2013-12-11December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting and a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 11, 2013, Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. The adjourned meeting was held at 4:00 p.m., and was adjourned from
December 4, 2013. The regular meeting was held at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, 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 Davis, Clerk,
Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Five Year Financial Plan – General Government.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that this meeting was the fourth work session on the Five Year Financial Plan and the desired
outcomes for the meeting were for the Board to provide policy direction, any adjustments to the five-year
financial plan as well as approving the plan. Ms. Allshouse said staff would review the results of the
December 4 work session and then discuss policies and receive direction from the Board along with next
steps. She stated that, on December 4, the Board reviewed materials presented at the first two work
sessions, and then provided direction on the water resources protection mandate. She said the Board
agreed with the plan’s assumption that all costs for water resource protection mandate – both operating
and capital – are to be covered by additional dedicated revenue source, but the Board did not specifically
determine that source yet. Ms. Allshouse said the Board had also requested additional information, which
she provided in an email and included assumptions on revenue changes for all years of the plan,
assumptions on revenue growth when compared to expenditure growth, assumptions on associated costs
to move to geo-policing phase two within the plan, additional information about agency funding, and the
CIP project request chart. She noted that the Board is scheduled to discuss the CIP the following day with
the School Board.
Ms. Allshouse presented a chart reflecting revenue changes for all years of the plan, stating that
the Board had seen this information several times previously, however, this new chart does provide some
additional detail. She pointed out the revenues from FY15-19 on the chart, noting the real estate taxes
and an assumed tax rate increase. She said other property taxes were also included and presented
across the five years of the plan. Ms. Allshouse stated that staff did add a column for “net transfers” and
“net use of fund balance,” so those transfers and one-time items are included when balancing the plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if the school transfers were included in these numbers. Ms. Allshouse said they
were not reflected on the revenue side, but they would be discussing those on the expenditure side.
Ms. Mallek asked if the 12.3% reduction meant that next year they would expect to transfer fewer
dollars than the current year. Ms. Allshouse confirmed that was the case.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $1.9 million at the top of FY15 was expected in the first fiscal year without
any change in the tax rate but with increased property value. Ms. Allshouse said that amount reflected a
slight increase in assessments, and was also based on a certain assumption on the collection rate, new
property divisions, and new construction.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any way to break down how much would be attributed to increased
taxes to individuals because of property appreciation versus new building and construction. Ms. Allshouse
said she could put those figures together but didn’t have them with her at this meeting.
Ms. Mallek noted that the data wouldn’t be available until January when the new assessments
come out.
Mr. Boyd said it would be fine to have that information for the actual budget process.
Mr. Snow asked if the average homeowner could expect a 20% increase in property values and
taxes over the five-year period.
Mr. Rooker said it includes new buildings, so you’d have to have that number.
Ms. Allshouse said there were several variables including new construction, new property
divisions, tax rate, etc.
Mr. Foley said staff has previously provided the projected increase in values on properties over
that period, which they’ve equated into the average home in the past. He stated that he didn’t know if it
was 20%, and what they’re seeing on the chart is the change in real estate total collection projection,
which is not the same as the value change.
Mr. Boyd stated that it would be a cumulative increase over the five-year period, and it’s important
to know how the County would be increasing people’s tax bills.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Foley said it’s a combination of values increasing on existing property, based upon projections
for growth and values, and the penny additions in the future years.
Mr. Boyd said it would be important to know where the additions are coming from.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that it would be important to see where they catch up based upon the
reductions in values of the previous four years.
Mr. Foley said the purpose of this meeting is to move toward the adoption of a balanced five-year
financial plan, and the question is whether the Board feels they need to have the comparative information
before they can move forward with it – or whether they can make it part of the annual process, which is
still ahead of them.
Ms. Mallek said the five-year plan is a strategic level, and they would do the actual budgeting
when they get to that step in January.
Ms. Allshouse emphasized that this is a plan, not a budget, nor does it form their budget – but it’s
based on assumptions that were put together in November – and staff would be providing actual budget
numbers after real estate tax data is available early in the New Year.
Ms. Allshouse reported that she had included total revenue, net transfers, and use of fund balance
changes for each year of the plan – so she has taken the changes in revenue growth, including the nets
from use of fund balance and transfers, in order to show the expected revenue increases ver sus
expenditures. She said the information as presented includes mandates and obligations and shows the
percentage of the total amount of the change allocated to each category. Ms. Allshouse noted that, on the
mandates and obligation line for FY15, 5.4% of the 6.6% increase is for mandates and obligations,
including transfers to the schools, revenue-sharing change, as well as VRS assumptions and healthcare
costs. She said 82% of all expenses for FY15 would be for mandates and obligations, based on formulas
and what’s already known. Ms. Allshouse stated that the next line is the salary increase at 2%, reflecting
the cost to local government for that increase; the next line is department operations and impacts to CIP –
which includes fire/rescue volunteer funding. She said they assign a general percentage increase based
on inflation and other factors, and based on the needs in each department. Ms. Allshouse said the next
line is an agency change, reflecting a decrease because of assumptions of less funding for the jail and
juvenile detention center based on FY13 actuals. Ms. Allshouse pointed out the public safety and
mandated workload column, which picks up the FEMA-funded fire/rescue positions, police officer
positions, and foster care worker.
Mr. Boyd said the FEMA positions were not mandated, but were decided on by the Board as a
discretionary item.
Ms. Allshouse said the category includes non-mandated items as well as mandated ones like the
new water resources position. She stated that the expenditure increases equal the revenue increases for
the first three years but, in the out years, are not quite the full cost given the revenue assumptions. Ms.
Allshouse said they included salary increases of 2% for the first two years, then 2.5% and 3% in the out
years.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the Board had a specific question from the last work session regarding
geo-policing, and Colonel Sellers had talked about that model and its projected needs in order to meet
phase two goals. Ms. Allshouse said the slide shows the funding currently in the five-year financial plan
model for the police officer positions, and provides for 12 officers over the five years of the plan, which are
presented as actuals not increases. She stated that the next line reflects assumptions for the cost to
implement geo-policing phase two, or the cost for the number of officers it would take to reach that
benchmark. Ms. Allshouse said, for the first three years of the plan, geo-policing phase two would require
the addition of six officers in each year, with four of the 18 in the first three years being school resource
officers and an assumption in the model that schools would provide support for them, as they currently do.
She stated that the model also includes an assumption that two officers would be added in FY18 and
three in FY19, so the model is showing that the additions would coincide with population change. Ms.
Allshouse said, for FY15, the cost would be an additional $560,174 for phase two.
Mr. Boyd asked if this allowed for moving to 10-hour workdays. Ms. Allshouse said it would after
the second year.
Ms. Mallek said it basically gets them closer to catching up with the target levels, in addition to the
new program.
Mr. Foley clarified that it puts the County at 1.2 officers per thousand instead of 1.5.
Ms. Allshouse said, currently, only the top line is in the model for geo-policing.
Mr. Rooker said Colonel Sellers wasn’t focusing so much on the 1.5 level, adding that his need for
officers is more operational than population-driven.
Ms. Allshouse said the chart actually shows a total of 23 officers because of the population
change in the two out years built into the model.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Boyd asked if adding about one-half penny to the tax rate would help accomplish this, similar
to how they’ve dedicated funds to schools. Mr. Foley said there’s definitely a scenario like that which staff
can create to support geo-policing implementation.
Ms. Allshouse presented information on the funding included in the County’s FY14 current budget,
organized by different classifications, and said she would address the dollar amounts, percentages, and
the process by which decisions are made as far as recommendations to the County Executive for agency
funding in a given year. Ms. Allshouse said the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) process includes
community agencies serving various needs, reviewed by a 15-member community group including staff
members from both the City and the County. She stated that agencies submit an application, must go
through a site visit from group members, and then the evaluation is based on outcomes, implementation
of changes recommended from the prior year, performance, etc. Ms. Allshouse said the team comes up
with a ranking order of priorities and then presents them to the Office of Management and Budget for both
the City and the County, and funding decisions are tied to those.
Mr. Boyd said they don’t start out with a fixed number for a budget and just divide it up.
Ms. Allshouse said they usually operate with the assumption that there’s a 2% increase overall for
ABRT and core agencies, but it may be that the core agencies take all that money because of certain
demands. She said this model assumes that no new agencies will come in unless another agency does
not get funding, adding that many of these agencies have been around for a while and have been
thoroughly vetted.
Mr. Boyd asked how they deal with conflicts of interest, whereby they might have people from
those agencies serving as members of the ABRT. Ms. Allshouse said Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of
Social Services, could likely address that, but they are very careful on how they break up the small teams
and how they approach the reviews.
Ms. Kathy Ralston addressed the Board, stating that any team member who has an affiliation with
a particular agency is asked to step out of the room during the discussion while the team is vetting an
agency, so they’re not part of the vetting, recommendations, or scoring process.
Mr. Rooker said it helps to have people who are very knowledgeable about what the different
agencies do in the community to be represented on the committee, so this sounds like a reasonable
approach.
Ms. Mallek agreed and said, if there is a perception problem with the public, they need to make an
extra effort to fix it.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the second category is smaller at $33,000, or 0.2% of all agency
funding, and is designated for “cultural” activities. She said, based on the Board’s recommendation, they
segmented this review from the ABRT process and, beginning in FY15, there would be a County team
reviewing cultural agencies.
Mr. Boyd said he thought they were going to move that category over to Charlottesville/Albemarle
Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) for review.
Ms. Mallek said they ran into problems with that, because CACVB ended up only funding the
marketing portions and not operations.
Mr. Rooker recalled that what they had discussed was a process in which cultural agencies that
went over to the CACVB for funding had money for a year based on the Board’s recommendation, but the
following year the bureau didn’t fund several of them because they felt they didn’t have anything to do with
tourism – such as the Municipal Band. He stated that the question the Board raised at that time was
whether more CACVB money should come back to the County so those agencies could be funded.
Mr. Foley noted that the expenditures they are seeing for cultural agencies are those considered
non-marketing and promotional related, and the CACVB still has an expense in their budget which is
limited to marketing-related efforts. He said the staffs of the City, the County and Visitors Bureau have
just completed an evaluation of the projected revenues for the next five years, as well as the projected
need for marketing expenditures going forward. Mr. Foley said, upon initial review by him and the City
Manager, including a fairly reasonable projection for revenues and expenditures market, it doesn’t appear
that there is much coming back to fund other things. He stated that what they have included supports the
marketing efforts which are underway now, as well as supporting the new tourism center in Crozet and the
cultural agencies. Mr. Foley said he and Mr. Jones had been pushing hard for this, and felt that there
wasn’t as much room in the budget as they had thought there would be.
Mr. Rooker said, when the CACVB ended up with a large amount in reserves and came up with a
marketing plan to spend that balance, they showed a big return and, therefore, their revenues should be
growing based on the success of that marketing plan.
Mr. Foley said it has been a short period of time, but they do need the measures tied directly to
that investment.
Mr. Thomas asked if staff had received anything from the Piedmont Council for the Arts (PCA)
related to their initiative. Mr. Foley said that was slated to be before the Board in January, at which time,
they would present their study and findings.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Mallek suggested that Mr. Thomas come back as part of that discussion, as the PCA
appreciated his involvement with it.
Ms. Allshouse reported that OMB-reviewed agencies included 16 agencies in FY14, and the
largest in this category included Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT) and Charlottesville Area
Transit (CAT) transportation services, Region Ten mental health services, the Health Department, and
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) – totaling about 25.6% of all agencies. She stated that the
remaining agencies include Emergency Communications Center (ECC), Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention
Center (BRJDC), Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Albemarle/Charlottesville
Regional Jail (ACRJ), Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB), and Jefferson
Madison Regional Library (JMRL). She said the library expenditure is $3.4 million, or 20% of agency
funding.
Mr. Boyd asked if they had ever done comparisons with similar counties on ECC expenses, as
those costs seem to be growing every year.
Mr. Rooker said the County pays about half of the ECC’s total budget, with UVA and the City
sharing the other half, adding that ECC’s total budget is around $4.5 million.
Mr. Foley stated that the first two items in those OMB-reviewed agencies are the most
discretionary in terms of changes, and there’s not much flexibility in the categories where most of the
dollars are going – such as transit.
Ms. Allshouse said there is an assumption built into the current plan for capital needs, stating that
they have received $300 million in requests for FY15-19 in the CIP, with the five-year plan including
dedicated revenues for capital and water resource protection revenue. She said FY16 and FY18 have an
additional penny in the tax rate that’s fully dedicated to capital built in as an assumption, in part to update
the ECC 800 MHz communications and dispatch system and to address the critical space needs of the
County’s court facilities.
Mr. Foley stated that they’re hoping to start design for the court facilities in the next fiscal year, so
the Board would have a big decision to make in the next six months in order to move that forward.
Ms. Allshouse pointed out that the Board would be seeing a lot more detail on the capital items in
its joint CIP work session with the schools the following day, adding that the Oversight Committee had
completed their work on November 25.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff would be providing a detailed breakdown on the CIP before the meeting.
Ms. Mallek said the email sent a few days ago included details.
Mr. Boyd said it wasn’t detailed, it just referred to items such as “maintenance for schools.”
Mr. Foley said information on cost by year for each project would be presented at the joint
meeting. Ms. Mallek asked staff to send out the link to the CIP work manual so the Board could review it
prior to the meeting.
Ms. Allshouse said staff had sent out an email to both Boards a few days earlier.
Mr. Rooker said there wasn’t a whole lot of detail under “mandates and maintenance,” and offered
to share his CIP book to Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development (OFD), said they sent out an
email the previous Monday with attachments that included several scenarios, the five-year summary, and
a breakdown of projects by functional area. He stated that the book, which is part of the budget process,
would come from OMB in the January timeframe.
Ms. Mallek said anyone wanting to see the details behind a particular chapter could review that
information online.
Staff agreed to send out the link.
Mr. Foley noted that the Board does have a CIP summary for every project, the costs, and in what
fiscal year.
Ms. Allshouse said the policy question staff has is whether the Board agrees with the assumptions
in the plan at this point regarding the additional dedicated revenues to capital, noting that the Oversight
Committee had also recommended an additional penny in dedicated revenue for the Henley gymnasium
addition, transportation revenue-sharing, and ACE. She said staff would also ask if there’s any other
direction the Board had regarding unfunded capital needs.
Ms. Mallek commented that it’s a long, long list.
Mr. Rooker agreed, stating that beyond maintenance the Board is committed to Agnor-Hurt
renovations, the firearms range facility, the Pantops fire rescue station, the court facilities, and
telecommunications – which is somewhat mandated because the system they have now is starting to fail.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Mallek said it is very important to have the information provided and the assumptions going
forward in the New Year, because the Board has a lot to discuss rather than starting from the standpoint
that the County is just not going to fund things.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with the decision to move forward with the additional pennies because,
otherwise, the County would have to borrow money for a lot of the maintenance projects – and the
decision to add a penny to the tax rate is made at budget time, but the five-year plan shows what would be
necessary to balance the plan. He stated that, if revenues are better than projected, the need for the
penny may not be there.
Mr. Boyd said, in the fifth year of the plan, they drop below the $2 million CIP fund balance floor.
Ms. Allshouse said that is definitely a model assumption which they built in because the fund
balance only reached about $1.5 million in the fifth year of the plan.
Mr. Foley said the goal is to have a $2 million balance at the end and, even with the two pennies
added to the tax rate, that amount cannot be retained because of the courts project and other demands.
Mr. Snow said he agreed in principle with what Mr. Rooker and others have said, but the Board
will not know for sure what they’ll do until they start looking at the budget.
Mr. Foley stated that staff has spent many months scouring through the revenues and they’re not
seeing much more than a 1% increase so, if the assumptions are viewed as pretty good assumptions, the
Board can move forward with the idea for planning purposes that there are a couple pennies needed. He
said, at the end of the day, budgeting is done on an annual basis, but they are trying to go through an
exercise based on needs and revenue projections which the Board believes is a decent plan based on
needs identified and revenue projections.
Ms. Mallek said the Board does a much better job with citizens if it can avoid telling them
everything is fine and objectives can be achieved based only on the money they have, as it would be
unfair to put off the discussion of revenue availability and then have to jack up the tax rate all at once.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she isn’t used to voting on direction based on assumptions, and wondered
if this was something where the Board could perhaps say “this is a way to meet needs” without voting on
it.
Ms. Mallek said a lot of counties don’t do strategic 5-year financial planning at all and look at
things only from a one-year timeframe, so this is really a big-picture view.
Ms. Dittmar clarified that she liked the big view and felt the Board did need to take a five-year
look, but was asking what exactly the Board would be voting on if it were deciding the budget on an annual
basis.
Mr. Rooker said the Board was voting on the strategic plan that’s contained within the five-year
plan, and it’s important for ratings companies to know the County is going through a process like this and
are actually adopting a five-year plan. He stated that it informs the budget, but doesn’t decide the budget
and, as with any projection, it’s based upon reasonable assumptions. Mr. Rooker also mentioned that
bonding agencies look at a locality’s strategic planning efforts in their evaluation.
Mr. Foley said the County began a formal five-year planning process about five or six years ago,
and it was a message to the taxpayers as well as bond-holders that there is a financial planning process in
place which is more than just a set of projections. He stated that even the annual budget is based on
assumptions, and this is simply done with a longer timeframe.
Mr. Boyd said he’s been pushing for a five-year planning process, but didn’t feel comfortable
about voting on it until they have the CIP session the following day. He stated that he has lots of
questions about the proposed technology projects, debt service, and other items – adding that the Board
has not spent a lot of time talking about those.
Mr. Rooker said the big numbers in the plan are things such as courts and the ECC system with
most of the other items being dwarfed by those, but he would agree to adopt the plan after the work
session the following day.
