2012-01-11January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
11, 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,
and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 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 reported that there were several items submitted by Board members to add to the end
of the agenda: 1) reelection of the Chairman, 2) consideration of setting joint meeting with the Planning
Commission to fast-track Comp Plan industrial land proposals and interstate interchanges after the Board
receives the Target Industry Study, and 3) a proposed addition to the appointments list from staff.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to deal with the appointment item immediately, stating that it
was for appointment of Mr. Bryan Elliott as the County Executive’s alternate on the Blue Ridge Juvenile
Detention Commission. There were no questions from Board members.
Ms. Mallek moved to appoint Mr. Elliott as the County Executive’s alternate. Mr. Snow seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
______
Mr. Boyd said that he had received emails from a few Board members as to why he wanted to
bring up the item of reelection of Chairman. His interpretation of the Board’s Rules of Procedure was the
annual election of a Chairman which the Board has not yet done. He believes it is unfinished business
because the Chairman had not been officially chosen. He also stated that he wanted to recommend
specific joint meetings with the Planning Commission regarding the industrial land and interstate
interchange items.
Mr. Boyd then moved to add the two items to the final agenda.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Board had been through a long discussion of election of Chairman at
their first meeting of the year and said that by default the current Chairman continued to serve if no new
Chairman were elected. He said that he could rehash all of the arguments made before, but he wasn’t
convinced there would be a different result without new information.
Mr. Boyd said he was not interested in rehashing the previous comments, but he was hoping they
could come together as a Board and honor the long-standing procedures that have been in place here for
30 years, and the committee assignments had been settled and taken off the table.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that it hadn’t really been taken off the table, as committee appointments
could be changed at any time. He said that there were four appointments Board members had interest in,
and there was a 3:3 split as to who should fill those posts. Mr. Rooker said that the three on one side
were willing to say pick your two positions and let the others have two positions, but the other group of
three felt it should have all four positions.
Mr. Boyd said that was similar to the composition three years ago.
Mr. Rooker stated that two years ago there was not a split like this, and Mr. Thomas had been
serving on the MPO with him [Mr. Rooker].
Ms. Mallek suggested that they put it on the agenda and discuss it at the end of the meeting.
Mr. Rooker said that Board members could put items on the agenda for the end of the meeting,
but the question is whether it would be something the Board would vote on. He stated that the fast track
concept idea had been brought up before, and his understanding was that staff was going to get back to
the Board with proposals as to how certain things might be handled in a quicker way – and what the
tradeoffs might be. Mr. Rooker said it would be wise to get that information back from staff so the Board
can make an informed judgment about the best course to follow.
Mr. Boyd commented that it was not unprecedented to have someone request a joint meeting with
the Commission and the Board, and he wanted to accelerate the meeting timeframe given the very
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
important report that is going to be presented to the Board from the TJPDC. He stated that there would
be three new members on the Planning Commission and they have already looked to the Board for
direction on this.
Mr. Foley clarified that the results of the study were going to be presented to the Board on
February 1 that would lead into discussion of the Comp Plan, the proposal would be for the Planning
Commission to come and hear that report, be in session and consider it at that time.
Mr. Boyd said that there would be some interaction between the Commission and the Board,
adding that he was not sure whether just to come to a consensus agreement or to do a vote.
Ms. Mallek said that she was always happy to have more knowledge.
Mr. Rooker stated that he was fine with the second proposal and had just wanted to flesh out
exactly what the items were about.
Mr. Boyd also stated that there was an item on the agenda today (Agenda Item No. 17) regarding
reallocating some CIP money, and asked if they wanted to move forward with that given that the
agreement was not in place yet and negotiations were still going on.
Ms. Mallek responded that she had a draft that had been circulated among everyone. She thinks
it should remain on the agenda.
Mr. Boyd stated that the item had not gone through the regular process, seems to have skipped
every procedure the Board would normally hold people too, nor has it been adequately vetted or put out
for public review, and have a full staff report. He also is not sure how it got on the agenda because the
Board does not normally have these type items on night agendas.
Ms. Mallek said that the item had been working its way through the staff for a year and a half and
had met the deadlines for having the staff put their information in back in November and December.
Mr. Boyd responded that it was still being worked on a few hours prior to the meeting, and the
County would never accept proffers that had not been reviewed and were negotiated at the last minute.
Ms. Mallek stated that she felt it was important to have the discussion to find out if they agree on
the concepts involved, adding that it is not a public hearing.
Mr. Boyd said, in that case, he will withdraw the suggestion.
Mr. Rooker said that there was a way to set the agenda – the Chairman, Clerk and County
Executive – and the rules the Board adopted addressed items that were not put on the agenda that way.
Every item that is on the agenda is not one that the Board voted on to put on the agenda.
Mr. Boyd asked if anyone could put something on the agenda at any time so long as they operate
within the published agenda time.
Mr. Rooker said as he understands it, the Chair, the Clerk and the County Executive set the
agenda. Now generally things like these things that are on the agenda today, the public hearing items,
there is a process for them getting to the Board and being advertised. The Board does not have to vote
separately to put them on the agenda.
Ms. Mallek clarified that all of the items had worked their way through the process – they weren’t
things that she or anyone else had picked to be put on there. She said that the Chair runs the meetings,
but does not decide what would be on the agenda and what would not be.
Mr. Boyd said that had been his interpretation, and said he was just trying to understand the new
rules and how Board members would get normal items through. The item reallocating CIP funding had
not been followed with this approach. He stated that he was just trying to figure out how it would operate
in the event he had something he wanted to bring forward.
Ms. Mallek stated that her approach in the past had been to find out if the majority of the Board
had an interest in having staff do the work before assigning them a task.
Mr. Boyd commented that it should be done in public session.
Ms. Mallek responded that it should be done in the discussions the Board has at the end of the
day, adding that the community and Parks & Rec staff had been talking about this specific item for several
years. It is no surprise, and it was not something that she pulled out of anywhere to put anywhere.
Mr. Rooker said that the rules established had to do with how something would be put on the
agenda that wasn’t on the agenda.
Ms. Mallek added that those were also action items.
Mr. Rooker said that there is a process as to how the original agenda gets established.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Davis stated that the rules state that the Clerk and the Chairman set the agenda. The Board’s
rules do not specifically address the issue of how the agenda gets done – but traditionally things were not
added to the agenda unless they were routine business matters or the Board had talked about them at
some point and asked them to be presented.
Mr. Foley explained that sometimes an item comes up and Board members would send an email
out to all other Board members and ask if they were comfortable with the item being added, but that all
happens as part of the regular agenda process and not afterward. He added that most of the time that
has worked pretty well in the past. The particular agenda item Mr. Boyd is talking about that is on tonight’s
agenda came to the staff in November, and when it came forward staff assumed it to be on the agenda –
and with the Chair in agreement put it on the agenda.
Mr. Rooker commented that the rule changes did not affect this item.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with that, but reiterated that he wants to understand
how in the future if an individual Board member wants to get something put on the agenda, can they work
through staff to do a staff report and add the item to the agenda, or should they discuss it in a public
meeting, and direct staff to bring it forward.
Mr. Thomas asked if they were saying that if the item was something a Board member wanted to
put on the agenda, it should be an action item.
Ms. Mallek explained that she would rather have it be a discussion item first so that Board
members could learn about it and not have action items abruptly brought to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that in the past, a Board member has an idea they want to put on the agenda, it is
discussed, and a general consensus is established to put it on the agenda.
Mr. Boyd stated that that didn’t happen with this particular item and the first he had heard of it was
when Ms. Mallek had mentioned it the previous week.
Ms. Mallek noted that the item had been going through staff for quite some time, but Mr. Boyd’s
concern was a good point to make.
Mr. Foley said that staff would want to follow up on this issue as there may be some question
about the procedure staff used to get things on the agenda. He stated that most of the time there wasn’t
an issue but occasionally things can come up and that may lead them to more formally send emails out to
the Board and say “here’s an agenda item.” Mr. Foley mentioned that some boards are very formal about
what gets on the agenda. He explained that in terms of agenda items, staff maintains a two-month
planning calendar, meets with the Chair and goes over it, but the items do not necessarily go through
every Board member to see if everyone agrees the item should be on the agenda.
Mr. Rooker said that under the rules, the agenda that goes out is established by the Chair and the
Clerk, and it had never seemed to be a problem before.
Mr. Boyd responded that he wasn’t aware of many projects that have come forward that weren’t
the directive of an open meeting of the Board, noting that special use permits and such had a processed
that flowed.
Mr. Snow commented that Mr. Foley had a good point that the process normally worked very well.
He added that he had not observed a problem with it. He thinks they just need to keep an eye on the
process and make sure they follow the procedures.
Mr. Thomas said that he would like to see it defined as to what they are looking for.
Mr. Foley suggested that staff spend some time contemplating the issue and follow up with the
Board as to how to address it in the future.
Mr. Boyd then moved to adopt the final the agenda with the addition of the two items as
mentioned. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek reported that at the recent VACo meeting, Albemarle County received the Green
Challenge Award for its efforts in energy conservation and investment. She handed the plaque awarded
by VACo to staff.
She also stated that the County received a letter from Mr. Butch Davies, the County’s previous
CTB member, congratulating the County on the opening of the John W. Warner Parkway.
_______________
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions. (None-Remove from agenda)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Taylor Bishop addressed the Board, stating that he and other students were there to address
the Western Bypass. Mr. Bishop said that the students believe that the benefits of the bypass were offset
by the drawbacks.
Ms. Kathryn Gillette said that there were several environmental issues related to the bypass that
they wanted to mention – primarily its proximity to several schools and the Rivanna Reservoir, and runoff
from the Reservoir could be a potential problem to people’s drinking water.
Mr. Taylor McKenzie said that they believe that the predicted cost of $244 million is too costly for a
6.2 mile road – and the higher estimate of $436 million is a lot worse. He said the state’s funding of the
project seems to indicate that they are going to spend the money just because it is available and not
because the County really needs it. Mr. McKenzie stated that after spending the money to build the road,
more would need to be spent on maintaining it.
Mr. Austin Wood said that the SELC had released articles to the Daily Progress stating that the
traffic estimates released in the RFP were over 200 years off . With an estimate like that the road will not
serve a purpose for quite a long time. The article also stated that improving local road networks would be
a much more cost effective solution to the traffic problems that the bypass is said to relieve.
__________
Ms. Elisabeth Ainslie said that she was also in attendance with fellow seniors. These members of
her Government class group also chose the Western Bypass as their Citizen Action Project. Ms. Ainslie
said that they do not believe the bypass is the most effective way to reduce traffic on Route 29.
Ms. Shae Douglas said that they were proposing that a new traffic study be done on Route 29 to
reassure that the bypass would be the most effective way to reduce traffic. This is a huge project, and
they want to make sure that their money and resources are used in the most effective way.
Ms. Shanell Rush said that the last traffic study was conducted was in 1990 and the population
has grown significantly over the last 20 years – meaning there are more cars on the road.
Mr. Jamie Criser said that the project is about $100 million per mile which means it costs about
$600 million for a 6.2 mile road. This road would only take about 3,000 of the 58,000 cars that travel on
Route 29 daily. It does not seem to make much sense to put so much money into something that won’t
make so much of an impact, and that is a lot of money that can be used in other instances in the
community.”
Mr. Brandon Seay said that there are other alternatives to lessening traffic on Route 29 such as
widening Route 29 from four to six lanes between Polo Grounds Road and Hollymead, as well as
extending Berkmar Drive and improving key intersections. He stated that there were other methods of
traffic reduction, and by having a traffic study conducted VDOT would have to make a more accurate
projection as to the number of cars that travel Route 29 in order to have the bypass more suited for the
community.
Ms. Mallek thanked them for their work and for speaking at the meeting.
__________
Mr. John McHugh addressed the Board, stating that he was a member of the Charlottesville Star
Swimming Organization, a local nonprofit established to advance competitive swimming in the area. He
said that three years ago they proposed a funding model for a pool enclosure at their Fairview location, but
after multiple discussions with Parks & Rec, reviews by the School Board and the Board of Supervisors,
their proposal received a 3:3 vote and was not approved. Mr. McHugh stated that their proposal included
a return on investment by allowing the local high school swim teams to swim for free, management by an
organization with 11 years experience in enclosed aquatic facilities and a proven track record of bringing
large swim meets to the area – boosting the local economy, and a location ideally suited to supporting a
maximum number of County residents. He stated that he had sent a copy of the proposal to the Board the
previous night. At the time, the proposal wasn’t accepted because of Board concerns about the downturn
in the County and the recreational needs of the western side of the County. Clearly, both concerns have
been addressed based on tonight’s agenda.
Mr. McHugh said that he was encouraged to see the Board voting to re-appropriate funds for
Claudius Crozet Park to build an enclosure similar to the one they have at Fairview, and fully supports the
re-appropriation to build these desperately needed year-round aquatic facilities. However, he stated, to
fully support the recreational needs of the taxpayers of the County, the Board needs to reconsider the
funding of Star Swimming’s proposal that will address the broader needs of the entire County.
Mr. Rooker asked where the group stood today in the process, as it had been a while since the
item had been active.
Mr. McHugh responded that they are a volunteer organization and the denial took a lot of wind out
of their sails, and they have just begun another capital campaign for $1.5 million that is in the silent phase.
He said that it is a “shovel-ready project” with plans approved, and they need to break ground.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Mallek stated that the fund proposal being considered tonight was not for the pool itself but for
bathrooms and heating in the pool building as the money for the pool had been raised separately.
__________
Mr. Jose D’Alta said that his group is also seniors from Monticello High School and they are also
doing a CAP project on the US 29 Bypass. Mr. D’Alta reported that they had gone out and interviewed
numerous community members that were involved in the bypass, including Mr. Snow and Mr. Rooker, and
tried to get the most well-rounded view possible. He said that they also spoke with many organizations
including VDOT and the Piedmont Environmental Council as part of their research.
Mr. Devin Jones said that the bypass would eliminate about 14,000 vehicles per day and would
provide access for U.Va. employees to get on grounds sooner. He said that it would cost about $250
million to $300 million and studies have shown that it not have a major impact on traffic flow. Mr. Jones
stated that the bypass would be taking land from local schools and would expose students to harmful air
pollution. Places29 include a series of local projects that would be completed over a 20-year timeframe.
The students believe that that Places29 would be more effective than the bypass. For the cost of around
$57 million the Berkmar Extension would eliminate an estimated 22,000 vehicles per day; for $30 million
the Hillsdale Drive Extension would eliminate an estimated 8,700 vehicles per day.
Ms. Brooke Shaver said that with this information, the group had established that the Western
Bypass should not be built to address Route 29 problems. When they reviewed the cost and the benefits,
they realized that the bypass wasn’t worth it. They realize that there are other options that have proven to
be more effective for a fraction of the actual cost of the bypass.
