She said that CALEA was created in 1979, when it was founded by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NABLE), the National Sheriff’s Association (NSA), and the Police Executives Resource Forum (PERF). Ms. Mitchell stated that the organizations recognized the need within the law enforcement community to develop professional standards to enhance the delivery of police services to citizens throughout the communities they serve. Since that time, she said, CALEA has partnered with the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International to develop and deliver the CALEA public safety communications accreditation program. Ms. Mitchell stated that since its inception, CALEA has accredited agencies under standards developed by many of the best public safety practitioners and leaders of our time. The standards cover a wide range of administrative, operational and logistical issues, and serve as a modern management model that provides the framework for recognizing professional excellence within the community and public safety community. Ms. Mitchell said that the goals for CALEA are to strengthen crime prevention and control capabilities, formalize the central management procedures, establish fair and non discriminatory personnel practices, improve service delivery, solidify interagency cooperation and coordination, and increase community and staff confidence within the agency. She said that based on the goals and mission of CALEA, she couldn’t think of a better time to present this reaccreditation certificate to the ECC than at this very public Board of Supervisors meeting where all can share and recognize the hard work the ECC has committed in remaining accredited. Ms. Mitchell said that the certificate itself is simply a matted paper within a frame that has a much broader symbolic meaning. The certificate represents the agency’s effort to achieve accredited status, demonstrating its willingness to change in order to effectively address December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) contemporary public safety concerns. She said that it represents a commitment to doing the right thing and doing it the right way; it represents adherence to a professional code; and it represents an ongoing dedication to ensuring the agency’s resources are appropriately developed, effectively deployed, and constantly managed all in the name of a safer community for workers, visitors and customers. She stated that from August 25-28, 2012, two professional assessors visited the Charlottesville/UVA/Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center and reviewed the agency’s applicable files, activities, functional impacts and management strategies. She said that the assessors determined that the agency was in compliance with all applicable standards and that the agency’s personnel were all supportive of the accreditation process. She said that the assessors specifically noted that the agency was effectively utilizing grant funding to further the mission of the organization. Ms. Mitchell said that the assessor noted that technology was being applied in a manner that supports effective public safety response to service request, and the agency is a strong participant in APCO’s training certification program. Ms. Mitchell stated that at the Commission’s meeting held in Jacksonville, Florida in November 2012, the Commissioners and Review Committee reviewed the assessment report and concurred with the findings of the assessors. She said that the full Commission voted to reaccredit the agency. This is Charlottesville’s third accreditation award. She said that ECC was also awarded the CALEA Accreditation with Excellence Award, an acknowledgement by the Commission of the agency’s effective use of the accreditation model to improve its operations, administrative activities and service delivery capacity. Ms. Mitchell stated that this award is reserved for only the best agencies in the CALEA process. She then introduced the ECC Director, Mr. Tom Hanson, and the Accreditation Manager, Ms. Debbie Wade, and presented them the certificate. Mr. Hanson addressed the Board and stated that the ECC has completed two reaccreditations since its initial assessment in 2006. He said that he has to give credit to the reaccreditation process and the many positive improvements that the ECC has made in the last six years. He said that the reaccreditation process has allowed the ECC to create and develop a culture within the agency of always trying to meet the high standard. He said that as an agency the ECC has constantly measured staff performance, policies, procedures and established standards. He said that the ECC believes that accreditation is not a destination but an ongoing process. He said that the process has straightened their accountability, defined information and external expectations and has shaped the agency into one of continuous improvement. Mr. Hanson stated that the CALEA accreditation process has encouraged staff to review all processes and seek new ways to improve them, and has pushed ECC to be prepared to meet future needs and to ensure they can respond to any circumstance. He said that they should always take time to celebrate successes and recognize employees, so credit must be given to staff in accepting this honor. ECC staff stood and received applause from attendees. Ms. Mallek thanked the staff for their working in keeping the community safe. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. Ms. Mary Margaret Frank addressed the Chair stating that she thought that speakers were going to be allotted three minutes to speak. She explained that she is representing two different interests and that she has her statement under three minutes but not two. Ms. Mallek granted Ms. Frank three minutes to speak. Ms. Frank said that she teaches finance, accounting and tax policy at the Darden School of Business and also serves as an Academic Director for Darden’s new research initiative – the Initiative for Business in Society. Ms. Frank said that she has met with company CEOs and has posed the question: “What factors do you think will affect growth in the private sector in the 21st Century?” She stated that education is on the top of their minds as the key factor for private sector growth. She also added that she serves on the redistricting committee for the western feeder pattern. Ms. Frank said that the western feeder pattern committee respectfully requests that the Board fund education in their designated growth areas. The Board has approved building permits and rezoning in these areas – and the people are coming. She urged the Board to fund the Crozet School expansion as well as projects at Henley Middle School and Western Albemarle High School. She also requested that the Board provide funding to bring Red Hill School to parity through renovation although there is no need for expansion given growth areas. Ms. Frank said that Dr. Pam Moran asked her to serve on the Financial Advisory Committee for the schools two years ago, and they have covered many issues including the appropriate reserve for the school system. She stated that she was disappointed that the sliding scale of two to four percent for reserves was rejected by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Frank offered to speak with Board members individually as to why she believes their decision has rejected fundamental business practices about aligning people’s interest to their objectives and incentivizing them to achieve the best outcome. _____ Ms. Nancy Carpenter said that she was before the Board to discuss the need for affordable housing units in the area. Ms. Carpenter presented the Board with facts from the housingvirginia.org website. She reported that home ownership in Virginia at the start of 2011 was down to 67%, the lowest in a decade. She said that with that kind of low homeownership there is a correspondingly increase in demand for affordable rental housing. Ms. Carpenter said that seniors are the fastest growing component of the Virginia population, and the state is a “tsunami” that is waiting to break. She noted that 33% of seniors in Virginia pay more than 50% of income on housing, and from 2008 to 2011 rents increased 14% statewide, but there has been no accompanying increase in units. Ms. Carpenter stated that the Center December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) for Housing Policy states that by the year 2013, more than one million subsidized units will reach the end of their use restrictions. This would give property owners the opportunity to opt out of their contracts that could threaten the critical supply of affordable rentals. She stated that multi-family