Ms. Dittmar said she is used to seeing budgets based on projected revenues and expenses, so
adopting a plan with options based on future Board philosophies felt more comfortable to her – but she
agreed that if it needed to be done in this format at this time, that was acceptable.
Ms. Allshouse emphasized that this is an approved plan, not a budget and, during the budget work
sessions, the Board could certainly make changes at that time.
Mr. Snow agreed with Ms. Dittmar’s point, stating that they could approve the first bullet and then
let the new Board decide how much further they want to go, once they begin their tenure.
Ms. Mallek said, for transparency reasons, it’s really important for the Board to take an affirmative
approach on what it is considering, and that’s how she views this process. She stated that she didn’t think
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
it would interfere at all with the way the new Board would look at individual projects, and it gives staff some
better direction as to how to prepare the budget.
Mr. Foley stated that the capital program seems to be the main issue here, and explained that the
pennies in this plan are based upon the beginning of the courts project process and the completion of the
800 MHz project – so those two projects are driving it completely. He said the revenue growth in the CIP
would otherwise fund most of the other projects, but most of those are no more than maintenance as
there are a lot of unmet needs which aren’t even in the two-penny plan.
Ms. Mallek said a lot of the needed maintenance projects aren’t even on the list.
Mr. Foley said one way or another, the pennies will be needed in order to move forward with the
courts and the 800 MHz system unless the Board can figure out how to cut out $33 million for the courts
and $11 million for the communications system from maintenance. He noted that delaying a vote on this –
which is fine with staff – won’t change the realities.
Mr. Boyd asked if the 800 MHz system for ECC is necessary for extending its life.
Ms. Mallek said it’s already beyond by several years, and is no longer being supported by the
technology companies that make them.
Mr. Boyd asked how much they’ve spent on that, because it seems like the ECC is constantly
appropriating money for it.
Mr. Foley said he has asked those same questions and understands the frustration level, but
Motorola has decided they would no longer support the system the County had invested in.
Mr. Rooker said the CIP Oversight Committee drills down on the individual projects and comes up
with a list of things that have to be done and a small list of things they want to do, such as the firing range.
He stated that the Agnor-Hurt addition is another large capital project, but they are already 200 students
over capacity there.
Mr. Foley said there were some theoretical decisions which needed to happen in addition to
capital, such as the shift in money from agencies to geo-policing, and that is included in the staff report –
but if the Board is just down to deciding the pennies in capital, that could be made after the CIP review.
Ms. Mallek stated that she doesn’t think the numbers match with transferring the agency money
because those organizations can significantly leverage outside funds with a small local investment, so
allocating it to geo-policing would eliminate that capability and would be shortsighted in her view.
Mr. Rooker said the discretionary amount allocated to charitable agencies is around $1.4 million
currently, which is about a penny on the tax rate and, in any given year that could be cut back – with ABRT
determining how it would be distributed.
Mr. Boyd said what bothers him is creating a society which is dependent on government, and that
investment has grown significantly over the past 15 years.
Ms. Mallek said a lot of those agencies didn’t exist at the time, and she doesn’t believe County
government is supporting everyone, by any means.
Mr. Rooker said $1.4 million is not really supporting a lot of people, but that’s a decision the Board
can make in any given year during the budget process. He stated that the plan assumes $1.4 million
going to agencies, but it’s only a plan and not a mandate.
Ms. Allshouse asked if there were any other changes, or if she could move forward.
Mr. Rooker said there was a question about the additional penny.
Mr. Foley said the question for the work session to be held the following day was whether it would
be two pennies, three pennies, or no pennies – and it is the protocol of this Board to adopt a five-year plan
so that staff can move onto the rest of the annual process.
Ms. Allshouse noted that Mr. Foley’s briefing to the Board on the budget would be February 21,
with a public hearing scheduled for February 24, and budget work sessions held in February and March.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Recess. At 5:09 p.m., the Board recessed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Call to Order. At 6:05 p.m., the meeting was called to order by the Chair, Ms.
Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 6. Moment of Silence.
_______________
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Agenda Item No. 7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
There were no new items presented, so the Chair stated that the agenda was considered adopted
as printed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Recognitions.
Item No. 9a. William B. “Petie” Craddock.
Ms. Mallek said that Petie Craddock stepped up during a challenging time on the Board of
Supervisors. He was willing to serve in an interim role to stabilize a tumultuous situation, and to provide
energetic and engaged representation to the Scottsville District. Although his tenure was not a long one,
he took the office seriously, and was involved in decisions that will have a long-term positive impact on the
Scottsville District and the County, as a whole.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the leadership of Scottsville thinks very highly of Mr. Craddock. She then
read a proclamation from the Scottsville Town Council in recognition of his service.
Ms. Mallek then presented a plaque to Mr. Craddock for his service on the Board.
Mr. Thomas thanked Mr. Craddock for his role as interim Supervisor. He added that he served
with him on the Planning Commission for six years.
_____
Item No. 9b. Rodney Thomas.
Ms. Mallek read a proclamation in honor of Rodney Thomas, who served as the Rio District
Supervisor for the past four years, and presented him with a plaque in honor of his service.
Mr. Thomas thanked Ms. Mallek, his fellow Board members and constituents for their support.
_____
Item No. 9c. Duane Snow.
Ms. Mallek read a proclamation in honor of Duane Snow, who served as the Samuel Miller District
Supervisor for the past four years, and presented him with a plaque in honor of his service.
Mr. Snow thanked everyone for their support of his service, particularly his wife and family, and
read a list of accomplishments achieved during his term as Supervisor: support for schools to enable
them to retain their world-class status while maintaining small community schools; partnership with the
City to build the Ragged Mountain Dam, which will be completed in the spring; construction of the new Ivy
Fire Station and major renovations of the Seminole Fire Station; construction of a new library in Crozet,
and plans underway for another new library on Route 29 North; implementation of an economic
development plan; establishment of funding for roads including the widening of Route 29 from the Rivanna
River to Hollymead, the Hillsdale Connector, the Best Buy ramp, solutions to the Berkmar Extension
bridge, a bypass to deal with commuter and through traffic; reducing the County tax burden every year for
four years; streamlining of County staff and ordinances to facilitate a higher level of service with less red
tape; and achievement of the first triple AAA-bond rating in the County. Mr. Snow said that the Board has
been able to achieve these things by having a Board that has worked well together, having an excellent
and dedicated County staff, and by having thousands of volunteers – such as those who volunteer for fire
and rescue, hospitals, schools, parks and recreation, etc. – who have saved the County millions of dollars
and make it a better place to live.
_____
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board would also like to thank Dennis Rooker for his service, as he is
also retiring, but he will be acknowledged at another time, at his request.
_____
Ms. Mallek also recognized Ian Buchanan, an Eagle Scout and five-year participant of First Tee
Charlottesville, who was selected to participate in the Nature Valley First Tee Open. She said that Mr.
Buchanan, a sophomore at St. Anne’s Bellfield, was one of 72 First-Tee participants selected from across
the United States. Ms. Mallek said that in its tenth year, the tournament is a unique tour event that pairs
male and female junior players with PGA champions and tour professionals, and they play as a team.
She stated that the tournament took place September 24-29 at the Pebble Beach Golf Links and Del-
Monte Golf Course in Pebble Beach, California. Ms. Mallek said that the nationally televised event is in
partnership with the PGA Champions Tour, the Monterey Peninsula Foundation, and the First Tee.
Selection is based upon community service, academic achievement, interview skills, chapter involvement,
certification achievement, and tournament golf resume. This character development experience gives
advanced participants in the First Tee live skills curriculum an opportunity to develop and demonstrate
learned life skills and the nine core values, such as competency, perseverance and judgment, through
participation in a televised golf tournament. She said that Mr. Buchanan and his parents reside in the
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Rivanna District, and he is the second Charlottesville Chapter participant in First Tee Open from
Albemarle County.
_____
Ms. Mallek next recognized Tanner Wood, Joshua Rocker, Shannon Flanagan, and Daniel Blick,
who spoke about the VSA, an arts organization whereby artists come into schools and encourage people
with disabilities to utilize their creative abilities. The students thanked the County for its donation to the
VSA and provided Board members with a copy of their poetry book.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Rodney Rich addressed the Board, stating that he has concerns about the closing of the Ivy
Landfill. Mr. Rich said that he has a small masonry business and hauls all of his clean fill and dirt to the
Ivy Landfill with dump trailers. The cost for him to haul material to Zions Crossroads would increase by
about $2.00 per load – or $1,000 a day – plus his fuel and time. He does not think he could pass that cost
on to his customers. He stated that the hazardous waste days at the Ivy Landfill site are very important to
the community, and if the Board does away with that he fears they will go back to the days when paint
cans, tires, and other toxic materials are dumped on back country roads around the County. Mr. Rich said
that even setting up sites would probably still result in people dumping elsewhere. It seems the Board is
increasing the income of a business in Fluvanna County while being detrimental to business in Albemarle
and its environment.
Ms. Mallek said that they are quite certain that the hazardous waste days will continue.
_____
Mr. Rit Venerus addressed the Board, stating that he is a homeowner in Walnut Hills who has
filed a claim for damages due to blasting at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Airport. He said that
thus far, the blasting company has denied every claim filed for damages, and the Airport has remained
silent on the matter. Mr. Venerus said that the basis for denying the 20+ claims is a report that was paid
for by the blasting company, done by an electrical engineer and signed by a geologist. He stated that in
April residents hired a professional engineer, and that report confirms that the Airport caused damage to
his residence – as they were able to forensically trace what damage was and was not blasting related,
including a water leak in his home that was caused by the blasting. Mr. Venerus said that a fire marshal
confirmed that the leak caused an electrical fire in his basement, to which the Fire Department had to
respond. He referenced photos in the report he provided, which show examples of how the damage got
worse as the blasting continued as well as damages that appeared in between inspection times of April
and November. Mr. Venerus said that the report also includes warning sides that were ignored, as the
Airport misled residents and never told them to get pre-blast surveys or warned them of any potential
damages. He also referenced an email from the Chairman of the Airport Authority that acknowledged he
“had no idea that the blasting would be such that in effect, a large quarry operation would be in place on
Airport property.” Mr. Venerus said that the Airport Authority was not fully aware of what was going on, on
Airport property – but the Airport still has liability in this matter and should do the right thing, and not
continue to push residents off to the blasting company.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the other matters portion of the agenda.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker moved to approve Items 11.0 through 11.2
and Item 11.5 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Snow
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_____
Item No. 11.0. Approval of Minutes: August 7, 2013.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of August 7, 2013, pages 1-17(end at Item #11), and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of August 7, 2013, pages 17(begin with Item 11) – end,
and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read.
_____
Item No. 11.1. SDP-2011-1. Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 Special Exception to Authorize
Variations from the Application Plan and Proffers Associated with ZMA2010-14.
The executive summary states that Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 (“HTC A-1”) fronts on Route
29 and Town Center Boulevard. HTC A-1 was rezoned to PD-MC with proffers and an application plan on
September 11, 2007 and the rezoning was amended in January 2011 (ZMA2010-14). There currently is a
zoning map amendment before the Board to revise the bus stop and greenway proffers. A site plan has
been previously approved and the site contains several commercial buildings. The applicant would like to
reduce the square footage of one building, with the opportunity to use the square footage elsewhere within
HTC A-1, and to change the parking configuration and number of parking spaces. The applicant is
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
requesting a special exception to authorize variations from the approved Application Plan.
The applicant has submitted a variation request (Variation #1) seeking three variations to the
Application Plan. These variations involve reducing the square footage of Building J from 28,968 square
feet to 17,018 square feet with the opportunity to reserve the remaining square footage of 11,950 for
future development within A-1. The parking configuration and number of spaces is also proposed to
change; there will be 7 additional spaces and the revised parking layout is shown on the attached plan
(Attachment A). Due to the proximity of the building to the Entrance Corridor, the ARB has also reviewed
the proposal and has no objection to the proposed changes. Staff is recommending approval of the
special exception.
VARIATION REQUEST #1:
Staff analysis of the Variation Request is provided below:
1) The variations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
These variations are consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The land use pattern reflected in the existing Application Plan will generally be
maintained. The building location and orientation will not change. The proposed parking
lot layout has essentially the same visual impact as the existing plan.
2) The variations do not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
Density is not increased; the reserve square footage will be used toward a future building.
3) The variations do not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of
any other development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of the development is unaffected.
4) The variations do not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5) The variations are in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved
rezoning application.
These variations are in general accord with the approved rezoning application. Because
this proposal is to move the square footage and slightly alter the parking configuration, no
significant impacts are anticipated.
Staff recommends approval of Variation Request #1 to reduce the square footage of Building J,
while reserving the remaining square footage for future development, and to change the parking lot
configuration and the number of parking spaces as described above and consistent with the Application
Plan entitled “Hollymead Town Center Area A-1 Minor Site Plan Amendment,” last revised 11/19/13.
By the above-recorded vote, approved Variation Request #1 to reduce the square footage
of Building J, while reserving the remaining square footage for future development, and to change
the parking lot configuration and the number of parking spaces as described in the Executive
Summary and consistent with the Application Plan entitled “Hollymead Town Center Area A-1
Minor Site Plan Amendment,” last revised 11/19/13.
_____
Item No. 11.2. Special exception for: Terra Voice Music Home Occupation Class A, modification
of Section 18.5.2.e of the Zoning Ordinance for traffic generation.
The executive summary states that the applicant 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 provide music lessons from the residence. The applicant is
requesting up to thirty (30) clients per week.
Characteristics of the anticipated operation:
Operating hours are by appointment, Monday through Saturday.
Hours of operation: Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM – 7:30 PM and Saturday, 9:30 – 3:00 PM
Sessions typically range from 30 to 60 minutes
Average annual attendance is 20 clients per week, but during school year clients may
increase to 25-30 per week during some periods.
Most students are children that will be dropped off at the home; there are some adult
students
The property (TMP 056B0-00-00-00400) is located on Ballard Drive in Crozet. The home is
approximately 400 feet south of the Ballard Drive-Crozet Avenue intersection. The .51 acre parcel is
zoned R-2, Residential. Ballard Drive consists of single-family detached homes.
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 Administrator
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 round trip per day for clients, provided that these trips should be spread
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
throughout the week (seven per week). The applicant’s request is to be allowed to serve up to 30 clients
per week six days per week (Monday through Saturday). This would result in up to 60 round trips per
week from the home occupation use (or up to 10 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 Ballard Drive 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 family day home serving up to five (5)
children (a special use permit is required for a family day home serving six or more children). A by-right
family day home would generate up to 50/60 round trips per week (Mon.-Fri./Sat.) 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 proposal is generally consistent with the comparable by-right family day home 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.”
There is a 60+ foot long driveway which is adequate to accommodate client parking and/or pick-
up and drop-off. Ballard Drive is in adequate condition to accommodate the limited additional traffic
generated from this proposal.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. This property has had a home occupation use on site without complaint.
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. Ballard Drive 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 this Special Exception to modify Section 5.2 (e) of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow an increase in permitted traffic generation for HO 2013-160 above that allowed by
Section 5.2(e), subject to the following condition:
1. No more than 30 clients per week (Monday through Saturday).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the Special Exception to modify Section
5.2 (e) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an increase in permitted traffic generation for HO-2013-160
above that allowed by Section 5.2(e), subject to the following condition:
1. No more than 30 clients per week (Monday through Saturday).
_____
Item No. 11.5. Joint Board of Supervisors/School Board Letter to Legislators, re: support for three
issues of concern.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the Chair to sign the following joint
letter on behalf of the Board of Supervisors:
Dear Senators and Delegates:
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and our School Board, we would like to
express our appreciation for the consistent and valuable support you have provided to us on
behalf of our mission to maintain a high quality of life for our residents. This would not be possible
without the delivery of a world class education and we are proud to note that our students
continue to rank within Virginia's top performance tiers.
Thank you for helping to provide the resources that enable us to prepare our students for college
and workforce success. While there are many important issues facing the General Assembly in
the upcoming session, we would like to ask for your support in three areas that are crucial to our
ability to preserve educational excellence in an increasingly more challenging competitive
environment.
Standards of Quality- We urge the State to fully fund its share of the realistic costs of the
Standards of Quality without making policy changes that reduce funding or shift funding
responsibility to localities.
Composite lndex- We support legislation to correctly identify a locality’s "ability to pay" by
amending the Composite Index Funding Formula by (1) redefining the local true values
component of the formula to include the land use taxation value of real property rather
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
than the fair market assessed value for those properties that have qualified and are being
taxed under a land use value taxation program and (2) adjusting the funding formula for
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville which does not currently reflect the
revenue sharing agreement that exists between the County and the City. The revenue
sharing agreement results in our ability to pay being overstated, and brings approximately
$2 million fewer state dollars to support our schools.
Virginia Retirement System Funding- We support the restoration of funds to the Virginia
Retirement System without shifting additional burdens to localities. One change that
would be particularly helpful is to provide a multi-year projection of locality contributions to
the system to allow for a planned, thoughtful budgetary approach, one that avoids the
need for last-minute programmatic reductions that harm the classroom.
_____
Item No. 11.3. Copy of letter dated November 26, 2013, from Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Principal
Planner, to Mr. Bob Headrick, Nest Realty, re: LOD-2013-00021 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PARCEL OF RECORD AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 60E1-00-0N, Parcel 1 (property of
Dogwood Lane Properties LLC), Jack Jouett Magisterial District, was received for information.
