2013-11-13November 13, 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 November 13, 2013, Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. The adjourned meeting was held at 2:30 p.m., and was adjourned from
November 6, 2013. The regular meeting was held at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker,
Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, Clerk, Ella
W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:38 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. County’s Five-Year Financial Plan.
Mr. Foley reported that this was the annual process of looking five years out and projecting
revenues and expenditures, adding that this process isn’t so much about the numbers as it is setting
priorities which will help line up the annual budget and will be considered within the context of the Board’s
strategic plan and other priorities.
Mr. Foley stated that, as they look ahead to the next five years, the County is at a crossroads with
its future direction as a community. Mr. Foley said the County has been challenged over the past four
years to respond to a significant downturn in the economy, while at the same time experiencing increasing
mandates and obligations, population growth, and increased expectations and aspirations – driven largely
by the Board and the community’s well-founded desires to move important community issues forward, with
items such as the new libraries, police staffing and fire/rescue services. He said while they were hopeful
that the strengthening economy and improving revenues would allow some progress in doing more than
just addressing the most critical, core public health and safety needs, the County finds itself in a position
today to be unable to address new mandates and obligations, the impacts of growth, and the Board and
community’s expectations and aspirations within current resources.
Mr. Foley stated that, over the next five years, they expect a continuing upward trend in mandates
and obligations – as has been the pattern over the past several years, including the shifting of federal and
state responsibilities to the local level. He said the two major mandates of increasing contributions to VRS
and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL requirements alone would add a total of $10 million to the County’s total
obligations over the next five years, and the School Division is feeling some of that same pressure,
particularly with the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). Mr. Foley said, in addition to pure mandates, staff
also considered an important obligation to provide reasonable pay increases to a staff they’ve asked much
of over the past four years, as well as other benefit obligations such as health insurance – and these also
have a significant financial impact over the next five years.
Regarding population growth, Mr. Foley said an average annual population increase of
approximately 1.8% is considered moderate, the cumulative effect of the past five years of growth –
coupled with the five years ahead – does have an impact on the need for additional services and an
impact on the organization’s capacity to deliver those services. He said new residents translate into direct
service impacts like police officer staffing, which is also driven by their own goals for officer per capita
ratios, and fire/rescue service which is measured by response times and an increased number of
residences and businesses over time. He stated that it’s important to point out the real demands in other
departments associated with population growth, such as more social services applications to process and
clients to serve, more usage of our parks and recreation facilities, increased citizen transactions in
Finance and other departments, and citizen engagement demands with growing neighborhoods.
Mr. Foley stated that, in addition to mandates and obligations, which by themselves will require
significant additional resources and the pressures of population growth, there are other quality of life
demands through Board and community priorities which have challenged them as they’ve looked out over
the next five years. He said strategic priorities identified by the Board during its recent retreat – such as
improving community aesthetics, expanding pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and expanding park
space - are examples of Board and community priorities in addition to the opening of two new libraries, the
desire to move geo-policing forward, and the Board’s and community’s long-standing support for
programs like Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE).
Mr. Rooker said it might be helpful to have Steve Allshouse look at the best resource for
determining population growth from the last census to determine how fast the rate of increase actually is;
as he had heard that the rate had slowed to about 1,000 per year.
Mr. Foley said staff uses Weldon Cooper Center estimates, as the state does, and then GIS and
Planning staff look at those with new subdivisions.
Mr. Boyd said he had the same question because 1,700 does seem like more than what the
County has been averaging.
Mr. Foley said staff could try to clarify their methodology, but the State of Virginia uses those and
ties all revenues to localities based on the Weldon Cooper estimates, so the County is using the most
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
official means available. He stated that, over the past four to five years, they’ve been in a downturn, but
population has continued to grow – as it would five years out – at a time when they are struggling just to
deal with mandates.
Mr. Foley said, in looking at the three primary areas of demand and the result of the challenges
faced, all of which are having an impact on the County’s ability to respond to community needs and are
stretching the County’s capacity as an organization. He stated that, during the downturn, they eliminated
66 positions – with 10 more moved off of operations and onto capital – and while they’re slowly building
back some critical core positions – 33 public safety and health positions over the last couple of years -
they have not made any increases in other areas of County government. Mr. Foley reported that current
staffing, including police officers, is at the FY05 level and, based on current trends and what’s proposed in
the budget, they are projected to fall below that level every year.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the 2010 census had the population at 98,970, and the latest Weldon
Cooper figures have the County at over 102,000.
Mr. Foley said those numbers have fluctuated from 1.5% to 2% but, on average, it’s been in the
1.8% range.
Mr. Foley stated that, given the increased mandates, demands brought on by population growth,
Board and community expectations and aspirations, and the reality of organizational capacity to meet
those demands, staff had a difficult time balancing the plan this year. Mr. Foley said they do have an
obligation to provide a balanced plan which ensures mandates are met, maintains a healthy organization
even as population grows, and attempts to move the most critical Board and community expectations and
aspirations forward. He stated that this plan cannot achieve those requirements without investment
beyond projected revenue growth, and Ms. Allshouse would talk with them today about recommendations
in the form of stormwater fees dedicated to meeting the stormwater and water resource mandates, and a
tax increase in years two and four dedicated solely to shoring up the capital program.
Mr. Foley said, despite these new revenues, they’ve been partially successful in addressing areas
of challenge, and have not been able to move beyond maintenance items and a few critical core public
safety capital projects. He stated that the requests which came in through the capital improvement
process this year totaled over $300 million and the plan before the Board – even with the increases –
totals $160 million. Mr. Foley said they are not making a lot of progress on addressing organizational
capacity to meet increasing demands beyond critical core health and safety items. He stated that the
Board’s and community’s priorities and quality of life issues are being very minimally addressed in this
five-year plan, primarily through their strategic plan priority for the capital program – with very little
progress made on geo-policing, addressing community aesthetics, expanded library hours, or pedestrian
and bike connection networks.
Mr. Foley stated that they are at a crossroads in attempting to match resources with mandates,
obligations and growth, and what they aspire to do as a community through the strategic plan, community
expectations, and the quality of life improvements discussed in recent years.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that the Board would have four work sessions on the five-year plan and thanked the Office of
Management and Budget staff for their work on the plan. She also introduced the “fellows” that have
recently obtained masters degrees and are interested in local government as a career.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the five-year plan is not a budget, but a plan based on assumptions.
She said the plan looks ahead at the capital, school and local government aspects of needs, and is a
critical process for the County’s AAA-bond rating. Ms. Allshouse said staff would present a balanced plan
for the Board to consider this month and also in December, and it would create the framework for the
annual budget development process. She stated that the assumptions are based on the best information
available as of today, noting that some of those would be changing, particularly those related to revenue.
Ms. Allshouse said they start the planning process by setting out goals, recognizing that there
would be mandates and obligations – which was a large part of what this plan became. Ms. Allshouse
stated that they also have been talking about the capital program and investment needed for physical
infrastructure, and have talked about building an agile and healthy organization. She said they were
thoughtful about the different functional areas across the County, and considered the character, the
aesthetics and assets which define the community. Ms. Allshouse said they tried to remain focused on
being proactive and preventative while embracing creativity and innovation.
Ms. Allshouse reported that, at this meeting, the Board would look at revenues and expenditures,
address the County’s reserves and proposed use of fund balance, and touch on the next steps. She
reported that the main source of revenue is from real estate taxes, which accounts for about 52% of total
revenue, and the numbers she has are very preliminary as the assessors don’t complete assessments
until January. Ms. Allshouse said their original revenue projections for 2014 and 2015 still reflected the
recession, but the new assumptions include a positive increase in the taxable assessed value of real
estate at 1.2%. She presented a chart showing real estate revenues projected over the five-year period.
Mr. Boyd asked what 1.2% translated to in terms of actual dollars. Ms. Allshouse said she didn’t
have the number at that time.
Mr. Rooker said the budget is $300 million, so the revenue number could be multiplied by 1%. Mr.
Foley said 1% in values is approximately the same as one penny, which equates to about $1.5 million.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Allshouse stated that the chart she provided shows past actuals and future projections,
stating that the increase in real estate revenue is about a 4% increase in the out years. She noted that the
chart starts in 2004 and then levels out, with some equalized tax rates at that time, with real estate taxes
increasing at 1.9% in 2015 and reaching 4% in the out years – and the 1.9% is a $2.8 million increase.
Ms. Allshouse said other property taxes include personal property, machinery and tools, mobile homes,
and delinquencies, and this category increases to 5% by the out years. She noted that other local taxes
include sales tax and BPOL, which increase at 5.7% in the first year and in the 3-4% range in the out
years. Ms. Allshouse stated that other local revenue includes EMS revenue, permits and fees, fines and
donations – and the 15% increase in the first year reflects the change in the Northside Library, which will
begin paying rent to the County instead of a third party. She said this category also has stormwater fees.
Ms. Allshouse reported that state revenues remain fairly flat at 1% throughout the entire plan, and
federal revenues change at less than 4% – with most being the result of changes in reimbursable items in
Social Services – and those revenues are not a large portion of the budget. She presented information on
the actuals beginning in 2004, and highlighted the three selected categories to provide more detail, with
personal property tax going up 4-6% in the out years. Ms. Allshouse said they project sales taxes to
increase fairly significantly in the first year at about 12%, due primarily to the economic growth taking
place north of the city, and then 5-6% in the out years.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to know how much of the increase in real estate tax revenue
was due to growth versus increased appraised values of properties. Ms. Allshouse said that information is
broken down in that way, so she would be able to provide that to the Board in the future.
Mr. Foley said they also do estimates on that each year which they could share.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the category of “dedicated revenue assumptions” includes plan
assumptions that there would be fees for Community Development through the VSMP mandate,
estimated at $253,000 in the first year beginning in 2015. She said the Board would be considering an
ordinance in December which would provide an opportunity for more discussion on this item. Ms.
Allshouse stated that the stormwater management fee pertains to the impervious footprint of a property,
and additional revenues would be required for this mandate through TMDL regulations – with the
assumption currently estimating $1 million in annual costs beginning in January 2015. She said an
average footprint property in a development area would be about $20 per year and, applied countywide, it
would be about $8 for a similar property.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be $1 million for half a year, or half of that amount. Mr. Foley said they
are projecting $500,000 in the first fiscal year.
Mr. Rooker said there is an assumption for revenue of $1 million taken from some source to pay
that cost. Mr. Foley confirmed that was the assumption, and stated that they are considering stormwater
fees to pay for it.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $253,000 reflected the 23% portion that the state is taking. Mr. Mark
Graham, Director of Community Development, confirmed that it is reflected, so that is the County’s share.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the five-year plan includes an assumption of including a penny on the
tax rate beginning in 2016 – currently about $1.5 million – and an additional one penny on the tax rate
beginning in 2018. She said this would be a full penny dedicated to capital.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the 4.2% in 2016 is the one penny, so it’s a combination of
appreciation, new development, and an increase in tax rates.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the plan works around the assumption that revenues are increasing
due to improved economic conditions, and that they are past the recession with things now turning around.
She said additional dedicated revenues are built into the plan for the water resources mandate and the
capital improvement program.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she met the previous evening with the town manager in Scottsville, and he
was under the impression that the BPOL tax would be changing based on the gubernatorial candidates’
platforms, and asked if staff was concerned about that when creating revenue projections.
Ms. Allshouse said they have been considering that, and watch everything happening at the
legislative level.
Mr. Foley stated that staff hadn’t made an adjustment in projections based on loss of revenue in
BPOL, and there had been some discussion about the need to replace that with another source because
of the potential impact to local governments.
Mr. Boyd said he and Ms. Mallek had recently attended the VACO conference and, at a legislative
meeting there, the three people on that panel agreed that comprehensive tax reform would not be an
issue with this year’s General Assembly.
Mr. Rooker said the BPOL discussion has happened numerous times over the years.
Mr. Foley stated that they also have a modest amount of money from the fund balance set aside
for potential revenue downturn.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Allshouse reported that, with the expenditure side of the model, the first thing addressed is
mandates and obligations. She stated that the first obligation, according to their formula, is allocation of
60% of new local tax revenue to the school system after certain transfers and expenditures are deducted
per the formula. Ms. Allshouse presented a chart showing the previous actuals of transfers for each fiscal
year, noting some negative numbers in 2010 and 2011 during the recession and stating that there would
be a $3.4 million increase in FY15 in transfers to the School Division based on the formula.
Mr. Boyd asked if the numbers had been adjusted to reflect the changes in the school bus transfer
expense. Ms. Allshouse said that had been done, noting that $300,000 would be moved into capital.
Mr. Foley stated that these numbers would not be affected by the bus circumstances, as that is a
separate item.
Ms. Mallek said the $1 million for buses beyond the $300,000 amount is her concern.
Mr. Boyd said, based on the adjustment they did and taking over those expenditures, there was a
net increase to local government cost.
Mr. Foley clarified that the Board’s decision had been to take on the obligation of the school buses
and the schools, in turn, had to provide the state revenue for transportation – with money freed up in their
budget to allocate to other expenditures. He said the formula does not provide anything for school buses,
and they get the money based on the basic formula. He stated that the Board had debated the issue, but
decided that they would only require the schools to provide $300,000 in transportation state dollars.
Mr. Rooker said it used to be an operating expense for schools, so the first decision was to make
buses a capital expense; the second change was to have them take any money from the state for buses
and transfer that to the locality; and the third was that any fund balance accrued over a certain level would
be transferred to the capital plan.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t recall the Board deciding not to include the reduction in operating costs in
their formula to calculate the 60% and, when they’re calculating the percentage of revenues, they should
take into account that they’re now covering a sizable portion of what used to be under the schools’
operating costs.
Mr. Foley said that was specifically the debate they had prior to making the decision.
Ms. Allshouse stated that there is also revenue sharing for the City of Charlottesville, and
presented a history of actual transfers. She said, in 2015, there would be a savings of almost $1 million
because they would be providing less to the City than the previous year. Ms. Allshouse stated that, after
the recession, it catches back up in about 2017 and begins to move in a different direction.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the VRS mandate and health insurance obligations, with VRS
projected to increase by 11% for FY15 and FY16 – a rate set by the actuaries –totals about $3/4 million in
VRS increases in the budget, and small increases in other areas. Ms. Allshouse said this plan assumes
an 8% increase in health insurance for both the employer and the employee in all years of the plan.
Ms. Mallek asked if staff gets a report from the City regarding their increase in valuation as it
pertains to revenue sharing, because all of their recent development may have an impact.
Mr. Davis said all of the numbers in the formula are shared between both finance departments.
Ms. Allshouse presented information on the transfer to the CIP, noting the formula allocation and
the increases brought in by the stormwater fees and dedicated changes to the tax rate. She presented
examples of key CIP projects where those increases could help address both maintenance and other
obligations such as maintenance and replacement needs for both schools and general government. Ms.
Allshouse said there are some Emergency Communications Center (ECC) priorities and dispatch
requirements currently being discussed as a key public safety need, a dam repair and water resource
mandate requirements, school bus replacements, school safety upgrades, court upgrades, the firing
range, the solid waste convenience center, and the Pantops fire/rescue substation. She said the
substation would essentially be a mandate because there’s a lease running out for the existing Pantops
substation fire/rescue.
Ms. Mallek asked when Martha Jefferson Hospital would be terminating the lease for the station.
Mr. Foley explained that there’s a lease in place which they agreed to and signed off on, and they are
timing the station with the expiration of the lease.
Mr. Davis clarified that the initial term expires in September 2015, and there’s a possibility of two
one-year extensions, but they are not automatic and must be agreed upon by the landlord.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the Community Development fees would come in to support water
resources mandates, including positions in FY15 of a 1.5 FTE inspector, an engineer and office assistant
– and two additional inspectors in the out years, all paid for with offsetting fees. She said there would also
be water resources work in the General Services Department and, in this plan, the stormwater utility fees
as discussed would support both operating and capital costs – with a civil engineer and inspector
beginning in January 2015, and an additional civil engineer in the out years as well as supporting the
existing water resources staff. Ms. Allshouse stated that the current budget has staff paid for out of the
capital program, and this would move them into the stormwater utility operation. She said there is a
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Hollymead dam project in capital related to the water resources mandates, as well as TMDL projects
starting in FY18 and FY19.
Mr. Rooker asked about an issue with the Key West dam that Mr. Boyd had mentioned.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t think it would be a major expense, and there’s currently a discussion
underway as to whether it’s the County’s responsibility or VDOT’s.
Ms. Allshouse reported that there are some salary assumptions for the workforce built into this
plan model, with the first year assumption based on their joint conversation with the School Board for a
2% market increase in FY15. She stated that, in the out years, it would be a 2.5% increase for two years,
then 3%. Ms. Allshouse said the model continues employee training funding throughout the plan, and
includes funding for the fellowship and innovation programs.
Ms. Dittmar asked what an innovation program was. Ms. Allshouse explained that they have set
some one-time money aside and have asked employees to bring forward their best innovative ideas,
focusing on ways to be more efficient and effective in government. She said it hasn’t played out yet, but
there are 20 applications to date and it has built up a great cultural impact. Ms. Allshouse stated that
there is $160,000 in the current year, with that number dropping to about $50,000 in the out years.
Mr. Snow said that program may pay for itself in the long run. Ms. Allshouse stated that there are
a lot of great ideas coming forward.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the plan provides for operational inflationary increases in
departments, and these are based on conversations which the OMB staff has with every department on
what their needs are, with money set aside to accommodate inflationary adjustments over the years.
Ms. Allshouse said this also includes a newer process of budgeting for salary attrition lapse.
Mr. Boyd stated he understood that they would be able to get an accurate accounting of the
attrition number after being on the payroll system through Access Albemarle, and said that is valuable
information for both local government and schools. He also asked if she could provide dollars instead of
just percentages.
Ms. Allshouse said she could provide those, and said that the model does provide for operating
impacts of the capital projects included in the current adopted CIP.
Ms. Allshouse reported that there are staff capacity challenges given an increasing population,
with numbers at the 2005 level and future anticipated population increases. Ms. Allshouse provided
several examples of specific capacity challenges, stating that there are many pressures hitting
departments in year one of the plan such as police, with 27 positions below the population model, water
resource mandates, and fire/rescue needs due to the expiration of FEMA grants which had funded
existing personnel.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an assumption made in the plan that the County would pick up
personnel expenses in operations once those grants end. Ms. Allshouse said that was the basic
assumption.
Mr. Foley stated that there was an exception for two of those nine firefighters, which they are
hoping to replace with volunteers.
Ms. Allshouse said those two would not be laid off and would likely be coming into the model
through attrition.
Ms. Allshouse reported that, in the Department of Social Services, there was an 82% increase in
the number of children in foster care between 2012 and 2013, which is affecting the CSA with a 133%
increase in their caseload over the past year. Ms. Allshouse said there has been a 29% increase in new
buildings to maintain for the General Services Department, and stated that staff is meeting only 37% of
mandated fire inspection workload.
Mr. Rooker asked what 37% meant. Officer John Oprandy explained that they go through a
process with businesses in the community, with some needing an inspection annually and others deferred
up to three years. He said, of those needing inspection annually, fire inspectors are able to get to 37% of
those – with the rest left uninspected on the annual schedule. Chief Oprandy stated that these inspections
are mandated through the state fire code.
Ms. Mallek said she would like more information about the mandates also, as some other
counties have said they don’t really do them. She also asked if there are fees for the inspections or are
those funded out of the general government budget.
Officer Oprandy said he could get that information to the Board and, for those situations where
there is a hazardous materials operation, there is an inspection requirement and an associated permit fee;
however, the County does not currently charge a fee for inspection.
Ms. Allshouse presented information reflecting changes in the current plan which could help meet
health and safety mandates stating that, in FY18, there is an HR specialist position added as there will be
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
mandated changes in VRS which will require running multiple different systems. She said core health and
safety positions include police officers in the plan, with 12 additional officers added over time.
Mr. Snow said the County is not keeping up with the police officer levels, with a shortage of over
30 positions now and future population growth to consider.
Mr. Foley said that was a great example of priorities for the Board to set, and staff would like to
get some direction as to where the Board wants to go with these issues. He pointed out that the current
plan doesn’t have resources to fund more officers.
Mr. Snow stated that the officers currently on patrol in the evening aren’t able to adequately cover
each other in the event of something major so, in order to make it safer for them, the Board must make it
more of a priority.
Mr. Rooker said the Police Department is 27 officers down currently, and this budget just keeps
pace with the deficit over the years of the plan, so they would remain at that level of shortage. He noted
that they were going to look at the 1.5 officers per thousand standard to determine if it still made sense,
and he wasn’t certain if that was still the case or not.
Mr. Foley said the evaluation was done about 10 years ago, and the 1.5 was the lowest among
any of the localities they surveyed.
Police Chief Steve Sellers addressed the Board, stating that he doesn’t do his planning around
geo-policing, but just on the numbers he needs to accomplish the task for the community – based on a
community policing model, which is really what geo-policing is all about. Chief Sellers said he doesn’t get
hung up on the 1.5 number, which is on the lower end for departments of this size, but he has provided a
plan for the next five years that will get the department to where it needs to be. He stated that he looks at
officer backup, community safety, response times, key performance indicators, etc.
Mr. Snow asked if this plan would get them there. Chief Sellers responded that it would not.
Mr. Foley stated that the other thing to remember about public safety is that officers need records
clerks and other staff to back up what they do and, while some of that is in here, no other parts of
government besides public safety and health have those things.
Mr. Rooker said there’s a big difference between making judgments based upon an abstract
number versus understanding what another officer means operationally.
Mr. Foley said there’s been an entire evolution with the police force in terms of how things are
being approached.
Ms. Dittmar asked what level of input staff was hoping to get through this session. Ms. Allshouse
explained that this was an overview of the entire five-year plan; the following day the Board will be hearing
from the School Division on a five-year plan, and the meetings in December would continue the discussion
with staff looking to the Board for an adopted plan by December 11.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board would hear more about police needs by that date. Mr. Foley said
staff would bring those back based upon this conversation, along with anything else the Board felt they
needed more information on.
Mr. Rooker stated that staff can add in changed assumptions from the Board to see how it affects
the net financial result and, at the end of the day, they strive to have a plan that’s balanced.
Mr. Snow said some of those details are worked out during the budget process.
Mr. Rooker said a lot of that work is done in the five-year planning, although it doesn’t lock them
into a budget.
Mr. Foley said the challenge here is to balance the five-year plan at this point so it does provide
direction on what they’re willing to do and support and how to pay for it. He said he would miss Mr.
Rooker being on the Board because he usually says what staff is thinking before they say it.
Ms. Mallek asked about the one existing fire training instructor.
Ms. Allshouse explained that there are existing positions listed, with a fire training instructor being
grant-funded in a total of nine FEMA-funded employees –with this plan picking up seven of those nine.
She stated that the five-year plan also includes a foster care worker in the first year and one in FY17, or it
could also be a family care worker. Ms. Allshouse said those departments and others also need support
positions, with a building inspector coming in the first year as that workload will likely increase, and an
EMS cost recovery analyst. She stated that these departments often receive fees to help offset those
costs. Ms. Allshouse stated that the plan includes a CSA coordinator in FY18, as well as a police records
clerk, and there is a fire marshal for FY19. She said there is an increased need for building maintenance
with an increase of about 29% in building space, in addition to a maintenance mechanic also built into
FY18.
Ms. Allshouse said the total new positions in this model are 29.5, and the existing positions aren’t
included in that total.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Allshouse stated that the fire/rescue department has seven existing positions funded in the
plan. She said FEMA grant funding expires in FY15, with the potential for grant extension for two
positions and a continued increase of volunteer support – so they expect all positions to be maintained
through attrition, with no layoffs. Ms. Allshouse stated that the plan also provides funding for one currently
grant-funded fire/rescue volunteer trainer and a 4% annual increase for the fire/rescue volunteer stations.
Ms. Allshouse said the five-year plan provides for 13 additional positions in the Police Department
and, with five officers added, they can move to a 10-hour shift. She said this will help Chief Sellers move
closer to a geo-policing model and will allow for some overlapping work of officers so they can do more
community policing type activities.
Mr. Foley stated that this is a small step towards geo-policing, although not necessarily the goal
they had mentioned.
Ms. Allshouse presented information on agency funding, noting that there are different categories
of agencies which all work at different levels and capacities. She said some agencies such as the SPCA
work on a contract basis, which informs staff of what’s needed in terms of funding. Ms. Allshouse stated
that the public safety agencies such as the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center, the Emergency
Communications Center (ECC), the jail, SPCA, and CACVB have either a contract or are part of a regional
authority in which the County participates by formula. Ms. Allshouse said core agencies such as
Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT), JAUNT, the Thomas Jefferson Health District, and libraries are
increasing in general by about 2% in FY15 and 3% in the out years. She stated that it’s not applied
equally across agencies, but is based on analysis and need. Ms. Allshouse said the Northside Library
would have an impact of about $141,000 for operations in FY15, and $212,000 in future years.