production of units using low-income tax credits has fallen off dramatically in the past decade. She said that the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s 2010 “Out of Reach” report said that a full-time federal minimum wage earner could not affordably rent a typical one-bedroom apartment in any county in the entire country. She said that the housing wage needed to afford a standard, two-bedroom apartment is $18.44, as of 2010. Ms. Carpenter asked the Board to become vigilant and forward thinking as housing becomes another critical resource, and to ensure that the residents of the County enjoy the human right of decent affordable housing. _____ Ms. Laurel Davis addressed the Board, stating that she is here to speak in opposition to the firing range in Keene. She said that even though she is alone tonight, there are many residents who agree with her sentiments when she says “Shame on you, Board of Supervisors”. Ms. Davis stated that Mr. Snow has betrayed the people of his district who have supported his business, have invested in beautifying their home places – which he is now so willing to betray. She said that two weeks ago Police Chief Steve Sellers said that he “wanted to leave a legacy here in this most beautiful county in Virginia”. She said that if the plan goes forward, Chief Sellers will leave a legacy of polluting air, soil and water with one of the worst toxins known. Chief Sellers will also leave a legacy of destroying livelihoods, endangering children, crashing the value of properties, ruining peace and the quality of lives. She told Supervisors that that will be their legacy as well. Ms. Davis said that Sgt. Reeves informed her that County officers fired their guns in the line of duty related to criminal activities once in the past year, and yet the Board wants to go forward with the militarization of the County’s little local force to the tune of $25 million. She asked Supervisors to fund schools and affordable housing instead. Ms. Davis stated that with the exception of a few wealthy landowners, Keene is the poorest part of the County, with the largest African-American population. She said that Keene residents have been drinking the toxins that the County has allowed to contaminate the groundwater from the old dump for decades. She said that the Board knew it was happening and their solution was to buy two abutting properties – one hundred additional acres – because the plumes of contamination were so extensive. She added that now Supervisors want to add lead and gunfire to the mix. Ms. Davis expressed her displeasure and said “shame on you for squandering tax dollars, and for inflicting more misery on many African-American seniors who already endured so much abuse in apartheid Virginia”. She also said “shame on you for thinking it is OK to continue the abuse of the people of southern Albemarle”. _____ Ms. Sophia Davis addressed the Board, stating that her family moved to the countryside to have peace and quiet. Ms. Davis said that from research the police do not need the firing range. They are supposed to be protecting citizens, not putting them in danger. She said that the firing range would be putting her and thousands of other residents of southern Albemarle in danger. She asked the Board not to let it go through. _____ Dr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that according to the Albemarle County land use document, “since 1980 each Virginia facility locality has been required to have a Comprehensive Plan,” which is defined as a plan for the physical development of the territory within the locality’s jurisdiction. He said that the plan does not have the status of the zoning ordinance and is advisory only, and serves as a guide for the development and implementation of the ordinance. Dr. Battig stated that the Comp Plan is intended to be “general” in nature, designating the “general” or approximate location, character and extent of each feature. He said that the County staff’s Comp Plan wish list of proposed regulations is micro- managing at the extreme, and thereby fails a legal definition of “general in nature.” Dr. Battig stated that the volumes of proposed regulations are laced with ‘shalls’ and ‘wills’ and attempt to anticipate all modes of citizen behavior and private property use, and then to write a regulation to cover them. He said that rather than to let the County government and citizens deal with issues on an ad-hoc basis, planners are convinced that they are able to see the future and thus know how to regulate it. Dr. Battig said that the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Heich wrote a book about this concept called The Fatal Conceit. He said that planning staff has set forth a voluminous book of regulations effectively supporting “a socialist vision” rather than the more general road map required by Virginia law. Dr. Battig emphasized that the planning process makes property development more expensive with each regulatory step, and have created an unnecessary and artificial scarcity of developable and affordable land. He said that the planners then bemoan that housing has become more expensive and that taxpayer-funded affordable housing must be a priority. He stated that County staff has also created their own definition of what senior’s needs and wants are, as though they are standardized seniors. Dr. Battig said that proximity to entertainment is a County defined senior want. He stated that perhaps proximity to a family farm is a real want and the imposition of increasing property taxes is a real threat to affordability. He said that taxes which are actually upward because of uncompensated County regulatory takings. He said that property taxes do not reflect the loss of land value resulting from the extinguishing of legitimate development rights. Dr. Batting asked the Board to defend the property rights of the citizen who elected them. _____ Mr. Jacob Bailey said that he is a senior at Monticello High School. He said that he would be speaking about the Route 29 Western Bypass, which he has studied for the past couple of months. He said that his first argument is that the bypass will run through undeveloped land that should be left alone to keep Charlottesville the pretty city that it is with the population that classifies it as an urban area – but the December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) scenic appeal with rural value. Secondly, he said that the bypass will affect local drinking water with runoff because it would run by it. Mr. Bailey said that his most strong opinion against the Route 29 Western Bypass is that there are hot spots on Route 29 that promote traffic but can be fixed with similar, cheaper and more environmentally safe options such as adding extra turn lanes or building an overpass where Rio Road and Hydraulic Road meet Route 29. _____ Mr. Kai Poindexter said that his group is also from Monticello High School and would present their opinion on the Rivanna Pump Station and its cost-sharing agreement. Mr. Poindexter gave a quick summary of his group’s opinion and said that the City of Charlottesville should pay for the majority of the pump station. He said the pump station is one of seven stations in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area and is the only pump station within Charlottesville’s City limits. Ms. Virginia Carroll said that the RWSA voted 4-3 to move the station, which would cost $7 million more than other alternatives. She said that the County officials on the Board voted against moving the pump station, and instead wanted to find a cheaper alternative. Ms. Carroll said that Charlottesville’s appointed official on the Board voted to move the station to another location, and the proposed deadline for the cost-sharing agreement was June 30 – and it is now December 12, and the agreement has not gone anywhere. Mr. Kevin Traeger said that Charlottesville should pay more because the City only has this one pump station and now it is going to be moved. He said that the City should pay the extra $7 million for moving it, as it is in their jurisdiction and there were other cheaper alternatives for fixing the problems. He stated that the neighborhood wasn’t built first – the pump station was there, and the neighborhood popped up around it. Mr. Jonathan Van Dyke said that the smell can be a problem, but Woolen Mills only represents about 1/40th of the population of Charlottesville. He said that in recent years, Albemarle has paid more toward these types of projects than the City has, and Charlottesville provides water services to all of its citizens – compared to Albemarle, which has people using wells and septic fields instead. Mr. Kai Poindexter