_____
Item No. 11.4. Copy of letter dated November 19, 2013, from Mr. Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of
Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Evergreen 651 LLC (c/o Ms. Therese Elron) re: OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF PARCELS, Tax Map Parcel 059D1-02-0H-01400 (property of Evergreen 61 LLC),
Samuel Miller Magisterial District, was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: ACSA-2013-00002. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. -
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Request. Request to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide sewer service to Tax
Map 78, Parcels 22 and 23, and provide water and sewer service to Tax Map 77, Parcel 31, Tax Map 78,
Parcel 25, and Tax Map 92, Parcel 1, located on Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53) approximately 2
miles east of the intersection of Scottsville Road (Route 20) and Route 53. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2013.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (“TJF”) is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority
(“ACSA”) Jurisdictional Area designation for public water and/or sewer service to parcels and buildings
owned and/or operated by it as follows:
Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, staff offices,
original gift shop, and restrooms (TMP 78-22).
Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and a map correction to the
Jurisdictional Area Map to include the Visitor Center site for water service.
Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies)
(TMP 92-01) and future administrative campus (TMP 78-25).
Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto (property leased by TJF
from UVA Foundation) (TMP 77-31).
These sites are located east of Route 20 on Route 53 (see Attachment A). The parcels are
designated Rural Area in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and are located in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. Public water service is currently provided to the Monticello Main House area and Visitor Center
site on TMP 77-22 and 77-23. Private sewage facilities currently serve all properties subject to the
request. The Board conducted a work session on November 6, 2013 (See Attachment A) and at that time
set a public hearing for amending the Jurisdictional Area Boundary as requested by the applicant.
By policy stated in the Comprehensive Plan, public water and sewer services are intended to
serve the designated Development Areas where growth is encouraged and are to be discouraged in the
Rural Area because utility services are a potential catalyst for growth. Public water supply and sewer
system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to serve the Development
Areas. The continued connection of properties in the Rural Area to the public systems results in further
extension of lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area into the Rural Area, potentially
straining water and sewer resources and the capacity to serve higher priority needs.
As acknowledged by the Board at the work session on November 6, 2013, there are unique
circumstances that relate to the request for public water and sewer service to the parcels and buildings
owned and leased by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. The Monticello Main House and Visitor
Center sites have a very high level of usage and visitation; approximately 440,000 people each year.
In addition, the Monticello Main House area has historic resources that could be adversely impacted by
the installation of new private sewer systems. While there is not a documented health or safety issue
associated with the existing private sewage system, there could be a significant impact to TJF’s facilities
operations and public health if the sites were to close due to failure of the aging private sewage facilities.
In addition, if the existing drainfield site could not be used (already repaired once over 30 years ago),
significant land disturbance at the Monticello Main House site would be needed (most likely at the site of
Jefferson’s orchards). Given the archeological resources on that site, TJF strongly desires to leave those
areas undisturbed so that archeological resources will be left in place for study sometime in the future.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Land disturbance for a drainfield would significantly damage and alter an area adjacent to the Main House,
which is not desired. Finally, there are historically significant and invaluable resources and materials/
collections located and archived on these properties which are in need of adequate fire protection to better
ensure for their long term preservation.
An additional unique aspect of this application is the new 250,000 gallon underground water
storage tank proposed on the Montalto parcel (TMP 77-31). The water storage tank would serve to
improve the fire suppression capabilities of the entire Monticello complex including the Visitor Center and
Main House area (due to the higher elevation of the Montalto site). Given the site’s status as a UNESCO
World Heritage site and the number of annual visitors to the Visitor’s Center and Main House area,
additional fire suppression capacity is an important consideration.
Although staff believes that the request does not meet the guiding principles provided for
expansions of the Jurisdictional Areas, due to the unique circumstances set forth, staff believes there is
merit to amending the limited service designation to permit service to the site consistent with the
conditions of Zoning Map Amendments ZMA 2004-05 and ZMA 2007-23. The Zoning Map Amendments
for Monticello Historic District (MHD) limited the scope and scale of future development to what has been
previously approved by the Board. No additional development would be proposed if the jurisdictional area
request is approved.
The property owner would bear all of the costs for connection to public water and public sewer
services.
Staff recommends that the Board approve an amendment of the Albemarle County Service
Authority Jurisdictional Area to provide limited water and sewer service to TMPs 77-31, 78-22, 78-23, 78-
25, and 92-1, and that water and sewer service continue to be provided to the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Inc. complex only as approved under ZMA 2004-05 and ZMA 2007-23. Amendment of the
ACSA Jurisdictional Area Boundary shall provide limited service as follows:
Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, staff offices,
original gift shop, and restrooms (TMP 78-22).
Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and a map correction to the
Jurisdictional Area Map to include the Visitor Center site for water service.
Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies)
(TMP 92-01) and future administrative campus, consistent with the approved application
plan for the Monticello Historic District (TMP 78-25).
Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto (TMP 77-31).
-----
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that this is a request for water and sewer service to
the Thomas Jefferson Foundation properties, which include the Monticello site and mountaintop area, the
Visitors Center, Kenwood, and Montalto. Mr. Benish said that the properties are zoned Monticello Historic
District but are within the designated rural areas, and that designation was given in the mid-2000s. He
stated that water service is already provided to the mountaintop area and the Visitors Center, and they are
already in the jurisdictional area and have been served since the late 1940s and early 1950s. Mr. Benish
provided a map highlighting the Monticello site and mountaintop area, and said that the surrounding
properties are the Visitors Center, Montalto, and Kenwood and administrative campuses.
He reported that a study conducted in 2011 by the Foundation determined that a septic system
serving the Monticello house and mountaintop area had reached the end of its useful life, and a
replacement was needed. He stated that the treatment facility for the Visitors Center has also reached its
useful life and needs to be replaced. Likewise, the septic system for the Kenwood site has also reached
its useful life. Mr. Benish said that replacement of the facilities would impact archeological resources, and
there is concern about the viability of providing service to the area given the high volume of users. He
stated that an outline of impacts and issues is included in the staff report. He added that he has plans for
expansion of the existing service and proposed service in the event the Board needs to look at them.
Mr. Benish said that the jurisdictional area policy within the Comp Plan calls for providing service
within rural areas only when there is adjacency to existing lines and there is a documented public health or
safety issue, but in this case there are some unique circumstances with the property that merit
consideration for public service to the site: the high volume of usage on the site, with an annual average
of 440,000 visitors; its status as UNESCO World Heritage site, which consists of cultural and historic
resources of high significance and worldwide importance that require protection; and its zoning of
Monticello Historic District to reflect the unique character and activity onsite. He said that by providing
public water and sewer to the site, public sewer would avoid the impacts to historic resources,
archeological sites and artifacts through the installation of those facilities in the mountaintop area and the
Visitors Center in particular; and public water service would provide for more reliable service to the high
volume of usage and also provides for fire suppression to these important resources. Mr. Benish said that
there have been no failures to date, but part of that is due to the diligence of maintenance of the site.
He presented a table summarizing the unique circumstances for each of the areas requested for
service. Noise, odor and maintenance issues were also raised in terms of using a central system for the
Visitors Center as a replacement – and the preference for efficiency and safety for long term usage was to
go with a public system. Mr. Benish said that staff always looks at comparable circumstances when
looking at unique situations, and in granting service here the evaluation included properties in the RA that
are zoned for other than RA uses, and that is exclusive of old zoning or stale zoning that isn’t consistent
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
with the current policy, the adjacency to water lines, and the significance of historic resources onsite. Staff
have been unable to find a comparable site within the rural areas that has those characteristics. He said
that staff is recommending limited service to the area, which includes the four areas he had mentioned –
the mountaintop area with the Monticello house area and surrounding building, the Visitors Center area,
and the Kenwood house with a future administrative campus site, and the Montalto site. Mr. Benish stated
that one additional item staff has added since creating its report was a reference to the actions for limited
service as being “to these areas” and “consistent with the approved application plan for the zoning,” which
further clarifies what buildings are permitted for this site that could be served.
Mr. Rooker asked if all of these sites are under the control of the Foundation. Mr. Benish said
they are all either owned or under long-term lease by the Foundation.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Leslie Green-Bowman, President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, said that the
Foundation is grateful to the County for its devoted and long partnership with them for the stewardship of
Monticello. She stated that the site is the Commonwealth’s only United Nations World Heritage site,
welcoming 440,000 visitors to the community annually. Ms. Green-Bowman said that Monticello is at risk
if they do not address aging water and sewer infrastructure issues. They ask the Board to approve the
application to connect to public water and sewer. She said that they are in a unique zoning district and will
cover all costs associated with the connection, which is essential for both visitors and fire protection – and
there will be no cost to the County. Ms. Green-Bowman stated that this is the only historically and
environmentally responsible option available to them, and the only option that will conserve and protect
Jefferson’s historic landscape.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, commented that everyone is very familiar with the
proposal already, given the details provided in the previous month’s meeting. Ms. Long said that their only
request would be to add some clarification for structures shown on the approved application plan, as there
are some existing structures that are permitted but are not expressly referenced in the list of conditions.
She stated that the applicant contends that the proposal meets the County’s policy for adjacency and
unique circumstances as well as health and safety risks, and thanked the Board for its support. The
applicant will be happy to respond to any questions from the Board or public.
Ms. Mallek asked if the structures she was referencing were not listed in the MHD. Ms. Long
explained that they are shown on the approved application plan, but the conditions list most of the
individual structures and state “as consistent with the approved application plan,” but do leave out a small
handful of structures such as a small maintenance facility behind the main house and some other
maintenance facilities in the parking lot. She stated that they want to ensure they avoid any future
questions about the structures that are not specifically listed. She suggested that the condition be
rephrased to “any existing structures’ as of today’s date.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert said that the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce has a high
regard for the places that Thomas Jefferson built and remains an advocate for “all things Monticello.” Mr.
Hulbert said that the Chamber supports the Foundation’s request to Albemarle County for modern, safe,
healthy water and sewer service for Monticello and the Foundation’s properties as the logic for approval is
simply overwhelming. He stated that the Foundation seeks to serve the many visitors who come here as
well as the staff in an efficient, modern, healthy, safe infrastructure system while bearing all costs for
access. The County’s regulations should be flexible to accommodate this request from the Foundation.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker stated that he supports the proposal, and wants the record to reflect that this is a
unique circumstance whereby it is in a designated rural area but the property has a special zoning district
attached to it. When the Zoning District was created, it had an application plan that specifies everything
that Monticello can do on the property. He said that this allows the plan to be realized and allows the
440,000 annually guests to use facilities that are more appropriate and in keeping with the needs on the
mountain. He added that he normally would not support extension of the jurisdictional designation into the
rural areas, but this is a special circumstance and different from a typical request.
Ms. Mallek agreed, adding that the original land for the Moore’s Creek sewage treatment plant
was Monticello property and was donated to the locality to develop that. In a way Monticello deserves to
be connected and protection of the archeological aspects that might otherwise be destroyed by further
septic fields is a really important issue to be considered.
Mr. Davis said that staff’s recom mended conditions would be what is before the Board on the
screen, and adding in the appropriate place in each bulleted recommendation “and other existing
structures on the property on December 10, 2013.”
Ms. Dittmar moved to approve the recommendations for amendment of the service area
jurisdictional boundary as presented, with the addition to the conditions for each bullet point the language
“and any existing structure that is also there as of December 10, 2013.” Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis said that it is important to point out the recommendation is for limited service as defined
in the recommendations.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Mallek asked what “limited service meant” because she wants to ensure that water and sewer
was available to each of the four categories.
Mr. Benish said that the other designations provide for any service regardless of what
development takes place, provided that it is consistent with zoning – and this means that it is limited to
these structures.
Mr. Rooker said that in a prior report, the Board also had information that this would not in any
way limit capacity elsewhere.
Mr. Boyd asked if this meant the applicant would have to come back before the Board if they
wanted to build another building or expand an existing building. Mr. Benish said that would be the case if
the building is not on the application plan that was approved with the rezoning, and that is consistent with
what the applicant has requested.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions are set out below:)
1. Sewer service to the Monticello Main House area, including the main house, president’s house,
staff offices, original gift shop, restrooms and other existing structures on the property on
December 10, 2013 consistent with the approved application plan for the Monticello Historic
District (TMP 78-22).
2. Sewer service to the Visitor Center (also TMP 78-22 and 23) and other existing structures on the
property on December 10, 2013 consistent with the approved application plan for the Monticello
Historic District, and a map correction to the Jurisdictional Area Map to include the visitor center
site for water service.
3. Water and sewer service to Kenwood House (International Center for Jefferson Studies) (TMP
92-01), future administrative campus and other existing structures on the property on December
10, 2013 consistent with the approved application plan for the Monticello Historic District (TMP 78-
25).
4. Water and sewer service to the Robert Smith Center at Montalto and other existing structures on
the property on December 10, 2013 consistent with the approved application plan for the
Monticello Historic District (TMP 77-31).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: PROJECT: ZMA-2012-00003. Out of Bounds (Sign #6).
PROPOSAL: Rezone a 9.42 acre property from R-1 Residential (1unit/acre) to NMD
Neighborhood Model District which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with commercial,
service and industrial uses. Maximum of 56 residential units with the preservation of an existing
residence on 0.68 acres for a proposed density of 6 units/gross acre. No commercial is proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential (3-6 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses
in Neighborhood 7.
LOCATION: Located on Barracks Road (Route 654) across from its intersection with Georgetown
Road (Route 656). 225 Out of Bounds Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000000006500.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. (Deferred from November 13, 2013.)
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2013.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On November 13, 2013, the Board of Supervisors heard the above petition and voted to defer the
application at the applicant’s request. The Board stated that the proffers needed to be revised to
coordinate the timing of the traffic signal improvements with VDOT’s replacement schedule and to clarify
the owner’s obligation to maintain a downstream drainage channel within the Canterbury Hills
neighborhood.
The applicant has revised the proffers to reflect changes desired by the Board. Proffer 4 has
been amended to provide that the Owner will modify the traffic signal at the intersection of Barracks
Road and Georgetown Road to accommodate the extension of Georgetown Road into the project
either when requested by VDOT or as a condition to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy,
whichever occurs sooner. This amendment will allow VDOT to ensure that this new leg of the signal
will be upgraded in conjunction with the remaining legs of the signal under VDOT’s current
replacement schedule.
Proffer 5B has been amended to clarify the Owner’s obligations to maintain the downstream
drainage channel in the Canterbury Hills neighborhood. The revised proffer establishes deadlines by
which needed repairs will be performed, requires the Owner to submit an inspection report to the
County Engineer, allows the County Engineer to require repairs to be performed in less time than
proposed by the Owner if deemed necessary, and provides that the maintenance and repair work will
be performed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. These revisions will improve the enforceability
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
of Proffer 5B.
Proffer 5C has been amended to clarify the Owner’s commitment to contribute 5% of the cost
of the construction of new drainage improvements associated with the drainage channel that are
initiated by the Canterbury Hills Association or an impacted property owner. The revised proffer
requires that the Association or the impacted property owner provide the Owner with written notice of
the proposed improvements and their cost before construction begins, and that the Owner provide that
same notice to the County Engineer. The revised proffer also obligates the Owner to make its 5%
contribution within 60 days after receipt of proof of payment for the construction. Lastly, the revised
proffer provides that these new improvements will become part of the Owner’s maintenance and repair
obligations under Proffer 5B. These revisions also will improve the enforceability of Proffer 5C.
The applicant also is proposing a credit for the by-right lots under the cash proffer and has
adjusted Proffer #3 to allow for this credit. The applicant has provided a by-right subdivision plat
(Attachment X) showing a total of nine lots allowed by right under the current R-1 zoning. Staff as
reviewed the plat, and finds that the development of 9 lots is feasible.
The owner also made some minor technical changes at staff’s request. The proffers have
been reviewed by the Zoning, Engineering and Planning staff and the County Attorney and are in an
acceptable form for approval.
The applicant has addressed the expectations of the Board of Supervisiors and staff recommends
that the Board approve ZMA2012-003 Out of Bounds inclusive of the proffers dated November 18, 2013
and signed November 25, 2013 (Attachment A), and the Code of Development dated 8/26/2013
(Attachment B).”
_____
Ms. Meghan Yaniglos, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that this is a request to
rezone 9.42 acres from R-1 to Neighborhood Model to allow 56 single-family attached townhouses and
multi-family residential units with the existing single-family house to remain. The applicant is also
requesting a special exception for critical slopes. She said that the application was originally heard by the
Board on November 13, 2013. The property is located along Barracks Road across from its intersection
with Georgetown Road.
Ms. Yaniglos stated that the applicant has responded to the Board’s request by providing a by-
right subdivision plat showing a total of nine lots and has revised proffer #3 to allow for a credit for the by-
right lots; proffer #5 has been amended to clarify the owner’s obligations concerning the downstream
drainage channel; and proffer #4 has been amended to provide that the owner will modify the traffic signal
to accommodate the extension of Georgetown Road into the site. She said that Exhibit A was not
included in the Board’s agenda information, but was referenced in the proffers, and said she did distribute
a copy of the exhibit to the Board prior to the meeting.
Ms. Yaniglos stated that the applicant has addressed the Board’s expectations, and, therefore, the
staff recommends that the Board approve ZMA 2012-0003, inclusive of the proffers and the Code of
Development.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification of changes to the stewardship of the easement and how that
concern has been addressed.
Mr. Rooker said that this has gone back and forth with the neighborhood and he has looked at it
continuously. These are all easements so the applicant cannot do maintenance on the property unless
the owners allow him on the property. He stated that the applicant cannot control this, but has agreed to
do what is specified providing that the owners grant him access within the 30-day request period.
Ms. Mallek asked if all the other issues have been worked out. Mr. Rooker responded, “yes”.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Mr. Vito Cetta, thanked the Board for serving the County. He commented that it is
good to have diversity on the Board, of which the City does not have. Mr. Cetta said that he approves the
staff comments and Ms. Yaniglos’ work. He is present to answer any questions. He added that the
County Attorney’s office was extremely helpful.