Ms. Allshouse said the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) which reviews agency applications
has a 2% total increase in the bottom line, as well as a 2% increase in the cultural category. She
confirmed that, if a new agency comes in, there wouldn’t be additional funding per se, so there would need
to be an adjustment of funds in the overall agency funding.
Mr. Thomas asked if agencies were reviewed one at a time by the ABRT each year, so someone
could get eliminated and a new one could come in.
Ms. Allshouse said that was indeed the case, adding that ABRT does a very thorough job in
reviewing them. She said, in the past, some agencies have been adjusted off or on for funding based on
their performance and community priorities.
Mr. Boyd stated that there have been concerns expressed in the community about the
composition of the ABRT and the fact there are agencies who receive funds who are participating in the
decision as to who gets those awards.
Ms. Mallek said she hoped they would look at that prior to the next round of reviews.
Ms. Allshouse said the ABRT is already underway with that process.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the plan provides for the Board’s undesignated general fund balance
of 10%, which is maintained throughout the plan, $250,000 operating contingency reserve, and $100,000
fuel contingency, as well as the economic development fund of $250,000, the grants leveraging fund to
help provide matching monies, and the fellowship and innovation funds. Ms. Allshouse said the
assumption in the model is that the money is there every year and available, and it’s replenished for the
following year.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the unaudited FY13 fund balance is $35.2 million, and the
undesignated fund balance reserve of 10% would be $28 million. She said the Board currently has about
$2 million appropriated for uses, and they are anticipating a transfer in the model of about $1 million to the
CIP, with another $300,000 expected for the carryover portion. Ms. Allshouse said the revenue
contingency Mr. Foley mentioned earlier would also be accounted for, along with an anticipated use of
fund balance for FY15 – and $1.1 million of fund balance worked into the model for the one-time costs in
the plan, such as a police officer needing a car.
Mr. Foley said it would also include things such as the economic development fund and grants
leveraging funds.
Ms. Allshouse said, at the end of the day, there would be $2.2 million remaining, which staff would
recommend putting into the capital program.
Mr. Foley stated that the plan in total counts on that money being added to the $1 million already
planned to help support the capital program.
Mr. Rooker noted that this is a one-year effort as opposed to the five-year plan. Mr. Foley agreed,
stating that this comes in on the front end as cash and, even with the two cents identified for critical public
safety and maintenance issues and the $2.3 million, they’ve only been able to reach the $160 million mark
in the CIP.
Mr. Boyd asked what kind of surplus staff had anticipated for the current year. Ms. Allshouse said
the Board is getting a financial update every quarter which includes revenue numbers.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Foley said, in each of the five years of the CIP and in this model, staff is anticipating at least
$1 million to go over to capital, so they would need at least that much to fulfill the projection in capital.
Ms. Allshouse summarized her report by stating that this plan is balanced based on current tax
rates in FY15, and supports mandates in the capital program by the addition of dedicated revenues – with
one penny on the tax rate dedicated to capital beginning in FY16 and again in FY18. She stated that the
plan reflects revenues for the water resources mandate and funds the required obligations, mandates and
commitments; provides operating funds to open the Northside Library; and works toward addressing the
most critical health and safety and mandated capacity issues over the next five-year period. She added
that it also continues Board reserves and the County’s sound financial policies to protect its AAA rating.
Ms. Allshouse said the plan doesn’t fully address all core service and capital needs, such as
workload-related needs identified by County departments, and the capital program as currently funded
wouldn’t bring in any new school or local government capital projects; does not include any new
transportation revenue-sharing funding; does not meet police staffing needs; does not address any of the
potential emerging capital needs or unfunded mandates on the horizon; and has no additional funding for
things like ACE, parks, greenways, master plan implementation and the CIP or any other items identified
to address strategic planning goals.
Mr. Snow asked if this included any of the school’s new capital projects. Ms. Allshouse said it
includes their transfer to the schools based on their formula, and they would be discussing their capital
projects further at their joint meeting the following day.
Mr. Rooker stated that they are looking at a CIP which includes virtually nothing for master plan
implementation, and that has been the case for several years now. He said they undertook a number of
initiatives to improve the development areas to help create an attraction for people to live there, and this
has led to better development in those urban areas – with amenities like sidewalks and street trees in new
developments. Mr. Rooker stated that he has observed that they are not doing their part on the public end
of things, such as connecting sidewalks in developments to the outside – and he finds it frustrating that
they show no method of getting to where they’d planned to be.
Mr. Foley said staff’s presentation in part highlights the crossroads between just getting by and
where their aspirations are and, at some point, the things they put off become urgent issues. He stated
that the Board can start the discussion as to what they think about this plan and what the next steps
should be, and also where they might need more information.
Mr. Snow said, based on what staff has presented, there is a two cent tax increase over the next
five years and, with that, everything is balanced.
Mr. Foley confirmed that was the case, but emphasized that the stormwater fees are also
necessary to balance the plan, bringing in $500,000 in the first year and $1 million thereafter. He said the
stormwater fees bring in more revenue than some of the development fees, and that would offset the
mandated costs for positions and capital costs.
Ms. Mallek said that is the fee which was calculated at about $8 per year overall and $20 in the
growth area.
Ms. Allshouse stated that was just the average footprint, and there is a lot more detail needed to
determine the costs.
Ms. Mallek said it’s dealing with the impact that each one creates, and that’s the important issue
to talk about.
Mr. Rooker said the Board can make the decision not to go down the road of imposing these
types of fees, but the programs still need to be funded and the question becomes what is the fairest way
to fund them. He stated that they don’t want to pay a fortune to administer a program, which is a question
he has regarding the stormwater program.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the School Division would bring its five-year financial plan presentation
to the Board the following day, with additional worksessions with staff again on December 4 and
December 11. She said the CIP would also be moving along simultaneously and, on December 12, they
would hold a CIP worksession with the School Board.
Mr. Boyd said he’s not necessarily in favor of setting up a separate stormwater entity either, and is
leaning toward just covering it out of general revenue – especially if the fee starts applying to nonprofits
and churches.
Mr. Rooker said it is a valid opinion, and understanding the administrative expense of operating a
separate entity is important.
Mr. Davis said there are basically three options: setting up a stormwater utility, which could be
structured a number of different ways; implementing a service district dedicated specifically to stormwater;
or raise the tax rate with a general fund amount the Board would have to allocate every year to the
program. He stated that there are pros and cons to each, and the EPA prefers a dedicated fund, as they
do an audit – but that is not legally mandated. Mr. Davis said the administrative costs would vary, with the
tax rate increase being less and the utility being more. He said there are several different factors which
need to be considered as staff brings it forward to the Board in 2014.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Foley said, early in the year, staff would come back with an analysis on alternatives, including
some ways to possibly mitigate administrative expense for utility fees. He stated that what staff has
proposed here is the minimum to meet mandates, and they have talked in the past about going beyond
those measures.
Ms. Dittmar asked if staff would include information about what other counties in the state are
doing to manage this when they come back to the Board. Mr. Foley said staff has done a lot of research
already and would bring that information back before the Board as part of the review.
Ms. Dittmar asked if all localities were tracking this at the same time. Mr. Davis said some cities
have had mandates on them before now have had programs in place for several years, some have just
implemented them in the past couple of years, and more would be facing this over the next four years as
they face new MS4 permit requirements and mandates. He added that there are about 20 localities that
have a dedicated fund for stormwater, and many more that will have to address it in the next few years.
Mr. Rooker said it would probably be helpful for the new Board members to get copies of the
presentations on service levels, because the cost varies depending on how far they go beyond the
minimum state mandates.
Mr. Foley noted that their strategic plan calls for something more than just minimums.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff would provide specifics on projects they would actually do in order to get
the credits they need, as many of the measures the County has already done will not gain them any credit.
Mr. Foley said staff would bring back those details as part of the discussion.
Ms. Mallek asked if Board members had any additional items they wanted to share with staff now
to help them with the information they would bring back.
Mr. Rooker said it’s important, when they talk about wish lists, that they develop them with costs
beside them, adding that he doesn’t think this Board would support a plan that had nothing for the ACE
program.
Mr. Foley said ACE isn’t funded in the current budget, as a result of last year’s discussion.
Mr. Boyd said it hasn’t been funded in several years.
Mr. Snow said the Board ended up putting some residual money in it.
Ms. Mallek said they put $160,000 to draw down a match.
Mr. Foley said there is a balance currently in that fund.
Ms. Mallek said that money was due to a cancellation near the end.
Mr. Foley acknowledged it was previous years’ money.
Mr. Rooker said they’ve been living on past years’ money, and that’s about to come to an end.
Mr. Davis said those funds must be paid for in cash, not debt service, so that can be challenging.
Ms. Mallek asked staff to share different staffing possibilities as suggested by the Police Chief.
Mr. Foley said staff would bring back scenarios pertaining to the Chief’s plan, and were also planning to do
a summary document on what were the most compelling priorities from departments that weren’t able to
be funded. He noted that they did have costs already itemized for the existing wish list items.
Mr. Boyd said he would also like to get a list which differentiates what is mandated and what isn’t.
Mr. Foley said staff would provide that information and, of course, the Board will have the option of
deciding what programs and services to possibly reduce in order to bolster other services.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Solid Waste Services – McIntire Recycling and Southern Albemarle
Convenience Center.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
At the October 9, 2013 Board meeting, questions were raised as to whether the Board was
interested in extending the County’s agreement with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to
provide recycling services at its McIntire Road facility through fiscal year 2015. The current agreement will
expire effective June 30, 2014. Staff indicated information would be brought to this meeting so the Board
could make an informed decision.
In addition, at the same October 9th Board meeting, the Board concurred with staff’s recommendation that
a Southern Albemarle Convenience Center be located at the County-owned Property in Keene. The
related Executive Summary for that issue is provided as Attachment A. Since October 9th, several Board
members have indicated that there is some community interest in the Board considering other possible
locations. Staff will review alternative locations with the Board at this meeting and will confirm the services
to be provided at the convenience centers.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
McIntire Recycling
The RSWA currently provides recycling services to the City and County at its McIntire facility.
Because recycling revenues are less than the expense, the RSWA requires an agreement by which the
City and County subsidize this operation at an anticipated cost of $85,821 for FY 14, of which the County’s
share is $60,075. The RSWA’s 2011 and 2012 data indicates this facility is processing approximately
2,100 tons of material per year. Assuming the tonnage remains the same in 2013 as in 2011 and 2012,
this subsidy equates to $40.87 per ton for RSWA to break even on this operation in FY14. Staff also
notes the annual tonnage is about 44% of what it was five years ago.
The RSWA has not yet developed a budget estimate of what City and County financial support will be
required to keep the McIntire facility operational in FY15, but initial conversations suggest this cost should
be close to the FY14 amount. Recognizing the closing of the Ivy Materials Utilization Center will likely
result in some lost economies of scale, staff recommends a budget estimate of $60,000 for FY15.
Additional uncertainty arises from whether there will be an appreciable drop in use of the McIntire facility
as a result of new County convenience centers that provide the same services in the County. While a
drop in tonnage at the McIntire facility would create some reduction in expenses, it would produce a much
larger reduction in revenues associated with product sales. Effectively, the cost to the County would
increase because the processing cost per ton of recycled materials would increase. Staff believes the
following factors support extending the McIntire agreement through FY15:
Only one of three planned convenience centers is programmed to be open at the start of
FY 15 and no dates are yet established for the other two facilities. This will limit recycling
opportunities for some residents.
The McIntire facility has been popular with some County residents and has strong
support. Without an acceptable alternative, some residents will believe that the County’s
commitment to recycling has weakened.
Staff finds the following factors support ending the agreement on June 30, 2014:
McIntire provides a very small part of the community’s recycling. Most residents can and
do use combined trash and recycling services.
McIntire is a relatively expensive operation. As noted above, the needed subsidy for FY
14 is over $40/ton and could increase in FY 15.
Convenience Center Services
While discussed with the Board and covered in the Request for Proposals earlier this year, staff
needs to confirm the desired services at the convenience centers. The following list reflects staff’s
understanding:
Household garbage, commonly called MSW;
Recycling, including paper, cardboard, plastic containers, metal, and glass containers.
Staff is working with the understanding these services should not have a fee and should
be separate from MSW;
Bulk waste, including items such as furniture, small loads of brush, and debris from small
household improvement projects;
White goods, including stoves, refrigerators, water heaters and dehumidifiers
Tires and wheels; and
Electronic goods.
In addition, staff will work with the contractor to attempt to provide the following services:
Paint;
Motor oil and antifreeze; and
Batteries and fluorescent bulbs.
The following services would not be provided:
Household hazardous waste collection;
Commercial solid waste;
Land clearing / stumps and debris; and
Clean fill disposal
Southern Albemarle Convenience Center Location
In evaluating possible convenience center locations in Southern Albemarle, staff considered Keene
to provide the best balance when applying the selection criteria reviewed by the Board in October. Staff
also noted that it is critical to start design now if the facility is to be operational by July 2014. Since then,
several Board members have identified an interest by the Town of Scottsville to provide a convenience
center at the Scottsville Community Center. If the facility is to be opened by July 2014, any change to the
location must be made now. Staff noted the following when applying the selection criteria to this
Scottsville location.
Adequate size – For planning purposes, staff has assumed a minimum exclusive area of
150 feet by 300 feet, which is slightly more than one acre. The actual facility will likely be
somewhat smaller, but this is needed to assure size issues are avoided during design.
This area is not available at the Scottsville location without either eliminating ball fields or
the community center parking lot. Resolution of those issues was judged to prevent the
convenience center being operational by July 2014.
Neighbors – It was noted that several of the possible locations would be within 100 feet of
the apartments adjacent to the Scottsville Community Center. To staff’s knowledge,
these residents have not been asked about support for this convenience center location.
Central location to service area – This site is at one end of the service area. While
Scottsville has a higher population density, a primary concern with the convenience center
location was convenience to those more remote residents who have difficulty finding a
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
commercial hauler that provides service to their area. The Scottsville location may force
those rural residents to drive further out of their way to use this facility.
As noted above, if the decision is to continue support for the McIntire facility, staff
recommends a minimum of $60,000 be budgeted in FY15. Remaining budget considerations for the
convenience centers have previously been addressed.
Staff recommends:
1. The Board determine if support for the McIntire Recycling facility should continue through
FY 15. If the support is continued, staff will include $60,000 in the proposed FY15 budget
for this service and will advise RSWA of the County’s desire to request an extension of
the current agreement through FY15.
2. The Board determine if any changes are needed to the proposed services to be provided
at the convenience centers.
3. The Board confirm that the Keene property remains the best location to provide a
convenience center for Southern Albemarle, and that the planning should continue for this
facility to be operational by July 2014.
_____
Mr. Graham addressed the Board and welcomed Ms. Dittmar. He said staff’s purpose at this
meeting was to seek Board direction on whether there’s an interest in continuing support into FY15 for the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority facility at McIntire for recycling, to verify the service being provided at the
proposed convenience centers, and to confirm the location for a convenience center in southern
Albemarle.
Mr. Graham stated that the staff report identifies factors for extending support of the McIntire
facility, and staff’s perspective is that there would only be one convenience center opened by the
beginning of FY15, so there would be very limited recycling for people not in that service area. He said
staff have also noted that McIntire remains a strong interest from the community in terms of a recycling
resource. He stated that factors for ending the support within the next fiscal year include the fact that
McIntire is a very small part of the overall recycling rate and, in 2012, the regional recycling rate was at
38% - with the state mandate at 25%. Mr. Graham said, in calculating a worst case scenario with all of the
material going to a landfill, the overall regional rate would drop to 36%.
Mr. Rooker asked who he was including in the region, and if there was a way to determine what
Albemarle’s is. Mr. Graham said that the region includes Fluvanna, Greene, Charlottesville and
Albemarle, and there is no way to determine a locality’s individual recycling rate because of the nature of
how materials are collected and taken to various transfer stations. He said the only way to determine that
information is if they required every truck coming to those facilities to have material only from one locality
and to accurately report where the material is from, which isn’t going to happen.
Mr. Graham stated that McIntire is a relatively expensive operation and, in addition to the revenue
they collect for selling materials, there is an additional $40 per ton cost for a subsidy to make the operation
break even.
Mr. Rooker said, based on the cost-share allocation, the County is putting about 70% of the
material in the site. Mr. Graham said it’s running about 68%/32% County/City.
Mr. Davis noted that that’s the users, not necessarily the tonnage.
Mr. Graham said users are determined by a once a year informal survey done by RSWA asking
people where they’re coming from.
Mr. Snow asked what the annual fee is to maintain that facility. Mr. Graham said it costs about
$60,000.
Mr. Davis said this decision would basically be to request a new agreement for FY15, and the
assumption is that it would be on the same terms and conditions as the existing agreement – which is a
shared funding with the City and County based on the 70/30 split. He added that there is an assumption
that there would be a slight increase in cost based on loss of efficiencies if the Ivy transfer station is
closed.
Mr. Graham said Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) has gone through their analysis and
figured a way for the service to be continued for about the same cost – $60,000 – and an important factor
is that it’s a City/County and RSWA agreement.
Mr. Boyd asked if the City has given any indication of continuing with the current agreement.
Mr. Graham said he has made an inquiry but the City has indicated that there has been no
decision to date.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Board could make a decision subject to the City also approving going
forward.
Mr. Graham said, basically what he’s asking the Board is – for purposes of budgeting for FY15 –
should staff make an assumption for the $60,000 to go in the budget.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Davis said it’s just as important for the RSWA’s planning as to whether they’re going to
continue the operation in FY15 and, in the past, they have always wanted to be notified by January 1. He
added that there is no extension deadline because there was no anticipation that it would be necessarily
extended under the current agreement but he assumed RSWA would need some strong indication from
the Board sooner rather than later.
Mr. Foley said that is the case, and there is a transition of personnel there so the sooner the
better.
Ms. Dittmar asked if RSWA was on the same budget cycle as the County. Mr. Graham said they
are, but they typically introduce a draft budget about the same time the County is adopting theirs, in early
April.
Mr. Boyd said it is just as important that the City make their decision also.
Mr. Graham said City staff is certainly aware of that, but haven’t given an indication yet as to when
they would have an answer.
Mr. Rooker said he supports continuation of the site, as there are limited alternatives available
and they would have to tell citizens there is no place to take recycling next fiscal year. He said, as they get
into the program of other convenience center sites, they can reevaluate it but, for the time being, it seems
they must go forward with this plan – subject to the City going along with it as well.
Mr. Graham said he has received no indication that the City is planning to make a change.
Mr. Foley said, if that could be a motion, it would provide direction and help the City in their
planning process.
Mr. Rooker then moved to continue support of the McIntire Recycling Center operated by the
RSWA for FY15 subject to the City agreeing to continue, with an estimated cost of up to $60,000. Mr.
Snow seconded the motion.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would be possible to have a half-year extension in the event they get the
alternate convenience centers up and running. Mr. Davis pointed out the difficulty with that scenario is
that the RSWA has to program staffing, and a notification period that doesn’t allow for sufficient transition
of personnel may make it difficult for them.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Graham clarified that the new convenience centers must be residential-only waste and cannot
by law take commercial, and there would be no fee for recycling. He said fee-based services would be
municipal solid waste, bulky waste, old furniture and home debris, appliances and white goods, tires and
wheels, and electronics. Mr. Graham stated that future services would include fee-based disposal of
fluorescent bulbs, batteries and paints. He said the County would set the fees, but would be based on the
proposal from the contractor – who currently sets his fees based on the same fees RSWA is currently
charging at Ivy. Mr. Graham stated that household hazardous waste, commercial solid waste, land
clearing debris such as stumps, large construction debris, and clean fill for disposal would not be
accepted, because they are primarily commercial items.
Mr. Graham said RSWA has been providing household hazardous waste disposal for a special
charge which the County and City jointly fund, twice per year, and the contract allows the service to be
taken over by either locality.
Ms. Mallek said she was under the impression that people could bring paints to the disposal site,
and asked if those items would not be permitted at the convenience centers.
Mr. Michael Ledford of Van der Linde Recycling said it’s not possible at the convenience centers
because of DEQ regulations, and he is working with Mr. Graham to see if it might be allowable – with the
exception of broken batteries.
Mr. Snow asked what percentage comes in broken. Mr. Ledford stated that it’s about 50%.
Mr. Graham said currently, he doesn’t know what to tell residents in terms of where to dispose
broken batteries. He also said that fluorescents can be taken to the Van Der Linde disposal facility now,
but he hasn’t been able to get clarification from DEQ as to whether they can be held for a period of time at
a convenience center. Mr. Graham said compact fluorescent bulbs and batteries are accepted at Lowe’s
and Best Buy for disposal.
Mr. Davis asked if staff wanted to get confirmation from the Board on those services before
moving forward. Mr. Foley said the main point here is that there’s a change in level of service pertaining
to commercial waste, and the elimination of construction debris and large amounts of vegetative waste –
but other than that, the County would actually be increasing services.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Mallek asked what a homeowner who’s doing renovations would do with old countertops, etc.
Mr. Graham said an individual homeowner doing work on their home could use the convenience centers,
but if it’s a commercial business doing that exact same work the answer is no. He emphasized that it’s a
regulatory issue, not a County requirement.
Mr. Foley said one must have a permit to do that kind of disposal.
Mr. Rooker said this is exactly what the Board had already talked about and decided upon to go
forward with, as a fee-based service.
Mr. Boyd said he heard the one bidder who had bid on this service didn’t follow the RFP and had
changes to it, so the County effectively adjusted the RFP to accommodate that one bidder.
Mr. Graham said that’s not a true statement, but the RFP did provide considerable flexibility for
the approach – and that was intentional. He emphasized that they weren’t telling people how to do it, they
were telling people what to do and they would in turn come to the County with an approach as to how they
would do it.
Mr. Rooker said that was the same for every bidder.
Mr. Graham stated that the County had walk-throughs with six different organizations that were
looking at potentially bidding, and five of them eventually decided they weren’t interested.
Mr. Davis said that was based primarily on people who didn’t want to operate convenience
centers, they just wanted to transfer waste from convenience centers – and the one person who did bid on
the proposal was capable of managing and hauling the waste.
Mr. Boyd said it was one of the five potential bidders who mentioned it to him, and it didn’t sound
right to him.
Mr. Graham said there were meetings held before the due date to go over these issues and be
clear about the flexibility included in the approach.
Mr. Snow said that was a criticism with this when they put it out for bid a few years ago, as it was
too rigid.
Mr. Graham agreed that there was criticism at that time that it was structured so narrowly that
nobody could make it work, so this time they deliberately left it fairly flexible.
Mr. Foley said Mr. Graham had spent numerous hours with Mr. Davis to ensure this was done
properly, and noted that the prior RFP was actually issued by Rivanna, not the County.
Mr. Rooker said, with only one bidder, the only competition was RSWA to continue what they were
doing.
Mr. Davis agreed, stating that the option was to reject all bids and let RSWA continue to do it even
if they didn’t put a bid out.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were any concerns from the Board prior to Mr. Graham moving onto the
discussion of location.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve staff’s recommended services regarding solid waste handling. Mr.
Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Graham reported that he would review the selection criteria and the process staff used for
potential convenience center sites, and said there were two criteria they felt were key: the size and the
shape, with assurance they could get a minimum pad area onsite with sufficient buffers; and that it be
county-owned. He stated that, in working with the Office of Facilities Development on this, they are on a
very tight timeline to try to deliver this site by July 1, and to go from where they are right now – to go
through the design phase, the plan approval phase, the bidding phase, and then construction – there is no
slack time. Mr. Graham said, because of that, a county-owned property was a critical factor, and there
were other criteria considered important – the location of the center in proximity to a primary highway, the
potential impact on an entrance corridor, minimization of impacts to nearby residents, availability of
utilities, topographical readiness and the need for excessive grading, and additional improvements to the
site entrance or road. He stated that this was somewhat subjective, but they took all those factors into
consideration and tried to look at a large number of sites.
Mr. Graham explained that they started off with an eight-mile circular radius area which included
county-owned properties, and the first candidate site identified was the Keene property – which is a seven-
acre tract with a large buffer that would easily accommodate the use and have a large buffer to screen it
from nearby properties. He stated that there were two houses within 600 feet of the facility, and the
property frontage was somewhat narrow – which limited the opportunity for location entrance, but they did
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
find a reasonable entrance location and have had VDOT look at it. Mr. Graham noted that this is a
wooded site which will require extensive clearing, but the rest of the site criteria seemed to fit well.
