2014-05-07May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 7,
2014, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Palmer asked if a Board member wanted to pull an item from the Consent Agenda to have a
more extensive discussion about it, whether to do it now or at another time.
Mr. Davis suggested that the item be removed from the Consent Agenda at the time that is being
considered. In accordance with the Board’s Rules of Procedures, the item gets put at the end of the
meeting for discussion or at another time determined to be appropriate.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the final agenda, as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Palmer reported that she shared a flyer with Board members regarding “policies for our local
food system,” having recently attended a presentation from the Department of Urban and Environmental
Planning at UVA, in which students were looking at policies for sustainable local food systems. She said
that the meeting was a bit “City-centric,” so she pointed out that the County would love to be involved next
year, and offered that there is a Supervisor who is a farmer who would have lots of input. Ms. Palmer
said that they did talk about the Comprehensive Plan, so she mentioned that it was under review and the
Board would welcome comments regarding local food system sustainability.
Ms. Palmer said she attended the first meeting of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee last week,
and she volunteered herself as Board liaison, so it is her hope the Board will agree to appoint her in that
capacity.
_____
Ms. Mallek reported that there are new “Buy Fresh Buy Local” brochures available, with contact
information as to where to find local food.
Ms. Mallek said that she also distributed to the Board materials she picked up at a recent
conservation meeting, which brought many different agencies and organizations together on how to fund
improvements for agricultural land for conservation.
Ms. Mallek said that she distributed to Board members the annual report from the Local Energy
Alliance Program (LEAP), which is full of many exciting accomplishments they have made, including over
1,000 retrofits in local homes since 2013.
In terms of Dominion Power’s Smart Meter Program, she stated that it is not as easy as predicted
to find out about alternatives to the program. She explained that if you are interested in a non -reporting
meter or other alternative, you must go to the FAQ section of Dominion Power’s website and look for
“alternative to smart meters,” where there is a phone number – 1-866-566-6436, and a company person
will send you forms to fill out for the non-reporting meter. Ms. Mallek said that after doing that, she was
told they were going to be visited for a new meter but then was told her area was not currently being
done.
_______________
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions.
Ms. Dittmar said it is always a pleasure to highlight people and organizations that are doing
things for Albemarle County.
_____
Item No. 6a. Blake Abplanalp for County Coat Drive.
Mr. Sheffield recognized Blake Abplanalp for coordinating and leading the County coat drive. Mr.
Abplanalp took a personal initiative in leading the coat drive and provided over 400 coats for families in
the community. He spent almost two months gathering coats and sending reminders out about the drive.
Mr. Sheffield said it is a great privilege to share that appreciation from the Board for the personal effort he
put into this drive. Mr. Abplanalp spent much of his lunchtime and after hours in collecting and delivering
the coats. Mr. Abplanalp efforts exemplify the initiative of one organization committed to excellence. Mr.
Abplanalp’s efforts also reflect on his dedication to the community, along with the diligence and efforts
that the Board looks for in its staff.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, said that Mr. Abplanalp led the
effort, but they had all the departments within local government, multiple schools, ECC, the motorcycle
crew, etc. – all participated.
__________
Item No. 6b. Colonel Martin Kumer, Superintendent, Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail.
Mr. Boyd welcomed Mr. Martin Kumer as the newly hired Superintendent of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Regional Jail, where he has served since 1997. Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Kumer began his
tenure there as a work release coordinator, and has performed through positions of increasing
responsibility until his most recent assignment as Deputy Superintendent – where he served for the past
year and a half. He stated that Mr. Kumer had degrees from PVCC and VCU, and served as an MP in
the U.S. Marine Corps. Mr. Kumer brings proven leadership skills and has demonstrated problem solving
and decision-making abilities, along with a vast experience in the corrections environment to this new
position. Mr. Boyd commented that the Board looks forward to working with Mr. Kumer on a continued
partnership. Mr. Boyd noted that the Jail did a national search for this position but found Mr. Kumer to be
the most qualified for the position.
Mr. Kumer thanked the Board for the recognition.
__________
Item No. 6c. Cal Morris – Meritorious Service Award.
Mr. Boyd recognized Dr. Calvin Morris for a meritorious public service citation awarded by the
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps in late 2013. General James Amos made the following comments
in awarding this citation: “Meritorious Public Service Citation for Dr. Calvin M. Morris meritorious public
service while serving on the Marine Corps University’s Board of Visitors, Quantico, Virginia, from 20
November 1997 until October 2013. Demonstrating superior knowledge of higher educational tenets and
superb leadership skills, Dr. Morris provided valuable insight and guidance as the Marine Corps
University enhanced the rigor of its Professional Military Education programs, thereby enabling the
University to meet its mission to ‘prepare leaders to meet the challenges of the national security
environment.’ His guidance and recommendations proved vital to the accreditation and subsequent
reaffirmation of the University through the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Dr. Morris’
untiring dedication to the Marine Corps University and commitment to the superior education of its
students reflect great credit upon himself and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the Marine
Corps and the United States Naval Service.”
Mr. Boyd said on behalf of the Board, and the citizens of the County, he wishes to express great
appreciation to Dr. Morris for his service and congratulate him for a well-deserved citation. Mr. Boyd
stated that Dr. Morris was one of the first people he met when he moved to Charlottesville. Dr. Morris has
been a friend for many years, as well as his representative on the Planning Commission for 11 years. Dr.
Morris also serves as Chair of the Planning Commission. He again thanked him for his service to the
community and the nation.
Dr. Morris thanked the Board for the recognition.
__________
Item. No. 6d. Albemarle County Service Authority 50th Anniversary.
Ms. Palmer recognized the Albemarle County Service Authority in honor of 50 years of service,
building and maintaining an excellent water and sewer system. She said that the ACSA was created by
the Board of Supervisors in 1964, and is governed by six board members – appointed by the Supervisors.
Ms. Palmer stated that she served for several years on the ACSA Board of Directors and can testify to the
quality of the organization and all the hard work they do. F or the past 50 years many people have worked
hard to establish a solid utility foundation for what the organization has become today – including both
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
current and retired employees, elected and appointed officials, and community partners. She said that
the Board appreciates the vision, dedication and community collaboration that has resulted in achieving
this successful milestone. Ms. Palmer stated that she personally appreciates the water that the ACSA
provides, as it is safe, delicious and better than plastic bottled water.
Mr. Gary O’Connell, Executive Director, thanked Ms. Palmer and the Board, stating that the
ACSA Board Chair, Clarence Roberts, had planned to attend but had a medical emergency. Mr.
O’Connell said that the ACSA has had a strong partnership with the Board over the years, as evident in
the water supply plan and the Ragged Mountain Dam project, which is slated to be completed this
summer. He stated that the ACSA has worked on a wastewater cost allocation agreement with the City
of Charlottesville, which has finally been approved after two years of negotiations.
Mr. O’Connell stated that the ACSA Board consists of six members, with Bill Kittrell serving as
Vice-Chair, along with Board Chair, Clarence Roberts, and Board members Jennifer Sulzberger, Holly
Hueston, Charles Tolbert and Kim Swanson. He stated that they are beginning the process of budget
and rate-setting, which he will explore further with the Board of Supervisors during his quarterly report.
Mr. O’Connell said that they held a 50-year celebration recently to recognize their partners and
constituents, adding that they have 600 miles of water and sewer lines in the community, providing
service to 18,000 household and business customers or 65,000 residents. He thanked Mr. Boyd and Mr.
Foley for their work on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, which works in partnership with the ACSA
in water treatment and water quality for the community.
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. O’Connell for the careful planning the Service Authority has done in
advance to be able to hold enough funds aside annually to be able to make infrastructure improvements
as they are needed.
Mr. O’Connell said that the Authority has a good schedule of replacement and maintenance that
they are working hard to adhere to.
__________
Item No. 6e. Municipal Clerks Week – May 4-10, 2014.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation in recognition of Municipal Clerks
Week:
Whereas, the Municipal Clerk is a time honored and vital part of local government that exists
throughout the world and serves as an information center on functions of local government and
community; and
Whereas, the Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants; and
Whereas, the Municipal Clerk provides a professional link between the citizens and local
governing bodies and agencies of government at all levels; and
Whereas, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality,
rendering equal service to all; and
Whereas, Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the
Office of Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops and the
annual meeting of their state, province, county and international professional organizations; and
Whereas, it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Municipal Clerk ;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
recognize
May 4 – 10, 2014 as Municipal Clerks Week
and further extend appreciation to Ella W. Jordan, CMC (Certified Municipal Clerk) Clerk, and
Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk, and to all Municipal Clerks for the vital services they perform and
their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent.
Ms. Mallek said that without Ms. Jordan and Mr. Morris, the Board would not be efficient or
prepared, and their work is appreciated every day.
Ms. Dittmar asked that Ms. Jordan and Mr. Morris to stand and be recognized.
__________
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item No. 6f. Public Service Recognition Week – May 4-10, 2014.
Ms. Dittmar read and presented the following resolution in honor of “Public Service Recognition
Week,” and asked those who work for the County to stand and be recognized:
WHEREAS, Americans are served daily by public servants at the federal, state, county, and city
levels. These unsung heroes do the work that keeps our nation working; and
WHEREAS, public service is among the most demanding and noble of professions; and
WHEREAS, Public Service Recognition Week is observed annually to celebrate and recognize
the valuable service that public servants provide to the nation; and
WHEREAS, over 3,000 Albemarle County Local Government and Schools employees work
tirelessly to serve our residents, businesses, and visitors, providing them with outstanding customer
service while maintaining careful stewardship of the re sources with which they have been entrusted; and
WHEREAS, without these public servants at every level, continuity would be impossible in a
democracy that regularly changes its leaders and elected officials; and
WHEREAS, we appreciate the many accomplishments and contributions made daily by these
public servants;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
hereby recognize
May 4-10, 2014
as
Public Service Recognition Week
and call upon the citizens of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens across the County to
recognize the significant and important contribution that public employees make to our community.
Ms. Dittmar then asked all County employees, who were present, to stand and be recognized.
__________
Mr. Sheffield moved to approve all of the recognitions presented. Ms. McKeel seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Boyd noted that Mr. Sheffield had given him a stuffed groundhog in recognition of Mr. Boyd’s
comments that he often feels it is “Groundhog Day” with their discussion of issues.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is important to have consistency and continuity.
Mr. Sheffield and Ms. Dittmar said that they appreciate the patience of the long-standing Board
members, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek.
__________
Agenda Item No. 7. Matters not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Chris Barr said that he is a resident of Route 747, Preddy Creek Road, and has lived there for
almost 13 years. Mr. Barr said that he is concerned about the safety, accessibility and dust on the road.
He stated that they have had a number of issues with inclement weather impacting the road. Over the
past year, alone, the bus has been unable to pick up children three times, the school bus has been stuck
at the top of the hill, the UPS truck has been stuck, and the road has been closed twice the past few
months due to flooding at the creek, and closed once because of an accident on the curve. Mr. Barr
stated that on September 2012, a car hit a rut in the road and wrecked on the hill next to his house. He
said that he has concerns about access for emergency vehicles, linemen, and mail and package carriers
when the road is in this kind of state. Mr. Barr stated that they have issues with the culverts filling in, and
damage to the ends of the driveway. Residents have to call VDOT continually to come out and fix it. He
said that there are 30 or more residents live along the road, some of whom have experienced sinkholes
and other problems in front of their homes. In addition dust is a real problem. Mr. Barr said that he would
like the Board to consider having the road paved, at least partially, to deal with these issues.
__________
Mr. Paul Grady stated that he lives outside Crozet and was before the Board to talk about storm-
water. He said that when Crozet became a growth area in 1980, the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation
basin – a multi-acre lake and dam – was constructed to collect all of the stormwater from the Crozet
growth area, with the idea that any sediment in the water would settle out before the water went over the
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
dam, and downstream into the Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Grady emphasized that the system is not working.
When he bought his property about ten years ago, he had a pebble beach on his side of Lickinghole
Creek, but that soon washed away, and then reappeared several years later. Since then, he said, his
property has experienced massive erosion. His land is at the bottom of a horseshoe bend with the creek
flowing north. He said that the bank on the west side is normally two feet above creek level, wh ile the
bank on the east side – his side – is about 10 feet high. Mr. Grady said that over the last several years,
he has lost at least five feet of creek bank, at least 50 feet long and 10 feet high, and that means a lot of
dirt flowing down the creek into the reservoir. He stated that at the top of the horseshoe bend is an
overflow channel that has been clogged with debris and is virtually useless, and as the eastern bank of
the creek has eroded the western bank is developing extensions that cause further erosion on the east
side. Mr. Grady said that he believes the cause of the problem is that the sedimentation basin has filled
up, and he fears that more erosion will occur in the future if something is not done soon. He thanked
them for their attention to the matter, and stated that he was leaving his contact information with the
Clerk.
Ms. Palmer noted that dredging of the Lickinghole Basin is in the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority’s long-range plan, and perhaps that needs to be moved up. She suggested someone gets back
with Mr. Grady on that information.
__________
Ms. Peg Lascano addressed the Board, stating that she is also a resident of Preddy Creek Road
and has lived there for 41 years. She said that she drove a school bus when her children were small, and
the road was treacherous then – and it is treacherous now. Ms. Lascano said that earlier that morning,
she had to back up about a quarter-mile to find a place where a school bus could safely pass. It is critical
that something be done to the road or something disastrous will happen.
Ms. Mallek commented that Ms. Lascano’s timing is perfect, because the secondary road plan is
on the agenda for the meeting.
