2012-05-09NMay 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 9,
2012, at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher J. Dumler, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Chief of Planning, David Benish, and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. 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 asked if Board members had any additional action items for the agenda. None were
presented, and the meeting proceeded.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
There were none.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions.
There were none.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 7. Larry Land, Director of Policy Development, Virginia Association of Counties
(VACo).
Mr. Larry Land stated that he has worked with VACo for 24 years. He said that his purpose at the
meeting is to sit, listen and learn. VACo’s visitations with counties are important in order to understand
constituent concerns and to pass along information about what is happening at VACo. Mr. Land explained
that Albemarle County is a member of VACo, which has operated since 1934. The chief mission of VACo
is to represent counties to the General Assembly and to state agencies, and to conduct educational
programs on behalf of County Supervisors.
He stated that shortly after the 2012 legislative session, VACo will be entering into a phase
wherein it will be developing its legislative program in preparation for the 2013 session of the General
Assembly. Mr. Land said that VACo has eight steering committees that would begin meeting over the
summer, and he encouraged Board members to participate in this process. He explained that during this
time, VACo will develop new positions to communicate to the General Assembly and will be reviewing
older standing positions. Mr. Land emphasized the importance of County participation in the process. He
said that one troubling trend is a tendency of the General Assembly is to shift responsibility to the local
level. He said that concerns have been expressed to him regarding VRS costs. VACo is always
concerned about the State shifting the responsibility of secondary road maintenance to counties – and the
issue of unfunded mandates. Mr. Land stated that VACo expects to be working very aggressively over the
next few months in response to these challenges. He said that two months ago the General Assembly
adjourned, and in the two months since then a budget has been passed – with the Governor making about
$44 million in amendments to the budget. The General Assembly will reconvene the following week to
consider those amendments and hopefully pass a final budget.
Mr. Thomas thanked Mr. Land for all of the time he and his staff put into these issues.
Ms. Mallek said that the summary from the Planning District’s Mayors and Chairs meeting yielded
the idea of getting all of the planning districts unified and pushing hard on VML and VACo to make a
stronger stand with the General Assembly because the legislators do not seem to care about local
government at all once they get to the General Assembly, even though some of them started in local
government.
Mr. Land noted that VACo has a strong working relationship with VML and expect that to continue.
Mr. Snow asked that they get the schedule for VACo meetings as soon as possible. Mr. Land
responded that the schedule of meetings for VACo committees should be released shortly, and said they
generally take place in early August.
_______________
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 8. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Kelly Flora and Mr. Reid Shaw, seniors at Monticello High School, addressed the Board. Ms.
Flora stated that they chose as their Citizen Action Project the tax rate in Albemarle County. Ms. Flora
said that although the tax rate/equalization rate has been resolved for the FY13 budget, the issue is still
relevant because equalization will continue to be an issue in future years as property values continue to
change. She stated that they have spoken with Board members, community members and those involved
with the school system, and while they feel this year’s tax rate was more politically feasible than full
equalization, the Board should make every effort in coming years to ensure a stable tax base for the
County and its priorities. Ms. Flora said that every cent on the tax rate brings in about $1.5 million to the
County, and every dollar of that count. She also noted that every dollar that goes to closing the School
Division’s deficit counts. She said that $67,000 would pay for another teacher, and $80,000 or $90,000
would pay for another school bus. This means that when this money goes to real and tangible projects, it
matters to them as members of the County.
Mr. Reid Shaw said that in addition to the benefits of a fully funded educational system, revenue
brought in through equalization would also allow the County to take advantage of other opportunities that
have not had enough attention paid to them. He said that the County does not provide sufficient funding
for the Revenue Sharing for road projects, which provides an opportunity to get more “bang for the buck”
when developing infrastructure and other capital projects; other things to consider include sidewalk
development for denser housing, etc. Mr. Shaw said these are just a few of the benefits that would have
come from an equalized rate, and it looks a lot more reasonable given that the average tax bill would not
change significantly, if at all. He encouraged the Board to be mindful of this as the years progress and
development of the next budget continues.
__________
Ms. Nancy Carpenter, a resident of Eagle’s Landing, said she was here to speak in support of
nine individuals who have been waiting to move into The Crossings since it opened in March. Ms.
Carpenter said these individuals are in desperate need of stable housing, and the reasons given for why
they cannot live there right now is totally unacceptable. She stated that the executive summary on the
agenda (Item 9.7) is alarming and disturbing to her. She asked if was really a possibility that this group of
at-risk individuals will not get into The Crossings because “tenants currently under project-based vouchers
would not be affected, but new leases may not be approved.” She said that she finds this not to be in
accord with initiatives from the Governor and the President, as they both affirm that having a home is the
first step back to stability, and having a home is increasingly viewed as a part of healthcare. Ms.
Carpenter said that the County is condemning this group to continue to be marginalized and criminalized
for being homeless. She encouraged the Board to help these individuals get off the streets and into
decent apartments. She said that she believes that the County has the necessary money to
accommodate this need.
__________
Mr. Ryan Wolfe addressed the Board, and introduced the following students from Monticello:
Heather Noffsinger and Katie Cersely. He stated that they have been working on a Citizen Action Plan for
the spring semester of Government class at Monticello High School. Their topic of interest was the
Western Bypass. Mr. Wolfe said that for the majority of the project they were undecided about whether
the bypass would be beneficial or hazardous to the community. He stated that in the beginning they chose
to be against it due to the obvious environmental concerns, but established contact with people who were
involved and concerned with the bypass – Ms. Sally Thomas, Mr. Dennis Rooker, Mr. Brian Wheeler, Mr.
Matt Landahl, Principal of Greer Elementary, Mr. Duane Snow and Mr. Rodney Thomas. Mr. Wolfe said
they also gathered information from resources such as Charlottesville Tomorrow, The Daily Progress and
the Piedmont Environmental Council. He said that as they became more knowledgeable they realized the
bypass is the most beneficial option to alleviate traffic in the community.
Ms. Noffsinger said that those people against the bypass cited concerns about damage to the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and negative impacts on the School system. She said that the Reservoir
will be most affected in three main areas – 1) groundwater flow modification, which will be affected due to
the potential effects such as deterioration of vegetation, increased susceptibility to erosion, loss of water
for drinking as well as agricultural use; 2) water quality degradation will be affected by sedimentation,
changes in biological activity, uncontrolled construction, and spills from chemicals and pollutants, and 3)
surface water flow modification will be affected due to roads that intersect by concentrating flows at certain
points and in many cases increasing the speed of flow.
Ms. Cersely said that even with the current concerns their group supports the bypass. She said
that through their discovery many of the accusations against the environment relating to bypass impacts
have proven to be false. She said that many have been concerned about runoff, but by tilting the road
runoff will go to the opposite side of the reservoir, and with the use of bladders runoff will be caught before
going into the reservoir. Ms. Cersely said that there will be sound barriers to keep those who live around
the bypass satisfied. She thinks that if the bypass can get finalized, it will benefit everyone. She stated
that traffic now on Route 29 is at a grade “F,” and by building the bypass about 60% of U.Va. traffic will be
relieved. She said that they believe that the FHWA knows what they are doing, and that they are doing
things properly. Ms. Cersely said that no more public hearings are needed because all results from these
are the same. Everyone seems to be in favor of an additional environmental study, but this project needs
to get on its way. She said that if the bypass is not built now, there will not be money in the future to build
it. She asked if they should continue the same argument about environmental concerns or should they
begin to focus on the needs of the community and start to act.
__________
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that Chief Scientist and Vice President of The
Nature Conservancy Mr. Peter Kareiva has stated that “Environmentalists are living in the past and
effectively lying to their constituents about the state of nature, producing doom and gloom views to sustain
their relevance at the expense of any sort of real progress.” Mr. Battig said that Dr. Kareiva said, “We love
the horror story, we just love it. The environmental movement has loved it. That I think is a strategy
failure, and is actually not supported by science.” Mr. Battig stated that in 1999, Julian Somme wrote a
book entitled “False Bad News,” that included predictions of vanishing farmlands, vanishing resources,
scares about population growth and scares about the environment, and scared biologists. Mr. Battig said
that H. L. Menken stated that “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them
imaginary”. He reported that “trees are flourishing as studied in the eastern part of the United States”.
Deforestation in other countries such as Indonesia and Brazil are being rectified with the planting of other
trees. He also said that although CO2 levels have gone up over the past 15 years, temperatures are
stable and going down. Mr. Battig said that U.Va. has provided no logical link between what they have
said and a rationale for LCAP.
__________
Mr. Amory Fisher, a student at Albemarle High School, said the bypass will directly affect them.
Mr. Fisher said that when looking at the bypass proposal costing hundreds of millions of dollars it is mind-
blowing, as the State has already allocated $197 million with estimated costs running higher. He said that
he is totally flabbergasted. He stated that he cannot bear to see this at a time when the School system is
being devastated by shortfalls of less than $5 million. Mr. Fisher said that his teachers are working harder
for less and he has seen people get laid off from work. The government is also stating that there is no
money for transitions to sustainable energy. He stated that the average home can be retrofitted to
complete solar with $30,000 – a miniscule amount compared to the cost of the bypass. Mr. Fisher said
that there are also benefits in terms of job creation and cost savings in the long run if there is a
sustainable energy plant. He said that the argument being made for the bypass is “we have the money
now, but it is not likely that we will get it again.” Mr. Fisher stated that if it is not spent, that means it is less
debt that his friends and his whole generation will have to pay back. He said that he hope the Board
reconsider the bypass, taking into account all of the consequences.
__________
Ms. Elinor Glassco addressed the Board, stating that she was before the Board to present a
petition against the bypass. She read the following language from the petition: “We the students of Agnor
Hurt Elementary School petition against the road that is supposed bypass Charlottesville, but will only
cause more problems like: 1) The bypass would no longer bypass the City now. It would just go straight
through the City. 2) The road will go by a few schools including Agnor Hurt Elementary School, Albemarle
High School, Mary Greer Elementary School, Jack Jouett Middle School, Ivy Creek School and St. Anne’s
Belfield School. The kids in those schools might breathe in bad gasses that are bad for their health. Also,
the cars might fall onto the school grounds. Therefore, there would be a possibility that cars could fall on
us kids. 3) The bypass would cost a whole lot of money and still not solve the traffic problem . 4) Even
more of our water supply would get polluted.” By signing this we ask the Charlottesville City Council and
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to reconsider.”
Ms. Glassco stated that they have collected 140 signatures on the petition. She added that for
Agnor Hurt, the bypass is proposed to go directly by their soccer fields which they are all are worried about
the cars. They are also concerned about all the homes the bypass will go by in which they could be in
danger from cars.
__________
Mr. Isaac Smith addressed the Board, presenting a petition to them on behalf of students of
Albemarle High School. He said that he has another reason for avoiding the bypass project on the County
and state level. Mr. Smith said that the biggest argument that he has heard in favor of the bypass is that
“we need to build our infrastructure.” W hile that is a valid point given the existing congestion and growth
in the area, the design for the bypass is old and does not account for the growth happening since its
original design 27 years ago. Mr. Smith said it would be very beneficial if the bypass was somehow
rerouted to accommodate the new growth. In addition, the County and State should take advantage of all
the money that is going towards the bypass and use it for tax incentives for businesses that are far more
important to the County’s infrastructure. If it is easier to start a business, it is easier to succeed and more
people will start one. More businesses mean more employed people, more employed people mean more
salaries, more salaries mean more taxable revenue which means more future revenue.
__________
Mr. Johnathan Hernandez said that he is here as a citizen and as a spokesman of the people. He
said that the proposed western bypass is antiquated. The plan has been around for at least 20 years. Mr.
Hernandez said that if the road were updated, the sacrifices that the people must endure might be worth it.
He stated that the money allocated in the system will not sufficiently pay for “this bridge to nowhere.” He
said that people do not want to be bothered by this already massive amount of debt on their shoulders. If
this bypass is built, then it should be built only by being updated after the funds are accounted for and
disposable. W hen society is in debt, so too is their future.
__________
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said that he is a retired Assistant U. S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia. Mr. Martin said that he was very distressed about City Council’s discussion of
marijuana at their meeting on Monday, and they politicized an extremely important law enforcement issue
unnecessarily. He stated that he is not sure that the people at that meeting really understood what went
on. It seems that the word on the street in Charlottesville is that marijuana is now OK and can be smoked
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
openly. Mr. Martin said that a small quantity of marijuana might not be prosecuted as an exercise of
prosecutorial discretion, but it still acts as a deterrent. The fact remains that a small quantity of marijuana
comes from a larger stash, which comes from a kilo, which comes from a bail, which comes from a
truckload, which all comes from organized crime – and it is dangerous. Mr. Martin said that “every single
joint is tainted by blood.”
He said that he was not suggesting that the Board get involved in this argument with City Council,
but suggested asking Chief Sellers, Chief Longo and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys for both localities get
together and ensure that both communities are on the same page so all young people in this community
are protected and know what the rules are.
__________
Mr. Evan Cunningham said that he is a senior at Monticello High School and is also doing a
Citizen Action Project. Mr. Cunningham said that he and his group have been studying and researching
the legality and constitutionality of warrantless searches, minimally invasive, of the home. He stated that
the issue has been debated nationally and at the state level, but they want to emphasize that these issues
start at the local level. Mr. Cunningham said that these things are not happening only on a grand scale,
but are happening as close as Newport News, Virginia. He explained that in 2008 there was a case in
which a drug dog was taken and sniffed at the front door of a home without a warrant, which eventually led
to the arrest of the homeowner for possession of marijuana. Mr. Cunningham said that in this case the
Circuit Court of Virginia upheld the constitutionality of the search. Mr. Cunningham said that their
research showed that this was a violation of the owner’s 4th Amendment rights. He stated that are asking
the Board to take a stance locally on these types of minimally invasive, warrantless searches of homes in
Albemarle.