Mr. Graham said sites meeting those key criteria but were not recommended include the Mill
Creek property by the Monticello Fire Station, which was at the extreme perimeter of the service area and
was discounted by the Board as they had wanted something closer to the center of the rural area it would
serve. Mr. Graham said staff then looked at Simpson Park near Yancey Elementary, but quickly
discounted the two sites identified there – with one site having a ballpark that would need to be eliminated
in order to accommodate it, and one requiring massive grading and bringing an access in through a
wooded stream buffer. He said they also looked at Walnut Creek Park and, from a construction
standpoint, there were some good candidate sites – but it was a more remote access that was not as
convenient to a roadway, and there was one house within 500 feet of both proposed sites there. Mr.
Graham said there was also a question as to whether federal money had been spent at the park and,
while he is almost positive there hasn’t been, it would be eliminated as a potential site if there had been.
Mr. Graham said sites considered unacceptable based on the criteria included the Scottsville
Community Center, as there would be impacts to the center’s parking area, a small ball field, and the
apartments located 100 feet from the site. He mentioned that the town administrator felt it was too much
of an impact on that site. Mr. Graham said staff looked at a VDOT property about ½ mile south of the
recommended Keene property, but it had a lot of critical slopes requiring significant cut to fit the pad site
in, houses close to the facility, and stream buffer issues with the entrance location. He stated that they
looked at Walton Middle School, but didn’t have time to coordinate with the School Board as to whether
this would be acceptable, and there would not be room for a separate entrance so they would have to
have a shared entrance with the school. Mr. Graham said Scottsville Elementary had similar issues, as it
would also require a shared entrance. He mentioned that both of those properties have cell tower facilities
taking up space on the sites. Mr. Graham said Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad has about eight acres
of property and, in looking at the back part of that property, it seemed to have sufficient space – but it
would have to use a residential street for access, and there are a number of residences fairly close to the
facility.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the rescue squad site was suggested to the County by someone in the
community, and typically staff wouldn’t have looked at that site without talking to the squad first.
Mr. Graham said they also looked at Totier Creek Park, on the extreme perimeter of the service
area, but there were site development issues. He stated that they looked at the Keene landfill, but there
were also site development issues there. Mr. Graham said, in looking at the site selection criteria, the
other Keene property was at the top of the list. He stated that they’ve already taken direction on the
McIntire facility and the level of services provided, so now the Board just needs to take action on the
Keene site as the first convenience center.
Ms. Mallek commented that the topography of the Keene site is better there than anywhere else,
except for some of the very urban sites.
Mr. Snow said the main issue for him is the tractor-trailers coming in and out of the Keene area,
so that intersection would be a dangerous place.
Mr. Graham stated that staff has looked at that in their review, and they are questioning how many
trucks would actually be coming in and out – other than the roll-out trucks which would be lifting the bins
and hauling material out.
Mr. Ledford said one of the pieces of equipment they use is a truck which hauls two containers at
a time and, if the site allows it, they are considering taking that out to the facility once or twice per week to
pick up containers. He stated that, if they do this, it would be done during off hours – and he doesn’t see
traffic being a problem, with the hope that they can accommodate a road tractor. Mr. Ledford said he has
been to the site and is quite pleased with it.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there were other reasons for not using the Mill Creek site other than its
location in the northern perimeter.
Ms. Mallek said her only other issue was that it’s such prime real estate for another highly
developed use, and she thought they should save it for that reason.
Ms. Dittmar said her other question was related to concerns about the Keene site raised by
citizens at town hall meetings in the area.
Mr. Snow said Scottsville Town Council had voted unanimously to have the site in downtown
Scottsville, but since then – after realizing the scope and size of the site – they have come back and said
they don’t want it there. He stated that the citizens had also opposed the Yancey Elementary School site,
given its proximity to the school. Mr. Snow said citizens from the town hall meeting had supported the
Walnut Creek site, and he still considers it a good location for the facility from the standpoint of access for
large trucks.
Ms. Mallek said Route 708 is very tricky for large trucks, and it bothers her in general that it would
be located within or near a park.
Mr. Foley said what Mr. Graham is presenting is everything the community brought forth as
concerns.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Thomas mentioned Mr. Graham’s concern with NEPA issues.
Mr. Rooker agreed that it would need to be verified.
Ms. Dittmar said, because this is the Scottsville District, she wanted to share some community
concerns. She stated that the Town decided against the convenience center, but initially had been excited
because they thought it would just be an expanded recycling center. Ms. Dittmar said residents there feel
the McIntire center is convenient for them because when they bring their recycling into town, they are also
coming in to work or to shop. She stated that Route 20 is not a good road to travel, being just two lanes,
and any facility in the rural area there is going to be a hardship on people that use that road every day until
money is invested to make improvements. Ms. Dittmar said the Mill Creek site isn’t inconvenient and, in
looking at Route 53 and some of the roads that hook up with Route 20 to come into town, they could use
the Mill Creek facility easily – and it’s right near I-64. She stated that she would like to ask fellow Board
members to seriously consider looking at that site.
Mr. Snow said, when they had discussed this a month ago, he asked if there would be an
opportunity for the public to provide input and was told that there would be. He said, at that point, he
decided to have a town hall meeting to solicit feedback – and many people said they don’t want it at Mill
Creek.
Mr. Rooker agreed and said, when they hold a public hearing, they need to put forth more than
just one site – but they shouldn’t put forth those that the Board is opposed to.
Mr. Foley said staff would ask the Board to narrow it down so staff can focus on the ones that are
viable, and also to comment on the schedule because, if it turns out they need to move forward this way,
they need to assess the schedule and perhaps approach Mr. Frederick about whether a further extension
could be accommodated. He asked if Mr. Graham or someone from OFD could speak about the
schedule.
Mr. Graham stated that, if there’s any delay, they will not be open in July as there is not that kind
of leeway in the schedule. He said they’d be looking either at an extension of services into 2015 with
Rivanna, or having no services for a period of time. Mr. Graham stated that, if there was a decision today,
they might be able to make Mill Creek work, but they can’t wait a month to make it work.
Mr. Davis pointed out that staff’s original position on this before getting direction from the Board to
have it centrally located in the rural area was favoring the Mill Creek site and, at that point, the assumption
was to have the facility located on the perimeter of the growth area rather than in the rural area.
Ms. Mallek said there was a lot of concern from very rural residents who feel that they get nothing,
and there are no pick-up haulers that come out there – so without Ivy, they have felt abandoned and that
was the main reason for locating the facility in that circle.
Mr. Rooker said anyone who has pick-up service available is not going to use the Mill Creek
facility, so that community itself would not utilize it.
Ms. Dittmar noted that there aren’t houses around this site.
Mr. Graham said that one of the reasons staff chose this site back in July is because there was so
much distance between residential uses, adding that the new nursing home that would open would be the
closest thing.
Mr. Davis said this is part of a land bank acquisition that the County acquired back in the late
1990s, which includes additional property to the rear which could be a possible location in the future for a
middle school complex or courthouse complex, or another public facility – and other property that is close
by was designed for possible use as libraries or recreational facilities. Mr. Davis stated that, while those
things are far out in the future, they are really critical sites that the County felt was important to land bank,
as they may not be available unless they hold onto them.
Mr. Rooker stated that one of the pieces of information needed then would be how locating this
facility there would impact flexibility for future uses.
Mr. Davis said that analysis was done, and where this facility was proposed to be sited in Keene
was felt to least impact that opportunity in the future, adding that there was a master plan developed and
presented to the Board in the late 1990s.
Mr. Graham pointed out the location of the senior care facility near the Mill Creek site, as well as a
six or seven-acre site belonging to the County which has had some materials stockpiled there. He said
this property has been called the “Kimco” property and, at one point, it was considered for a school site
and other uses, and noted the location of the road which would provide access to the senior facility. Mr.
Graham stated that there’s a large parcel in that area, and the idea was that they would maintain that for
future uses.
Mr. Foley said that it is the optimum site to allow as much of the property as possible for future
uses.
Ms. Mallek noted the location of Tandem School playing fields nearby, and said there is no
gradient for screening.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Graham said Tandem School is at a much higher elevation and it would overlook the
convenience center site.
Mr. Boyd said his guess is that Mill Creek area residents would oppose the convenience center,
as there is a lot more density around that site. He stated that the nursing home would also likely have
concerns about the truck traffic coming in and out of that road.
Mr. Rooker stated that the only large truck traffic would be related to the periodic swapping out of
the disposal units.
Ms. Dittmar said most people will access this site from Route 20 and then turn left at the light at
Mill Creek Drive, and she didn’t see that the residential density along Avon Street Extended as being
impacted by this.
Ms. Mallek stated that it really begs the question of doing McIntire then, because it’s only a few
minutes away.
Mr. Boyd said that might change their overall approach.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Dittmar said they could evaluate that once it’s operating.
Mr. Foley said there needs to be an opportunity to extend the contract past June 30, and staff
would need to know more about the schedule to get a sense of that.
Mr. Neal Craft, of the Office of Facilities Development, addressed the Board, stating that they are
in the pre-design phase now and are just one week behind schedule. He said the design firm has said
they would accelerate their schedule even more, but if they were to go to another site and do a study,
there would be no way to make the schedule the Board has set for June 30. He stated that they have
accelerated their construction phase also and, in doing that, they would have to rely on the contractor to
fulfill that obligation, and that would have to be laid out in the contract. Mr. Craft said it may require a long
work schedule for the contractor which might end up costing the County more money, and it would be
completely impractical to try to fit it into that timeframe.
Mr. Foley said they’d have to go through the design process, then procurement and bidding to get
a contractor, then a construction period.
Mr. Craft agreed, stating that they’ve accelerated the design phase and working document phase
to the best of their ability.
Mr. Thomas asked if that design was not to any specific site.
Mr. Foley said they have moved forward tentatively with the Keene site.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would recommend that it go to Keene, adding that it’s too close inside
the urban ring at Mill Creek.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Snow is right about the public process part of this, and they need to find out
from RSWA if they can extend the timeframe a bit.
Ms. Mallek said they’ve done discussions in public over the past several months, but haven’t held
any public hearings.
Mr. Foley said their direction previously had been to go out into the community, not hold public
hearings. He stated that, before the decision on this, they held an open session in the lobby that was
advertised, and there wasn’t a lot of participation. Mr. Foley said staff also tried to work through the town
hall process with Mr. Snow and, if the Board wants to proceed differently in the future, he needs some
direction from the Board as to what is expected. He stated that, if they do a public hearing, there’s no
question they will have to pursue an extension with Rivanna, and they would need to have specific
alternative sites narrowed down to offer to the public whether it be through a public hearing or community
meeting format.
Ms. Mallek said there was a lot of advertising with the town hall meeting with information to the
public about what to expect, and she thought that using that method of outreach was what they had
planned. She also stated that, if people can pull in or out southbound on the way home with a focus on
operating hours convenient for working people, that seems to be an easy solution.
Mr. Snow said he wouldn’t have made a big deal out of this had he not asked for public input.
Mr. Foley said he thought the town hall meeting was the forum for that.
Mr. Snow said he was under the assumption that there would still be a public hearing.
Mr. Davis said Mr. Graham’s expectations, based on discussions after that, were that there was a
distinction between moving ahead with the first site – which required an expedited schedule – and what
process would be followed for the additional two sites in the future.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Mallek said she doesn’t remember any concerns raised when these plans were presented
before.
Mr. Foley asked if the Board wanted a public hearing on site selection rather than a town hall
meeting.
Mr. Snow said he liked the idea of a work session with public input.
Mr. Rooker said it seems they need to get an extension from RSWA of three months or so.
Mr. Foley said staff would look carefully at the schedule, and clarified with the Board that they
wanted to have an advertised work session on this – either as part of another regular meeting or a stand-
alone meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he doesn’t see any reason for a work session, because those have already been
done, however, he does support holding a public hearing. He also stated that, if the facility is going to be
put in Mill Creek, those residents should be notified.
Mr. Rooker said normally the only notification beyond the newspaper ad would be to adjacent
property owners and, in this case, there aren’t any.
Ms. Mallek asked if staff had reached out to the residents close to the Keene site. Mr. Graham
stated that they hadn’t been contacted, but he has spoken at length to Ms. West and fully understands her
concern with putting a facility in that location.
Mr. Foley asked for clarification from the Board as to whether they want a work session or a public
hearing.
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. Boyd that they should call it a public hearing, and asked fellow Board
members if there was another site beyond these two that they wanted included as part of that process.
Mr. Boyd said the only other one that seemed logical was Walnut Creek, and he wanted to make
sure that it was advertised for both Keene and Mill Creek potential sites so that those neighborhoods are
aware.
Mr. Foley said staff would generally just put an ad in the paper to let people know, and asked if the
Board wanted staff to notify adjoining property owners under separate notice in both locations.
Board members said that they did.
Mr. Davis said Mill Creek would be limited, with just Tandem School and the nursing home.
Mr. Boyd stated that they should notify the Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia Homeowners
Associations.
Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker said those were not adjacent homeowners.
Ms. Dittmar said she appreciated Mr. Boyd’s sensitivity, and it’s always better to advertise. She
said she knows the homeowners associations that exist, and she could help with that.
Ms. Mallek agreed that their job as Supervisors is to reach out to those people as part of this. She
also proposed that they advertise for 5:00 p.m. before the Board’s regular day meeting on December 4.
Mr. Foley said he can’t guarantee that advertisement realistically, and staff would need to prepare
some information. He stated that if they have to extend the contract anyway, then doing it in three weeks
or six weeks won’t matter.
Ms. Mallek said Mr. Foley would know within a few days as to whether Rivanna will extend the
contract for three months, and perhaps they need a contingency vote that if RSWA refuses to extend it,
the County will move ahead with the Keene site.
Mr. Graham stated that the cost differential between the Rivanna agreement and the convenience
centers is about $25,000, so going three months beyond the cutoff with RSWA will cost $75,000.
Ms. Mallek surveyed the Board as to whether they wanted to move ahead with the public hearing,
and they agreed to do so.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Frederick would not want to make a decision on the extension until the RSWA
board meets.
Mr. Graham stated that the RSWA board meets in a few weeks, and emphasized that this type of
organizational transition is very complicated – so Mr. Frederick may not be prepared to ask those
questions at that time.
Mr. Foley said it sounds like staff needs to get some facts together.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Snow asked what would happen if they go ahead and close Ivy and proceed without it for a
few weeks.
Mr. Graham said that’s a good question, and staff has talked about what would happen then.
Mr. Boyd said that’s an option the County might want to pursue.
Mr. Foley said he felt staff had enough direction to proceed.
Mr. Rooker then moved to schedule a public hearing on Mill Creek and Keene convenience
center sites at such time that staff is prepared to go forward with information. Mr. Snow seconded the
motion.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update.
Due to time constraints, the Board deferred this item.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Recess. At 5:32 p.m., the Board recessed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Call to Order. The meeting was called back to order at 6:18 p.m., by the
Chair, Ms. Mallek. Ms. Mallek also welcomed Ms. Jane Dittmar as the new Supervisor representing the
Scottsville District.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 8. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said that he has two items he want to add to the end of the agenda: the delinquent tax
collection practice, and the Economic Vitality Action Plan next steps.
_____
Mr. Rooker said that he wants to have a conversation about the RWSA and RSWA and how
they’re governed, related to a recent article in The Daily Progress that mentioned there had been several
reports done over the last 10 years about changing how the authority works. Mr. Rooker said that the way
that the Rivanna board is presently set up and governed makes it difficult to move forward with important
matters, as both sides tend to get very colloquial with their decisions. He stated that about 10 years ago,
the League of Women Voters had retained some students at the Darden School to do a report on the
governance of the Rivanna board – and in 2005 there was also a white paper done on how the boards of
the RWSA and ACSA might be collapsed into one board.
Mr. Rooker said that he would also like to briefly discuss Comprehensive Plan updates at the end
of the meeting.
_____
The Board accepted the final agenda as presented.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek reported that at the VACO conference the previous weekend, Albemarle had won
another “Go Green” Virginia Challenge award, and she congratulated staff for their efforts.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that the six-year secondary road plan was a Consent Agenda item – not a
regular agenda item – so if a member of the public wanted to speak about roads they would need to do it
at this part of the agenda.
Ms. Barbara Johnson said she is before the Board on behalf of residents from the Bunker Hill
community in Keswick and would like to have that road (Route 685) paved.
_____
Mr. Edward Lee Johnson said that Bunker Hill road has been overlooked for maintenance for far
too long, and there are potholes, gravel, chunks of rock and other hazards that make the road impossible
to pass. He said that he had come to the Board approximately eight years ago with a petition signed by all
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
of the residents of that road, and was told that they would be next in line for rural road improvements – but
nothing has happened. Mr. Johnson said that his kids are now filling the potholes by hand, the same way
he had done with his father. He stated that their road was at position #2 for repair, and he was told that
the position was now #14.
Mr. Boyd said that he has met with these residents in the past, and they have been bounced back
and forth between the rural rustic road program and the six-year secondary road plan. He stated that he
has spoken with Mr. Benish about this, and his understanding is that the rural rustic road program is the
appropriate place for them.
Mr. Benish stated that the County reviews the priority list for secondary road improvements in the
spring, between March-June, and VDOT evaluates the two lists to see which projects are eligible for rural
rustic road funding. He said that the Board needs to take action on the plan no later than June, and staff
begins the work session process on the priority list in the April/May timeframe. Mr. Benish stated that at
that point, VDOT helps staff reevaluate the list and gives the Board a priority list for their comments and
changes.
Mr. Boyd suggested that staff go back and look at the archives, because if it is true that this road
had been on the list at #2, he wouldn’t want it to be #14 now.
Ms. Mallek said that staff could reach out to Mr. Joel DeNunzio, of VDoT, and have him evaluate
the road to see if it qualifies, then they will know fairly quickly where it needs to go.
Mr. Rooker said that the difference in the designation is significant, because this year the County
has $600,000 for all secondary roads – and full paving for a one-mile stretch of road would exceed $1
million. He stated that it seems that for some reason the road bounced between rural rustic and non-rural
rustic, and they need to understand what’s going on with that distinction.
Mr. Davis said that it may be helpful for Mr. Benish to explain the difference between the six-year
secondary road plan and what’s before them on the Consent Agenda, because there seems to be some
confusion about the two separate plans and the process for them.
Mr. Benish explained that the list before them today is focused on the primary and interstate and
public transit improvements, with that priority list updated during this time of year – and some of the
projects on that list are secondary projects because they contribute to the capacity of other primary roads.
He said that the purpose of the list before them today is to prioritize the interstate and primary road
improvements, and the list is a wish list with the allocation of funds to the primary system allocated at the
district level. Mr. Benish said that the secondary road system, which is what they review in the spring,
gives the Board more discretion as to where the money is allocated for improvements, to the extent that
the funding is available. He stated that when projects move between two priority lists, that’s one of the
inefficiencies of having two lists for similar time projects.
_____
Ms. Cyndra Van Clief said that she is opposed to a full-scale garbage collection site being placed
in rural southern Albemarle. She said that her family is looking forward to moving back to Esmont, and
they are working on filling their fourth large container dumpster in that process. Ms. Van Clief said that
southern Albemarle was told that the plan was to sprinkle recycling centers throughout the County, and
they are quite receptive to recycling receptacles being sprinkled – but not to the idea of a modified plan to
have one large facility with a deluge of household garbage and waste. She stated that the County doesn’t
need another dump disaster, and the arguments are the same here as they were with the firing range:
inappropriate for rural area, inadequate infrastructure, cost, insufficient roads and safety concerns, and
lack of notice to public. Ms. Van Clief said that she and her neighbors have gathered trash from the sides
of rural roads, and encouraged the Board to help them find a safe and appropriate way to recycle.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Board had voted earlier in the day to go to public hearing on a
couple of potential sites.
_____
Mr. Hal West addressed the Board, stating that he is opposed to the Keene site for a convenience
center, primarily because it’s so dangerous at the intersection of Route 20 and Plank Road and 712/715.
He stated that three different roads come into Route 20 at the Keene intersection by the community store,
and it’s difficult to get in and out from either direction east or west of the intersection. Mr. West said that if
there’s one car disabled or a truck trying to get out on the road backs up traffic, and they’ve had very bad
accidents at the intersection – even fatalities – with cars flipped over on the curves at Route 715. He
stated that it’s a bad site, not serving very many people, and it’s very costly to clear out the old vegetative
growth at Keene and to build a commercial entrance. Mr. West said that the Town Council of Scottsville
may go ahead and establish a small-scale recycling center, and the County would be better served looking
at the Walnut Creek and Mill Creek possibilities. He stated that Walnut Creek already has a usable open
area in the front entrance that could be separated from the park itself, with the gate lowered. He said that
the left side of Walnut Creek is wooded as you go in, and the right side is a huge field that could be
developed, with almost 100 acres around the maintenance shed area. Mr. West said that the Mill Creek
site has nice high ground area by the fire station, and that should be considered as well.
_____
Ms. Barb West said that she lives in the southern Albemarle community and agrees with the
previous speaker that this facility is something the Keene community cannot accommodate. Ms. West
said they need a site like Mill Creek, which has approximately 47 acres and can support the growing
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
needs and usage, with room for expansion for future growth – especially if McIntire closes. She stated
that the site already has the existing infrastructure, commercial entrance, and public access, and is in a
commercial development area, with roads that can safely support the increased traffic and truck activity.
Ms. West said that it’s in an area where people can multi-task – shop, fuel, eat, work, school, etc. – and
can draw from all areas of the radius and beyond. She stated that it’s convenient the entire circle, and
considering that people recycle once per month and everyone goes into Charlottesville occasionally. Ms.
West said that the design has already been preliminarily worked out with the planning committee on Mill
Creek, which could possibly be up and running by July 2014. She stated that Mill Creek is supported by
Scottsville as being the best location, it is supported by SRA, and at both of Mr. Snow’s town hall meetings
at Red Hill and Yancey, there was almost total opposition to Keene as the site.
_____
Mr. Edward Brooks said that he lives on Gardener Lane off of Porter’s Road in the Esmont area.
Mr. Brooks said that he uses the recycling center in the area twice per week, and loves the facility for that
purpose. He stated that he’s interested to know how many people the 70/30 split for McIntire usage
actually represents, and said that from a southern Albemarle perspective it doesn’t make a difference if
the site is in Mill Creek because people who currently go to the recycling centers wouldn’t have a problem
with that site. Mr. Brooks said that the people of southern Albemarle would really appreciate a twice per
year pickup for big appliances and larger items, and where the convenience center ends up located is
irrelevant. He stated that Esmont Road is a commuter road and is the main road taking people out of
Esmont, and is the confluence with Plank Road coming into Route 20 South. Mr. Brooks said that the
traffic really starts about 5:30 a.m. then picks up again in the afternoon, and the busses leaving to pick up
children are going across Route 20 to Woodridge, back up Plank Road, and trying to operate the site in off
hours is not going to work in terms of traffic density on that highway. He stated that Mill Creek is the right
place for this, and if they could help with multiple site pickup of large items a few times during the year,
that would help tremendously.
_____
Ms. Paula Beasley said she has been a resident of Esmont for over 20 years and has particular
interest in the proposed recycling centers. Ms. Beasley said that Walnut Creek had been eliminated from
consideration, and she was trying to figure out why because there are over 400 acres and an extremely
wide commercial entrance. She stated that she would oppose Keene for several reasons: it is isolated;
there are 145 residents there with no internal or external infrastructure – which will add cost to people for
single-purpose trips and add environmental costs; the Keene site is fully treed and lacks infrastructure,
meaning there will be significant expense in clearing and developing the site; the convenience center
should be located in a commercial, industrial zoned area to preserve community integrity; and the Keene
site does not have immediate access to a public road system that can safely accommodate the increased
vehicle traffic. Ms. Beasley said that at Mr. Snow’s town hall meeting, there was nearly unanimous
opposition to the Keene site, which she hopes they will take into consideration.
_____
Ms. Nancy Carpenter said that 1.2 million K-12 students nationwide were homeless in the 2011-12
school year, and 43 states – including Virginia – had an increase in that number from the previous year.
She said that this figure comes from the Department of Education’s October 2013 report entitled,
“Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program Data Collection Summary.” Ms. Carpenter said
that in that report, it highlights Virginia’s figures as being 14,223 K12 students homeless in 2009-10,
16,420 in 2010-11, and 17,940 in 2011-12 – an increase of 26% over three years. She stated that in the
report, there is no indication that when the figures come out for 2012-13 that there will be a decrease. Ms.