Mr. Snow said that he appreciates Mr. Cetta’s perseverance.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker commented that they finally got the proffers right, although it was a process getting
there.
Mr. Rooker then moved to approve ZMA-2012-00003 inclusive of the proffers dated November
18, 2013 and signed November 25, 2013 and the Code of Development dated 8/26/2013. Mr. Snow
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the special exception for critical slopes
modification for ZMA-2012-0003, as recommended by staff. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out below:)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: ZMA-2012-00004. Avon Park II (Signs #89&91).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.262 acres from R-6 zoning district for which allows residential uses at a
density of 6 units per acre to PRD zoning district which allows residential uses with limited
commercial uses at a density of 3 - 34 units/acre. 32 maximum units proposed for a density of 6
units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential– residential (3-6 units/acre);
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-residential uses.
LOCATION: 1960 Avon Street Extended. Approximately 1000 feet north of the intersection of
Avon Street Extended and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000003100.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (deferred from September 11, 2013).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2013.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“On September 11, 2013, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for the Avon Park II
rezoning request. The Board, by a vote of 6:0, deferred ZMA201200004 with proffers, to December 9th in
order to give the applicant time to address concerns from adjacent residents regarding this rezoning
request. Staff and the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the rezoning request.
The applicant has provided the following revisions to the application plan (Attachment A):
• The townhouses shown as lots 8 – 10 have been relocated from the northeast corner
to the southwest corner of the intersection of Hathaway Street and Stratford Way.
• Lot widths, street parking, and street tree locations have all been adjusted to
accommodate the relocation of the townhouses.
• Additional street lighting is now provided for the streets and path to the tot lot.
• Side setbacks have been increased from 5 feet to 7.5 feet for lots adjacent to the
existing Avon Park I houses.
• A landscape buffer is added to the north side of the project, adjacent to the existing
Avon Park I residences. Also in reference to maintaining the existing landscape buffer
on the north side of the project adjacent to Avon Park I, a note has been added
regarding the saving of existing trees if possible.
• The cover sheet of the plan has a revised parking schedule and bedroom table to
reflect relocated lots and a revised note now indicates that street lighting is provided.
The following summarize the revisions to the proffers (Attachment B), exclusive of minor technical
revisions:
• Proffers 1 and 2, the affordable housing proffers, have been revised to reflect the
revised lot numbers.
• Proffer 3, regarding the cash contribution to mitigate fiscal impacts, has been revised
to show a credit for 5 by-right units, which was the number of by-right units that could
be developed under the R-1 zoning of the site before it was amended to R-6 when
ZMA 2007-00005 was approved on November 14, 2007. The proffers accepted in
conjunction with ZMA 2007-00005 did not provide a credit for the by-right units
allowed under the prior R-1 zoning. Staff has verified that 5 units could have been
constructed on the site under the R-1 zoning.
• Proffer 6 has been added to address overlot grading concerns to require that all
grading be conducted pursuant to an overlot grading plan approved by the County
Engineer.
As discussed by the Board, the applicant has met with the adjacent neighbors regarding their
concerns about the pending development and has addressed the neighbors’ concerns. It is staff’s
understanding that the neighbors are satisfied with the revisions proposed by the applicant. Staff has
reviewed the applicant’s revisions and finds them satisfactory with the exception of the credit for cash
proffers option that goes back to a couple prior rezoning requests, proposed by the applicant. The
applicant has also provided Attachment C, the proffers without a credit for the by-right units, as an
option. This is an issue the Board will need to address.
If the Board is satisfied with the applicant’s revisions, including the by-right development credit for the
by-right units predating the current zoning, staff recommends approval of ZMA2012-00004 with the attached
proffers and application plan. (See Attachments A and B)
_____
Ms. Claudette Grant, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that the property is located
at 1960 Avon Street extended. The applicant is requesting to rezone 5.262 acres from R-6 to Planned
Residential District, with 32 units maximum proposed.
Ms. Grant said that there was a public hearing on the project that the Board held in September,
and it deferred the rezoning request. She stated that the applicant has revised the application plan and
the proffers. She then presented slides showing the proposed application plan. Ms. Grant said that
revisions include relocated townhouses, which are now on the southern portion of the property away from
the existing Avon Park I. She stated that additional street lighting is also included in the proposal, and
side setbacks would be increased from 5 to 7.5 feet for the lots adjacent to Avon Park I, along with the
addition of landscape screening adjacent to that development.
Ms. Grant reported that the two main revisions to the proffers include an additional proffer #6 that
was added to address over-lot grading concerns, and proffer #3 now shows a credit for five by-right units,
which is the number of by-right units that could be developed under R-1 zoning of the site prior to the
currently approved zoning – and this is an outstanding issue. If the Board is satisfied with the applicant’s
revisions, including the by-right development credit for the by-right units predating the current zoning, staff
recommends approval of the ZMA with the proffers and the application plan.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, said that there are alternative proffers should the
Board not decide that the credit is appropriate. Staff had not taken the original action regarding the credit
being retroactive to by-right allowances previously permitted. He stated that the County currently has the
commitment of cash proffers for all of the units in the zoning that exists, should the Board decide the
credit is not appropriate.
Mr. Davis clarified that it is actually requesting a credit for a rezoning that happened in 2007,
which is not supported by policy.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Mr. Vito Cetta, said that he agrees with the staff report. He explained that he
bought the property in 2007 at the height of the market and has been sitting on it waiting for the market to
rebound. Mr. Cetta said that the neighbors had some concerns, which they expressed at the September
meeting, and he has met many times with them and feels that 90% of their requests were accepted – with
street lights perhaps being a minor issue.
Ms. Nancy Schlichting said she was present to speak on behalf of Shelley Pellish, President of
Avon Park I Homeowners Association. Ms. Schlichting thanked the Board members for their diligence in
addressing neighbors’ concerns, specifically Mr. Craddock, Mr. Thomas, and now Ms. Dittmar. She said
that they do feel that 90% of concerns have been addressed and Mr. Cetta has been very considerate and
cooperative. Ms. Schlichting said that there are remaining issues with the bond work left to be done at
Avon Park I. The insurance company has decided to do the work themselves – with their representative
making a genuine effort to resolve the issues. She stated that they still do not have a written scope of
work, which leaves the homeowners legally unprotected and at a disadvantage. Ms. Schlichting said they
are working hard to obtain a scope of work and have been promised an engineering report for the
retaining wall, which has not yet been received. She stated that they are hopeful for a resolution to all of
their issues, but do not want to be rushed to accept a solution without all of the information they believe
they are entitled to, so they are withdrawing their request that all the work on Avon Park I be completed
before the work on Avon Park II begins. She asked that the County continue to be an active participant in
this process so that Avon Park I can get the completion it deserves.
Mr. Justin Connor, a member of the Avon Park I Homeowners Association, said that the residents
would really like the County’s help in pressing to get the scope of the bond defined for the work being
done on Avon Park I.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek said that her question was related to the scope of work, because she thought it had
been resolved several months earlier.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that there is a “punch list” from
VDOT on what they need to finish up with the road, and most of the questions regarding the retaining wall
have been addressed. He said that there has been an engineer’s inspection but there is not a final report,
which is an expectation at this point. The engineer has noted that there needs to be drainage
improvements with the back of the wall. Mr. Graham said that they are currently working to install those,
and once they have them staff wants the engineer’s certification that the work has been done to the
appropriate standard. He stated that staff hopes that the project will be before the Board within two
months for a resolution from VDOT to accept the road into the state system.
Ms. Mallek asked if the engineer or someone making repairs to the wall had to get a permit or
some approval from staff for the plans. Mr. Graham clarified that they are working under an existing plan,
and the reasons for the flooding were that the grading at the intersection of the road with Avon was not
correct, and the water that was supposed to have been collected at the houses before it ran down the hill
to the retaining wall was not adequately collected – so now they are installing a drainage collection system
to make sure the water won’t spill over the retaining wall. He confirmed that staff has verified that there
are proper drains on the uphill side of the wall that run deep.
Mr. Boyd said that he was having trouble understanding the correlation between the bonding
company and this project, because one is not dependent on the other.
Mr. Graham explained that at one point there was a request for a voluntary offer by the developer
to not go forward until there was resolution of the road issue, so they weren’t making the situation worse
for homeowners, but staff is convinced that is not going to happen. He said that if the rezoning is
approved at this meeting, the road will likely be accepted long before they get a preliminary plan approved
or start grading onsite.
Mr. Boyd said that he was just curious as to whether the Board can deny a project based on some
other project.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board hasn’t even reached the point of discussing their wish for a
voluntary hold anyway, and the homeowners have already withdrawn their request.
Mr. Graham said that the original issue was whether the road was sufficient to be able to address
the additional traffic.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Schlichting stated that there is no current scope of work with respect to the retaining wall, and
the homeowners of Avon Park I have been given no scope of work or an agreement as to what the
bonding is going to do. She said that the roads are one issue and the retaining wall is another, but they
are connected. She said that the reason she brought it up is that they do not want to be rushed into
accepting something that may not be acceptable, but are trying not to hold up Mr. Cetta’s project.
Mr. Rooker clarified that under any circumstances, Mr. Cetta does not have responsibility for the
retaining wall; he was not the prior developer that put the retaining wall in and built the road.
Mr. Davis said that the owner of that project is responsible for that improvement, and the
improvements are shown on plans that were bonded. The bonding company is now stepping into the role
of the owner to make those improvements, and ultimately they must be acceptable to Mr. Graham and the
Engineering Department to make the determination that they’ve met the obligations of the plan.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis to also explain what the situation is with the proffer credits.
Mr. Davis explained that in 2007 there was a rezoning of the property to R-6. At that time there
was a claim of five underlying existing development rights on the property prior to that rezoning. He said
that in the 2007 rezoning, a cash proffer was proffered for all of the lots that would be created under the R-
6 rezoning. Mr. Davis said that this application is to amend the R-6 rezoning to Neighborhood Model
District, and the applicant wants credit for existing development rights from the preexisting zoning before
R-6. He stated that it is essentially a “generation leap” from a property zoned prior to 2007, claiming
credits that existed then that do not exist in that respect now. Mr. Davis stated that staff would not support
that as being consistent with policy. Mr. Cetta has provided the County with two sets of proffers: those
dated December 2, 2013 which claim that credit; and an alternate proffer dated November 21, 2013 that
does not claim that credit. Mr. Davis said that staff’s position would be to accept the November proffer,
which does not provide that credit.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff did not understand how to approach credits as something that would
be applied retroactively to actions that previously occurred where commitments were made to provide full
cash proffers.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board did not discuss that element at all, and she would be opposed to
going backwards.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should take the staff recommendation on this.
Mr. Boyd said that he would take a different direction, because they are headed in the direction of
giving credit for the by-right uses even though it has not been put in the Comp Plan yet.
Mr. Rooker said that there are different proffers out there with different amounts, and asked Mr.
Boyd if he was prepared to grant an amendment for a rezoning to anyone with existing zoning who has
cash proffers and gives them credit for prior units that were not in place at the time.
Mr. Boyd said that it was kind of vague in the Comp Plan and a matter of interpretation as to
whether they got credit for those units.
Mr. Davis said that he did not think it was vague.
Mr. Boyd said that it has been a discussion point for years.
Mr. Rooker said that he is not prepared to grant a claw-back to 2007, or the status of the property
even before that date, and does not think it is a wise decision.
Ms. Dittmar said that although the retaining wall issue is not part of what the Board is considering
here, she offered assistance to the residents from Mr. Graham or herself regarding that matter. She also
commended Mr. Cetta for his spirit of cooperation in working with Avon Park I residents, and offered her
assistance in the event a new owner is not as easy to work with.
Ms. Dittmar then moved to approve ZMA-2012-00004 with proffers dated November 21, 2013
and application plan as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out below:)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: ZMA-2013-000001. The Lofts At Meadowcreek (Sign
#15).
PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 2.80 acres from R-4-Residential zoning district which allows
residential uses at a density of 4 units per acre to NMD-Neighborhood Model District zoning
district which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial
uses. Proposed 65 maximum dwelling units for a density of 23units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses –
Places 29 Master Plan.
LOCATION: 605 Rio Road East in Neighborhood 2.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061A0000001500 and 061A0000001700.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2013.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to the Board:
“On July 10, 2013, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for The Lofts at Meadowcreek
rezoning request. The Board, by a vote of 5:0, deferred indefinitely ZMA201300001 at the request of the
applicant. Also, the Board, by a vote of 5:0, deferred indefinitely the special exception waivers. During the
Board of Supervisors public hearing all outstanding issues were addressed with the exception of the
applicant not providing for any cash proffers under the cash proffer policy for public facilities to address
the impacts created by the proposed development.
The applicant has requested that the Board reconsider this matter with the information provided in
the revised proffers and letter, dated November 18, 2013 (Attachments A and B).
Since the Board public hearing on July 10th, the Owner, Mary Dickens, has authorized and
provided revised proffers that now include a new Proffer 5 which is a contribution of cash on a per
“market-rate” dwelling unit basis for the purposes of addressing the impacts of the development on the
County’s public facilities and infrastructure. The proffer describes a cash contribution of $1,000.00 for
each residential dwelling unit other than an affordable dwelling unit. (See Attachment A for revised
proffers) The cash proffers are based on 41 market rate units at $1,000 per unit for a total of up to
$41,000. The proposed development is for 65 units. The applicant is providing 13 affordable units (20%)
and requesting credit for 11 by-right units.
Total proposed units (all apartments) 65
Total affordable units provided 13
Assumed by-right developable units 11
Total “market rate units” 41
Staff requested a plan from the applicant that shows the number of units that could be constructed
by right on the site. The applicant has not provided this information; therefore, staff cannot verify that 11 by
right units can be developed on this site. The eleven (11) by-right unit total is consistent with the
theoretical development potential based on the existing R-4 and total acreage of the site (2.80 acres).
The new per unit cash proffer amount offered by the applicant is not consistent with the per unit
amount established in the County’s cash proffer policy for multi-family units ($14,497.77), which would
total $594,408.57 for 41 units. See Attachment B for the applicants justification in providing the proposed
cash proffers.
Total contributions offered by the applicant:
Cash proffer toward CIP improvements $41,000
Cash contribution for sidewalk walk construction $20,000
Total cash contribution $61,000 $20,000
Potential contribution for facility/infrastructure impacts based on County cash proffer policy:
Assuming 41 multi-family units $594,409
Assuming 52 multi-family units (no by-right credit) $753,884
The applicant states in Attachment B that the proposed development has several favorable
factors such as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and providing additional residential
opportunities for residents in this portion of the County; however, many of the costs mentioned in
Attachment B, such as water/sewer tap fees, and Rio Road improvements are normal costs associated
with providing this type of development. While staff acknowledges Proffer 4, a cash proffer in the amount
of $20,000, for sidewalk improvements to Pen Park Lane, as mentioned in a previous staff report, it is
unlikely that this proffered amount will fully fund the cost of construction for this section of sidewalk. Staff
finds the revised cash proffers provided by the applicant does not fully address the fiscal impacts of the
development on the County’s public facilities and infrastructure.
The cash proffer amount to address the impacts resulting from this project, as discussed at the
July 10th Board meeting, has not been fully addressed. All other outstanding issues from the Planning
Commission recommendations have been addressed.
However, if the Board is satisfied with the applicant’s revisions, staff recommends approval of
ZMA201300001 with revised proffers, dated November 11, 2013, code of development, dated June 17,
2013, inclusive of application plan, dated January, 22, 2013, revised May 13, 2013 (sheet 4 of 5 revised
June 10, 2013).
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
If the Board also is satisfied with the applicant’s revisions, staff recommends approval of the
special exceptions granting waivers from Section 20A.8 (a) and (b), Mixture of Uses and Housing Types;
Section 4.12.2 c.1, Number of parking spaces, and Section 4.2 Critical Slopes of the Zoning Ordinance.”
_____
Ms. Claudette Grant addressed the Board, stating that the property is located at 605 Rio Road
East and currently has an existing house that will be demolished for the proposed development. She said
that the applicant would like to rezone 2.8 acres from R-4 residential zoning district to Neighborhood
Model district. She presented an application plan showing up to 65 units proposed as a multi-family
residential, urban loft style building. She stated that the majority of the parking is proposed to be under
the building, and pointed out the footprint of the building with the driveway into the site and the parking
location.
Ms. Grant said that the owner has revised the proffers to now include a new proffer #5, which
describes a cash contribution of $1,000 for each residential dwelling unit other than an affordable dwelling
unit. She stated that the total contributions offered by the applicant total approximately $61,000. The
potential contribution for facility infrastructure impacts based on County cash proffer policy is
approximately $594,409, assuming 41 multi-family units. Ms. Grant said that additional detail is in the
executive summary. The new per-unit cash proffer amount offered by the applicant is not consistent with
the per-unit amount established in the County’s cash proffer policy.
She stated that the second issue has to do with credit for cash proffers. Staff was not able to
verify that 11 by-right units can be developed on the site – but the 11 by-right units total is consistent with
the theoretical development potential based on the existing R-4 zoning and total acreage of the site. Ms.
Grant said that the cash proffer amount to address the impacts resulting from this project has not been
fully addressed. If the Board is satisfied with the applicant’s revisions, staff recommends approval of ZMA
2013-00001 with proffers, Code of Development, and Application Plan. She said that if the Board is
satisfied with the applicant’s revisions, staff recommends approval of the special exceptions granting
waivers from Section 20A.8(a) and (b), which offer a mixture of uses and housing types; Section 4.12.2c.1
related to number of parking spaces; and Section 4.2, critical slopes.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $594,000 proffer under the regular formula would not allow for
improvements on the extra lane on Rio and the sidewalks count as deductions for that, because the extra
lane is not considered onsite. Mr. Davis said that under the policy, there would be no credit for that
because those would be required site development costs.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there is an offsite proffer for the sidewalk of $20,000, and that would be a
credit against the per-unit amount, but it does not pay for all of it.