Ms. Mariel Anderson said that there is precedence in protecting the rights of citizens against
scanning and bugging – Kilo v. United States and Katz v. United States – and in the upcoming Supreme
Court Case Florida v. Jardines, issues of warrantless searches will rise to the forefront of current civil
rights discussion.
Mr. Patrick MacDonnell said that the students would like to encourage the Board to clearly and
succinctly state the sanctity of the home and put emphasis on the preservation of 4th Amendment rights of
privacy within the County. He said that the primary course of action the Board can take is to make certain
that no officer employed by the County is engaging in such warrantless searches of the home, and for the
Board to release a clear statement condemning such minimally intrusive warrantless searches of the
home in general. Mr. MacDonnell stated that the great movements and calls for freedom in this nation’s
history began in small towns with the support of public officials like them. He asked the Board to begin
something bold – stand for freedom, protect the citizens of the county, and set a precedent for other
counties and for the state in general.
__________
Mr. Tom Olivier said he was present speaking as an individual. He first expressed his
appreciation to the students who came and spoke on the bypass, the tax rate, and rights to privacy. Mr.
Olivier said that he hopes that the Board will ask VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration to hold a
public hearing on the environmental review of the proposed Western Bypass. Even in tough times
environmental protection remains a key public priority. He stated that currently this country is facing
environmental threats that are far worse than anything it faced in the Second W orld W ar. Mr. Olivier said
that they cannot afford to neglect environmental protection because of its economic circumstances. Mr.
Olivier said that in the 1940s the U.S. was ready for multiple, big challenges, and they need to be ready
again now.
__________
Mr. Doug Arrington, a resident of Fiddlestick Lane, said he lives one lot over from the Whittington
development. Mr. Arrington said that he has been to two public meetings and to the Planning Commission
work session on the Comp Plan as it pertains to the Southern Development Area. It bothers him to see
the Southern Parkway “still out there,” as the feasibility of the road leaves a lot to be desired and
influences a lot of people in subdivisions in the area. He stated that he sees the reason for the
Sunset/Fontaine connector, but it seem s to be a “$50 million stumbling block.” Mr. Arrington said that
there has been a minimal amount of attention paid to the infrastructure – screening, bike trails, etc. – and
in the spirit of smart growth, and the Code of Virginia, it states that the Comprehensive Plan “should
establish an orderly and effective development.” He said that since there is not money for infrastructure
improvements to achieve an orderly and effective development, there should be limits placed on the
Comp Plan. Mr. Arrington suggested having the County set up an escrow account dedicated to the
infrastructure of southern urban developments Neighborhoods four and five, which could be funded
through proffers from zoning text amendments, creation of a tax district for the developed areas, sales
and property taxes, and/or other appropriate means.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr.
Snow, to approve Items 9.1 through 9.4 on the consent agenda, and to accept Item 9.5 as information.
(Note: Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda item.) Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_____
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Item No. 9.1. Approval of Minutes: January 4 and February 8(N), 2012.
Mr. Rooker had read his portion of the minutes of January 4, 2012, pages 1-28 (end at Item #15),
and found them to be in order with the exception of some typographical errors.
Mr. Boyd had read his portion of the minutes of January 4, 2012, pages 28 (begin with Item #15) –
end, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of February 8N, 2012, and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read.
_____
Item No. 9.2. HO-2011-152. Stanley Chang. Home occupation modification for traffic generation.
The executive summary states that the applicant, Stanley C. Chang (Tae Pyung Acupuncture,
P.C.), is requesting a Home Occupation Class A (HOCA) modification for the number of trips generated by
the HOCA use. A concurrent application is being processed for a HOCA clearance to operate an
acupuncture office. The applicant is an acupuncturist and intends to operate within his home. The
applicant is requesting up to thirty (30) clients per week.
Characteristics of the anticipated operation:
Operating hours are by appointment, Monday through Friday. The office will be closed on
Saturdays and Sundays.
Sessions last an average of 50 minutes, but can range from 40 minutes to 60 minutes for
follow-up visits and up to 90 minutes for initial consultations.
The property (TMP 061A0-00-00-01400) is located at 1100 Pen Park Lane and is located at the
intersection of Rio Road and Pen Park Lane. The 1.02 acre parcel is zoned R-4, Residential. Pen Park
Lane consists of single-family detached homes. A previous Home Occupation Class B for flower sales
on-site has existed on this property for over 20 years. The Home Occupation was amended in 2002
(SP2002-20, Pine Crest Orchids) to allow for an expansion to the greenhouses on-site. The normal
operating hours for that Home Occupation was 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Saturday, and it was
estimated to generate 7 to 10 customers per week.
The applicant is seeking a modification of Section 5.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance for home
occupations, which states, “[t]he traffic generated by a home occupation shall not exceed the volume that
would normally be expected by a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood.” The Zoning Department
assumes the “normal volume” of traffic for a dwelling unit is 5 round trips per day (10 vehicle trips per day)
and will also allow one additional trip per day for clients, stipulating that these trips should be spread
throughout the week (seven per week). The applicant’s request is to be allowed to serve an up to 30
clients per week five days per week (Monday through Friday). This would result in 30 round trips per
week, from the home occupation use (and an average of 6 round trips per day). A “round trip” means one
vehicle entering and exiting the site.
Staff has evaluated the request based on the traffic impacts to Pen Park Lane, Rio Road, and the
neighborhood. Planning staff typically evaluates traffic generation of this type of request against other
uses permitted by-right within residences, most particularly a daycare serving up to five (5) children (a
special use permit is required for a day care serving six or more children). A by-right daycare would
generate up to 50 round trips per week and 10 round trips per day (2 round trips/day per child for drop-off
and pick-up) in addition to the 5 round trips from the residential use.
The applicant’s request is also consistent with the threshold established for Rural Area Home
Occupations, which is to not exceed 30 vehicle round trips per week. That section of the ordinance
(Section 5.2A.e.) is provided below:
“Traffic generated by a major home occupation. The traffic generated by a major home
occupation shall not exceed ten (10) vehicle round trips per day or more than thirty (30)
vehicle round trips per week. For the purposes of this section, a “vehicle round trip”
means one vehicle entering and exiting the site.”
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. This property has had a home occupation use since 1985.
2. The use will not produce any excess noise, waste, or light.
3. The level of traffic potentially generated from this request is consistent with other by-right
uses permitted within residences (including day care for up to 5 children);
4. Pen Park Lane and the driveway serving the residents/home occupation can adequately
accommodate anticipated traffic and parking activity generated by this request.
Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors.
Staff recommends approval of HO 2011-152 with the following conditions:
1. No more than 30 clients per week and no more than 6 clients per day (Monday through
Friday).
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved HO-2011-152, modification for traffic
generation subject to the following condition:
1. No more than thirty (30) clients per week and no more than six (6) clients per day
(Monday through Friday).
_____
Item No. 9.3. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $61,620,00. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not
exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of two (2) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012073) totaling $61,620.00 for various Emergency
Communications Center (ECC) projects; and
One (1) appropriation (#201274) reallocating $12,000.00 from the Reserve for
Contingencies for Wireless Planning.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #2012073 and #2012074.
*****
Appropriation #2012073 $61,620.00
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 61,620.00
At its March 15, 2012 meeting, the ECC Management Board approved the following appropriations of funds
and is requesting that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the ECC, make an appropriation from ECC’s
available fund balance as follows:
$9,520.00 to replace the existing base station on Carters Mountain with a very high frequency
(VHF) repeater that is narrowband compliant. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
license for the old frequencies is currently up for renewal and based on changes in FCC
regulations, this license must be narrow-banded in order for its continued use.
$52,100.00 for renovations to the office space on the second floor of the Albemarle County Office
Building located on 5th Street to install the appropriate electrical circuits, receptacles, switches,
antennas and telephone lines to allow the location to be used as a back-up location for the ECC in
the event the primary location would need to be evacuated or damaged in some way.
Appropriation #2012074 $0.00
Revenue Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 12,000.00
On December 7, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved a motion to appropriate up to $12,000 from the
Reserve for Contingencies to proceed with Task 2 of the Wireless Planning Draft Proposal for Consultant
Services. Engaging a consultant to complete specifics tasks associated with Task 2 will assist the County
in reviewing and updating the County’s Wireless Policy / Regulations. Details regarding the scope of work
and a schedule for this project was provided to the Board on May 2, 2012.
This appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved Appropriations #2012073 and 2012074.
APP #2012073
DATE 05/09/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: ECC Appropriations
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 4100 51000 351000 510100 9999 61,620.00 App fund Balance
4 4100 35600 435600 800304 1003 9,520.00
4 4100 35600 435600 800663 1003 52,100.00
TOTAL 123,240.00
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
APP #2012074
DATE 05/09/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: CDD Wireless Planning from Reserve for Contingencies
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 81021 481020 317000 1008 $12,000.00
4 1000 99900 499000 999990 9999 -$12,000.00
TOTAL 0.00
_____
Item No. 9.4. FY 2012/13 Resolution of Appropriations – Capital Budget.
The executive summary states that the County’s FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets were
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 11, 2012. As part of this adopted budget, the Board
approved the General Government, School Division, and Stormwater Capital Improvement funds totaling
$21,624,481.
In order to adhere to financial policies and procedures, capital project budgets must be officially
appropriated by the Board of Supervisors before the County can enter into contracts with outside vendors.
The School Division needs to enter into several contracts in May in order to complete work during the
summer before students return for the 2012-13 school year. This resolution appropriates the General
Government, School Division, and Stormwater Capital Improvement funds. The remainder of the total
County budget, including both general government and school operating funds, School Self-Sustaining
funds, Special Revenue funds, and Debt Service funds will be appropriated on June 6, 2012 following
adoption of the School Division budget by the School Board in May.
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution of Appropriations for FY 12/13 Capital Improvement
Plan budgets (Attachment A) that allocates a total of $21,624,481 to various General Government and
School Division capital improvement accounts for expenditure in FY 12/13.
This appropriation is made up of the following major funds:
General Fund Transfer to CIP $ 3,047,383
General Government CIP 14,720,889
School Division CIP 6,774,647
Stormwater CIP 128,945
SUBTOTAL $24,671,864
Less Interfund Transfers (3,047,383)
TOTAL $21,624,481
In accordance with the Capital Budget, staff also recommends approval of the attached
Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing (Attachment B).
This would allow the County to use up to $16,264,589 in bond proceeds to reimburse the capital budget
for expenditures as indicated in Attachment B Exhibit A.
(Discussion: Mr. Dumler asked if this resolution locks the Board into appropriations.
Mr. Foley explained that those are appropriations that need to move forward so that projects that
are already underway can move forward. He said that will be coming back in June with a separate work
session on the other items for capital that may end up being amendments to the FY13 budget – fire
station, road investments, revenue sharing.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the Resolution of Appropriations for FY
12/13 Capital Improvement Plan budgets that allocates a total of $21,624,481 to various General
Government and School Division capital improvement accounts for expenditure in FY 12/13 ; and
adopted the Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceed s of a
Borrowing.
RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2013
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for necessary capital improvement expenditures
of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013; to prescribe the
provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous
appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such
inconsistency.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Fund 1000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GEN ERAL FUND to be
apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:
Paragraph One: CAPITAL OUTLAYS
Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund $1,748,760
Transfer to Schools Capital Improvements Fund $1,245,068
Transfer to Stormwater Fund $53,555
$3,047,383
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $3,047,383
GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013: $3,047,383
SECTION II - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9010)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:
Paragraph One: COURTS
Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects $241,851
Old Jail Facility Maintenance $19,125
Sheriff's Office maintenance/Replacement Projects $18,568
$279,544
Paragraph Two: PUBLIC SAFETY
ECC Emergency Telephone System $1,385,602
Fire/Rescue Apparatus Replacement - County $292,448
Fire/Rescue Apparatus Replacement - Volunteers $903,132
Fire/Rescue Apparatus - Ivy Station 14 $898,150
Fire/Rescue Lifepacks $415,698
Pantops EMS $71,817
Firearms Range $1,007,213
County 800 Mhz Radio Replacements $44,080
Police Mobile Data Computers $123,787
Police Patrol Video Cameras $137,125
$5,279,052
Paragraph Three: PUBLIC WORKS
City/County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement $75,304
County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement $506,452
Ivy Landfill Remediation $539,507
Moores Creek Septage Receiving $112,895
Storage Facility Lease $62,000
$1,296,158
Paragraph Four: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
Parks - Maintenance/Replacement $329,068
$329,068
Paragraph Five: LIBRARIES
City/County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance $211,470
County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance $24,757
Crozet Library $6,765,497
$7,001,724
Paragraph Six: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS
County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade $417,782
Paragraph Seven: OTHER USE OF FUNDS
Contingency $117,561
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2013:
$14,720,889
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $1,748,760
Revenue from Other Local Sources $1,458,213
Bond Proceeds $10,510,360
Use of Fund Balance $1,003,556
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:
$14,720,889
SECTION III: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
Administrative Technology $188,776
Instructional Technology $593,148
Local Area Network Upgrade $722,093
School Maintenance/Replacement $4,309,823
State Technology Grant $810,807
Storage Facility Lease $150,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2013:
$6,774,647
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $1,245,068
Revenue from Other Local Sources $2,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $786,000
Bond Proceeds $3,776,873
Use of Fund Balance $964,706
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2013:
$6,774,647
SECTION IV: STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9100)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORM WATER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2013:
Paragraph One: STORM WATER PROJECTS
Storm Water Control Program $128,945
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2013:
$128,945
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $53,555
Use of Fund Balance $75,390
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2013:
$128,945
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - IV OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2013
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:
Section I General Fund Transfers to Capital Improvement Programs $3,047,383
Section II General Government Capital Improvements Fund $14,720,889
Section III School Division Capital Improvements Fund $6,774,647
Section IV Storm Water Capital Improvements Fund $128,945
$24,671,864
Less Inter-Fund Transfers ($3,047,383)
GRAND TOTAL - ALBEMARLE COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS $21,624,481
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund
to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations
made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution.