Carpenter stated that being “doubled up” or staying in a hotel isn’t acceptable to her, and somewhere in
those figures are Albemarle County as well. She said that the community needs to continue to focus its
considerable collective energies to alleviate the housing crisis, as these are working families that aren’t
earning enough to keep a stable roof over their heads – and she hoped that the Board would strive to
adopt affordable housing policies resulting in more inventory for these vulnerable residents. Ms.
Carpenter said that some of these strategies could include expanding the availability of sites with existing
buildings that could be rehabbed for some type of housing, reducing red tape, preserving and recycling
resources for affordable housing, and empowering residents to purchase and retain market-rate homes.
_____
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that he would speak on the
special use permit for the proposed golf course in the rural area of the County that is now before them.
Mr. Butler said that he was reviewing the applicant’s traffic analysis and staff’s initial set of comments and
noticed that the applicant’s analysis does an assessment of whether the additional traffic resulting from an
18-hole golf course would push the intersections in the area of the proposed golf course past the capacity
to the point they would require additional turn lanes. He stated that he was pleased to see that the staff
report pointed out that the analysis was limited just to the impacts of the actual golf activity – not
accounting for the additional traffic that would accompany special events held as part of the golf course,
such as golf tournaments. Mr. Butler said that he was in support of staff’s request that additional
information be provided because it has an important impact in terms of analyzing the adverse effects of
the golf course. He stated that he also wanted to make the point that the additional factors the community
and the Board must consider when analyzing a special use permit request is whether the proposed use
would have adverse impacts on the character of the surrounding neighborhood, adverse impacts on the
roads that would create hazardous traffic conditions, and whether the proposed use would have adverse
impacts on abutting property. Mr. Butler said that from his analysis, putting an 18-hole golf course in this
location would more than double the amount of traffic that’s on Carter’s Mountain Road, which would be a
significant change.
_______________
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve Items 12.1 through 12.7 on the consent agenda, and to accept
Item 12.8 as information. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. (Discussion on individual items is included in
that agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_____
Item No. 12.1. Approval of Minutes: July 3 and July 25, 2013.
Ms. Mallek read the minutes of July 3, 2013, pages 28 (begin with Item #22) – end, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Snow read the minutes of July 25, 2013 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_____
Item No. 12.2. SUB-2013-00144. Irvine White Waiver – Special Exception from Building Site
Requirement under County Code Sec. 18-4.2.1(b).
The executive summary stated that the applicant owns a parcel land, tax map 47 parcel 13,
adjacent to the Rivanna River with an existing dwelling upon it. Immediate access to the parcel extends
from a private drive accessed from Proffit Road – the parcel does not have frontage on Proffit Road.
Parcel 47-13 is 7.27 acres by tax records and 5.25 acres by deed records. The parcel existed in its
present size and configuration in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was enacted and no development
rights have been utilized since that time.
The applicant desires to establish an additional building site area on a portion of the parcel other
than that of the existing dwelling site (Attachments A and C). The applicant does not propose to subdivide
the parcel. The subject property has development rights, but does not have a second building site that
meets the rectangular five (5) to one (1) dimensions.
New development would include an additional home site for the applicant. Permitting this
additional building site area would allow the applicant to retain the existing dwelling for use as a detached
office or guest house. The applicant proposed to remove the kitchen stove from the existing dwelling so
that the structure is no longer deemed a dwelling unit. The applicant desires to remove the dwelling unit
status of the existing dwelling so that a site plan would not be required if the building site waiver is granted.
Retaining the existing dwelling and having an additional dwelling on the parcel would require a site plan
(per Section 32.2) because the parcel does not have public road frontage.
County Code § 18-4.2.2a. requires that each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of
thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one
dimension exceeds any other ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle
inscribed in the building site (emphasis added). The building site shall have adequate area for all
buildings and structures, two (2) subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health if
the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system, parking and loading areas, and all earth
disturbing activity related to improvements (among other things). The applicant is requesting a special
exception to waive the rectangular five (5) to one (1) dimension requirements of the building site area.
According to information provided by the applicant’s surveyor (Attachment C), the property has a building
site area of approximately 40,000 square feet, however the building site area is not rectangular and has a
ratio greater than 5:1.
The proposed building site area cannot meet the requirement that each building site be a
rectangle of a ratio of no more than 5 to 1. While the applicant can provide over 30,000 square feet in a
building site area, it exceeds the 5 to 1 ratio. The location of critical slope, floodplain and property
boundaries do not permit a building site area to be a rectangle of less than a 5 to 1 ratio (Attachment B).
The applicant’s surveyor has field located the critical slope to refine the area of critical slope shown on the
County GIS and to provide more space within the building site area that is not in critical slope. In addition,
the applicant has confirmed with the Health Department that the proposed building site area meets
requirements for both primary and backup subsurface drainfields (Attachment D). The only other site
identified that meets the building site area requirements is the location of the existing dwelling which was
constructed over 100 years ago. In the absence of this exception, the applicant would need to significantly
alter or demolish the existing dwelling in order to use its building site (Attachment A).
County Code § 18-4.2.2(a)(3) authorizes the Board to waive or modify any requirement of County
Code § 18-4.2.1(a) by special exception under Sections 33.5 and 33.9 upon consideration of whether (i)
the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical condition; (ii) no
unreasonable alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would
result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to.
Staff has reviewed the application in accordance with section 18-4.2.2(a)(3) as follows:
(i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical
condition;
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
The parcel has been in its present configuration for many years and is unusually shaped
with steep topography that slopes downward to the Rivanna River. The majority of the land area
of the parcel is in floodplain and critical slope. In addition, there is a family cemetery on the
property that also reduces the availability of a rectangular building site area.
(ii) no unreasonable alternative building site exists; and
The applicant has demonstrated that the only reasonable alternative building site to the
proposed location is that of the current dwelling. In order to use the existing building site, the
present dwelling structure would have to be significantly altered or demolished. If the applicant
desires to keep the existing structure as a dwelling, in addition to adding a new dwelling, a site
plan would be required. Under current ordinance requirements, no future development on the
parent parcel or residue would be permitted without further waivers or modifications from the
Board.
(iii) modifying or waiving the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or
adjacent parcels than if those dimensions were adhered to.
Waiving the rectangular shape requirement would result in less parcel degradation
because the existing dwelling would not have to altered or demolished and as demonstrated by
the applicant’s surveyor (Attachment C), field run topographic contours provide for additional area
outside of critical slope that can accommodate the building site area. Without waiver of the
rectangular shape requirements the applicant would need to request critical slope waiver to have
a rectangular building site area with dimensions of 5 to 1.
This property is located within the County’s Rural Areas zoning. The Comprehensive Plan land
use recommendation is Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan states that the limited amount of residential
development permitted in the Rural Area should have minimal impacts on rural area resources. The
parcel is not within a water supply protection area. In addition, the applicant plans to not have the existing
structure serve as a dwelling if the special exception is granted – so only one single family detached
dwelling would remain on the property – the existing structure would be an office or for family guests.
Staff finds that the strict application of County Code § 18-4.2 would unreasonably restrict the
proposed building site area on the parcel and recommends approval of this request.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the special exception and waive the building site
requirement in County Code § 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the special exception and waived the
building site requirement in County Code § 18-4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
_____
Item No. 12.3. Regional Emergency Operations Plan.
The executive summary stated that Albemarle County is vulnerable to a variety of hazards such
as flash flooding, major river flooding, hurricanes, winter storms, tornadoes, hazardous materials
incidents, resource shortages and terrorism. The Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Services and
Disaster Laws of 2006 (Virginia Code § 44-146.19) require that local governments develop and maintain a
current Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to be prepared for such events. Every four years, each local
and interjurisdictional agency must conduct a comprehensive review and revision of its EOP to ensure that
it remains current. The revised EOP must be formally adopted by the locality’s governing body or, in the
case of an interjurisdictional agency, by the governing body of each of the localities encompassed by the
agency. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) requests that governing bodies
adopt their revised EOPs by resolution. The Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle Emergency Communications
Center is an interjurisdictional agency that encompasses the City of Charlottesville, the University of
Virginia and the County of Albemarle. The agency’s last revised EOP was adopted by the County on
December 2, 2009.
The Albemarle County Director of Emergency Management is the County Executive. The day-to-
day activities of the emergency management program have been delegated to the Emergency
Management Coordinator in the Charlottesville-UVa-Albemarle County Emergency Communications
Center Office of Emergency Management.
The Regional EOP for the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, and the County of
Albemarle is a multi-jurisdictional, multidiscipline, all-hazards plan that establishes a single,
comprehensive framework for the management of major emergencies and disasters within the region.
The plan is implemented when it becomes necessary to mobilize community resources to save lives and
to protect property and infrastructure. This revised EOP incorporates the National Incident Management
System as the multi-jurisdictional standard for incident management and reflects other changes resulting
from the second edition of the National Response Framework updated in 2013.
The plan outlines the roles and responsibilities of the City, County and University departments and
agencies in responding to disasters and emergencies. The Regional EOP is not intended as a stand-alone
document but serves as the overarching strategy that aligns more detailed department and agency plans
and operating procedures to meet regional response and recovery needs.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
The successful implementation of the plan is contingent upon a collaborative approach between
the City, the County and the University, with a wide range of partner agencies and organizations that
provide crucial support during emergency operations. The plan recognizes the significant role these
partner agencies and organizations perform during emergencies and disasters. In addition, it specifies
their roles and responsibilities. Separate memoranda of understanding will be established with these
organizations.
Plan Format
The revised Regional EOP consists of the following:
Basic Plan — provides an overview of the management structure, key responsibilities,
and emergency assignments during and immediately after an emergency.
Appendices — defines the authorities, terms and acronyms used throughout the
Regional EOP.
Emergency Support Functions Annexes — outlines the scope of responsibilities
associated with specific emergency operations functions and describes expected mission
execution activities for each emergency phase.
Support Annexes — describes actions to coordinate and execute common emergency
management strategies (e.g., financial management).
Hazard Specific Annexes — describes unique considerations for response and recovery
from likely regional hazards.
The revised EOP has been approved by the ECC Management Board and is scheduled for
consideration by Charlottesville City Council on November 18, 2013 and by the Rector and Visitors of the
University of Virginia on November 14 and 15, 2013. The attached Resolution (Attachment A) is prepared
for adoption by the Board of Supervisors and will be delivered to the VDEM with the revised EOP.
There is no direct budget impact resulting from this revised EOP.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to officially adopt
the revised Charlottesville-UVa-Albemarle Regional Emergency Operations Plan dated October 2013.
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek said that she would like to know from staff how the volunteer stations
were involved in developing that process.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to officially adopt
the revised Charlottesville-UVa-Albemarle Regional Emergency Operations Plan dated October
2013:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE REVISED CHARLOTTESVILLE-UVA-ALBEMARLE
REGIONAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia recognizes the need to prepare
for, respond to, and recover from natural and manmade disasters; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has a responsibility to provide for the safety and well-being of its
citizens and visitors; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has established and appointed a Director and Coordinator of
Emergency Management.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Charlottesville-UVa-Albemarle Regional Emergency Operations Plan, dated October 2013, is officially
adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Director of Emergency Management, or his
designee, is tasked and authorized to maintain and revise as necessary this document during the next four
year period or until such time as it be ordered to come before this Board.
_____
Item No. 12.4. Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft Fiscal Year 2015-2020
Six-Year Improvements Program (SYIP).
The executive summary states that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) scheduled a
series of public hearings in October and November to give citizens and public officials an opportunity to
provide comments on projects in the Working Draft Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Six-Year Improvements
Program (SYIP). Projects can include interstate, primary road, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
improvement priorities. Comments will be accepted by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT) until December 6, 2013.
This process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that specific amounts of funds are
set aside for secondary road projects in the County after a local public hearing, whereas funds for
interstate and primary road projects are allocated for each construction district after the scheduled
statewide public hearings. All interstate and primary road projects proposed within individual localities in
the district compete for those district funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier,
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Attachment A is staff’s recommended priority list of improvements for inclusion in the FY 2015-
2020 SYIP based on the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Constrained
Project List, the current Comprehensive Plan and prior Board priority lists. The list in Attachment A is
essentially the same list adopted by the Board in November 2012, but has been updated to note the latest
status of projects (funding, design and/or construction), as well as a new major improvement project on
Route 29 North. Staff would recommend that a more significant review and update of this priority list be
undertaken after adoption of the update Comprehensive Plan and MPO Long Range Transportation Plan.
With the Board’s approval, staff will forward the priority list to VDOT (and VDRPT) by December
6, 2013.
This is a state-funded program, so there are no direct impacts to the County’s budget.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the County’s Priority List (Attachment A).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the County’s Priority List for 2015-2020
SYIP.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2015-2020 SYIP
November 14, 2013
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS
1. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations, most
particularly additional north and southbound lanes on Route 29 from the Hydraulic
Road intersection to the Route 250 Bypass and an additional ramp lane from Route
29 southbound onto the Route 250 Bypass West; Places 29 Priority project;
Primary/Revenue Sharing/City funds – funding commitment to design and
construct, now under design.
b. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive; Places
29 Priority project; Urban/Revenue Sharing/City funds/Private right of way
donations – Designed and being funded to construct.
c. Construct Berkmar Drive extension. Places 29 Priority project; Portion being
constructed in Hollymead Town Center; CIP funding – available for design
only (no funding to construct).
d. Intersection improvements at the Route 29 - Polo Ground Rd. (east)/Rio Mills Rd.
(west) intersection to address traffic back-ups on Polo Grounds Rd. Consider
signalization improvements and/or construction of turn lanes on Polo Grounds Road;
Board request – new project in 2012 request/not funded.
e. Deployment of an adaptive traffic control system or other equivalent signal
synchronization enhancements to US 29, from the Charlottesville city limits to
Hollymead. Board request – funded and under design for construction [moved
to approved/fully funded section later in this list].
2. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops and Village of Rivann a
Master Plans (improvements to I-64 interchange, pedestrian crossings in Pantops, parallel
roads, new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River and widening of Route 250 east from the I-64
interchange to Village of Rivanna). [note: I-64 exit ramp improvements completed]
Portions of parallel roads constructed in private projects; no additional funding to
design or construct.
3. Improvements in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan); CIP/Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds – Crozet Ave.
Streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown; Secondary/Revenue Sharing funds –
Jarman’s Gap Rd. complete; Library Ave. partially built.
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad crossing;
Portion constructed in private project; location plan complete. No funding to
design or construct.
d. Construct un-built sections of Library Ave. east from Crozet Avenue to Hill Top St.
CIP funds – Portion constructed; No additional funding to design or construct.
4. Widen Route 20 North from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks. No funding.
5. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset Avenue
connector road. Proffer for a portion of Fontaine Ave. to Sunset Ave. Connector; No
additional funding to design or construct.
6. Widen Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and sidewalks. No
funding.
7. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection. No funding.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide
expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville. No funding.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CAT,
JAUNT and RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus
pull-outs, shelters, etc.). Limited funding in CIP for 2-4 bus stops/shelters.
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of transit
operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs. Services
provided in County by CAT are County funded. One new route (Route 11) provided in
2013)
4. Inter-City Rail - Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to Charlottesville/Albemarle
County in 2009. State funded through 2013.
5. Provide new service to Avon Street/Urban Neighborhood 4 area. No funding.
6. Provide new service in the US 29 North corridor/Hollymead/Airport. No funding.
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways along primary roads in the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement
projects. Absent major road improvements, the following are prioritized for pedestrian and/or
bikeway improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet; Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds – Crozet
Ave. streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North; No funding.
c. Route 250 East in Pantops - complete existing sidewalk system through extension
and connections; provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations; CIP funding –
sidewalk sections recently completed on Route 250; crosswalks need to be
designed/ installed.
d. Route 250 West from the City limits to the 250 Bypass area; No funding.
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended. No funding.
f. Route 250 West in Crozet (Cloverlawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center/Cory
Farms subdivision area). Revenue Sharing FY14 funds awarded for project.
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at: 1) Tilman Road; 2) Owensville Road; 3)
Route 240 (at Mechums River Bridge). Improvements to address traffic control, such as
traffic light, round-about, or other such improvements. No funding.
3. Full lane widths, paved shoulders and spot improvements on Route 22 and Route 231. No
funding.
4. Traffic control improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 151 (traffic
light, round-about, or other such improvements). No funding.
FOR INFORMATION ONLY:
OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Rt. 250 Bypass, Construct Interchange with McIntire Road (Charlottesville)
McIntire Road Extended, Construct 2 Lanes (Charlottesville)
Route 29 Corridor Improvements, reconstruction with added capacity from Ashwood Boulevard to
Town Center Drive
Route 29 Western Bypass, New Construction
Bridge Replacement, Route 250 over Little Ivy Creek
Various spot and safety improvements--5 projects on Rt. 29, Rt. 53, Rt. 20, Rt. 250 (flashing lights,
shoulder widening, signage and guardrail, turn lane improvements)
Adaptive traffic control/signal synchronization enhancements to US 29, from the Charlottesville city
limits to Hollymead
_____
Item No. 12.5. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2013-14
Applicant Class.
The executive summary states that pursuant to sections A.1-110(G) and A.1-110(H) of the ACE
Ordinance, the Board reviews the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE Committee and identifies on
which parcels it desires to acquire conservation easements. Each conservation easement identified by
the Board for purchase is appraised by an independent appraiser chosen by the County.
Seven (7) applications were submitted for the Round 12 applicant class (FY 2013-14) by the
extended April 30, 2013 deadline. This extension was needed because no applications were received by
the October 31, 2012 deadline. Staff has evaluated each of the properties from Round 12 according to
the ACE Ordinance ranking evaluation criteria. These objective criteria include: open space resources;
threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources; and County fund leveraging
from outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined the eligibility of the
properties and has placed them in a ranking order (Attachment A). These results were presented to the
ACE Committee, which unanimously approved them at its October 14, 2013 meeting.
The evaluation of the seven (7) applications from Round 12 has determined that five (5)
properties scored enough points to be eligible for ACE funding. With $751,524.15 of funding available for
this class (Attachment B), the ACE Committee believes the County can acquire ACE easements on two or
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
three of the highest ranked properties. Based on the final ranking order and eligibility status of these
properties, the ACE Committee recommends that the Board authorize staff to order appraisals for the
following eligible properties: Henley Forest, Caldwell, Campbell, Woodson, and Stargell. Although the
total ACE budget for FY 2013-14 may be insufficient to purchase easements on all five properties, the
ACE Committee believes it is prudent to obtain appraisals on more properties than funding will allow in the
event that additional funding becomes available or a higher ranking applicant(s) withdraws their
application from the Program.
The acquisition of easements on the five highest ranked properties would eliminate 54 usable
development rights and result in the protection of the following resources:
1,275 acres
18,500 feet of common boundary with other protected lands
two properties are in a drinking water supply reservoir watershed
one property is in historic district or has historical buildings
8,000 feet of state road frontage
one property has “tourism” value
four properties are working family farms
would protect over 600 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
would protect 465 acres of mountaintop (Buck’s Elbow)
would protect almost 16,000 feet of stream frontage with riparian buffers
After closing on two ACE properties in 2012 (Nash/Violette and Rushia/Fleckles), there has been
no easement activity, largely because the regular October 2012 application deadline produced no
applications. As a result, current funding levels of $751,524.15 reflect a combination of re-appropriated
County funds and grants from the VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation, previously awarded to the
County. Funding for the purchase of this conservation easement comes from the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409).
The ACE Committee and staff recommend that the Board:
1) Approve the final ranking order for Round 12 (FY 2013-14) as shown on Attachment A;
2) Authorize staff to order appraisals for the Henley Forest, Caldwell, Campbell, Woodson,
and Stargell properties
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the final ranking order for round 12 (FY
2013-14) and authorized staff to order appraisals for the Henley Forest, Caldwell, Campbell,
Woodson and Stargell properties.
_____
Item No. 12.6. FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 14 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $70,365.38. A
budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the
highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
This request involves the approval of one (1) appropriation as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2014055) to appropriate $70,365.38 for the Crozet Streetscape
project.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #2014055 for a general government project as
described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2014055 $70,365.38
Source: CIP Fund Balance $70,365.38
The budget for the Crozet Streetscape project has been presented to the Board in quarterly update
reports noting the need for a future appropriation for funding the stormwater infrastructure costs of this
project. In order to provide accurate numbers for the stormwater component covering Phase 2 (Crozet
Avenue Streetscape), Phase 2A (Library Avenue), and the Crozet Library tie-in, this appropriation request
was held until bids were received for Phase 2, which occurred on October 16, 2013. The total
infrastructure cost is $612,450.00 based on the low bid for Phase 2 and the expenses already incurred for
the design and Phase 2A construction.
This request is to reallocate $542,084.62 for the stormwater infrastructure costs from the previously
appropriated funding for the following projects:
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Stormwater Management Program, $400,000.00: The stormwater management program
reallocation has been planned as part of the streetscape budget since the project planning/design
began several years ago;
Main Street-Crozet, $92,084.62: The funds in the Main Street-Crozet account were intended to
support an extension of Library Avenue to the proposed Crozet Eastern Connector; however, the
Crozet Eastern Connector is not funded at this time so use of the funds for this purpose is not
anticipated in the near future; and
Crozet Library, $50,000.00: The funds from the Crozet Library represent contingency in the
current estimate at completion budget.
In addition, this request is to appropriate an additional $70,375.38 from the CIP fund balance to the Crozet
Streetscape budget to fund the stormwater component of the project for a total cost of $612,450.00.
Approximately $45,000.00 of the CIP fund balance is anticipated to be replenished from the County Office
Building Brick Repointing project, as final payments are currently being processed and any remaining
funds will be returned to fund balance.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved Appropriation #2014055 for the general
government project.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2014055 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 70,365.38 App CIP Fund Balance
2014055 3-9010-51000-351000-512009-9999 400,000.00 transfer from fund #9100
2014055 4-9010-81010-481020-950199-1240 -92,084.62 Main St-Crozet
2014055 4-9010-94160-494070-800700-7140 -50,000.00 Crozet Library
2014055 4-9010-41023-441200-800605-9999 612,450.00 construction
2014055 4-9100-82040-482040-800975-9999 -400,000.00 Stormwater Management Program
2014055 4-9100-93010-482040-930010-9999 400,000.00 transfer to fund #9010
TOTAL 940,730.76
_____
Item No. 12.7. Resolution Designating Route 688, Midway Road, as Rural Rustic Road.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, in regular meeting on the 13th day of November, 2013,
adopted the following:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, permits the hard surfacing of certain unpaved
roads deemed to qualify for designation as a Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, any such road must be located in a low-density development area and have no more than
1,500 vehicles per day; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia desires to consider whether
Route 688, Midway Road, From: Route 824 Patterson Mill Lane, To: Route 635, Miller School Road, should be
designated a Rural Rustic Road; and
WHEREAS, the Board is unaware of pending development that will significantly affect the existing
traffic on this road; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes that this road should be so designated due to its qualifying
characteristics; and
WHEREAS, this road is in the Board’s Six-Year Plan for improvements to the Secondary System of
State Highways.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby designates this road a Rural Rustic
Road, and requests that the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation concur in
this designation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests that this road be hard surfaced and, to the
fullest extent prudent, be improved within the existing right-of-way and ditch-lines to preserve as much as
possible the adjacent trees, vegetation, side slopes, and rural rustic character along the road in their current
state; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Virginia
Department of Transportation Residency Administrator.
_____
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Item No. 12.8. FY 14 General Fund First Quarter Financial Report and FY 14 Revised Projections
Report., was received for information.
The executive summary states that the attached Quarterly Financial Report (Attachment A)
provides information regarding the County’s FY 14 General Fund performance as of September 30, 2013.
The Revised Financial Projections Report (Attachments B through D) includes projected General Fund
revenues and expenditures for FY 14.
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the
highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
The Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) reflects year-to-date (YTD) data through September 30,
2013, the end of the first quarter of FY 14. The data in the attached QFR is organized in a way that is
consistent with Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Most line item
titles in the QFR match the line item titles in the CAFR.
The columns in the QFR show FY 14 Adopted Budget revenues and expenditures, Revised
Budget revenues and expenditures, as well as YTD actual revenues and expenditures. Each of these
YTD figures subsequently is expressed as a percentage of the amount in the relevant line item of the FY
14 Revised Budget.
Additionally, the QFR includes corresponding data for FY 13 so that the current fiscal year’s
financial data can be compared easily to that of the previous fiscal year. An important feature of this
report is that data is provided for a point in time (September 30, 2013) and is compared to data from the
same point in time for the prior fiscal year (September 30, 2012). Anomalies and similarities between
fiscal years become readily apparent using this comparison method.