Ms. Brittany Sprinkle said that that the group has joined the PEC and other organizations in an
effort to have the Federal Highway Administration to reexamine the bypass and Places29.
Ms. Shaver said that the group asks the Board to reconsider its position on the bypass and make
a report that realistically compares both Places29 and the Western Bypass. She also said that the
circumstances regarding the vote were somewhat questionable, and they are sure if the Board were to
vote on the issue in a normal setting the outcome would become different.
Mr. Boyd thanked the young people for coming and stating that they are very well spoken as it
was not easy to come before the Board and speak.
__________
Ms. Debbie Lockman and Mr. Andy Lockman addressed the Board, stating that they were both
taxpayers and physicians who are concerned about the obesity epidemic in the country. Ms. Lockman
stated that they are parents of two students who swim for the Virginia Gators and the Albemarle High
School swim team, as well as being swimmers themselves who participate in the ACAC masters swim
program. She said they were here to show their support for the Crozet item coming forth later in the
meeting.
Mr. Lockman stated that many local governments in the state have dedicated large resources to
build, fund and staff County aquatic facilities that were not financially self -sustaining and it would be more
affordable for governments to provide seed money for nonprofits to build and manage these facilities.
They can offer affordable programs for County residents as well potentially provide a venue that can
generate income for local restaurants and hotels by hosting swim meets.
Ms. Lockman said their hope tonight was that this would be passed to show how the investment
would help people get involved in swimming at a reasonable cost.
__________
Mr. J.J. Bean addressed the Board, stating that he is a long-time resident of the County since
coming to U.Va. in 1973. Mr. Bean said that he had been a coach at both County and City schools, and in
2000-01 he and another person established the local swim program in the County. He stated that in 2003-
04 he worked with a City-County government committee to develop public/private partnerships to build
recreational facilities in the County. He noted that he was also been involved in Star Swimming’s effort to
establish a new facility at Fairview to help the County swim programs. Mr. Bean added that he is also
currently Director of the Stars Virginia Gators Swim Club and their mission is to grow the sport of
swimming in Central Virginia. He applauded the Board for taking steps to try to help facilitate the growth
of swimming and aquatic facilities in all areas of the County. He said that he thinks it is a great way to
help the youth.
__________
Dr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that his PowerPoint presentation has been lost in
the County’s computer and noting that he had printed out his presentation on “Science Updates and
Comments.” Dr. Battig said that his position on climate change is “unchanged”. He added that skepticism
is an essential component and hallmark of the scientific process; skepticism equals open-mindedness,
and lack of skepticism equals dogma and stagnation. He added that he is a science skeptic by training.
Dr. Battig stated that climate change has, is and will continue to change.
Dr. Battig said that the latest “ICLE dropouts” include Monmouth County, New Jersey; Somerset
County, New Jersey; Las Cruces, New Mexico; Sarasota County, Florida and Plantation, Florida. Dr.
Battig stated that cell phone transmitting and towers are placed to gain maximum coverage and minimize
direct human exposure. Cell phones radiate directly against one’s brain and multiple studies have failed to
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
reveal a statistically significant health risk. He emphasized that local school boards provide computers
and WiFi – and radiation – to students, yet last month students were present before the Board protesting
cell towers. The imposition of smart meters were installed without citizen approval, and they have now
been responsible for documented complaints due to their unique radiation character.
Dr. Battig mentioned the School Board’s goals: prepare all students to succeed as members of a
global community and in a global economy. He said not one word is about being American citizens or the
uniqueness of our American heritage in Virginia. He asked if the School Board equates global community
with the United Nations one world mindset.
Dr. Battig also mentioned two invitations to upcoming seminars related to global warming on
January 23, in Matthews Virginia, and January 24 in Virginia Beach. He will serve on panels entitled
“Climate Change Reconsidered”.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the decision to install smart meters was made by Dominion
Resources and wasn’t a local government action.
Dr. Battig stated that the decision was a response from the State Corporation Commission related
to a 2007 enabling law passed by the legislature, and the next step is to file a formal complaint as the
meters are intrusive and an invasion of privacy.
__________
Ms. Lynda Harrill addressed the Board and said she was the founder of Quick Start Tennis of
Central Virginia, an all-volunteer grassroots community tennis association. She said that Quick Start is
the “play to learn” format that the USTA developed about four years ago originally for children 5-10. Ms.
Harrill stated that they started programs at Greer and Henley three years ago, and today are in 121
schools in 19 counties – with 57,000 kids participating. She said the organization works with eight Parks
and Rec departments, several YMCAs and the Boys & Girls Club, and has a pilot program locally with
Head Start kids. Ms. Harrill noted that the USTA began a campaign a year ago for “Ten and Under
Tennis,” and Albemarle was chosen as a pilot community for the program along with New Orleans and
San Diego. She said that the local program would receive $100,000 from the USTA over three years and
would invest that in the “tennis pathway.” They have already trained over 900 people, received grants,
purchased equipment and received donations for equipment. She said that they really need infrastructure;
they have already set up all the programming. Ms. Harrill stated that their first partnership in that regard
was working with Crozet Park to build regulation courts with kid-size lines. She added that Quick Start
also has a nutritional program to help fight childhood obesity.
Ms. Mallek commented that the courts would be usable as full courts for adults when not in use by
children.
Ms. Harrill confirmed that this was the case, and also said that they could be used for people with
injuries or who are older.
Mr. Rooker congratulated Ms. Harrill in her work on this program.
Mr. Boyd mentioned the lights the County had put in at Darden Towe Park with the idea that the
tennis association would put equipment there, and asked if that was in Quick Start’s plans.
Ms. Harrill responded that that is still on the drawing board, but is being handled by the
Charlottesville Area Tennis Association – which is a different group. She added that they all have plans
for getting more courts and Darden Towe, and the larger project would involve eight 36-foot courts, two
additional regulation courts and lights.
__________
Ms. Morgan Russell addressed the Board, stating that she was a student at Monticello High
School. Ms. Russell stated that she was here to address “irresponsible spending and inadequate
planning” with a large span of issues ranging from the Route 29 Bypass to education. She said that
throughout her experience as a student she has witnessed the consequences of this problem, noting that
the School Board switched to a new grading and attendance program that offered teachers, parents and
students the ability to view reports online. Ms. Russell stated that the program was brand new and had
barely been tested, and when implemented during 2010-11 it failed to function properly and resulted in the
loss of attendance records and critical grades. She said that the previous grading system had worked
perfectly, and asked if research had been done on a new grading system or did the County just have
money to spend. Ms. Russell also stated that the school experienced a toner shortage, and the printers
are necessary to use with laptops recently received at the school. She said that she does not believe this
country has a problem with not having enough money, instead she believes the country has a problem
with irresponsible spending. Irresponsible spending and inadequate planning is not only a local issue but
as we all know a national issue. She said that her group and others would like to see that programs and
organizations that do not demonstrate responsible spending and proper planning procedures not receive
more money.
__________
Mr. Brendan Kelly, a County resident, said he is a master swimmer and a parent of a year-round
swimmer. Mr. Kelly said that he gives all his money to the City to swim at their new Smith Aquatic Center
because the County has no place for him to go. He stated that swimming is part of the social fabric of the
area, as about 3,000 kids swim in the Jefferson Swim League each year, which serves as a natural
introduction to a fabulous sport, with many kids going on to swim competitively. Mr. Kelly stated that Star
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Swimming’s previous proposal to the County had come with a heavy dose of politics, pitting Crozet against
the Star plan. He said that the people of Crozet should get their pool enclosure and capital improvements,
but the County should also fund the Star Swimming proposal as a centrally located aquatics facility is far
overdue and should be seriously considered.
__________
Mr. Scott Leake addressed the Board on behalf of Congressman Hurt’s Albemarle office. Mr.
Leake stated that he was there just to introduce himself and offer any cooperation they could. He also
said that driving the John W. Warner Parkway was a pleasure.
__________
Mr. Morgan Butler, Director of the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Charlottesville-Albemarle
project, addressed the Board and welcomed Mr. Dumler. The SELC promotes sustainable land use and
transportation decisions that protect the community’s natural resources and quality of life. Mr. Butler
stated that he was here to address the series of discussions and negotiations that took place last year and
ultimately led to the MPO’s change of position on the Western Bypass. He said that Mr. Snow and Mr.
Thomas had stated that they made it clear to the Secretary of Transportation that there were at least four
other projects that were Board priorities that would be necessary to fund before they could support a
bypass. Mr. Butler said that two of those projects were Berkmar Drive Extended and the Hillsdale Drive
Extension, and two months later in July after a public hearing they promised the community that they
would not vote for the bypass at the MPO until the state made several commitments – including ones to
Berkmar and Hillsdale.
Mr. Butler noted that the commitment to Berkmar had been watered down considerably by that
point but at least included the promise that the bypass’s bridge would also serve as the bridge for
Berkmar. He said that they explained that this would eliminate the need to build an expensive bridge over
the Rivanna as part of the Berkmar project, and also said that they claimed the state must provide funding
to complete construction of Hillsdale. Mr. Butler stated that it has been almost six months since Mr.
Thomas and Mr. Snow voted to support the bypass, but there is still not necessary funding for Hillsdale
and there has been no commitment from the state to advance Berkmar or even just the bridge for
Berkmar in any meaningful way. SELC has long opposed the Western Bypass and continues to oppose it.
Mr. Butler urged the Board to work with the state to redirect bypass funding toward less damaging
alternatives for improving traffic flow on Route 29, but since their vote on the bypass was supposedly
premised on getting enforceable commitments from the state for these other projects, the SELC urges the
MPO representatives to at least reengage with the state on those projects and finally ensure that the
promises that were made to this community and this Board are kept.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson stated that the Free Enterprise Forum has been an advocate for the Western
Bypass. The Free Enterprise Forum recognizes that this Board voted 4:2 to support the Western Bypass
which was passed at the MPO in accordance with the Albemarle’s vote. The Free Enterprise Forum
hopes that the majority of this year won’t be spent revisiting that history.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. (None-Remove from agenda)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: SP-2011-00018. Colonial Nissan—Parking Deck (Signs
#2&3).
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit to allow construction of a rooftop parking deck on new building.
No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial – commercial and service; residential by special use permit
(15 units/acre).
SECTION: 24.2.2 (11) Stand alone parking and parking structures.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office;
research and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in
Neighborhood 1.
LOCATION: 200 Seminole Trail.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000094B0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2011 and January 2, 2012.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that this was a proposal to allow the construction of
a rooftop parking deck on a new building at the Colonial Auto Center site located on Route 29 North. He
stated that the applicant was requesting approval of the standalone parking structure, which would be
used for employee parking and excess inventory for the dealership and would also be located in the back
of a proposed new building. He said that the building would also include an indoor display area, an office
area and a maintenance facility.
Mr. Benish presented a vicinity map of the area. Places 29 designates the area for office, R&D,
flex-Light Industrial – and auto commercial dealerships are a permitted use in that designation. He noted
that the site is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District; the ARB has reviewed and approved the
request with conditions as presented. Mr. Benish presented a site drawing of the area in which the
building would be constructed, with a view from Route 29 and the access road paralleling to the south. He
said that the parking deck would be on top of the structure, and presented a front view rendering of the
building from Route 29 as well as a side view.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Benish stated that the application is consistent with the Comp Plan and has been
recommended for approval by the ARB with conditions, and staff has identified those as favorable factors
to the request – with no unfavorable factors identified and a recommendation for approval.
Referring to recommended condition #2, Mr. Thomas asked about the requirement for a survey of
the drip line of the trees and a mark for temporary fencing.
Mr. Benish replied that that was to ensure there wasn’t any storage or damage or backing up over
trees intended to be retained.
Ms. Mallek noted that it was to keep the trucks from parking under trees and killing them.
Mr. Snow said that it was a fairly common practice, with plastic fencing and steel poles to be put
up temporarily.
Mr. Boyd asked why this was before the Board tonight.
Mr. Benish explained that parking decks are a special use provision to ensure evaluation of
impacts of use, traffic circulation issues, and visibility.
Mr. Boyd questioned whether this should have gone through this process. He considers this to be
pretty much a “no brainer”.
Mr. Dumler agreed, stating that in an effort to simplify approval processes parking decks should
be encouraged and probably do not need to go through this type of evaluation.
Ms. Mallek noted that the applicant has made a great effort to meet the performance bar needed
by the ARB, which addressed many of the questions that the Board would have.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Pete Borches, representing Colonial Nissan, offered to answer any questions.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the
Board.
Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-2011-00018 subject to the two conditions as presented.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use
Permit 2011-018 Colonial Auto- Parking Deck” prepared by Townes Site Engineering and dated
October 17, 2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in 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. limits of disturbance
b. location of buildings and structures
c. location of parking areas
d. employee parking and inventory storage parking layout
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; and
2. In areas designated for tree protection, the applicant shall have the dripline of the trees surveyed
and shall mark the dripline in the field with temporary fencing. In areas designated for tree
protection, no tree removal shall occur. No grading or disturbance shall take place within the
driplines of trees located within the tree protection area. Any grading or disturbance within ten (10)
feet of any dripline shall necessitate submittal of a “Tree Protection Plan” in accord with section
32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. No grading or disturbance within ten (10) feet of any dripline
shall be permitted until a) the survey has been completed and the fencing has been installed and
b) the Planning Director approves a plan that shows the grading or disturbance and the surveyed
dripline of the existing trees.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: SP-2011-00020. L & B Towing-Snows Business Park
(Sign #101).
PROPOSAL: Allow towing company on a portion of 5.78 acres under Section 27.2.2(12) of zoning
ordinance. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: LI – Light Industrial which allows industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no
residential use).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 4.
LOCATION: 1833 Avon Street Ext.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000000035X0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2011 and January 2, 2012.)
(Note: Mr. Snow announced that he owns property adjacent to the site that is subject to the
special use permit, and thus was disqualifying himself from participating in the transaction. He has also
filed the required Transactional Disclosure form with the Clerk to make the disclosure a matter of public
record. He then left the meeting at 7:09 p.m.)
Mr. Benish reported that the applicant has applied to use a one-half acre section of the back of
Snow’s Business Park, located on Avon Street, for towing and temporary storage of motor vehicles as
shown on the map presented. He stated that the property is zoned Light Industrial and this is a permitted
use by special use permit. Mr. Benish also said that the applicant is requesting a waiver of a
supplemental provision of the ordinance relating to this use. He stated that the site is designated for
industrial service in the Comp Plan and is adjacent to other areas designated for industrial use.
Mr. Benish presented the applicant’s concept plan and said that the proposed use would be
located within a structure, with a tow lot to be located to the rear of the building – which is to the east of
the site. He stated that there is an existing landscape area to be retained on the hillside below and to the
east of the yard. Mr. Benish presented images of the structure that would host the operation, the fenced
area to be part of the tow yard, the gate to the south side of the building, and the planned parking area on
the opposite side of the building.