again addressed the Board, stating that Charlottesville should pay more on the pump station simply because there were other alternatives and it did not have to be moved. He said that now a $7 million plan to move the pump station has been approved, and the County has no idea how it is going to pay for it. _____ Mr. Randy Layman addressed the Board, stating that he is the former owner of Layman’s Disposal Service, which he started in 1973. He also served on the Solid W aste Task Force at the time that the RWSA was created which was more at the wishes of the City than the County. He said that now the City has pulled out and left the County high and dry which is usual every time the County gets involved with the City. He said that the County is going to have to pay lots of money to keep up and maintain the Ivy Landfill, which the City sued to have the right to use back in the late 1960s. Mr. Layman said that on December 18, 2012 the RWSA will consider closing the Ivy facility, which will affect a lot of people throughout the County. He said that the one thing from the time someone is born until the time they die is that they create garbage and it has to go somewhere. He stated that the County needs to take care of its own problems, and not ship its garbage off to someone else. He said that they are collecting methane gas at Ivy and simply burning it. He said that there is a possibly that the County could have a waste energy plant at Ivy, noting that burning does create electricity. Mr. Layman recommended that the County build a facility big enough for someone to go in and dump trash in and not be held up forever. Mr. Layman also recommended that the County build a building and put equipment in as seed money for the facility, and lease it out to a private company if necessary, because a company could definitely step in and run it. _____ Ms. Karen Rubendall addressed the Board, stating that she is the mother of two children who attend Crozet Elementary School. She is present to voice concerns about the School Division’s proposals for CIP plans before they meet with the School Board. Ms. Rubendall stated that Crozet Elementary parents maintain that projected school enrollments are not properly calculated. She said that she understands that school enrollments are moving targets and asked the Board to understand that calculations only include live birth rates and current building permits. She said that the numbers do not plan for increased development in two more Crozet subdivisions, future Old Trail units, and a proposed development in the southern feeder pattern. She said that the Division proposes an addition to Crozet Elementary School and Western Albemarle High School, and the proposed Crozet Elementary School addition, will almost double its capacity size to 600. She stated that many parents at Crozet Elementary believe that 600 is too large for a healthy elementary school. Ms. Rubendall said that a professor of education at the University of Michigan and leading researcher on school regulation and size found that in the era of supersized high schools, the ideal high school size is between 600 and 900 students. She said that Western Albemarle is already at 1,100 students and the two other County high schools are beyond that. She stated that the research states that 600 is an effective number because students have better teacher relationships and other students do not fall through the cracks. Ms. Rubendall said that less advantaged students do more poorly in larger schools and that a school is only as good as its lowest performing students. December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) She suggested that the County build a new high school on Route 29 North and modernize Red Hill. She said that the County needs a new elementary school in Crozet, as is called for in the Crozet Master Plan. She said that the School Board continually ignores the previous wisdom of the County. Ms. Rubendahl said that the County should consider making Crozet and Brownsville K-3 buildings; build a new 4-5-6 non-departmentalized upper elementary building on the already County owned property across from Crozet Elementary; make Henley a 7-8-9 school; and make Western Albemarle a 10-11-12. She said that she does not believe that shuffling students and telling people who live in the community that you can’t live here anymore because it’s not convenient. Ms. Rubendall said that a new school makes more sense than multiple additions. She asked the Board to not approve any other CIP proposals from the School Division that affect the western area without first having better communication with those in the western feeder pattern. She noted that residents have been poorly represented on the western feeder pattern subcommittee and have not had the opportunity to voice their opinions. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker asked the Board to pull Item 8.3 and vote on that separately, as he would recues himself from voting on that. Board members concurred. Mr. Rooker then moved to approve Items 8.1 through 8.4, except Item 8.3. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _____ Item No. 8.1. Consider Resolution to Dissolve the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF) Agreement. The executive summary states that in 1997, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville entered into an Agreement creating the Commission on Children and Families (CCF). CCF is a 28-member planning and advisory body to the County and the City. Citizen, community agency, local government, education, and university leaders convene through CCF to plan, coordinate, monitor and evaluate a community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal of the Commission was to improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use of public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs of the community. Prior to 2010, CCF acted as the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) for both jurisdictions and administered this program on their behalf. Following completion of comprehensive resource utilization studies by both the County and the City, the responsibility to perform this state-mandated function was returned to the respective jurisdictions. Over the years, CCF has managed grants which have enhanced services and brought community members and agencies together to solve community problems and issues, including the Safe Schools/Healthy Children initiative. In addition, CCF has tracked and monitored key data trends related to the safety, health and welfare of children, youth and families, and has facilitated and brought together a number of workgroups and teams that have developed strategies and programs to address identified issues. Finally, CCF led the Agency Budget Review Team process, which provided program and funding recommendations to the County and the City governing bodies consistent with the budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction. County staff, through its evaluation of Core County functions, determined that while the planning efforts and work of CCF are important, many of its tasks are being undertaken by other agencies, and that with a reduced workforce, staff cannot continue to devote the time to serving on workgroups formed by the Commission. Staff is also witnessing the emergence of other workgroups that are evolving either on their own or through grant-funded initiatives. An example is the Safe Schools/Healthy Children program, which has brought together a myriad of educators as well as public safety, social service and community members to address targeted high-risk behavior of school-age children. In addition, the Health Department has received funding on two occasions to gather and monitor data on the health and safety of the entire region, overlapping with some CCF efforts. Finally, the City in recent years has undertaken key strategies to address core social issues within its boundaries. Because of these factors and parallel activities, County and City staff are recommending to the Board and to City Council that CCF be dissolved effective December 31, 2012, and that the current CCF employee be transitioned to a City employee to aid in the delivery of services aimed at specifically addressing the City’s identified social issues. For the County, this recommendation was made as part of the Board’s Five Year Financial Planning Effort for FY2013-17 conducted in the fall of 2011. The attached Resolution (Attachment A) to dissolve CCF effective December 31, 2012 has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney. One key role which has not been finalized is how the County and City will address future human