The Revised Financial Projection Report (RFPR) provides a streamlined summary of forecasted
revenues and expenditures. The columns of the table in the RFPR show FY 14 Adopted revenues and
expenditures, Appropriated revenues and expenditures, and Revised revenue and expenditure
projections. The last two columns of the table show the variances between revised projected
revenues/expenditures and the corresponding Appropriated revenues/expenditures. These variances are
expressed in dollar terms in the second-to-last column and are shown in percentage terms in the last
column.
Highlights of the attached reports include:
Revenues – YTD Actual
YTD total revenues in the first quarter of FY 14 were $15,138,343, compared to $14,817,144 in
the first quarter of FY 13. In percentage terms, FY 14 YTD Actual revenues, as a percentage of FY 14
Revised Budget revenues, was 6.61% compared to 6.40% in FY 13. This result represents a slightly
increasing trend in revenues.
Individual revenue streams performed fairly consistently through the first quarter of FY 14
compared with the same quarter of FY 13. There was just one significant year-to-year variance:
Revenues – Local: Charges for Services. In Q1 of FY 14 actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY 14
budgeted amount, was 21.3% compared to 16.7% in the same quarter of FY 13. In dollar terms, Q1 FY
14 revenues were $665,913 compared to $449,401 in FY 13. This variance was due primarily to
increased EMS billing.
Expenditures – YTD Actual
YTD total expenditures in the first quarter of FY 14 was $60,426,465, roughly in line with the
$58,551,380 in the first quarter of FY 13. Five individual expenditure items had significant variances from
the previous year. These items were (1) Public Safety: Volunteer Rescue; (2) Health and Welfare:
Contributions to Human Service Agencies; (3) Education: Transfer to School CIP Fund; (4) Parks,
Recreation and Culture: Libraries; and (5) Community Development: Contributions to Community
Development. In all of these cases, the variance reflects the timing of when the transfer, contribution, or
expenditure was made in both fiscal years. For additional information about expenditure variances,
please see the analysis page in the QFR.
Year-end Projections
The Revised Financial Projections Report indicates that, by June 30, 2014, the County’s revenues
will be approximately $229.832 million, or approximately $0.812 million above appropriated revenues of
$229.020 million. Projected expenditures will come to approximately $228.592 million, or approximately
$0.427 million below appropriated expenditures of $229.020. The net result is that, including net transfers,
forecasted revenues currently are anticipated to exceed forecasted expenditures by approximately $1.239
million by the end of FY 14.
Revenue and expenditure data contained in the QFR reflects the state of the County’s budget-
to-actual FY 14 financial performance as of September 30, 2013. Year-end projections are subject to
change based on the result of actual collections and expenditures through June 30, 2014.
These reports are for information only. Staff welcomes the Board’s feedback regarding the
content and presentation of these reports.
_______________
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Agenda Item No. 13. Recognitions.
There were none.
_______________
(The next two public hearings were held jointly.)
Agenda Item No. 14. __ Inoperable vehicles. Intent to adopt an ordinance to amend Sec. 9-500,
Keeping of inoperative motor vehicles; removal, of Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 9-500 by adding and amending
definitions pertaining to inoperable vehicles; by reducing from 2 to 1, in zoning districts other than
the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district, the number of inoperable vehicles that may be parked or
stored (“kept”) outside of a fully enclosed building (“outdoors”), imposing enhanced screening,
shielding and covering requirements, and allowing two vehicles to be kept outdoors only for up to
180 days for active repair or restoration; in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district, by continuing to
allow up to two inoperable vehicles to be kept outdoors provided they are shielded or screened
from view or covered; delineating the classes of authorized businesses to which these regulations
do not apply; and by providing for removing and disposing of inoperable vehicles under prescribed
procedures. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2013.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. ZTA-2013-00005. Inoperable vehicles. Intent to adopt an ordinance to
amend Secs. 18-3.1, Definitions, 18-4.12.3, Prohibited Activities in Parking, Stacking and Loading
Areas, and 18-4.15.7, Prohibited Signs and Sign Characteristics, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 18-3.1, Definitions, by adding and
amending definitions pertaining to inoperable vehicles; amend Sec. 18-4.12.3, by reducing from 2
to 1, in zoning districts subject to section 18-4.12.3 other than the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district,
the number of inoperable vehicles that may be parked or stored (“kept”) outside of a fully enclosed
building (“outdoors”), imposing enhanced screening, shielding and covering requirements,
requiring that inoperable vehicles be kept only behind a line established by the front face of the
primary structure on a parcel, and allowing two vehicles to be kept outdoors only for up to 180
days for active repair or restoration; in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district, by continuing to allow
up to two inoperable vehicles to be kept outdoors provided they are shielded or screened from
view or covered; and delineating the classes of authorized businesses to which these regulations
do not apply; amend Sec. 18-4.15.7 by making a technical clarification referring to inoperable
vehicles. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2013.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The regulation of inoperable vehicles in Albemarle County is currently addressed in two chapters
of the County Code: Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic (County Code § 9-500), and Chapter 18,
Zoning (County Code § 18-4.12.3). Currently both sections of the County Code allow up to two inoperable
vehicles to be kept outside of an enclosed building or structure, provided that they are shielded or
screened from view by covers. In response to concerns raised by neighborhood groups in the
Development Areas regarding the impacts of storing inoperable vehicles outside, Albemarle County
sought the enabling authority to further regulate the keeping of inoperable vehicles under Virginia Code §
15.2-905 (Attachment C), which was amended effective July 1, 2013. On May 8, 2013, the Board adopted
a Resolution of Intent to amend County Code § 18-4.12.3 and § 9-500 to further limit the number of
inoperable vehicles that may be kept on residential properties (Attachment D).
The Planning Commission held work sessions on the zoning text amendment on June 11, August
3 and September 17, and a public hearing on October 22 (Attachments E, F, G, H and I). The general
consensus of the Commission was that in residential districts the number of inoperable vehicles should be
limited to one, that screening standards should be established, and that inoperable vehicles be kept
behind the front face of the house to limit their visibility from the street. The Commission favored deferring
any changes in the Rural Areas district until staff has had adequate time to assess the impact of the
proposed changes in the residential districts.
At the Commission’s October 22 public hearing, the Commission also recommended that
inoperable vehicles be relegated behind houses facing a greenspace or common area in order to limit
their visibility from these public areas. Staff does not support including this recommendation in the zoning
text amendment. Staff is concerned that this additional restriction will be problematic to enforce and will
give greenspace more protection than individual private lots. In addition, many homes in this situation are
regulated through private covenants and restrictions. If the storage of inoperable vehicles presents a
problem for lots adjacent to greenspace following the adoption of the proposed ordinances, the issue can
be considered in a future amendment.
The draft ordinances (Attachments A and B) provide the following:
In residential districts, a definition for “cover or covered” excludes covers that are not
form-fitted. This will eliminate the use of the blue plastic tarps for screening.
A definition for “shielded or screened from view” includes a masonry wall, wooden fence,
or evergreen vegetation that sufficiently hides the body of the vehicle from view at ground
level from surrounding properties. Visibility by someone standing at ground level is the
standard used in the Virginia Code.
On properties in residential districts, one inoperable vehicle may be kept outside of an
enclosed building, provided it is covered or screened. The zoning text amendment
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
includes the additional requirement that the inoperable vehicle be kept behind any face of
the house that is oriented toward a street.
On properties in residential districts, up to two inoperable vehicles may be kept for active
vehicle restoration and repair, as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-905. This provision still
requires that the vehicles are covered or screened and kept behind any face of the house
that is oriented toward a street and that any second vehicle is being used for the
restoration or repair of the first vehicle. The ordinances would require the owner to
demonstrate to the zoning administrator that active repair or restoration is ongoing in
order for the extra inoperable vehicle to be kept on the property beyond 180 days.
Licensed businesses regularly engaged in vehicle sales, salvage or repair are exempt
pursuant to Virginia Code.
The amendment to County Code § 9-500 includes a subsection authorizing the zoning
administrator to order that inoperable vehicles be removed and, if the owner refuses to do
so, to have the vehicle towed after reasonable notice is provided to the owner. This
provision is in the current version of County Code § 9-500 and is enabled by Virginia Code
§ 15.2-905.
Staff anticipates an increase in enforcement activity resulting from this amendment. Between
2007 and 2012, the County averaged 49 inoperable vehicle violations per year (approximately 4 per
month) requiring 8-10 hours of code enforcement staff time per violation. Code enforcement staff
estimates that the proposed changes have the potential to double the number of violations, an
increase in enforcement activity equivalent to an additional 0.25 Full Time Equivalent employee (FTE).
Initially, additional complaints are expected to result from heightened public awareness of the change
in regulations. Without additional staffing, this is expected to result in reduced service levels. Staff is
further exploring a ticketing and/ or towing program which could help to streamline the enforcement
process and reduce the amount of staff time required to abate each violation.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Chapter 9
amendment (Attachment H) and the proposed zoning ordinance amendment (Attachment I). In addition,
staff recommends a delayed effective date of January 1, 2014 to give the public time to come into
compliance with the new regulations.
*****
Ms. Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner, said that she would be speaking to the first two public
hearing items, Section 9-500 and ZTA 2013-0005. Ms. Burbage clarified that when staff refers to
“inoperable vehicles,” they are using the definition from the state code that describes them as “any
vehicles that are either not in operating condition, that lack a valid license plate or inspection sticker, or
that have an inspection sticker that’s over 60 days expired.” She said that currently they regulate
inoperable vehicles under two sections of the County code – Chapter 9, “Motor Vehicles and Traffic” and
Chapter 18, which is the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Burbage stated that the County allows two vehicles on
any property, provided that they are shielded or screened from view by someone standing at ground level
off of the property, and that visibility standard is also referenced in the state code. She said that the
County code currently lacks more specific screening standards, so people are using plastic blue tarps that
blow off – and this ordinance amendment intends to get to more specifics as to what kinds of coverings
are acceptable. Ms. Burbage stated that earlier this year, Albemarle sought the enabling authority to
regulate inoperable vehicles under Virginia Code Section 15.2-905, which allows certain localities the
ability to limit the number of inops regardless of whether they are shielded or screened from view – and
this became effective on July 1, 2013. In anticipation of that effective date, she said, the Board adopted a
resolution of intent on May 8, and since that time staff has held numerous work sessions with the Planning
Commission to develop the ordinance language that is before them today.
Ms. Burbage explained that the origin of the two amendments were in response to citizen
concerns, primarily coming from the development are where lot sizes tend to be smaller, and over the past
five years, the County has receives approximately 50 inops complaints per year, with 43% coming from
residential districts. She said that the key issues being raised are visual blight – concerns about views
from streets and surrounding properties, the environmental impacts of storing inoperable vehicles outside
for an extended period of time, and the resulting spillover parking on to streets when property owners are
using their onsite parking for inoperable vehicles. Ms. Burbage presented a chart with an overview of the
proposed changes, which are limited to residential districts, including the downtown Crozet district and
residential portions of planned development districts. She said that both staff and the Planning
Commission recommend not dealing with the rural areas until they see how the regulations play out in the
development area.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were areas in the growth area where this would not apply, or if it covers
all of the growth area. Ms. Burbage confirmed that it covers residential districts within development areas.
Mr. Davis said that if there are rural area zoned subdivisions within the growth area, they would
not be covered by this specific proposal, because they still have rural zoning.
Mr. Thomas asked about gated communities.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, stated that the one she can think of is zoned planned
development, and so it would apply to the residentially-designated portion of the property.
Ms. Burbage said that within residential districts, the proposed ordinance language would limit the
number of permitted inoperable vehicles to one, and those vehicles would be required to be covered or
screened by any of the measures listed in A-D on the chart – and that includes tarps. She said that the
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
vehicle must also be relegated behind any face of the house that’s oriented toward a street, and the
Chapter 18 amendments include diagrams that illustrate how this plays out in various lot scenarios. Per
state code, she said, staff is proposing an exemption to the one-vehicle limit for individuals who are
actively engaged in auto repair or restoration, and a second vehicle may be kept, provided that it’s being
used for the restoration and repair of the first vehicle. She stated that there is a 180-day time limit
associated with keeping the second vehicle, unless the owner can demonstrate that there’s a need for an
extension to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Ms. Burbage said that rural areas will not be
affected by this change, and thus people will be able to keep two inops – but must cover or screen them,
with tarps still permitted in the rural areas.
Following the public hearing, she said, staff recommends adoption of both proposed amendments
passed in Attachment A and B, and also recommends a delayed effective date of January 1, 2014 to give
staff adequate time to make the public aware of the changes and to allow people time to come into
compliance with the regulations.
Mr. Boyd asked about staff’s definition of “inoperable vehicle,” and whether they need to have
either a current sticker or a license tag. Ms. Burbage said that if they do not have a license plate or an
inspection sticker, they would be considered inoperable.
Mr. Davis clarified that even if it’s operable and isn’t licensed, it’s an inoperable vehicle – but if it’s
not in operating condition, it’s also inoperable.
Ms. Mallek noted that any one of those three criteria makes it inoperable, not all of the above.
She then opened the public hearing.
Mr. James Donahue, a member of the Canterbury Hills Association Board of Directors, said that
the neighborhood has had a problem of inoperable vehicles in the development, as previously
documented to the Planning Commission and the Board. Mr. Donahue said that the association requests
that they approve the changes to the various ordinances that control the storage and proliferation of
inoperable vehicles in residential areas. He stated that they would have preferred the total elimination of
junk vehicles, the Canterbury board urges them to at least approve what was forwarded to them from the
Planning Commission and presented by staff. Mr. Donahue said that they believe the changes will
decrease the visual blight and improve the environment and quality of life throughout Albemarle County,
and will ultimately make enforcement less difficult.
He stated that they anticipate there will be an increased awareness of the new ordinance, and
thus an increase in the number of junk vehicle complaints in the short term – but think it will subside within
a year or less and ultimately decrease as junk vehicles are properly concealed or cleared out of residential
areas. Mr. Donahue said that as they have seen from pictures of inoperable vehicles located in
Canterbury Hills provided to them in a previous meeting, having them in residential areas with relatively
small lot sizes – even if shielded from view – creates a visual blight for the adjacent neighbors and causes
a loss of property values and subsequent loss of tax revenue for the County. He said that they simply
think the open storage of junk or inoperable vehicles in residential areas, particularly as the County is
encouraging higher density development within the urban ring.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Boyd asked if this provision would apply to a neighborhood such as Key West, where he lives,
because it is designated Rural Area.
Mr. Davis said that the distinction is that it’s in a Rural Area zoning district, not just the rural area
in general. He stated that the same rules would apply that are in existence now for his neighborhood,
whereas in residential neighborhoods it will be more restrictive under this proposal.
Ms. McCulley said that it’s a good distinction to make, and it’s zoning ordinance-based.
Mr. Rooker said that a number of people in his district have been interested in this for a long time,
and the Board was very supportive of bringing it forward.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the proposed amendments to Ordinance No.13-09(1) of the County
Code with an effective date of January 1, 2014. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 13-09(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE V,
INOPERABLE VEHICLES, 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 9, Motor
Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, Inoperable Vehicles, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 9-500 Keeping of inoperable vehicles; removal.
Chapter 9. Motor Vehicles and Traffic
Article V. Inoperable Vehicles
Sec. 9-500 Keeping of inoperable vehicles; removal.
Inoperable vehicles are subject to the following:
A. Unshielded or unscreened inoperable vehicles prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any
person to keep an inoperable vehicle on any parcel used or zoned for agricultural, residential, commercial
or industrial purposes, except within a fully enclosed building or structure, subject to the following:
1. Parcels in the rural areas (RA) zoning district. On any parcel in the rural areas
(RA) zoning district, no more than two (2) inoperable vehicles may be parked or stored outside of a fully
enclosed building and each vehicle parked or stored outside of a fully enclosed building shall be shielded
or screened from view or be covered.
2. Parcels in any residential zoning districts. On any parcel in a residential zoning
district, including Downtown Crozet District (DCD) and the residential sections of any planned
development zoning district, no more than one (1) inoperable vehicle may be parked or stored outside of a
fully enclosed building and the vehicle parked or stored outside of a fully enclosed building shall be
shielded or screened from view or be covered; provided that up to two (2) inoperable vehicles may be
parked or stored outside of a fully enclosed building if the person demonstrates that he is actively restoring
or repairing one of the vehicles within a consecutive one hundred eighty (180) day period, the second
vehicle is being used for the restoration or repair, and each vehicle parked or stored outside of a fully
enclosed building is shielded or screened from view or is covered; the one hundred eighty (180) day
period may be extended by the zoning administrator upon the person demonstrating to the satisfaction of
the zoning administrator that more than one hundred eighty (180) days is required to actively restore or
repair the vehicle.
3. Authorized businesses in commercial, industrial or other zoning districts.
Subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) shall not apply to any licensed business regularly engaged in business as
an automobile dealer, salvage dealer, scrap processor, or public garage that is operated in compliance
with this chapter, including any such business operating as a lawful nonconforming use; provided that on
any parcel in any commercial or industrial zoning district, including the commercial and industrial sections
of any planned development zoning district, and on any parcel in any other zoning district in which any
such a use has been authorized by special use permit, no inoperable vehicle may be parked or stored
outside of a fully enclosed building except in the location designated for that use on an approved site plan.
B. Removal and disposition of inoperable vehicles. Inoperable vehicles may be removed and
shall be disposed of as follows:
1. Removal by the landowner. The owners of a parcel used or zoned for residential
purposes, or zoned for commercial or agricultural purposes shall, at such time or times as the zoning
administrator prescribes, remove any inoperable motor vehicles that are not authorized to be parked or
stored outside of a fully enclosed building or structure as provided in subsection (A).
2. Removal and disposal by the county. The zoning administrator may remove any
inoperable motor vehicle whenever the owner of the parcel, after reasonable notice provided by the zoning
administrator, has failed to remove the inoperable motor vehicle as provided in subsection (B)(1). If the
zoning administrator removes an inoperable motor vehicle, the vehicle may be disposed after giving
additional notice to the owner of the vehicle.
3. Recovery of county cost of removal and disposal. The cost of any removal and
disposal of an inoperable motor vehicle by the zoning administrator shall be chargeable to the owner of
the vehicle or the premises and may be collected as taxes are collected. Every cost with which the owner
of the premises has been assessed shall constitute a lien against the parcel from which the vehicle was
removed. The lien shall continue until actual payment of the costs has been made to the county.
C. Definitions. As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
1. The term “cover” means a form -fitted default-free cover specifically designed and
manufactured for motor vehicles and which completely shields the body of an inoperable vehicle from view
and, in the rural areas (RA) zoning district, can include a tarpaulin or other cover that completely shields
the body of an inoperable vehicle from view.
2. The term “inoperable vehicle” means any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, as
those vehicles are defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-100, which has one or more of the following
characteristics: (i) it is not in operating condition; (ii) it does not display valid license plates if the vehicle is
required by State law to display valid license plates; (iii) it does not display an inspection decal if the
vehicle is required by State law to display a valid inspection decal; or (iv) it displays an inspection decal
that has been expired for more than sixty (60) days.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
3. The term “parcel” means a parcel of land that is neither “public property,” a
“public highway,” nor a “public roadway” as those terms are used in Albemarle County Code § 9-114.
4. The term “shielded or screened from view” means that the inoperable vehicle is
not visible by someone standing at ground level from any vantage point outside of the parcel on which the
inoperable vehicle is located because of one or more of the following: (i) distance, terrain, or one or more
buildings between the inoperable vehicle and the parcel boundary; (ii) evergreen vegetation; (iii) an
opaque masonry wall; (iv) a wood fence of stockade, board and batten, panel or similar type design; or (v)
any combination of the foregoing.
D. Administration. The zoning administrator is hereby designated as the official authorized to
carry out the provisions of this section.
(Ord. of 2-7-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, § 12-34; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference-- Va. Code 15.2-905.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2014.
*****
Mr. Rooker then moved to adopt Ordinance No. 13-18(6) with an effective date of January 1,
2014.
Mr. Davis clarified that the ordinance is referenced as ZTA-2013-005.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Ms. McCulley thanked Bob Garland in the Zoning office for helping to develop the ordinance.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 13-18(6)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND
ARTICLE II, BASIC 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 I, General Provisions, and Article II, Basic Regulations, are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.12.3 Prohibited Activities in Parking, Stacking and Loading Areas
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited Signs and Sign Characteristics
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Cover. As used in section 4.12.3, a form -fitted default-free cover specifically designed and manufactured
for motor vehicles and which completely shields the body of an inoperable vehicle from view and, in the
rural areas (RA) district, can include a tarpaulin or other cover that completely shields the body of an
inoperable vehicle from view.
. . .
Inoperable vehicle: Any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, as those vehicles are defined in Virginia Code
§ 46.2-100, which has one or more of the following characteristics: (i) it is not in operating condition; (ii) it
does not display valid license plates if the vehicle is required by State law to display valid license plates;
(iii) it does not display an inspection decal if the vehicle is required by State law to display a valid
inspection decal; or (iv) it displays an inspection decal that has been expired for more than sixty (60) days
(Repealed 6-10-87; Added 10-3-01)
. . .
Shielded or screened from view. As used in section 4.12.3, the inoperable vehicle is not visible by
someone standing at ground level from any vantage point outside of the parcel on which the inoperable
vehicle is located because of one or more of the following: (i) distance, terrain, or one or more buildings
between the inoperable vehicle and the parcel boundary; (ii) evergreen vegetation; (iii) an opaque
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
masonry wall; (iv) a wood fence of stockade, board and batten, panel or similar type design; or (v) any
combination of the foregoing.
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.3 Prohibited activities in parking, stacking and loading areas
The following activities are prohibited:
a. In any parking, stacking or loading area:
1. Uses. The sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicle or equipment; the storage
of materials, supplies or merchandise; the storage of refuse, recycling or similar disposal
containers; or other use that would prevent the parking, stacking or loading area, or any
portion thereof, from being used for its intended purpose. This prohibition shall not apply
to single-family dwelling units or to temporary uses or activities approved by the zoning
administrator.
2. Discontinuation, elimination or reduction of area. The discontinuation, elimination or
reduction of a required parking, stacking or loading area, any part thereof, or any required
parking spaces, including those in garages or provided for residential uses, so long as the
use requiring such area(s) or parking spaces continues, unless an alternative equivalent
area complying with these regulations are established as required by this chapter. For
any use subject to a site plan, the removal of any parking spaces shall require an
amendment to the site plan.
b. On any lot, including any parking, stacking or loading area, except where expressly authorized:
1. Parking, storage or use of major recreational equipment. No major recreational equipment
shall be used for living, sleeping or other occupancy when parked or stored on any lot or
in any other location not approved for such use. For purposes of this section, the term
“major recreational equipment” includes, but is not limited to, travel trailers, pickup
campers, motorized dwellings, tent trailers, boats and boat trailers, house-boats, and
trailers, cases or boxes used for transporting such recreational equipment, whether
occupied by the equipment or not.
2. Trucks with minimum gross vehicle weight or major recreational equipment. No truck with
a gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds or major recreational
equipment shall be parked in any residential district other than the rural areas (RA) zoning
district, except for purposes of making pickups or deliveries, in any location other than an
off-street parking area shown on an approved site plan or subdivision plat.
3. Parking or storage of inoperable vehicles. No inoperable vehicle shall be parked or stored
on a parcel zoned for agricultural, residential, commercial or industrial purposes, except
within a fully enclosed building or structure, subject to the following:
a. Parcels in the rural areas (RA) district. On any parcel in the rural areas (RA)
district, no more than two (2) inoperable vehicles may be parked or stored outside
of a fully enclosed building and each vehicle parked or stored outside of a fully
enclosed building shall be shielded or screened from view or be covered.
b. Parcels in any residential districts. On any parcel in a residential district, including
Downtown Crozet District (DCD) and the residential sections of any planned
development district:
1. Number of vehicles. No more than one (1) inoperable vehicle may be
parked or stored outside of a fully enclosed building and the vehicle
parked or stored outside of a fully enclosed building shall be shielded or
screened from view or be covered; provided that up to two (2) inoperable
vehicles may be parked or stored outside of a fully enclosed building if
the person demonstrates that he is actively restoring or repairing one of
the vehicles within a consecutive one hundred eighty (180) day period,
the second vehicle is being used for the restoration or repair, and each
vehicle parked or stored outside of a fully enclosed building is shielded or
screened from view or is covered; the one hundred eighty (180) day
period may be extended by the zoning administrator upon the person
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator that more
than one hundred eighty (180) days is required to actively restore or
repair the vehicle.