__________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Ms.
McKeel to approve Items 8.1 (as read) through 8.6, with Item 8.4 removed, and to accept the remaining
items for information. (Note: Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda item.) Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: September 11, October 2 and October 9, 2013; and
February 19, 2014.
Mr. Boyd pulled the minutes of September 11, 2013 and carried them forward to the next
meeting.
Ms. Mallek pulled the minutes of October 2 and October 9, 2013, and carried them forward to the
next meeting.
Mr. Sheffield had read the minutes of February 19, 2014, and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes of February 19, 2014 as
read.
__________
Item No. 8.2. FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in
the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies
to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self -Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 14 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $338,280.57. A
budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative ap propriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of seven (7) appropriations as follows:
One appropriation (#2014089) to appropriate $1,375,601.22 for the Regional
Firearms Training Center in the Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Program
Fund and reduce the General Government Capital Program Fund $1,375,601.22 for
the Firearms Range project. This appropriation will not increase the total County
budget;
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
One appropriation (#2014094) to appropriate $318,903.33 for various school division
grants and programs;
One appropriation (#2014095) to appropriate $41,486.00 from the Reclassification
Reserve to various departments. This appropriation will not increase the total County
budget;
One appropriation (#2014096) to appropriate $6,201.00 from the Fellowship Fund to
Human Resources Department for a summer intern. This appropriation will not
increase the total County budget;
One appropriation (#2014097) to appropriate $620.23 for donations to the Sheriff’s
Department;
One appropriation (#2014098) to appropriate $13,800.00 from the Training Pool to
various departments for training and professional development. This appropriation
will not increase the total County budget; and
One appropriation (#2014099) to appropriate $18,757.01 for the Public Recreational
Facilities Authority (PRFA) conservation easement monitoring services.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2014089, #2014094, #2014095, #2014096,
#2014097, #201498, and #201499 for general government programs as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2014089 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Gen. Gov’t. Capital Fund fund Bal. $136,163.83
Bond Funding $(16,668.44)
Charlottesville Funding $(119,495.39)
This request is to appropriate the balance of the previous Firearms Range project, totaling $1,375,601.22,
from the General Government Capital Program fund to a special capital fund created for the Regional
Firearms Training Center project entitled the Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Program Fund.
This special capital fund will facilitate transparency and ease of program tracking and reporting for this
regional project. This request will not increase the total County Budget.
This request amends and reduces the General Government Capital Program Fund's budgeted revenues
and expenditures for the previous Firearms Range project by a total of $1,375,601.22. Specifically this
request is to:
Increase the budgeted use of General Government Capital Program Fund fund balance
by $136,163.83 to cover the expenses that were incurred for the previous project;
Decrease the revenue sources consisting of $704,469.05 of anticip ated bond funding and
$807,296.00 in previously anticipated funding from the City of Charlottesville (City); and
Decrease the budgeted expenditures totaling $1,375,601.22 for the balance of the
programmed cost for the previous project, which included its design, construction,
contingency, and project management services.
In addition, this appropriation will transfer this $1,375,601.22 to the Regional Firearms Training Center
Capital Program Fund to fund the proposed County/City/UVA Indoor Firearms Range project. The
revenues for this Fund will consist of $687,800.61 of anticipated bond funding for the County's share and
a total of $687,800.61 in contributions from the City and UVA. The contributions are consistent with the
FY 15 CIP budget assumptions, but may need to be amended when the Operating Agreement with the
City and UVA is finalized.
The total project budget of the Regional Firearms Training Center is estimated to be $4,865,422. The
$3,489,821 balance of the project is proposed to be funded by the $2.9 M award of State asset forfeiture
funds approved by the Attorney General on December 18, 2013. This award provided $971,167 each to
the County, the City and UVA for funding this project. The Board previously appropriated the County’s
share for this project on March 5, 2014 (Appropriation # 2014082).
The project is currently entering the design phase, and the Architect Contract is expected to be finalized
by mid-April. The project is currently scheduled to be substantially completed in December 2015.
Appropriation #2014094 $318,903.33
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $318,903.33
This request is to appropriate the following School Division requests approved by the School Board on
March 13, 2014 and March 27, 2014:
The appropriation of $318,603.33 for the E-rate program. The School Division’s E-rate
Program is designed to ensure that all eligible schools and libraries have affordable
access to modern telecommunications and information services. The E-rate Program,
which was established by the Federal Government, provides discounts for eligible
telecommunications services, depending on economic need and location (urban or rural).
The level of discount is based on the percentage of students eligible for participation in
the National School Lunch Program or other federally approved alternative mechanisms.
These funds will be used to provide students and staff reliable access to technology by
supporting the construction of the school division’s wide area wireless project.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
The appropriation of $300.00 in grant funding to purchase plants and trees for Cale
Elementary School.
Appropriation #2014095 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Reclassification Reserve $41,486.00
This request is to appropriate $41,486.00 in funding from the reclassification pool to various departments
for individual reclassifications that occurred throughout FY 14. This appropriation is a re-allocation of
funds and has no impact on the total budget.
Appropriation #2014096 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
.
Source: Fellowship Program Fund $ 6,201.00
During the FY 14 budget process, the Board approved $166,500.00 in one-time funding to establish a
flexible internship program for college and graduate school graduates who are seeking experiences in
local government. To date $133,023.00 has been appropriated to fund the County’s Fellowsh ip Program.
In addition to completing a variety of policy-related, budget-related, and cross-departmental duties on
behalf of the Office of Management and Budget and the County Executive’s Office, Fellows also work
with departments to secure interns to provide departments with additional workload capacity.
This request is to appropriate $6,201.00 from the Fellowship Program Fund to the Human Resources
department to provide funding for the salary and associated costs of a summer intern for a specific
project. This funding will provide for 480 hours of intern support. The intern will be primarily responsible
for developing communication materials on behalf of the Human Resources department that will be
circulated to both Local Government and School Division employees. It is anticipated that expenditures
for this intern will occur in both FY14 and FY15, so the portion of this appropriation that is unexpended in
FY14 will be requested for re-appropriation in FY15.
Appropriation #2014097 $620.23
Source: Donations $620.23
This request is to appropriate $620.23 in contributions that were received to support the Sheriff’s
volunteer reserve programs. These contributions will support the various reserve programs such as
Project Lifesaver, TRIAD, Search and Rescue, child fingerprinting, and any other community programs
and activities in which the Reserves are involved.
Appropriation #2014098 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
.
Source: Training Pool $13,800.00
This request is to appropriate $13,800.00 from the Training Pool to various departments for approved
training opportunities and professional development. The Board approved a Traini ng Pool of $50,000.00
in the FY 14 budget to support the County’s strategic objective to expand opportunities for training and
professional development. After this appropriation, $8,760.00 will remain available in the Training Pool.
Appropriation #2014099 $18,757.01
Source: State Revenue $18,513.59
General Fund fund balance $ 243.42
As authorized by the Public Recreational Facilities Authority (PRFA) at its April 10, 2014 meeting, this
requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the PRFA, appropriate the following:
$5,576.45 of Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) revenue from the
existing PRFA budget and $243.42 of the remaining unspent balance of the previously
appropriated DCR revenue in FY 13, which is now included in the General Government
Fund fund balance, for a total appropriation of $5,819.87, to fund Comm unity
Development’s conservation easement monitoring services during FY 14. The total net
increase of the County budget is $243.42.
$18,513.59 of Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) revenue to the PRFA
to be used for its conservation easement monitoring services during FY 14.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved appropriations #2014089, #2014094,
#2014095, #2014096, #2014097, #201498, and #201499 for general government programs.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2014089 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 136,163.83 Firearms Range-Gen Govt Use of Fund Balance
2014089 3-9010-41000-341000-410500-9999 -704,469.05 Firearms Range-Loan Proceeds
2014089 3-9010-19000-319000-190319-3110 -807,296.00 Firearms Range-City Share
2014089 4-9010-31029-431010-312366-3110 -80.12 Firearms Range-PM Services
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
2014089 4-9010-31029-431010-312405-3110 -20,273.00 Firearms Range-Civil Eng.
2014089 4-9010-31029-431010-800605-3110 -1,352,824.10 Firearms Range-Construction
2014089 4-9010-31029-431010-999999-3110 -2,424.00 Firearms Range-Contingency
2014089 3-9050-41000-341000-410500-9999 687,800.61 Regional Firearms Training Center-Loan Proceeds
2014089 3-9050-19000-319000-199900-3110 687,800.61 Regional Firearms Training Center -Partner Share
2014089 3-9050-19000-319000-190319-3110 0.00 Regional Firearms Training Center -City Share
2014089 3-9050-19000-319000-190435-3110 0.00 Regional Firearms Training Center -UVA Share
2014089 4-9050-31029-431010-312366-3110 0.00 Regional Firearms Training Center -PM Services
2014089 4-9050-31029-431010-312350-3110 515,000.00 Regional Firearms Training Center -A/E
2014089 4-9050-31029-431010-360000-3110 0.00 Regional Firearms Training Center -Advertising
2014089 4-9050-31029-431010-550100-3110 0.00 Regional Firearms Training Center -Training
2014089 4-9050-31029-431010-800605-3110 858,097.10 Regional Firearms Training Center -Construction
2014089 4-9050-31029-431010-999999-3110 2,504.12 Regional Firearms Training Center -Contingency
2014094 3-3104-63104-318000-189900-6599 300.00 Horticultural Grant
2014094 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6114 300.00 Horticultural Grant
2014094 3-3907-63907-319000-190241-6599 318,603.33 Recovered Costs - E-Rate
2014094 4-3907-63907-461101-800700-6599 318,603.33 ADP Equipment
2014095 4-1000-12141-412140-110000-1001 1,854.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-12141-412140-210000-1001 142.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-12141-412140-221000-1001 259.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-12141-412140-241000-1001 22.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-12142-412140-110000-1001 1,933.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-12142-412140-210000-1001 148.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-12142-412140-221000-1001 270.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-12142-412140-241000-1001 23.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-21070-421070-110000-1002 1,428.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-21070-421070-210000-1002 109.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-21070-421070-221000-1002 200.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-21070-421070-241000-1002 17.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-32013-432010-110000-1003 1,285.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-32013-432010-210000-1003 98.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-32013-432010-221000-1003 180.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-32013-432010-241000-1003 15.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43201-443200-110000-1004 1,935.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43201-443200-210000-1004 148.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43201-443200-221000-1004 271.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43201-443200-241000-1004 23.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43204-443200-110000-1004 727.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43204-443200-210000-1004 56.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43204-443200-221000-1004 102.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43204-443200-241000-1004 9.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43205-482040-110000-1004 1,675.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43205-482040-210000-1004 128.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43205-482040-221000-1004 234.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-43205-482040-241000-1004 20.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-53013-453010-110000-1005 5,705.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-53013-453010-210000-1005 436.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-53013-453010-221000-1005 798.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-53013-453010-241000-1005 68.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-71011-471010-110000-1007 1,804.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-71011-471010-210000-1007 138.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-71011-471010-221000-1007 252.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-71011-471010-241000-1007 21.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-71012-471010-110000-1007 10,149.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-71012-471010-210000-1007 776.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-71012-471010-221000-1007 1,420.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-71012-471010-241000-1007 121.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-81021-481020-110000-1008 5,281.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-81021-481020-210000-1008 404.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-81021-481020-221000-1008 739.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-81021-481020-241000-1008 63.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014095 4-1000-99900-499000-999908-9999 -41,486.00 Distribute reclassification pool
2014096 4-1000-12030-412030-130000-1001 5,760.00 PT wages
2014096 4-1000-12030-412030-210000-1001 441.00 FICA
2014096 4-1000-99900-499000-999976-9999 -6,201.00 Intern/Fellowship Fund
2014097 3-8408-18110-318000-181117-9999 620.23 SHERIFF-RESERVE PROGRAMS
2014097 4-8408-93010-493010-930009-9999 620.23 Transfer to GF
2014097 3-1000-51000-351000-512020-9999 620.23 Transfer from Fund 8408
2014097 4-1000-21070-421070-301230-1002 620.23 Reserve Programs
2014098 4-1000-99900-499000-999984-9999 -13,800.00 Distribution of Training Pool
2014098 4-1000-12150-412150-550100-1001 1,800.00 Distribution of Training Pool
2014098 4-1000-43201-443200-550100-1004 2,500.00 Distribution of Training Pool
2014098 4-1000-53011-453010-550100-1005 9,500.00 Distribution of Training Pool
2014099 4-1000-81021-481020-130000-1008 5,819.87 PRFA - P/T Wages
2014099 3-1000-51000-351000-512000-9999 5,576.45 PRFA - DCR Revenue
2014099 3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 243.42 PRFA - GF Use of Fund Balance
2014099 4-8420-93010-493010-930009-9999 5,576.45 PRFA - Transfer to GF
2014099 4-8420-71051-471010-999999-9999 12,937.14 PRFA - Contingency
2014099 3-8420-24000-324000-240049-1007 18,513.59 PRFA - State DCR Revenue
__________
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Item No. 8.3. MicroAire Surgical Instrument LLC Performance Date Extension.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP)
describes the Governor’s Opportunity Fund (GOF) as a “deal closing” fund to be employed at the
Governor’s discretion to secure a company location or expansion in Virginia. The GOF grant amount is
determined by the Secretary of Commerce and Trade, based on the recommendation of the VEDP and
subject to the approval of the Governor. A GOF grant is awarded to the Virginia locality for the benefit of
the company, with the expectation that the grant will result in a favorable decision to locate or expand in
the Commonwealth. The Board established the County’s Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) in 2007 to
“address unemployment and underemployment of County residents by assisting County businesses in
providing higher wage permanent jobs by providing matching funding to federal or state economic
development projects.”