He said that there was some discussion in the staff report about a waiver of a section of the
supplementary regulations that indicate that the site of the storage area should not be visible from any
adjacent residential property, which is a waiver that the Planning Commission makes. He said that the
Commission did review the request and although there is one portion of the site visible from an adjacent
residential property, it is only a 16-foot section of fence that is visible, and based on elevation differences
some portion of the bumpers would be visible. Mr. Benish stated that staff noted to the Planning
Commission that the purpose and intent of the ordinance is met through the existing site conditions, the
topography and the existing vegetation, and through the approval of the conditions as proposed for this
plan and the concept plan recommended therein. He stated that the Board does not need to act on the
waiver unless it disagrees with the Commission’s findings for the waiver.
Mr. Benish stated that staff has identified favorable factors as a need for the service in the area,
preservation of the industrial character of the area through this use, and consistency with the Comp Plan.
He said that staff found no unfavorable factors provided the site was developed in a way consistent with
the concept plan. The Planning Commission and staff have recommended approval with the conditions
as presented.
Mr. Boyd asked if the ARB would take exception to the fence visibility from the Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Benish responded that the whole property is visible, but it was determined that the site was
not visible. It is not a problem with the ARB.
Mr. Dumler inquired about the adjacent residence occupants, and asked if there were renters on
the property directly behind the garden center.
Mr. Benish replied that the people who live on either side are renters, and staff spoke with them
and got permission to take the pictures that he had presented. They expressed no concerns with the
proposal.
Mr. Dumler asked if he had spoken also with the property owner.
Mr. Benish said that they were notified of the plan and did not comment in opposition to it.
Mr. Boyd inquired again as to why this was before the Board, as it could have been handled
administratively and with the ARB.
Mr. Benish responded that this is an unusual request as most tow services are part of a larger
auto repair type of use subject to a special use permit. He added that this may have been based on
concerns of misuse or mismanagement, and there was a feeling that proper oversight was necessary.
Mr. Benish said that in this location on this site, it makes good sense to have the use.
Mr. Boyd commented that he wasn’t sure that a light industrial use in an industrial area needed to
be brought before the Board for decision.
Mr. Rooker said that he could see why this was a special use instead of a by-right use, as there
may be situations such as condos being located next door instead of a single residence.
Mr. Boyd stated that at the roundtable discussions with business leaders, they said the way the County
classifies some uses should be looked at.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Rooker agreed that it could be reexamined.
Mr. Benish said that given that it is zoned Light Industrial, perhaps a special permit in an industrial
district is something that needed evaluation.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
There being no public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dumler moved to approve SP-2011-00020 with the conditions as recommended. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Snow.
Mr. Rooker noted that with special use permits versus by-right, the Board can attach conditions –
but with by-right use there could be no conditions.
Mr. Boyd said he was interested in exploring whether there might be some middle ground
between by-right and special use permits which the proposal could be handled administratively or by the
Planning Commission.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Concept Plan entitled L&B Towing for
SP201100020, prepared by Brian Tate and dated November 17, 2011, (hereinafter, the
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following major elements
essential to the design of the development:
• location of the area for towed vehicles
• location of additional parking
• location of existing landscaping area
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Landscaping shown in the concept plan shall be maintained in its current condition, unless
authorized to change by the Zoning Administrator; and
3. Vehicles may be stored on-site for a period of time not to exceed sixty (60) days, unless directed
by a law enforcement or state government agency to keep them longer than sixty (60) days.
_______________
(Note: Mr. Snow returned to the meeting at 7:18 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: SP-2011-00021. Verizon Wireless – Herring Property
(Sign #49).
PROPOSAL: Special use permit amendment to allow replacement of existing 53.5-foot treetop
monopole with a 97-foot treetop monopole, with associated ground equipment.
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 (.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 8268 Newtown Heights, approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Green Hill
Lane (Route F0174).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05300-00-00-00600.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2011 and January 2, 2012.)
Mr. Benish reported that this application is a proposed amendment to an existing special use
permit to allow the replacement of an existing 53-foot treetop monopole with a 97-foot treetop monopole
with new ground equipment. He stated that the uses require a special use permit because there were
already four personal wireless service facilities on the site and a provision in the process thus makes the
application go from a Tier II to a Tier III facility. Mr. Benish said that the proposed monopole would be the
same height as the reference tree, which is located on a steep slope behind the site. He reported that the
site is located along I-64 directly north of the VDOT memorial overlook and is designated RA in the Comp
Plan, zoned RA, and is located in the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Benish said that there are some steep
slopes on the site and it contains other personal wireless facilities, with the property being primarily
wooded and the surrounding areas being large forests and small single-family residential lots.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
He stated that the lease site sits on an 83-acre parcel. The property is listed in the Mountain
Resource area of the Comp Plan, with significant critical slopes on the site but the tower site being fairly
flat. Mr. Benish said that the property is also located in the Greenwood/Afton Rural Historic District, which
was created after the adoption of the Critical Resources and Open Space Plan. He stated that due to
limited visibility of the wireless facility on the site, none of these resources would be adversely impacted by
the pole replacement.
Mr. Benish reported that the ARB staff has reviewed the request and attended the balloon test,
and has since stated that the proposal would not have a negative impact on the corridor. He said that it is
staff’s opinion that given the height at the same reference point of the tree on the steep slope behind it
and given that the level of visibility is low, the tower is not expected to have a negative impact on the EC or
adjacent properties. He presented photographs of the balloon test from several different perspectives.
Mr. Benish stated that the applicant has requested several modifications to the request for
supplementary regulations to require a tree conservation plan and for fencing around the structure. He
said that staff is recommending approval of the modifications. There is no new clearing activity taking
place on the site and no fence is necessary.
Mr. Benish reported that staff has identified the following favorable factors: no visible impact on
the Entrance Corridor or adjacent properties, and ARB staff recommendation of the proposal. There were
no unfavorable factors identified. He stated that staff recommended approval as recommended by the
Commission with the conditions as presented.
Ms. Mallek said that with the mountain as a backdrop instead of the sky, it seems the spectacular
increase in height disappears. Mr. Benish agreed.
Mr. Rooker asked about the genesis of the decision to eliminate the tree conservation plan.
Mr. Benish explained that in this case there would be no grading or tree clearing, as it would
essentially be replacing the pole in the same location – so there was not a need for a conservation plan.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a plan in place for the existing pole.
Mr. Benish responded that he believes there is a tree conservation plan in effect for the existing
pole.
Mr. Rooker asked if they have a plan in this, if this would be eliminating the conservation of the
trees that provide visibility. Mr. Benish said he does not think so; he assumes the condition is in place, but
will verify it.
Mr. Boyd asked if the equipment facility would remain the same size.
Mr. Benish responded that none of the equipment would be visible and the area where the
replacement work would take place is an area that has already been impacted, so all of the activity is in an
existing developed area of the leased area of the site.
Mr. Boyd asked if fencing was required around the site, as it typically was.
Mr. Benish responded that in this case there was no fencing, given the location and the
remoteness.
Ms. Mallek asked if the existing roadway was adequate for the bucket truck and heavy machinery
to the site. Mr. Benish said that was staff’s understanding.
Mr. Boyd commented that this is another application that might have been addressed through an
administrative process, and if it is as simple as just raising the height he is not sure if it should be
evaluated further.
Mr. Davis responded that these were the easy ones.
Mr. Rooker said these were situations in which there were mountain elevations to help block the
visibility. He sees this is a simple application.
Mr. Boyd commented that perhaps if the ARB had approved an application, and there was
sufficient backdrop, an application could fall under Tier I or Tier II.
Mr. Davis stated that that’s what the Board would be looking at with staff and the consultant during
that reevaluation process.
Mr. Benish emphasized that this particular application was driven by the fact that this was the
fourth tower – and a replacement tower – on this site.
Mr. Boyd asked if the reason this was before the Board was the height. Mr. Benish stated that
under the ordinance provisions, staff wants to evaluate situations where there are a density of towers
located together.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Davis said that often there are applications due to height increases, but this one was due to
density added by an additional tower.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lori Schweller addressed the Board, stating that she was an Attorney with LeClaire Ryan
representing Verizon Wireless. Ms. Schweller reported that Verizon Wireless was requesting approval for
three special use permits – with two being extensions and one being a replacement – as part of a project
intended to provide 4G service to the County. She explained that this particular site was only being
considered by the Board because there were more than three sites within 200 feet, and even though it
was a dramatic increase in height there was no additional visual impact and it was on even par with the
reference tree. In no way would it not meet the requirements for a Tier II, except that it is within 200 feet
of three other towers. Ms. Schweller stated that the tower is currently the shortest and was a deteriorating
wooden pole that needed to be replaced, along with the added capability of providing the 4G service. She
said that Verizon was currently licensed to provide three technologies in the County – PCS, or personal
cellular service; cell at 850 MHz; and LTE, which is the 4G technology. Ms. Schweller stated that all of
those technologies would be provided on all sites being discussed with this project, and this application
would be used almost solely to provide 4G to the County. She explained that they were planning to do two
flush-mount sets of antenna on each pole in the project, with the taller set of antenna having the 4G. Ms.
Schweller noted that all three sites were formerly Alltel sites, acquired by Verizon in January 2009
following their merger.
She explained that the importance of LTE was data transmission, which is where most of the
growth in wireless is currently. Ms. Schweller stated that wireless technology today was no longer a
convenience but was extremely important for safety, education, government and business – and faster
download speeds are crucial to those operations. She presented some statistics of FCC estimates that
70% of 911 calls were made by cell phone, which is significant considering that some parts of the County
still do not have coverage. Ms. Schweller said that the purpose of this project was to provide 4G service
to all of the areas where Verizon Wireless currently provided service, and they would also be working on
improving capacity to handle greater numbers of calls.
Ms. Schweller stated that she hoped the Board would consider three things when reevaluating the
ordinance and wireless policy: recognizing the benefits of wireless and balancing those against the desire
to keep the County beautiful, shifting the focus from mere visibility to adverse visual impact, and
evaluating Tier III by the special use permit criteria and not by Tier II criteria. She then presented photos
of a recent balloon test where the balloon was no more visible than the power pole next to it. Ms.
Schweller also stated that it was incumbent on the Board to have the procedures for evaluating wireless
applications comply with the FCC declaratory ruling. Currently the County’s processes do not always
comply for several reasons: the date that an application is submitted is not the date it was considered
submitted by the County – under FCC guidelines the date of application submission is the date when the
clock starts ticking. Basically all of the applications Verizon would be bringing forward for 4G were
collocations that would need to comply with the 90-day guidelines. She said that the reason that the
timeframe might be violated in the County other than acceptance date is that a special use permit was
required for collocations that stand off from the support structure more than 12 inches and for extensions
that were more than 10 feet above the reference tree, and like this application a permit was also required
for facilities within 200 feet of three others. That takes an applicant through three separate hearings for
these very simple changes.
Mr. Rooker asked what three hearings she was referring to, noting the Commission hearing and
the Board hearing.
Ms. Schweller noted that the ARB also held a hearing.
Mr. Rooker stated that the ARB was not a public hearing, although it was part of the public
process.
Mr. Snow asked how much the coverage area would be increased.
Ms. Schweller said that this would extend the tower above the trees, and generally this type of
facility would spread to cover about three miles on average. She said that this facility was on a slope and
was intended to serve the Newtown area and I-64.
Mr. Boyd asked if this would help provide data coverage in rural areas.
Ms. Schweller responded that the 4G would provide wireless internet for Verizon Wireless
subscribers, and said that the speed was on par with cable and was 10 times faster than 3G. She added
that it is state of the art.
Ms. Mallek asked if the cell coverage is strictly line of sight.
Ms. Schweller responded that the antennae would be tilted down to serve areas below. She
added that she could not answer the question in detail, but can find out.
Ms. Mallek said that there were very good reasons to have the clock start ticking when materials
were submitted in completion, so if those materials could be gathered before an application was filed it
would resolve that issue.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Schweller contended that the FCC ruling addressed that concern, and if there was a need for
corrections or resubmission the period of time would toll until the materials were submitted. She stated
that as long as the County requested additional materials within 30 days of the actual application date,
then after the request the period of time would toll until the applicant puts them in – and at that point the 90
days would begin.
Mr. Boyd asked when Verizon had begun the process for this particular application.
Ms. Schweller responded that she would have to check, but she thought this particular application
was compliant.
There was no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved to approve SP-2011-0021 with the conditions as presented.
In response to Mr. Rooker’s earlier question regarding tree preservation, Mr. Benish explained
that his presumption was that all of the sites before the Board today were requesting a waiver because
they were existing sites. He said that his understanding was that requirements for tree preservation were
already in place from those prior approvals. He said that these applications were not requiring any tree
removal or grading, and do not remove the previous requirements.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would like to ensure that was the case.
Mr. Davis said that he was assuming that the last application would have had the tree
preservation plan, and this would not change that requirement.
Mr. Rooker asked if the existing conditions from the old application would carry over.
Mr. Davis responded that he was not entirely certain of that.
Mr. Rooker asked what conditions would be in place if a tower was removed and a new one was
put in place through a special permit.
Mr. Davis responded that the conditions from the prior tower that’s removed would no longer
apply.
Ms. Mallek said she wanted to amend her motion to state that there would be standard conditions
pertaining to tree conservation.
Mr. Benish clarified that the question was whether the tree conservation plan needed to be
submitted with issuance of the building permit, so it would be the modifications of 5.1.40(c)(4) and
5.1.40(c)(5). He added that staff also does not believe the fencing is necessary, so the Board could act on
that modification.
Mr. Boyd suggested that the motion be conditioned upon the fact that the existing tree
conservation plan would stay in place.
Mr. Benish replied that the ordinance operated as such to require submission of that plan.
Mr. Davis suggested that it be addressed by allowing the existing tree conservation plan to be
used in lieu of submitting a new tree conservation plan as a condition of modification #1.
Ms. Mallek said she was supportive of that recommendation.
Mr. Rooker said if all the existing conditions disappeared, it seems they should have a series of
conditions.
Mr. Davis said those conditions have been replaced by the Tier II requirements. He added that he
was not so concerned about some of the old conditions no longer being in place because those have been
covered with the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek then moved to approve SP-2011-00021 subject to the condition as recommended by
staff. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_____
Ms. Mallek then moved to approve granting modification of Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9),
and (d)(6). Modification to 5.1.40(c)(4) is to grant the ability to use the existing tree conservation plan in
lieu of submitting a new tree conservation plan. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “I-64 West –
Herring Property” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 8/30/2011 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in 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:
Height
Mounting type
Antenna type
Number of antennae
Distance above reference tree
Color
Location of ground equipment
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: SP-2011-00023. Verizon Wireless/Hudson Property
Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility (Sign #38).