2. Location of vehicles. Any inoperable vehicle outside of a fully enclosed
building shall be parked or stored only behind a line across the yard
established by the exterior walls of the primary structure on the parcel
fronting one or more streets, depicted as the shaded areas shown on
Figures 1 through 6. In cases where the exterior walls fronting on a street
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
is not a uniform distance from the street, the line shall be based on the
wall or point on the wall that is closest to the street as shown on Figure 5.
c. Authorized businesses in commercial, industrial or other districts. Subsections
(b)(3)(a) and (b)(3)(b) shall not apply to any licensed business regularly engaged
in business as an automobile dealer, salvage dealer, scrap processor, or public
garage that is operated in compliance with this chapter, including any such
business operating as a lawful nonconforming use; provided that on any parcel in
any commercial or industrial district, including the commercial and industrial
sections of any planned development district, and on any parcel in any other
district in which any such a use has been authorized by special use permit, no
inoperable vehicle may be parked or stored outside of a fully enclosed building
except in the location designated for that use on an approved site plan.
4. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or prohibit parking or storing the
vehicles and equipment described herein on a street or highway.
Figures
Figures 1 through 6 illustrate the standard in subsection (b)(3)(b)(2). If there is a conflict or inconsistency
between subsection (b)(3)(b)(2) and any a figure, the regulation is controlling.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
(§ 4.12.5, 12-10-80; § 4.13, 12-10-80; 1-1-84; 6-10-87; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03)
State law reference-- Va. Code §§ 15.2-905, 15.2-2280.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 4.15, the following signs and sign characteristics are
prohibited in all zoning districts:
. . .
c. Certain sign types. Signs that are:
1. Animated signs, including signs using rare gas illumination, that give the appearance of
animation. (Amended 3-16-05)
2. Advertising vehicles, where (i) the vehicle is parked so as to be visible from a public right-
of-way in a parking space or parking area not authorized by section 4.15.6(21); (ii) the
vehicle is an inoperable vehicle; or (iii) the vehicle is incapable of moving on its own or is
not self-propelled. (Amended 3-16-05)
3. Banners, except as an authorized temporary sign under section 4.15.4(d). (Amended 3-
16-05)
4. Billboards.
5. Flashing signs.
6. Moving signs, including signs using rare gas illumination, that give the appearance of
movement, but not including flags that meet the requirements of sections 4.15.6(18) or
4.15.6(19). (Amended 3-16-05)
7. Roof signs.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.06; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2014.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. PROJECT: ZMA-2013-00003. 1306 Crozet Avenue (Signs #109&110).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 1.09 acres from R-2 Residential zoning district which allows residential
uses at a density of 2 units per acre to R-4 Residential zoning district which allows residential
uses at a density of 4 units/acre, to allow construction of 2 proposed units (with two 2 existing
units) for a density of 3.67 dwellings/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
PROFFERS: Yes.
SCENIC BYWAYS OVERLAY: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Crozet Master Plan-Neighborhood Density Residential – 3-6 units/
acre; supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential
uses in the Crozet Community.
LOCATION: Intersection of St. George Avenue/Crozet Avenue (1306 Crozet Avenue).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 056A1010011400.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall. (Deferred from October 9, 2013.)
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2013.)
Ms. Claudette Grant, Senior Planner, stated that the property is located at the intersection of St.
George Avenue and Crozet Avenue, and the applicant is requesting to rezone 1.09 acres from R-2 to R-4
residential zoning district to allow construction of two proposed houses with one existing house and one
rental unit, and a second existing rental unit will be eliminated. She presented a slide of the plan showing
the existing units along the proposed lots, and noted the location of the existing house and the two rental
units on the property. She said that the lots the applicant would like to rezone are in the rear of the
existing property.
Ms. Grant reported that the Planning Commission had a public hearing held on August 20, at
which time they recommended approval, and the proffers reflect their expectations. She said that staff
recommends approval of the rezoning under this proposed ZMA with those revised proffers dated October
25, 2013.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Carmagnola, the Architect representing the owners of the property, Mary Jensen and
Keith Cheely, and said that this better utilizes the property and provides an excellent transition of the
corner of St. George and Crozet Ave. He said that it also utilizes a vacant lot, which is a large portion of
the property, and the owners’ desire is to provide affordable housing by maintaining the two existing
affordable housing units up until the time that the fourth unit is constructed. Mr. Carmangola said that the
applicants have agreed for one of the small structures on the property to be decommissioned, but isn’t
necessarily required to be demolished.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
Ms. Mallek moved to approve ZMA-2013-0003 subject to acceptance of the revised proffers
dated October 25, 2013. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
Agenda Item No. 17. 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 October 9, 2013.)
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2013.)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that with this rezoning as well as the Riverside Village rezoning on this
agenda, the applicants have provided alternative proffers that would allow for a credit of by-right
development. He said that they have proffers for both projects that were based on a cash proffer amount,
with the first being consistent with the policy and the second having some issues related to land values.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board had discussed the issue last week, and asked Mr. Davis to clarify
what the Board had voted on.
Mr. Davis said that the Board gave direction to staff that they were willing to consider on a case by
case basis giving credits that were not consistent with the adopted policy, for the underlying units that
could be constructed by right under the existing zoning. He said that what was unclear to staff was
whether the underlying units were actual units or theoretical density, so that is one issue that needs
clarification. Mr. Davis stated that the alternate proffers Mr. Cilimberg had mentioned reflect a theoretical
underlying density, and staff has not had an opportunity to determine what the actual density might be
under the existing zoning.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if this is a credit the Board wants to have in the proffer policy, they would
want to make sure to provide further detail when they review the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek stated that she thought from the proffer discussion the previous week that they were
talking about developing a new policy that would then be adopted, or modifying the policy they have.
Mr. Snow said that he thought the they were trying to help out the applicant before the end of the
year.
Mr. Davis emphasized that a policy adopted in the Comprehensive Plan is just a policy, and the
Board could consider each application on a case by case basis and vary from that policy. He said that
pending applicants heard that as an indication that the Board was willing to consider any zoning
application on a case by case basis until the policy is changed, and might be receptive to giving credits for
underlying density. Mr. Davis stated that the applicants at this meeting were trying to take advantage of
this change of direction, at least on the one application.
Mr. Boyd said that was his understanding as well, and they have not gone through the process
they would normally do to determine what the actual development rights are.
Ms. Mallek said that was essential for it to work.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Rooker said that what they were talking about was someone having eight development rights
they could exercise on a property and were upzoning to 35, for example, they would not pay cash proffers
on the eight as long as they were actual and not theoretical.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the only way that can be done is for applicants to actually submit a plan
that shows they can do that number of units. He said that it would essentially be a subdivision plat or site
plan level kind of review to determine whether that would be achievable.
Mr. Snow said that an applicant would have to develop two plans – one actual and one theoretical
– which doesn’t make much sense.
Mr. Thomas said that this goes back to the applicant that kind of triggered this discussion,
because he was looking only at the possibility of using those credits, which made it challenging to
understand.
Mr. Cilimberg said that for that application, the applicant did not have an alternative by-right plan –
only a theoretical number – and that’s what the applicant was basing his request on from the beginning.
Mr. Rooker said that what they are talking about is a plan that’s not overly detailed that shows they
could exercise a certain number of development rights, and eight development rights for single-family
housing would be $160,000 in savings. He said that developers have land planners involved in the larger
developments, and certainly it’s worth their while to establish their actual development rights that they’re
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
asking for credit for. Mr. Rooker said that he wasn’t really supportive of the idea of someone coming in
with a property that has two actual development rights and ten theoretical rights, and then giving them
credit for ten.
Mr. Snow said that if it’s obvious from looking at a parcel – without a formal plan – that an
applicant is upgrading, then that’s a different story. He asked if both of the projects the Board is
considering had the same issue.
Mr. Davis stated that Out of Bounds does, and Riverside is later on the agenda and could have
had the same issue but decided not to ask for the credit.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that with rural preservation developments, the applicant is required
under the ordinance to show a by-right plan so staff can verify that it could be done conventionally.
Mr. Boyd said with that single-family dwellings at $20,000 per credit, they could easily pay for a
second plan – enough to demonstrate that it’s more than theoretical.
Ms. Meghan Yaniglos. Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that the property under
consideration is located on Barracks Road across from its intersection with Georgetown Road, and
currently contains a historic single-family residence that will remain. She said that the front of the property
is open field and the back of the property is wooded, and it’s adjacent to Canterbury Hills, the Colonnades,
and Hessian Hills. Ms. Yaniglos said that the applicant is requesting to rezone 9.42 acres from R-1 to
Neighborhood Model district to allow up to 56 single-family attached townhouses and multi-family
residential units, with the existing single-family house to remain onsite. She presented a diagram of the
plan, noting the location of the existing house. Ms. Yaniglos said that along with the rezoning request, the
applicant is requesting a special exception for critical slopes – with some minor critical slopes in the rear
of the property that staff believes was created with a stormwater management pond.
Ms. Yaniglos stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval on July 30 with five
conditions: technical revisions to the proffers, provision of an offsite drainage analysis, clarification of the
affordable housing proffer as to the timing of the building of the units and ensuring that the units will be
built, relocation of the playground away from the Canterbury Hills neighborhood, and meeting with the
neighbors along Smithfield Road and Smithfield Court concerning drainage along with remediation of any
drainage issues. She said that the applicant has responded to the conditions and has reported on
compliance with the conditions, and met with the residents on September 4 along with County engineering
staff to discuss the problems.
Ms. Yaniglos said that under County regulations, they will be required to meet requirements for
onsite stormwater detention – including detention provided by an existing onsite basin – and no separate
proffer is necessary to assure this. She stated that the applicant met again with Canterbury Hills
representatives and Mr. Rooker and staff on October 7, and has offered a fifth proffer to address some of
the residents’ concerns that are above and beyond County requirements. Ms. Yaniglos said that the
Deputy Zoning Administrator, County Attorney, and the County Engineer have concerns with that proffer,
specifically its administration and enforcement, and are unsure of its effectiveness. She stated that
regardless of that, the applicant has addressed the expectations of the Planning Commission and the
Board can approve the ZMA inclusive of the proffers and the code of development.
Mr. Snow asked what concerns staff had about Proffer #5. Ms. Yaniglos said that it would be
difficult to administer and enforce, and having the County Engineer determined what is “maintain” and
what is “repair,” the level of those things, and who should be responsible during different storms is a
concern.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there is also concern that the County could be put in a position of
refereeing between Canterbury Hills and the developer or the subsequent residents of Out of Bounds in
terms of whether a proffer is being violated or not. He stated that it would in many ways be self-enforcing.
Mr. Davis explained that in Canterbury Hills there are private drainage easements, no publicly
dedicated drainage easements, and what this proffer is doing is asking the County Engineer or the Zoning
Department to enforce by a zoning violation the failure of the developer to maintain the Canterbury Hills
private drainage easements. He said that beyond that, it forces the County Engineer to determine
whether or not maintenance is needed, and whether or not it’s the result of the Out of Bounds
development or just a natural maintenance issue. Mr. Davis stated that it creates a situation whereby
there’s a financial obligation that will ultimately be placed on the Out of Bounds homeowners association
that will be enforced as a zoning violation if they do not maintain private drainage easements in
Canterbury Hills. He emphasized that this would be a complicated burden to place on staff, who might be
in the situation of mediating difference of opinion between two competing neighborhoods.
Ms. Mallek said that in another recent application, the Board was told pretty clearly that the County
doesn’t get involved in enforcement of private legal arrangements, and she asked how this was different
from Piney Mountain, for example.
Mr. Davis said that the Piney Mountain discussion was related to deed restrictions, and that was
actually a private agreement between the purchaser and the landowner. He stated that there is no
underlying agreement between Out of Bounds and Canterbury Hills, and what’s being proposed here is
basically creating a proffer that creates a zoning obligation that is in effect a private arrangement between
those two parties that would have to be enforced solely as a zoning violation. Mr. Davis said that
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
Canterbury Hills would not have any standing to enforce the proffer – it could only be enforced by the
County, which has never been done before.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the applicant was trying to respond to the issues that already exist as a
problem in Canterbury Hills.
Ms. Mallek said that perhaps the better thing to do would be for those two groups to make their
own arrangement and deal with it themselves.
Mr. Davis said that would be the typical way, but there are challenges with that as Canterbury Hills
has no formal homeowners association, so the applicant would have to be dealing with private landowners
to enter into those agreements – and the drainage easements are privately-owned easements that are to
the benefit of that subdivision, although the natural water course from Out of Bounds also has a legal right
to use those drainage features.
Mr. Thomas asked if that meant that all of those property owners would have to sign an
agreement individually.
Mr. Davis explained that in order for Out of Bounds to do the maintenance, they would have to
have approval from the individual property owners that the drainage channel runs through. He said that
without that permission from individual property owners, they would be trespassing if they went on the
property to maintain the drainage easement proffer.
Ms. Dittmar asked if Proffer #5 was necessary and something that staff determined they needed.
Mr. Rooker said that the problem is that there is a neighborhood that has been there for a long
time that already has problems with the drainage in their neighborhood, and you’ve got someone coming
in to develop besides them at 6½ times the permitted density under the current zoning. He said that the
question is what you do to help protect the neighborhood from future drainage problems that might occur
as a result of the development, and they are at a point of considering rezoning the property – so they can
entertain proffers as a means of solving that problem. Mr. Rooker said that the problems he sees are that
the County has to enforce the proffer, and also that there’s a difficulty in determining the distinction as to
whether the repairs needed are related to the Out of Bounds property. He stated that when they met in his
office, he understood the developer to say he would go in and clear out the drainage channels and would
agree on an annual basis to maintain the drainage channel. Mr. Rooker said that the “5%” did not come
up in that meeting, and in his opinion it creates a very difficult distinction for enforcement.
Mr. Snow stated that to him, he can’t imagine anything worse than having a major storm come in
with flooding that wasn’t happening before this development – and now suddenly residents have a
problem they have to deal with forever. He said that something should be worked out in writing and
guaranteed to make sure they’re not creating a problem for an existing neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker agreed, stating that he thought the issue was somewhat solved by the developer
saying he would clean out and maintain the drainage channel going forward. He said that when the
discussion took place, the developer said it wouldn’t be a very expensive undertaking to do that, and
described it as being fairly sim ple to flush out the pipes and clean out the debris. Mr. Rooker said they’re
only talking about a few thousand dollars each year.
Mr. Snow asked what happens after the developer finishes the property, sells everything, and is
gone.
Mr. Rooker said that the obligation becomes the responsibility of the Out of Bounds homeowners
association, and one of the problems Canterbury Hills has is that it doesn’t have a homeowners
association – other than a small, loose group that meets and has a picnic once a year. He stated that they
try to get together to take a position on issues that affect the neighborhood, but don’t have a mechanism
that a typical homeowners association has to assess and collect dues, etc.
Ms. Mallek asked if the drainage channel was in the VDOT right of way or on private property.
Mr. Rooker confirmed that it is not in the VDOT right of way.
Ms. Mallek said that’s where the permission to have access to each of the individual lots means
that people from the developer or the Out of Bounds hom eowners association wouldn’t have the right to
make immediate repairs to get the drainage to work.
Mr. Rooker said that their obligation is limited by their ability to get permission, and if it is not
granted then everything stops. Assuming the permission is granted, he said, they have an obligation to
periodically clear out the drainage channel and make sure it’s working. He said that he hadn’t seen the
5%, and would have difficulty supporting this application with that limitation – and it also makes the proffer
virtually unenforceable, because it is going to be nearly impossible to tell in any given circumstance that a
problem was caused by the Out of Bounds property.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they might want to hear from Glenn Brooks so they can clearly understand
what is a requirement without proffers.
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, addressed the Board and asked for clarification of their
question.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
Ms. Mallek said that the design is made to retain this subdivision’s stormwater on its own property.
Mr. Brooks confirmed that it was, and he said that it would happen within the design parameters
required by the County – with the ten-year storm event and two-year storm event, etc., all held onsite to a
predevelopment release rate.
Ms. Mallek said that in the thousand-year storm, even the current topography would send water
everywhere.
Mr. Brooks agreed that it would all go downstream.
Mr. Rooker said that this development would substantially increase the impervious surface, so
there would be an increased effect on the velocity and flow of stormwater.
Mr. Davis suggested that Mr. Brooks speak to the condition of the current easement and how it’s
been maintained, and how that would play out over time.
Mr. Brooks explained that there are some low inlets on the side of the road that get frequently
clogged, with one side being a grate and one an open culvert, and a short pipe that runs through the first
properties downstream – then an open ditch about four feet deep and four feet wide that runs down the
properties immediately downstream until it hits a water course. He confirmed that the open ditch is about
300-400 feet total, and is an engineered channel from about 30 years ago, with the residents having lined
it with rock and a few trees that have fallen in it. Mr. Brooks said that there aren’t any signs of immediate
erosion but there is some bedrock near the bottom of the channel at the end. He stated that there aren’t
heavy sedimentation deposits or cutting as you find with a lot of streams in the County, and it’s more of an
engineered channel that probably has some flash flow during floods near the low spots at the end where
there is a clearing made for a sewer line that concerns people.
Mr. Snow asked how wide the buffer is. Mr. Brooks stated that the easement is only 10 or 15 feet,
definitely not enough to get equipment in, and all of the property owners would have to give permission to
have equipment go through their yards to do any substantial work – which is what the service authority did,
and people were upset about that.
Mr. Rooker said that if he doesn’t get permission, he doesn’t have to do the work, and if property
owners don’t respond within a certain number of days it’s presumed they’ve denied access.
Mr. Davis said that any substantive changes made to proffers would not allow the Board to act on
this now without deferring it and advertising an additional public hearing, so if their desire is to reject the
maintenance obligation of the proffer without some changes, Mr. Kamptner might be able to meet with Mr.
Cetta and see whether there might be some simple revisions to the proffers that would eliminate that staff
concern, but that wouldn’t address the concerns of Mr. Rooker and the Canterbury Hills neighborhood
about the impacts of the Out of Bounds development on long-term maintenance on the drainage
easements.
Mr. Rooker said that there are a number of drainage areas throughout the subdivision, and what
they’re talking about here is the channel that this particular property drains into. He said that for him to
support the application, the developer would need to assume the responsibility for 100% maintenance –
not requiring the County to draw some distinction as to which property causes an obstruction at any given
time, as that would be a nightmare.
Mr. Snow agreed.
Mr. Rooker said that he would also like to talk about the traffic situation there, and perhaps VDOT
could address those also before they get into the public hearing.
Mr. Davis stated that the purpose of having the proffers in final form by the time the application is
advertised is to give the neighborhood and adjacent property owners an opportunity to weigh in on them,
so if significant changes are going to be made, it’s unfair to the applicant and the neighbors to act on
those types of things tonight. He suggested that the Board go ahead and have the public hearing with the
understanding that it would be advertised again if the developer decides to make additional proffers, and if
he doesn’t then the Board can vote on it tonight with the existing proffers before them.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board had the discretion to delete a proffer and substitute a condition. Mr.
Davis said that they did not, and if everyone agreed to just delete the maintenance requirement, that’s a
fairly simple change to be made to the proffer that could be done by striking it out and having the owner
initial it – but it might be unfair to the Canterbury Hills neighborhood that they wouldn’t be able to evaluate
it on the spot, as it is a substantive change.
Mr. Rooker said that he would not support that change, but he might support a change from 5% to
100%.
Mr. Snow said he would like to hear from the applicant.
Ms. Mallek said that once they open the hearing, that is it and they must take action.
Ms. Dittmar asked if strengthening the language would be changing it substantively. Mr. Davis
said that it would, but might be a change they’re comfortable with without delaying it for additional
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
advertising, if the change were made prior to the opening of the public hearing. He said that if it were to
be considered tonight, they would have to have the change made in writing in the proffer instrument before
opening the public hearing.
Mr. Rooker stated that he was talking about a change to the proffer that would basically require
the developer to maintain the channel without drawing a distinction between where the problem originated
which would act to the favor of the Canterbury Hills neighborhood and addresses the issues they’ve
expressed to him with the application.
Mr. Davis said that that would only solve one of several issues that staff has with that proffer.
Mr. Rooker said that the County would still have to enforce the proffer, as there is no other legal
entity to enforce it.
Mr. Snow said that at least it would be clarified as to who was doing what, which is the main part
of the issue.
Mr. Rooker stated that he is fine with deferring, or making the change to the proffer with the
developer’s consent and taking it forward now.
Mr. Davis said that it would be acceptable to ask the applicant that question without opening the
public hearing.
Mr. Vito Cetta, the applicant, said that the Board is spending too much time on what is a simple
issue.
Mr. Davis emphasized that Mr. Cetta needs to speak to the specific question otherwise the Board
would need to open the public hearing.
Ms. Mallek said that Mr. Cetta would need to either accept the change to the proffer before the
public hearing is opened, defer, or move ahead with the application.
Mr. Cetta said that he agreed to meet with neighbors onsite to deal with the drainage, and they did
that – with lots of people attending. He said that in walking the site, they realized it needs to be
maintained, including taking out the trees and brush that accumulates and picking up the debris. Mr.
Cetta said that they discovered the drain, and VDOT chain-sawed out around it. He stated that the drain
works perfectly fine except it’s not maintained, so when it rains heavily the runoff goes out onto the street.
Mr. Rooker stated that this is public hearing type comment, and it could be problematic.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Cetta if he wanted to make changes to the proffer before they open the
public hearing or move ahead.
Mr. Cetta said that the proffer clearly states that the homeowners and developer would be
responsible for maintaining the drainage easement, and if the community decides to make a change, the
development would contribute 5% to that cause because that is how much water is contributed to the
system.
Mr. Rooker said that’s not what it says.
Mr. Justin Shimp said that he did a lot of the drafting of that proffer, and the intention was to say
that if – by default – something happened and the channel needed to be cleared, Mr. Cetta and Out of
Bounds would be 100% responsible. He said that the developer in turn could request the County Engineer
for a determination that some damage was not caused by Out of Bounds directly, and if he determined
that then the payment would be 5% - which is equivalent to the contributing drainage areas.
Ms. Mallek said that is the opposite of what Mr. Cetta has just said.
Mr. Davis said that this is beyond what he is comfortable with without opening the public hearing,
and if they don’t want to change the proffer beforehand, they should proceed.
Mr. Cetta stated that he would be willing to make necessary changes.
Mr. Davis said that Mr. Kamptner could orchestrate that while the Board proceeds with other
business, and clarified the Boards intent is that the change considered is the developer would assume
100% of all maintenance costs that are in this maintenance channel.
Ms. Mallek said that if it were upgraded to a concrete pipe or something, then the 5% would apply.
Mr. Davis stated that new improvements not caused by Out of Bounds would facilitate him paying
the 5%.
Mr. Rooker said that it would essentially be improvements initiated by Canterbury Hills.
Mr. Davis said that staff would want to document in the proffer what Mr. Cetta had offered, which
was to pay 100% of the maintenance except for new improvements made at the discretion of Canterbury
Hills, not caused by Out of Bounds – and in that case he would only pay the 5%
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Rooker said that it should be two sentences: one for maintenance, and one for construction
costs of new improvements. He stated that they are agreeing to pay 100% of maintenance costs for
maintaining the channel, and if there are new capital improvements made to the channel, they will pay 5%
of those.
Mr. Davis asked if they would pay 100% of maintenance of new facilities, and Board members
agreed that they would.
Mr. Cetta said that’s what he thought it said.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, said that Mr. Shimp would email him a Word version
of the proffer, and he would be happy to work on a version with the clarified language.
Mr. Davis said that if there were significant changes to the proffer, it should probably be deferred.
Mr. Rooker asked if it could be deferred for one week. Mr. Davis said that it would be difficult to
defer it for just one week because it would require them to open the public hearing to defer it, and that
would defeat the purpose.
Ms. Mallek suggested that they proceed with the Riverside application and come back to the Out
of Bounds item.
Mr. Davis said that that would be highly irregular and it has only been done once before, but to
accommodate it there are the resources present to make it happen.
Mr. Rooker said that given the discussion and the fact that the language changes may not be as
simple as they thought, it might be best to defer it to the following month’s agenda.
Ms. Dittmar asked if staff could have a chance at rewriting it, and if it becomes too complicated
they could defer it.
Ms. Mallek said that in 2004, staff ran back and forth creating and editing proffers for the
Hollymead Town Center, and she’d like to do this right.