Ms. Mallek said that it is likely that the extra amount of cash would cover the very small sidewalk
corner between Penn Park Lane and the Catholic School section that is yet to be built.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff does not believe the amount would cover that. He explained that that
the County is getting the $1,000 per unit offer and the $20,000 sidewalk offer as the applicant’s offset to
the impact – and that does not equal the monies that would be received through the application of the full
cash proffer policy. He said that even with credits for the 11 units, it still would not equal that amount, and
the applicant has not verified that the units can be built on the site by-right.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. William Park, on behalf of Pinnacle Construction Corporation, the contract purchasers for the
property, and said that they gave a detailed presentation in July but he would recap some of that
information. Mr. Park stated that they were the original developers of Treesdale, which is located across
the street and includes 88 units of affordable housing. He said that as they moved forward they were not
able to do all phases at one time. The have now moved onto Phase II, which will be a project that serves
incomes at 40%, 50%, 80%, and 120% of area median income – along with an unrestricted part that will
allow for any income level to live in those units. Mr. Park stated that they have a unique property with very
high quality design and a loft concept that provides a true urban feel, and all parking relegated beneath the
building. He said that the materials to be used will all be high quality, and the building will be built to
Earthcraft standards for energy efficiency.
Mr. Park said that the Comp Plan calls for this property to be urban design at 34 units per acre,
and this development will have 24 units per acre. He said that this dense type of development curtails
development in the rural areas and fosters resource protection, and it is consistent with the Neighborhood
Model. Mr. Park said that it will develop a small infill area with multi-family housing, which is what the
County has targeted to go into the infill areas. He stated that the project will be at least $100,000 in tax
benefit to the County, with $400,000 in water and tap fees to infrastructure that is already in place. Mr.
Park said that they also have $280,000 in road improvements including those to Rio Road in addition to
what they have already done at Treesdale, and have also proffered to have a bus transit stop for residents
of both developments. He stated that they have estimated that the sidewalk corner going into Penn Park
will cost less than $10,000 but they doubled it to $20,000. This should trigger the sidewalks that need to
be built at Charlottesville Catholic.
Mr. Park stated that the proffer policy clearly stipulates that each project should be viewed on an
individual basis and judged on its individual merits. The amount in the policy is at the maximum range.
He said that in looking at the unique design and characteristics of the project, there is no other
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
development in the area that provides a mixed-income environment where everyone can live together.
Mr. Park said it is projects like this that make a positive community.
Mr. Boyd asked how many of these units would be single-bedroom units. Mr. Park said that out of
the 65 units, 40 are one-bedroom and 25 are two-bedroom, and they are all loft units. He stated that the
target demographic is young urban professionals that move to the area and have entry level jobs and
cannot afford other housing types, as well as empty nesters that may be in a transitional period.
Mr. Boyd said that one-bedroom apartments would not generate children in County schools. Mr.
Park agreed, stating that there are not amenities in the project that serve children.
Ms. Mallek asked if the transit stops for CAT would be on each side of the property. Mr. Park said
that there would be one stop just put on their side of the property.
Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas said there is already a stop on the other side.
Ms. Mary Dickens addressed the Board, stating that a person’s home provides for their financial
needs later in life. She is an 83 year old widow if she does not get a rezoning now she will lose sale of her
property and the estate tax exemption. She stated that she has already lost 20% of the exemption as the
three-year rule expired September 15, 2013. Mr. Park is ready to close on the purchase any day. Ms.
Dickens said that they met all qualifications with the Planning Commission, and the rezoning public
hearing for the Board was originally set for July 10, 2013. She said that Mr. Park asked for a deferral
rather than cancel the project. The proffer policy clearly provides Board discretion to consider unique
circumstances and flexibility in recognition of high design and development standards. Ms. Dickens said
that she should surely qualify, given her age and status as a widow, as well as the positive aspects of the
proposed development. She stated that it is time for the Board to approve the rezoning, and thanked
them for their cooperation.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not understand why this is before the Board again.
Mr. Boyd said that several Board members wanted to bring this back because they felt it was a
unique situation. The Board essentially created the neighborhood when it allowed Treesdale to be built.
He said that Treesdale provides lots of affordable housing, and likely lessened the value of the property
across the street from it. Mr. Boyd said that this is the perfect place to make an exception in the proffer
policy and legitimately does so, given that this is the same company that built Treesdale right across the
street.
Mr. Rooker said that Treesdale is an entirely different project, and was all affordable housing built
on property sold to them by nonprofits with a deed restriction requiring that it be affordable housing. He
stated that you can take a policy and turn it into something that changes every time someone walks in the
door. He stated that what the Board is talking about here is a high density project on about three acres of
land, and he doesn’t see anything unique about this property other than the loft units – with no onsite
recreational amenities. Mr. Rooker said that the Out of Bounds project has more design features and
amenities than this project, and they were required to pay full proffers on the development; Avon Park is
also paying full proffers. He emphasized that the Board made a policy decision to give credit for
underlying development rights for the first time just a month prior, and that should certainly be the case
here – but that policy decision even required that the developer show the underlying development rights
could be exercised. Mr. Rooker said that this developer hasn’t even met that requirement. If the Board
goes down this road it does not have a policy, it has a case-by-case determination based on whether an
applicant has a good pitch. He commented that that’s not a policy at all, and there is no consistency with
that approach.
Mr. Boyd said that back in July, the Board asked for deferral of this project because it knew it
would address the proffer policies and felt it was going to be done relatively soon. He stated that the
reason for zoning is to put the proper developments in the proper places, and this is a worthwhile project
in the right place. Mr. Boyd said that it is easy for him to justify the exception in this case.
Mr. Snow said that he agrees that an exception should be made, as the applicant is offering a
product that isn’t available elsewhere in the County.
Mr. Rooker said that there are indeed one-bedroom apartments available in the County.
Ms. Dittmar asked for an explanation of what revisions were been made to satisfy what the Board
had wanted back in the summer.
Mr. Rooker said that they essentially did nothing, and the Board even agreed at that time to give
credit for underlying development rights – which is what staff is proposing – and that totals $594,000
instead of $753,000 in proffers. He stated that what the Board is considering now is basically eviscerating
that and forgetting about cash proffers.
Ms. Mallek said that her understanding was that the applicant was asking for credit for the 100%
affordable development across the street, and it would have been cleaner if they were both tied together at
that time. She stated that the applicant has not really done anything with affordable units below 80% up to
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
now, and this proposal provides 40%, 50%, and 120% – which isn’t available in other places. Ms. Mallek
said that these are designed for rental in that range.
Mr. Rooker said that there are all kinds of units available throughout this same area, and there is
no proffer as to what these are going to rent for, and an affordable housing proffer defines those rental
amounts. He emphasized that this proposal does not include that, and it does not match up with any
approval the Board has granted since the proffer policy was adopted.
Mr. Boyd said that in his opinion this is the right project in the right place, and the Board has the
right to consider an individual project on its own merits.
Mr. Rooker said that he just does not understand how this is any different from any other proposal
that has come before the Board, including Out of Bounds.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be better to put 11 houses and 11 driveways onto Rio Road.
Mr. Rooker said that such a project would have to develop as a subdivision with one entrance. He
added that he is not saying it is a bad project – he’s just saying there is nothing about it that differentiates
it from other projects and supports the Board abandoning the proffer policy.
Ms. Mallek said that for the Board’s review of this in July she hadn’t studied what was existing in
the proffer policy, and in looking at it since she sees that it refers to “high quality units that are different,”
but it doesn’t give any protocols to follow to determine what that means. She asked Mr. Davis to clarify
what the policy means.
Mr. Davis stated that the policy speaks to substantial upgrades to design and development
standards. He doesn’t believe that staff has found that those upgrades to design or development
standards exist here. He said that it is a Neighborhood Model development that meets those
requirements in the ordinance, but he doesn’t think staff found anything that met the criteria of substantial
upgrades.
Mr. Cilimberg said that much of this is left to the discretion of the Board, so there are many
projects that could be found to have unique aspects. He emphasized that generally, staff hasn’t gone
down the road of evaluating them this way because they have nothing to evaluate them with. Mr.
Cilimberg said that it is probably very informative to the cash proffer policy that when staff is discussing it
during the Comp Plan that if they are considering a lot of unique circumstance, how they should be
qualified.
Ms. Mallek commented that the one unique aspect of this development would be the underground
relegated parking.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board’s focus was still proffers, which is why the project was deferred
from July.
Mr. Rooker said that at the time, the applicant proffered something much less than what the cash
proffer policy would require – and the Board was prepared to deny it that night, but instead of taking a
denial the applicant asked for a deferral while the Board discussed the proffer policy. Mr. Rooker said that
the Board did talk about the policy and agreed to give credit for underlying existing development rights, but
that is not what the applicant is asking for here – they are asking for a cash proffer contribution of $1,000
per unit instead of $17,000 per units, even after the underlying rights are considered. He stated that the
previous application had lots of good design features and amenities, and they are paying full proffers on
their development.
Ms. Dittmar said that it seem s that the Board still needs to work on the proffer policy.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in July it was anticipated that the Board would discuss the proffer policy in
depth again in anticipation of the Comp Plan coming forward. It was briefly discussed in a fall work
session. He said that in November, Mr. Graham brought a cash proffer policy to the Board with
recommendations – including maintaining the current policy to be revisited in two years, with additional
data and input from the development community and how the policy might be further adjusted in the
future. Mr. Cilimberg said that out of that discussion, the one change agreed upon by the Board was to
give credit for underlying by-right allowances that could be achieved through existing zoning if it were
shown through an achievable concept of design. He stated that it really did not get into how to address
unique considerations.
Mr. Boyd said he recalls that the Board recommended that the applicant defer the application until
the Board had gotten through some of that proffer discussion, and this is different because it hinges on the
sale of Ms. Dickens’ property, rather than just a rezoning.
Mr. Rooker said that every owner is going to have unique circumstances and there is value
created from a rezoning, but the Board cannot change the law and rules and regulations for each story.
Mr. Boyd stated that the building of Treesdale across the street devalued the property, and the
Board created the situation by allowing it. This proposal is the right project in the right place at the right
time, which will help correct the devaluation. He said that if the projects had been tied together, it would
have been a very different situation and would have been simple to make this happen, but the Board didn’t
have the latitude or foresight at the time to make it happen.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Rooker said that the Treesdale property was owned by nonprofits and was required to be
100% affordable housing as part of the sale, and the contractor had to accept that in buying the property.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Park to explain how the deal went down on Treesdale. Mr. Park said that
AHIP had no requirement on it, and Pinnacle put the deed restriction on there and went below the 80%
AMI to put the 40% and 50% on the deed restriction in order to qualify for the tax benefits.
Mr. Rooker said that AHIP clearly stated they would not sell it to anyone unless they were willing
to do that. Mr. Park reiterated that AHIP had no requirement when they sold it; Pinnacle put in the deed
restriction.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Park if the AMI levels would be kept in place regardless of property
management. Mr. Park said that they would and agreed to proffer it, if necessary. Mr. Park also clarified
that there is a fitness center onsite for the tenants.
Mr. Davis said that even if the properties had been developed together, the affordable units would
not have had a cash proffer because the policy does not provide cash proffers for affordable units. He
said that the units in this part of the development – if developed together – would still have had a cash
proffer requirement because they are not affordable units. Mr. Davis emphasized that combining them
would have had no change on staff’s analysis. The policy is created to address the impacts of
development on a consistent basis. He said that prior to the proffer policy, the Board’s analysis was on a
case by case basis – and the developers didn’t like that because it was difficult for them to prove or
disprove the impact of their development. This policy as approved by the courts, Mr. Davis said,
addresses development across the Board on an average of what the impacts are, just as fees are
assessed evenly in zoning applications. He stated that the Board does have discretion on any application
to deviate from the proffer policy, and there are guidelines within the policy itself to allow that to happen.
However, he said, staff’s analysis is that this project doesn’t meet those guidelines to deviate from the
policy. Mr. Davis said that even if the Board determined that one-bedroom apartments won’t create
school children, the impacts would still be more than $1,000 per unit.
Mr. Rooker said that up to now the Board has not gone into developments and evaluated them on
how many children would likely be living there.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Board agrees that the proffer policy needs to be reevaluated, and there
hasn’t been enough time to look at it closely. He said that this is a project that he feels can be justified,
and he doesn’t feel that he is setting any policy decision by voting in favor of it.
Mr. Rooker said that there is no finding from staff that there are unique circumstances.
Mr. Boyd said that he does feel there are unique circumstances.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Thomas to approve ZMA-2013-00001 with revised proffers dated
November 11, 2013, the Code of Development and Application Plan, and to move approval to grant the
special exceptions granting waivers from Section 20A.8(a) and (b), Mixture of Uses and Housing Types;
waiver of Section 4.12.2.c.1, Number of parking spaces; and waiver of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes of the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff has not had a project where unique circumstances have factored into
the motion being made, so it would be helpful to have the unique circumstances identified. He stated that
it is important to staff because the next applicant might come in and say, “Well we have these unique
circumstances.”
Mr. Thomas said that first and foremost is that it fits into the neighborhood and the neighborhood
plan, and offers affordable housing for the neighborhood and across the street. In addition, they are
proffering sidewalks on Rio Road, which the County has wanted.
Mr. Boyd said that he considers it to be an extension of the affordable housing project across the
street, by the same developer in the same area.
Ms. Dittmar said that it sounds to her as though the Board extended a policy for two years
because it has not finished its proffer-making plan, and in order to not cause a hardship the Board should
allow this to go forward.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in that case, they have a policy in the Comp Plan that they work from right
now – although it was slightly modified by the Board to allow by-right provisions.
Mr. Rooker said that this would be like saying the Board shouldn’t apply zoning rules because they
may be changed in the future.
Ms. Dittmar said she thought the Board had asked the applicant to defer because the Board was
going to come up with a policy, but then it didn’t.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board made a policy change to allow credit for underlying development
rights. If the applicant had gone forward with the original application, he wouldn’t have gotten the
$200,000 credit. He stated that the one change the Board made was that credit, and to adopt this is to
basically eviscerate the cash proffer policy. Every applicant is going to come in and make a pitch to
request exception from the proffer policy for “unique situations.” Mr. Rooker said that the proffer policy
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
was enacted to offset the costs of more intense development, and without that they will continue to have
shortfalls for capital projects – as this is just another way of taking that money away. Mr. Rooker said that
Mr. Boyd didn’t support the cash proffer policy to begin with.
Ms. Mallek asked for an explanation of the waivers. Ms. Grant said the waivers in this case would
be for no commercial in the Neighborhood Model district, and no mix of housing types so the developer
can have one housing type. The critical slopes waiver is for the underground parking.
Mr. Boyd said that he would include the Bluestone Land, LLC letter regarding the uniqueness of
the project, dated November 18, 2013 as an example of why the project is unique.
Mr. Rooker said that those things are not unique; they are required for any developer.
Mr. Foley said that staff was looking for principles that make it unique. He added that it is clear
the Board needs to get the proffer policy revision discussion before it.
Mr. Boyd said that he finds this to be a unique project.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like something written into the record that this development will
provide affordable housing for the long term.
Mr. Davis said they can put it on the record, but it is not enforceable.
Mr. Rooker stated that he has no problem with this project, as it has some good attributes to it,
and if they were meeting the proffer policy – with the credit for the 11 underlying units – he would support
it. He said that in looking at the two developments that just came before the Board, they also have good
merits. He doesn’t see anything to sell this project for getting special treatment that isn’t apparent with all
other projects before the Board since the cash proffer policy was adopted.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Foley said that the Comp Plan review is multiple chapter and issues, and if the Board wants to
move forward with the proffer policy amendment that should be done separately for expediency sake. He
stated that they need a parallel process as part of the Comp Plan, as the staff will continue to be in this
position and staff did not get any clear direction from the Board with this action.
Ms. Mallek suggested that they bring the roundtable discussions forward in the winter. Mr. Foley
said staff could come back with the process.
Mr. Boyd said he would be in favor of moving forward with the proffer policy discussion earlier
than the Comp Plan review.
Mr. Rooker said that he would urge the Board to do that, because they had clarity prior to this
approval and now no longer have clarity.
Mr. Davis said that to separate it from the Comp Plan will require that it be restarted at the
Planning Commission level for their consideration with a recommendation to the Board. Otherwise, the
policy needs to be decided as part of the entire Comp Plan as one application.
Mr. Foley stated that staff needs to discuss where the Board wants to go with this, and right now
they have no idea where the Board wants to go with this so it’s more complicated – and they ought to at
least have some parallel discussions that give direction to what they think is appropriate.
Mr. Rooker said that if the Board intends to give credit for some specific attributes of projects, it
should provide clarity as to what those attributes are and what kind of credit an applicant could expect if
they meet those requirements – because otherwise there really isn’t a policy, and every time someone
gets a rezoning there will be an argument over the proffers. He said the Board was not there until just
now. Cash proffers were applied to applicants equally, and applicants have sought and retained
numerous rezonings – as the Board had two tonight – with cash proffers. This Board will see a whole
different approach now by developers.
(Note: The proffers are set out below:)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: ZMA-2012-00005. Hollymead Town Center (A-1) (Signs
#33&35).
PROPOSAL: Request to amend the Application Plan and Proffers on property zoned PD-MC
which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre).
PURPOSE OF NOTICE AND HEARING: Intention of the Planning Commission to make
recommendation on the Proposal to the Board of Supervisors.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) –
retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space. (6.01-34 dwelling
units per acre) in Hollymead Development Area.