PROPOSAL: Request for extension of an existing steel monopole in order to support the
attachment of a second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located
above existing antennas. The new proposed height of the existing monopole will be 96.5 feet, an
eight foot extension from the top of the existing antennas, and will be approximately 16 feet above
the reference tree. Z
ONING 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: Neighborhood Density Residential in
Neighborhood 5- residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, and other small scale non-residential uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 1097 Teel Lane.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07600-00-00-021A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2011 and January 2, 2012.)
Mr. Benish reported that the applicant was proposing to extend the height of an existing pole by
eight feet for a total of 16 feet from the reference tree on this site, so it would be an extension of an
existing monopole to support an attachment of arrays that would contain three flush-mounted antennae.
He said that the original pole was 87 feet with some ground equipment. The property was a small, mostly
wooded site bordered by I-64 and the Norfolk Southern Railroad and Route 29, south of Charlottesville.
Mr. Benish presented a map depicting the location of the site and the surrounding properties, adding that
the property was designated Rural Area and was within the development area and the Entrance Corridor.
He stated that new ground facilities would be installed, and the pole extends the tower by eight
feet for a total of 16 feet above the reference tree. Mr. Benish said that there were proposals for
modifications from the regulations for the tree conservation plan and this was another site where no tree
clearing was proposed – with the presumption that there was an existing plan. He presented the site plan,
noting the location of the proposed pole and reference tree. Mr. Benish also presented photos of the
balloon test of the site, which was conducted in October – with staff traveling I-64 and Route 29 and other
areas surrounding the site, and only noted visibility for a brief period of time along I-64 and from the ramp
connecting I-64 and Route 29 eastbound when stopped. He said that the ARB and staff had reviewed the
proposal and recommended approval due to its limited additional visual impact.
Mr. Benish reported that staff had identified favorable factors as limited visibility of existing facility,
limited visual impact to the Entrance Corridor, and ARB approval. Staff identified no unfavorable factors
and the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions as provided to the Board. He said
that there would need to be two waivers and similar modifications as in the previous application, and he
would recommend that same approach as with the prior Board actions.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lori Schweller, representing the applicant, stated that none of the sites were proposed for any
clearing and Verizon would not be going any further into the trees – as the compound area would remain
the same. The applicant assumed that if they had not noticed any trees on the SUP application to be cut,
they could not be cut.
Mr. Davis said that she was correct, but said that C.4 required that a tree conservation plan would
be in place, and C.5 required that the maintenance be in accordance with such plan.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s question during the previous special permit, Ms. Schweller stated that
the three applications were submitted on September 19, 2011. She also said that the reason this
application was before the Board was because it was more than eight feet above the reference tree,
despite the fact that its visibility was only increased on the off ramp.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Rooker commented that it was a good site.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Snow moved to approve granting modification of Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and
(d)(6). Modification to 5.1.40(c)(4) is to grant the ability to use the existing tree conservation plan in lieu of
submitting a new tree conservation plan. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Snow moved to approve SP-2011-0023 with the condition as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “I-64 West –
Herring Property” prepared by Stuart P. Patterson and dated 8/30/2011 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in 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 antennae
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. Location of ground equipment
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. 13. Public Hearing: SP-2011-00024. Verizon Wireless/Moyer Property Tier
III Personal Wireless Service Facility (Sign #39).
PROPOSAL: Request for extension of an existing steel monopole in order to support the
attachment of a second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located
above existing antennas. The new proposed height of the existing monopole will be 89.5 feet, an
8.5 foot extension from the top of the existing antennas, and will be approximately six feet above
the reference tree.
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 (.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 1841 Thomas Jefferson Parkway.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09200-00-00-056B3.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2011 and January 2, 2012.)
Mr. Benish reported that this was a request for an extension of an existing monopole to support
attachments for a second array including three flush-mounted antennae; the original pole was approved
with a special use permit condition that limited it to 80 feet in height with ground equipment. He stated that
the property was mostly wooded and currently contained two personal wireless service facilities. The
property is located on Route 53 west of Milton Road, was zoned RA in the Rural Areas and was also in the
Entrance Corridor. Mr. Benish stated that staff had reviewed the proposal and recommended approval
based on the minimal visibility of the proposed tower from the EC and/or no change to the visibility from
the prior existing pole.
He said that the applicant’s proposal was to extend the height by eight feet, which would be 12
feet above the reference tree. The proposal would require the same modifications as in the prior
applications. Staff also does not believe that fencing is necessary in this location.
Mr. Benish presented a picture of the new pole and its relation to the reference tree, noting a view
from Route 53. He stated that staff and the Commission had recommended approval, with staff finding
favorable factors as its limited impact to the Entrance Corridor and the ARB’s recommendation – with no
unfavorable factors found. Mr. Benish said that the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission were before the Board.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lori Schweller, representing the applicant, pointed out that this application was before the
Board for a special use permit not only for the increased height but because it was within 200 feet of a
state scenic highway. She stated that this was a great example of how an application might not have any
more visual impact than a Tier II, if it was properly sited. Ms. Schweller also noted that this application
and the previous one had both received a “no” vote from one of the Commissioners because they were
more than 10 feet above the reference tree, and this was an example of how the current ordinance is a
little confusing when reviewing a wireless facility.
Ms. Mallek commented that under the current ordinance, anything above 10 feet would make a
Tier II become a Tier III.
Ms. Schweller said that if it was over eight feet it would need a special consideration to get to 10
feet, but an applicant could not have the 10 feet at Tier II.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Dumler moved to approve granting modification of Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and
(d)(6). Modification to 5.1.40(c)(4) is to grant the ability to use the existing tree conservation plan in lieu of
submitting a new tree conservation plan. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dumler moved to approve SP-2011-0024 with the condition as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Nix Way- Moyer
Property” prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 11/9/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in 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
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. 14. Public Hearing: SP-2011-00028. NTELOS CV646 Commonwealth Ave.
Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility (Sign #46).
PROPOSAL: Request for a collocation of antennas and associated ground equipment on an
existing tower.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: C-1 Commercial – retail sales and service; residential
by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: 22.2.2 (14) which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the C-1
Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: UDA Places 29 – Office/R&D/Flex/Light
Industrial – commercial, professional office; research and development, design, testing of
prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging in Neighborhood 1.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO
LOCATION: 345 Greenbrier Drive
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-00700.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2011 and January 2, 2012.)
Mr. Benish reported that this special permit was required because the existing tower was built
prior to the special use permit process for towers and was not approved by the Commission or Board as a
Tier II or Tier III facility. He stated that because of that and the site conditions, it would require some
modifications to ordinance provisions. Mr. Benish said that the site was located on Greenbrier Drive west
of Route 29. The proposal was to collocate a vertical array with three new flush-mounted antennae that
would be located 85 feet in elevation, which was 12 feet below the existing antennae array at 97 feet. He
stated that the existing tower is 100 feet elevation and was not proposed to change. The proposal also
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
included ground equipment, additional parking spaces, a 24-foot wooden retaining wall, one security light
and security fencing around the facility. He said that the property was about one-half acre already
developed commercially. He presented a schematic of the location for the proposed tower and ground
equipment along with the additional parking. He noted that parking is not required for this use.
Mr. Benish stated that the modifications could not really be met given the age and development of
the existing site, the color of the tower, the identification for the caliper in the trees had been waived but a
conservation plan was provided. He said there were also modifications of park ing setbacks and fencing
and landscaping, and an easement for the fall area as this tower does not generate that need.
Mr. Benish provided a picture of the facility with the existing view and a simulation of the location
of the existing equipment, as well as views from Commonwealth Drive. He said that favorable factors
include the fact there was no height increase for the proposal and that it was on an existing facility with no
new impacts to adjacent properties; staff found no unfavorable factors . Staff and the Commission
recommended approval with the conditions as presented.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
The applicant’s representative, Ms. Jessie Wilmer, representing Ntelos, addressed the Board and
stated that this was a simple collocation that generated a Tier III process because it was approved prior to
the effective date of the ordinance. She said that the retaining wall was 24 inches, not 24 feet, and the
parking was a requirement from the landowner as Transco had a very tight parking area there that
required Ntelos to use a space for their ground equipment. Ms. Wilmer stated that the additional parking
spaces were for that reason, and they are doing a tree conservation plan even though the site is in a
parking lot.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the tower did not have a prior special use permit as it was approved
prior to the ordinance going into effect and it was not one he would support today, but this change would
not increase its visibility with the added antenna actually being smaller.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve granting modification of Sections 5.1.40(a)(4d), (a)(4f), (a)(4g),
(a)(6), (b)(2), (c)(6), (c)(7), (c)(2vi), (d)(2), (d)(6) and (d)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons
outlined in the staff report and presentation. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve SP-2011-0028 with the conditions outlined in the staff report and
mentioned in the presentation. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Commonwealth
CV646 Collocation on an Existing 100’ Self-Supported Tower” prepared by James A Bumgarner,
Jr and dated 9/27/11 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in 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. Color
f. Location of ground equipment and fencing
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 following change must be made to the Conceptual Plan: The Conceptual Plan must be
amended to provide a light fixture which is fully shielded and meets the definition of Full Cutoff
Luminaire, “Any outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture,
either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane”
as required by Chapter 18, Section 4.17.
_______________
(Note: The Board took a break at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:29 p.m.)
_______________
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: SP-2010-040. Keswick Lake (Signs #84&85).
PROPOSAL: Placement of fill in the floodplain to allow the construction of a private street.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots), PRD - Planned Residential
Development - PRD Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with
limited commercial uses and FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from
flooding.
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2 (3), which allows filling of land in the floodway fringe.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 4 - preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit/ acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: This fill is proposed below and adjacent to the dam located southeast of the Clifton
Inn.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07900-00-00-02300, 07900-00-00-023F0 and 07900-00-00-03600.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 26, 2011 and January 2, 2012.)
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said that this was a special use permit for fill in the floodplain
occurring on Camp Branch and the Rivanna River. The Planning Commission heard the item on
November 15, 2011 and voted unanimously to approve it with the conditions as presented and also took a
further action to review a subdivision plat when it came in – as well as considering traffic and road access
issues. He presented an aerial view of the area, noting the location of Clifton Lake and Route 250, as well
as North Milton Road (Route 729). Mr. Brooks also presented the subdivision plat that accompanied the
special permit, showing the new road over the dam and out to North Milton Road. He noted the small
parking area for a boat dock that the developer planned to build for the County Parks & Rec Department.
Mr. Brooks also presented a view of the floodplain colored in as it exists today, noting that it went over the
dam and the lake and pointing out the new road and where it came out to the public road. He pointed out
the areas of fill that were addressed by the special permit and said that the majority of fill would be in the
dam itself as it has expanded, both to improve the integrity of the dam and to situate the road on top of it.
Mr. Brooks said that the smaller areas along the roadway were for roadway embankment and cut, and
there was a small area of fill for the driveway down to the proposed boat dock – which were fairly minor in
comparison to the fill on Camp Branch and the dam.
Mr. Brooks showed the proposed floodplain and said there were only minor changes on the
roadway – some expansion and cut into the floodplain – with the dam itself getting cut out of the floodplain
and constricted to the spillway on the dam. He presented a computer simulated view of the proposed
spillway that comes out of the dam, which necessitated a stream crossing under the ordinance as part of
the special use permit. Mr. Brooks presented the recommended conditions and said they were all fairly
standard. He noted that the proposed condition #6, relating to the boat dock, had been removed as the
Planning Director and County Attorney felt it was best addressed with the plat and the variation to the
approved zoning that relocated the road.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Brooks if he felt the impacts resulting from flooding in that area would not
be any worse than they were today, if this application were to go through.
Mr. Brooks responded that they would actually be better with regard to the dam itself, as it would
be improved and would have less chance of failing. He said there was an added risk of a road in that
area. He mentioned that the mitigation plan (condition #5) referred to buffer lost and replaced. Mr.
Brooks stated that typically they try to get a 2:1 ratio, and he although has not seen the applicant’s
proposal – it would have to go in a different location to achieve that ratio and replace lost buffer.
Ms. Mallek asked if the long narrow strip where the road would be moved to was wooded.
Mr. Brooks responded that about one-half of it was wooded, which was the existing Randolph Mill
Lane that went into the existing boat launch, and there was about 500 feet in the floodplain that went from
there to the dam – which was a wooded hillside.
Ms. Mallek stated that she was thinking about what the impacts would be to the river, for people
boating, etc. She asked if they would now see a road as opposed to the woods.
Mr. Brooks responded that in the wintertime a person would be able to see through the trees and
see the roadway on the embankment, but with the trees in it may not be visible from the river.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be a back down launch or a place for people to park their car, and
pick up their canoe and carry it.
Mr. Brooks said right now it is a little gravel lot and a person would have to carry their canoe the
500 feet to the river. He said that the road ended and would not lead all the way down to the river, and
mentioned that the river itself was about 300-400 feet wide with the floodplain being about 1,000 feet wide.
Mr. Dumler asked if there was anything above and beyond the standard conditions, given that this
was on the major river in the County and was located in the rural area.
Mr. Brooks replied that other than the boat dock itself there was nothing extra, and many of the
conditions were required by the ordinance.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Boyd asked who was being referred to as the “Program Authority approval.”
Mr. Brooks responded that it was a term in the ordinance that referred to the Community
Development Department, and usually it was him although it did not have to be.
In terms of mitigation along the road, Ms. Mallek asked if the applicant would have to keep it
where it belongs during construction and then stabilizing it forever. Mr. Brooks responded, “yes”.
Mr. Boyd asked if the road went through two separate property owners’ parcels.
Mr. Brooks responded that there had been some dispute as to ownership, and he would let the
applicant address that.
Mr. Dumler asked if all of the conditions related to erosion and sediment control, not to the fact
that some stormwater treatment capacity was being lost.
Mr. Brooks responded that that was the case with the exception of condition #5, which addresses
buffer area lost.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a standard approach as to how the roadway would be supported,
because there would be a big drop-off down to the rest of the floodplain.
Mr. Brooks replied that usually that would be accomplished through building up and compacting of
earthwork, and if there was a significant drop there could be a guardrail installed. He said that there would
most likely be vegetation planted this far from the river, as there would not be a lot of scour from the
velocity of the water.
Mr. Snow commented that the dam was a lot better than what was there now.
Mr. Brooks agreed that the dam would be a great improvement, because it would need to be
strengthened in order to get the road on top.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Brooks to note the location of the spillway. Mr. Brooks said that they did not
have a true spillway – as they were designing everything to go through the culvert during a 100-year storm
event.
Ms. Mallek said that there had been six 100-year storms since 1980 and asked if it had been
approved by the state.