SECTION V
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through I II are appropriated upon the
provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth
in this section. The Director of Finance (Betty Burrell) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Jorda n) are
hereby designated as authorized signatories for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional,
and proportionate appropriations - the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount
named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the
fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total
sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to
be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included or not included in its
estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be
expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make exp enditures which will exceed a
specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred
by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County
Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisi tion for contractual services involving the
issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head
of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney, and the Purc hasing Agent or
Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of
specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be
awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County
Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall
not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus, or
agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the di scharge of their official
duties shall be paid at the rate established by the County Executive for its employees and shall be subject to
change from time to time.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the
Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are
hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and twelve.
*****
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to acquire,
construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own funds
to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to receive
reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax -exempt bonds or taxable debt, or both;
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to incur
other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $16,264,589.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower for
Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the
date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the
Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of a
type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each
case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring
item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an
agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly)
to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the
Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later
than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or
abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The
Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance,
certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year
of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent” within the
meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
*****
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED PROJECTS
FY 2012/13
Schools Amount
1. School Maintenance Projects $3,776,873
Schools Subtotal $3,776,873
General Fund Amount
1. County Server Infrastructure Upgrade $405,000
2. Crozet Library $6,558,500
3. ECC Emergency Telephone System $556,760
4. Fire Rescue Apparatus Replacement-County $283,500
5. Fire Rescue Apparatus Replacement-Volunteer $875,500
6. Fire Rescue Apparatus-Ivy Station 14 $870,670
7. Fire Rescue Lifepacks $402,980
8. Firearms Range $424,520
9. Police Patrol Video Cameras $132,930
General Fund Subtotal $10,510,360
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – FY 2011/12 PROJECTS $14,287,233
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED PROJECTS TO BE BONDED
General Fund Amount
1. Firearms Range $127,356
2. Ivy Fire Station $250,000
3. Crozet Library* $1,600,000
General Fund Subtotal $1,975,356
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – ALL PROJECTS $16,264,589
_____
Item No. 9.5. Cancel June 13, 2012 Regular Night Meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board cancelled its’ June 13, 2012 regular night meeting.
_____
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Item No. 9.6. Resolution of Support for Inmate Workforce/Community Service Program.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
WHEREAS, the Inmate Workforce/Community Service Program provides the opportunity for qualified
inmates to receive credit for fines and court costs and to receive job training; and
WHEREAS, the Inmate Workforce/Community Service Program is a key, fundamental initiative to
achieve successful re-entry of individuals upon release and can mitigate recidivism since those participating in
the program can retain their driver’s license and have no outstanding Court fines and penalties; and
WHEREAS, this program helps reduce jail over-crowding, holds the potential to introduce a work ethic
to young inmates and provides a public service to the taxpayers of the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Department of Parks & Recreation as well as General Services
Department have successfully utilized inmates for a myriad of projects including construction of trails and
shelters at County Parks, general maintenance of County-owned facilities, storm water detention basin
maintenance, general landscaping, equipment maintenance and repairs and custodial projects; and
WHEREAS, the use of inmate labor has netted tremendous benefit to both departments and to the
successful efficient delivery of public services; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle 2008 Resource Management Review conducted on behalf of the
County by the Commonwealth Educational Policy institute in the Center for Public Policy at Virginia
Commonwealth Institute lauded the use of inmate labor by the County as being innovative and strongly
encouraged increasing the use of inmate labor for County-related projects whenever feasible; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle’s FY13-17 adopted Strategic Plan includes the following goal
statement and objectives:
Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges:
a. Increase County’s volunteer management capability;
b. Increase opportunities for citizen self reliance and responsibility for addressing community
issues; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing use and expansion of inmate labor by the County of Albemarle fulfills this
goal and objective statements by promoting self -reliance, enhancing volunteer service and addressing key
community issues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
wholeheartedly endorses the Inmate Workforce/Community Service Program and finds it to be highly
productive and mutually beneficial to both those involved in this program as well as the citizens of the County
of Albemarle; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors encourages all
involved in the criminal justice system to support and expand the use of this program.
_____
Item No. 9.7. Housing Choice Vouchers – Status of Commitment to The Crossings, was received
for information.
The executive summary states that in a February 10, 2010 letter, Virginia Supportive Housing
requested that Albemarle County commit nine (9) project-based Housing Choice Vouchers to The
Crossings at Fourth and Preston located in the City of Charlottesville. The Crossings is a rental property
consisting of sixty efficiency apartments designated for homeless and low-income individuals. The
Albemarle County vouchers would go to nine homeless individuals who were determined to be Albemarle
County residents or who work in Albemarle County. The Board adopted a resolution at its March 3, 2010
meeting committing up to nine vouchers contingent upon HUD providing sufficient funding to support the
vouchers. The City committed twenty-one vouchers.
In April 2011, the Office of Housing entered into a Project-Based Voucher Agreement to Enter into
Housing Assistance Payments Contract with The Crossings. Project-Based Vouchers (PBV’s) are
vouchers that are designated for specific units in a specific project, unlike tenant-based vouchers, which
can be transported by tenants to any eligible unit or property.
In early 2012, staff from the Office of Housing met with leasing staff from The Crossings to
discuss the process of identifying eligible tenants and leasing the units. It was determined that The
Crossings should take applications for the units and refer those applicants to the Office of Housing
because The Crossings has stringent eligibility requirements and is working with service providers for the
homeless. Nine individuals were referred through this process. Office of Housing staff conducted a group
informational session and the nine individuals were processed to receive vouchers. At the same time, the
City was doing much of the same work; however, contacted the U.S. Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for specific guidance. HUD began looking at the process and procedures used by the City and
County to award project-based vouchers to The Crossings and determined that a number of deficiencies
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
existed. After several e-mail exchanges and a number of phone calls, HUD informed the County that
several steps would have to be taken before they could approve executing the required Housing
Assistance Payments Contract with The Crossings including:
1. The County’s PHA Annual Plan would have to be amended or a new one completed to
address the use of project-based vouchers. The County had completed this task in its
HUD approved 2004 Annual Plan; however, HUD indicated that this determination did not
carry over to the County’s more recent 2010 Five-Year Plan submission.
2. The HCV Administrative Plan would have to be updated to include information on the use
of project-based vouchers in accordance with requirements set forth in 24 CFR 983.
3. The County would have to submit a letter to HUD’s Richmond Field Office explaining how
it believed it complied with the intent of regulations in 24 CFR 983, particularly those
related to the requirements for environmental reviews and subsidy layering reviews. Staff
believes it has met the intent of these requirements because the TJPDC conducted the
environmental review, which was certified by the City of Charlottesville. Moreover, the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development completed a subsidy
layering review for other HUD programs used by The Crossings.
4. The County would need to ensure that sufficient funding is available to support the
vouchers. Staff informed HUD that the County intends to request excess funding
available at HUD specifically for Albemarle County. On December 16, 2011 HUD
informed the County by letter that the portion of the County’s eligible funding, representing
an offset of FY 12 reserves, would be available upon request. HUD has advised that the
County’s interpretation of that letter was not exactly correct and it should discuss this
matter in greater detail with HUD’s financial analyst. Through these discussions, it
appears that the County is currently at maximum usage of its budgetary authority for the
entire Housing Choice Voucher Program. Current housing voucher expenses exceed
HUD disbursements by approximately $50,000 per month. That amount should decrease
to about $40,000 per month in July. Deficits are covered by Net Restricted Assets
(reserve funds already disbursed by HUD).
A second level of budget review by staff examined the amount of funding used for project-
based vouchers, which is limited to twenty percent (20%) of the County’s total budget
authority. This analysis revealed that the County is at or slightly over this 20% target.
However, if and when, the County should begin funding our outstanding commitments to
The Crossings and seven additional vouchers to Treesdale, it will likely be at or near 25%.
Staff is taking the following steps to address the deficiencies noted by HUD and the concern
related to budget authority for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and, in particular, reducing the
funding committed for project-based vouchers to no more than 20% of the County’s total budget authority
at a sufficient level to fund the vouchers:
The PHA Annual Plan and Administrative Plan are under revision and are subject to a 45-
day public comment period that began April 17. A required public hearing requesting
input from the public and adoption of both Plans by the Board will be scheduled for the
June 6, 2012 Board meeting. Upon adoption, the Plans will be sent to HUD with the
Annual Plan for approval prior to implementation.
The Office of Housing has discontinued issuing any new vouchers for any purpose.
The Office of Housing will close all waiting lists for the voucher program after the required
public notice is posted.
A meeting will be called inviting leasing staff and owner representatives on all properties
with project-based vouchers to discuss the status of funding and the possibility of
reducing the number of project-based vouchers in use. Tenants currently under project-
based vouchers would not be affected but new leases may not be approved.
There is no budget impact to the County for the Housing Choice Voucher assistance
payments unless the County exceeds its annual budget authority which is not anticipated.
Staff is providing this for informational purposes. Future actions will be requested as noted above.
(Discussion: Mr. Dumler said that the one thing that seems to be holding up this process is the
public hearing requirement pursuant to the adoption of the PHA annual plan, and asked if that would be
the last thing standing in the way of getting the vouchers in place.
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, explained that there is not a direct answer to that question.
HUD does reserve 75 days to review the plan once the County adopts it and send it to them.
Mr. Davis said that it is slated for the Board’s June 6 agenda.
Mr. White reiterated that HUD can potentially take up to 75 days. He added that it has been “a
nightmare” over the last few months for the Housing Office. The staff has had a lot of conversations with
HUD. They think they know where they need to go now. He said that he has not received a lot of
optimistic response from HUD on either timing or whether they are going to require that the County
request waivers to some of the regulations. He said that if waivers are requested, they will have to go to
HUD Central in Washington.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Dumler commented that there is the possibility that even with jumping through all these hoops,
the County still won’t be compliant.
Mr. White confirmed that is the case.
Ms. Mallek said that at another time, the Board needs to have further discussion on alternatives.
Mr. White said that he could discuss it further with the Board at the June 6 meeting.
Mr. Dumler asked that the Board be provided with any updates in the interim.
Mr. White said he would provide any updates as he receives them .)
________________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements
and VDoT Six Year Secondary Construction Program Budget (FY11-12 to FY16-17). (April 23 and April
30, 2012.)
Mr. Benish summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board
members:
The purpose of this public hearing is to receive input on the County’s Priority List of Secondary
Road Improvements (Attachment A), the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction
Program Budget (Attachment B) and a proposal by Mr. Tom Sullivan to pave the unpaved section of
Blenheim Road (Attachment D) in southern Albemarle County.
The County’s Priority List and the VDOT Construction Program Budget are typically reviewed
annually and address the following:
The County’s Priority List establishes the priorities for improvements to roads in the
State’s Secondary Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher).
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Secondary Road
Construction Program Budget is based on the County’s Priority List and is reflective of
available State road funding allocated to the County.
VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County:
FISCAL
YEAR
REG. STATE
FUNDS
AVAILABLE
MIN. UNPAVED
ROAD FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS
2012-13 $318,031 $0 $0 $318,031
2013-14 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
2014-15 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
2015-16 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
2016-17 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
2017-18 $350,034 $0 $0 $350,034
On April 4, 2012, the Board held a work session to discuss the County’s Priority List and the
VDOT’s Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program (also referred to as the Six Year Plan).
Two documents are before the Board for review and approval: the County’s Priority List of
Secondary Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget.
Each is discussed below:
County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) – VDOT has
determined that Doctors Crossing (Rt. 784), Midway Road (Rt. 688), Keswick Drive (Rt.731), and Gillums
Ridge Rd. (Rt. 787) are now eligible for Rural Rustic Road paving. These projects had previously been
identified as high priority projects on the “Regular Road Paving Priority List.”
At the April 4th work session, the Board directed staff to move these projects from the Regular
Road Paving Priority List to the Rural Rustic Road Paving Priority List. Staff has maintained their relative
status as high priority paving projects and placed them on the Rural Rustic Road List after the six existing
highest priority rural rustic road projects, which are already programmed in VDOT’s Secondary Six Year
Program. All of the above-referenced roads have the highest traffic volumes of all unpaved roads not
programmed for construction in the two Paving Projects Lists. The only other modifications to the
County’s Priority List are non-substantive changes to project information provided on the list (project
status, cost estimates, traffic counts, other corrections/typos, etc.).
The Board also discussed at their work session the concept of considering pedestrian and
sidewalk projects as viable projects for prioritizing for construction using secondary road funds. Because
there are limited available funds over the next six years of the Six Year Plan to accomplish any new
projects, staff has not included any new sidewalk related projects in this year’s proposed Priority List.
Staff recommends that the priority sidewalk projects identified in the County’s Capital Improvements
Program be considered for inclusion on the Priority List for next year (2013) (Attachment C). The County
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
has requested $1.0 million in FY13 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program funding (with a $1.0 million County
match) for four sidewalk improvements projects, as noted on Attachment C.
VDOT Six Year Secondary System Construction Program (Attachment B) – Due to the limited
amount of State funding available over the next six years, major construction projects identified on the
County’s Strategic Priority List (page 1 of Attachment A) do not appear to be viable projects to include in
the VDOT Six Year Secondary System Construction Program at this time. The emphasis of this year’s
update is to allocate available funds over the six year planning period to complete the high priority projects
currently identified in the Six Year Construction Program. As a result, there are no major changes to the
proposed funding allocations shown in the Draft FY13-18 Six Year Secondary System Construction
Program. The projected funds for FY13 through FY17 are allocated to the Black Cat Road bridge
replacement project and the Bear Creek Road and Pocket Lane Rural Rustic Road paving projects, as
approved in last year’s VDOT Six Year Construction Program (FY12-17). Projected funds for FY18, the
“new” sixth year of the Program, are allocated for the Bear Creek Road and Pocket Lane road paving
projects, because all of the higher priority bridge projects are projected to be fully funded by FY17. There
remains an outstanding balance to complete funding on each of these two paving projects. Should
additional funding be needed in FY18 for any of the higher priority bridge projects, those funds would be
reallocated to that project as required.