service agency funding requests. While the City has offered to contract with the County to provide this service through the re-positioned CCF employee, the Office of Management and Budget and County Executive’s Office are not in a position to recommend to the Board at this time how this function should be addressed. Staff proposes that a recommendation on this matter be included as part of the County Executive’s FY2014 Proposed Operating Budget. December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Should the Board adopt the attached Resolution, the County will not expend $31,016.00 for the remaining contributions appropriated to CCF for FY13. At the same time, it will also not receive $23,179.50 in rent from CCF for space CCF is currently leasing at the County Office Building on 5th Street, reducing net expenditures by $7,836.50 for FY 13. If CCF is eliminated, any remaining expenditures and revenues in that fund need to be reconciled by the Finance Department and one-half of any remaining balance is to be returned to the City because the County and the City both contribute 50% of CCF’s operating costs. The County’s one-half would be transferred to the County’s General Fund, where it would fall to fund balance and be treated as part of year end excess revenue/expenditure savings. The unaudited Fund balance for CCF as of June 30, 2012 was $55,853.68. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) dissolving CCF effective December 31, 2012. By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution dissolving CCF effective December 31, 2012: RESOLUTION DISSOLVING THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (CCF) WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville jointly created the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) in 1997 for the purpose of improving services to children, youth and families in the community and meeting the requirements of the Comprehensive Services Act for at Risk Youth and Families pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-5200; and WHEREAS, the County and City subsequently amended the CCF agreement in 2010, removing the statutory duties set forth under Virginia Code Section 2.2-5200 et seq. and returning those duties to the respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the County, through approval of its FY 13-17 Five Year Financial Plan on December 14, 2011, indicated that it would no longer financially support CCF as of July 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, although the Commission has undertaken many noteworthy planning efforts during the past fifteen years, other agencies are now successfully undertaking those programing efforts; and WHEREAS, County and City staff recommend that the Commission be dissolved and that it cease operations effective December 31, 2012, and that the current employee of CCF be transitioned to the City’s Department of Humans Services to aid in the delivery of services specifically addressing identified social issues within the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, as fiscal agent for the CCF, the County holds the unexpended funds contributed by the City to fund CCF, which shall be returned to the City; and WHEREAS, the Charlottesville City Council, on December 3, 2012, adopted a resolution to dissolve the CCF effective December 31, 2012, contingent on like action being taken by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors concurrently joins with the City of Charlottesville to dissolve the Commission on Children and Families effective December 31, 2012, and authorizes the County Executive to execute any necessary documents required to finalize the dissolution of the Commission on Children and Families, and to return any unexpended funds contributed by the City of Charlottesville to the City. _____ Item No. 8.2. Fiscal Year 2013 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement. The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 32.1-31 allows local governing bodies to enter into contracts with the State Board of Health for the operation of local health departments. It also requires that these contracts specify the services to be provided in addition to those required by law and contain such other provisions as the State Board and the governing body may agree on. The County’s contract specifies both the scope and costs for the services to be provided locally. The Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Health, is the primary provider of public health services and programs for Albemarle County and surrounding localities. TJHD offers specific health programs targeted at preventing and controlling infectious diseases as well as initiatives aimed at improving the health of low income women, children and infants. In addition, the Health District provides an inspection and monitoring program to ensure the safety of food and private well/septic systems. These services are funded cooperatively by the State, County and other neighboring jurisdictions. Non-local funding for these TJHD programs is provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, grants and income from local fees charged to individual clients. The localities served by TJHD provide matching local funds for the allocations made by the state and allocate resources for Local-Only Programs such as food safety. The Virginia Department of Health requires that local governments enter into agreements stipulating the scope of health services to be provided by the TJHD to citizens in their respective jurisdictions. The FY13 agreement (Attachment A) has been reviewed and December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) approved as to form by the County Attorney’s Office. Attachment B is an attachment to the Agreement, and sets forth services to be provided by the TJHD. The County’s FY13 appropriation for the Thomas Jefferson Health District totals $561,771 of which $547,169 represents the County’s required match for Cooperative State and Local Matched Programs. The balance of funds from the County ($14,602) is allocated to the Local-Only (Unmatched) food inspection program . Based on the vital nature of the services provided by the TJHD, staff recommends that the Board approve the FY2013 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement (Attachment A) and that it authorize the County Executive to execute that Agreement. By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the following FY2013 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement and authorized the County Executive to execute that Agreement: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Under this agreement, which is created in satisfaction of the requirements of § 32.1-31 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Virginia Department of Health, over the course of one fiscal year, will pay an amount not to exceed $668,762, from the state general fund to support the cooperative budget in accordance with appropriations by the General Assembly, and in like time frame, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County will provide by appropriation and in equal quarterly payments a sum of $547,169 local matching funds and $14,602 one hundred percent local funds for a total of $561,771 local funds. These joint funds will be distributed in timely installments, as services are rendered in the operation of the Albemarle County Health Department, which shall perform public health services to the Commonwealth as indicated in Attachment A(1.), and will perform services required by local ordinances as indicated in Attachment A(2.). Payments from the local government are due on the third Monday of each fiscal quarter. The term of this agreement begins July 1, 2012. This agreement will be automatically extended on a state fiscal year to year renewal basis under the terms and conditions of the original agreement unless written notice of termination is provided by either party. Such written notice shall be given at least 60 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year in which the termination is to be effective. Any increase or decrease in funding allocation shall be made by an amendment to this agreement. The parties agree that: 1. Under this agreement, as set forth in paragraphs A, B, C, and D below, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Health shall be responsible for providing liability insurance coverage and will provide legal defense for state employees of the local .health department for acts or occurrences arising from performance of activities conducted pursuant to state statutes and regulations. A. The responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health to provide liability