On May 11, 2011, the Board authorized the County Executive to request a $100,000 GOF grant
from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership to be disbursed to MicroAire, and approved a
$150,000 EOF grant award for MicroAire. The GOF and EOF gra nts are subject to a GOF Performance
Agreement and an EOF Performance Agreement, both dated May 24, 2011. In exchange for the grant
funding and pursuant to the performance agreements, MicroAire must achieve specified capital
investment, above-average wages, and new job creation targets by the Performance Date of May 1,
2014. The agreements provide that if the County, in consultation with the EDA and the VEDP, deems that
good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made by MicroAire to ach ieve the
targets, the County may agree to extend the Performance Date by up to 15 months.
In a letter to County staff dated April 7, 2014 (Attachment A), MicroAire requests an extension of
the Performance Date to August 1, 2015, the full 15 months allowed for in the agreements. MicroAire has
surpassed the capital investment target by over $2.4 million and has significantly exceeded the wage
target – MicroAire’s average wage is $65,631 compared to the County’s prevailing average wage of
$45,999. However, it has not yet satisfied the target to create and maintain 51 new jobs at its Albemarle
County facility. MicroAire has informed staff that industry supplier contractions during the recession
impacted MicroAire’s ability to complete its planned expansion by the Performance Date. Since that time,
MicroAire is not only filling positions to meet current operations, but is also actively engaged in technology
acquisitions and other strategies that senior managers firmly believe will allow the company to achieve
the job creation target by the extended Performance Date.
As required by the performance agreements, staff has received affirmative opinions from both the
EDA and the VEDP that MicroAire has made good faith and reasonable efforts to achieve the new job
creation target.
Approving the extension allows MicroAire to remain in compliance with the terms of the
performance agreements.
There is no additional budget impact resulting from this extension. There has been a net positive
tax impact to Albemarle County from MicroAire business operations and capital investment, resulting in
accrued revenue well above what was provided by the EOF grant. Capital investment to date is
$10,464,638, exceeding the performance agreement commitment of $8 million by $2.4 million.
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) approve MicroAire’s requested extension of the
Performance Dates to August 1, 2015; and 2) authorize the County Executive to sign a letter to
MicroAire, the EDA and the VEDP notifying them that the Performance Dates in the GOF Performance
Agreement and the EOF Performance Agreement have been extended to August 1, 2015.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved MicroAire’s requested extension of their
performance dates to August 1, 2015, and authorized the County Executive to sign a letter to
MicroAire, the EDA and the VEDP notifying them that the Performance Dates in the GOF
Performance Agreement and the EOF Performance Ag reement have been extended to August 1,
2015.
__________
Item No. 8.4. Zoning Text Amendment – Personal Wireless Service Facilities.
The executive summary states that on April 2, 2014, the Board held a work session on the
County’s personal wireless service facilities regulations. The Board received a report from staff, which
included a brief review of some issues pertaining to the application and review process and the physical
standards for wireless facilities. The Board also received comments from members of the public, including
representatives of the wireless industry.
Since the April 2 work session, staff has identified several issues pertaining to the application and
review process that could be considered in a zoning text amendment that woul d improve and expedite
that process without affecting the visibility of wireless facilities or their impacts on neighboring parcels and
the zoning districts in which they may be located.
The resolution of intent for the Board’s consideration merely initiates the zoning text amendment
process and officially directs staff to begin working on the zoning text amendment by studying the issues,
receiving input from various sources, and developing proposed ordinance language. The text amendment
will then proceed to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, which may be preceded by one or
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
more work sessions held by the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission will make a recommendation
on the amendment and forward that recommendation to the Board.
The issues pertaining to the application and review process to be considered in the proposed
zoning text amendment include:
Exempt wireless facilities from critical slopes provisions : Any exemption would be limited to the tower
or monopole and the ground equipment and would be subject to performance standards. The County
has never denied a special exception for critical slopes to be disturbed for a wireless facility and the
Board has previously indicated its desire to create this exemption. Allowing wire less facilities to be
located on critical slopes would expand the opportunities to site facilities in locations that minimize
other impacts.
Revise the tree survey submittal requirements: The current regulations require that a survey of the
height, caliper and species of all trees within 50 feet of a proposed monopole be submitted with an
application. The survey is costly to prepare. Experience has shown that knowing the height of the
reference tree (the tree on which the permissible height of a treetop fa cility is based) is the key
information that should be provided by a survey. In addition, there are other means to determine the
most relevant information pertaining to the other trees within 50 feet of the monopole – their height –
if that information is needed.
Add authority to require photo simulations with a wireless application: Industry representatives
provide photo simulations when requested but processing applications could be expedited if photo
simulations were required to be submitted with an application.
Clarify the setback requirements for wireless facilities : There are two setback regulations that, if
amended, may provide more flexibility in siting wireless facilities: (1) the current regulations require
that all wireless facilities (i.e., the monopole and the ground equipment) be set back from the property
line a distance that is at least equal to the height of the tower or monopole. Staff recommends that
that requirement apply only to the tower or monopole, and not the ground equipment; a nd (2) the
setback distance may be reduced under the current regulations if the owner of the abutting parcel
grants a fall zone easement; however, owners of abutting parcels may be willing to consent to a
reduction in the setback but are unable to expeditiously grant an easement because the parcel is
subject to a deed of trust or for other reasons. Staff would like to explore other options to an
easement.
Add wireless facilities to the list of structures in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District for whic h a
certificate of appropriateness is not required: Under the current zoning regulations, the ARB must
issue a certificate of appropriateness for wireless facilities proposed in the Entrance Corridor Overlay
District to ensure compliance with the County’s design guidelines. Although the ARB is authorized to
issue a “countywide” certificate of appropriateness for all wireless facilities in the County, it has not
done so yet. Experience has shown that the County’s wireless regulations have very specific desig n
standards for wireless facilities and they leave the ARB little room to exercise its discretion when it
conducts its review. In addition, the County’s wireless regulations, like the ARB’s review for other
structures, focus on the visual impacts of the wireless facility. Because the visual impacts from
wireless facilities are addressed in the County’s wireless regulations, staff recommends that the
regulations be amended to exempt wireless facilities from ARB review.
Expressly authorize temporary and mobile cell sites (“cell on wheels” “COWS”): COWS are temporary
cell sites most commonly used during emergencies and temporary special events hosting large
numbers of attendees. The County has allowed COWS to be used in these circumstances. Staff
recommends that their use be codified.
No budget impact is anticipated.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution of intent (Attachment A) and direct staff to
proceed with work on the zoning text amendment.
(Discussion: Ms. Palmer asked that this item be pulled for discussion later in the day.)
__________
Item No. 8.5. Road Improvements for Virginia’s Working Draft Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Six-Year
Improvements Program.
The executive summary states that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) has
scheduled a series of public hearings in April and May to give citizens and public officials an opportunity
to provide comments on projects in its Working Draft Fiscal Year 2015-2020 Six-Year Improvements
Program (SYIP). Projects can include interstate, primary road, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
improvement priorities. The public hearing for citizens in our region will start at 6 p.m. on Wednesday,
May 14, 2014 at the Germanna Community College, Daniel Technology Center, 18121 Technology Drive,
Culpeper, Virginia 22701. In the past, the Board had a representative attend the public hearing and
provide a statement for the County, but in recent years, has simply mailed or e-mailed the County’s
priority list by the established deadline without presenting it at the public hearing.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
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.
Attachment A is staff’s recommended priority list of improvements for inclusion in the FY 2015 -
2020 SYIP based on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (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
to add two projects to the list as noted below:
Construct a third travel lane on the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 29
North from the South Fork Rivanna River to the Hollymead Town Center – This
project was removed from the prior approved priority list because the project had been
fully funded and included in the VDOT SYIP. Staff is recommending that the project be
added back to the priority list to ensure that VDOT and the CTB are aware of the
importance of this project to the County, and to specifically note the County’s expectation
that the project will be fully funded to incorporate any changes that would result from the
elimination of the Western Bypass interchange and designed consistent with the
recommended cross-section included in the Places29 Master Plan, including installation
of a multi-use path (bike and pedestrian) and sidewalk. These bike-pedestrian facilities
provide for neighborhood interconnectivity and alternative transportation/commuter
options in the Route 29 north corridor, and will augment the proposed Northtown Trail
concept endorsed by the Board and the MPO.
Construct Northtown Trail bike and pedestrian trail system from downtown
Charlottesville to Hollymead to provide alternative transportation/commuter
options in the Route 29 north corridor – This is an important bike-pedestrian facility
that would provide an alternative transportation/commuter option in the Route 29 north
corridor that links the northern Development Areas to one another and to downtown
Charlottesville. The Northtown Trail concept has been previously endorsed by the Board
and the MPO.
As the Board is aware, the Route 29 Solutions Advisory Panel has been charged to provide
recommendations to the CTB on how to improve mobility on Route 29 through the Charlottesville area.
The Advisory Panel’s work will continue into May. It is recommended that any other changes to the
priority list related to the Western Bypass or Route 29 corridor be deferred until the completion of the
Advisory Panel’s work.
With the Board’s approval, staff will forward the priority list to VDOT and the Virginia Department
of Rail and Public Transportation. Should the Board decide to have a representative speak at the CTB
public hearing, staff will assist in preparing the statement based on the priority list.
This is a State-funded program, so there are no direct impacts to the County’s budget unless the
County decides to fund a project for which some or all of the cost is being covered with Revenue Sharing
funds that require a dollar for dollar County match.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the County’s FY 2015–2020 SYIP Priority List as
presented in Attachment A.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the County’s FY 2015-2020 SYIP Priority
List, as presented.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2015-2020 SYIP
ADOPTED MAY 7, 2014
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/Urban funds – funded; in design.
b. Construct a third travel lane on the northbound and southbound lanes of Route
29 North from the South Fork Rivanna River to the Hollymead Town Center.
Design of these improvements should be consistent with the recommended
cross-section for Route 29 found in the Places29 Master Plan, including the
installation of a multi-use path. Places 29 Priority project; Section from
Ashwood Blvd. to Hollymead Town Center funded for design and
construction. Portion from River to Ashwood Blvd. will need additional
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
funding to incorporate any changes that would result from the elimination
of the Western Bypass interchange.
c. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive;
Places 29 Priority project; Urban funds/Private right of way donations –
Designed and funded to construct assuming land owner/developer
contribution of portions of needed right-of-way.
d. Construct Berkmar Drive extension. Places 29 Priority project; Portion being
constructed as part of private development in Hollymead Town Center; CIP
funding – available for design only.
e. Intersection improvements at the Route 29-Polo Grounds Road (east)/Rio Mills
Road (west) intersection to address traffic back-ups on Polo grounds Road.
Consider signalization improvements and/or construction of turn lanes on Polo
Grounds Road; Board request—not funded.
f. Deployment of an adaptive traffic control system or other equivalent signal
synchronization enhancements to Route 29, from Charlottesville city limits to
Hollymead, Board request—Revenue Sharing Program funds awarded and
project is under design. Additional funds needed to complete project.
2. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in th e Pantops and Village of Rivanna
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 under construction.
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown; CIP/Secondary/Revenue Sharing funds
– Crozet Streetscape project and Library Ave. (portion 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. Portions to be constructed with
future development.
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.
8. Construct Northtown Trail bike and pedestrian trail system from downtown Charlottesville
to Hollymead to provide an alternative transportation/commuter option in the Route 29
north corridor. MPO adopted study; Places29 Master Plan recommendation. Limited
CIP funding available.
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide
expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville. MPO Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRPT) and studies; 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.). MPO LRTP, Comprehensive Plan; Limited funding in
CIP for 2-4 bus stops/shelters. New Route 11 began service in FY14 from City to
Fashion Square Mall along Rio Road east.
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 Charlottesville Area Tran sit (CAT) are
County funded.
4. Inter-City Rail – Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to Charlottesville/
Albemarle County in 2009. State funded through 2014.
5. Provide new service to Avon Street/Urban Neighborhood 4 area. Comprehensive Plan;
No funding.
6. Provide new service in the US 29 North corridor/Hollymead/Airport. MPO LRTP,
Places29; No funding.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
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 – under construction.
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). Crozet Master Plan, Board request; Revenue Sharing
Program funds awarded
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.
OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Rt. 250 Bypass, Construct Interchange with McIntire Road (Charlottesville) (under
construction)
McIntire Road Extended, Construct 2 Lanes (Charlottesville) (under construction)
Route 29 Western Bypass, New Construction (Route 29 Solutions Advisory Panel will
recommend alternative projects to CTB to improve mobility on Route 29 through
the Charlottesville area utilizing Bypass funding.)
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)
(under construction)
Rt. 250 east, construct right turn bay at Rt. 729, Milton Road
__________
Item No. 8.6. New Positions for Virginia Stormwater Management Program.
The executive summary states that as part of the considerations for the FY15 budget, the
Community Development Department proposed a funding request for 3.5 FTEs to administer work
required by the mandated changes in the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP). This
funding request was included in the County Executive’s recommended budget and, following budget
public hearings and Board discussions, remains in the proposed budget. Recog nizing this program must
be operational on July 1st, staff is requesting permission to fill these positions in June, one month in
advance of when the program will begin.
Staff reviewed the proposed Water Protection Text Amendment (WPTA), which impleme nts
mandates required by the VSMP, with the Board in January. This WPTA is being presented to the Board
for adoption under a separate executive summary on May 7th. Three and one-half (3.5) FTEs have been
identified as needed to manage this additional work and are included in the proposed FY15 budget. The
County is required to begin implementing this program on July 1st pursuant to the VSMP. Staff is
concerned that waiting until July 1st, the start of FY15, to hire employees for these positions will c reate
excessive delays in processing applications and will complicate the transition. By advertising the
positions now and filling these positions in June, staff hopes to have the new employees in place and
partially trained by July 1st.