Mr. Brooks responded that it had not been approved by the state yet, adding that it would be
reviewed by the County as part of its review of the road system. He clarified that the Board was not
approving the specifics of the dam, but was authorizing the fill within the floodplain. Mr. Brooks noted that
the County’s Subdivision Ordinance required that a 25 to 50-year storm interval to pass under the road; for
a primary access, it may go higher. The County does have some discretion with the roadway, but for the
most part, the dam is the responsibility of the state.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Andrew Baldwin addressed the Board, stating that he was the developer of Keswick Lak e and
was happy to answer any questions. In response to Mr. Boyd’s earlier question, he said that the lake
outflow only went through one parcel. When it leaves their parcel it only goes through Country Inns
Extraordinaire’s parcel – and Keswick owns the small parcel they were donating to the County for the boat
and river launch. They have a signed agreement in place to cover this, of which the County has a copy.
Mr. Dumler said that this led into a major, significant County roadway, and asked Mr. Baldwin if
they were planning to do anything beyond the bare minimum threshold due to the loss of storm water
mitigation. There are some scenic impacts and natural habitat being lost.
Mr. Baldwin responded that it was important to consider the current situation and how it would be
improved, emphasizing that the road was “terrible” and in need of improvement. He said that they were
doing justice by moving the existing dead end up to the front of the road so it could be monitored more
closely. Mr. Baldwin stated that they were building the road to required standards, and those requirements
were pretty high. He also said that the Dam Safety Act requirements from the State would go well beyond
the bare minimum, adding that the road had originally exited at Stone Robinson School and would have
directly impacted the Clifton Inn, so they moved it to improve those situations. Mr. Baldwin said that there
would not be much vegetation lost, and there were mature trees from the bottom up to the base of the
dam.
There being no further public comment, and the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the
matter before the Board.
Mr. Rooker stated that this was not an approval of the subdivision, as that was approved in 1978,
and would not likely be approved today in this location. He said that on balance, the proposals for the
road are probably an improvement over the current circumstance.
Mr. Dumler agreed, adding that he also recognized the benefit of improving the dam and from the
developer offering to enhance the boat launch. He noted that the concerns he raised were because this
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
was unique situation, and Mr. Brooks had indicated to him that he couldn’t recall another situation whereby
a floodplain was being filled in, in the rural area, under old zoning that would lead to more residential
development, along the Rivanna River. Mr. Dumler said that he felt it was appropriate to approach this
with a heightened level of cautiousness.
Mr. Rooker stated that this was a special use permit, so the Board had the ability to impose
conditions and he looks to staff to come up with conditions that completely mitigate any potential harm. It
appears to him that the County would have total environmental mitigation, the road would be a better road,
the dam would be a better dam, and there would be better recreational amenities. He reiterated that he
would not vote in favor of this subdivision today, but that is not really before the Board.
Ms. Mallek added that it is making improvements where they can and would make it easier to
bring up canoes.
Mr. Dumler then moved to approve SP-2010-00040 subject to the five recommended conditions.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. The applicant shall obtain approval from FEMA for changes to the floodplain, and update the
FEMA maps;
2. The applicant shall obtain County Engineer approval of plans for the road, culvert, dam and
spillways;
3. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval for an erosion and sediment control plan,
and obtain a land disturbance permit according to the Water Protection Ordinance requirements,
regardless of whether the project exceeds the minimum disturbance limits;
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary federal and state agency approvals prior to construction
(Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Quality, etc.); and
5. The applicant shall obtain Program Authority approval of a mitigation plan, and provide mitigation
according to the Water Protection Ordinance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: Dedication of Sanitary Sewer Easement to Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority. To consider granting a sewer easement to the Rivanna Water Sewer
Authority (RWSA) across property owned by Albemarle County located on Crozet Avenue (TMP 56-11). A
relocation of a sewer line is necessitated by the County’s Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project.
This easement allows the RWSA’s existing sanitary sewer line on the property to be relocated and allows
RWSA to maintain and operate the new line. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 2, 2012.)
Mr. Davis reported that the public hearing was required for the Board to consider approving the
donation of a sanitary sewer easement to the RWSA. The necessity for the easement results from the
downtown stormwater wetlands project – and part of that project requires relocating an existing line, with
this sewer easement needed in order to do that. Mr. Davis said the language for the deed of easement
had been agreed to with Rivanna and the Board, at the end of the public hearing, would be asked to give
authorization to the County Executive to execute the deed of easement in a form that is acceptable to the
County Attorney, as well as to execute the necessary plat that would abandon the existing sanitary sewer
easement.
Mr. Gregor Pasche said that part of the project design was to optimize the County’s property and
get as much storm water management as possible out of the property, so in order to do that they had to
shift an old line. Mr. Pasche said that the easement would follow that new line, and they would be putting
in a sediment forerbay to collect trash and litter before it went into the wetlands.
The Chair opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the Chair closed the public
hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved to authorize the County Executive to sign the following documents on behalf of
the County in a form acceptable to the County Attorney: the deed of easement from the County to the
RWSA to relocate an existing sanitary sewer line on County property Tax Map Parcel 56-11, and a plat for
Tax Map Parcel 56-11 showing the existing RWSA sanitary easement to be abandoned and the new
sanitary sewer easement to be dedicated. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The Deed of Easement is set out below:)
This document was prepared by:
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Tax Map and Parcel Number 56-11
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this day of January, 2012 by and between THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, Grantor (“Property Owner”) and RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, a body politic
and corporate created pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, whose address is 695
Moores Creek Lane, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantee (the “Authority”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to grant the Authority the easement shown on the plat
attached hereto and recorded herewith entitled “Plat Showing A New 30’ Sanitary Sewer Easement Across
Tax Map 56 Parcel 11”, prepared by Lincoln Surveying, dated August 26, 2009, last revised January 12, 2012
(the “Plat”);
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plat, the proposed easement crosses a portion of the property conveyed
to Property Owner by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in
Deed Book 3830, page 168, and Property Owner is the fee simple owner of the said property as of the date
hereof; and
WHEREAS, by deed dated May 30, 1985, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Deed Book
839, page 173, the Authority was granted an easement and right of way (the “Existing Easement”) 30 feet in
width, for the purpose of installing, constructing, and maintaining an underground sewer line and for making
connections thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Property Owner does hereby
GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto the Authority a perpetual right of way and
easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend a sewer line consisting
of pipes, equipment, and appurtenances to such pipes and equipment, over, under and across the real
property of Property Owner located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and to access any other adjacent
easement held by the Authority, the location and width of the easement hereby granted and the boundaries of
the property being more particularly described and shown on the Plat as Sewer Line Easement (the “Sewer
Easement”). Reference is made to the Plat for the exact location and dimension of the Sewer Easement
hereby granted and the property over which the same crosses.
Easement Obstructions
Property Owner, its successors or assigns, agree that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or
other improvements or obstructions, except for those improvements shown on the plans titled “Crozet
Stormwater Management Project” as prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates and dated 5/2/2011 (the
“Stormwater Plans”), shall not be located within the Sewer Easement. The Sewer Easement shall include the
right of the Authority to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions, including any improvements
shown on the Stormwater Plans, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical
and safe sewer line construction, installation, operation, m aintenance, repair, replacement, relocation and
extension. Following the removal of any improvements shown on the Stormwater Plans, the Property Owner
may restore said improvements at its expense, and the Authority shall have no responsibility to Property
Owner, its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of trees, brush, shrubbery, or other
obstructions, including any improvements shown on the Stormwater Plans, located in the Sewer Easement if
cut or removed or otherwise damaged pursuant to the preceding sentence.
Easement Access and Maintenance
As part of the Sewer Easement the Authority shall have the right to enter upon the above-described
property within the Sewer Easement for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining,
repairing, replacing, relocating and extending the above-described sewer line and appurtenances thereto,
within the Sewer Easement; and in addition, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress thereto as
reasonably necessary to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend such sewer
lines. If the Authority is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the right-of-way,
the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of Property Owner adjacent to the
right-of-way, and shall restore surface conditions of such property adjacent to the right -of-way as nearly as
practical to the same condition as prior to the Authority’s exercise of such right to the extent consistent with the
provisions of the section titled “Easement Obstructions” above.
Excavation
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Sewer Easement, the Authority agrees to
backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as
practical to the same condition as prior to excavation to the extent consistent with the provisions of the section
titled “Easement Obstructions” above.
Ownership of Facilities
The facilities constructed within the Sewer Easement shall be the property of the Authority, its
successors and assigns, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such
changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the Sewer
Easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Abandonment of Existing Easement
The Authority, upon completion of the sanitary sewer relocation shown in the Stormwater Plans and at
such time the new sewer is fully operational and accepted in writing by the Authority, shall vacate, release, and
extinguish all of its right, title, and interest in and to those portions of the Existing Easement that are shown on
the Plat as “Portion of Existing 30’ RWSA Sewer Easement To Be Vacated”.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
PROPERTY OWNER:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By: (SEAL)]
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
AUTHORITY:
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
By: (SEAL)
Thomas L. Frederick, Jr., Executive Director
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Claudius Crozet Park Community Building Improvements.
The following executive summary was provided to Board members:
Claudius Crozet Park (CCP) is a 23 acre community, non-profit recreational facility open for public
use that has been serving the Crozet community since 1958.
History of Cooperative Agreements
In 1985, CCP approached the County seeking funding for the ongoing maintenance of their
existing park facilities as well as CIP resources for future recreational improvements and amenities. On
November 6, 1985, CCP and the County entered into a Restrictive Covenant Agreement for 13.62 acres
of the park. This agreement established that this property was to be used solely for recreational and public
purposes. The County agreed to consider funding park improvements as part of its Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) process and to have County staff assume responsibility for the maintenance of these
improvements. This agreement allowed the CCP Board to place all of its resources toward the operation
and maintenance of the pool, and to retire its pool debt of $50,000 in 1988.
In the mid 90’s, the CCP swimming pool was deteriorating rapidly, and the options before CCP
were to either renovate the pool for $200,000 (with no warranty) or to build a new pool for $330,000. The
CCP asked the County to assist with funding the construction of a new swimming facility and to assist with
master planning and funding additional recreational facilities at the Park. Recognizing the County’s critical
need for athletic fields and that a very vital part of Crozet’s history and future was in jeopardy, the County
agreed to enter into a joint operating agreement with CCP for the Park’s operation in 1997. Under the
1997 Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive Covenant the County agreed to contribute $200,000 to be
used solely for the construction of a new swimming facility while CCP agreed that the entire 23-acre park
would be solely used for recreational and public purposes in perpetuity, would be open for public use, and
if the CCP ever ceases to exist as a legal entity, that fee simple title to the park and all improvements will
transfer to the County at no cost upon the County’s request. This operating agreement provided CCP and
the County, as partners, the opportunity to provide the needed recreational improvements and
opportunities to serve the Crozet community and citizens of Western Albemarle.
This joint operating agreement has resulted in over $1,000,000.00 of improvements to the CCP
being constructed and funded by the County, including the construction of baseball fields, a multi-purpose
field, and playgrounds. In addition to these capital costs, the County maintains all the fields and
playgrounds, mows the entire park, and provides daily trash pick-up. Although these activities are not
accounted for in a distinct line-item in the Parks & Recreation operating budget, staff estimates that these
maintenance activities translate to approximately $20,000.00/year; a total of over $300,000 over the past
fifteen years. In exchange, the CCP is solely responsible for the maintenance and operation of the pool
and has worked collaboratively with the County in the maintenance of the community center located
adjacent to the pool.
In 2004, the County’s Department of Parks & Recreation, working in conjunction with CCP,
developed a Long Range Master Plan for the property and identified the following improvements:
Amphitheater
Aquatics and Recreation Center
Basketball Courts
Multi – Purpose Perimeter Trail
Resource Center
Skateboard Park
Tennis Courts
In its adopted FY 2009 CIP, the Board of Supervisors approved the following CCP Master Plan
improvements and funding based upon the recommendations of County staff and the CCP long-range
planning committee and the recommendations of the CIP technical review and oversight committees:
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
$100,000 Tennis Courts and Skate Park
$ 68,000 Multi-Purpose Perimeter Trail
$ 32,000 Replacement of existing basketball courts
$200,000 Total
Current Proposal
At the request of CCP, Supervisors Mallek and Rooker, along with County staff, met with CCP Park
Board members on November 30, 2010 to discuss CCP’s proposal for the reallocation of funding for the
above projects to the construction of the Park’s Aquatics and Recreation Center. The intent of the
meeting was to provide County feedback and direction to CCP in their preparation to formally request that
the Board of Supervisors re-direct these appropriated funds for previously approved Park Master Plan
initiatives to this Center. Subsequent to this meeting, staff submitted to CCP a document which contained
seven (7) areas/issues to be addressed in order for this matter to be presented to the Board for
consideration (Attachment A). During 2011, CCP aggressively pursued fundraising initiatives for its pool
enclosure as well as a partnership agreement with Piedmont YMCA for operation of the proposed Center.
On November 15, 2011, approximately one year from the date of the initial meeting, CCP submitted its
formal proposal to the County , including its responses to the issues raised by County staff and indicated
that its fundraising goals were practically fulfilled (Attachment B). On December 6, 2011 Supervisor
Mallek along with County staff met with CCP representatives to review its responses and discuss future
considerations. Following this meeting, staff advised CCP of the following actions needed in order for this
request to be forwarded to the full Board for consideration:
Prepare a Memo of Understanding (MOU) between CCP and the County outlining the
conditions and requirements associated with the donation and one that all parties can
agree upon.
Staff preparation of an Executive Summary to the Board of Supervisors outlining CCP’s
request and staff’s recommendation.
Staff advised CCP that provided the terms of the MOU could be agreed upon in a timely manner,
this matter could be submitted to the Board at its meeting on January 11, 2012 for consideration.
The Crozet Park Aquatics and Recreation Center has been the number one priority of the CCP
Long Range Master Plan since 2004. The facility is estimated to cost $600,484 and will consist of an
inflatable removable dome center to cover the existing swimming pool and renovations to the existing
community building. CCP has obtained $422,000 through fundraising, grants and pledges and has
allocated $400,484 toward the Aquatics and Recreation Center, and is requesting that the County convert
the CIP appropriation for Park Improvements totaling $200,000 to a lump sum contribution toward
construction of renovations to the existing Recreation Center which are needed in order for the Piedmont
YMCA to assume responsibility, on behalf of CCP, for operation of the proposed enclosed pool and
recreation facility. CCP has entered into a year-to-year joint operating agreement with the Piedmont YMCA
that has not been shared with the County. Staff understands that this agreement allows both nonprofits to
work jointly to provide the community of Crozet and residents of the County with year round aquatics and
recreational and fitness programs for all age groups. The plan is that the YMCA will begin operating the
Recreational Center and the summer pool in May 2012, and begin operating the Recreation Center and
the domed pool in the fall of 2012.