Staff recommends approval of the Draft VDOT Six Year Secondary System Construction Program
(Attachment B).
Blenheim Road Paving Proposal – The County has received a proposal from Mr. Tom Sullivan,
a property owner on Blenheim Road (Rt. 795), to pave the remaining one-quarter mile section of Blenheim
Road (Attachment D). Mr. Sullivan is proposing to fund the cost of the paving project and has also agreed
with CenturyLink to subsidize the installation of a fiber based broadband network in this area. Installation
of fiber optic lines could be done in conjunction with the paving project. The road paving project could be
done as a VDOT permit project by an individual; however, VDOT will not issue a permit for this paving
project until the Board requests VDOT to approve the paving project. The project can be paved under the
Rural Rustic Road standards, which will potentially result in limited impact to adjacent properties. Mr.
Peter Kleeman submitted a letter and petition opposing the paving of Blenheim Road (Attachment E.) The
Six Year Road Plan review and public hearing process is being used to receive public comment on the
project and for the Board to consider and act on this request. VDOT has stated that this project does not
have to be included in the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program for this section to be
paved by the property owner.
Staff mailed a notice to property owners along Blenheim Road between the intersection of
Jefferson Mill Road and Mount Pleasant Farm Road informing them of the opportunity to provide input on
this project at the May 9th public hearing or to provide comments to staff prior to this meeting. Further
information regarding this request is provided in Attachment C. Staff does not have a recommendation on
this project. VDOT does not oppose the project and will issue a permit for the work if the County approves
the project.
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of
State/VDOT secondary road construction funds which do not impact County funding.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board:
1) Approve the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A);
2) Authorize the County Executive to sign the VDOT Secondary System Construction
Program Budget for Albemarle County consistent with the County’s Priority List
(Attachment B); and
3) Approve or deny Mr. Sullivan’s proposal to pave the unpaved section of Blenheim Road
(Attachment D).
If further information is needed prior to an action, staff requests that the Board provide direction to
staff on the additional information it desires.
_____
Mr. Benish stated that there are no new projects listed in the County’s priority list of Secondary
Road Improvements; all public inquiries and requests were projects already reflected on the priority list.
He said that VDOT has determined that four unpaved roads are now eligible for rural rustic road paving,
and the Board directed staff to move those roads and prioritize them on the rural rustic list; which has
been done. Mr. Benish said that the only other changes to the plan are primarily informational updates for
traffic counts, costs, estimates, etc.
Mr. Benish said that for the VDOT Six-Year Secondary Construction Program, the amount of
available funding is approximately $350,000 per year for the next six years – which are fees received from
cellular towers located within public road corridors. He said that there is very limited funding available to
support projects over the next six years. The projects in the proposed VDOT program are focuses on the
Board’s priorities of bridge improvement projects – Dry Bridge Road, Broomley Road and Black Cat Road.
The State also has a priority for Dick Woods Road bridge replacement, which is included on the list and is
funded entirely by Federal bridge funds.
Mr. Benish stated that there are two rural rustic road projects in the out years after funding of the
bridge projects over the next six years. The projects in the proposed VDOT program are focused on the
Board’s priorities of bridge improvement projects – which have been the priorities for several years. He
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
added that the emphasis in reviewing the plan was to ensure that over the course of the six years the
bridge projects would be funded. The two rural rustic roads - Happy Creek and Bear Creek – are
placeholders that will be evaluated after funding for the higher bridge priority projects.
Mr. Boyd said that he has tried to maintain the integrity of the list, and asked if each of the roads
have been on the list longer than the ones it has bumped.
Mr. Benish explained that the projects have been on the regular road funding list for a number of
years and were priorities two through six. Most of the roads have been on the list for a number of years –
with Gilliam’s Ridge Road being the most recent added, although it has already been on the list for two to
three years. He noted that the roads on the list generally have the highest traffic volumes of any of the
unpaved roads in the system. Subject to the Board’s consideration, staff did put the roads high on the
rural rustic road list after the projects that had already received some funding.
Mr. Boyd stated that in the interest of fairness, they should maintain the idea of first come, first
served. He said he does not see how more traffic makes a higher priority on the list. If there are safety
issues, then that is another situation, but this is designed to be low-priority or low-activity roads.
Ms. Mallek said that she disagrees with the first come, first served approach because some roads
have over 300 cars compared to one that has 80, and there were huge ranges of price involved. She said
that she thinks the Board should focus on the roads that have the most traffic and sections of perhaps
high-need resurfacing, and the flats could be left as gravel in order to stretch the money. She pointed out
that the cost of one of the roads is $1.2 million with only 80 cars. She said that she does not think that is
the way the County should be spending its money. In her opinion, the priority should be the need of the
particular relative to others rather than the time it came forward.
Mr. Rooker commented that a priority has never been established just by when a road got on the
list.
Mr. Boyd said that there are roads such as Gilbert Station Road that has been on the list for 30
years, and it kept getting bumped.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that there were structural reasons why it couldn’t be done.
Mr. Boyd disagreed, stating that these are rural roads, not high volume secondary roads. These
are roads that by nature cannot have much traffic on them. He said that Doctors Crossings and Stony
Point Pass are both dangerous roads.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that they are very costly projects.
Mr. Boyd said that Stony Point has been pushed down on the list because there were four roads
that were put above it.
Mr. Rooker noted that four of those roads are in the Rivanna District. He said that the problem is
that the County used to get almost $6 million a year in Secondary Road funds, and now it gets $350,000
per year – which means the County has lost 95% of Secondary Road funds. There is no money for any of
these projects for the next five or six years. He stated that the cost of the road and the amount of traffic
served must be factors to be considered. If there is a road that is going to cost $1.2 million and serve 80
cars, and you can take that money and pave every road on the list, there is not much of a choice.
Mr. Boyd said that many of these are competing roads in his district, and he is trying to figure out
the best way to treat them fairly on the list.
Mr. Thomas stated that many roads have been bumped repeatedly. He mentioned that Jarman’s
Gap Road was pushed down numerous times.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board stepped up to get that done. Mr. Rooker added that Jarman’s Gap
was a paving project.
Ms. Mallek stated that it took 25 years to get it done, but it has thousands of cars per day instead
of 50 or 200. She added that a lot of the roads that have not been done are ones where there was not
agreement on the part of the residents.
Mr. Thomas said that he has received a lot of emails on Polo Grounds Road also.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that a lot of the roads that have not been done are ones where there is not
agreement on the part of the residents, and unless everybody signs it is not going to happen.
Mr. Boyd said that he has not been able to verify that everyone has to sign in order to do a rural
rustic paving project.
Mr. Benish said that staff tries to strike a balance of keeping the priorities based on a longer term
commitment so the projects are not always being moved down to the bottom of the list, but the difficulty of
having two separate lists means two competing priorities.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Mallek emphasized that it would be discussed again, but it was important to note that this
shuffling has to happen.
Mr. Benish reported that a property owner, Mr. Tom Sullivan, has offered to fund and pave
approximately one-quarter mile section of Blenheim Road, Route 795, located in the Scottsville District.
He said that staff has determined that the road can be paved under the rural rustic road standards and no
additional right of way is needed for the roadway. He said that the project would be fully funded by the
property owner. Mr. Benish said that he has confirmed with VDOT that the project does not need to be
included in the VDOT Six-Year Secondary Road Program as it is considered a “permit project.” There are
no State funds involved and it is the Board’s prerogative whether or not to add it to their local priority list.
Mr. Benish said that VDOT needs direction as to whether or not to issue the permit for the work.
Mr. Benish referenced a map presented as to the location of the road, noting that the Board has
received two petitions – one submitted by Mr. Gloeckner on behalf of Mr. Sullivan indicating support for
the road paving project and internet service improvement in the area, and a petition from property owners
who are opposed to the project. He said that the County has notified property owners within a three-mile
section of roadway around the proposed improvement to give them the opportunity to speak about the
project. As of today, Mr. Benish said he has heard from eight people – five opposed and three supporting
– either by phone, email or letter.
Mr. Dumler said that he made the request to have the letter sent out to the property owner and
appreciates Mr. Benish taking care of it.
Mr. Benish reported that the Blenheim Road project can be done as a rural rustic road project
which limits the amount of work that can be done. The work can be done within the existing right of way
using a “pave in place” type program with limited improvements necessary outside of the existing road
section. In order to develop it under rural rustic road standards, he said, the Board needs to adopt a
resolution designating the road as a rural rustic road and meet the criteria for a rural rustic road. The
standards are: 1) it must be in and stay in the State Secondary Road System; it must carry not more than
1,500 trips per day and be used predominately for local traffic; it must have minimal anticipated growth;
and incorporate the effort with VDOT and the County’s Comp Plan. The policy also states that citizens
along the road should support the road improvement.
Mr. Benish said that staff does not have a recommendation on the project but did identify some
favorable factors: it would reduce long-term maintenance costs according to VDOT; it would make the
road safer if speeds are adhered to; and it would reduce or eliminate dust issues. He stated that
unfavorable factors are the opposition from several property owners along the actual unpaved road
section; the diminishment of the rural character of the roadway by going to a paved section; and possible
increases in speed once the road is paved.
Mr. Benish said that staff is requesting the Board to approve the priority list of Secondary Road
Improvements, which is the County’s priority list, and VDOT’s Six-Year Secondary Road Plan, and to
provide direction to VDOT as to whether it wants the section of Blenheim Road paved. He stated that for
the latter action, staff would have to come back to the Board with several resolutions to be put on its June
6 consent agenda.
Mr. Dumler said that there is no recommendation from staff to allocate any money towards
sidewalk improvement projects, and asked what the methodology was behind the priority order of the
improvements.
Mr. Benish responded that it was a combination of priorities set in the master plans, if the projects
fall in those areas; consideration of the density of development and whether there are major attraction
areas such as schools or commercial centers; and whether there is transit in the area. He said that a
number of the projects have transit associated with them, or have schools, commercial centers or major
employers.
Mr. Dumler commented that he understands that sidewalks need to be in place so people can get
to the bus stops, but if people do not have cars or buses, they need to walk and should have sidewalks.
He also said that the priorities identified in the master plan would not cover Neighborhoods Four, Five, Six
and Seven as they had not been master planned. Mr. Dumler emphasized that the number one thing he
heard from people at the mini-master planning meetings was that they wanted a sidewalk or path to ride
their bikes on.
Mr. Rooker said that at some point the Board needs to provide more money in the CIP for urban
pedestrian projects, adding that as areas become more intensely developed people want to walk to their
destinations. Right now the County does not have safe ways to do that, except in a few limited places.
Ms. Mallek asked if the fully funded projects on the list would be done this year.
Mr. Benish responded, “no”. The County has applied for revenue-sharing funding for four of the
first six projects that are not completely funded. Staff hopes that with the revenue sharing funding
they will be able to complete those, but there were also some logistical issues with getting the
projects designed and queuing them up to get built through a bid process. He said that it will
probably take three to four years to complete the four projects. Mr. Benish stated that the section
of the Crozet project that is funded with the Safe Routes to School money is moving forward, but
there is a part of that project that is not completely funded and that part would be funded with
revenue sharing funds, to be done within the next year.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Ms. Mallek said that they have the money to get to the crosswalks at the school.
Mr. Benish said that the crosswalks will be done; they are programmed and under design. He
also said that the South Pantops project is under design, but there are not sufficient monies to complete
that, but once that funding is available it will be done – probably within the next fiscal year. Mr. Benish
stated that Fontaine Road is scheduled to be done within the next fiscal year. Barracks Road is a new
project that will probably take several years to go through the design and build. He noted that the County
has applied for revenue sharing funds for Barracks Road and for Hydraulic Road. Mr. Benish said that the
Hollymead Drive project is fully funded and is scheduled to be done towards the end of the next fiscal year
or FY13-14. He added that the Office of Facilities Development have a number of other projects it is
working on so there are only so many projects that can be executed at one time. There is an
implementation timing beyond just the funding being there. He reiterated that it will probably be two to
three years before Barracks Road and Hydraulic Road are completed.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was the category that covered the landing spot for the Harris
Teeter/cloverlawn area on Route 250. Mr. Benish responded that it could be included on this list, which
comes from the Board’s CIP requests. This list actually preceded the project becoming a more defined
initiative. He said that staff hopes to keep the list consistent and focus on priority projects.
Mr. Snow said that they had talked about taking some of the fund balance to put into revenue
sharing, and asked if it would help move some of these projects forward. Mr. Benish said that revenue
sharing would help as long as it is focused on transportation improvements, and could be used for any
number of improvements including sidewalk projects.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a deadline for revenue sharing. Mr. Benish stated that for FY13,
VDOT did the process a little bit differently – starting the application before the General Assembly began
work on the budget to get input from localities; Albemarle applied in November, and the Board agreed to
apply for up to $1 million for the four projects identified on this list. Mr. Benish said that his understanding
was that by June 20th VDOT would be providing their recommended projects to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board for funding.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was possible to apply for any unclaimed revenue sharing money from the
previous year. Mr. Benish responded that they used to do a second round of applications, but he does not
recall that happening over the past few years.
Mr. Rooker suggested the County consider participating if there is a second round and the County
has a fund balance. Mr. Benish said that staff would come back to the Board and provide funding options,
but the matching funds would need to be made available for those projects.