While the FY15 budget is not adopted, the funding for these new 3.5 FTE positions is in the
proposed budget, and staff anticipates the Board will fund the positions for this new program with the
FY15 budget. Staff anticipates the cost of hiring these employees in June o f FY 14 could be as much
as $13,000, depending on how quickly the new personnel can be hired. However, Community
Development has identified appropriated funds in its FY14 budget that can be used to fund these
positions in the current fiscal year. Typically, such unspent appropriated funds would be transferred
to the year-end Fund Balance. In this instance, it is recommended that these funds be used instead to
prepare for the immediate impact of the new mandated VSMP effective July 1.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize Community Development to fill the 3.5 FTE positions
proposed for the VSMP in June 2014 with the understanding that the FY14 costs will be covered by
existing funding in the department’s budget.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized Community Development to fill the 3.5
FTE positions proposed for the VSMP in June 2014 with the understanding that the FY14 costs
will be covered by existing funding in the department’s budget.
__________
Item No. 8.7. May 2014 VDOT Charlottesville Residency Monthly Report for Albemarle County,
was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.8. FY 2014 Third Quarter Cash Proffer Report, was received for information.
The executive summary states that in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report
on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has been expanded to also include updates on
non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report on February 5, 2014, which
included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for October through
December, 2013. This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the second quarter
of Fiscal Year 2014 (January-March). The next quarterly report will be on the Board’s August 6, 2014
agenda.
Proffer Activity for Fiscal Year 2014 Third Quarter (January - March)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter that
provided new cash proffers.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $46,136,985.90. This reflects 2013
annual adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) f rom
proffers in which annual adjustments were proffered and the increase in new proffered
revenue described above.
C. 3rd Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $216,089.96 from existing
cash proffers during this quarter from the following developments:
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL INTENDED PURPOSE
Avinity $82,284.66 CIP-Neighborhoods 4&5
Glenmore $1,300.00
Haden Place $3,200.00 CIP-Crozet
Old Trail $12,000.00 Crozet Parks/Schools
Estes Park $102,304.30 CIP
Eckerd (Pantops) $6000.00 Transportation-Pantops
Wickham Pond II $9000.00 CIP-Crozet
TOTAL $216,089.96
Although not proffer funds, the County received $2,000 for affordable housing programs from a
special use permit condition for Kenridge (SP 2012-13).
D. 3rd Quarter Expenditures and Appropriations: There were no appropriations this
quarter.
Current Available Funds: As of March 31, 2014, the available proffered cash on-hand is
$4,255,752.42 (including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were
proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP. Of the
available proffered cash on-hand, $1,972,324.22 including interest earned), is currently appropriated
(Attachment A). The net cash balance is $2,283,428.20 and Attachment B provides information on how
the net cash balance may be used for future appropriations to CIP projects.
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address impacts from development and they
support the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax
revenue. Using cash proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in
the CIP by freeing up funding for other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that
might otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue.
The Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff
monitor proffer funds on an ongoing basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP
move forward and to ensure that funding is appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
__________
Item No. 8.9. FY 14 General Fund Third Quarter Report; Revised FY 14 Revenue Projections
Report; and Quarterly Economic Indicators Report, were 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 and School Fund performance as of
March 31, 2014. The Revised Financial Projections Report (Attachments B through D) includes projected
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 14. The Quarterly Economic Indicator Report
(Attachment E) provides an overview of recent general economic conditions in the County.
The Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) reflects year -to-date (YTD) data through March 31, 2014,
the end of the third 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 from 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 (March 31, 2014) and is compared to data from the same
point in time for the prior fiscal year (March 31, 2013). 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.
The Quarterly Economic Indicators Report (QEIR) shows the state of the County’s economy. This
information formerly was presented to the Board as part of Staff’s quarterly Economic Vitality Action Plan
(EVAP) update. Staff presented the close-out EVAP update on September 4, 2013, at which time the
Board indicated interest in continuing to see the County’s QEIR in conjunction with the County’s QFR and
RFPR. The QEIR contains data taken from the most recently available quarter and compares this data
with data from the same quarter of previous calendar years.
Highlights of the attached reports include:
Revenues – YTD Actual
YTD total revenues in the third quarter of FY 14 totaled $121,496,481 compared to $117,101,479
in the third quarter of FY 13. In percentage terms, FY 14 YTD Actual revenues, as a percentage of FY 14
Revised Budget revenues, stood at 52.73% compared to 50.57% in FY 13. This result represents a
slightly upward trend for revenues.
Revenue streams performed fairly consistently through the third quarter of FY 14 compared with
the same quarter of FY 13. There were just six significant year-to-year variances in revenues. These six
streams included Local Revenues: Other Local Taxes; Local Revenues: Charges for Services; Local
Revenues: Miscellaneous; Local Revenues: Recovered Costs; Intergovernmental: Contributions from
Other Entities; and Intergovernmental: Revenue from Federal Government.
The variance in Other Local Taxes primarily reflects a jump in the County’s YTD BPOL revenue,
while the variance in Charges for Services substantially results from an increase in EMS billing.
Miscellaneous revenue reflects a one-time payment to the County of $250,000 that was made to the
County in FY 13. The Recovered Costs variance reflects the City’s contribution to the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court, as well as a prior year recovered cost. The variance in Contributions from
Other Entities, as well as the variance in Revenue from the Federal Government, ref lects the timing of
when these transfers or payments were made in both fiscal years.
For additional information about revenue variances, see the analysis page in the QFR.
Expenditures – YTD Actual
YTD total expenditures in the third quarter of FY 14 totaled $176,866,653 compared to
$179,401,998 in the third quarter of FY 13. In percentage terms, FY 14 YTD Actual expenditures, as a
percentage of FY 14 Revised Budget expenditures, stood at 76.76% com pared to 77.48% in FY 13. This
result represents an essentially flat trend for expenditures.
Eight expenditure items had significant variances from the previous year. These items included
Administration: Finance; Public Safety: Fire/Rescue; Public Saf ety: Regional Jail; Public Safety: ECC –
General Fund 1000; Public Works: Solid Waste Recycling; Human Development: Social Services;
Education: Transfer to Schools CIP; and Transfers, Contingencies, and Refunds: Transfer Accounts.
The variance in Administration: Finance reflects staffing-related expenses, the purchase and
support of new software and subscriptions; and increased employee overtime expenditures. The
variance in Public Safety: Fire/Rescue resulted primarily from the opening of the Iv y Fire Station, while
variance in Public Safety: Regional Jail came primarily from the timing of the County’s expenditures for
the Regional Jail. Likewise, the variance in expense for Public Safety: ECC – General Fund 1000 was
primarily from the timing of the expenditures. As for Public Works: Solid Waste Recycling, the variance
involved the timing of expenditures but, also, reflect cost savings that took place in FY 13. The timing of
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
expenditures also accounts for the majority of the variance in the Human Development: Social Services,
Education: Transfer to Schools CIP, and Transfer Accounts categories.
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, estimated revenues
will exceed appropriated revenues by roughly $2.977 million, whereas expenditures are projected to be
approximately $1.212 million below the appropriated budget. Note that the excess in estimated revenues
over appropriated revenues includes $2.471 million resulting from the increase in the real property tax
rate that the BOS adopted on April 15, 2014. The difference between appropriated expenditures and
projected expenditures is due primarily to savings associated with salary lapse and insurance. Excess
revenues and expenditures savings are projected to result in a net of $4.189 million additional fund
balance by the end of FY 14. Please note that this projected $4.189 million in additional fund balance
equals only 1.83% of the projected $230.429 million FY 14 expenditures and transfers; this small
percentage “buffer” reflects an extremely tight budgetary environment.
In addition to the attached financial reports, the Board has directed staff to provide a quarterly
update of any FY 14 budget transfers administratively approved by the County Executive. As of March 31,
2014, the County Executive administratively approved the following budget transfers:
$32,100.00 from the Innovation Fund to department operating budgets for four programs:
Comprehensive Payables Strategy; Learning Cart at COB 5th Street; Mind Mixer Inspiring
Community Engagement in Albemarle County; and Technology Training, Available
Anytime, Anywhere.
$13,722.88 from Human Resources Part-Time Annuity to department operating budgets
for Part-Time Annuity.
$20,685.50 from Ivy Landfill Remediation to the Convenience Centers Study.
Quarterly Economic Indicators
Albemarle County’s economy appears to be growing at a moderate pace. The unemployment
rate (4.17% in Q3 FY 14) continues to decline from recession highs, but is still above the 3.5% estimated
“natural” rate of unemployment. The total number of jobs in the County is at the highest level since Q1 FY
08, although it should be pointed out that Albemarle’s population is larger now than at that time. General
economic activity, as evidenced by the combination of sales, food & beverage, and Transient Occupancy
Tax revenues, appears to be fairly robust (+4.60% over Q3 of the pr evious fiscal year), and likely will
continue to grow at a healthy rate as new commercial space is occupied in the County.
Revenue and expenditure data contained in the QFR reflects the state of the County’s FY 14
budget-to-actual financial performance as of March 31, 2014. Year-end projections contained in the
RFPR are subject to change, based on the result of actual collections and expenditures through June 30,
2014. Data shown in the QEIR reflect economic variables that impact the County’s current and future
revenues and expenditures.
These reports are for information only. Staff welcomes the Board’s feedback regarding the
content and presentation of these reports.
__________
Item No. 8.10. 2013 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals, was received for
information.
State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public
record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The 2013 annual
report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance, special use permits for
certain sign types, and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or her designee. These
appeals can include determinations of zoning violation.
A total of six (6) appeals were received in 2013. This represents an increase from three (3)
received in 2012. Of the six (6)appeals: one (1) was withdrawn, one (1) was denied for lack of jurisdiction,
one (1) affirmed the Zoning Administrator, one (1) modified the Deputy Zoning Administrator and two (2)
are pending.
No variance applications and no special use permits for off-site signs were received in 2013. This
is a decrease from three (3) variances and two (2) special use permits heard in 2012.
__________
Item No. 8.11. Regional Firearms Training Center Update, was received for information.
The executive summary states that at its January 8, 2014 meeting, the Board authorized staff to
proceed with the procurement of design services for the Regional Firearms Training Center project. A
Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on January 8, 2014, seeking qualified Architect ural/Engineering
(A/E) firms or individuals to provide planning, design and construction administration services. In order to
assist staff in A/E procurement, a Regional Partner Selection Committee was formed consisting of staff
representation from the three partner jurisdictions including the County Police Department, the County
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Office of Facilities Department, the City Police Department, the UVA Police Department, and the UVA
Facilities Planning and Construction Office.
Also at its January 8th meeting, the Board endorsed the Public Engagement Plan and supported
the ongoing work with the regional partners on drafting an Operating Agreement to include a funding
formula for distribution of capital costs and ongoing operating costs, and a Land Leas e with UVA for the
property at the Milton site on which the facility will be constructed.
This Executive Summary is to provide an update on the progress of the A/E procurement process
and project design work, the implementation of the Community Engagement Plan, and the status of the
Operating Agreement and the Land Lease.
After a comprehensive analysis of the RFP responses and follow-up interviews, Clark Nexsen
from Roanoke, Virginia was selected due to the firm’s experience of having completed relevant and
related public safety indoor firearms range projects. Attachment A provides an overview of the Clark
Nexsen firm and includes a list of several projects completed by the firm. A design team consisting of
representatives from the County, the City and UVA, as well as citizen representatives, has been
established to work with the consultant during the design process. A project kick-off meeting was held on
April 29, 2014. Attachment B provides a list of design team members.
The project schedule has been updated to incorporate milestones for each of the different
elements of the project as referenced in Attachment C. The terms of the forfeiture award from the State
require the award money to be spent on construction and/or hardware acquisitio n within two years of the
December 18, 2013 award date. Key milestones are as follows:
Design Phase: April 2014 – December 2014
Approvals: PC/BOS/AARB – July/August 2014; Site Plan Approval: January 2015
Bidding Phase: December 2014 – February 2015
Construction Phase: February 2015 – November 2015
Staff continues to refine the Public Engagement Plan for this project based on Board direction.
This Plan, provided in Attachment D, is intended to guide the dissemination of information about the
project and the engagement of the broader community in dialogue as the project moves forward. Formal
public engagement will commence in May 2014 and will include community meetings in May and July.
Both meetings are in the process of being scheduled. The purpose of the first community meeting is to
formally introduce the project scope and schedule, and the architect and project team to the community.
Staff will also discuss the relevant design constraints (i.e. noise) and operating plans, and will respond to
questions from the community.
The County, the City and UVA are working together to prepare the Operating Agreement. It will
govern the on-going day-to-day operation of the facility, including a funding formula for capital contributions
and annual operations. The terms of this Operating Agreement have been developed jointly by the police
chiefs from the three partner jurisdictions. Each member’s proportionate share of capital costs is proposed
to be based on the number of full time sworn police officers. The proportionate share of annual operating
costs is proposed to be based on the number of full time and part time sworn officers and deputy sheriffs.
The specific draft terms are now being finalized for review by the respective attorneys. As proposed, the
Land Lease will be a lease between UVA, which owns the property, and the County. The County will own
and will have the responsibility for the construction and operation of the facility. The Land Lease is being
prepared by UVA’s General Counsel in consultation with the County Attorney. The schedule assumes that
both agreements will be approved by all parties by September 1, 2014 and before the start of the
preparation of construction drawings. Formal Board consideration and action on the Operating Agreement
and Land Lease will be scheduled as soon as legal review is completed by all parties.