The County has enjoyed a long successful working relationship with CCP which has generated
positive benefits for the citizens of Crozet and the entire western region of the County. CCP represents a
dedicated, energetic and enthusiastic group of volunteers. The Board, through its adopted FY2013-17
Strategic Plan, emphasized the need and desire to pursue and promote community/volunteer partnerships
to the greatest extent possible to ensure the County’s vibrancy. The proposal by CCP, as well as its
passion and commitment to raising private donations for this project, are truly reflective of the spirit and
intent of the Board’s strategic plan goal.
While the efforts of CCP are extremely laudable and truly reflective of core community spirit and
commitment to create positive good for Crozet and Western Albemarle, staff believes that, based on
current policy and past direction by the Board, there are several policy matters the Board should weigh as
it considers this request. While the Board may ultimately determine that other factors outweigh the issues
raised below, based on current policy and past Board direction, staff felt it important to raise these issues
for your consideration:
1. CIP Review & Prioritization Process:
The Board appropriated funding for the basketball/tennis courts and perimeter trail system
upon these projects being vetted against other County-wide priorities through the CIP
Technical Review Team and Oversight Committee process. Given that CCP’s proposal
was received on November 15, 2011, the request to reallocate these funds to assist with
construction of the Recreation Center has not been reviewed by the TRT or Oversight
Committee to provide a recommendation to the Board on whether this request meets a
high-priority capital improvement need for the County as a whole. Other school and local
government projects have been directed back to the Oversight Committee for
consideration when changes have been proposed. While this proposal does call for
completion of the original projects eventually, it delays the completion of those projects for
up to seven years in order to complete a project not previously identified for funding or
determined to be a priority. The cost of completing all of these projects over seven years
is also likely to increase.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
2. Previous Discussion Regarding Aquatics and Recreation Centers
While according to the proposal, the County is not being asked to make a long term
investment in this facility, the proposal does request a short term investment with a certain
level of risk. This risk is being taken on for a facility that has not been identified as a high
priority of the County, and results in other higher priorities being delayed. In addition, the
County has previously committed to a centrally located aquatics and recreation facility
through the proposed YMCA facility in McIntire Park. Finally, other swim clubs have
unsuccessfully requested support from the County in the past. While those requests have
clearly been different than this proposal, particularly regarding the fundraising efforts of
CCP, the Board has focused its efforts on a central facility rather than involving itself in
more local efforts.
3. Operation of the Aquatics and Recreation Center
As previously noted, CCP and the Piedmont YMCA have entered into a year-to-year
agreement setting forth the terms/conditions for the YMCA to assume operation of the
proposed facility. Staff has not reviewed this agreement. As noted in Exhibit D to CCP’s
November 15, 2011 submittal to County staff, the anticipated cost of operation of this
facility is expected to total approximately $547,000 per year. Should forecasted
memberships/revenues not be realized, or should the YMCA decide not to renew this
year-to-year agreement, the County’s $200,000 investment in this facility and $200,000 of
future priority improvements could be at risk. Staff is unable to assess the viability of this
new venture without understanding the nature of the year to year agreement and, more
importantly, is not typically involved in assessing the viability of these types of ventures
regarding the use of public funds. Other non-profit proposals for new ventures have
come before the County in the past and the Board has decided that the use of County
funds was not appropriate.
4. Pending Case before the Virginia Supreme Court
As the Board is aware, the County remains in litigation regarding a challenge to a similar
donation made to the YMCA for recreational facilities. While the County feels it has a
strong case, this litigation is currently pending before the Virginia Supreme Court and is
unlikely to be finally decided until May or June of this year.
Attachment C represents staff’s recommended version of a Memorandum of Understanding
between CCP and the County should the Board decide to approve this request for converting its CIP
appropriation to a donation for the recreation center and delay currently approved projects into the future.
While staff understands from Supervisor Mallek that some discussion is still ongoing, the primary area of
disagreement between staff and CCP related to this agreement is the manner in which the previously
approved park improvements will be completed in the future. Since the concept of converting this
appropriation to a donation was first proposed by CCP in late 2010, staff has emphasized the need for
CCP to directly repay this amount to the County in order for the tennis/basketball court improvements as
well as perimeter trail network to be constructed as currently programmed. (Question 7, Attachment A)
Since the County maintains all amenities at the park with the exception of the pool, repayment of these
funds to the County is considered by staff to be critical to ensuring that these improvements are
constructed in conformance with County standards and procedures. CCP maintains that it is in a better
position to accomplish the necessary fundraising to provide these funds without such a requirement and is
proposing instead to solicit donations and complete these improvements on its own. Staff is committed to
ensuring that construction of these improvements will be made in a very collaborative and cooperative
process but that construction of the improvements should be managed by the County as a CIP project
pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Crozet Park Agreement and Restrictive Covenant.
The CCP Board is requesting that the Board approve its request at Wednesday’s meeting and
that the County submit its donation by January 22, 2012 in order for it to complete work on all phases of
this proposed project in a timely manner.
There is no direct budget impact to the County should the Board agree to convert the existing
appropriation to a contribution by removing this amount from the Capital Fund and reallocating these
funds to the General Fund. However, it is recognized that future County support could become necessary
in the event CCP, for some unforeseen reason, is unable to continue to fund the operation of the Aquatics
and Recreation Center. There is also a risk that in the event the CCP is unable to raise $200,000 over the
next seven years that additional County funding will be required to complete the basketball/tennis court
improvements and the perimeter trail system. Additional funds will also most likely be required if the cost
of the CIP projects increase over the next seven years because the construction is delayed.
If the Board wishes to contribute $200,000 to the Claudius Crozet Park Aquatics and Recreation
Center Project, staff recommends that the Board 1) authorize the appropriation of $200,000 from its CIP
Fund to its General Fund by approving the attached budget amendment and approving Appropriation
#2012050 (Attachment D) in the amount of $200,000; 2) authorize the County Executive to execute an
agreement between the CCP and the County setting forth the financial arrangements after approval to
both form and substance by the County Attorney; and 3) approve a $200,000 donation to Claudius Crozet
Park, Incorporated subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement.
_____
Mr. Foley stated that included in the Board’s packet of information on Friday were a Memorandum
of Understanding originally provided to the Park Board on December 15. After the close of business on
Friday and after the Board received their packets, the County received a significantly revised agreement
that staff have spent the last couple of days reviewing. Mr. Foley said that the result of staff’s review of
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
the agreement was some suggested changes first communicated to the Board by email, followed up at
12:00 noon with a revised agreement that reflected those issues. He stated that staff is confident that
that’s the agreement the Board should be considering, but the item the Board received at noon received
further significant revisions, as of about 15 minutes before tonight’s meeting, from the Park Board’s
Attorney – which staff had not had time to review. Mr. Foley said that staff recommends that the Board
consider the document they received at noon, if they decide to move forward.
Mr. Bob Crickenberger, Director of Parks and Recreation, said that there was a request from the
Crozet Park Board requesting that the Board of Supervisors convert $200,000 of existing CIP funds slated
for improvements at the Park to be used to support the construction of an aquatics and recreation center.
He said that there was a lot of information in the executive summary, so he would just provide an overview
of key issues. Mr. Crickenberger stated that staff and the Park Board had worked in conjunction over
several years in developing a long-range master plan, with identified projects. In 2009 the Board
appropriated $200,000 in support of those projects – tennis courts, skate park, a multi-purpose perimeter
trail, and replacement of the existing basketball court. He said that the top priority for the Park has been
the aquatics and recreation center, and they have been fundraising for it since 2004. Mr. Crickenberger
commended the Parks Board for the tremendous amount of fundraising they have done in light of the tight
economy. Mr. Crickenberger explained that the aquatics and recreation center was estimated to cost
$600,000, and through the CCP fundraising efforts they have been able to raise $422,000. He stated that
Crozet Park had allocated over $400,000 of that money toward the center.
Mr. Crickenberger said that staff felt it was also important to address some broader policy issues,
such as the fact that this proposal had not had the opportunity to go before the CIP Technical Review
Team or Oversight Committee – as the request was not received until November. He also stated that
there had been previous discussions with the Board regarding County support to other aquatic and
recreation facilities that were currently unfunded, and the potential support from the County if the YMCA
does not renew their year to year agreement could mean that the Park Board comes back to the County
and asks for funding assistance to operate that facility. Mr. Crickenberger also said that the County’s
contribution to the YMCA was under litigation with the State Supreme Court, and that would not be heard
until May or June, and could also be an issue.
Mr. Crickenberger said that at this point the staff supports the aquatics and recreation center, but
the issue now is whether the County wanted to contribute the $200,000 under the terms of the MOU. He
emphasized that the MOU forwarded by Mr. Davis to the Board today is what staff fully recommends, with
all of the amendments, but the Crozet Park Board does not fully agree. Mr. Crickenberger said that the
primary area of disagreement was the requirement of a performance bond that staff was asking them to
place on every improvement to be made.
Mr. Rooker said that the way he read the language was that “unless otherwise agreed to by the
County, all work shall be performed pursuant to a contract where a licensed contractor shall provide a
performance bond to ensure that the work is completed according to the specifications.” He stated that
this was not an absolute requirement, but could be required.
Mr. Foley agreed, stating that they included that flexibility in the final draft.
Mr. Davis noted that some improvements may not necessitate a performance bond, but other
improvements where specifications were critical would need them.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there had been a huge amount of volunteer work showing up for trails,
and having the flexibility to require or not require a bond was important because there may be some things
that could be done with volunteer effort – and those would be difficult to bond.
Mr. Foley added that a major construction project would require bonding.
Mr. Dumler asked who would have that authority; what entity would waive the requirement.
Mr. Foley responded that it would be done with the project committee established in the
agreement – which includes a County staff member functioning as a project manager – would have to
agree with the majority on how the process goes in order for it to proceed. In essence, it gives sort of a
veto power to the project manager who is the most knowledgeable about that.
Mr. Snow pointed out that Barton Malow was overseeing the project, and volunteering time and
energy to make this happen, and they were a multi-million dollar firm with lots of experience.
Ms. Mallek noted that their scope of work related to the building, which would begin soon, and the
MOU applied to the basketball and tennis courts that would be done later by the Park.
Mr. Davis stated that it would not apply to the pool or the rec center facility.
Ms. Mallek said the pool had nothing to do with County dollars.
Mr. Foley added that the project management team would not be working on the pool and rec
center; this was only on the originally planned County projects.
Mr. Boyd asked what the second issue from the Park Board was.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Foley responded that they had only had a County staff member on the project management
team, and staff felt a Parks and Rec staff person should also be on that team.
Ms. Mallek said that that was kind of a given from their perspective.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that the YMCA would be charging about $355,000 in fees for the first year,
which would increase to $567,000 and then $590,000 in fees to use the facility, as presented in the Parks
Board proposal. This is not a free service to any of the community. It is not the free use of fields and it is
not the free use of tennis courts. As it relates to the building, they will charge fees for that and then there
are membership fees too.
Ms. Mallek added that the YMCA would be required to have scholarship programs, and that was
part of the YMCA’s agreement with the Park.
Mr. Boyd asked if that was part of the YMCA’s agreement with the Park.
Mr. Davis said that he had quickly reviewed the YMCA agreement, but a Crozet Park
representative should address that more specifically. He also explained that there were requirements in
the 1997 agreement between Crozet Park and the County that require some scholarship admissions for
pool activities, and that was being honored through the YMCA agreement.
Mr. Snow asked if the pool would also be open to the Western Albemarle High School swim team.
Mr. Crickenberger responded that the agreement stipulates that they would provide swim time for
Western Albemarle.
Mr. Davis stated that the YMCA agreement would provide a preference for the team with a
preferred time, but would also anticipate that the School Board would have to pay for that time. He said
that there was an estimated amount of revenue that they anticipate from the School as reflected in their
budget.
Ms. Mallek said that the great advantage was saving the drive to and from Charlottesville.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but said that there was tremendous community support for this in other parts of
the County – as both Albemarle and Monticello have the same problem.
Ms. Mallek said that they are at least closer.
Mr. Boyd commented that the students are still traveling at 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at night. If the
student lives in the southern part of the county and swim on the swim team, they are not close to Fairview
pool.
Mr. Rooker stated that the County had a commitment to contribute a substantial amount of money
to the completion of the YMCA facility, and hopefully once that litigation is cleared up they would raise the
remainder and move forward with the project.
Mr. Boyd said that the County had $1.25 million additional in the CIP when there were proposals
from both Crozet and Fairview to add competitive swimming capacity, but the Board turned it down and re-
appropriated it. It is not that he is opposed to this proposal, but it did not go back through the process.
Mr. Rooker stated that the difference here was that the Board had already appropriated in the CIP
$200,000 for park improvements, and this would be an opportunity to multiply the effect of that money by
more than three times – and time was a factor here. He said that every proposal should go on its own
merits, and he would consider looking at the Star Swimming proposal again. He thinks the County has a
good opportunity to help provide a swimming facility in the western part of the County, to greatly upgrade
the existing recreational buildings out there that are used in the park , to still get the improvements – the
ball field, the trails, et cetera. He added that the County was getting a multiplier effect on improvements
because of the private fundraising for the project – going toward a public park; this is not a private facility.
Mr. Rooker also said that the pools would be open to the public during the day, and this was a terrific
opportunity to maximize private contributions of both in kind and money. If the County walks away from
this proposal and spend its $200,000 to do the list of three or four items, it would end up with a lot less.
Mr. Boyd said that there were many other projects like this, and the County has chosen to allocate
funding here without considering other options and uses for it that could accomplish the same thing. He
stated that that’s why the County had a process with the CIP process.
Mr. Rooker agreed, but said the County had already allocated $200,000 through that process for
some improvements to the park, but the question is what the best way is to leverage that money to end up
those things but end up with much more.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Board had also decided to put the $1.25 million back in the CIP, and what
bothered him was the process here. He does not like that the Board was handed a contract a couple of
minutes ago that has not been vetted by the legal department. He does not like how this project ended up
on the agenda. He said he could not vote against the project because it is great and a good thing to have,
but he could not vote for it because of the process. He does not think the Board would circumvent so
many of its rules for any other project like this.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Snow said that by reallocating the $200,000 the money would go to a different function for the
park, and it specifically specified “trails,” but that is one thing the County had was trails. He thinks what
they need is a building that is heated and air conditioned, and a facility for the western part of the County
that they do not have.
Mr. Boyd responded that they do not have it in the eastern part of the County either.
Mr. Snow said that you have got to start somewhere.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees.
Ms. Mallek stated that she hoped groups in other parts of the County would step up and raise the
money. That is when County funds can be most used.
Mr. Snow noted that they had raised almost $600,000 in Crozet.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that this plan had been discussed with Parks & Rec staff and the Park
Board before she even came on the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Snow commented that he wanted to acknowledge the number of volunteer hours that had
been put in – thousands and thousands – that would go way beyond the $600,000.
Mr. Boyd said that there was always a lot of that happening in the County, adding that there was a
tremendous amount of work being done to extend the trails to the Rivanna River at Pantops – and there
was no money being allocated there.