LOCATION: Hollymead Town Center Area A-1, the southwest quadrant of Seminole Trail (US 29)
and Towncenter Drive in the Hollymead Development Area.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 032000000042A0, 03200000004400, 03200000004500 (portion),
04600000000500, 046000000005A0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2013.)
Ms. Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that this proposal is to amend
the application plan and proffers located in Hollymead Town Center area A-1. The applicant is requesting
to amend the transit stop and greenway proffers, which were to be constructed at site plan or subdivision
stage. Since they were not constructed, she said, there is an outstanding notice of violation. This
amendment would remedy the violations and provide more clarity to the proffers. She stated that this is a
modification of the approved application plan. Proffer #3 of the existing proffers provides construction of a
200-square foot paved surface and two benches to be installed at site plan stage. Ms. Baldwin said that
the bus stop area exists but there are no benches, and bus service is not available. She stated that the
applicant is requesting a change to the proffer to install the benches within 30 days after bus service is
available.
She stated that proffer #8 provided construction of a 10-foot wide multi-use greenway path.
Members of the Board, Planning Commission and staff attended an onsite meeting at the applicant’s
request to view the existing terrain for the greenway path. Ms. Baldwin said that it was determined that a
10-foot wide greenway path would be difficult to achieve in some locations. Due to these constraints, and
given the existing and proposed bike lane and sidewalk network for the area, it was determined that a
primitive path would better serve the community. She stated that the applicant worked with Parks and
Recreation, and it was agreed that the path could be constructed as a six-foot wide primitive path in this
general location and will be constructed by the applicant. She said that additional changes include the
trailhead, which was proposed as a switch-back connection to the greenway, and due to the terrain it was
decided that stairs would be a more practical solution. Ms. Baldwin stated that the applicant will design
the stairs subject to staff approval and construct the stairs and trail prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the buildings adjacent to the trailhead. She said that staff has supported the changes to
both the transit stop and greenway, which will provide for clear deadlines and actions for the benches and
greenway.
Ms. Baldwin said that there were no unfavorable factors identified. The Planning Commission
also recommended approval of the rezoning as well as the amended proffers and application plan. She
noted that there is a change to the first page of the proffers, which corrects a date, but there are no other
changes.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, addressed the Board and welcomed Ms. Dittmar. Mr. Wood
said that the Supervisors had visited the site. They worked closely with Parks and Recreation staff on the
project and recommended this as a better solution than what was originally planned.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Thomas moved to approve ZMA 2012-00005 as presented by staff, with the proffers dated
October 1, 2013. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: ZMA-2013-00007. North Pointe Amendment (Signs
#61&62).
PROPOSAL: Request to amend approved proffers from ZMA200000009 on property zoned
Planned Development – Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) zoning district which allows large-scale
commercial uses; residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) uses. A maximum of 893 units
on approximately 269 acres is approved by special use permit at a gross density of 3.31
units/acre. No new dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes.
FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in Destination and Community Centers) – retail,
residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Density
Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses; Neighborhood Density Residential – residential (3 –
6 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-
residential uses; Privately Owned Open Space; Environmental Features – privately owned
recreational amenities and open space; floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and other
environmental features; and Institutional – civic uses, parks, recreational facilities, and similar
uses on County-owned property.
LOCATION: North of Proffit Road, east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane and south of the
Rivanna River.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03200000002000; 032000000020A0; 032000000020A1; 032000000020A2;
032000000020A3; 032000000029I0; 03200000002300; 032000000023A0; 032000000023B0;
032000000023C0; 032000000023D0; 032000000023E0; 032000000023F0; 032000000023G0;
032000000023H0; 032000000023J0; and 032000000022K0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2013.)
Ms. Claudette Grant, Principal Planner, said that this property is located north of Proffitt Road,
east of Route 29 North, west of Pritchett Lane, and south of the Rivanna River. Ms. Grant said that the
applicant is requesting to amend approved proffers from ZMA-2000-0009 on property zoned Planned
Development/Mixed Commercial zoning district, which has a maximum of 893 units on approximately 269
acres is approved by special use permit with a gross density of 3.31 units per acre, and no new dwellings
are proposed. Ms. Grant said that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 22, 2013
and recommended approval of the rezoning request. She stated that the proposed proffer amendment
updates the proffers and extends deadlines to bring them into compliance. Staff recommends approval of
the ZMA with the amended proffers.
Ms. Mallek asked about the two conflicting rezoning requests, and whether they still existed. Ms.
Grant said there are no longer two requests.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board, stating that she was representing the applicant – Great
Eastern Management Company, North Pointe Charlottesville. She said that the amendment intends to
update the proffers and correct some changes in ownership, but mostly to extend the deadlines to bring
the proffers into compliance.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve ZMA-2013-0007 with amended proffers dated August 5, 2013, as
recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: ZMA-2013-00002. Pantops Corner (Sign #66).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.246 acres from R-1 zoning district which allows residential uses at a
density of 1 unit per acre to HC zoning district which allows commercial and service uses;
residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units per acre. No dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential residential (6.01-34 units/acre); supporting
uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses and Greenspace
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
– undeveloped areas in Neighborhood 3 - Pantops.
LOCATION: Approximately 575 feet north from the intersection of Route 250 and Stony Point
Road (Route 20) on the east side of Route 20. Back portion of 1248 Richmond Road, fronting
Route 20.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058G1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2013.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“On September 10, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Pantops Corner
rezoning request (ZMA201300002) (See Attachment A for executive summary). The Planning
Commission by a vote of 5:2 recommended denial of ZMA201300002 with proffers based on the
unfavorable factors listed in the executive summary and clarified by the Planning Commission as follows:
Factors Unfavorable
1. The proffers need to be substantively and technically revised.
2. Traffic study information is incomplete and the adequate information as requested by
VDOT and the County Engineer needs to be submitted to determine impacts of the
rezoning and road interconnection to Routes 20, 250 and adjacent properties.
3. To clarify, Road B needs to be a local public road serving not only development traffic but
also some amount of through traffic.
Since the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant has met with County staff and
VDOT several times in order to address the outstanding issues discussed during the Planning
Commission public hearing. The applicant has provided the following revisions to the proffers:
Proffer 1: Interconnectivity has been revised to more clearly describe Road “A ” as a
private road that will be constructed from Stony Point Road across the subject
property to and across tax map parcel 78-5A to U.S. Route 250. The specific location,
alignment and design of Road “A” may be adjusted with approval by the County
Engineer. The owner will grant and record an easement for public passage over
Road “A”. An access easement to tax map parcel 78-6 will also be provided. This
revised proffer ensures that a road design will be used to provide access through the
site from Route 20 to Route 250 (as opposed to a parking lot travelway design). Staff
believes this meets the intent of the Planning Commission recommendation.
Proffer 2: This proffer has been revised to state that no certificate of occupancy (CO)
will be requested for any building on the property until Road “A” is completed along
with entrance improvements as required by VDOT. The previous proffer specified no
CO for any building on the north side of Road “A”. Staff believes the revised proffer is
appropriate because Attachment C shows a very small area north of Road “A” that
will also be restricted by flood plain and setbacks and as a result will be difficult to
develop. This revised proffer ensures that development will not take place on the
property until it has access to both Routes 20 and 250.
Proffer 3: Route 20 Widening is new as a result of discussions with VDOT. This
improvement is intended to help alleviate some of the traffic impacts occurring at the
intersection of Routes 20 and 250. This proffer is satisfactory to VDOT and staff.
Staff and the applicant determined that previous proffers (old proffers, dated August
5, 2013) relating to green space, neighborhood scale footprint and permitted uses
were no longer necessary because the size of the parcel, the revisions made to the
proffers, and existing zoning regulations will limit the scale and location of
development on the property.
In summary, the revised proffers address the outstanding concerns that VDOT and the
County Engineer had regarding the traffic study and Road “B” (now Road “A”) which were discussed
during the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff and VDOT’s concern for the incomplete nature
of the traffic study was that impacts to Route 20 and Route 250 were not fully known. With the
applicant’s commitment to construct an internal private road connecting from Route 250 to Route 20,
and the commitment to widen Route 20 at the entrance to the site, the County Engineer and VDOT
believe that potential traffic impacts have been addressed, and additional transportation analysis is no
longer needed.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA201300002, Pantops Corner with revised proffers.”
_____
Ms. Claudette Grant., stated that this property is located approximately 575 feet north from the
intersection of Route 250 and Stony Point Road. This is a request to rezone 2.246 acres from R-1
residential zoning district to HC Highway Commercial zoning district. She stated that a public hearing was
held by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2013 for this request, and the Commission
recommended denial based on unfavorable factors as listed in the executive summary. Ms. Grant said
that the proffers were in need of substantive and technical revisions. The traffic study information was not
adequate for VDOT and the County Engineer, and proposed internal roads needed additional clarification.
She presented a diagram of the proposed plan and noted the location of the road. Since the
Commission’s public hearing the applicant has revised the plan and the proffers. Ms. Grant said that
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
“Road A,” which is shown on the proposed plan, will be designed to provide access through the site from
Route 20 to Route 250. Development will not take place on the property until it has access to both of
those routes. She stated that the portion of Route 20 adjacent to this property will be widened to help
alleviate some of the traffic impacts occurring at the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250.
Mr. Rooker asked if the entrance onto Route 250 had to open before the development could go
forward, and asked if the applicant had an easement for that. Ms. Grant said that the entrance would
have to open first, and the applicant owns both of those parcels.
Mr. Rooker also asked if any part of the entrance is built at this time. Ms. Grant said there is an
existing house on that portion, but it will most likely be eliminated at some point.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was a right in, right out onto Route 250 so there will be no crossing over
to go east. Ms. Grant said that was correct.
Ms. Grant stated that the applicant has revised the proffers to address the outstanding concerns
that VDOT and the County had regarding the traffic study and what is now shown as “Road A.” Staff
recommends approval of rezoning ZMA-2013-00002, Pantops Corner, with proffers.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Michael McGowan, representing the applicant, said that they have been working on this
project for a while and have finally gotten to a point that satisfies VDOT, the County staff, and the
applicant. He will be happy to respond to any questions from Board members.
Mr. Boyd commented that the drawing staff provided at the meeting is different than the one in the
staff report, and asked which one was the most current.
Ms. Grant said that the drawing has been revised since the one in the staff report, and that is the
version presented for this review.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that one thing that came out of the Pantops Advisory Council is whether the County
could figure out a way to cut the corner on Route 250 so there could be a right turn lane, but that is not
possible without condemnation of that property. He stated that this proposal might provide an alternative.
The Council reviewed the plan with unanimous approval – with Fontana residents also very happy about a
possible alternative to a cut-through through their neighborhood, which is now created by Guadalajara
Restaurant. This might identify some positive consequences.
Ms. Mallek agreed that this may be a helpful connection. She likes the fact it is right in, right out,
with a slow speed interior street instead of a high speed road. She stated that it will also unify the uses on
both sides of the road.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the plan shown on the screen is the proffered plan, and thus is the plan
of record.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve ZMA-2013-0002 with the proffers dated November 26, 2013. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: SP-2013-000015. Mahone Family (Sign #12).
PROPOSAL: Additional development right on 21 acres for 1 new unit with a density of up to 0.5
dwelling units per acre on the new lot. ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
LOCATION: 1688 Dudley Mountain Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 08900-00-00-062B0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 2013.)
Mr. Scott Clark, Senior Planner, said that this is a special use permit request for additional
development rights in the rural areas for a property along Dudley Mountain Road. Mr. Clark said that the
property is 21 acres, partially wooded, and he presented an aerial view of the site. He stated that the
current owners would like to be able to grant a development right to allow their daughter to live on the
property, which would require two development rights because the lot has no existing rights.
Mr. Rooker said that it has one development right. Mr. Cilimberg said it has a right for a house; it
is not termed “development rights” in the Ordinance.
Mr. Clark said that the 21-acre lot was created by a previous owner in 1984, and no development
rights were allocated to the parcel. He stated that the applicants purchased the property in that state with
no additional development rights, and have not been able to purchase additional acreage from
neighboring properties in order to secure another right. Mr. Clark said that they are, therefore, requesting
two rights – one for the existing lot, and one for the new lot to be created. He stated that the County’s
policy history for requests for additional development rights in the rural areas is fairly straightforward.
Generally approvals have been given for requests from families that had used all the existing development
rights on their property for family divisions, and still had more family members they wanted to distribute
property to. Mr. Clark said there have been a few exceptions for medical or disability purposes, to allow
them close proximity to family members who need to take care of them . In cases of other applications
without any extenuating circumstances or previous rights, the requests have been denied.
He stated that the Comp Plan policy for the rural areas talks about reducing the rate of residential
development, and establishes a concern for setting precedent for more development rights created in the
rural areas. Mr. Clark said that this request is unlike previous approvals because it does not involve
existing rights that were used up. There is also a technical issue with the special use permit review
regarding the need for more information as to whether the proposed site could actually meet Subdivision
Ordinance standards, if permitted.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Clark said that favorable factors include the fact that there would be minimal health or safety
impacts with the addition of a single house, and the minimal scale would likely avoid impacts on adjacent
properties. He stated that unfavorable factors include increase of development in the rural area, which is
contrary to Comp Plan goals, and the concern of cumulative impacts; and the application is not consistent
with previous actions for similar special use permits. Mr. Clark said that the additional factor was the
incompleteness of the information needed for staff to complete their technical review. He stated that on
November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. If the Board should
approve the application staff recommends two conditions: 1) to require that the division be done as a
family division; and 2) there be a 15-year period for use of the family division, which has been done with
other approvals for additional development rights.
Ms. Mallek asked if the applicant had identified an area on the site where they planned to build the
second house. Mr. Clark said that the site has not been identified, but perhaps the applicant could clarify
that.
Mr. Rooker asked how many parcels in the rural area currently have development rights. Mr.
Cilimberg said he does not know, but there are thousands.
Mr. Rooker said that in 1980, under the development approach in the rural area, every parcel had
five development rights, plus an additional house or lot for every 21-acre parcel. For example, every 100
acres, there could be five development rights, of which 15 or so acres could be carved out. The owner
could then have four-21 acre parcels left over which a house could be built on each.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that one of the attachments to the staff report did show a conceptual site,
which was just theoretical to show there was a site with 30,000 square feet of buildable area.
Mr. Rooker said that they would have to meet requirements if they were to move forward.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that they would, but said that the question of the proximity of this house in
relation to other houses located on adjacent properties is not established by what is on the plan they
provided.
Ms. Mallek said that the applicant probably does not want to get into that kind of investment until
they know it is possible to divide.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Justin Shimp said that he is helping the Mahon family with the special use permit process. Mr.
Shimp commended Board members for their service and quality of governance, which is strong in the
region when compared to other localities.
Mr. Shimp said that the applicant had not moved forward with the expense of having a plat
developed yet because of the cost, as mentioned, but if this were approved by the Board it would have to
go through that process anyway.
He stated that the purpose of the division right in this case is to allow the Mahons to achieve a
small family farming operation. This site is only 1.7 miles from the growth area with the character of the
area being more consistent with two to five-acre lots. Mr. Shimp said that the property next door to this
one does have those development rights. The past approvals for additional subdivision on property were
related to the times 30 years ago. He stated that now there are young people who may want to stay on
the land but in a different home. He said that the County has not been flooded with this type of request,
and the applicants are in agreement with the 15-year restriction on the property as it is meant to be a
family operation.
Ms. Jacqueline Mahon addressed the Board, stating that she is the daughter of the applicants, Bill
and Irma Mahon. Ms. Mahon said that over the last year, she and her father have begun to expand their
family farm and have quickly realized how impractical it is for her to help run the farm without living on the
property. She stated that it was inefficient for them to haul and store produce on multiple locations and
use multiple vehicles. For them to have the best chance of success they decided to see what it would
take to build a second home for her on the property. Ms. Mahon said that when exploring their options,
they discovered they were not permitted to obtain a division right without also purchasing two acres of land
– so they asked the neighbors, but one wasn’t interested in selling the land and the other ended up not
being a viable option because a road separates the property. She stated that building an additional living
space onto her parents’ home would require the same special use permit they are applying for now. Ms.
Mahon said that when her parents originally purchased the property almost 30 years ago, they couldn’t
have predicted they would have a child to grow up and want to run the farm and help provide stability and
support. She stated that she completely understands the reasoning behind protecting the rural areas, and
this proposal is a way to honor those ideals – which will help facilitate the growth of local farms and
therefore strengthening the rural areas.
Ms. Mary Ann Rodeheaver said that she has been neighbors with the Mahons for over 20 years.
She said that she is here to support their project. She has spoken with several other neighbors who have
no objection to the additional development right, and having their daughter remain in the neighborhood
would be a wonderful thing. This is a way to support the youth and support families.
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that PEC supports rural areas
preservation. He has two children of his own, so he sympathizes with the applicant. Mr. Werner said that
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 55)
this request is contrary to County policy and cannot be endorsed. It is difficult to separate emotion from
decisions like this, but land use decisions must be made on policy, not emotion. There are a lot of lots like
this in the County. He stated that a lot of those owners would love to come in and get an extra lot, and
while he cannot say that approval of this request will increase the likelihood of additional requests for
additional lots – but he if the Board does not adhere to their policy, it cannot later rely on that policy when it
needs it to, especially when it is needed to defend a decision the Board made. Mr. Werner commented
that you cannot drill a hole in a bucket and expect that bucket to continue to hold water.
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that the Forum has no position on this
particular project. He added that through conservation easements and acquisition by the County, division
rights have been extinguished, so the balance in question needs to be taken into account as the Board
looks to even the scales.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek stated that she has voted against all of these in the past that have been sought for
separation of the two lots, and she told the landowners that what may be more reasonable to consider
would be a second house with no division of the property. She said that this was done recently at
Sherwood Farms in the rural area, and it passed the Board because it was not going to be separated and
sold.