Funds are currently budgeted to procure the design services. Construction of the facility is
programmed in the FY15 CIP and the cost is offset by a recent asset forfeiture award in excess of $2.9
Million from the Office of the Attorney General. The total cost for an indoor, 20-24-lane firearms training
facility on the Milton site is estimated currently to be approximately 4.8 Million, to be shared bet ween the
County, the City and UVA proportionately based on the number of full time sworn police officers. The
County’s share of operating costs will be similarly shared but is based proportionately on the number of
sworn officers, including full time and part time Sheriff’s deputies and excluding volunteers.
This executive summary is intended to provide an update on the project and no action is needed
by the Board at this time. Staff will return to the Board to review and seek approval of the Schematic
Design during the summer, currently anticipating a July meeting.
__________
Item No. 8.12. Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report, First Quarter CY
2014, was received for information.
OFD is pleased to provide the first quarter Capital Projects Status Report for calendar year 2014.
The report provides summary level information on all projects managed by OFD and more detailed
information of select Capital Projects.
The OFD team has been busily supporting multiple County projects; the following provides a few
highlights on notable projects. Notice to Proceed has been issued for construction work to commence on
the Northside Library and Storage Facility project. Construction continues on the Crozet Streetscape
project and the Seminole Trail Fire Station addition and renovation project. The Belvedere Residential
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
"Block" roads, drainage, water, sanitary sewer project from Free State Road bridge to the Village Green is
nearing completion. An A/E contract has been executed for the design of the Regional Firearms Training
Center and various summer school maintenance projects are currently being advertised for construction.
__________
Item No. 8.13. Water Resources Funding Mechanism Consultant RFP/Statement of Needs, was
received for information.
The executive summary states that on January 8, 2014, the Board directed staff to develop a
community engagement process to receive input on funding options for an enhanced water resource
protection program necessitated by the County’s updated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) permit. On February 5, the Board approved the community engagement process and directed staff
to recommend an appointment process for an Advisory Committee and to develop a potential scope of
work and estimated cost for engineering services to support the community engagement process. On
April 2, the Board approved the Advisory Committee appointment process and directed staff to bring back
for Board review the proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) for consulting services.
The relevant Statement of Needs portion of the County’s standard RFP is provided as Attachment
A. The Statement of Needs substantially conforms to the draft scope of work presented on April 2, 2014
(Attachment B). In addition, the RFP includes a summary of the anticipated roles and responsibilities of
the consultant, County staff and the Advisory Committee. That summary is also included as page 2 of
Attachment A. Please note that the RFP provides that different or additional services may be required of
the consultant and that additional work phases may result from the initial work or future decisions of the
Board on funding options.
Staff has estimated that a consultant’s assistance would cost between $40,000 and $60,000 for
approximately nine months of work. Funds for this service are available in a General Services fund
already appropriated for MS4-related consulting services.
Staff is providing the RFP Statement of Needs and Summary of Roles and Responsibilities for
review as requested by the Board. Unless otherwise directed, staff will proceed with the issuance of the
RFP to procure professional consultant services for the W ater Resources Funding Mechanism project.
__________
Item No. 8.14. County Grant Application/Award Report, was received for information.
The executive summary states that pursuant to the County’s Grant Policy and associated
procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants.
Grant awards provide funding to support a variety of projects, the majority of which support Goal
5, Ensure the health and safety of the community.
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of four grant applications that were
approved during the time period of March 14, 2014 through April 18, 2014.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
This report is for information only.
__________
Item No. 8.15. Board-to-Board, May 2014 Monthly Communications Report from School Board,
was received for information.
__________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing to Consider the Housing Choice Voucher Program 5-
Year and Annual Plan. Five-Year Plan for the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2014)
The executive summary states that the Albemarle County Office of Housing (“Office”) is the
designated local agency for the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (“Program”),
formerly known as the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. The Office is considered a part of the
executive branch of local government and not a public housing authority. Although not a housing
authority, the Office must comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)
requirements for Public Housing Agency (“PHA”) activities, including the development and
implementation of Annual and 5-Year PHA Plans. In 2010 the Office prepared and the Board approved
the 5-Year Plan submission, which was subsequently approved by HUD. Since the Office is considered a
high-performing agency under HUD guidelines as revised in 2008, the Office is not required to submit
Annual Plans after the initial 5-Year and Annual Plan Submission unless significant changes are
proposed. Significant changes include, but are not limited to, revised policies either required by HUD or
adopted by the Office when discretion is allowed. Plans must be available for a 45 -day review period
prior to holding a public hearing.
Although a new 5-Year Plan is not required until 2015, the Office is recommending submission of
a new Plan early due to the potential to assume administration of vouchers under the Mainstream
Voucher Program which are currently administered by the Piedmont Housing Alliance. No other changes
are proposed for the continued administration of the Program.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
As required, a Resident Advisory Board consisting of current participants in the Program has
been made aware of the proposed Plan and was asked to provide comment. The Office also advertised
the availability of the proposed 5-Year and Annual Plan for a 45-day review period which began on March
17, 2014. No comments have been received to-date.
The Office is authorized for a total of 429 vouchers but must operate under a calendar-year
budget, which limits the number of vouchers that can be actually funded. The budget for CY 2014 is
$2,573,358, which covers rents and utility payments. Currently 343 househo lds are receiving rental
assistance.
There is no budget impact anticipated with this action. HUD provides annual budget authority for
the voucher program, including administrative fees.
After the Board receives public comment, staff recommends approval of the attached PHA 5-Year
and Annual Plan (Attachment A). In addition, staff requests that the Board authorize the County
Executive to execute the required PHA Certifications of Compliance, Civil Rights Certification, and
Violence Against Women Act Certification (Attachments B, C, and D).
_____
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, addressed the Board, stating that the five-year plan is
something they have to do to abide by HUD’s regulations for the administration of the housing choice
voucher program. He stated that Housing’s plan has not changed much over the years, with small
modifications over the years, but this allows them to meet requirements and solicit input from citizens and
resident advisory board members.
Mr. White reported that the County received approximately $3 million per year from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide rental assistance to lower income
citizens of the County. They are currently serving about 345 residents or families with this funding – and
in addition, they manage 34 vouchers for HUD at the Scottsville School apartments. He said that he had
come before the Board a few months earlier, at which time it adopted a resolution approving the transfer
of some mainstream vouchers from the Piedmont Housing Alliance to the County, and that is currently
being finalized. Mr. White said that HUD’s review of the transfer included the question, “Why do you think
you can run the program,” and his office indicated that they would not have requested the approval if they
didn’t think they could manage it, and also pointed out their history as a high-performing agency with
administering housing choice vouchers – meaning they are in the 98% range of meeting all requirements
and expending money in order to effectively manage the program. Mr. White said that the County does
not have any public housing, but instead works strictly with privately-owned housing, with individuals
getting vouchers that they can take to any property that is available. He stated that the Housing Office
has to inspect the property and ensure that the rent is reasonable, but once it is approved, they pay 30%
of their income for rent and housing expenses (utilities), with the program paying the balance and the
money going directly to the landlords.
Mr. White said that the Housing Office would normally update its five-year plan next year, but with
taking on the mainstream vouchers, that is a significant change that would require an amendment – so
they are doing it all now, which means they will be covered until 2019 unless there are other changes. He
stated that they must have a 45-day comment period, which began on March 17 and officially ended the
previous week. They received no additional comments from the public other than one from a resident
advisory board member that said the plan looked good and recommended no changes. Mr. White said
that he is asking today to open a public hearing to receive any additional comments and to authorize Mr.
Foley to sign the documents required for submission with the plan.
Ms. Mallek asked if the vouchers have already been assigned to families, or if they would be
available for application. Mr. White said that they have already been assigned to families. Piedmont
Housing Alliance (PHA) also has a waiting list – which the Housing Office will have to accept as part of
the transfer. He stated that these are mainstream vouchers, which means they are primarily for people
who may be institutionalized but have the capacity to live on their own, and these vouchers provide rental
assistance. Mr. White said that this is primarily for individual units, and there will be a close working
relationship with Region Ten in the administration of the vouchers as there is lots of client overlap.
Ms. Mallek asked if his office has the staff capacity to handle the extra workload. Mr. White
stated that the Housing Office has just upgraded its software which will give some efficiency benefits.
They are planning on taking on the vouchers with existing staff, with a proposal to upgrade their Office
Associate to a Housing Specialist so that she can take over the management of the 75 vouchers. Mr.
White said that the other two Housing Specialists manage about 190 vouchers each.
Ms. Mallek commented that that’s a lot of vouchers to manage.
Ms. Palmer asked how people get on the list and find the vouc hers. Mr. White said that they
have to advertise when the list is open, but the list has not been open for five years. They have not
issued any new vouchers for three years, primarily due to stagnant budgets from the federal
governments.
Ms. Mallek said that the way the vouchers were allocated also changed, as it used to be a certain
number of vouchers but then HUD decided it was a pot of money, so if rent costs went up then the
number of vouchers went down.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. White said that the County has the authority to administer 429 vouchers, but only has enough
funding to handle about 350. W hen HUD made the change to allow them to go up to 429 and seek
reimbursement at the end of the year, they now provide a fixed dollar amount and if they exceed it, it
comes out of the County coffers or Housing Office reserves – and there is a less than a $100,000 reserve
built up in the program. That reserve is less than a month’s worth of rent.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there was any link between the proffer money collected fr om developers for
the County’s affordable housing requirements and this program. Mr. White said there is no linkage, and
the proffer money has been considered to be used more for bricks and mortar than services , but if
change to that direction was implemented, that could be something the Housing Office would seek.
Ms. Mallek said that the money used to be used for down payment assistance, but with the
mortgage market situation they changed that policy. Mr. White said that the Housing Office has about
$10 million in loans that it has made for down payment assistance over the years, which is held and
administered by PHA; some of that money is coming back and being reused as people make payments.
He stated that using proffer money for rental assistance means that it would become a recurring expense
to administer, so that would be the difficulty of using one-time money for that.
Mr. Davis noted that there are limitations for use of proffer money, and providing services is
outside of the scope of proper use of proffer proceeds.
Ms. Palmer asked how they would evaluate the need, if they are not advertising for vouchers for
five years. Mr. White said that even with the waiting list open, it is difficult to evaluate the need because
they have to take applicants from anywhere. If they opened their waiting list today, there would be people
coming from all over the state to get on the waiting list, because every waiting list is pretty much closed.
He said that while it could indicate some of the local need, he would not use it as a statistical argument.
Ms. Palmer asked what was used to make that analysis. Mr. White said that they have no way of
determining what the need or demand is at any given time.
The Chair then opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the Chair closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Davis clarified that the Board’s action is to approve the Office of Housing five-year and annual
plan, and to authorize the County Executive to execute the three attached certifications.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the PHA 5-Year and Annual Plan and to authorize the County
Executive to execute the required PHA Certifications of Compliance, Civil Rights Certification, and
Violence Against Women Act Certification. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
PHA 5-Year and Annual
Plan
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
OMB No. 2577-0226
Expires 4/30/2011
1.0
PHA Information
PHA Name: _________County of Albemarle__________________________ PHA Code: _VA036_____________
PHA Type: Small High Performing Standard X HCV (Section 8)
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: (MM/YYYY): _07/01/2014_____________
2.0
Inventory (based on ACC units at time of FY beginning in 1.0 above)
Number of PH units: _________________ Number of HCV units:429 HCV & 75 Mainstream (projected)
3.0 Submission Type
X 5-Year and Annual Plan Annual Plan Only 5-Year Plan Only
4.0
PHA Consortia PHA Consortia: (Check box if submitting a joint Plan and complete table
below.)
Participating PHAs PHA Program(s) Included In Programs Not in the No. of Units in Each
Code the Consortia Consortia Program
PH HCV
PHA 1:
PHA 2:
PHA 3:
5.0
5-Year Plan. Complete items 5.1 and 5.2 only at 5-Year Plan update.
5.1 Mission. State the PHA’s Mission for serving the needs of low-income, very low-income, and extremely low income
families in the PHA’s jurisdiction for the next five years:
To promote opportunities for county citizens and residents within the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
(PD10) to secure and maintain safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing with emphasis given to those
least able to obtain it.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
5.2
Goals and Objectives. Identify the PHA’s quantifiable goals and objectives that will enable the PHA to serve the needs
of low-income and very low-income, and extremely low-income families for the next five years. Include a report on the
progress the PHA has made in meeting the goals and objectives described in the previous 5-Year Plan.
GOAL: Maintaining a 98% utilization rate of budgeted funds and utilizing at least 80% of allocated vouchers.
The previous 5-Year Plan had a goal of utilizing approximately 92% of allocated vouchers. The lack of increases
in budgeted funds coupled with increases in rents has resulted in voucher utilization decreasing below the
target. No new vouchers have been issued in the past 24 months with the exception of nine project-based
vouchers originally committed in 2011.
GOAL: Maximize the use of project-based vouchers to promote projects serving vulnerable population including
the elderly and homeless.
Sixty-two project-based vouchers have been committed over the past ten years with 38 of those for projects
serving elderly and homeless populations. In addition, the Office administers 34 project-based vouchers under
a separate contract for a Mod-Rehab project. These units, also designated for the elderly, are not included in
the inventory noted in 2.0 above. WE also project adding up to 75 Mainstream Vouchers with HUD’s approval
of the transfer of those vouchers from Piedmont Housing Alliance.