insurance coverage shall be limited to and governed by the Self- Insured General Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia, established under § 2.2-1837 of the Code of Virginia. Such insurance coverage shall extend to the services specified in Attachments A(l.) and A(2.), unless the locality has opted to provide coverage for the employee under the Public Officials Liability Self-Insurance Plan, established under § 2.2-1839 of the Code or under a policy procured by the locality. B. The Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health will be responsible for providing legal defense for those acts or occurrences arising from the performance of those services listed in Attachment A(l.), conducted in the performance of this contract, as provided for under the Code of Virginia and as provided for under the terms and conditions of the Self-Insured General Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia. C. Services listed in Attachment A(2.), any services performed pursuant to a local ordinance, and any services authorized solely by Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, when performed by a state employee, are herewith expressly excepted from any requirements' of legal defense or representation by the Attorney General or the Commonwealth. For purposes of assuring the eligibility of a state employee performing such services for liability coverage under the Self-Insured General Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General has approved, pursuant to:> 2.2-507 of the Code of Virginia and the Self-Insured General Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the legal representation of said employee by the city or county attorney, and the Board of Albemarle hereby expressly agrees to provide the legal defense or representation at its sole expense in such cases by its local attorney. December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) D. In no event shall the Commonwealth or the Virginia Department of Health be responsible for providing legal defense or insurance coverage for local government employees. 2. Title to equipment purchased with funds appropriated by the local government and transferred to the state, either as match for state dollars or as a purchase under appropriated funds expressly allocated to support the activities of the local health department, will be retained by the Commonwealth and will be entered into the Virginia Fixed Asset Accounting and Control System. Local appropriations for equipment to be locally owned and controlled should not be remitted to the Commonwealth, and the local government's procurement procedures shall apply in the purchase. The locality assumes the responsibility to maintain the equipment and all records thereon. 3. Amendments to or modifications of this contract must be agreed to in writing and signed by both parties. _____________________________ ____________________________ Maureen E. Dempsey, MD, FAAP Local authorizing officer signature Acting State Health Commissioner Virginia Department of Health ____________________________ Authorizing officer printer name ____________________________ Authorizing officer title _____________________________ ____________________________ Date Date Approved as to form by the Office of the Attorney General on August 29, 2011. Attachments: Local Government Agreement, Attachment A(l.) Local Government Agreement, Attachment A(2.) _____ Item No. 8.3. SDP-2012-030. Estes Park Site Plan – Variations from ZMA-2010-011. The executive summary states that Estes Park was rezoned from R1- Residential to PRD- Planned Residential Development on April 11, 2012 (ZMA2010-011). The proposed development will require three variations from the approved Application Plan. These variations are necessary before the preliminary site plan can be approved by staff, which is currently under review. In addition to the variation requests, the Board also has for review a rezoning amendment to allow the cash proffers to be collected for both single family attached and detached units. The applicant is requesting the following three variations from the approved rezoning plan: 1. Increase the road width by one (1) foot and allow on street parking on one side of the road only 2. Revise the unit type from attached single family residential to detached single family residential on the application plan. 3. Shift the location of the connection to Moubry Lane. 1. VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF DEVELOPMENT The variation requests have been reviewed for Zoning 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. VARIATION #1: The applicant submitted the following: Request to increase the road width by one (1) foot and allow on street parking on one side only. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below: 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Fire and Rescue requires 20 feet of travelway width for access. With parking on both sides of the street, this would require a 34 foot road width. The rezoning plan showed a 29 foot road width with parking on both sides of the road, which cannot accommodate the required width for Fire and Rescue to safely use their vehicles. While the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan recommend parking on both sides of the street, staff finds that for Fire and Rescue purposes allowing parking on one side of the street is appropriate in this case. 2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of development. Density is not increased. December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of developmen t 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 providing on street parking and allowing for safe access for Fire and Rescue. VARIATION #1 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variation request #1. VARIATION #2: The applicant submitted the following: Request for a variation to revise the unit type from attached single family residential to detached single family residential. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below: Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below: 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives by providing housing located close to employment centers and shopping areas. 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. The PRD district allows both attached and detached single family housing. When the property was rezoned, it showed attached single family units, however the zoning allows for both. Therefore, it is in general accord with the intent of the rezoning application. The applicant has also submitted a rezoning amendment for the proffers that would allow both housing types and associated cash proffers. VARIATION #2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variation request #2. VARIATION #2: The applicant submitted the following: Request for a variation to shift the location of the connection to Moubry Lane. Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below: Staff analysis of the variation request is provided below: 1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives by providing a pedestrian and emergency connection to existing neighborhoods. 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. The new location is within the existing parcel reserved for the connection. This shift is within general accord with the rezoning application by still providing emergency access to the development. December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) VARIATION #3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variation request #3. 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 variations #1, #2, and #3. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to approve Variations #1, #2 and #3 as recommended by staff in the above executive summary. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker. (Note: Mr. Rooker filed a Transactional Disclosure Statement indicating that he provides legal representation for the owners of property located at 3401 Worth Xing. This property is adjacent to the property which is the subject of this transaction and the owners of 3401 Worth Xing would realize a foreseeable direct or indirect benefit or detriment from the result of this transaction.) _____ Item No. 8.4. Resolution to accept Library Avenue (new Route 867) into the Secondary System of State Highways. At the request of VDoT and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution: The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, in regular meeting on the 12th day of December, 2012, adopted the following: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Residency Office of the Virginia Department of Transportation recommends that the street(s) referenced in this Board’s resolution be added to the secondary system of state highways as a no cost rural addition pursuant to Section 33.1-229 and Commonwealth Transportation Board policy, because the street(s) meets current minimum standards, the condition of the existing hard surface is serviceable, the street(s) has provided continuous public service since its establishment in November, 2012 and currently serves Crozet Library and eight commercial buildings (or identified, government constructed, public facility). WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Residency Office of the Virginia Department of Transportation confirms that no Department funds are required to improve the street(s) described on the attached additions form AM-4.3 to meet current minimum design or maintenance standards of the Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached additions f orm AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virginia and the Rural Addition Policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board of the Virginia Department of Transportation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right of way, as described on the attached form AM-4.3, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation. December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is: 1) Library Avenue (State Route 867) from Route 240 east, as shown on plat recorded the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3955, pages 19-20, with a 69-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 miles. Total Mileage – 0.07 _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2012-00011. Four Seasons Learning Center (Signs #88&93). PROPOSAL: Amend Special Use Permit to expand enrollment of Child Care Facility (increase maximum number of children in facility from 54 to 60 (6 additional students). No residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PUD Planned Unit Development – residential (3-34 units per acre), mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 20.3.2.1 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for child care facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 - 34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood 1 – Places 29. DEVELOPMENT AREA: Yes. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes. LOCATION: 254 Lakeview Drive Charlottesville VA. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061X1-00-00-00500. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December 3, 2012.) Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that this learning center is located in the Four Seasons development, on the corner of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview. He said that this is a proposal to amend the conditions of SP2010-0013 to allow for six additional students – intending to be siblings of existing students as proposed by the applicant. He said that the request is to increase the student enrollment to help meet demands for families that already have children in the facility. No building additions are proposed. He said that the Virginia Department of Social Services, the licensing agency, has indicated that the building can physically support the additional children. Mr. Benish said that the proposal was originally approved in 1974 as a daycare for 32 children, and was amended in 2002 to allow for up to 40 children. In 2007, he said, an amendment was proposed to increase enrollment from 40 to 64 students, but it was denied by the Board. He stated that in 2010 another proposal to increase enrollment to 64 was proposed by the applicant, and that was reduced to 54 based in part on neighborhood concerns, and was approved by the Board. Mr. Benish said that the intent of the applicant is to amend the enrollment to allow for six additional children who are related to students already enrolled in the facility. He said that staff has questioned whether such restriction can be imposed and is enforceable. He stated that staff has focused their review on the impacts of changing the enrollment by six students. Mr. Benish said that the two largest impacts are traffic volumes and patterns that would be in excess of an acceptable limit given the character of the neighborhood. He said that the scale of the use would be out of character for the scale of the neighborhood and that recommendation has consistently been held by staff since the original proposals before the Board. Mr. Boyd noted that VDOT did not have a problem with the traffic count there. Mr. Benish confirmed that the road could handle the volume, but the concern is more about the traffic patterns of drop-offs and pick-ups on the cul-de-sac street. Mr. Benish said that staff has reviewed the request against the criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance, and feel that the addition of students does not meet five of the six conditions. Mr. Benish said that favorable factors include the need for childcare in the County, and the six additional children if they are related to siblings as described by the applicant would limit the traffic impacts. He stated that the unfavorable factors are that limitation would be difficult to enforce or impose by a condition. He said that staff believes that the continued enlargement of the facility could be out of character with the scale of the neighborhood and could increase impacts for traffic movement on the street. Mr. Benish reported that the Planning Commission at its September 11, 2012 meeting recommended denial of the request by a 5-2 vote, and for the reasons outlined in the report staff recommends denial of the proposal. He said that staff have provided conditions of approval should the Board recommend favorably of the request. He stated that there is a condition developed in conjunction with the Zoning Administrator that could meet the intent of the applicant’s proposal – but it is written in a way that does not require that there be a relationship between siblings. Mr. Benish said that the condition allows for the enrollment to increase to 60 during times when regular schools are closed – such as summer, holidays, and bad weather days – so the second child has a place to go. Mr. Boyd asked what the approved capacity is by the Health Department. Mr. Benish responded that it is 79, and there is a caveat that it would be what’s allowed by the Health Department or whichever number is less – which would be 60 in this case. Mr. Thomas asked what the monitoring problems of the extra six students would be. Mr. Benish replied that there would be an issue with verifying the relationship between siblings, and staff would have to ensure that the six attendees had some relationship. He said that most of the enforcement is complaint-driven – so this would require regular monitoring or reporting over the full operation time of the facility –so that becomes labor intensive. December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Thomas asked if it would be labor intensive for the owner or the County. Mr. Benish said that it would be for both. He said that the County would be responsible for having a mechanism to ensure that, which would require some reporting from the applicant. Mr. Thomas said the owner of the center keeps good records, and would be able to provide that. Mr. Rooker commented that he can’t imagine that staff could enforce this. He said that if the students attending now go on to other schools they wouldn’t be siblings of attendees, so it would go back to 54. He said that there is simply no way that a person who might file a complaint could effectively do that because of the sibling situation that nobody would know about. Mr. Benish said that the base enrollment would change potentially each month – so you would have to track which one that particular month. Mr. Thomas said that in the summer time it would stabilize at 60 if possible. Mr. Benish said that the additional students would be based on existing enrollment at any point in time. Mr. Rooker stated that there is a proposed condition that does away with the enforcement issue, and does it based upon whether or not the schools are in session – which is what the point was originally of in trying to get the expansion. He said that existing student portion speaks as of the day of the ordinance. Mr. Benish said that zoning and County Attorney’s Office crafted this with the intent being based on current enrollment – at any point in time during their enrollment. Mr. Thomas commented that it wouldn’t increase the vehicle trips per day, only the number of students. Mr. Benish responded that the tendency would be for parents to do one trip, but it would depend on if the original child was there for a half day or