Mr. Rooker noted there was not going to be a division with that proposal.
Ms. Mallek said that if that could be accomplished with this application, she would be more
inclined to support it.
Mr. Boyd said that the Sherwood Farms house was also a family subdivision.
Mr. Rooker said that it was a second dwelling on the same division.
Ms. Mallek said the ability to build a second dwelling was the special permit.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board had put a restriction that it had to say in the family for a certain
number of years. Mr. Davis said that it could never be divided into a separate lot.
Mr. Rooker said that under that circumstance, it cannot be sold.
Ms. Mallek said that if there are financing obstacles in building a second house without separate
ownership, there are ways to do family trusts that make that possible. She stated that while she is
supportive of the farming aspect and having people live close to family, she cannot quite wrap her mind
around how the property was purchased – as she has a 21-acre no development right divisions herself
and understands its limitations.
Mr. Snow said that of the 25 applications like this that have come before the Board over the last
30 or so years, 14 were approved and 11 were not. He stated that in looking at the map presented, if the
applicant just had about 10 feet on the length of the property line they would probably have the two acres
and it would be legal.
Mr. Clark stated that they would have to buy an entire two acres that had an existing right that
could be transferred over.
Ms. Mallek said that the building site has to be in the new land that you buy, and you cannot move
it from place to place.
Mr. Snow said that all of the houses along that road have homes with two and three acres, and
just up the road is Arrowhead Farm with all the building rights removed to build a park.
Ms. Mallek stated that there were only two rights with that because there is an easement on that
property.
Mr. Rooker said the County did not take any development rights with that.
Mr. Snow stated that it is only one additional house, and the applicant is willing to put a stipulation
that it will not be sold or transferred, and he sees it as a win/win for everyone. He said that over 25+
years, there have only been 25 requests.
Mr. Rooker said that one reason the Board has not had many requests is that the Board has been
consistent in not granting this unless there are unique circumstances.
Mr. Snow said that this is a unique circumstance where a family member wants to be there to help
their parents who have been there for 30+ years and are getting older, and cannot farm without her. He
stated that this is not like going out and getting an extra division right to go out and make money.
Ms. Mallek asked if the application was seeking to divide it into a separate lot to transfer
ownership to the daughter, or whether it would stay together.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Rooker said that it would be a separate lot.
Mr. Shimp stated that the proposal is for a separate lot. It is difficult to finance a separate house
without a subdivision, and for at least 15 years there would be a deed restriction limiting transfer outside of
the family.
Mr. Rooker said that the reason there are so many two to five-acre lots along this road is because
this was most likely part of the same parcel, and that is where they exercised their development rights. He
stated that he doesn’t think it is a good idea to make land use decisions based upon how appealing the
applicant is, and the applicant here is very appealing – with a very good story. Mr. Rooker said that it was
the change in 1980 that created the 21-acre parcel requirement and five development rights on each
parcel that has helped prevent the rural areas from becoming cut up and put into smaller lots. He stated
that he’s voted against all of these that have come before the Board, as he will with this one. He would be
more likely to support a special use permit to add onto the existing dwelling than to create a separate lot –
which no doubt will be sold at some point in the future. Mr. Rooker stated that this will simply be another
way that the rural area gets carved up into smaller pieces than was contemplated by the Zoning
Ordinance. He mentioned a letter to the Editor that appeared in the newspaper that day that talked about
how Albemarle was getting “paved over.” The letter referenced Hollymead and Avon Park, etc. – but if he
were to talk to that person, he would tell them that the Board’s policy is to try to encourage good
development in the development areas and to try to protect the rural areas and the natural resources in
the rural areas; and there is a good zoning scheme in place to achieve that. Mr. Rooker said that if you
look at Albemarle County from the air, there has been a lot of preservation in the rural areas, and one of
the reasons for that is because the Zoning Ordinance has been enforced. He added that he will not
support the request.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification of how many applications like this there have been since 1980.
Mr. Clark said that there have been 25 requests, 14 of which were approved.
Mr. Boyd said that it wouldn’t be unprecedented if the Board approved this.
Mr. Davis clarified that it is unprecedented for a 21-acre lot that has been created to be further
divided.
Mr. Rooker said that this would set a unique circumstance or precedent.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in most of the other cases of approvals, there were division rights that
existed but got exhausted – and they did not have enough for family members they wanted to provide for.
Mr. Davis said that those were larger tracts, and this particular tract was purchased as a 21-acre
lot without any division rights.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the unique circumstance was the fairly recent one in Sherwood Farms
that did not have any rights for further division, but it was to provide for in-laws or parents and was not to
be divided.
Mr. Rooker said the Board allowed for another building to be built on the site, given the unique
circumstances presented, and did not allow the division of the parcel so it could be sold separately.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was also a condition on the size of that house.
Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant could apply for an addition to the existing house, perhaps
connecting it with a breezeway.
Ms. Dittmar said that the Planning Commission had an in-depth conversation about that, and they
were interested in allowing the family to be together on the farm, but it had to fit in with the proper way to
do it.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there are allowances for “accessory apartments,” and those are allowed in
a variety of ways – and they are allowed by right. In the Sherwood Farms case, he said, there were
physical limitations that prohibited the connection, which is why they requested a separate unit.
Ms. Mallek said that if the topography allows it, the owners in this case will not need to come back
before the Board and can just get a building permit. Mr. Cilimberg stated that would be the case as long
as they meet the accessory apartment requirements of the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are size limitations on the size of the accessory apartment. Mr. Clark
said that he believes there is a percentage limitation based on the total area of the dwelling.
Mr. Boyd suggested asking the applicant whether they had considered that option.
Mr. Shimp stated that they did hear those suggestions at the Planning Commission meeting, but
the house is only 1,400 square feet now.
Mr. Boyd asked if they could just build a bigger house and make the old one the accessory.
Ms. Mallek said they often do that.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Shimp said that the family probably desire some separation and to not be under the same
roof.
Mr. Davis said that the definition in the ordinance of an accessory apartment is “a separate
independent dwelling unit contained within the structure of and clearly subordinate to a single family
detached dwelling, as distinguished from a duplex or other two-family dwelling.”
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the gross floor area of an apartment is not to exceed 35% of the total
gross floor area of the structure. These are provisions that can be modified by the Board as a special
exception. He confirmed that there is a provision that it must be attached somehow.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Board has granted a special exception in the past, in a similar
circumstance, for an additional house on the same lot – and it could not be broken off and sold separately
– and that might be an option for them.
Mr. Shimp said that the homeowners might try to work within those parameters. The Board could
add an appropriate condition to deal with that.
Mr. Davis stated that the application is for an additional development right. In order to have
another house built on the site the Board could simply put a restriction on the use of the development right
that there would be no subdivision of the property permitted. He said that the difficulty of that situation
would be that the family might be forced to turn it into a rental house should their circumstances change.
There is no viable way for the County to put conditions to prevent that from happening in the future.
Ms. Mallek said that it does not bother her to have that issue, as it is far preferable to the option of
dividing the lot.
Mr. Rooker said that they do present a strong case for a farm, and clearly it is a family situation.
Mr. Cilimberg then presented the conditions used in the Sherwood Farms proposal. If those
conditions are acceptable to the applicant, it is probably just a matter of substituting the parcel number.
He noted that if the Board wanted to make it a similar case, it does have a square footage amount.
Mr. Clark stated that this limit came from the area they could have had by having an accessory
apartment. This number would not fit for the current applicants – as it would be unreasonably small for
this situation.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the reason behind the 1,300 square feet in the Sherwood Farm proposal is
because that is the same size they could have had as a maximum for an accessory apartment by-right.
Mr. Rooker stated that it was a strong point for that application, because the house wasn’t going
to exceed the size of the accessory unit.
Mr. Clark said that it might be cleaner just to go with a size limit that is acceptable to the Board
and the applicant, by using the same conditions and just altering the parcel number.
Ms. Irma Mahon addressed the Board, and stated that she does not know what the Board is
asking.
Ms. Mallek asked if they know the size of the home they would like to build.
Ms. Jacqueline Mahon said that she and her partner are expecting a child and would like to have
a home that is at least roughly the size of her parents’ home, with a basement.
Ms. Irma Mahon said that they want to help their daughter build her home, but they cannot do that
or pay her mortgage, which is what she needs to do.
Mr. Boyd suggested that they defer this to another meeting so they can get their questions
answered.
Ms. Irma Mahon said that they had not thought about the details, and asked why it mattered what
size house she would need.
Mr. Rooker explained that the reason this is being considered is because the Board has granted
an exception in the past for a second house to be built on a single lot, because it fit the definition of an
accessory unit – but that is not going to work in this case. He stated that the reason this matters is
because their request is an exception to what is allowed in the rural areas, as 21 acre parcels are not able
to be divided or given a second home. Mr. Rooker said that this is an exception to the policy, as there are
thousands of these lots out there – and the whole scheme of division has helped preserve the rural areas
of the County.
Ms. Jacqueline Mahon said that a 2,000 square foot limit seems reasonable to her.
Mr. Davis said that is still inconsistent with the Stoner application, and this would be a new
precedent.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Boyd stated that it sounds like the applicants are not very far along in their plans, and it makes
sense to him for them to defer so they can study their available options.
Ms. Mallek said she does not want to put them under pressure.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board is trying to figure out a workaround to allow the applicants to do what
they want to do.
Mr. Rooker said that the initial question for them to ask is whether this can be financed without a
separate lot, and they will have to consider whether they are willing to put a lien on the entire parcel to
support this or not.
Ms. Irma Mahon said that it limits their options to just build a house and not divide it.
Ms. Mallek stated that they would not have to hold another public hearing on the matter. The
applicant would just bring back more information after consulting with staff, then it could be placed on a
future Board agenda.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it would be reasonable for staff to understand from the applicant what they
are willing to accept in terms of a house size, because it would set a precedent if the accessory home was
more than 35% of the initial house size. He stated that there’s not much more staff can do for the
applicant other than to answer questions about where the house would be built. The bigger questions are
the potential for financing for the applicant and what the Board is willing to accept in terms of a second
house size.
Mr. Boyd said they could reverse the house size.
Ms. Mallek commented that it has been done before.
Mr. Cilimberg said there would be the financing question again for a home that large.
Mr. Rooker said that a deferral would be a good idea.
Mr. Shimp asked the Board if they could make some kind of statement as to a reasonable size,
since there will be new Board members when the applicant comes back again.
Mr. Snow said he has no problem with a 2,000 square foot house.
Mr. Rooker said he wouldn’t be voting in January, and he would like to find a way to accommodate
this within the existing rules. He does not like the fact that the Board would be setting a new precedent.
Ms. Mallek agreed that this kind of precedent is much greater than what they did on the Lofts.
Ms. Dittmar said that there is strong sentiment for the need to protect rural area, not only with
specific projects but with the Comp Plan. She does not have a clue as to what size house to recommend
because she has been on the record in her campaign as supporting rural areas protection.
Ms. Irma Mahon said that they love living in the rural area and are happy about the commitment to
protect the rural areas. Their plan to build the family farm is definitely going to protect the agricultural and
forestal nature of the rural area. She emphasized that they are not into residential development; they just
need to put another house on their property, and to support intergenerational farms is another way to help
preserve the rural areas.
Mr. Snow stated that he would go back to approving the division right, with the limitation on sale of
the lot for 15-20 years.
Mr. Davis said that enabling legislation for high-growth counties would allow them to place any
reasonable conditions on a property. The concern about it being an individual lot is whether they make
the property inalienable over time so it is unsellable, which has been subject to challenge.
Mr. Boyd said that he could probably support it with the 15-year limitation, as it is clearly a family
farm.
Ms. Jacqueline Mahon said they would be willing to go with 30 years.
Ms. Mallek said that the family trust makes all sorts of things possible, and she would prefer to
take Mr. Boyd’s suggestion for deferral and could discuss it further without a new application.
Mr. Thomas said that he also supports the division right.
Mr. Snow said that he would like to make a motion with a 20-year limit.
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek cautioned him that if the vote goes 3-3, the application will fail.
Mr. Rooker said that he would not be supporting the application, and although they are good
applicants, the idea that the way to protect the rural area is by allowing more fragmentation is not a good
argument.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 59)
Ms. Dittmar said that she would love to see this work, but she is committed to what she said on
the campaign trail. Although this particular applicant is ideal, if the Board starts making exceptions, the
rural area they love isn’t going to be rural in 30 years.
Mr. Snow said that he could make the motion now, but it will fail 3-3. If the Board defers the
request, the applicant can bring it back with more information and without incurring any new fees.
Mr. Snow moved to defer SP-2013-0005 indefinitely, until the applicant has explored other
options for an additional home on the property.
Ms. Irma Mahon asked what options she is supposed to explore. Mr. Snow said that the options
mentioned were building another house, what size it should be, where it would go, etc.
Ms. Irma Mahon stated that they would ask for the house without a division right, but asked if they
needed to stipulate the size.
Mr. Snow said that they would, but prior to that should check on financing capability.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has run a quick query as to how many lots the County currently has
that are 21-25 acres, and there are approximately 1,500 – and there are probably some beyond those
sizes that do and do not have development rights. He said that as the applicant looks at their options,
staff will wait to hear from them in terms of house size.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be possible to have a ground lease.
Ms. Mallek said that that’s what the Forest Springs Subdivision near Hollymead Town Center has,
for all the houses in there.
Mr. Boyd said that may be a way around the mortgage situation. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff
would not try to answer mortgage questions for them.
Ms. Mallek said that they have the option of the Farm Credit Bureau since it is a farm.
Mr. Rooker stated that if the applicant comes back with a 2,000 square foot house, the Board will
be looking at approving a house that large with the 1,400 square foot house as the accessory. He said
that he would be more likely to approve this as a 30-year restriction on sale, as it is a fairly unique situation
to have a family subdivision where they are requesting an additional right. Mr. Rooker said that if
everyone agrees to that, then he would make a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Rooker then moved to reconsider SP-2013-0015. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Ms. Jacqueline Mahone said they were willing to agree to the 30-year restriction.
Mr. Davis said that since it was deferred indefinitely, if there is a request for it to be heard again
they do not have to have a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Snow then moved to approve SP-2013-0015 with the two conditions as presented, and
condition #2 altered to state “30 years” instead of “15 years.” Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis said that the 30-year restriction may also be a barrier to getting the mortgage.
Mr. Rooker said that there are several pieces to this that may present some challenge in getting a
mortgage, but family subdivisions have been able to get them over the years so hopefully they’ll be able to
work it out.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
Ms. Mallek stated that she voted because it is the way she has voted consistently for years.
Mr. Rooker said that he changed his mind due to the length of restriction, and the fact that having
it come back the other way – with a larger accessory structure – would be worse for the County.
Mr. Snow thanked Board members and the applicant.
Ms. Mallek agreed that it would probably be better for the County, and said she was glad it worked
out for the applicant.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Boyd wished the applicant luck with their project.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. The proposed subdivision of Tax Map 89 Parcel 62B shall only be permitted as a “family
subdivision” as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code; and
2. The family division period to retain the property, as provided by Chapter 14 of the Albemarle
County Code, shall be extended to thirty (30) years.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: ZTA-2013-00006. Residential and Industrial Uses in
Downtown Crozet Zoning District (“DCD”). Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 18, Zoning, to
amend Sec. 20B.2, Permitted Uses, and to add Sec. 20B.8, Residential Uses Allowed by Special Permit;
Additional Factors When Considering Special Use Permits. This ordinance would amend Sec. 20B.2 (A)
and (E) to reorganize by right and special permit uses, to allow Laboratories/Research and Development/
Experimental Testing by right and to allow Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation and
Manufacturing/ Processing/Assembly/ Fabrication and Recycling by special use permit; would add Sec.
20B.2 (F) to allow by special use permit residential uses of any authorized dwelling type in the DCD
without requiring first-floor non-residential uses; and would add Sec. 20B.8 to add factors when
considering special use permits. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2,
2013.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“On October 22, 2013, the Planning Commission passed a resolution of intent (Attachment A) to
consider amending the DCD to permit a broader range of light industrial uses either by-right or by special
use permit and to allow first floor residential uses by special use permit.
ORIGIN: On September 16, 2013, an application was made requesting that the County amend
the uses permitted by special use permit in the DCD to add residential uses on the first floor of attached
single family dwellings. Currently, residential uses are allowed by special use permit only on the first floor
of detached single family dwellings and by-right on floors above the first floor provided that the first floor is
occupied by a non-residential use.
PROPOSAL: The proposed zoning ordinance amendments (Attachment B), consistent with the
October 22nd Commission resolution of intent, build off of the changes requested in the above-noted
September 16th application, but would allow first floor residential uses by special use permit in all
residential structure types, not just detached single family as currently provided for in the DCD or attached
single family as requested in the application. In addition, the amendments propose a change that was
missed earlier this year when provision was made for industrial uses in commercial zoning districts with
ZTA201200013. That ZTA introduced by-right industrial uses in commercial districts by-right, by special
exception or by special use permit, depending on the use type and the commercial district the uses would
be located in, but did not also include the DCD. The DCD, within which commercial uses are intended to
be a primary use, closely parallels the lower intensity conventional commercial districts and, therefore, the
potential to similarly treat the DCD is also covered by the resolution of intent. Finally, the proposed
amendments include additional factors to be considered when evaluating residential and non-residential
special use permits in the DCD. No such factors currently exist in the DCD.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: As regards the Downtown Area, the Crozet Master Plan
recognizes and the DCD provides for a mix of retail, service, office/R&D/flex/light industrial and civic uses
as primary uses with other light industrial and residential uses as secondary uses. Furthermore, one of the
short-term priorities of the County’s Economic Development Policy is to initiate zoning text amendments
that further enable business and industrial uses in appropriate zoning districts. The proposed zoning
ordinance amendments are consistent with the DCD’s intent to allow flexibility and variety of development
in the DCD and also allow for additional opportunities for business development and job creation
consistent with the County’s Economic Development Policy.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CRITERIA:
Based on prior Board direction, staff reviews ordinance amendment impacts under the following
additional criteria:
Administration / Review Process: Amending the industrial allowances in the DCD to be more
uniform with those permitted in similar commercial districts allows for more consistent
administration. Creating a common allowance for first floor residential uses in all structure types
simplifies interpretation and administration. Inclusion of factors to be considered when reviewing
non-residential and first floor residential special use permits will provide greater clarity for staff’s
reviews as well as more guidance and predictability for applicants.