6.0
PHA Plan Update
(a) Identify all PHA Plan elements that have been revised by the PHA since its last Annual Plan submission: NONE
(b) Identify the specific location(s) where the public may obtain copies of the 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan. For a
complete list of PHA Plan elements, see Section 6.0 of the instructions.
Albemarle County Office of Housing
1600 5th Street, Suite B
Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.albemarle.org/housing
7.0
Hope VI, Mixed Finance Modernization or Development, Demolition and/or Disposition, Conversion of Public
Housing, Homeownership Programs, and Project-based Vouchers.
ACOH considers the use of project-based vouchers as critical in supporting housing opportunities that address
one or more of the following objectives;
i. Deconcentrating poverty
ii. Preserving and Expanding housing availability
iii. Supporting nonprofit housing initiatives (owner and partnership ventures)
iv. Supporting housing with long-term affordability commitments
v. Supporting special populations (elderly, disabled, homeless)
vi. Ensuring financial viability of housing
ACOH may provide the opportunity for developments to apply for project-based vouchers as funding may allow.
ACOH does not anticipate renewing any HAP contracts for existing project-based vouchers during the next five
years. Families living in units at the time of existing HAP expirations will be provided tenant-based vouchers in
accordance with HUD regulations and if funding is available.
8.0 Capital Improvements. Please complete Parts 8.1 through 8.3, as applicable. N/A
8.1
Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report. As part of the PHA 5-Year and
Annual Plan, annually complete and submit the Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation
Report, form HUD-50075.1, for each current and open CFP grant and CFFP financing. N/A
8.2
Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan. As part of the submission of the Annual Plan, PHAs must complete and
submit the Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan, form HUD-50075.2, and subsequent annual updates (on a
rolling basis, e.g., drop current year, and add latest year for a five year period). Large capital items must be included in
the Five-Year Action Plan. N/A
8.3
Capital Fund Financing Program (CFFP).
Check if the PHA proposes to use any portion of its Capital Fund Program (CFP)/Replacement Housing Factor (RHF)
to repay debt incurred to finance capital improvements. N/A
9.0
Housing Needs. Based on information provided by the applicable Consolidated Plan, information provided by HUD,
and other generally available data, make a reasonable effort to identify the housing needs of the low-income, very low-
income, and extremely low-income families who reside in the jurisdiction served by the PHA, including elderly families,
families with disabilities, and households of various races and ethnic groups, and other families who are on the public
housing and Section 8 tenant-based assistance waiting lists. The identification of housing needs must address issues of
affordability, supply, quality, accessibility, size of units, and location.
The most definitive information to identify needs are waiting lists for the HCV program, although ACOH has not
taken applications for two years. The current list, which will be updated in May/June 2014 contains
approximately 600 names with the majority having applied for project-based vouchers. This is due to the fact
that the tenant-based voucher list has been closed for five years and still contains approximately 100 names.
ACOH does not provide any specific breakdown based on demographics but does know that approximately 100
applicants have applied for elderly housing units.
ACOH continues to be concerned about the availability of affordable units since vacancy rates remain fairly low
particularly in units with rents consistent with fair market rents. In addition to supply and demand pressures,
increases in utility costs and taxes will likely lead to continued pressure on rent affordability.
9.1
Strategy for Addressing Housing Needs. Provide a brief description of the PHA’s strategy for addressing the
housing needs of families in the jurisdiction and on the waiting list in the upcoming year. Note: Small, Section 8 only,
and High Performing PHAs complete only for Annual Plan submission with the 5-Year Plan.
Albemarle County continues to support private development activities that produce and preserve affordable
rental units by providing local contributions and project-based vouchers. The County has continued to
provide local support for developments seeking low income housing tax credits and has applied for and
received numerous Community Development Block Grants to support rehabilitation and new construction of
both rental and owner-occupied housing. These strategies are included in the County’s adopted Affordable
Housing Policy.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
10.0
Additional Information. Describe the following, as well as any additional information HUD has requested.
(a) Progress in Meeting Mission and Goals. Provide a brief statement of the PHA’s progress in meeting the mission
and goals described in the 5- Year Plan. SEE 5.2 ACOH will review its current Admin Plan (last updated in the fall of
2013) to determine necessary revisions for the administration of the Mainstream Voucher Program.
(b) Significant Amendment and Substantial Deviation/Modification. Provide the PHA’s definition of “significant
amendment” and “substantial deviation/modification”
Significant amendment is defined as any revision to policy governing the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Significant amendments not requiring HUD’s prior approval will be addressed in the foll owing Annual Plan submission.
Substantial deviation/modification is defined as any change to previously approved 5-Year Plans or Annual Plans
which substantially revises goals or strategies.
11.0
Required Submission for HUD Field Office Review. In addition to the PHA Plan template (HUD-50075), PHAs must
submit the following documents. Items (a) through (g) may be submitted with signature by mail or electronically with
scanned signatures, but electronic submission is encouraged. Items (h) through (i) must be attached electronically with
the PHA Plan. Note: Faxed copies of these documents will not be accepted by the Field Office.
(a) Form HUD-50077, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations (which includes
all certifications relating to Civil Rights)
(b) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(c) Form HUD-50071, Certification of Payments to Influence Federal Transactions (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(d) Form SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(e) Form SF-LLL-A, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Continuation Sheet (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(f) Resident Advisory Board (RAB) comments. Comments received from the RAB must be submitted by the PHA as
an attachment to the PHA
Plan. PHAs must also include a narrative describing their analysis of the recommendations and the decisions made on
these recommendations.
(g) Challenged Elements
(h) Form HUD-50075.1, Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report (PHAs receiving
CFP grants only)
(i) Form HUD-50075.2, Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
_____
PHA Certification of
Compliance with PHA Plans
and Related Regulations
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Expires 4/30/2011
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations:
Board Resolution to Accompany the PHA 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its
Chairman or other authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioners, I approve the
submission of the___ 5-Year and/or___ Annual PHA Plan for the PHA fiscal year beginning ________,
hereinafter referred to as” the Plan”, of which this document is a part and make the following certifications
and agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with the
submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
1. The Plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or any
plan incorporating such strategy) for the jurisdiction in which the PHA is located.
2. The Plan contains a certification by the appropriate State or local officials that the Plan is
consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan, which includes a certification that requires the
preparation of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, for the PHA's jurisdiction and
a description of the manner in which the PHA Plan is consistent with the applicable Consolidated
Plan.
3. The PHA certifies that there has been no change, significant or otherwise, to the Capital Fund
Program (and Capital Fund Program/Replacement Housing Factor) Annual Statement(s), since
submission of its last approved Annual Plan. The Capital Fund Program Annual
Statement/Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report must be submitted annually
even if there is no change.
4. The PHA has established a Resident Advisory Board or Boards, the membership of which
represents the residents assisted by the PHA, consulted with this Board or Boards in developing
the Plan, and considered the recommendations of the Board or Boards (24 CFR 903.13). The
PHA has included in the Plan submission a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident
Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the Plan addresses these
recommendations.
5. The PHA made the proposed Plan and all information relevant to the public hear ing available for
public inspection at least 45 days before the hearing, published a notice that a hearing would be
held and conducted a hearing to discuss the Plan and invited public comment.
6. The PHA certifies that it will carry out the Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
7. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining their programs or proposed
programs, identify any impediments to fair housing choice within those programs, address those
impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources available and work with local
jurisdictions to implement any of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing
that require the PHA's involvement and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
8. For PHA Plan that includes a policy for site based waiting lists:
• The PHA regularly submits required data to HUD's 50058 PIC/IMS Module in an
accurate, complete and timely manner (as specified in PIH Notice 2006-24);
• The system of site-based waiting lists provides for full disclosure to each applicant in the
selection of the development in which to reside, including basic information about
available sites; and an estimate of the period of time the applicant would likely have to
wait to be admitted to units of different sizes and types at each site;
• Adoption of site-based waiting list would not violate any court order or settlement
agreement or be inconsistent with a pending complaint brought by HUD;
• The PHA shall take reasonable measures to assure that such waiting list is consistent
with affirmatively furthering fair housing;
• The PHA provides for review of its site-based waiting list policy to determine if it is
consistent with civil rights laws and certifications, as specified in 24 CFR part 903.7(c)(1).
9. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
10. The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41, Policies and
Procedures for the Enforcement of Standards and Requirements for Accessibility by the
Physically Handicapped.
11. The PHA will comply with the requirements of section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1968, Employment Opportunities for Low-or Very-Low Income Persons, and with its
implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 135.
12. The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and implementing regulations at 49
CFR Part 24 as applicable.
13. The PHA will take appropriate affirmative action to award contracts to minority and women's
business enterprises under 24 CFR 5.105(a).
14. The PHA will provide the responsible entity or HUD any documentation that the responsible entity
or HUD needs to carry out its review under the National Environmental Policy Act and other
related authorities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 58 or Part 50, respectively.
15. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis-Bacon or HUD determined wage
rate requirements under Section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
16. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85.20 and facilitate an effective audit to
determine compliance with program requirements.
17. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, and 24 CFR Part 35.
18. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87
(Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments), 2 CFR Part 225, and 24 CFR
Part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local
and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments).
19. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the Plan in a manner consistent
with its Plan and will utilize covered grant funds only for activities that are approvable under the
regulations and included in its Plan.
20. All attachments to the Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times and all
locations that the PHA Plan is available for public inspection. All required supporting documents
have been made available for public inspection along with the Plan and additional requirements
at the primary business office of the PHA and at all other times and locations identified by the
PHA in its PHA Plan and will continue to be made available at least at the primary business office
of the PHA.
21. The PHA provides assurance as part of this certification that:
(i) The Resident Advisory Board had an opportunity to review and comment on the changes
to the policies and programs before implementation by the PHA;
(ii) The changes were duly approved by the PHA Board of Directors (or similar governing
body); and
(iii) The revised policies and programs are available for review and inspection, at the
principal office of the PHA during normal business hours.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
22. The PHA certifies that it is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutory and regulatory
requirements.
________________________________________ __________________________________________
PHA Name PHA Number/HA Code
_____ 5-Year PHA Plan for Fiscal Years 20____ - 20____
_____ Annual PHA Plan for Fiscal Years 20____ - 20____
_____
Civil Rights Certification U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Expires 4/30/2011
Civil Rights Certification
Annual Certification and Board Resolution
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its
Chairman or other authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioner, I approve the submission
of the Plan for the PHA of which this document is a part and make the following certification and
agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with the
submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
The PHA certifies that it will carry out the public housing program of the agency in conformity with title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and
title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and will affirmatively further fair housing.
________________________________________ __________________________________________
PHA Name PHA Number/HA Code
_____
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Annual Certification and Board Resolution
Acting on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors as its County Executive, I approve the submission of
this annual certification for the County’s administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program making
the following certification to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with
the implementation of the Plan:
Albemarle County certifies that it carries out the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) in conformity
with the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA) and
further certifies that the County uses required language found in the amended HAP Contract and
Tenancy Addendum as described in PIH Notice 2007-5.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing – Scottsville Community Center Lease. Request by the
Boys & Girls Club of Central Virginia to lease 8,484 square feet of space from the County at the
Scottsville Community Center, located at 250 Page Street, Scottsville VA (TMP 130A2-00-00-07600).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 28, 2014)
The executive summary states that the Boys and Girls Club (B&G) of Central Virginia offers a
lineup of nationally recognized and diverse programs and services to youth in their local communities,
such as summer reading, a school-year homework program, year-round fitness and athletic programs,
leadership clubs, community-based volunteering, art and technology. These programs and services
promote and enhance the development of boys and girls and teach young people the skills needed to
succeed in life. B&G of Central Virginia has locations in Albemarle, Charlottesville, Madison and Orange
serving over 1,800 youth annually. Existing clubs in Albemarle County are located at Southwood and
Jack Jouett Middle School. B&G has identified the Scottsville Community Center as a pot ential new
location to serve southern Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Buckingham counties. Virginia Code § 15.2 -1800
requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-owned real
property.
Many parents in southern Albemarle County travel to Charlottesville and elsewhere to work. This
pattern often results in reduced time for family activity and a lack of child care or adult supervision after
school. Furthermore, many families in southern Albemarle cannot afford to participate in extra-curricular
activities. Based on 2011-2012 demographics information, of the 681 students enrolled in B.F. Yancey
Elementary, Scottsville Elementary, Red Hill Elementary, and Walton Middle School, 361 students,
representing 53% of the student population, receive free or reduced price lunches. B&G can provide a
range of much needed youth programs and services at this proposed new location. While club fees are
regularly $35.00 annually, the B&G provides financial assistance for families who could not otherwise
afford membership.
A B&G at the Scottsville Community Center could greatly improve short and long -term outcomes
in southern Albemarle. Other clubs have achieved the following outcomes:
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Over 90% of all Club attendees moved to the next grade level.
During the summer of 2013, 90% of the 200 Club attendees that participated in the
summer reading program maintained or improved levels in comprehension and fluency.
All Club attendees participate in healthy nutrition and fitness programs, including
participating in a minimum of 45 minutes of physical activity each day, contributing to
lifetime fitness and obesity prevention.
All Club attendees complete their homework assignments with the assistance of a staff
member or volunteer.
Club members participate in an average of 10 hours of community service.
B&G has received enthusiastic, generous support for this project and has raised approximately
$1.5 million through donations and pledges to-date. This amount is expected to fund the operating costs
for the first five years, as well as a planned $100,000 upgrade to the Scottsville Community Center facility
that will include painting, replacing old fixtures, and other office upgrades.
The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed the attached proposed Lease Agreement (Attachment
A) between the County and the Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Virginia. This Agreement has been
approved formally by B&G.