Mr. Snow suggested having them raise $600,000 and then the Board would talk to them.
Mr. Rooker commented that this was a little bit different because $200,000 had already been
appropriated, and the County is not abandoning the list of projects – with some of those items such as
tennis courts being built faster.
Mr. Boyd said that he could probably be convinced to vote for this if the Board had another month,
to give them time to review the agreement.
Ms. Mallek stated that the agreement that Mr. Davis drafted yesterday afternoon was reflective of
everything discussed via email.
Mr. Davis said that the issue appeared to be the agreement. The agreement with the Board’s
executive summary was an agreement that reflected what staff and Ms. Mallek had thought the proposal
was – the County making a donation of $200,000 so the Park Board could advance the center, with the
County in return receiving $200,000 back from the Park Board for the County to construct the
improvements identified in the CIP. He stated that that was how the County and the Park had operated
under the 1997 agreement for the last 15 years, but at some point in time there was a misunderstanding
by the Crozet Park Board as to how that would be put forward – and County staff was unaware of that.
Mr. Davis said that they really wanted to undertake the project themselves for various reasons, including
use of volunteer labor and fundraising, which might not have been available had it been a County project.
Until Friday, he said, there was no direction from the Board that that approach had been
acceptable, as the County was working under the assumption that the deal was what staff thought it was
for the last year and a half. Mr. Davis stated that the agreement provided last Friday by Mr. Aldous on
behalf of the Crozet Park Board changed that scenario to put it into a proposal whereby the Park Board
would undertake those projects instead of returning money to the County – and that was a much more
complicated proposal to put into a MOU as there were several issues such as defining the value of
projects, guaranteeing that the specifications would be adequate for the County’s long-term
responsibilities for the park, playground and other facilities, quality control issues, and covering any risks.
He explained that after reviewing the document, staff felt that there were some issues that had not been
adequately addressed and made some proposed changes to reflect those issues. Mr. Davis stated that
he had discussed with Mr. Aldous a revised proposal, and today Mr. Davis said he came up with a revised
agreement to capture that conversation – but Mr. Aldous made further changes that were substantial that
addressed style rather than substance. He said that they had discussed it this afternoon around 3:00
p.m., and apparently Mr. Aldous had rejected some of the suggested changes. Mr. Davis stated that in
looking at these very quickly, there appear to be four substantive issues that were different.
Mr. Foley said that staff could get into revising the document again at the meeting, but the issues
in principle were already before the Board – so if they want to take out the requirement for performance
bonds even though Mr. Rooker indicated that the flexibility was built in, the Board had the prerogative to
do so but he thinks they would be going down a road here that is going to get them into “wordsmithing” a
legal document. He added that the issues in principle had remained the same as what was shared with
the Board the night prior to the meeting.
Mr. Rooker stated that he had time on break to check with Mr. Davis as to whether the agreement
was something he could recommend, and he had said that it was. He does not think the Board can vote
on another form of this agreement tonight. If it is important that the Board take action tonight, then he
thinks it needs to stick to what is before it. He said that he thinks the agreement covers the primary
concern that was raised when the Crozet Park people went around and met with various Board members,
which was the timing of the money and the way that it eliminates the loan aspect of the contribution. This
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
does not automatically require a bond; it gives the County flexibility to require one depending on the
circumstances, and he thinks it is a prudent approach.
Mr. Davis emphasized that in attempting to define what the improvement costs are, the
agreement referenced that the costs would be determined as though the County itself had made the
programmed improvements or renovations – and the word “programmed” has significance, and it is
objected to by the Crozet Park Board. He said that the intent of that was that the project costs – which the
County would get in return for the equivalent of $200,000 – would only include the costs that were
programmed in the CIP projects, such as the tennis courts. The CIP project envisioned two full sized
tennis courts. The Park Board’s proposal is different. There may be a difference in costs between what
two full sized tennis courts would cost the County to construct and the improvements that the Park Board
would construct. Mr. Davis said that the issue was whether the Park Board gets credit for improvements
that are above and beyond what the County intended to build. This agreement would say no. The Park
board obviously would prefer that they get credit for the full enhanced project that they are proposing to
build and that is an important difference. Some of the money the Park Board is raising may exceed the
amount they would get credit for in this agreement.
Mr. Foley said that the reason staff recommended that the language remain as it is was because
the County has arrangements with volunteer fire and rescue whereby they will pay for extra amenities on
equipment. The County’s policy is that it would not pay for that, and so they step up and they pay for it. It
is the same principle and is consistent with what the County has done in other areas.
Ms. Mallek asked about the paragraph that had been added yesterday.
Mr. Davis responded that what was in their staff report had a provision that if the County made a
donation to the Park Board and for whatever reason the Park Board chose not to go forward to complete
the project within 12 months, the full money would be refunded to the County for it to undertake the
projects itself.
Ms. Mallek said she was referring to the paragraph about the projects and their value.
Mr. Davis stated that what was proposed by the Park Board was once they spend $200,000 worth
of effort toward those projects they have no obligation to go beyond that point, and the County’s position
was that they would need to have $200,000 of effort towards the projects the County would have
otherwise built.
Mr. Boyd said it appeared to him that staff and the Chair had been negotiating a contract with
Crozet Park without the direction of the entire Board, and that is what bothers him about this thing. The
Board never directed staff and the Chair to negotiate with them. He stated that he had never been
included in those discussions.
Ms. Mallek explained that her whole goal had been to find something that was agreeable to both,
otherwise there would be no point in having the Board discuss it. It seemed pointless to bring something
in, in disarray.
Mr. Boyd responded that it appears that is what has happened.
Ms. Mallek stated that she wasn’t convinced of that, and asked if there was a representative from
the Park Board here to make a presentation.
Ms. Heidi Sonen addressed the Board, stating that she was a member of the Crozet Park Board
and noting that there were other members of the Park Board present. This had been a long process for
the Park. She said that the Park had a long history of being in the County, deeded and donated to the
community in 1957. Ms. Sonen stated that the facilities would be open to everyone, and would only be off
limits when there are scheduled activities.
Mr. Boyd asked who would maintain the courts.
Ms. Sonen responded that it would be a joint effort per the 1997 agreement between Crozet Park
and County Parks & Rec. She said that the Park had operated the only public pool in the County for over
50 years, funded through their fall and spring arts & crafts festivals – which had been held for 30 years.
Ms. Sonen stated that their mission was to fill a gap in the community by providing affordable fitness,
aquatics and recreation year round. She said that in 2003 the Park Board members said the park needed
to be planned as part of other master planning, and in 2008 they m et with County Parks & Rec to talk
about inclusion in the CIP – which was where the $200,000 came in. Ms. Sonen said they had requested
funding for the dome in 2008 but were turned down for that request, taking away from the staff
recommendations that they should form a partnership with the YMCA and come back to the Board and
ask for help in the future. She stated that they decided to do it on their own and started raising money for
the dome, with a community match for money raised by the festivals. Ms. Sonen explained that in 2010
they began a capital campaign, and in 2011 they formed a committee that was just focused on this park.
She said that they had scaled back the project and determined in 2010 that the money they had raised
would be enough to move forward. Ms. Sonen said that the park was now budgeted as a one-year,
$600,000 program – with $400,000 from the community and the festivals and the remaining $200,000
from the CIP reallocation. Ms. Sonen said the money from the County would only be used on the building
modifications; it will not be used on the pool dome.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
She stated that in December of 2011 the community raised $51,000 toward the facility so the
construction could begin in January 2012. Ms. Sonen stated that the Commission on Children and
Families determined in 2003 that there was “no place for students and teens in the western part of the
County,” and not enough jobs for teens. She said that the recreational needs assessment study clarified
the need, calling for the facility right in Crozet Park. Ms. Sonen stated that in the study they listed things
taxpayers would support with tax dollars – and this project will provide four out of the five top items. She
said that with the operating partner in the project, the County’s money would go to a facility that was open
to everyone. Ms. Sonen stated that ACAC chose to operate in Old Trail, but the YMCA decided it would
work with Crozet Park – and their business model was a good fit as they encourage everyone to
participate and invest in youth fitness. She added that the YMCA would be in charge of the day-to-day
operations and would provide the furnishings and equipment; they are proud of the unique joint venture
agreement that they are putting together.
Ms. Sonen presented a slide of information on Park funding, stating that there had been a
significant amount of time donated from area professionals in addition to the money raised. She also said
that they formed another 501(c)3 partner with Quick Start Tennis of Central Virginia, and they helped with
a lot of grants and funding. Ms. Sonen stated that there would be no new tax dollars spent here, and
projects funded by the CIP money for basketball, tennis and trails would be completed through
partnerships formed. She said that the 1997 agreement commits Crozet Park to a master plan and to
further collaboration with the County down the road. Ms. Sonen said that basketball was a big priority, and
they wanted to raise money to be able to provide more amenities over time. She stated that the facility
would be a 20,000 square foot year-round facility, with supervised child enrichment programs – including
free swim lessons.
Ms. Sonen stated that a “yes” vote tonight would help provide 40 jobs for teens and others in the
growth area around the facility, a facility with no ongoing operating costs for the County, a project they felt
was way more than shovel ready, and a facility open to all regardless of their ability to pay. She said that
they would also create a new model of private-public cooperation in the heart of the County’s first
designated growth area, and she hoped that other areas would follow suit. Ms. Sonen stated that the
Parks Board felt that the revised agreement from Mr. Aldous had only minor changes. She added that
there were also a number of people present who could respond to questions from Board members.
Mr. Boyd asked about the issue of how the $200,000 would be spent on future allocations.
Ms. Sonen explained that they want Quick Start to be part of the agreement. All of the changes
that happened are changes the County requested. The Parks Board had not had a chance to respond to
the County’s MOU from the day before. They do not want to have the Fairview problem where they have
got tennis courts that just sit there so it is important that tennis and Quick Start and that $68,000 can be
used. Basketball will be added on to that as well. She said that the other issues had to do with the
performance bond, as the agreement said that it is required unless the County waived it. The Park Board
thinks that requirement is pretty tough. Mr. Ken Thacker, of VMDO, is Chair of the Building Committee.
Also present is Mr. Phil Kirby, of Barton Malow, who can address the issue of performance bonds.
Mr. Kirby stated that some of the County’s performance requirements might be things other than
payment, adding that the issue of performance was on a job by job basis.
Ms. Mallek said that the idea was to have recourse if something wasn’t built to specifications.
Mr. Kirby said that in some cases there was more liability than others.
Ms. Sonen reiterated that the Park Board believes that the issues they raised were minor, but they
would like to eliminate the performance bond because it is pretty onerous.
Mr. Rooker stated that they are splitting fine hairs here, as there was an implication that the
County would be unreasonable. He said that he was very supportive of the concept, but was not in favor
of circulating the agreement and having it voted on. Mr. Rooker stated that the primary issue he was
concerned with when the Parks Board reps came to visit him was handled in the language Mr. Davis
drafted. Ms. Sonen said several times these are minor issues, but they could actually “kill the deal” here
tonight over things she has categorized as minor. He will not vote in support of the agreement she just
handed out.
Ms. Sonen said that the only thing she felt wasn’t minor was the Quick Start portion of the
agreement, as they really want that to count. It is her understanding Mr. Davis related information to Mr.
Aldous the County did not want Quick Start to count which was something they just found out about today.
Mr. Davis clarified that the agreement proposed that the Park would get credit for the amount of
the tennis courts that the County otherwise would have built, so the Quick Start money could very well
apply to that as long as those improvements provide two full-size tennis courts. He explained that if the
Crozet Park spent more money than what the County had programmed, the additional amount would not
apply because the County would be moving from that point to building basketball courts. Mr. Davis stated
that the Parks Board should have no problem with the County’s proposal, which was designed to protect
the County’s risk in this project – which was to complete the projects included in the CIP.
Ms. Sonen added that the numbers were from 2008 and they do not reflect current numbers; the
$200,000 does not pay for all of those items.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Ms. Mallek said that the changes m ade the day before the meeting really protects the park so that
the County is not requiring it to do things that end up costing $500,000. The cost will be determined as
though the County itself had made the improvements or renovations, including without limitation what the
County would have spent on administration and not the CCP’s actual cost.
Ms. Sonen stated that she agreed that the changes were very minor. She then recognized
members of the Western Albemarle High School swim team who were present.
Ms. Mallek said that she hoped that swimming would become part of the PE curriculum in all
County schools even if it had to be after school because of the extraordinary level of fatalities amongst
populations who do not know how to swim.
Mr. Boyd stated that he was absolutely not on the other side of support of aquatic facilities, as he
had been fighting since 2000 to get competitive swimming in the community – when he was able to get it
into the school system. He applauded the Parks Board for all that they were doing, adding that he
appreciated all of the work done on the private side to move this forward. He reiterated that it is needed in
more than this one location in the community. He added that he will vote in support of this proposal
predicated that he will challenge his colleagues that it is needed in other areas of the County.
Mr. Davis clarified that the three steps the Board was taking was to authorize and appropriate the
$200,000 from the CIP Fund to the General Fund by approving the budget amendment in the Board’s
packet, to authorize the County Executive to execute the agreement between the Park and the County,
setting forth the financial arrangements after approval to both form and substance by the County Attorney
with the understanding that the agreement they were authorizing was the one that they had received today
from Mr. Foley, and to approve the $200,000 to Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. subject to the terms and
conditions of the agreement.
Ms. Mallek moved to approve the recommendations as read by Mr. Davis. Mr. Rooker seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Mallek commented that this was step one in the strategic plan the Board had discussed,
where they talked about getting the community more involved and not just sitting back and wanting
government to do everything.
Ms. Sonen thanked members of the Crozet community for coming to the meeting and showing
their support.
Mr. Snow applauded the attendees.
Mr. Foley recognized Mr. Davis, Mr. Crickenberger and Mr. Bryan Elliott for their many hours of
work on this – much of which happened over the holidays.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to have Parks and Rec staff step up and work with Fairview on a
similar type operation.
Mr. Rooker stated that there were a number of unique things about the Crozet circumstance: the
County had already appropriated the money, the facility was on property that reverted to the County, the
money would leverage significant other funding, and the money had to be paid back if the contemplated
use does not occur. There were some unique circumstances here – this is a public park, and the property
comes back to the County if they stop operating.
Mr. Boyd said that it wasn’t a public park, although the County maintains the fields.
Ms. Mallek clarified that it was open to the public.
Mr. Rooker stated that the land belonged to the County, and this action wasn’t carte blanche to do
this everywhere as the circumstances are not always going to be the same.
Mr. Boyd said that there had been $1.25 million on the table in the approved CIP, and Fairview
was a way of getting competitive swimming but Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek were against it.
Ms. Mallek said she cannot wait to see the pot of money being built in some other place; that is
wonderful.