Mr. Rooker said that it will likely solve the problem raised by the neighborhood over this issue, but
they should have a chance to look at it.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board go ahead and have the public hearing so they can hear other
neighborhood concerns that might be addressed by amended proffers also, and at the end of the public
hearing, the Board can express their concerns about this. At that time, he said that if Mr. Cetta wants to
ask for a deferral before they vote he will have that option.
Board members agreed to proceed with the public hearing.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Vito Cetta said that at the meeting with the neighbors and Mr. Rooker he had offered to
contribute $2,000 annually to maintain the channel – but Canterbury Hills said they were hardly an
association, with dues of just $15 per year, and they didn’t want to take the money. Mr. Cetta said that at
that time, he offered to just pay for the maintenance even though the amount of water that flows through
the channel would be the same amount that flows through there now. He stated that other than that one
issue he agrees with the staff report, and said that they have had dozens of community meetings about
this project. Mr. Cetta said that he was very frustrated with the process, as the proffer is written as its
intended – and asked Mr. Rooker if he had a copy of it and how it should be changed.
Mr. Rooker said that the distinction between the 5% and the 100% is a maintenance distinction,
not a capital improvements distinction. He asked why they can’t just make that one change.
Mr. Davis and Mr. Rooker said that they can’t do that now that they’ve opened the public hearing.
Mr. Shimp said that the proffer as it’s written is fairly enforceable and his first projects were
forensic engineering, evaluating impacts from mountaintop removal mining – so you can very easily see
where water comes from and whose fault it is. He explained that the concerns neighbors had expressed
were that during construction, a sediment basin might fail and silt would wash downstream – and in that
case, it’s very clear that it’s Out of Bounds’ responsibility. Mr. Shimp said that the origin of the 5% was
that if there was a severe storm event in the County and the pipe under Westminster Road washed out,
would it be fair that it be Out of Bounds’ sole responsibility to fix. He stated that the 5% came in so that if
an event like that happened, either Out of Bounds or a subsequent homeowners association could petition
the County Engineer to determine the source of the cause. Mr. Shimp said that if it was determined to not
be the fault of the new development, there would then be a 5% contribution.
Mr. Rooker said that they probably should spend the remaining time talking about the
development and why it should be approved, regardless of Proffer #5.
Mr. Shimp said that Mr. Cetta has gone to great lengths with neighborhood meetings and other
efforts to address concerns, and whatever was necessary to accommodate those concerns he has
instructed him as the project engineer to change. He stated that this is reflected in the Planning
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
Commission’s action, and there is certainly a difference of opinion in terms of the density. Mr. Shimp said
that it is different than Canterbury Hills but is consistent with the Comp Plan, which says that in infill areas
the density should be in the higher range. He stated that the property is only ¼ to ½ mile from the City
line, so there are lots of opportunities for destinations a short distance from the project, and that’s the
justification for the density of this project. Mr. Shimp emphasized that it’s a logical spot for this, and if the
design is done correctly – which he believes it has been – the neighbors’ concerns can be mitigated. He
said that they have a 75-foot setback all the way around the property, providing buffering and screening
that is well beyond the minimum requirements.
Mr. Shimp said that those things offset the change in density, and the only impact not directly
offset is traffic – which would be increased at the intersection where the connection will be made. He
stated that unless all traffic is sent through Canterbury Hills, there must be an entrance added across from
the traffic light. Mr. Shimp said that he asked the traffic engineer what the change in delay at the light
would be with three units per acre compared to six units per acre, and the average change was two
seconds. He stated that it seems to him to be a minimal impact, considering there would be 28 more units
with cash proffers to help offset transportation impacts, so there would be a crosswalk and money for
sidewalks in that section. Mr. Shimp said that the density is appropriate for that reason, and while the
stream channel situation is imperfect they have handled it as best they can and you can’t force people to
sign a deed granting access to their property. He stated that the developer can certainly put in stormwater
measures and commit to fixing anything that is clearly their responsibility, but beyond that he isn’t what
sure can be done. Mr. Shimp said that perhaps there can be an agreement to maintain it for everything
for any reason, but he felt that what was proposed was fair.
Mr. Snow said that he had made the comment earlier that hardly any water from his site goes into
that channel.
Mr. Shimp said that the site is about nine acres, with six acres draining in the back and three in
the front – and Canterbury Hills is about 300 acres total, and was built before stormwater ordinances were
required. He stated that their development in itself created an increase in runoff into those channels that
has not been mitigated, and he expects them to stay in that condition, based on his analysis. He stated
that there’s a house immediately behind the Out of Bounds site that has flooding problems, and Mr. Cetta
has paid for and secured an easement to put a new storm pipe in that will fix their flooding problems and
will take the water directly from the Out of Bounds site to a pipe, rather than discharging it into an open
culvert that could clog and create drainage problems.
Ms. Mallek asked if the area of the stormwater detention would stay or would be changed to an
underground facility so they can build down there. Mr. Shimp said that their plan is to replace the existing
pond with underground storage tanks and an infiltration-type system, so it’s an upgrade in stormwater
management.
Mr. Boyd said that from what the Board had discussed earlier with by-right adjustments, he would
have to demonstrate the actual by-right development lots rather than the theoretical, and asked how he
would propose to do that.
Mr. Shimp said that they are prepared to move forward without the credit, and if that becomes a
policy of the Board, the applicant would just prepare a preliminary plat demonstrating that the lots met the
R-1 ordinance and seeing that the areas and frontage were appropriate.
Mr. Boyd asked Planning staff if that was an acceptable plan for them.
Mr. Shimp clarified that it would be like a schematic preliminary plan with meets and bounds, road
frontages, lot areas, critical slopes – not a full recorded plat but with enough detail to demonstrate that
provisions of the ordinance would be met.
Mr. Cilimberg said that’s comparable to what they would review for a rural preservation
development.
Mr. Boyd asked what kind of cost was involved in doing that. Mr. Shimp said that if you have all
the survey information already it wouldn’t be terribly expensive – thousands of dollars, but not tens of
thousands.
Mr. James Donahue said that he is a member of the Canterbury Hills Association Board of
Directors. He said that Bob Garland of their board could not make the meeting, but he has made
concerns known to them in a letter dated November 8, 2013. Mr. Donahue read from the letter: “It is
obvious to us that the developer, Vito Cetta, is planning the development in response to the County’s
Comprehensive Plan, and we realize that the optimal time to have objected to the increase in housing
density is when it was initially changed in the plan. Canterbury Hills neighborhood is zoned R-2, and the
developer’s rezoning proposal appears to be compatible with the County’s master plan, but we still have
concerns as we expressed in our July 2012 letter to Community Development. We desired that the
property be zoned R-2, but have not objected to the rezoning because it will be compatible with our
neighborhood. Regarding the future development’s potential impact of our documented long-range
drainage problems in Canterbury Hills, we want the County to know that we are very concerned that the
property owners may deny the developers access to private drainage easements for repairs and
maintenance. Therefore, we request that the Board of Supervisors carefully consider the potential
drainage impacts and confer with the County Attorney and staff prior to approval of the permit to
determine whether the developer can use private drainage easements without an enforceable agreement
for the repair and maintenance of the drainage ditches. We have not been informed of the 5% proviso in
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
the proposed drainage proffer. We had the impression that the proffer would include a 100%
maintenance cost requirement, so the wording or rewording ought to be clear and understood by all
concerned.
“I would now like to address increased traffic in the Canterbury Hills subdivision. Although the
developer’s traffic study includes that very little traffic will cut through our neighborhood to access Out of
Bounds via the proposed Bennington Road extension, we believe it underestimates the volume during
commuting hours due to increased congestion at the Georgetown Road/Barracks Road intersection. If the
rezoning application is approved, we ask for the County to place additional stop signs at Surrey Road and
Bennington Road to further discourage cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. In conclusion, the
association goes on record commending the developer, as he has made good faith efforts to address
many of our concerns regarding drainage problems. Also, he has agreed to provide an attractive fence
around the property, has increased a setback for the townhomes on the south side of the property, and
has agreed to move Georgetown Road Extended away from the adjacent Canterbury Hills houses. In
addition, he has agreed to let our neighborhood association representatives be active participants in the
final landscape design.”
Mr. Rooker asked about the number of vehicles per day going through that intersection, which is
two secondary roads, estimating about 25,000-30,000 per day.
Mr. Troy Austin, of VDOT, stated that he does not have the exact numbers, but as Mr. Shimp
mentioned earlier there would be an increase in delay by adding the fourth branch to the stoplight. Mr.
Austin said that based on the applicant’s traffic study, the intersection would go from a level of service “B”
in a.m. peak and level of service “C” in the p.m. peak to a level of service “D” in both occurrences. He
stated that the only way around that would be to add additional lanes, but with Georgetown Road there is
lack of right of way. He said the applicant is fairly constrained with what they can do, but they are
proposing to increase the length of left turn lane on Barracks Road onto Georgetown, and this
development would provide an easier mechanism for the residents in Canterbury Hills that are going
towards Georgetown to get there as they wouldn’t have to make an unprotected left turn onto Barracks.
Mr. Rooker asked if he agreed with the applicant’s conclusion in the delay times, and asked if the
property were to develop by-right with no rezoning if he has a right to enter onto Barracks Road across
from Georgetown.
Mr. Austin said there would have to be modifications made to that signal unless the traffic would
go through Canterbury Hills, which no one really wants to see, so they would have to add the fourth branch
as mentioned. He stated that if it were just a few houses, it could use the existing setup, but anything
beyond that would require intersection modifications.
Mr. Rooker asked what the situation would be if he developed it by right as an R-2 zoning. Mr.
Cilimberg said that it would be required under the subdivision ordinance for them to take access at that
intersection.
Mr. Rooker said that he’s not a great fan of adding this fourth leg to the Georgetown triangle of
roads, but the landowner without a rezoning has the right to connect there. He asked Mr. Austin if he had
an opinion on Mr. Shimp’s estimate of a two-second additional delay at the light, as it seemed to him that it
would add about 500 vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Austin stated that the primary problem is the movement from Georgetown onto Barracks
Road going towards the bypass, and that’s what is affecting the level of service. He said that the delay
wouldn’t be related so much to the number of vehicle trips, but to the simple fact there would be another
branch of traffic holding the other branches to a standstill. Mr. Austin mentioned that this signal is
currently under a life cycle replacement schedule, and VDOT has already designed replacing the signals
for the current configuration, but the problem is there’s no money for the project. He said that there are
improvements that would be required as a result of this development that would take care of a lot of those
problems, at no expense to the state.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would improve the efficiency of the signal. Mr. Austin said that the timing
could be adjusted somewhat and that would help, but the current design does not take the Out of Bounds
project into account. He said that once they found out that the replacement light project was being
considered, VDOT went back and asked that the improvements wait until the new development was
considered.
Mr. Rooker asked if the developer’s contributions would be enough to put a state of the art signal
system in, as he had said the development would make the improvements possible without state expense.
Mr. Austin said they would have to add the new branch, make improvements, and change the signal
heads to accommodate left turn maneuvers – and as part of that, it’s possible that the masthead and pole
arms would have to be replaced. He said that VDOT already has a design for it, but doesn’t have the
money to do it now – and it would be done at the developer’s expense if the project moves forward,
because those improvements would be required as part of the project.
Mr. Rooker asked whether that would include a signalization system that would optimize the
efficiency of the intersection. Mr. Austin said that’s something that would have to be looked at, as he did
not have the answer to that yet.
Mr. Rooker said he wanted to make certain that what is described for the developer to have to do
include the optimization of the signal system at that intersection, because the biggest drawback to the
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
development is traffic – and it’s where the traffic is. He stated that the fourth leg issue has been solved,
because the County would require him to connect there with a fourth leg of the intersection. Mr. Rooker
said that the proposed plan would add 500 vehicle trips per day as opposed to 75 or so, and that can be
mitigated by a state of the art signalization system being installed there as part of the work a developer
would have to do at the intersection.
Mr. Austin said that is potentially the case, but at this point VDOT doesn’t know how much traffic
is using Georgetown and Barracks Road to get to Hydraulic Road and the Route 250 bypass. He said
they don’t have that quantified now, and there’s a suspicion that a significant amount of traffic is using that
as a cut-through to avoid going down to the Hydraulic/29 intersection. Mr. Austin stated that if there is an
increased delay at the intersection, traffic tends to go to where the easiest flow is, so potentially some of
the traffic would be going back to Route 29, and they don’t know yet if that will happen.
Mr. Rooker said that his objective is to ensure that as the intersection improvements take place
they can assure through the proffers there will be a signal optimization component of the improvements.
Mr. Davis said that Proffer #4 addresses that and says that at the owner’s sole expense, he would
plan, design, bond and construct certain road improvements to County and VDOT’s approval – and one of
the improvements stated is “modifications to the traffic signal at the entrance to accommodate the
extension of Georgetown Road into the property as shown on the application plan.” He said that
assuming that can be done, it will address the issue Mr. Rooker raises.
Mr. Rooker asked if he was confident enough that it would require what they’re talking about. Mr.
Davis said that he was, if it was required by VDOT and the County to address the entrance.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that signalization is handled by VDOT, and County staff doesn’t really get into
that.
Mr. Austin said that he cannot yet answer the question as to what specifics would be required with
the signalization, and gaining two seconds may mean that it doesn’t make sense to go to that level of
design.
Mr. Rooker said that he wants to be on record as letting VDOT know that given the traffic
circumstances that exist there today, he would like to see that kind of an upgrade to the signalization take
place when the work is being done – because he doesn’t want to go back and put it on a schedule for a
project that VDOT has to pay for through revenue sharing, etc. He emphasized that if this is approved, he
wants to make sure they have a good signal optimization system put in, as this is probably one of the
busiest intersections in the County.
Mr. Davis said that there had been a discussion about additional water across Canterbury Hills,
and said that Mr. Shimp hadn’t addressed anything beyond the two and ten-year storm events. He asked
Mr. Brooks if he had an opinion on the impact of storm events greater than the ten-year event.
Mr. Brooks said that he thought Ms. Mallek was referring to that with her question about
increases, and for larger events there is an increase that isn’t controlled by County regulations – but
perhaps the developer would consider additional measures, although large reservoirs underground to hold
more than a ten-year storm can be expensive. He stated that any large storm event would impact the
channels downstream that are erodible, so there could be head-cutting at the pipe outfall just downstream
in the Canterbury Hills neighborhood or trees falling. Mr. Brooks said that at the next road over, there’s a
large culvert under the road there that gets clogged frequently with debris – and that would become more
pronounced in a large surge event. He added that the maintenance issue does address that somewhat.
Mr. Davis stated that the proffer does not make Out of Bounds responsible for severe weather
events that cause trees to fall down, etc., unless they obstruct the drainage channel. He said that there
could be consequences of storm events greater than 10 years that would have impacts on the property
that would not be addressed unless they affected the drainage flow part of the easement itself.
Mr. Boyd noted that this would be the case in any development. Mr. Davis agreed, stating that it’s
an impact they need to be aware of.
Mr. Brooks said that causality is a problem for him, and large storm events have lots of things
occur – so to say that it’s caused by water from a particular source is hard to do. He stated that if trees fall
down, it’s usually an accumulation of years of these events undermining a root system , with the wind
knocking the trees down – not the water. Mr. Brooks said that he doesn’t like to be in a position of having
to determine what caused what, as someone is always going to be unhappy.
Mr. Davis said that one of the concerns is turning the County Engineer into a forensic engineer, as
that’s not something they typically do.
Mr. Rooker said that’s a reason to change the proffer, as it eliminates that judgment.
Mr. Davis said that the proffer currently doesn’t address trees and other things that are damaged
as a result of severe weather, except in circumstances such as obstruction of the drainage way.
Ms. Mallek said that’s a reasonable impact to be concerned about.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant is undertaking the drainage channel, not everything else that
weather can cause. He said that it’s difficult to pinpoint why certain things happen on a specific piece of
property, as Mr. Brooks said. He asked if doubling the size of the underground storage facility would
improve the circumstances.
Mr. Brooks said it would basically just hold more runoff from a storm of a larger intensity.
Mr. Cetta stated that he was given a list of names of people who are affected by the drainage
easement, and none of them had any concerns. He said that there are hundreds of drainage easements
in the County, and people that live downstream are relied upon to maintain them. Mr. Cetta said that they
have agreed to maintain it, and he does not understand what needs to be changed with that proffer. He
stated that this is a great project, and he didn’t hear them talk about anything but this one issue.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Shimp and Mr. Kamptner would work on the proffer, and if Mr. Cetta is
amenable to requesting a deferral they could move forward. He stated that they started out by discussing
three possibilities, and when they decided to go forward with a public hearing they were put in a position of
either voting or taking a deferral so they could consider a revision to the proffers.
Mr. Cetta said that he would like to know immediately what changes they would have so it’s not
delayed any further.
Ms. Mallek stated that the reason he didn’t hear a lot of discussion about details is because what
he created is a really nice project, and the staff report was very detailed.
Mr. Snow agreed that it is a very nice project.
Mr. Rooker agreed as well, noting that the correspondence from the neighborhood highlights the
concerns they discussed – so they want to get it right.
Mr. Davis clarified that the re-advertisement would mean that the item would go on the agenda for
the second December meeting.
Mr. Rooker thanked Mr. Cetta for his positive interactions with the neighborhood, as he’s been
excellent to work with throughout the process, and apologized to him for the delay.
Mr. Cetta then requested deferral to December 11, 2013.
Mr. Rooker moved to accept the applicant’s request for deferral of ZMA-2012-00003 until
December 11, 2013. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was then called and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker asked what the process would be to get stop signs at the intersections in the area,
and asked whether it could be timed concurrently with the other project.
Mr. Austin said that VDOT would have to see if those intersections warranted stop signs, and said
they could go ahead and look at it now prior to the project moving forward.
Ms. Mallek said that Mr. Rooker as a Supervisor could request that the study be done.
Mr. Rooker stated that he was requesting that the study be done.
_______________
Recess. At 8:32 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
_______________
(The next two public hearings were held jointly.)
Agenda Item No. 18. PROJECT: ZMA-2012-00002. Riverside Village. (Signs #20&21)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 18.67 acres (TMP: 07800000005800) from R-1 zoning district which allows
residential uses at a density of one unit per acre to NMD zoning district which allows residential,
mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3 – 34 units/acre. 69 maximum
residential units proposed for a maximum gross density of 4 units/acre for the entire parcel and a
maximum density of 7 units/acre for the area designated for development in the Comprehensive
Plan. Five (5) commercial buildings (up to 46,000 square feet) also proposed. Some floodplain
disturbance for a mixed use development, including impacts to parking areas and recreational
areas in association with concurrent special use permit application SP201300001.
FLOOD HAZARD: Yes.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
SCENIC BYWAYS: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace – undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density Residential
– residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other
small-scale non-residential uses; and River Corridor – parks, golf courses, greenways, natural
features and supporting commercial and recreational uses in DA Neighborhood 3 – Pantops
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
Comp Plan Area.
LOCATION: Located on the west side of Stony Pointe Road/Route 20 and the east side of Free
Bridge Lane/Route 1421, approximately 350 feet south of the intersection of Route 20/Elks Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000005800.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2013.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. PROJECT: SP-2013-00001. Riverside Village (Signs #20&21).
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit - under Section 30.3.05.2.2(3) of the zoning ordinance for fill in
the flood hazard overlay district on approximately 18.67 acres (TMP: 07800000005800) to
accommodate grading for buildings, parking and stormwater management and approximately .31
acres (TMP: 078B0010010100 through 303) to accommodate grading for road improvements on
Route 20 in association with concurrent rezoning application ZMA201200002.
ZONING: R-1 Residential which allows residential uses at a density of one unit per acre (TMP:
07800000005800) and C-1 Commercial which allows retail sales and service; residential by
special use permit (15 units/acre) (TMP: 078B0010010100 through 303). FLOOD HAZARD: Yes.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
SCENIC BYWAYS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace – undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density Residential
– residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other
small-scale non-residential uses; Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, comm ercial, office and service uses; and
River Corridor – parks, golf courses, greenways, natural features and supporting commercial and
recreational uses in DA Neighborhood 3 – Pantops Comp Plan Area.
LOCATION: Located on the west side of Stony Pointe Road/Route 20 and the east side of Free
Bridge Lane/Route 1421, approximately 350 feet south of the intersection of Route 20/Elks Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000005800 and 078B0010010100 through 303.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2013.)
Ms. Claudette Grant addressed the Board, stating that the property is located on the west side of
Stony Point Road – Route 20 – and the east side of Free Bridge Lane. Ms. Grant said that the applicant is
requesting to rezone 18.67 acres from R-1 to Neighborhood Model district, and a special use permit for fill
of land in the floodplain is also requested. She stated that the maximum number of residential units
proposed is 69 units, and five mixed-use buildings are proposed with residential and up to 46,000 square
feet of commercial uses. Ms. Grant said that both the rezoning and special use permit requests have
been before the Planning Commission a few times and have been recommended for approval. She
presented a slide of the application plan, stating that there are four mixed-use commercial buildings and
noting their location – with several near Route 20 and a variety of housing types within the remainder of
the development.
Ms. Grant reported that a variety of revisions have been made and are described in detail in the
executive summary, and the applicant has addressed the items identified in the Planning Commission’s
conditional recommendation for approval, with the exception of the commitment to address the project’s
impacts on public facilities and infrastructure . She said that specifically the remaining outstanding issue
is to modify proffer #5 to reflect the appropriate credit value for the total in-kind contributions. Ms. Grant
stated that the applicant describes a value of $330,800 for parkland, and the County’s real estate office
has valued the parkland at $11,160, which is significantly lower than the value the applicant proposes.
She said that the cash proffer policy states that the value of donated land should be based on the current
assessed value of the specifically proffered property, and the cash proffers as recommended by the
Commission have not been addressed – but all other outstanding issues from their recommendations
have been.
Ms. Grant said that staff cannot recommend approval however, until Proffer #5 is amended to
reflect the appropriate credit/value for the total in-kind contributions. She stated that staff does
recommend approval of SP 2013-00001 for fill in the floodplain in the neighborhood model district based
on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ms. Grant said that staff recommends denial of the
parking modification, as the request should be submitted for review at the site plan development plan
review stage.
Mr. Thomas asked if FEMA had to give approval to go into the floodplain. Mr. David Benish said
that the County Engineer has reviewed the proposal for its consistency with impacts in the floodplain, and
has recommended approval.
Mr. Glenn Brooks stated that they would have to get a letter of map amendment from FEMA, and
the County would require that as a condition.
Mr. Thomas asked how long that would take. Mr. Brooks said it would probably take about six
months, but the applicant might have further detail.
Ms. Mallek said that staff didn’t approve of the parking modifications and shared parking concept,
and asked why it would be put off until the site plan stage. She asked if there was consideration of the
location being so close to all the high-density apartments and the bus route, that might make this have a
lower parking requirement.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Benish stated that those are the aspects that can be looked at best at the site plan stage
because the exact usage isn’t yet known – so it’s hard to determine what the required parking would be.
He said that they actually encourage lesser parking, but it’s better to do that at a site plan stage when the
uses are better known. Mr. Benish stated that that it will be a question of the extent of the parking waiver
without knowing whether the buildings will be fully commercial or residential and what that parking
requirement is, as that information comes forward at the site plan stage.
Mr. Boyd said that his explanation sounds logical, but he still wants to know why they’re asking for
a reduction at this stage.
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that the building closest to the river is oriented toward the river.
Mr. Thomas said it has been a goal of a lot of developers to use the river as an asset.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see this as the beginning of riverside-type development, which
both the City and County want.
Ms. Mallek asked how they would address the proffer amounts at this point. Mr. Davis said that
the proffer statement speaks to a credit for in-kind contributions, the amount for which staff does not
agree with. He said that staff is accepting, however, that there are at least 16 by-right units that can be
constructed, and those would offset the amount of the credit that’s in dispute for the land donation. Mr.
Davis stated that if the Board is comfortable with the understanding that even though the proffers refer to
credits for improvements for the benefit of the public, the end result of accepting the November 4 proffer
statement would adequately address the impacts of the development according to the proffer policy. He
said that the proffer would not accurately reflect why they got to the number.
Mr. Davis further clarified that if the Board wishes to give credit to this developer for the underlying
density, the number is adequate to address the impacts according to the proffer policy. He said that the
cash proffer policy in the Comp Plan addresses the value of proffered property by stating that the value is
not set by the developer, it’s set by staff and the value is based on the assessed value for that portion of
the land.
Ms. Mallek said she was shocked that the land was only valued at $1,200 per acre.