Among the significant provisions of the proposed Lease Agreement:
The proposed term would run from June 1, 2014 through August 31, 2016 (a period of
twenty-seven months).
While the actual fair market value of the proposed leased area, 8,484 square feet, is
$15,900 per year, the County would lease the property to B&G for $1.00 per year, with
the difference constituting an in-kind donation by the County.
B&G would assume all of the liabilities and obligations under the proposed Lease
Agreement, accept the property in “as is” condition, and assume full responsibility for
improvements and damages as a result of B&G’s occupancy.
The leased premises would continue to be shared by Parks and Recreation for existing
and future programs, activities and facility reservations. The County Department of Parks
and Recreation currently operates a number of programs both inside and outside the
Scottsville Community Center. No proposed B&G programs would displace existing
Parks and Recreation offerings. In fact, B&G programs are intended to enhance the
recreational offerings currently available.
B&G would be responsible for the monthly telephone, internet, and cable or satellite
television service.
The County would be responsible for electrical, water, sewer, heating and cooling
services, as well as custodial services two times per week, which is the service level
currently provided to the Community Center by Parks and Recreation.
The proposed Lease Agreement with B&G would require an estimated increase in
expenditures for utilities in the amount of $8,862 for the first full year. This amount is included in the
FY-15 Parks and Recreation operating budget now being considered by the Board.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution
(Attachment B) authorizing the County Executive to sign the proposed Lease Agreement and any
necessary related documents on behalf of the County.
______
Mr. Bob Crickenberger, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that this matter is for the Board
to consider entering into a lease agreement with the Boys & Girls Club of Central Virginia. He said that
staff had met with the club officials over this year and last to discuss a potential new club site at the
Scottsville Community Center that would serve the residents of southern Albemarle. Mr. Crickenberger
said that there are several factors that make this a suitable location: it provides a home base instead of
trying to operate out of a school; and there are limited employment opportunities that require parents to
travel, which results in reduced family time and activity and lots of unsupervised time for youth. There are
many families in southern Albemarle that cannot afford to participate in extracurricular activities. He said
that based on 2011-12 demographic information, of the 681 students enrolled in Yancey Elementary,
Scottsville Elementary, Red Hill Elementary and Walton Middle Schools, 53% receive free or reduced
lunches. Mr. Crickenberger said that club fees are $35 annually, and the Boys & Girls Club can provide
financial assistance for families that cannot afford membership.
Mr. Crickenberger said that the club offers a lineup of nationally recognized and dive rse programs
and services that promote and enhance the development of young people and teach them the skills to be
successful in life. He said that some of these offerings include a summer reading program, a school-year
homework program, year-round fitness and athletic programs, leadership clubs, and art and technology –
all of which Parks & Rec is currently not in a position to offer. Mr. Crickenberger said that a Boys & Girls
Club at the Scottsville Community Center will greatly improve the short and lo ng-term outcomes in this
area of the County. Some of those outcomes achieved in other locations include: 90% of all club
attendees move to the next grade level; during the 2013 summer, 90% of the 210 attendees who
participated in the summer reading program maintained or improved their reading skills; and all attendees
participate in healthy nutrition and fitness programs with a long-term goal being fitness and obesity
prevention. Mr. Crickenberger said that all club members complete homework assignments with the
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
assistance of a staff member or volunteer, and participate in an average of 10 hours of community
service.
He stated that to date, the Boys & Girls Club has raised approximately $1.5 million in donations
and pledges, which is expected to fund the operating cost for the first five years – as well as $100,000 of
planned upgrades and improvements to the facility. Mr. Crickenberger said that the County Attorney has
reviewed the proposed lease agreement. The proposed lease term would run for 27 months beginning
June 1, 2014 and ending August 31, 2016. The proposed market value of the lease area of 8,480 square
feet is $15,900 per year, and the County would lease the property for $1 per year, with the difference
constituting an in-kind donation. The club would assume all liability and obligation under the proposed
lease agreement and accept the property in as-is condition, and assume full responsibility for
improvements and damages as a result of their program. He said that the lease premises would continue
to be shared by Parks & Rec for existing programs, future programs, and facility reservations – as well as
any ongoing community events. No programs would be displaced with this partnership. Mr.
Crickenberger said that the Boys & Girls Club would be responsible for all monthly telephone, internet
and cable costs, with the County responsible for the electrical, water, sewer and cooling systems as well
as custodial fees twice per week.
Mr. Crickenberger said that the proposed lease agreement would require an estimated increase
in expenditures for utilities of $8,862 for the first full year, which is included in the Parks & Rec FY15
operating budget currently being considered by the Board. He said that staff recommends that after the
public hearing, the Board adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the County Executive to sign the
proposed lease agreement and any other necessary documents. Mr. Crickenberger introduced Mr.
James Pierce, Executive Director of the Boys & Girls Club.
Ms. Palmer stated that she thinks this is fantastic, and was very impressed with the report and the
plans for the facility in Scottsville. She asked for an explanation of the $15,000 rental cost as an in-kind
donation. Mr. Crickenberger confirmed that the amount would be the County’s in-kind donation.
Ms. Palmer said that the improvements that the Boys & Girls Club were doing would remain with
the building. Mr. Crickenberger confirmed that was the case. She asked if there would be after-school
programs and what the cost would be. Mr. Crickenberger said there would be after-school and summer
camp programs.
Mr. James Pierce, Executive Director of the Boys & Girls Club of Central Virginia, said that the
Parks & Rec Department had been a great partner in this process. He explained that the cost for annual
membership in the club was $35, which would include summer and after-school programs.
Ms. Palmer asked how they would determine who would come, because there would obviously
be a lot of parents wanting to take advantage of the after-school program. Mr. Pierce said that the Boys
& Girls Club has never done this in the area so they don’t know what the turnout will be, but they do
anticipate there to be a high number of people who want to take advantage of the services. He stated
that they are currently working with the school system to identify kids who are “high priority”. They will
open to the public on Monday and hope to include students from southern Albemarle, Fluvanna and
Buckingham – with participation in the programs not being strictly income-based. Any young person
between the ages of six to 18 can take advantage of the services. Mr. Pierce said that when they explore
new areas, they often target free and reduced lunch students because it is a good indicator of need, but it
is not the only indicator. He stated that the schools are “really sharp” and have identified nine risk factors
by which students will be recommended. He stated that they have been talking mostly with Albemarle
and Buckingham school officials, but did meet with Fluvanna about a year ago to lay out what was
planned for the center and are having a small group meeting the following week to discuss how the
recruitment would work there. Mr. Pierce said that it is expected that a significantly high percentage of
kids will be coming from the southern Albemarle schools.
Ms. Palmer asked if they had spoken with the Yancey school principal and staff. Mr. Pierce said
that Mr. Domer was the first person they reached out to, in recognition of the excellent work being done at
Yancey. They never want to go anywhere to provide a service that’s already being provided . Once that
conversation took place and it was established that there are additional children who are underserved,
they felt good about moving forward.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she was impressed by the amount of energy in the southern part of the
Scottsville District to raise private funds and from all around the County, and asked Mr. Pierce to
comment.
Mr. Pierce said that this effort would not have happened without the citizens of Albemarle County,
Buckingham and Fluvanna taking leadership roles in making the club a reality, and the Board’s
contribution of the use of the building was a big tipping point in moving this forward. He state d that they
have a strong steering committee working to secure the future of the club and help provide certainty that
the doors on this program won’t close for kids who need it most.
Ms. Mallek asked how children would get to the club. Mr. Pierce said they had met with the
Albemarle County Schools Transportation Department, and they printed out a map noting where those
kids lived and how those routes would change if transportation were provided to the club. He stated that
they will be able to provide transportation from Yancey, Scottsville and Walton schools without disrupting
the current transportation plan. Beyond that are the unknowns, but they do have a few ideas as to how to
make that work, including use of JAUNT. Mr. Pierce said that the Boys & Girls Club currently serves 14
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
schools at the Cherry Avenue site, and they could not do that without JAUNT. He added that the Boys &
Girls Club also has limited transportation available. For kids like those at Red Hill, there is currently no
identified transportation plan but they are working to figure something out – with JAUNT not coming
online for this site probably until year two or three.
Ms. Palmer asked how many spots they will have open in the after-school program. Mr. Pierce
said that currently they are just registering for the summer program, and for the school year program they
anticipate having more space, but are not sure what that will look like. He said that the number would
probably be around 150 slots, and that would boil down to average daily attendance of 70 or 75. Mr.
Pierce stated that for the summer program, they would likely start with 100 members with 50 or 60
average daily, and he anticipates that the next summer they would increase to 150 or 200 members. He
said that at their Southwood club, quality has to have a voice in the discussion, and that can be sacrificed
with too many people put into a space that isn’t meant to accommodate that number. Mr. Pierce noted
that one of the great things about the space is its expansion potential.
Mr. Boyd said that this is a great leveraging of County funds, and the return on investment will be
fantastic, but he wondered if the facility was currently underutilized and how they would do this without
disrupting existing programs.
Mr. Crickenberger stated that the facility is somewhat underutilized. The majority of activities now
are held on evenings and weekends so they do not anticipate any conflict with the Boys & Girls Club –
something they have discussed since day one. He said that there would need to be some coordination,
but the majority of Parks & Rec programs are held at different times.
Ms. Palmer asked how much rental income the County realizes from the site now. Mr.
Crickenberger said that it is a very small amount, far less than the $15,000 that the Boys & Girls Club will
provide.
The Chair then opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Ms. Kim Swanson addressed the Board, stating that this is a fabulous idea for this part of the
County. She asked if the Board might make a request of the ACSA for water and sewer services to the
facility.
Ms. Palmer said that she is not sure if water and sewer services go up that far from Scottsville.
Mr. Crickenberger stated that the building is on public water and sewer, and that is part of the
increased utility costs reflected in the budget.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Ms. McKeel said that this is a great program, and it meets a need in the community.
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that she completely supports it. The success at Southwood is
evidence that the Boys & Girls Club is doing many things right there.
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the County Executive to execute
the proposed lease agreement and any necessary related documents on behalf of the County. Ms.
McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ALBEMARLE COUNTYAND THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF CENTRAL VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the best interest of the County to lease a portion of the space
at the Scottsville Community Center, located at 250 Page Street, Scottsville, VA 24590 (TMP 130A2 -00-
00-07600), to the Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes the County Executive to execute a Lease Agreement and any necessary related documents
between the County of Albemarle and the Boys & Girls Clubs of Central Virginia, in a form approved by
the County Attorney.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing for SP-2013-000021. Rolkin Road Shops (Sign
#112&113).
Proposal to allow for a drive-through window for a retail building on 1.672 acres. No dwellings
proposed.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
ZONING: PD-MC - Planned Development Mixed Commercial; large-scale commercial uses;
residential by special use permit (15 units/acre) under Section 18.25A.2.2.1 which allows for
drive-through windows serving or associated with permitted uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use – retail, commercial services, office, and a mix of
residential types (6.01 – 34 units/acre).
LOCATION: Southwestern corner of Rolkin Road and Abbey Road intersection approximately
300 feet south of the Rolkin Road and Richmond Road (Route 250) intersection.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000075A0.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2014)
Ms. Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that the proposal is to allow a
drive-through as an allowed use on this parcel, Tax Map 78-75.A, 1.67 acres. The property is
recommended in the Comp Plan as urban mixed-use, with retail/commercial orientation toward the
internal road system. The Pantops Master Plan designates the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center as retail
mixed use with a commercial center, as well as providing for infill. Ms. Baldwin reported that the property
is zoned PDMC, which allows uses by right in C-1, HC, CO, and CO zoning districts, as well as drive-
through uses by special permit. She said that the applicant is proposing to construct a 10,500 square foot
building with a drive-through for Starbucks, and has submitted a plan that is supported by staff to
accommodate stacking requirements and provide for circulation that wil l not be detrimental to surrounding
parcels. Ms. Baldwin said that the applicant also submitted a conceptual plan that is not part of this
presentation, but she has it available should the Board wish to view it. She reported that staff had
identified several favorable factors and no unfavorable factors, as noted in her report. Staff recommends
approval.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Ashley Cooper, of Cooper Planning, addressed the Board, introducing Mr. Joe Hall and Mr.
Allen Taylor of Riverbend Development – the development team. Ms. Cooper said that a drive-through
window by comparison to the Board’s other considerations isn’t monumental, but she thinks that people
will be happy to have a Starbucks drive-through window in a Pantops location. They are looking forward
to beginning this retail development that will include the Starbucks, a Chipolte, and Jersey Mike’s Subs.
They are happy to answer any questions from Board members.
Ms. Mallek said that it is a good location, as there are lights on both sides of the block for exit and
entrance and the ability to handle lots of cars. Ms. Cooper said that when they did the initial traffic study
for the overall development, they had that in mind.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of SP-2013-00021, Rolkin Road Shops subject to the one
condition, as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following plans prepared by Bohler
Engineering, “Pantops Retail Building Special Use Permit Exhibit” dated 1/20/14 as determined
by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
specified plans, development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the
plans:
Building location, orientation and mass
Relationship of drive-thru lanes to the building and the parking lot
Minor modifications to the plan may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or the permit shall
expire and be of no effect.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing for SP-2013-00022. Verizon Wireless "Hydraulic Road"
(Comcast Property) Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility. (Sign # 116).
Request for installation of 2 additional arrays each containing 3 flush mounted antennas on an
existing 140 foot monopole and associated equipment.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor – Overlay to
protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access; AIA Airport Impact Area – Overlay to minimize
adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land.