not and that corresponds to the other student’s schedule. He said that for the most part, it would likely be combined as one trip, but there is no guarantee of that. Mr. Benish stated that the cleanest way to recommend approval would be to raise the enrollment to 60, but the hybrid staff has offered provides some control at certain points in time for that to increase. Mr. Snow asked if it is raised to 60 it is with the condition that those extra six students are their because of school closing or some other reason – otherwise its 54. Mr. Benish said that the other option is to increase the enrollment to 60. He said that staff recommends an approach that puts a limit on that increase based on school closures. Mr. Rooker asked if the facility was originally built as a house. Mr. Benish responded that is was a community facility originally part of the PUD, but since the beginning it has been used as a daycare center. At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing. Ms. Tina Pratz addressed the Board, stating that she has been working for Four Seasons Learning Center for about five years. She said that she would be reading a letter on behalf of Ms. Barbara Sliwinski, the Director and Wwner of the Center and Ms. Sliwinski’s husband Chris. Ms. Pratz stated that Mr. and Mrs. Sliwinski bought the Four Seasons Learning Center building in 1998 with SP-412 with five associated conditions to apply to the nursery school and the daycare, and three conditions to apply to any use of the property as an office. She said that one of the conditions says “administrative approval of site plan,” and “enrollment limited to maximum of 32 children at any one time or 35 square feet of floor space per child. In 2005, the County approved the application to expand the building from 1,100 square feet to 3,000 square feet. It is Ms. Sliwinski’s understanding that the approval gives her the right to expand her business and enroll more children, and that is why in 2007 she applied for 64 children – even though the center is licensed for 79. Ms. Sliwinski lowered the number to 54 after meeting the discontent of her neighbors for reasons in which she doesn’t understand. In the beginning Ms. Swilinski was told and welcomed to grow and expand her business and it seems now that she is receiving a completely different attitude from the County of Albemarle and made to feel very unwelcome in the community. Ms. Pratz said that Ms. Sliwinski is satisfied with 54 children, and is before the Board today because many parents over the summer approached her and asked if their second school-aged child could attend the center with their siblings. Most of the time Ms. Swilinski has had to say no, and after the summer parents asked if she would request additional space just for older children. The parents had a fundraiser to pay half the application fee, and in September the Planning Commission stated that the facility would be out of scale with the Four Seasons development. Ms. Pratz said that Ms. Swilinkski says that six children would not make this happen. She said that one staff member said it would eventually cause a traffic increase – which is untrue, because the parents already come to the center. Mr. Morris, Planning Commission Chair, asked Mr. Higgins if there had been any complaints since last year and he said “no”. She said that a senior planner said that he had received one phone call a few days prior to that meeting. Ms. Pratz said that Ms. Sliwinski has met with eight neighbors and did not receive any expression against the request – only one neighbor opposed the request at the Commission meeting. Ms. Sliwinski stated that staff felt there was no way to ensure that the six spaces would be siblings, adding that her certificate of occupancy from 2002 states “limited to 32 children by SP-412, modification on number of children under 2.5 years of age is 30 allowed”. She said that Ms. Swilinksi asked if this is enforced, why staff can’t enforce the six sibling spaces the same way, and said she is uncomfortable with the provision that only County and City children can attend because they may have December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) siblings that go to schools in other surrounding counties. Ms. Pratz stated Ms. Swilinksi said one member at the September 11, 2012 at the Commission meeting asked her how many children had attended Four Seasons Learning Center from the neighborhood and over the years 38 children from there have attended the center. She said that Ms. Sliwinski states that her 44 years experience supported by a master’s degree in early childhood education gives her the ability to inspire and transfer her passion for children onto the staff at the center. Ms. Pratz added that the center has received many compliments from parents and teachers on how well adjusted and ahead Four Seasons students are, and that has provided motivation not only to continue their work but to better themselves. Ms. Pratz said that Ms. Sliwinski’s statement says that Four Seasons Learning Center has always been about helping parents and caring for children. She said that the statement concludes with by denying Four Seasons Learning Centers’ request, the Board will have hindered their ability to further serve their parents and their community. Ms. Martha Wood said that she lives on Lakeview Drive and asked the Board to support the Planning Commission and staff recommendations for the proposal. Ms. Wood said that her concerns relate to continuously amending a special use permit, noting that this will be the third time she has come before the Board asking to deny this amendment. She said that it is important that if the County has a special use permit to stick to it and not keep expanding and doing other things to it – especially in the middle of a meeting where there has not been any opportunity for other kinds of input. Ms. Wood said that she is concerned for additional children being allowed to come because there is no age cut off. She stated that she feels that six children could expand to more next year and the year after. She said that there is no way to really see how the number would work as children are enrolled in the school. She asked the Board to respect and honor the recommendation from the Planning Commission and the planning office and deny the request. Ms. Tameka Anderson said that she is before the Board on behalf of parents at the center. She said that she has a child at the center and one in the public schools, and occasionally she has to drop her school-age child off at Four Seasons when schools are closed. Ms. Anderson asked the Board to increase the allowable enrollment at the center. Ms. Courtney Watson addressed the Board, stating that she is the single parent of three children – two of whom attend Four Seasons Learning Center. She said that her oldest is in kindergarten in public school, and she supports the rising number for the siblings so she can bring her school-age child to the center. There being no further public comment, and the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Benish stated that it would not be a problem to add the other adjacent counties with enrollment at the school, such as Greene and Nelson, because the intent of the applicant is to accommodate parents from those adjacent localities. Ms. Mallek said that that was not a condition of the original permit that it was to be for County children only. Mr. Benish said that it was amended once to address that issue and was added early on the City of Charlottesville. He said that it was intent of the applicant to add Nelson County adding that it would not be problematic. He stated that it would have to be defined in the conditions, which he suggests be the immediate localities to Albemarle County. Mr. Rooker said that this is an interesting case because it represents the tension between special use permit businesses and the neighborhood existing around it. He stated that over time this has grown from 32 to 50 to 54, and it’s come up a number of times and has been denied. Mr. Rooker said that there’s a huge need for daycare in the community, and if the Board imposes the third condition they wouldn’t end up increasing the traffic – if at all it would be extremely minor, because it would only be on days the schools are closed and would accommodate siblings of existing children. He said that he thinks he would come out on the side of supporting the permit with staff’s recommended number three. Mr. Boyd said that he’d like to ask the applicant about that particular change. Ms. Barbara Kalemba-Sliwinski addressed the Board. Mr. Boyd asked the applicant if she understood the change to expand it to other counties, and