Housing Affordability: The amendments create the potential for increased and varied housing
availability in a mixed use setting potentially close to services and jobs. Together, this creates the
potential for more affordable living opportunities due to greater housing choices and reduced
transportation costs.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: Nothing significant anticipated. There is the potential
for a limited number of additional special use permit applications with the broadened allowance for
first floor residential and certain industrial uses. These special use permits are fee-based.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 61)
The draft ordinance (Attachment B) provides the following:
CURRENT DCD PROVISIONS PROPOSED DCD PROVISIONS
By-Right: By-Right:
1) Upper floor residential
as apartments in
SF/MF dwellings;
upper floor residential
in attached SF (ex.
TH)
1) No change.
2) Laboratories and R&D 2) Lab/R&D/Experimental Testing
By SP: By SP:
1) 1st floor residential in
detached SF
1) 1st floor residential in all residential use types
2) Manufacturing,
processing, fabricating,
assembling and
distributing products
2) Manufacturing/Processing/Assembly/Fabrication/Recycling;
Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation
Additional Factors When
Considering SP:
Additional Factors When Considering SP (non-res./1st floor res.):
1) None 1) Consistency with Crozet MP Downtown Area and DCD purpose
and intent; complements adjacent uses and contributes to mix
of uses; convertibility of structure for by-right uses
The DCD’s intent in not allowing first floor residential by-right is to promote opportunities for
vertical mixed use typical of a downtown setting. Expanding the special use permit allowances on first
floors to include all residential types responds to the applicant’s September 16th request while providing
broader opportunities to consider first floor residential development in horizontal mixed use settings where
appropriate on a case by case basis.
The amendments also generally equalize industrial terminology and allowances in the DCD with
those in the Commercial Office (CO) district, the conventional commercial district of lowest intensity. The
only distinction is that the CO only permits Lab/R&D/Experimental Testing up to 4,000 square feet by-right
(above 4,000 square feet by special exception) while the proposed DCD change has no square footage
limitation. This is in recognition of the fact that Laboratories and R&D are already permitted by-right
without such limitation in the DCD.
On October 17, 2013, these potential amendments were discussed with the Crozet Community
Advisory Council who generally supported the changes with the proviso that any proposal requiring a
special use permit that would be provided for by the ZTA will need to be assessed for its consistency with
the purpose and intent of the DCD. They particularly did not want the DCD to become a de-facto
residential district through special use permit approvals. Sec. 20B.8, which lists additional factors to be
considered for special use permits, is intended to address this concern.
No increase in expenditures for staff anticipated. Some additional revenue through fees
anticipated. Additional development that might result from these amendments would increase the County
tax base.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance language found in Attachment B.”
_____
Mr. Cilimberg said that there was an applicant who initiated this text amendment – and it was the
same one who got the Sherwood Farms development right. He stated that is as the prospective
developer of the Barnes Lumber property. The request was originally for first-floor attached single-family
dwelling units, by special use permit, in the Downtown Crozet District. Staff took the liberty of trying to
address the differences of that district in comparison to other commercial districts in terms of what is
allowed in industrial uses. Mr. Cilimberg said that this zoning text amendment covers both industrial and
residential special use permits. He stated that the request was discussed with the Crozet Community
Advisory Council early on as to concepts. There was general agreement on the concepts but concern that
Council members did not want to see the Downtown Crozet District (DCD) become a residential district.
Mr. Cilimberg said that because of that, the factors to be considered in special use permits are very
important as they want to maintain the integrity and character of the DCD.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a map showing the actual downtown district as designated in the Master
Plan, the area that could be zoned DCD according to the Master Plan. He noted the actual zoning that
exists as DCD and the Barnes Lumber property that could be zoned DCD under a future action of the
Board. He said that in this particular proposal, what’s being presented is to change the reference to
“laboratories and research & development” as by-right in the district as it exists to the category that is now
used in industrial zoning as “lab, research & development, experimental testing.” Mr. Cilimberg said that
what does change is the allowance for residential uses, which now are restricted to just detached single-
family for first floors by special use permit, and now there would be a provision for any residential type by
special permit on the first floor. He stated that they would also clarify the allowances of industrial use by
special use permit to be equivalent in this district to what is allowed in the C-1 district, which isn’t much of
a change because manufacturing, processing, fabricating, assembling, and distributing products is already
allowed. Mr. Cilimberg said that a key addition is the section on additional factors when considering
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 62)
special use permits, which did not exist in the DCD at all, and now they have this so that the special
permits can be reviewed for their consistency with the Master Plan’s downtown area, the purpose and
intent of the DCD, its compatibility and how it complements adjacent uses and contributes to mix of uses,
and the potential for convertibility for by-right uses.
He stated that there is some additional housekeeping needed. He has provided the updated
version of the zoning text amendment with some highlights, which are basically to cover some deletions
and a renumbering – which establishes that the table already existing in the DCD for area and bulk
regulations regarding building height is the table that operates in determining whether a proposal is by-
right or by special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg said that it removes redundant language, and it remains that
by-right the minimum height is 30 feet or two stories, and maximum height is 50 feet or four stories; the
minimum height by special use permit remains one story, so in any use category an applicant would need
to ask for a special use as it’s always been in the DCD. He stated that they also re-lettered the allowance
for accessory uses and structures to “G” rather than “F” because there is a new “F” for the residential
special use permit uses.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the basic changes are for the allowance of any residential type on the first
floor by special use permit only, rather than just single-family detached, and the re-categorization of the
industrial uses allowed by right or by special use permit. He stated that this is basically the same as what
currently exists in DCD, but is now consistent with the other commercial districts in the County. Mr.
Cilimberg said that most importantly, there is the addition of the section that provides for the factors to be
considered with special use permits. Mr. Cilimberg said that this has been recommended for approval by
staff and the Planning Commission. Should they choose to approve it, staff would recommend adopting
the ordinance amendments dated 12/11/13 and distributed to this evening.
Ms. Mallek asked if the strike-throughs in section E-10 are what is being removed. Mr. Cilimberg
said that they are being replaced by the basic categories of industries, which are storage, warehousing,
distribution, transportation, and manufacturing, processing, assembly, fabrication and recycling.
Mr. Boyd asked if this resolution of intent came from the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg
said that it originated with the applicant’s request for residential on first floors, and then a resolution of
intent followed as necessary, which was passed by the Commission.
Ms. Mallek stated that because of the length of the property and the fact that it is surrounded on
two sides by existing residential neighborhoods, it has led to resistance of additional residential and an
effort to taper heights at the edges to make it a more gradual density. She said that prohibiting residential
on the first floor has made this a difficult thing to manage, so the suggestion of allowing this by special use
permit means that some things may be possible. Ms. Mallek said there was tremendous support at the
CCAC for an arrangement of any new residential to benefit adjacent residential, with commercial
concentrated at the western end.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Marshall, a resident of Crozet, said that the Advisory Council was appraised of this
concept by Mr. Cilimberg at its October meeting and was surprised that the Planning Commission was
already moving ahead with it. He suggested that the Supervisors defer this until they see what the
applicant’s plans are and see if they can make a trade on these terms depending on what they are going
to get back from him. Mr. Marshall said that it seems that the County will make a concession before
knowing what his intention is for Barnes Lumber. The concept of having first-floor residential uses was
hotly contested with the establishment of the DCD. He stated that special use permits often happen when
they shouldn’t, and it seems a bit quick to him.
Mr. Rooker said that this is for general applicability throughout the district, not just the Barnes
property.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
Ms. Mallek said she was confused at first as to why single-family was done by special use permit
because there were already single-family houses in the DCD, and there was a goal not to make them
nonconforming.
Mr. Frank Stoner, a resident of 240 Chestnut Oak Lane, said that he is the prospective developer
of the Barnes Lumber site. He stated that he brought this matter to Mr. Cilimberg as a result of their
investigation into the existing DCD regulations and what seemed to be an illogical provision to allow for
single-family detached dwellings by special permit, but didn’t allow for townhouses with first-floor
residential by special use permit. He stated that he submitted the request that there be consideration to
allow for a single-family attached dwelling to be treated just like a detached dwelling, not only on this
property but in the district in general. Mr. Stoner said that he wasn’t aware of a single application in the
DCD district to make use of the mixed use provisions as they currently exist. W hile there is opportunity for
significant commercial development on this site, the buffer areas have a need for residential – with some
of it being attached as well as detached. He emphasized that this is really a policy decision on whether or
not the Board wants to allow it by special use permit, and if the Board does not, it will change his plans
about whether to move forward on this particular proposal.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 63)
Ms. Mallek said that she understands the concerns of some of the residents in the village to let
this not get away from a focus on employment, but they do understand that it needs to succeed and after
great consideration, she feels the change will be helpful. Ms. Mallek said that the discussion at the CCAC
meeting with staff raised a lot of questions on these same issues, and the same residents were involved
with the initial DCD development in 2008 and 2009. She stated that they are protective of the employment
aspects, but she is confident that this will be able to work and still uphold those goals.
Mr. Rooker said that the distinction between attached and detached does not make sense with
him to begin with, and so the change makes sense and also brings it into consistency with changes in
categories of zoning for other areas of the County. He stated that if you are going to have a true
downtown area, you would want to have some attached dwellings, and the more people who live in the
area, the more likely the businesses are to be successful. He added that he thinks the changes will
further enable downtown Crozet to move forward.
Ms. Mallek said that she hopes the consistency of designations as described will make it easier
for prospective investors to see what the future will hold.
Mr. Boyd stated that he will agree with whatever Ms. Mallek thinks is best, but having the Crozet
Community Advisory Council’s opinion in the staff report is a “slippery slope” because the County has
been very careful not to include them in the decision-making part of the approval process.
Ms. Mallek said the CCAC was appointed to keep extra eyes on the implementation of the Master
Plan, and this is an element of the Master Plan.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would say the same thing if it were the Pantops Advisory Council.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Boyd made a comment earlier about what that Council felt about a
certain proposal, and if the Council considers something Board members would want to know that
information.
Mr. Boyd said it is up to the Board member to do the research to find out how they feel and bring it
up as they wish, but it is different to have it in the staff report.
Ms. Mallek stated that she invited Mr. Cilimberg to the Council, so she finds it to be completely
appropriate and hopes they will continue to be more engaged.
Ms. Mallek then moved to adopt Ordinance No. 13-18(8), as presented by staff. Mr. Snow
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 13-18(8)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted Uses
By Adding:
Sec. 20B.8 Residential uses allowed by special use permit; additional factors when considering
special use permits
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Section 20B. Downtown Crozet District – DCD
Sec. 20B.2 Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the DCD, subject to the regulations in this section:
A. By right uses; retail and service. The following retail and service uses are permitted by right:
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops.
2. Automobile, truck repair shops excluding body shops.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 64)
3. Barber, beauty shops.
4. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops.
5. Commercial recreation establishments including, but not limited to, amusement
centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls.
6. Convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13).
7. Convenience stores.
8. Department stores.
9. Drug stores, pharmacies.
10. Factory outlet stores, clothing and fabric.
11. Farmers’ markets (reference 5.1.47). (Amended 5-5-10)
12. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22).
13. Financial institutions.
14. Fire extinguisher and security products sales and service.
15. Florists.
16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk
dispensary and wine and cheese shops.
17. Funeral homes.
18. Furniture and home appliances sales and service.
19. Hardware stores.
20. Health spas.
21. Hotels, motels and inns.
22. Indoor athletic facilities.
23. (Repealed 12-11-13)
24. Laundries, dry cleaners.
25. Musical instrument sales and repair.
26. New automotive parts sales.
27. Newspaper publishing.
28. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops.
29. Nursing homes (reference 5.1.13).
30. Office and business machines sales and service.
31. Optical goods sales and service.
32. Photographic goods sales and service.
33. (Repealed 12-11-13)
34. Restaurants.
35. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
36. Service stations.
37. Sporting goods sales.
38. Tailors and seamstresses.
39. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 65)
40. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
41. Tourist lodging.
42. Visual and audio appliances.
43. Laboratories/Research and Development/Experimental Testing.
B. By right uses; office. The following office uses are permitted by right:
1. Offices.
2. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
C. By right uses; public and civic. The following public and civic uses are permitted by
right:
1. Churches.
2. Clubs, lodges (reference 5.1.02).
3. Conference centers, outdoor auditoriums, public art or kiosks.
4. Cultural arts centers.
5. Day care centers (reference 5.1.06).
6. Water, sewer, energy and communications distribution facilities.
7. Fire, ambulance and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09).
8 Libraries.
9. Outdoor performance areas.
10. Parking structures and stand alone parking structures (reference 4.12 and 5.1.41).
11. Private schools.
12. Public uses (reference 5.1.12).
13. Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction storage yards
(reference 5.1.18).
14. Theaters, live and movie, including multi-screen movie theaters.
D. By right uses; residential. The following residential uses are permitted by right, provided that
the first floor of the building in which the residential use exists is designed for and occupied
only by a use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E):
1. Apartments, either as a single-family dwelling or as a multiple-family dwelling.
2. Attached single-family dwellings such as townhouses.
3. Boarding houses.
4. Condominiums.
5. Group homes (reference 5.1.07).
6. Tourist lodging within detached single-family dwellings existing on June 4, 2008.
7. Dwellings occupied by the owner or employees of a permitted commercial use, and
their families (reference 5.1.21).
8. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56). (Added 9-11-13)
E. By special use permit; non-residential uses. The following non-residential uses are permitted
by special use permit:
1. (Repealed 12-11-13)
2. (Repealed 12-11-13)
3. (Repealed 12-11-13)
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 66)
4. Car washes.
5. (Repealed 12-11-13)
6. (Repealed 12-11-13)
7. Drive-through windows.
8. Energy and communications transmission facilities (reference 5.1.12).
9. Hospitals.
10. (Repealed 12-11-13)
11. (Repealed 12-11-13)
12. Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and engraving.
13. Stand-alone parking (reference 4.12).
14. (Repealed 12-11-13)
15. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
16. Towing and storage of motor vehicles (reference 5.1.32).
17. Veterinary offices and animal hospitals.
18. Storage/Warehousing/Distribution/Transportation.
19. Manufacturing/Processing/Assembly/Fabrication and Recycling.
F. By special use permit; residential uses. The following residential uses are permitted by
special use permit without the restriction on first floor uses required by subsection 20B.2(D),
provided that there is no other use permitted by subsections 20B.2(A), (B), (C) or (E) on the
same lot:
1. Apartments, either as a single-family dwelling or as a multiple-family dwelling.
2. Attached single-family dwellings such as townhouses.
3. Boarding houses.
4. Condominiums.
5. Detached single-family dwellings
6. Group homes (reference 5.1.07).
7. Tourist lodging within detached single-family dwellings existing on June 4, 2008.
8. Dwellings occupied by the owner or employees of a permitted commercial use, and
their families (reference 5.1.21).
9. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56). (Added 9-11-13)
G. Accessory uses and structures. Accessory uses and structures are permitted, including
but not limited to: (i) home occupations, Class A and Class B (reference 5.2) for primary
residential uses; (ii) storage buildings for primary residential and non-residential uses; (iii)
outdoor performance areas for primary cultural arts center uses; and (iv) prototype
manufacturing for research and development uses.
Sec. 20B.8 Residential uses allowed by special use permit; additional factors when considering
special use permits
In evaluating a request for a special use permit for a non-residential use under section 20B.2(E)
or a residential use under section 20B.2(F), the board shall consider the following factors in
addition to those delineated in section 33.8:
A. The proposed use should be consistent with the recommendations for the Downtown area
in the Crozet Master Plan.
B. The proposed use and its proposed size should be consistent with the purpose and intent
of the Downtown Crozet District as stated in section 20B.1.
C. The proposed use in its location should complement adjacent uses and contribute to a
mix of uses in the Downtown Crozet District.
December 11, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 67)
D. Whether the part of the structure in which the proposed use will be located can be
converted to accommodate by right uses in the Downtown Crozet District.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Snow said that there was a statement made during the public comment period earlier about
not following through on the blasting damage.
Ms. Mallek said that it has been a concern all along, and asked that Mr. Foley to speak with his
fellow Airport Authority members about it.
Mr. Foley stated that the Airport Authority has spent a considerable amount of time on this matter,
and it may need to be advised to the Board in closed session because there may be litigation – but staff
will provide the Board ith an update.
Mr. Rooker asked if the statement that nothing had been paid in claims was accurate. Mr. Foley
said that it is accurate, and no claims have been paid.
_____
Mr. Thomas reported that Belvedere is progressing very nicely and is finally getting back to the
point of planting shrubs. They were looking forward to redoing Belvedere Boulevard as the last leg of the
project.
_____
Ms. Dittmar said that it has been a pleasure to have four meetings with the three Board members
who are leaving, and she has learned a lot in just that time. She thanked them for their service and for
their help to her.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn to December 12, 2013, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.
At 10:00 p.m., Ms. Mallek moved to adjourn the Board meeting to December 12, 2013 at 3:00
p.m. in Room 241 of the County Office Building. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 09/03/2014
Initials: EWJ