Mr. Greg Banks, of VDOT said that he was not aware of a second round, but would check on it
and report back to staff. Mr. Banks added that present with him tonight is the Acting Resident
Administrator, Mr. Jamie Glass, until the position is filled.
Regarding the Blenheim Road matter, Mr. Dumler said that Mr. Benish had mentioned the
conditions in which the paving of a road should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for
road improvements in the rural area, and asked if the Comp Plan has a cohesive vision on that particular
topic. He asked if the Board has essentially made a policy decision before on paving in the rural area, or
is this just staff’s take on it.
Mr. Benish responded that this was taken directly from VDOT’s guidelines. The intent of the
statement is that the Board of Supervisors is saying that its growth management policy and
implementation policies are indicating that the area is not an area for growth or development – and
because it is designated as rural area, most rural areas could fall into that category. He said that there is
some understanding that there is a limitation on growth along the road and on traffic volume, so if there
are special permits for intensive use they need to take the fact this is a rural rustic road into consideration
so that the impacts are not violated. Mr. Benish stated that one of the roads that they have agreed to
move forward with is Fortune Lane, which accesses the police firing range. Mr. Benish said he did a
clearance with VDOT to ensure that the decision did not violate the resolution based on VDOT’s rural
rustic paving criteria. Those are things the County has to consider in the future. He added that when the
Board adopts a resolution, it is essentially including these criteria.
Mr. Dumler commented that these guidelines do not really speak to the County’s growth
management policies in the rural area, and wondered if the Comp Plan has any vision statements
pertaining to the paving of rural roads.
Mr. Benish responded that there are no statements specific to rural rustic road paving; there are
goals, objectives and strategies that could be interpreted to this – with a goal for allocation of capital
resources that states that the emphasis should be on improvements within the designated development
area. He said there are also rural area goals that address protecting the character of the rural area, and
there are statements in the transportation section regarding providing improvements in the rural area for
safe roadways – as opposed to capacity. Mr. Benish said that to the extent that the improvements affect
safety and rural character, those types of goals and objectives could weigh on the decision. He added
that they have discussed having the Comp Plan update taking a more direct approach with unpaved roads
to further refine the expectations.
Mr. Rooker said that the County has pretty much abandoned the idea of paving rural roads due to
the priority of urban projects until the rural rustic road program came along, which made it feasible and
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
cost effective to pave certain rural roads. He said that the cost is about one-fifth to one-sixth per mile
compared to standard secondary roads, and no easements are needed.
Mr. Boyd said that it also saves VDOT money in maintenance costs.
Mr. Dumler said that VDOT could spot pave specific areas more cheaply also.
Mr. Benish said that there was a statement about how the County has dealt with support from the
community on rural rustic roads; the County has not done that many rural rustic roads but have two
occasions where they were not funded based on public position – one being in Redfields where staff
decided based on input from a Board member to hold a meeting, and at that meeting they determined
there was not a strong consensus from the community that they wanted the project so it did not move
forward. He stated that staff has not made an expectation that there has to be “100% support,” but it is
more of the community’s position. For regular projects requiring right of way, he said, dedication of right of
way is required – so that establishes whether there is interest in doing the project.
Ms. Mallek asked if one of the categories for consideration is high intensity use of the road which
would have it not being recommended for rural rustic designation. She asked if the reverse was true in
that the rural rustic road would not be a location for high intensity use or subdivision.
Mr. Benish responded, “yes”. He added that if staff recommends that the project be done as rural
rustic paving, VDOT and staff believe the road is going to continue to meet the criteria.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ronald Hahn, a resident of White Mountain Road, Route 736, said that Mr. Snow had visited
this road with him and discussed its condition. Mr. Hahn said that the road is in bad shape, and they are
hoping to get some spot paving. He stated that he has traveled on most of the roads in the Plan and none
of them are as bad as Route 736. Mr. Hahn said that he called about the condition of Route 736 when he
bought his house in 1975 and was told at that time that it was not on any plan. Route 736 has been in the
Six-Year Plan about a dozen times, but it continues to get pushed down by something else.
Ms. Mallek asked what the length of the section on the slope was. Mr. Hahn said that it is about
100 yards and said there are about four places on the road, with two of them being patched about 10
years ago.
Mr. Snow said that he previously took Mr. David Crim with him to visit the road.
Mr. Hahn presented a letter to the Board from Mr. Tommy Harvey, Fire Chief for the Rockfish
Valley Volunteer Fire Department, expressing concern about the safety of the residents in the event of an
emergency due to the narrowness of the road. He said that in 2007 he wrote a letter to Senator Creigh
Deeds, and Mr. Allan Sumpter responded with a statement that by June 2008 they had spent $25,000 on
the road just to keep it passable. Mr. Hahn mentioned that between 2008-09, the emergency part of the
road has been fixed 64 times just so busses could pass. He then thanked Mr. Snow and Mr. Rooker,
stating that Mr. Rooker was the only Board member who expressed any interest in helping.
Mr. Peter Kleeman said that he was present to represent Ms. Laura Dollard and other residents of
Blenheim Road. Mr. Kleeman said that he was present to request that the Board reject the proposal to
pave the road, as there were several problems with the proposal submitted. The applicant fails to meet
the criteria that were set out in the communication letter between the County and the applicant, as well as
some other errors and flaws. He said that Mr. Tom Sullivan is not a property owner in the County – it is all
owned by Murcielago, LLC, a corporation based in Salem, Massachusetts. Mr. Kleeman said that
Murcielago would be paying for the paving of this stretch of road, and their desire is to pave a section of
the road that is almost entirely on the property of Laura Dollard – one of the project’s opponents who own
property on both sides of the road. He also said that one of the criteria was that the road would be
supported by 100% of the property owners from Mr. Sullivan’s residence on Blenheim Road to the
intersection with Jefferson Mill Road. Mr. Kleeman stated that in the staff report and in the information he
has provided approximately one-third of the population has responded. All of the opposition people have
properties on that road were never even approached by the applicant as to whether they were in favor of it
or not.
Mr. Kleeman said that Murcielago, LLC, owns 54 properties in southern Albemarle County – and
over 30 of them are for sale at a value of over $11 million, with many of them having subdivision rights.
He stated that many of the properties have subdivision rights and thus might put the road outside of the
realm of a rural rustic road. Mr. Kleeman said that on that basis, it would be appropriate for the Board to
reject the request and to be consistent with their vision statement passed at the Board’s last meeting,
“honoring the rural heritage, scenic beauty, and the natural and historic resources in Albemarle County.”
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, said he represents the applicant – Tom Sullivan – who would like to do a rural
rustic road. Mr. Gloeckner explained that Mr. Sullivan simply wants to pave 16-feet wide, rehabilitate the
ditches that are no longer there, eliminate the dust and sediment going toward the Hardware River, not
touch the trees at all – not widen the road, but work within what is already there. Mr. Gloeckner said that
he ran a vehicle count on this road earlier that day and found that there is an average of about 10 vehicles
per hour, with the early morning commute time having 18 cars – six of which were farmhands that worked
at Mount Ida and Mount Pleasant. He stated that the road is gutted and wash boarded, and needs to be
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
paved. He asked that the Board look favorably upon the application. He or Mr. Sullivan can respond to
any questions from Board members.
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Catterton Road in Free Union, said he was present to talk about
Buck Mountain Ford Lane. Mr. Martin explained that in 1997 VDOT wanted to pave his road, Catterton
Road, but the neighbors got together and over a span of about four years opposed it and the Board
changed its mind and took it off the list. He said that Buck Mountain Ford Lane intersects Catterton Road,
running north/south, and it has a ford – which he was told is the last one in Albemarle County. Mr. Martin
stated that the ford is beautiful and is extremely narrow, with vistas on either side and two houses set back
along a mile stretch of the road. He said that on weekends people park at the intersection of Catterton
Road and Buck Mountain Ford Lane just to walk it. He said that it is a road that does not need to be
paved; it has a very, very low traffic volume. Mr. Martin stated that the ford is on Buck Mountain Creek
and runs to the Rivanna River, which is not far from the watershed. He said that he loves the ford, but it
needs to be raised and needs a bridge given its proximity to the river, which leads to the reservoir. He
added that the road north of the ford is different in character, and has small houses and lots for about a
one-half mile, with the northern portion of the road perhaps being a candidate for paving – but south of the
ford, there is no reason to pave it. It’s an Albemarle County resource for everybody to enjoy, and not
every road needs to be paved. Some roads should be preserved for future generations for everybody’s
enjoyment.
Ms. Laura Dollard said that she has lived at Broomfield Farm since 1988. She said that the farm
is 200+ acres. It is the perfect farm, which is why she is still there. Ms. Dollard stated that the farm has
been organic the entire 20+ years, and she has had the biggest bird count in the County for 16 years. She
said that she sells organic food at the farmers market and has been there for 12 years. There is nothing
wrong with road. Ms. Dollard said that when she came to the farm there were about 10 cars per day, and
now there were many more. It’s not the number of cars; it’s the speed. They are traveling between 50
mph and 60 mph, and it is hard for her to turn into her driveway without fearing one will come up and hit
her.
She stated that her main concern is safety, but she is also concerned about the historic nature of
the area, stating that she read in the CAAR newspaper that Scottsville is the biggest historic district in the
U.S. because it contains Monticello and Ash Lawn and covered all of that ground. Ms. Dollard said that
the road in question is the one Jefferson road on his horse to Scottsville. She thinks that it needs to be
preserved instead of developed. She added that she has removed a lot of invasive trees and has let
native trees grow. To pave the road and have a lot of traffic is very antithetical to what people want to do.
Ms. Dollard said that people who own farms in the area do not want land developed all around them. It is
not good for wildlife, it is not good for people that want to live in the country, and she does not think it is
good for the County [if they are] to preserve their history. She added that if someone wants to make
money, there are other places to do it that would not disturb what they have there. Ms. Dollard said they
have a tremendous value her.
Mr. Tom Sullivan said that he is a resident of the Scottsville District and owns 100% of
Murcielago, a limited liability company that holds the property just as most other farms in the area are
held. Mr. Sullivan said that they have two farms that connect between the unpaved road and 21 families
live on the farm. He said that they are the biggest user of the road. He has to run tractors and trucks with
cattle from each side of the road. Mr. Sullivan stated that if they do it as a rural rustic road they will not
have to touch anything on either side of the road. It is a simple decision. For his farm, it would make
things much easier. He said that they are the largest farm in the County and have been for 10 years. He
also stated that he does not have 54 properties on the market – he has three houses that he bought back
from banks in foreclosure from people who developed it over the last few years. Mr. Sullivan stated that
he has invested $250,000 to bring high-speed internet into the entire area, which will serve another 150
families in the area. They have also put underground power lines in at a cost of several hundred thousand
dollars. He said that he owns Mount Ida, which was built in 1795 and Mount Pleasant, which was built in
1810. They spent $3 million a year maintaining their property and maintaining 4.5 miles of road frontage
where they also hire Albemarle County Police and Sheriff to patrol. Mr. Sullivan said that when they
designed the first 3.5 miles of road they intentionally put traffic-calming curves in it. There is a one-lane
bridge that will prevent any real traffic moving back and forth. He stated that this is not a development
area, and he does not have any property there that he could develop. Mr. Sullivan said that he wants to
pave the road to cut down on dust and debris, and to make it easier to move farm vehicles.
Mr. Brian Ward said that he and his wife own a farm on the section of Blenheim Road that Mr.
Sullivan wants to pave. Mr. Ward said that the three driveways on the quarter-mile section do not want
the section paved. He said that the Board should still go with the decision made five years ago not to
pave it. He stated that he has tractors and has never had a problem with it. The Board should leave it the
way it is.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of the County’s Priority List for the Secondary Road
Improvements as set out in Attachment A. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The County’s Priority List is set out on the following pages:)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
_____
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Rooker then moved for approval of the VDOT FY13-18 Six Year Secondary Road
Construction Program, as reflected in Attachment B. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program is set out below:)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
_____
Mr. Snow said that he would like to submit the road Mr. Hahn mentioned as an emergency paving,
similar to what was done in Red Hill in 2010. He confirmed that he was referring to “spot” paving of the
road on the hill and past Mr. Hahn’s driveway.
Ms. Mallek said that there was a separate pot of money used for the steep section of Patterson
Mill last year for the very same reason, because they could not keep it open.
Mr. Snow said that Mr. Crim previously explained to him that if a significant amount of money has
been spent on the road it could qualify for an emergency pavement.
Mr. Glass stated that he was not familiar with the area. He said that VDOT will take a look at the
road – but it sounds like something they could handle through the maintenance program so it would not
have to come out of Six-Year Plan funding.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to discuss the Blenheim Road project. He remembers the
Board’s first discussing of this road in 2007 – at which time there was a lot of community opposition. He
does not think rustic rural roads destroy the road’s rural nature because it paves the road in place; there is
no excessive widening of it or putting in any kind of extra area to the road. In his mind, all it does is
improve the road. He does not think the Board can pass up on an opportunity when a citizen wants to
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
come forward and pay for something like this. Mr. Boyd said that he has not had anyone complain to him
about the previous rural rustic paving road, but some people have said they felt the road was much better.
He stated that people will drive fast on gravel roads just as much as paved roads. He said that this is an
opportunity that the Board should not pass up; it should move forward and approve the request.
Mr. Dumler said that this is a tough decision for him. He said that he has met with Mr. Sullivan –
who provides a ton of services for the people of the Scottsville District. Mr. Sullivan is a big job creation
engine in that district and he uses the road a lot. At the same time it is hard for him to ignore the people
who spoke out against the road. It is their frontage. The reason last time that this road was done in the
fashion it was done was because the easement could not be obtained and because the landowners did
speak out against the project. Mr. Dumler said that the landowners did not want people speeding by, and
he does not think there is any “love lost” between the individuals who spoke out today. There are
concerns about development potential in the area; he does not know if this road would facilitate that and
make it worse or better. Mr. Dumler said that at this time, he is not leaning towards supporting it, because
he does not think it meets the criteria that are set out. He does not see how the Board can say “five
opposed, three for” meets citizens’ support of a project in an area. He does not think any good faith
interpretation of citizen support is five against and three for.