APP #2012050
DATE 01/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Crozet Park Contribution
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
4 9010 71020 471020 800940 7100 (99,237.00) Park Enhancements
4 9010 71020 471020 800949 7100 (32,000.00) Parks & Rec Maintenance
4 9010 71020 471020 950202 7100 (68,763.00) Greenway, Crozet
4 9010 93010 493010 930009 9999 200,000.00 Transfer from Capital to GF
4 1000 79000 479000 567730 1007 200,000.00 Contribution-Claudius Crozet Park
3 1000 51000 351000 512031 9999 200,000.00 Transfer from GF to CIP
TOTAL 400,000.00
*****
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made by and between the County of Albemarle, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County") and Claudius Crozet Park, Incorporated, a Virginia nonstock
corporation ("CCP") and is dated as of January 12, 2012.
Recitals
A. CCP is a charitable organization that is organized and operated for the following exempt
purposes as stated in its Restatement of the Articles of Incorporation, dated January 9, 1984: "The
purpose for which [CCP] is formed is charitable, to promote the health and well being and enhance the
general social and cultural welfare of residents of the Community of Crozet and the surrounding area of
Albemarle County, Virginia."
B. CCP owns certain property (including the improvements) known as Claudius Crozet Park,
located on Park Road in Crozet, Virginia, identified as Parcel IDs 056A2-01-00-07200, 056A2-01-00-
072A0 and 56A2-04-00-000A4 on the County tax maps (the "Park").
C. The Park is open to the public. In the Park there are playgrounds, sports fields, open
spaces, a pool and a community center. CCP is improving the community center and the pool (the
"Facility") at the Park. Renovations to the existing community center will allow for year round fitness
equipment and classes, after school programming, camps and community space for healthy lifestyle
workshops. The Facility will be a 43,500 square foot year round facility offering aquatics, recreation,
fitness and community space for all ages. A removable pool dome will go over the pool in September of
each year and come off in May.
D. CCP and Piedmont Family Young Men's Christian Association, Inc., a Virginia nonstock
corporation, ("YMCA") wish to enter into a joint venture to operate and maintain the Facility and to conduct
recreational programs at the Facility in furtherance of the exempt purposes of YMCA and CCP. The
Facility improvements must be complete before the joint venture can begin. The Facility improvements
and YMCA's presence at the Park through the joint venture will provide the necessary oversight and
growth for CCP to move forward with building, improving and renovating basketball courts, tennis courts, a
skate park and a perimeter trail at the Park.
E. CCP and the County entered into an agreement, dated March 25, 1997, in which CCP
agreed to make land available within the Park for the County to develop recreational fields and facilities
and in which CCP and the County agreed that the Park would in perpetuity be used only for park and
recreational and community related entertainment activities for the benefit of the citizens of Crozet and the
County.
F. In or around 2008, the County allocated in its budget two hundred thousand dollars for
improvements to the Park. The County intended to build, improve and renovate basketball courts, tennis
courts, a skate park and a perimeter trial at the Park. The County now believes that its resources will be
better spent helping to improve, remodel and renovate the community center, with the understanding that
CCP will complete the projects that the County would have done. Improving the community center first will
enable the joint venture between YMCA and CCP to move forward and will provide the best foundation for
the proper oversight and maintenance of additional facilities at the Park. It will also provide additional and
needed supervised recreational opportunities for youth in the Crozet area. For the purposes permitted by
section 15.2-953 of the Code of Virginia and Article IV, Section 16 of the Constitution of Virginia, the
County will instead now contribute the two hundred thousand dollars to CCP to assist in the building,
improvement and renovation of the community center.
Agreement
1. Establishment of Fund. The County will contribute two hundred thousand dollars
(US$200,000) to CCP to establish the Community Building Fund (the “Fund”). The County will make the
contribution to CCP by check on or before January 22, 2012.
1.1. Use of Fund. The Fund will be established by CCP upon transfer to and
acceptance by CCP of the contribution. CCP shall use the entire principal and the income of the Fund for
the purposes described below. The Fund will be held as a restricted asset of CCP, but not segregated as
a separate trust. The principal and income of the Fund may be combined with other funds or accounts of
CCP for investment purposes, provided that a separate accounting of principal and income is maintained.
CCP shall use the Fund only in a manner consistent with its tax exempt purposes under section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
1.2. Purpose of Fund. The purpose of the Fund is to assist CCP in the improvement,
renovation and remodeling of the community center.
1.3. Return of Fund. If within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement,
should the fulfillment of the purpose of this donation, as described above, become frustrated,
burdensome, impossible, or impracticable (or if CCP is for some unforeseen reason unable to raise all of
the funds it needs to renovate and improve the community center), then the Fund, including principal and
income, shall be transferred back to the County to be used by the County for building, improving,
remodeling or renovating basketball courts, tennis courts, skate parks and/or trails at the Park or to make
such other improvements or renovations at the Park that CCP and the County deem appropriate and that
are consistent with the exempt purposes of CCP. The money shall be returned to the County within thirty
(30) days of a written request by the County requesting CCP to do so. Upon the refund of the amount of
the Fund to the County, CCP shall have no further obligations under this Agreement.
2. Park Improvements. Before January 12, 2019, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3,
CCP will build, improve, remodel or renovate basketball courts, tennis courts, skate parks, trails and/or
such other improvements or renovations at the Park that CCP and the County's Director of Parks and
Recreation deem appropriate and that are consistent with the exempt purposes of CCP (the "Park
Improvements"). In the absence of agreement, improvements and renovations will be made in the
following order: tennis courts, basketball courts, trails, skate park. CCP’s commitment under this
paragraph shall be limited to those improvements or renovations that would have a cost equal to two
hundred thousand dollars (US$200,000) if such projects were undertaken and completed by the County in
calendar year 2012. The projects that could be completed by the County for such amount shall be
determined through an objective process by the Office of Facilities Development and jointly agreed to by
the County and CCP within sixty (60) days after the date of this Agreement. The cost will be determined as
though the County itself had made the programmed improvements or renovations (including without
limitation what the County would have spent on administration, labor and materials), and not at CCP's
actual cost. The aggregate cost of all such improvements and renovations is hereafter called the
"Improvement Costs".
3. Project Committee. CCP will establish a Project Committee, to act on its behalf, to
oversee completion of the Park Improvements. The County will appoint a member of the Office of
Facilities Development and a member of the Parks and Recreation Department to serve as members of
the Project Committee. CCP will appoint the other member or members of the Project Committee. The
Project Committee will act by majority vote, but CCP shall require that no decision of the Project
Committee will be effective unless the County's appointees agree with the majority. The Project
Committee will determine the specifications for the improvements or renovations and, if appropriate,
request bids. Unless otherwise agreed to by the County, all work shall be performed pursuant to a contract
with a licensed contractor who shall provide a performance bond to assure that the work is completed
according to the specifications.
4 Potential Payment. On January 12, 2019, CCP shall pay to the County the difference, if
any, (but not below zero) between two hundred thousand dollars and the Improvement Costs.
5. Termination of Obligation. CCP's obligation under paragraph 2 terminates, and CCP may
disband the Project Committee, at the time the improvements required by paragraph 2 have been
completed and the payment described in paragraph 4 is zero.
6. Binding Effect. This Agreement is binding on and shall inure to the benefit of CCP, its
successors and assigns, and upon the County, its successors and assigns.
7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party whose signature appears thereon, and all of
which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement shall become binding when
one or more counterparts hereof, individually or taken together, shall bear the signatures of both the
County and CCP.
8. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are not severable.
9. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Claudius Crozet Park, Incorporated
By: ___________________________________________
Its: ___________________________________________
Date: _________________________________________
Albemarle County, Virginia
By: ___________________________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
Date: _________________________________________
_______________
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
Agenda Item No. 18. Boards and Commissions Appointments.
Mr. Dumler moved to appoint Ms. Holly Heuston, as the Scottsville District representative to the
Albemarle County Service Authority, with said term to expire December 31, 2015. Mr. Rooker seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dumler also noted that he has asked the Clerk to advertise for applications for his appointee
to the Equalization Board. The current Scottsville District representative, Ms. Rosa Hudson, lives in the
Porter’s Precinct, which lost through redistricting to the Samuel Miller District.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Boyd stated that he had hoped the Board would vote for a Chair, as it was unfinished business
– but if no one would change their vote there was no need to drag it up again. They still have not elected
a Chair for the year.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that the Board would soon be receiving an important report from TJPED on the
Target Industry Study. He thinks it would be good to meet with the Commission when the Board receives
the report. Some of the Planning Commissioners had looked to the Board for direction based on what
was intended for industrial land, and he wanted to move forward in the essence of time to have a joint
meeting when the report is presented.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was different from the Target Study presentation meeting.
Mr. Foley clarified that the regular Board meeting would include the update on the Target Industry
Study, and at the same time they would be considering the Comp Plan process and the order of
considering different changes to that. He said that the Board had directed that last fall when they decided
not to move rural interchanges and light industrial until they had heard from the Target Study, and Mr.
Boyd had also suggested that the Commission come at the time the report was given.
Mr. Boyd said that his Commissioner was looking for direction as to where this was headed.
Mr. Rooker said he would support having a joint meeting to receive the report and have a
discussion afterward.
Mr. Thomas commented that he would like to have his Commissioner, Mr. Don Franco, be a part
of the conversation because he had a lot of ideas of how the Board and Commission could work together.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was the meeting with the consultant presenting at the regular day meeting
and a work session in the afternoon.
Mr. Foley responded that the only issue was whether it would be presented by the consultant or
staff, as the consultant might not be done until mid-February.
Mr. Boyd said that he would have no problem having it done at the second meeting in February.
Mr. Foley stated that it would be held in either meeting depending on available schedules, and
staff would have some written information to provide the Board – even if the final report was not yet
finalized.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that the Board will be discussing the issue of dogs running at large sometime
around March, but she also does not feel that barking dogs were properly addressed, and the fact that the
rural areas wasn’t included in the regulations had created problems for Animal Control Officers as the
delineation of where the growth area ends isn’t always clear. She said that it had also created a real
problem for people who live next to one another in the countryside, adding that she hoped the Board
would be willing to talk about this again.
Ms. Mallek also said that Ms. Stacy Norris, of the House Project for dogs, continues to work in the
County and felt that there were still not enough teeth in the ordinance to protect dogs who were not being
properly cared for. She believes that if County ordinances were good enough the Animal Control Officers
would not have to make repeat visits and still not be able to bring about any change.
Mr. Davis stated that Police Chief Steve Sellers’ report in March would include a report from
Animal Control Officers documenting the problems she was referencing. He added that the standards in
Albemarle far surpassed those of other jurisdictions. There was also some recognition that there may be
some further improvements that needed to be done, but Animal Control specifically said to let them
experience this to see if they continue to have enforcement issues related to the ordinance. He also noted
that the barking dog ordinance does apply in the rural area, but only on lots that were five acres or less.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board be committed to this process as there would very likely be some long
public hearings on the issue.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t know why this should be brought up again as they just went through it
– and came up with an ordinance that was crafted largely by Animal Control. He said that he was willing
to readdress it if Animal Control has indicated it was an issue.
Mr. Snow suggested waiting for the report.
Mr. Foley suggested that there were different processes for dealing with barking dogs versus
tethering, and asked if the Board wanted those items plus running-at-large to all come back to them.
Mr. Boyd said that there was only one person who had been tried in court for a barking dog case,
and he spoke with her. Mr. Boyd said that her neighbor had stood next to her fence and filmed them, and
that was the evidence used in court. He added that if someone does that to his dog, the dog will bark the
entire time someone stands next to his property too.
Ms. Mallek stated that there was much more to this than that one case. She said that she lives in
the country – so she was well aware of the fact that problems exist. She believes that rural residents have
just as much responsibility to care for their animals. The five-acre minimum is not a solution because
there could be 20-acre parcels and the houses are very close together, or one house is way over here and
the dogs are penned up right next to their neighbors.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be helpful to distribute the minutes from the meetings that were held
on this, because what is being considered here is bringing back the same issues that were heard before.
There isn’t a reason to keep coming back and rehashing issues unless there is some changes in
circumstance.
Ms. Mallek commented that this was occurring because it hadn’t been done quite right the first
time.
Mr. Boyd said that’s because she was hearing from people who didn’t think it was adequate.
Mr. Rooker suggested getting the minutes and the report from the County prior to moving forward
any further.
__________
Mr. Foley said that earlier in the meeting there was some discussion of special use permits,
specifically parking structures being considered under special permits, and it seemed to him that there
had been an assumption those evaluations were currently going on but that process is not underway right
now. He stated that it could be evaluated but it would become a pretty significant work program item. Mr.
Foley suggested that the Board bring some of those items forward in February during discussion of
Community Development’s work program along with some ideas as to what criteria should be used for
things being changed.
Mr. Boyd stated that there were efforts going on as far as budgeting – with an Economic Vitality
Plan and staff reductions – which he was using as an example of how issues might be addressed.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that so many things become “one off,” as they end up surfacing as
reactive items to specific applications. Using the towing business that was before the Board tonight as an
example, he does not remember one coming to the Board. You could go through every one of these and
say should this be special use permit or by-right but you need to consider both sides of the fence.
Mr. Boyd said that to him this was a method of zero-based budgeting, and that was a process that
County staff should always be working on in its departments.
Mr. Snow stated that someone mentioned to him during the break how one County kept a running
record of recurring items, and kept it the whole year, with an evaluation done at the end of the year – with
action being taken based on the most frequent items. He suggested running a cumulative list that would
be revisited once or twice per year.
Mr. Foley said that that’s the kind of process they should use to follow up on the comments the
Board had made, but he just wanted some clarity.
Mr. Davis stated that he had been involved with the same types of discussions for 30 years, and
businesses like a towing company in the wrong location can have significant impacts to adjacent property.
Mr. Boyd asked if those were issues the ARB could deal with.
Mr. Davis responded that the uses could be made by-right with supplemental conditions to avoid
the special use permit process. The Planning staff would need to go through the list of uses to evaluate
whether they could be handled that way. He said that in the 1980’s when special use permit law
developed it gave localities a lot of flexibility to put conditions on special use permits without the risk of
being overturned by the courts, and the permits became very popular during that timeframe because the
Board has a great deal of discretion in addressing any issue that it thinks is relevant to that use that is
proportional to the impacts. Maybe it is time to reexamine how much the County uses that tool, but it’s not
a simple ‘just take it out and make it a by-right use’ analysis from staff’s perspective.
Ms. Mallek added that much regulation over the years had grown up because of bad experiences.
January 11, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Foley commented that there is a new lens to use based on the economic vitality approach, but
the whole issue has been balancing quality development with economic vitality.
Mr. Rooker said that the County did this with cell towers by creating the tier system, codifying
conditions, etc.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is a good model.
Mr. Rooker stated that the special use permit opportunity allows things to be included in a zoning
district that might not otherwise be included.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 05/02/2012
Initials: EWJ