Mr. Rooker said that portion of the land is unbuildable, which is why it carries such a low value.
He stated that there is some advantage to building on the river by creating a place and space on
the river that doesn’t exist now, but the downside is additional runoff and he wants to make sure that staff
feels the potential detriments are being significantly eliminated.
Mr. Snow asked where the water was going now, because they’re not adding any more water than
what’s already there.
Ms. Mallek said that the forest canopy was absorbing most of it, so when you take the trees away
that absorption mechanism is gone.
Mr. Rooker said that this surface area would generate a lot more water, and he would like to hear
from staff as to whether they’re comfortable that the way the water is being handled to minimize the runoff
– especially given recent TMDL requirements and their associated costs.
Mr. Brooks stated that they’re most concerned with water quality treatment rather than a
quantitative difference here at the river, with pollution prevention and treatment of the water being a bigger
concern along with preventing floodwater from mixing with the site water.
Mr. Rooker said that he felt it was important for the water to end up in the underground treatment
area instead of flowing directly into the river.
Mr. Brooks said they would definitely manage that from the site.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Shimp addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant, the property owner.
Mr. Shimp presented a picture of the site, pointing out the swale running parallel to the river
toward the end of the property after going through about 500-700 feet of woods before it reaches the
waterway. He confirmed that the water is moving in a southward direction and said that their plan takes
the water inward away from the river into underground detention, which is all built up out of the floodplain.
Mr. Shimp stated that they have been working on this project since 2007, and it’s a mixed-use
project with Neighborhood Model form of development. He pointed out buildings on a plan for the site,
noting the location of buildings that would be predominately commercial and those that would be
residential. Mr. Shimp said that in the rear of the property is the building that fronts the river and has the
parking lot, which is also mixed-use with one floor of commercial and residential located above. He
presented a photo of West Main Street to illustrate the scale of the commercial buildings, and noted that
the single-family units in Block #2 in the center would have a “pedestrian muse” as the front street – which
would be wide enough to accommodate a fire truck if needed. Mr. Shimp said that Block #5 would be the
mixed-use building by the river, which would incorporate some historic riverfront building elements as part
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
of the architecture. He said that it would have trails going from the Old Mills trail leading up to the site,
with connecting sidewalks to the pedestrian muse and the commercial area, then out to Route 20.
Mr. Shimp said that the questions that staff brought up were related to the value of the park
dedication and the parking reduction. He explained that in the initial submittal, the applicant used the
Biscuit Run parkland valuation and the Pantops Master Plan allocation of approximately $100,000 for the
acquisition and development of the park. Mr. Shimp said that they came up with a value of $320,000, but
the County assessors disagreed with that. He stated that they then looked at the land that was left
afterwards – looking at how many units there were for dedication – and then took the difference and
multiplied it by the land value of an undeveloped lot. Mr. Shimp said that staff has stated there is a better
solution than this.
Regarding the parking requirement, Mr. Shimp said that there are commercial zones that don’t
have a shopping center designation, so each time a tenant comes in they must determine what the
parking would be. He stated that this development would have small businesses, with 30,000 square feet
proposed as commercial in the front. Mr. Shimp said that the reduction proposed is not a significant
amount from what the expected uses would be with shops, restaurants, offices, etc., and there would be
alternate means to access the site as well as some on-street parking. He stated that those things justify
the request, and they don’t want to be in a situation of turning away businesses because the parking is
deemed inadequate.
Mr. Boyd asked if he agreed that it would be a comparable tradeoff if they went with the appraised
value of the property and gave them the credit for the cash proffers for by-right uses.
Mr. Shimp said that with formal appraisals they could perhaps come up with a larger value, but the
owner is satisfied that the County’s position is reasonable.
Mr. Boyd asked if it mattered to them how the County comes up with that credit.
Mr. Shimp replied that it didn’t really matter much to them.
Mr. Benish said that the end product of the proffer would probably make it a wash, and they would
get the right amount ultimately.
Mr. Rooker said that it’s the amount that matters.
Mr. Boyd said that after hearing the applicant’s parking explanation, it seems as logical as the
staff’s argument – and if there are businesses moving in and out of there, there must be a mechanism to
adjust parking based on tenants.
Mr. Benish said that would always be the case regardless of the reduced amount of parking
because you go through a zoning clearance for that use, and if it ended up being all restaurants, at some
point in time the limit would be reached. He said that this provides a more predictable amount to plan for,
and the zoning administrator’s recommendation was that there’s more information available at a later date
with a site plan to have more predictability as to what’s being waived. Mr. Benish noted that there isn’t
opposition to waivers for parking if they’re appropriate, and it’s more of just the timing of it, so if the Board
is comfortable with it at the rezoning stage that’s what staff will do.
Mr. Rooker said that he’s hearing two different things – one being if there is a shopping center
with the proper zoning and approval, etc. and a certain number of parking spaces, they require a certain
number of spaces per thousand square feet of the shopping center without regard to the specific tenants.
He noted that the County doesn’t go out to each site and say “you need more parking” because there’s a
restaurant instead of a furniture store, for example. Mr. Rooker said the applicant is asking for the same
kind of flexibility, and doesn’t want to be told by zoning that they can’t allow a certain use because of the
parking.
Mr. Benish said that Ms. Sarah Baldwin from the zoning office could address that matter.
Ms. Baldwin stated that she reviewed the application from the zoning aspect and determined that
the overall parking standard was “office” – so that’s one space per 250 square feet. She said that it works
for office, but when adding in residential uses they don’t know what that will be. Ms. Baldwin stated that in
the end it would probably be OK, and it is customary to look at that type of thing at the site plan stage.
She said that it’s not that they’re against looking at it, it’s just a matter of being comfortable granting it with
the rezoning.
Ms. Mallek said she wasn’t sure how they managed to succeed with the Downtown Crozet zone,
because that was based on shared parking, and it was definitely a departure from the norm. She stated
that people have been encouraged to work together on parking.
Mr. Rooker said that the problem that usually arises is the reverse – someone wanting to put in far
more parking and impermeable surface than the County would like to see. He stated that the lack of
parking is generally an owner problem, especially in an isolated site where they can’t park somewhere
else, and he isn’t concerned about going toward the lower end of what they would allow especially given
the location of this development by the river.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Snow agreed.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Davis asked Ms. Baldwin for clarification that if a parking waiver is granted and a use comes
in that requires greater parking than what’s available, if the zoning clearance would be approved.
Ms. Baldwin said they would look at the zoning clearance based on the use to see if it had the
required parking, and confirmed that if the parking was not adequate they would not allow the use to be in
that development unless they provided additional parking or an alternate parking arrangement to satisfy
that requirement.
Mr. Davis said that there is some risk to the developer in not building enough parking, as it may
preclude some uses if there are high parking space requirements associated with that use from being able
to locate in that development.
Mr. Snow said that it may or it may not, because if you look at how the rest of the building is being
used and their parking requirements, it might all work out.
Mr. Davis said he didn’t disagree with that, but just wanted to make the point that there may be
some uses that they will not be able to have approved even if they are by-right uses because they are not
going to meet parking requirements. He stated that it’s a developer risk more than anything else.
Ms. Mallek said that an example of that would be a huge restaurant, as it would take up a lot of
parking.
Mr. Thomas said that they’ve done this type of thing before, with Real Estate III putting in a large
office complex with apartments behind it, and they’re sharing parking. He said that the people who work
in the building are there during the day and use the parking, and the residents are using the lot at night.
Ms. Baldwin said that would be an example of shared parking, but at this point they don’t know
what that shared parking would be so it can’t be evaluated against the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said that he thinks the developer probably thought that by obtaining a waiver at this
level they wouldn’t be subject to that analysis at a later time. He stated that what they’re saying is that
they would apply a different standard here, because if a rezoning is granted with a certain flexibility of use
in the buildings with a parking waiver as part of that, it seems they should have a similar treatment to a
shopping center that gets approved for flexible uses within that center.
Ms. Baldwin stated that it’s because they’re not using a shopping center standard, they’re using an
office standard.
Mr. Rooker said that a shopping center might have a clothing store with a different requirement
than a restaurant, and the County doesn’t go back and regulate parking for each specific use.
Mr. Davis said that with a shopping center, the required parking is calculated based on the highest
possible use – so that anything coming in there would always meet the standard, whereas this would be
calculated as an office use.
Mr. Rooker said they don’t require shopping center parking as if everything in it was going to be a
restaurant. Ms. Baldwin said it’s required based on total square footage.
Mr. Rooker said that they don’t require a shopping center to have 11 spaces per thousand square
feet, which is the restaurant standard, so they don’t really start out with the highest use.
Ms. Mallek said that this development seems more like Old Trail town center, with residential and
a mixture of different uses, and perhaps this is something they need to work on because tenants have
been asking for this kind of flexibility as businesses grow.
Ms. Dittmar stated that it may be that the parking standards have not kept up with the new
Neighborhood Model concept of mixed development with residential, and perhaps they need to look at that
in more depth in the future. She said that in her experience, retailers and restaurants will not lease a
space if they don’t know that they’ll have adequate parking as they depend on people coming to them – so
if the developer is willing to take the risk, that’s their prerogative.
Mr. Rooker said they can’t rewrite the zoning ordinance tonight, and what staff is saying is that
they will do an analysis based on how it exists now, granting occupancy permits to various tenants coming
in. He stated that the Board can approve the parking waivers, but the question would then become
whether you can obtain a waiver of the parking requirements from staff at that point based upon a showing
of some kind at zoning clearance stage. Ms. Baldwin said that they do that routinely.
Mr. Rooker said that staff would still be looking at users as they come in and determine if
adequate parking exists, and they can grant a waiver based upon a showing by the applicant that there
are reasons for that.
Ms. Dittmar asked if that meant an applicant would have to go back through some form of
approval process when a tenant is looking for space. Ms. Mallek said that zoning clearance is very fast,
usually about a week.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
Ms. Baldwin said that it’s a relatively quick turnaround, and where there are shared parking
standards staff will go out and see if it’s workable, which happens when a business license is applied for
and a zoning clearance is applied for.
Mr. Rooker said there’s a reason for that, and he’s in an office park so the County wouldn’t want
to find out that suddenly he has a restaurant going on where there are six spaces assigned. He stated
that there’s not much else they can do tonight, and the ordinance is what it is.
Mr. Boyd said that he’s in favor of approving the variance, although it may not do much for the
applicant. Mr. Benish said there’s no major objection to a parking waiver, the issue is the timing so more
information is known. He stated that the clearance is weeks at most.
Mr. Shimp clarified that they are asking to be treated so that no matter what user comes in, it’s
four spaces per thousand square feet. He said that with the Neighborhood Model ordinance, the Board
can approve a waiver of small sections of that ordinance, so the applicant’s request is that for any
commercial use allowed by the code of development, the parking requirement shall be four spaces per
thousand. Mr. Shimp stated that the intent is that when a waiver comes in for a restaurant, retail or office,
the space will be approved without regard to the specific use – and it’s much more of a blanket to take
away the applicability of the individual uses.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board can grant the waiver, but what they can’t do is guarantee their
interpretation of how the ordinance works.
Mr. Shimp stated that if the Board approves the application plan with the parking waiver as
outlined in the application plan, then what he’s suggesting is how it would be enforced.
Mr. Rooker said that’s his reading of the ordinance, and zoning may have a different
interpretation, but the Board can’t really interpret it in this forum.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board on the application.
The Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis clarified that the zoning application would be one action, and if that was approved the
special use permit would be considered under a separate motion.
Mr. Boyd asked if the suggested actions as presented would include the waiver and the proffers.
Mr. Davis said that the Code of Development currently has the request for the waiver of the number of
parking spaces included, so the original motion before Board would grant what the applicant is requesting.
Mr. Boyd then moved to approve ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, subject to the proffers,
Application Plan and Code of Development. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was then called and
the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve SP-013-0001, Riverside Village, as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers are set out below:)
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 55)
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 56)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. PROJECT: ZMA-2013-00009. Albemarle Place/Stonefield (Signs
#116&106). PROPOSAL: Request to amend the Application Plan and Code of Development to
add a service station on property zoned NMD which allows residential (3 – 34 units/acre) mixed
with commercial, service and industrial uses and to amend the introductory paragraphs in the
proffer statement to revise the date of the Code of Development referenced therein. No new
dwellings or change in residential density proposed.
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.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Designated Urban Mixed Use (in Destination Center) – retail,
residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Mixed Use (in
areas around Centers) – commercial and retail uses that are not accommodated in Centers; and
Commercial Mixed Use – commercial, retail, employment uses, with supporting residential, office,
or institutional uses.
LOCATION: Northwest corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in
Neighborhood 1.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-
03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-019E2.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 28 and November 4, 2013.)
Ms. Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner, reported that the applicant is proposing to add
“automobile/service station” as an allowed use in the code of development in Block F of Stonefield, and
she presented the approved application plan which depicts the area is “major retail.” She said that the
original rezoning approved in 2003 predates the approval of Places 29, which incorporated specific
language regarding this section of Albemarle Place, that the northern portion of the development has been
designed as a more conventional retail development. She stated that Places 29 further designates this
area as “commercial/mixed use” with uses such as community and regional retail, commercial service,
auto commercial service, and office. Ms. Baldwin said that it further notes that auto uses should be in an
area that does not adversely affect surrounding areas, and noted the location of Block F on a map. She
stated that as part of the rezoning, staff requested that the applicant provide an updated application plan
inclusive of all variations approved to date, and this application is now conceptually showing where the
fueling facility and canopy would be located, and the applicant also wants to show this area allowing for a
restaurant or retail use. Ms. Baldwin said that fuel in this location would be surrounded by commercial
uses, which limits any potential adverse impacts.
She stated that staff analysis was that the fuel center would serve the uses within the shopping
center and would provide for less driving and shorter trips, and combined errands. She said that the
original traffic study was based on a maximum build-out and the applicant is proposing less; the circulation
is acceptable by the County Engineer. Ms. Baldwin said that staff found the following factors favorable:
The request will add a use and will provide for further flexibility; the rezoning request is consistent with the
intent of the approved rezoning, allowing conventional retail-oriented commercial development. She said
that there were no unfavorable factors identified, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the amendment with conditions: that the application plan be updated to include all variations, with special
exceptions; all outstanding engineering comments would be addressed; and a limitation would be
provided on the fuel facility.
Ms. Baldwin said that the applicant has updated the plan, addressed engineering comments
which otherwise cannot be addressed at site plan level, and has limited the fuel facility to Block F, and
standalone service stations are not permitted. She said that the narrative in the proffers has also been
updated to reflect the new date for the code of development, which added the service station use, and all
other proffers remain the same. Ms. Baldwin said that staff believes that the Planning Commission’s
conditions have been addressed, and recommends approval of the rezoning amendment.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the date of the proffers has changed now to November 13, 2013, due to
some minor technical changes.
Ms. Mallek asked about the location of the fuel station and the restaurant. Ms. Baldwin said there
would be the option of putting in either a fuel facility or a restaurant or a retail shop, not a combined use.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Brad Dumont, with Edens Corporation, addressed the Board and thanked staff for their work
on the proposal. Mr. Dumont said that the reason they asked for a service station is because under the
zoning ordinance, this is the only designation they can do – but they did limit the way it was written in the
proffers. He said that the fuel facility is very consistent with other approvals that have been granted in the
County up and down Route 29 such as at Sam’s Club and Kroger, and the amendment is consistent with
Places 29 and the Comprehensive Plan with this side of the property designated as more conventional
retail development. Mr. Dumont said that the amendment will also allow for an increase in the County’s
tax base. He stated that even with a fuel facility there would be no additional increase on the outstanding
road network beyond what was originally approved as part of the rezoning, and Edens has spent close to
$9 million and a lot of time and effort on offsite improvements based on the rezoning. Mr. Dumont noted
that the fuel facility proposal actually represents about 1,000 trips per day less than what was approved in
2003, and at the Hydraulic intersection on Route 29 – even at the PM peak, it’s still over 100 trips less with
this use.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were any stub-outs remaining with the connections to the north. Mr.
Dumont said that as part of the variations they had requested earlier, there would be three easements
granted to the north side property owner for future connections, and the whole project is planned as a grid
network so that the developer is obligated under the proffers to grant easements for neighboring
properties to connect with the Stonefield property.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification about the number of trips per day that was approved in 2001 or
2002. Mr. Dumont said that there was a 2002 traffic impact analysis approved by VDOT, with the rezoning
in 2003. He explained that in contrast to what was projected as part of the rezoning for building out this
site, the current proposal – including the fuel facility – and everything shown on the application plan has
less trips per day, according to the traffic analysis. Mr. Dumont said that building this plan versus what
was approved in 2003, it would be less traffic.
Mr. Boyd asked what the intersection rating is there. Mr. Dumont said that he did not know.
Mr. Boyd said that the rating is likely an “F” as he travels the route frequently, and he is trying to
establish the fact that the Stonefield development has created about 20,000 vehicle trips per day at that
intersection.
Mr. Rooker said that he had distributed a chart the last time this project was discussed that
showed the traffic had declined at that stretch on Route 29 over the last 12 years, and not every car
accessing the shopping center is necessarily adding a new vehicle trip. He stated that the shopping
center was projected to generate some traffic, like every other similar center, and that’s why when this
was approved in 2003 there were $9 million of traffic improvements imposed on them in order to do their
development.
Mr. Boyd asked if he knew what the level of service was at that intersection. Mr. Rooker said that
during peak, it was probably an “F,” and Rio Road is an “F.”
Mr. Boyd said they weren’t dealing with Rio Road.
Mr. Rooker asked him if he wanted to deal comparably with applicants or not in the County. He
said that the Board approved a rezoning to allow fuel pumps at the Kroger at the Rio Hills shopping center
on July 6, 2011. Mr. Rooker said that the discussion lasted about 20 seconds, and the reason given by
the applicant – the onsite property manager, Chuck Lebo – for the proposal was to give the retail there a
boost. He stated that the traffic there is almost identical to what’s at Rio Road on Route 29, so he wasn’t
sure why they would treat this applicant for Hydraulic Road any different.
Mr. Boyd said that he disagreed that the traffic congestion at the Rio Hills shopping center was as
bad or worse than the Stonefield corner.
Mr. Rooker said that the staff traffic report doesn’t support that position.
Ms. Mallek said that the important thing now is that the applicant has complied with the
requirements for traffic and infrastructure improvements as designated by the rezoning, and this falls
within what was predicted for their demand.
Ms. Dittmar asked if this would be people’s last chance to buy gas in the County if they are driving
south on Route 29 or from the West/East on Hydraulic.
Mr. Rooker said that there was a gas station at that same corner when the 7-Eleven was there,
and it was the worst gas station in town as a traffic safety problem, because people would go through the
Hydraulic intersection and someone would have stopped to turn into the store. He stated that the
applicant bought this parcel and retired that business as part of their plan, and even left the land open for
a future grade-separated intersection.
Mr. Jim Morris addressed the Board, stating that when this project was presented to the
Architectural Review Board they didn’t include the service station, and it seems that it would be a big traffic
generator. Mr. Morris said that he didn’t understand why those numbers aren’t available to the public, and
in 2003 someone decided there could be 10,000 or 20,000 more cars here – but it’s not the same situation
today, and Georgetown Road has become a virtual parking lot because it is being used as a parallel road.
He stated that it seems that the Board is going to rubber stamp a facility there that will add even more
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 58)
cars, and what was approved in 2003 has a much different complexion on Route 29, and they should
know how many cars would be added as part of this facility – which he estimates at about 3,000.
Mr. Dumont commented that the site was originally proposed for 1.8 million square feet, and
Edens has built only 1 million square feet, with a proposed use that will be even less traffic than what was
already approved, and he doesn’t feel it’s fair to deny this request based on traffic. He said that Route 29
has a lot of traffic, and there were rights given to the applicant as part of the rezoning.
Mr. Rooker said that the approval granted by the Board in 2003 gave the applicants the flexibility
to arrange the square footage in the way that they wanted, which is similar to the Avon park approval, to
allow for flexibility. He stated that the traffic on Hydraulic Road has gone from 58,000 in 2000 to 56,000
today, so there hasn’t been a massive increase in traffic – whereas the applicant has added an entire lane
onto Route 29 for more than a mile, redid the entire Hydraulic Road intersection, and contributed
$800,000 to the City for Hillsdale. He said there is no distinction between this and Kroger.
Mr. Boyd said this doesn’t have anything to do with Kroger, which he doesn’t view as comparable
– and it doesn’t have anything to do with the relativity of whether he thinks this is an appropriate place to
be adding traffic.
Mr. Rooker said that the distinction being drawn here is based upon the group of people who
opposed this application to begin with.
Ms. Mallek closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rooker stated that they approved a minor variation that became a big deal for strange
reasons, and in that discussion was the fact that COSTCO would create 250 jobs that would be available
primarily to high school graduates, with pay starting out in the low $40,000s, and cashiers after 4-5 years
making almost $50,00 per year – and the best benefits package of any employer in this area, including
giving part-time employees benefits – and here they are kicking someone who would bring in those kind of
jobs.
Mr. Boyd said that there is a better location for this, and another option on the table.
Mr. Rooker said that the option is being promoted by the developer who opposes this particular
application.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board doesn’t have anything to do with determining that.
Mr. Boyd said that’s what zoning is all about.
Mr. Rooker asked him if that meant picking winners and losers, and they can’t force a company to
go somewhere.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve ZMA-2013-0009, Albemarle Place/Stonefield, as recommended by
staff, with the proffers dated November 13, 2013. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 59)
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 60)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Boyd stated that he had received a call from a constituent who was very distressed and
shaken up because they had fallen behind in tax payments and was dealing directly with the collection
agency who had frozen her bank account and had wiped out her money. He said that if this was done,
then the County might want to revisit the policy.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to hear from Betty Burrell about this, as she usual has a
reasonable explanation.
Mr. Foley said that staff can respond to this question and get the circumstances and send an
email to the Board about it, and after they see that information and feel there’s a need to discuss it, staff
can bring it back as an agenda item.
Mr. Rooker said that garnishing an account is a typical course of action in collections, but asked if
the County did that.
Ms. Mallek said there are percentage limits.
Mr. Boyd stated that this woman claimed they had totally wiped out her account.
Mr. Davis said that the County has an arrangement with a specialized law firm that collects
delinquent taxes, and they exercise what legal rights are necessary to collect those taxes. He said that
the email can explain what steps they take in collection, and Ms. Burrell could clarify those specifics.
Mr. Boyd said that he had given Mr. Kamptner all of the specifics, but he would like to know
exactly what action had been taken.
Mr. Rooker said that if you garnish an account, you get the account – but if you garnish wages,
there’s a percentage. He said that you can attach an account to the garnishment to obtain the money in
that account to satisfy the debt.
November 13, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 61)
Ms. Mallek said that in that review she would also like to have information about when they
confiscate houses, and if once they start the process they can’t stop it.
Mr. Boyd said he’d just like to understand the process, and whether it’s possible to totally
confiscate someone’s money.
Mr. Rooker said that was possible for any debt, but the question is whether the County was doing
it.
Mr. Davis said that it’s possible, but there are a lot of steps taken before that process would start
and lots of opportunities for people to pay, and collection of that kind is a very last resort.
Ms. Mallek said that she just wants to make sure there’s an explanation to the citizen about what’s
getting ready to happen.
Mr. Boyd said that this particular constituent said she was willing to work out a payment plan and
claimed she was never notified, that just suddenly they garnished her bank account.
Mr. Rooker said that it’s virtually impossible to get to the point your account is being garnished
without notification.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but said there were some people who might not understand complicated
matters like that.
Mr. Foley said that staff would get them the information, because some of what he’s hearing may
not be accurate.
_____
Ms. Mallek mentioned that they would put the Economic Vitality Action Plan on a future agenda,
and asked about the Rivanna governance issue.
Mr. Rooker said that the RWSA matter could be done at any time, but there was enough interest
in the community that it should be done at some point.
_____
Ms. Mallek asked about Mr. Rooker’s concern over the Comp Plan review.
Mr. Rooker said that he had mentioned to Mr. Foley that it did not seem to make sense to him to
move forward with Comp Plan work sessions over the next six weeks when there are new Board
members coming on after the first of the year – and they need to be part of the conversation.
Mr. Snow agreed.
Mr. Thomas agreed also.
Mr. Foley said that the Board would pick those work sessions up after the first of the year.
_______________
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 November 14, 2013, 4:00 p.m., Room 241.
At 10:02 p.m., Mr. Boyd moved to adjourn the meeting to November 14, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in
Room 241. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 11/12/2014
Initials: EWJ