Mr. Boyd said that the last time this project came up, it went basically along the same lines –
concern about potential development – and in the past 10 years that has not happened. He added that
you have to take somebody on face value.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Dumler. He added that there is a good case on both sides,
but when there is a situation where you have people who live along the frontage not wanting the road
paved the Board has followed a policy of not paving or allowing paving to take place. He said that in this
case the people who have the right of way on both sides of the road do not want it paved. He said that he
does not know how that can be overcome.
Mr. Snow said there are a lot more people that use the road and it is a public road. It is not taking
property to make it work; it is paving what is there to make it better for a lot of people that use the road to
use it more efficiently. He said that he will support the request.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Gloeckner to address the Board, and asked him what the drainage situation
along this section would be, given that switching it to hard surface would mean the rain would no longer
soak in.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the section has only one pipe for 1,800 feet left to be paved. The pipe
has recently been cleaned out but VDOT will need to help determine if the inverts are eaten out. He said
that when the applicant started the petition, he determined that the pipe was choked, and the road now is
wash boarded in places. Mr. Gloeckner said that the ditches are almost gone because the road goes up
against the bank on both sides. If they do the rural section it means that 16 feet would be hard surfaced,
primed and double sealed, and shaped so as to have a crown that leaves two feet of shoulder on each
side with enough room to make improvements for a ditch on both sides of the road. He stated that the
woodland area there is beautiful and could not be touched because the large trees are behind the 15-foot
buffer on each side.
Ms. Mallek commented that this would put the ditches in jeopardy, and said that there would be
permitting needed to dig up the ditches. She stated that when you go in and make a deep ditch it affects
the survivability of big trees along the way.
Mr. Snow said that Mr. Gloeckner was saying that by the time you crown the road it would create a
natural ditch from the paving and the crowning.
Ms. Mallek said that when the water cannot soak in, there is nowhere for it to go and it will sit on
the road.
Mr. Gloeckner said that is what is happening currently. In fact the road is so flat that when the
water comes it floods the road. They need to get the water off the road and into a ditch, so that is what
this is all about.
Ms. Mallek said the Board could deal with this now or table it until the end of the other public
hearings.
Mr. Boyd moved to provide direction to VDOT to issue a permit to the property owner for the
paving of the unpaved section of Blenheim Road as a rural rustic road. Mr. Thomas seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
________________
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2010-00042, David Brown Auto Detailing and
Repair (Sign #120).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a public garage with auto detailing and repair.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery
uses.
SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public garage.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - Preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density .5 units /acre of
development lots.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 599 Rocky Hollow Rd. (Rt. 769); east of Stony Point Rd. (Rt. 20).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 062000000076A1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(April 23 and April 30, 2012.)
Mr. Benish said that this is a request for a special use permit for a public garage with auto
detailing and repair. He said that the site is located on Rocky Hollow Road – east of Route 20 – and the
property is on the western side of the Southwest Mountains and is characterized by large farm areas and
a group of small residential lots. He stated that Mr. Brown has been operating a public garage on the
property but did not have a special use permit, so he is requesting a special use permit for a three-bay,
1,600 square foot repair facility. Mr. Benish presented a depiction of the site, noting the location of the
residence and the garage. He also pointed out the buffer area. He showed a picture of the existing
garage and operation, and a development plan that shows the location of a planned parking area and the
operation of the facility. Mr. Benish also pointed out the 100-foot buffer area and said that the conditions
recommended required improvements within 20 feet of the stream, so the area of improvement is much
less than what is shown on the 100-foot buffer area.
Ms. Mallek asked if the applicant had encroached into the buffer with the building.
Mr. Benish stated that the buildings have been there for a long time. One of the remediation
efforts the applicant is willing to do is improvements within a 20-foot band within the stream, which is a
method typically used in these types of situations to retrofit improvements to stream areas.
He said that staff has reviewed the request with a focus on impacts to adjacent properties, noise,
light, potential water contamination, impacts to stream buffers, and that the scale of use is consistent with
the rural areas and surrounding areas. Mr. Benish stated that staff believes the request meets those
criteria with the recommended conditions. This use is similar to other uses approved in rural areas in
terms of scale. He said that the recommended conditions address concerns for this type of operation, and
it would mitigate some impacts already occurring from the older development within the stream buffer
area. Mr. Benish stated that staff feels the request would provide a service to the rural area, as it has
already been doing. He said that the only negative is potential impacts to the rural character and
resources of the area, but those are mitigated by the conditions.
Mr. Benish stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions as outlined by the Planning
Commission. The Commission did suggest that a few of the conditions be clarified to ensure that non-
customers and use of parking not related to the activity not be constrained by conditions 9 and 10 – so
staff has adjusted that by amending the following conditions:
9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking
spaces depicted on the Concept Plan. Vehicles owned by residents of the property and
employees of the repair shop may also use these spaces.
10. There shall be no more than three (3) vehicles awaiting repair or waiting to be picked up
after repair parked outside the garage at any one time. This limitation shall not apply to
vehicles owned by the residents of the property or by employees of the repair shop.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Wyant, on behalf of the applicant, said that Mr. Brown lost his job and was working in
the garage on the weekends, at which time County staff told him he had to have a special use permit. Mr.
Wyant stated he worked with County staff on the conditions. There will be three spaces designated for
parked cars that Mr. Brown would work on, and occasionally he would have someone help him but for the
most part Mr. Brown is a sole proprietor. He said that Mr. Brown does not have a paint booth for vehicles,
but will be doing some minor spot painting. Mr. Wyant added that the biggest issue is the work needed on
the buffer. He also said that there is already a paved area in which Mr. Brown will work, and he does not
keep parts outside.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of SP-2010-00042 subject to the 13 conditions as presented. Mr.
Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Site Plan David
Brown’s Body Shop,” prepared by David C. Wyant, Sr., and dated October 27, 2011 (hereafter
“Concept Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the Concept Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the
Concept Plan:
limits of disturbance
location and size of buildings and structures
location of parking areas
extent of paving
environmental features, including the stream and steep slopes on the site.
The Zoning Administrator may approve 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 hours of operation for the public garage shall not begin earlier than 9:00 a.m. and shall end
not later than 7:30 p.m., each day, Monday through Saturday. The public garage shall not operate
on Sundays;
3. Compliance with the Virginia State Department of Health regarding water supply and septic
system shall be verified by the Health Department prior to issuance of a zoning clearance and the
commencement of the special use;
4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shall be shielded to reflect light away from
all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval prior to
issuance of a zoning clearance;
5. The following activities are prohibited anywhere on the site:
a. Gasoline sales
b. Installation and/or use of a paint booth
c. Sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment
d. Storage of vehicles on the site for longer than thirty (30) days
e. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, parts, equipment, machinery, and/or junk;
6. All detailing and/or repairing of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage;
7. The impervious surface, including any impervious paving, on the site shall not be expanded
beyond its extent on the date of this application. (November 15, 2010);
8. The permittee shall install and thereafter maintain a minimum twenty (20)-foot deep landscaped
buffer adjacent to the stream. This planting shall use native tree and shrub species listed in
Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and/or the brochure Native Plants for
Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping, published by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation. Trees and shrubs shall be planted at the densities specified in
Appendix D, Table A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual,
published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Landscaping shall be
installed prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. No vehicles may be parked or other business or
earth-moving activities shall take place within this buffer;
9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking spaces
depicted on the Concept Plan. Vehicles owned by residents of the property and employees of the
repair shop may also use these spaces;
10. There shall be no more than three (3) vehicles awaiting repair or waiting to be picked up after
repair parked outside the garage at any one time. This limitation shall not apply to vehicles owned
by the residents of the property or by employees of the repair shop;
11. There may be up to two additional employees other than family members who reside in the home
on the site associated with this use other than family members who reside in the home on the site
associated with this use;
12. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality, if required, shall be required prior to
issuance of the zoning clearance; and
13. The use shall not lawfully commence until the Special Use Permit is approved and all applicable
conditions of approval have been met.
________________
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: WPTA-2012-00001. Water Protection Ordinance.
Amend Sec. 17-321, Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority,
of Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 17-
321 to allow the program authority to authorize development, with an approved mitigation plan, within the
50 feet of a stream buffer that is the most landward if the development would be on a lot that is within both
a development area and a water supply protection area where the stream buffer protects an intermittent
stream. (April 23 and April 30, 2012.)
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, summarized the following executive
summary which was forwarded to Board members:
On April 4, 2012, the Board heard an appeal of a Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) requirement
for stream buffers (Attachment A). In hearing the appeal, the Board confirmed that staff had properly
interpreted the ordinance language in denying the applicant’s request, but concluded that a modified
ordinance requirement should be considered to provide the relief requested and to address similar
requests anticipated to occur. The Board instructed staff to draft an ordinance amendment that would
allow disturbance of the outer fifty feet (50’) of a stream buffer for an intermittent stream in a water supply
protection area provided there is an appropriate mitigation plan and it is within a Development Area. The
Board requested that the ordinance amendment be set for public hearing as soon as practicable. The
proposed ordinance amendment is provided as Attachment B.
The ordinance amendment makes one substantive change to the WPO requirements for
protection of stream buffers. The current ordinance allows disturbance of the outer 50’ of the protected
buffer only where improvements are considered necessary to establish a reasonable use of the property
and provided an acceptable mitigation plan is approved by the Program Authority (the Community
Development Department). The proposed ordinance would allow improvements in the outer 50’ of a
protected stream buffer for an intermittent stream in a water supply protection area if the property is
located within a Development Area. All other ordinance requirements would remain the same and an
acceptable mitigation plan will still be required before this disturbance can be permitted. This change only
affects intermittent streams in Crozet because the WPO does not require intermittent stream buffers
except in rural areas and water supply protection areas, and Crozet is the only development area that is
also a water supply protection area. Accordingly, Crozet requires a higher stream buffer standard as it
drains into the municipal drinking water supply. With this change, the Crozet Development Area will
continue to have a higher standard than other Development Areas in the County because the inner 50’ of
intermittent stream buffers will be required to remain undisturbed from development that may be
authorized by the Program Authority under County Code § 17-321.
Staff does not anticipate budget impacts associated with this ordinance change. It is possible
that this change will result in a need for staff to review additional mitigation plans, but the fee for
review of mitigation plans is set to provide cost recovery.
After the public hearing, staff recommends the Board adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment
B).
_____
Ms. Mallek asked if this wording gives enough backing to say things are not appropriate for a
particular area, because there will be some areas where it is appropriate and some where it is should not
happen – even with mitigation. She commented that her concern about houses overhanging the buffer
has been dealt with in the language. Her interpretation is that there will be no structures located in the 50
feet.
Mr. Graham explained that there could be a structure in the outer 50 feet provided there is an
approved mitigation plan that offsets the impact.
Ms. Mallek said the language reads: “In all cases under this paragraph, any new building site and
sewage disposal system shall be located outside the stream buffer”. In her mind, that means it cannot be
located in the buffer. She has a problem if that is not what it says because she does not think there
should be houses in the buffer.
Mr. Graham said that the language “allows for necessary infrastructure,” and if it is within the outer
50 feet and there is a mitigation plan that has offset the impact, an applicant can build within that outer 50
feet on an intermittent stream in the development area. Mr. Graham clarified that the building site and
sewage disposal system are located outside of the buffer, but swimming pools, sheds, parking lots and
other improvements can be built there. Under this ordinance, someone could theoretically pave that entire
outer 50 feet as long as you did a mitigation plan that offset those impacts.
Ms. Mallek said that her understanding when this was discussed was that it would pertain to very
limited situations where it was of suitable topography – i.e. fairly flat – and minimal intervention such as
pervious pavers, not structures, concrete, etc.
Mr. Dumler said that in their last discussion, Mr. Graham indicated that buildings causes less
problems than parking lots, and this whole subsection is within the ordinance that allows the Program
Authority to ensure that there is an appropriate mitigation plan.
Ms. Mallek said that she wants to ensure that this is written in a way that staff has the ability to
make it intensive if it needs to be.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Boyd said that what he thought they were doing was making it consistent to how it was done in
the rest of the County. This is only new to Crozet.
Mr. Graham responded that Crozet is somewhat unique in that it is the only development area that
has intermittent streams that has protected stream buffers. He said that it is unique in that regard, and the
only additional development being addressed here is on those intermittent streams in the development
areas – which only applies to Crozet, with a full mitigation plan. .
Mr. Rooker commented that this is exactly what the Board talked about when this came up.
Mr. Dumler asked if the mitigation might be more intensive by virtue of its proximity to the stream
bed.
Mr. Graham responded that it could be, but what is really being considered here is the intensity of
the use and the runoff generated from that use and whether it is adequately mitigated – for the entire use.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, said that the mitigation plan regulations grants some
discretion to the Program Authority to assure that the disturbance within the stream buffer would be the
minimum necessary, that native vegetation was preserved to the maximum extent possible, and factors
such as that. He said that some of the discretion Ms. Mallek is looking for is built into the regulations.
Mr. Graham stated that it is not a guarantee that they can build and disturb the outer buffer
because they still have to get the mitigation plan approved. He said that if the site is all wooded – with the
applicant planning to develop the outer 50 feet, if they do not have the ability to mitigate that, it could not
be approved.
Mr. Snow said that the key words here are “intermittent stream.”
Ms. Mallek said that the intermittent stream in this case goes all the way from its source point to
Beaver Creek. It is the whole north/south of Crozet’s boundary in the growth area. She said that there are
multitudes of properties, most of which are very steep, along this stream.