to only allow children to come when schools are closed. Ms. Sliwinksi said that she didn’t want to require that children must be from a certain area. Mr. Rooker clarified that the condition is based on when schools are closed, and does not say a child has to be from a different place. Mr. Boyd added that it could never be more than 60 students. Ms. Sliwinksi said that she is only requesting the permit so she can accommodate the parents. Mr. Boyd said that he wants to be sure she understands the approval is for the six children in those situations. December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Ms. Mallek asked if the center is set up to have activities for elementary-age students. Ms. Sliwinski explained that Four Seasons Learning Center is licensed for age six weeks to 12 years old, and they have rooms designated for smaller children and older one. Ms. Mallek asked Ms. Swilinski how many teachers she had for 60 children. Ms. Swilinksi said that she has eight teachers, which were originally intended for 64 students so the ratio is one to eight. Mr. Thomas commented that Ms. Sliwinski has a nice facility, with a glassed-in area for the babies who are cared for there. Mr. Snow said that he would support this to help enable parents to continue working without having to worry about missing work or leaving a young child home alone. Ms. Mallek agreed, adding that her main concern is the continual increase in enrollment here and the perception of neighbors. She added that she has concerns about the tight turn and the volume of traffic there, and even though the speed limit is 25 people go a lot faster. Mr. Thomas stated that he did a traffic count with Elaine Echols there and the traffic is OK, mostly from 7:30 to 8:00 a.m. Mr. Dumler said that he is prepared to support this even though he shares concern that there has been a 50% increase in students over the last 10 years. He stated that the condition should effectively ensure that those children are coming in the same vehicle. Mr. Davis suggested that the wording of the motion include “or in any adjacent county or the City of Charlottesville” to reflect the Board’s intent. Ms. Mallek said that she assumes there would be 60 children there every day for about ¼ of the year, given school schedules. Mr. Thomas then moved to approve SP-2012-0011 subject to the proposed conditions and the third condition as recommended by staff. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: Ms. Mallek. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. This permit is approved for an office or nursery school and day-care center. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery school/day care center and an office use is prohibited; and 2. The site shall be in general conformity with the Minor Site Plan Amendment dated June 26, 2000 prepared by Aubrey Huffman, approved July 18, 2000 by the Department of Planning and Community Development and later approved by Letter of Revision dated December 5, 2000 with the exception that thirteen (13) parking spaces are required and are provided on-site and on the allowable street frontage of the site. There shall be one (1) business sign located as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment which shall not exceed eight (8) square feet in size. Conditions #3 – #7 below apply to the nursery school and day-care center: 3. On days when any school in Albemarle County, or any adjacent counties, or the City of Charlottesville is closed to pupils, the number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed sixty (60) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time; on all other days the permitted number of children occupying the nursery school and day care center shall not exceed fifty four (54) or the number approved by the Department of Social Services, whichever is less, at any time; 4. A minimum twenty (20) foot separation between the main building and the property line of TMP 61X1-AA-8 shall be maintained; 5. The concurrent use of the property for a nursery/day care center and a residential use is prohibited; 6. All employees of the day care center, including owners and directors, shall park on-site or in other off-street spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator; and 7. The maximum number of employees, including owners and directors, on-site during hours of operation shall be limited to eight (8). Conditions #8 - #10 below apply to use of facility as offices: 8. The maximum number of employees shall be ten (10); 9. A minimum twenty (20) foot separation between the main building and the property line of TMP 61X1-AA-8 shall be maintained; and December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 10. The concurrent use of the property for an office and a residential use is prohibited. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: ZMA-2012-00008. Estes Park- Proffer Amendment (Sign #56). PROPOSAL: Amend proffer #2 of approved ZMA-2010-00011 to now include cash amount for single family detached/attached residential units. Proposed unit type now includes detached and/or attached single family, which are allowed in approved ZMA. Number of units remains the same. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: In the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing, approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, 046B4000000500 and TMP 046B40000005A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December 3, 2012.) Mr. Benish reported that this amendment is to clarify some technical issues with this request, and staff found an error in the date in the proffers sent to the Board the previous Monday. (Note: Mr. Rooker said he was recusing himself from this vote, as he has a client with an adjoining property that has negotiated with this party over some economic issues.) Mr. Benish stated that this request is to amend the proffer approved with ZMA 2010-0011 to modify the cash amounts in the proffer to allow for both detached and attached unit construction. He said that it was previously proposed as only an attached product, but the applicant wants the option to do detached – which has a different cash proffer amount. He said that the revision has the right cash proffer amount for either unit as they choose to develop, and their intent is to develop both unit types on this site. Mr. Benish stated that during the Planning Commission’s review of the ZMA it was suggested to modify the mix amount of trees in one location to include both deciduous and evergreen trees. The correction was made on the application plan as well. He said that the favorable factors include that the proffers more accurately reflect the cash proffers based on the unit types being proposed, and this change doesn’t change any aspect of the site layout. Mr. Boyd asked if both the landscaping provisions and the proffers are included in the latest proffer statement before the Board. Mr. Benish replied that Mr. Davis has the signed, corrected versions, and the one sent around to the Board just highlights where the changes were. Mr. Davis said that the trees were addressed in the application plan, so the motion would be to approve the acceptance of the amended proffers and amended application plan. Mr. Benish noted that the incorrect date was used for the application plan, and that’s what they had to correct today. The Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Boyd moved to approve ZMA-2012-0008 subject to the proffers dated December 12, 2012 as recommended and to amend the application plan as defined by staff. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Rooker. (The proffers are set out below:) December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) December 12, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Thomas stated that there are still issues with the noise from the Rockydale Quarry, and there will soon be something presented to the Board to address those problems. Ms. Mallek asked if one of the items for consideration was lowering the decibel number. Mr. Thomas replied that Ms. Amelia McCulley was going to monitor the sound, and he would request that residents put up sound meters, monitor the levels and keep records on their own property if they want to. _____ Mr. Rooker mentioned that there was a fundraising concert for Hurricane Sandy victims to be held that evening on the Sundance Channel. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to December 13, 2012, 3:30 p.m., Room 241. At 7:18 p.m., Mr. Boyd moved to adjourn to December 13, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 241 of the County Office Building. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date: 02/06/2013 Initials: EWJ