Mr. Graham said Ms. Mallek was correct that whatever runs off the north side runs directly into
Crozet’s drinking water supply, but there is no difference between what is running from Mr. Beard’s
property and what is running from the ConAgra property. Once it is in that stream, it is going into the
reservoir. His point is that you are not having any significant mitigation within the stream itself.
Ms. Mallek said it is not just this property, but a multitude of properties that the Board would be
changing their ability and how much they each would encroach. Another multiplier is a situation where
there might be an internal property that had streams on a few sides and steep slopes, and asked if this
would increase the numbers of lots that would be used because they would be allowed to build over the
buffer as a way to get around the steep slopes.
Mr. Graham responded that he did not think so because each lot would still require a building site
outside of the buffer.
At this time the Chair opened the public hearing and invited comments.
There being no comments from the public, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek offered motion to adopt WPA-2012-0001 to amend Section 17-321 of the County
Code. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dumler commented that he would like to know how many times this ordinance is used.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-17(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND
WATER QUALITY
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 17,
Water Protection, Article III, Stormwater Management and Water Quality, is amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
Chapter 17. Water Protection
Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality
Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program authority.
Development in a stream buffer may be authorized by the program authority in the circumstances
described below, provided that a mitigation plan is submitted to, and approved, by the program authority
pursuant to section 17-322:
1. on a lot within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of stream buffer that is the most landward
(furthest from the stream) if the development either: (i) would be for necessary infrastructure to allow
reasonable use of the lot; or (ii) would be on a lot that is within both a development area and a water
supply protection area where the stream buffer protects an intermittent stream. In all cases under this
paragraph, any new building site and sewage disposal system shall be located outside the stream buffer;
2. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of a lake, pond, or
ecological/wetland restoration project;
3. on a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction and
maintenance of a road, street or driveway that would not satisfy the requirements of section 17-320(D)
and the program authority determines that the stream buffer would prohibit access to the lot necessary for
the lot to be used and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable
regulations of the subdivision ordinance, or to establish more than one stream crossing;
4. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, on which the
development in the stream buffer will consist of the construction, installation and maintenance of water
and sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems, and the program authority determines that the stream
buffer would prohibit the practicable development of such facilities or systems. Any such sewage disposal
system must comply with all applicable state laws; and
5. on a lot which was of record prior to the date of adoption of this chapter, if the stream
buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available building sites outside the
stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the underlying zoning district.
(§ 19.3-45, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-8, 19.3-45; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-
17(1), 2-6-08; Ord. 08-17(2), 5-7-08; Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11; Ord. 11-17(1), 5-9-12)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-2108.
________________
Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2012-00002. Water and Sewer. Amend Secs.
3.1, Definitions, 4.1, Area and health regulations related to utilities, 4.2, Critical slopes, 4.2.1, Building site
required, 4.2.2, Building site area and dimensions, 4.2.3, Location of structures and improvements, 4.2.4,
Location of septic systems, 4.7, Open space, 5.1.43, Special events, 5.1.44, Farm worker housing, and
10.5.2, Where permitted by special use permit; and repeal Secs. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6 and
4.1.7 (all untitled), of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the
regulations pertaining to building sites, critical slopes, and water supplies and sewer systems serving
developments and individual lots by adding and deleting definitions (3.1), restating and clarifying the
standards for developments and lots to be served by public or private water supplies and sewer systems
(4.1), updating the terminology for provisions pertaining to critical slopes (4.2), clarifying the minimum
standards for building sites (4.2.1), restating the minimum standards for building site area and dimensions
for uses not served by public sewer systems, and providing for special exceptions from those standards
and for alternative onsite sewer systems (4.2.2), eliminating an ambiguity as to whether special use
permits for additional development rights are permitted in the watershed of a public water supply reservoir
(not allowed) (10.5.2), and making corresponding technical changes and non-substantive changes
updating terminology to other related sections (4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.7, 5.1.43, 5.1.44, 10.5.2). (April 23 and April
30, 2012.)
.
________________
Agenda Item No. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: STA-2012-00001. Water & Sewer. Amend Secs. 14-
106, Definitions, 14-309, Soil evaluations, 14-310, Health director approval of individual private wells
and/or septic systems, 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems, and 14-416, Individual
private wells and septic systems, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to onsite sewage systems serving subdivision lots by
adding definitions pertaining to onsite sewage systems (14-106), and by allowing subdivision lots to be
served by either conventional or alternative onsite sewage systems, requiring health director review of
such systems, and revising the terminology (14-309, 14-310 and 14-416); and would amend the minimum
area requirements for lots served by central water supplies or central sewerage systems (14-415). (April
23 and April 30, 2012.)
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, said that the objectives of these changes are to resolve
conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance definition of central water and sewer systems, and in the area
requirements under Section 4.1, and to incorporate recent changes in State law which requires the County
to allow alternative onsite sewage systems (AOSS).
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Brooks said that he occasionally comes to the Board with a central sewage or water supply
system – such as Earlysville Business Park and a campground in another part of the County. The section
of the Code he uses to bring such requests is Chapter 16, Wastewater and Water Systems, which
provides definitions for central sewage systems and water supply. He said that none of that is changing.
It keys on three or more connections and is defined as a central system. The existing Zoning Ordinance
has the same definitions for central sewer systems and central water supply but also adds a definition for
a connection. Mr. Brooks stated that this provides a link between a connection and a commercial or
industrial establishment, which is important in their conversation because it is not a good link. He said that
the other part of the ordinance pertaining to the area requirements is found in Section 4.1, and in
definitions in Section 3.1. Mr. Brooks said that he is proposing changes because there is no valid
scientific link to the numbers.
Mr. Brooks presented several examples of light industrial parcels that came to the County wanting
to develop. At the same time Economic Development staff got involved and asked Community
Development staff to look into how the properties could be workable for the owners. He said that a typical
proposal has one building and provision for a septic system, then it is split up for several small businesses
that are sharing the building as opposed to one large tenant. Mr. Brooks explained that because the
County now defines a central system on commercial or industrial establishments, the Zoning Ordinance
considers this a central water supply and sewer system, but it is not. The system has not changed. It is
the same as it was before. The owner has just modified what is inside the building, and now the Zoning
Ordinance won’t allow it. He said this was the basic conflict they were up against.
Mr. Rooker said that the only difference might be requiring each of the spaces to have a
bathroom.
Mr. Brooks responded that in looking at it from a Health Department regulation, the systems
depended on the usage – the number of people using it – and the soils or treatment suitability since there
is no pre-treatment. He said that technically there could be the same number of people in the one large
building, so when the Economic Development staff came to him with the issue they indicated that the
County was penalizing small businesses. Mr. Brooks said that staff’s proposal was simply to change
Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the multiple tenant and area requirement
issues.
Mr. Brooks explained that the second conflict was because of area requirements per
establishment or per tenant, they needed five drain fields – even though the science indicated they were
not needed, there was no room on the lot for them, and the number of people has not changed. It does
not connect to reality. It is a Zoning Ordinance requirement that does not make sense. He added that
staff’s proposal was to eliminate the area requirement also and let the Health Department size the drain
field or system based on the tenants, as any other practice. Mr. Brooks said that looked to be very simple,
but the State changed its regulation on alternative onsite sewage systems, which includes any kind of
system providing pre-treatment or that has a totally different treatment method than a conventional drain
field. He added that the State indicated that counties needed to allow them by-right, which eliminated
concern about area requirements or tenants. Mr. Brooks stated that staff has a list of different sections of
the ordinance that has to comply with the State terms, and staff left in the sections that took out the central
water and sewer area requirement definitions to match the State.
Mr. Brooks then summarized the proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance:
3.1 Definitions; Changes to match AOSS regulation, Central System removed (still in Chapter 16)
4.1 Area and Health Regulations; Changes to match AOSS regulation, Central System Area
requirements removed.
4.2 Critical Slopes; administrative changes to match AOSS terms and correct references and
exceptions.
4.2.1 clarifies “underwater” to normal hydrologic conditions, and matches WPO
4.2.2 removes reserve drain field for AOSS, and provides exception (per Sinclair v. New Singular
Wireless PCS
Mr. Brooks added that the new technologies do not necessarily require more area to treat more
people as more pre-treatment could be provided in the building or septic tank.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Health Department would make that determination in each case.
Mr. Brooks responded that they would, partially, but it is also cost-driven on the applicant or
owner’s part as these systems are usually two to three times more expensive than a conventional system.
He said that the Health Department gives them some options such as pre-treatment, re-digging drain field
lines, putting in different materials, providing a pumping mechanism with a drip system that dispersed the
effluent over time, etc. Mr. Brooks noted that they have a list of approved solutions, and that would grow
over time.
He commented that there was a question from the public as to why the exception clause was put
into the ordinance, said and it was changed in an attempt to address waivers for critical slopes that may
no longer be allowed.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, said they are addressed through special exceptions
now.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Brooks then continued with the proposed changes:
4.7 Open Space; allow AOSS systems in open space
5.1.43-44 Farm Worker Housing; match AOSS terminology
10.5.2 Where Permitted by Special Use Permit; update terminology, unrelated administrative
changes
Mr. Davis clarified that the issue is related to criteria that had been left in the Zoning Ordinance
from an earlier time where there could be additional lots allowed within a water reservoir protection area,
and later on that was eliminated as a possibility so the language became superfluous but was never
deleted from the ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner added that staff found that the reason the provision remained, when the ordinance
was amended to establish the prohibition, was because the Board use to have the authority to grant
special use permits for large rural preservation developments – those with 20 or more lots. He stated that
when this ordinance was before the Board in 1989, when the prohibition was established, it was
suggested that subsection 9 remain for those types of applications. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that since
then, the special use permit for those rural preservation developments no longer exists due to another
change in State law.
Mr. Brooks reported that the Subdivision Text Amendment essentially mirrors the Subdivision
Ordinance changes by removing the central system area requirements and matching the state regulations
as closely as possible. He added that the following changes have been made:
14-106 Definitions; Changes to match AOSS regulation
14-310 Health Director Approval; Changes to match AOSS regulation terminology
14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems; Remove Central System area
requirements
14-416 Individual Private wells and septic systems: changes to match AOSS regulation
terminology
Mr. Brooks added that staff did receive two major concerns – one from the Albemarle County
Service Authority, which was objecting to the section that made them responsible for making a finding that
the water supply was adequate or not. He stated that it is usually with a development plan that is in
Community Development and they should make that finding, so staff changed the section to have them
responsible for it with consulting from the ACSA – which is the way it was before.
Mr. Davis commented that the replacement page he provided to Board members earlier shows
the change being made to Sections 4.1.a.2 and 4.1.a.3. Mr. Brooks said if the Board approves the
proposed ordinance, staff requests that this change be included.
Mr. Brooks said that the second concern was that staff was affecting development in the rural
area and minimum lot size. That was not staff’s intent as the lot size provisions in the Zoning Ordinance
and Subdivision Ordinance would stay the same. He stated that some existing lots that would not now be
able to get reserve drain fields may be able to develop, and staff does not anticipate that being a large
impact although it is State mandated.
Mr. Dumler asked which portions are State-mandated. Mr. Brooks responded that the portion
allowing alternative onsite systems instead of conventional systems, which would allow lots with a smaller
area that could not find a drain field to develop.
Mr. Dumler referred to Mr. Brook’s earlier comments regarding the minimum lot requirements with
the new AOSS vs. central systems, that minimum lot requirement by virtue of the fact they do not require
drain fields is no longer required by science.
Mr. Kamptner explained that there is a distinction between the minimum lot size, which is
established by the zoning district regulations and the area requirements for the drain fields. He confirmed
that the lot sizes are not being changed.
Mr. Brooks said that there is still a 30,000 square foot building area required on every lot, and
each district has its own area requirements and minimum lot size depending on how it is developed.
Ms. Mallek commented that what would change is that in a very steep property where there might
be adequate building size but not the 60,000 square feet under 3% grade to do the leach fields on would
now become developable now. She said she thinks that is where the biggest change will be.
Mr. Dumler said that they have not done an analysis of potential environmental impacts, and the
VDH regulations only touch upon maintenance. He asked staff if an analysis has been done on potential
impacts of the new systems and what additional zoning requirements might be appropriate or necessary
to account for the impacts. He is hesitant to approve this – even though the State is mandating it –
without knowing that there may be additional protections put in place to account for it.
Mr. Graham said that it is difficult to address the question primarily because the State’s
perspective is that the systems are actually better than the conventional ones. He noted that he has given
information to the Board that under the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, they are looking at going a step further in
saying that all new sewage systems would have to be one of the AOS systems rather than a conventional
system because of the ability to remove nitrogen. He stated that the concern with these historically has
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
been the maintenance, but the State thinks they have addressed that through annual inspections that
must be done with certified professionals and reported to the Health Department.
Mr. Dumler asked if there is anything prohibiting the County from putting additional safeguards in
place, such as a reserve area requirement or a vertical or horizontal setback.
Mr. Graham responded that as long as the County can show a reasonable nexus between a
concern with an impact and those requirements. Staff has looked at the impacts but every indication from
the State is that the alternative systems are better than the current systems. It is hard to identify additional
impacts if the State is telling the County that these things are better than what it currently has.
Mr. Rooker said that part of the difficulty is that there are different kinds of systems with different
kinds of requirements. The state has basically taken away the ability of localities to regulate the
maintenance, so then you get into what is it you could regulate. He asked if it was reasonable to ask a
landowner to set aside an additional 10,000 square feet of lot for an alternative system if the first one fails,
when replacing it means taking a piece of equipment out and putting a new piece of equipment in. He
said that he thinks there is a dilemma here.
Mr. Graham emphasized that Mr. Rooker is hitting on a lot of the issue[s], as the alternatives are
so different. An example is that a large house in the rural area might have a septic field that is 5,000
square feet in size, and there are probably alternative systems for the same house that would fit in 400-
500 square feet. They can fit in very, very small areas. He stated that effectively the sewage disposal
system is no longer a limiting factor for lots, and there is some other reason that the lot does not get built.
Mr. Thomas commented that these systems are used out west a lot.
Mr. Graham responded that they are used in a lot of places and from a scientific standpoint there
is nothing wrong with them, as they can provide very high quality pollutant removal – if they are properly
maintained.
Ms. Mallek said that the “if” is the issue. She noted VACo worked for two years to try to get
decent maintenance requirements put in. She asked if there are minimum standard requirements for
approved systems, as the VDH is about 49 out of 50 states regarding the strength of its regulations.
Mr. Graham said that the VDH already has approved certain systems, but the regulations are
written in a way that a professional engineer can design a new system and certify that it meets certain
requirements, and that is acceptable. He added that there still is the requirement for annual maintenance.
Mr. Rooker asked if VDH has to approve the newly designed system if it is not on their list.
Mr. Graham said, “or it has to be certified as meeting the criteria, by a professional engineer.” He
said that VDH still has to issue the permit, but they will accept the certification.
Mr. Brooks said that it is on the same level as a different roof design, and if it is certified the State
and County will accept it.
Mr. Boyd said that it seems the Board has to support this.
Mr. Dumler said that he is hesitant to pass this without at least doing some concurrent analysis of
what additional regulations might be appropriate to guard against “unknown unknowns” with the new
systems.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that some communities to the north have had spectacular failures of these
things, especially on rocky soil.
Mr. Thomas asked if there are any records of them succeeding.
Mr. Graham replied that there are several hundred in the County currently and there have been
several spectacular failures here as well – and every time that has happened is because the systems
were not maintained.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is not being dealt with, and if there are fines that can be forced on them for
not maintaining the system.
Mr. Graham said he does not know about the fines because they are administered by the Health
Department. He said that the Health Department could say that the structure would be condemned until
the sewage system was brought up to standards.
Mr. Rooker said that the problem is that the issue is generally maintenance, and that has been
taken away from the localities. The list of the approved units is a State issue, not a local one. He said
that an engineer could certify the system even if it is not on the State Health Department’s list. The
current ordinance dealt with this by requiring a reserve field. He said he does not know what could be
imposed that is not maintenance-oriented, that is not system-selection oriented, that actually protects
against the problem that these things sometime have, which is primarily maintenance.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Dumler said that the Attorney General’s opinion said that the additional requirements
considered in Fauquier County – horizontal and vertical setback requirements, and reserve area
requirements for backup units – were permissible.
Mr. Rooker asked if the setbacks are from the effluent part of the system.
Mr. Dumler responded that it is not specified. He read: “In your letter you relate that the locality
has adopted an ordinance that requires horizontal and vertical setback requirements as well as reserve
area requirements that are in excess of those found in the Board of Health’s regulations. Such
requirements do not pertain to maintenance as defined by the Code and, therefore, provided they do not
function so as to in effect ban the use of an alternative system, the State regulations would allow for its
operation. The locality is free to impose them.”
Mr. Graham stated that he is unsure where the science is that creates the need for the additional
setback. If he had to go to court to justify it, he would be in a very difficult position because he lacks to
expertise to explain the need for additional setback.
Ms. Mallek said that zoning is about the only thing the County has control over, and asked why
setback would not fall under that.
Mr. Graham said the County has setbacks for accessory structures, but this is much more
extensive than that. He reiterated that he does not know what the scientific basis is for that requirement.
He added that there is nothing that prohibits the County from, at a later date, establishing standards if it
sees a reasonable basis for those standards.
Mr. Boyd asked what would happen if the County does not pass this ordinance.
Mr. Davis said that the County’s ordinance does not specifically allow for these alternative
treatment systems – it requires drain fields and underground septic systems for development – so it would
not be in compliance with the State mandate.
Ms. Mallek said that the crux of the issue for her is the lessening of the requirement to have the
60,000 square feet available for two drain fields. She said that one of the problems other parts of the state
have encountered is that there is no notification required for a property that has an alternative system – it
is not in the title, it is not in the deed, and it is not in the MLS listing. Ms. Mallek stated that there is no way
for people to know that they had one of these systems, so the maintenance requirement from the State is
empty. She said there is no way for VDH to enforce these without knowing they are there.
Mr. Davis said that those issues have been resolved with the regulations, as you now have to
record in land records that a system exists as well as the maintenance requirements for them going
forward. He added that when the new system is installed, there is a recordation requirement.
Mr. Dumler stated that he has heard a lot of people say it might be appropriate to consider
impacts. He thinks it is in bad form to pass one-half without passing the other half. He said that he is not
prepared to support this now unless it is done concurrently, with that potential analysis.
Mr. Rooker asked about the timing for conformance.
Mr. Davis responded that the courts usually give a reasonable amount of time to implement the
changes, and the County is behind the timeline for compliance. He said that if the Zoning Administrator
were to enforce the ordinance as written and denies one of the permits, the County could not defend that
denial.
Mr. Dumler asked if between now and June, Community Development could do a cursory analysis
of other localities and jurisdictions that in bringing themselves into compliance have passed additional
regulations to guard against potential secondary effects of these kinds of systems.
Ms. Mallek suggested asking VACo legal staff to survey jurisdictions to see what they have done.
Mr. Snow said he thinks the Board should approve this now, with review in the future as additional
information was received. He said that he does not see that the County has a lot of choice if someone
wants to install such a system.
The Chair then opened the public hearing on the Zoning Text Amendment and the Subdivision
Text Amendment.
Mr. Jeff Werner, from the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that Loudoun County has done a
lengthy report on alternative systems. He said that the consensus is that if the systems are maintained
they were ideal, but consistently people have tried to cut corners. There is no doubt that this is being
driven completely and entirely by the builder lobby in Richmond, and every effort to try to address this in
some way is killed.
Mr. Thomas asked why he contends it was being driven by the lobbyists.
Ms. Mallek said they are the ones who weighed in at the General Assembly.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Werner stated that they want it because it opens up opportunities for development in places
that cannot otherwise be realized, and that is a driving force here.
Mr. Rooker said that this has been going on for at least three years, and the building lobby has
pushed heavily to get this approved.
Ms. Mallek said that the building lobby brought about the failure of the registration requirements.
Mr. Werner said that the Attorney General’s opinion only says to localities “you cannot mandate
maintenance.” He read from the provisions that “any specified violations arising from failed systems shall
not exceed a total of $3,000.” It also states that “localities shall have the burden of proofing by a
preponderance of the evidence the liability of the alleged violator.” Mr. Werner said that he raised some
additional questions with Mr. Graham . He encouraged the Board to take another look at the matter. He
stated that PEC’s land use person in Fauquier County determined that some commercial properties
actually come under the purview of DEQ, not VDH. He again encouraged the Board to take time and get
this right.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that there is enough about this that the Board should find out more before it acts,
and there might be some easy ways through VML, VACo, etc., to find out whether there are some
additional land use-oriented regulations that might help deal with the effects of failures. He said that the
staff could do that within a reasonably short period of time.
Mr. Dumler agreed, stating if they do not do it now, it might not get done. It is best to do it right
and bring the County into compliance.
Mr. Snow asked if there is a deadline for this action.
Mr. Kamptner responded that the final regulations were finalized in November/December 2011,
and the State statute was amended several years ago.
Mr. Rooker commented that the downside is that someone may decide to install one of these
systems and the County cannot stop them, but it cannot stop them if this language is adopted.
Mr. Davis said that the decision for the Zoning Administrator would be whether or not to approve
one that was submitted, even though the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for it, so the staff is put in an
awkward position. There is nothing the Board can do about it without amending the ordinance. He added
that if there are applications for these, there is no zoning guidance on how to deal with it.
Mr. Rooker said that has been the case for the last six months.
Mr. Snow said another month or two will not make a lot of difference.
Mr. Davis stated that it would be helpful to have an idea of how long it would take for Mr. Graham
and Mr. Brooks to look at this issue.
Mr. Snow commented that this is not in Community Development’s work plan for the next nine
months that staff had presented recently. He is concerned about adding something else to their list when
they are already booked.
Mr. Foley said that he will check with staff as to whether they could do a cursory review.
Mr. Graham said he thinks the Board is saying it would like for staff to do a survey of peer
communities to see whether they are making additional requirements, establishing additional standards,
what those standards are, the basis for the standards, etc., and bring that information back to the Board.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Dumler said that was it.
Mr. Snow asked if that would take a great deal of time.
Mr. Graham responded that staff could send it out through a list serve of the Virginia Association
of Zoning Officials and report back to the Board on the June consent agenda.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board was trying to usurp the State ordinances, and establish that these
systems would never fail again.
Mr. Rooker said when you have a reserve septic field, it is a requirement put in place in the event
of failure. The question here is whether or not there is anything localities should do to prevent the harm of
failures, beyond maintenance requirements.
Mr. Foley stated that staff could bring something back next month without having a big impact on
the work program.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Dumler added that if there are any reasonable nexuses that occur to staff of any instances of
past failures that might be remedied through land use or zoning restrictions that have not been enacted by
other localities, but could be, and bring that information forward.
Mr. Kamptner said that there are State regulations that deal with setback and separation
requirements, so that could serve as a starting point for the analysis.
Mr. Graham suggested that these items be deferred until July because of the timeframe needed
to get the information.
Mr. Dumler then moved to defer ZTA-2012-0002 and STA-2012-0001 until July 11, 2012. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________
Agenda Item No. 15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Thomas announced that Rockydale Quarry is still taking sound measurements. The last time
they attempted to do it the equipment failed and nothing was done. Four houses are set up with sound
apparatuses so sound analyses can be done.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that an issue in the White Hall District that has come up over the last several
years is the disparity between Comp Plan treatment of property that is developable – without swamps,
wetlands, and steep slopes – and the subdivision plan consideration of what is developable when it
regards a density bonus. She said that with the Blue Ridge Commons and Westlake projects in Crozet,
the subdivision plan allows the numbers of units permissible to be distributed over the entire property
instead of just the developable property. Ms. Mallek said that this has been a concern for years, as it
increases the allowable density on properties that are not geographically, topographically, and
hydrologically prepared for it. She added that if other Board members agree, changes should be made to
have the subdivision parameters conform to the actual suitability of the site before numbers are
established and density bonuses were applied.
Mr. Boyd asked what the engineering consequences would be.
Ms. Mallek said the density bonus provision allows the entire property to be used, even if 30% of it
is steep slopes, wetlands or buffers. It just gets to be so packed, especially when you have it in the middle
of other existing neighborhoods that are maybe 50 years old and have a little house here and a little house
there, and all of the sudden there is this monstrosity proposed behind them. It gets in the way of having
projects actually be able to succeed because there is this incredible uproar about sort of changing the
character of everything.
Mr. Davis clarified that the density bonuses are only allowed in the residential districts, not in the
rural area. Ms. Mallek is correct in that the density is based on the gross acreage rather than the net
development acreage. That has been the case for as long as he can remember.
Ms. Mallek said she is just asking Board members to think about this to see if they want to do
anything about it.
Mr. Rooker said that in most cases, property is not developed even to its permitted density, so he
is not sure how often density bonuses are actually being employed.
Ms. Mallek said she recently found out that the density bonuses were applied to a project that was
done by-right just because they were putting in street trees, which in her mind is a low performance bar.
________________
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to May 10, 2012, 12:00 noon, to participate in the Rivanna River
Basin Commission’s Tour de Stormwater to begin at Charlottesville High School, travel to Greene
Community County Park, travel to Downtown Crozet, and end at Charlottesville High School.
Ms. Mallek commented that they are supposed to meet at 11:45 a.m. at Charlottesville High
School and be on the bus at 12:00 noon.
Mr. Davis mentioned that this adjournment is a little bit unusual in that the Board would be visiting
three sites – Charlottesville High School, the Greene Community Park, and the wetlands project near
Crozet – and then return to Charlottesville High School.
Mr. Rooker asked if going around on a bus and looking at sites is a meeting.
Mr. Davis responded that if they are discussing and transacting business, it is. He added that the
discussion and transaction of business should take place at those three sites where the public has
access, not on the bus.
Mr. Rooker said that there is no decision being made by the Board, as these things are already
completed projects.
May 9, 2012 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Davis stated that if it is not a matter of public business for the Board, they could go and do
whatever they wanted to do – but if it is a matter of public business that is before the Board in any
capacity, it kicks in FOI requirements.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that these matters are not going to be before this Board for any decision
now or in the future. They are completed sites and were done by someone else.
Ms. Mallek asked if the subject matter – the relationship of these types of projects to TMDL
legislation – impacted that decision.
Mr. Davis responded that it makes it a much closer question.
Mr. Dumler said there are going to be presentations made by policy makers, and people who are
experts in this field, made with the idea in mind that they would be presenting information to elected
officials.
Mr. Rooker said Board members sit in auditoriums full of elected officials at VACo meetings and
those officials make presentations on topics that someday the Board members may take back and act on.
He reiterated that that is not a public meeting.
Mr. Davis said that if the Board is not discussing or transacting business in meetings, then it is not
an FOI issue – it is only when they have an interactive discussion or consideration of those items as an
assembled group of three or more that it becomes an issue. If the Board members are not in that mode
then this does not matter. By making this motion, he thinks Board members are covering the bases. If
such a situation arises where Board members do want to discuss or transact business that is going to be
business of this Board, it will have met the technical requirement.
Ms. Mallek said she just wants to be correct. She then offered a motion to adjourn to 11:45 a.m.,
May 10, 2012, Charlottesville High School, to allow Board members to attend the Rivanna River Basin
Commission’s Tour de Stormwater to begin at Charlottesville High School, travel to Greene Community
County Park, travel to Downtown Crozet, and end at Charlottesville High School
Mr. Dumler seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned their meeting at 9:07 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 08/01/2012
Initials: EWJ