SECTION: 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 1 -preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5
unit/ acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 1658 Earlysville Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500-00-00-016A0.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 2014)
Ms. Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner, reported that this is an existing facility for a personal wireless
tower located on Tax Map 43-16.A, zoned RA, as well as the surrounding properties. She said that this is
a heavily wooded area that screens the equipment. The proposal is to add two additional antenna arrays
to the existing tower. Ms. Baldwin said that although this is a co-location, it is considered a substantial
change under current ordinance requirements. The applicant has requested modification of the three
arrays, which would allow for a total of five. She said that it came up later in the review that the antennas
will actually be larger than the ordinance requirements, so there is an additional modifica tion request for
that. Ms. Baldwin stated that at the Planning Commission, the y requested copies of the plan and photo
simulations to view the antenna size, and found that they were not substantially different.
Ms. Mallek asked if staff had what they normally provide in terms of a balloon test. Ms. Baldwin
responded that they did not do a balloon test, and stated that the sizes the applicants are proposing are
1176 square inches, 1194 square inches, and 1237 square inches. Ordinance requirements are 1152
square inches, so it is not substantially bigger.
Ms. Mallek noted that the tower is probably visible for a very long way, which is why she was
hoping for a distance perspective. Ms. Baldwin said that she and the ARB design planner looked at aerial
photos and were not really able to see it.
Ms. Baldwin then presented a portion of the site plan, showing the existing and proposed
changes. She stated that the new antennas will be placed below the existing ones. No negative or
adverse impacts are anticipated with the additional equipment, structural upgrades, or size of the
antenna. Staff found a number of factors favorable, as outlined in the staff report. No unfavorable factors
were found.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lori Schweller, an attorney with LeClair Ryan, representing Verizon Wireless addressed the
Board. She also introduced Steven Waller – a zoning consultant with GD Insights, who can respond to
additional questions about the site. Ms. Schweller said that Verizon is requesting a special use permit to
allow installation of two sets of flush-mounted antennas, each containing two different sets of
technologies so they are propagating four different signals from this site to provide all of Verizon Wireless’
service, the reason for the size of the panels’ faces. She stated that they are also requesting two special
exceptions because of slight modifications to existing performance standards in the ordinance,
specifically the permissible square inches and number of arrays on a facility. Ms. Schweller said that with
a lot of the older towers, in this case built in 1979, tend to be lattice or guywire towers that can support
several sets of antennas – so it is not uncommon to request arrays above three. She stated that this
application was submitted October 21, 2013, so it has been more than six months since their request
simply to collocate two sets of flush-mounted antennas. Ms. Schweller said that she brings this particular
application to the Board’s attention as an example of why they need to update the ordinance, as this is a
prime example of what needs to be fixed. She said that when there are antennas that have this little
visual impact on an existing 140-foot lattice tower, requiring not only special exceptions but a special use
permit, something needs to change. Ms. Schweller said that their proposal is that any collocations should
be building-permit only.
She offered to circulate photos of current conditions and photo simulations of the modified site .
Ms. Schweller noted the location of the existing tower and a photo simulation showing what the tower will
look like when the two sets of flush-mounted antennas are added.
Ms. Mallek asked how far away the tower is from the brick house abutting to the n orth. Ms.
Schweller said that it is less than 500 feet away, and was constructed many years after the tower was
installed.
Ms. Mallek said that she understands, but there is a cone of intensity around these sites, so
having six antennae instead of one will mean there is going to be a difference.
Mr. Sheffield asked how the residents are notified. Ms. Baldwin said that the process is to notify
abutting owners.
Mr. Sheffield said that he knows the man who lives in that house, and he said he wasn’t aware of
the plan but was fine with it.
Ms. Mallek said that he should have received a personal letter, and asked if the residents of
Roslyn Ridge abutting the property to the south also received a letter.
Ms. Baldwin said that all of the abutting residents received a letter.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Ms. McKeel said she has not heard any objection from residents either.
Ms. Schweller said that Mr. Waller also sent a letter, and Verizon sent a letter to the property
within the fall zone of the tower to inform them of their plans, because initially in the process they
assumed there would need to be an easement – but it was determined during the process that the
requirement of getting approval or consent of neighbors when they are in the fall zone does not apply to
existing towers, so it shouldn’t apply to collocations. She noted that they didn’t receive a response to that
letter.
Ms. Mallek asked if that was the property to the south or to the west. Ms. Schweller said that it
was the Wood’s property.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek said that collocations are a good thing.
Ms. McKeel said that she spoke with the Planning Commissioner for the Jack Jouett District, and
he had no issues with this, and it went through the Commission on a 7:0 vote.
Ms. McKeel then moved to approve the two modifications as recommended from Section
5.1.40(c)(3)(i) for the size and total number of arrays. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(Modifications conditions are set out below:)
- total number of arrays shall not exceed 3 (applicant proposes 5 arrays), and
- size shall not exceed the sizes stated by the applicant (applicant states the sizes will be 1176,
1194 and 1237 square inches).
_____
Ms. McKeel moved to approve SP-2013-00022 with one condition as recommended by staff.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site plans, entitled “Hydraulic Road”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 11/3/13
(hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
design of the development as shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing for WPTA-2014-00001. Water Protection Ordinance.
Intent to adopt an ordinance that would comprehensively amend and reorganize Chapter 17, Water
Protection, of the Albemarle County Code in order to implement the significantly revised Virginia
Stormwater Management Act (Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:24 et seq.), other related provisions of the
State Water Control Law (Virginia Code § 62.1-44.2 et seq.), and the regulations of the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality in 9VAC25-830 though 9VAC25-890. This ordinance would
establish and amend: the procedures and requirements for erosion and sediment control and stormwater
management during land disturbing activities; the procedures and requirements for post -construction
stormwater management; fees for plan review, inspections, and other services; the rights and obligations
of owners after plans and permits have been approved; and the procedures and requirements for
compliance, maintenance, recordkeeping, reporting, inspecting, monitoring, and enforcement. The
ordinance also would amend the County’s program s to establish and protect stream buffers, to prohibit
illicit discharges and connections, to prohibit dumping, and to collect groundwater information in
conjunction with County review of certain developments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21
and April 28, 2014)
The executive summary states that the County is one of a number of Virginia localities subject to
an MS4 permit that are required to have new stormwater management regulations timely adopted so that
they may be effective on and after July 1, 2014. Those localities that are not subject to an MS4 permit will
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
be allowed to delay the effective date of their new stormwater management regulations until January 1,
2015.
In order to obtain timely approval of its regulations by the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), the County was required to submit a preliminary stormwater management program
application package, including a draft Water Protection Ordinance, to the DEQ for review by January 15,
2014. The Board received public comments on the draft Water Protection Ordinance on January 8 and
directed staff to submit the draft Water Protection Ordinance to DEQ for review, which it did on January
15. The County received DEQ’s comments on March 20, most of which pertained to defini tions included
in the State stormwater regulations that were omitted from the draft Water Protection Ordinance. Finally,
staff also conducted a roundtable on March 6th to seek public input on the proposed Ordinance. The only
issue raised concerned grandfathering projects approved prior to July 1, 2014 (addressed in the revisions
to Section 17-501, summarized in the Discussion section below).
The proposed Water Protection Ordinance (Attachment A) addresses DEQ’s comments. The
proposed ordinance also incorporates changes in State law resulting from recently adopted legislation,
HB 1173, which became effective April 4, and recent DEQ regulations, which became effective February
26, 2014. A version of the Water Protection Ordinance showing the changes made to the draft Water
Protection Ordinance submitted to DEQ on January 15, together with explanatory commentary, is
included as Attachment B.
The key changes to the proposed Water Protection Ordinance since the draft considered by the
Board on January 8 are:
Section 17-203: This section was added in response to a DEQ comment to expressly
address the obligations of the program administrator (the county engineer) to report
information to DEQ and to maintain records.
Section 17-205: A definition of “agreement in lieu of a stormwater management
plan” was added to this section to implement HB 1173, which would allow an
agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan for constructing a single family
dwelling. See also the amendments to Sections 17-401(C) and (E), 17-402(B), 17-
405(A)(1) discussed below. “Agreements in lieu of a plan” are currently allowed
under the County’s erosion and sediment control regulations for single family
dwellings.
Section 17-208: This section was amended to address a reduction in the fee required by
HB 1173 for stormwater management review related to a detached single family dwelling
where between 1 and 5 acres is disturbed. The fee for a qualifying dwelling would be
$209 instead of $2700 and none of the $209 would be transferred to the State as its 28%
portion.
Section 17-211: This section was amended to change the procedure for appeals from the
program administrator’s decisions or inaction. Prior State law required “formal”
procedures, including some elements of the State Administrative Procedure Act, but HB
1173 replaced that requirement with authority to establish “local” procedures. Given the
engineering-based technical nature of most of the appeals that may be expected, Section
17-211 was amended to provide that administrative appeals will be heard by the director
of community development rather than the Board of Supervisors before an appellant
pursues a judicial remedy.
Sections 17-401(C) and (E), 17-402(B), 17-405(A)(1): These sections were amended to
provide for an agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan and to not require a
registration statement (a statement that the proposed project will comply with the State
general permit to discharge stormwater from construction projects) for the construction of
detached single family dwellings.
Section 17-501: This section was amended to incorporate changes to the State
stormwater regulations effective February 26, 2014 pertaining to which technical criteria
apply to a land disturbing activity, depending on when the project was approved or when
the land disturbing activity began, with July 1, 2014 being the general demarcation date.
Section 17-808: This section was added in response to a comment from Morgan Butler
on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center at the Board’s January 8 work
session. Section 17-808 requires the timely stabilization of denuded areas resulting from
land disturbing activity. This requirement was not clearly included in the prior draft of the
Water Protection Ordinance. It is a requirement of the current Water Protection
Ordinance.
Delayed effective date: A sentence was added at the end of the proposed Water
Protection Ordinance stating that it will be effective on and after July 1, 2014, rather than
on the date of its adoption.
The executive summary prepared for the January 8 work session (Attachment C) provides
summaries regarding the nature of stormwater, how stormwater is managed, and recent Federal and
State actions to reduce stormwater-caused pollution.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
The County’s costs overseeing the current stormwater management program is approximately
$240,000 per year. Approximately $140,000 of that total is, and will continue to be, supported by fees,
with the balance paid for out of the General Fund. When the current fees were established, the Board
decided, as a matter of policy, that stormwater initiatives above and beyond the State mandates (e.g.,
stream buffers, groundwater) should be partially supported by the County rather than entirely by the
applicant. The proposed ordinance would impose fees for development activities that are intended to fund
all new stormwater-related plan and permit reviews and related inspections. The proposed fees are
estimated to increase the revenue generated by fees from the current $140,000 per year to $414,000 per
year, an increase of $274,000 per year, for the next five years.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Water Protection
Ordinance as presented in Attachment A.
______
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, stated that staff first brought this matter to the
Board on January 8, 2014 to obtain direction to submit the draft ordinance to Virginia DEQ by January 15,
2014 which was their deadline to begin preliminary review of the ordinance. He said that with the Board’s
direction, staff submitted the preliminary package to DEQ. In the interim, he said, new stormwater
regulations were considered by the State Water Control Board in December and became effective on
February 26. Mr. Kamptner said that staff held a roundtable on March 6, and the County received DEQ’s
comments on March 20 – with the majority of them pertaining to definitions. He noted that Attachment B
to the executive summary is a comparison version of the ordinance, which also includes his comments
and explains staff’s response to DEQ’s comments. Mr. Kamptner said that new stormwater legislation,
adopted by the General Assembly, evolved dramatically from the time it was first introduced until it
became effective. HB1173 required further amendments to the draft ordinance to implement the
changes. He stated that after the changes were incorporated into the draft ordinance, staff sent a revised
draft to DEQ to let them see the changes, and they replied the following week with one comment
requesting an additional change and notifying the County that the ordinance is now in the queue for final
approval. Mr. Kamptner said that the Board will now be holding the public hearing. If the Board adopts
the ordinance, staff will then submit the final ordinance back to DEQ and the State Water Control Board
will take action in June, which authorizes the County’s stormwater program.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, stated that on March 6, the County held
a roundtable for the community, with invitations specifically sent to the development community, A-mail
recipients, and others. He said that nine people attended in addition to staff, who explained to attendees
that the ordinance continues existing programs and only adds the state-mandated changes. Mr. Graham
said that staff explained the fee structure, which captures 100% of the cost for the new mandated
programs. He stated that there was one question from the work session related to grandfathering,
addressed with some of the changes to the regulations adopted in February and mentioned by Mr.
Kamptner. Mr. Graham said that there were no questions or concerns with the fees expressed at the
roundtable.
Mr. Kamptner reported that the W ater Protection Ordinance has four major elements. First, it
establishes the new technical criteria for projects that will be approved on or after July 1. He said that
there are new processes in the ordinance, which is longer than the current one and more detailed. Staff
has tried to incorporate the process improvements that were added to the County’s site plan and
subdivision regulations over the past year so there is some similarity to the process, recognizing that it
must be fit into the state statutes and regulations. Mr. Kamptner stated that there are four key elements
of the current W ater Protection Ordinance that have been carried over: timely, permanent stabilization of
denuded areas, stream buffers, MS4 provisions pertaining to illicit discharges, dumping and related
issues, and groundwater monitoring. He said that the organization of the W ater Protection Ordinance
was laid out in the January 8 staff report, and it is a much more detailed ordinance than the curr ent one.
Mr. Kamptner stated that it is hoped that the organization of the ordinance will be intuitive to the users.
There is much more detail in the compliance and enforcement portions of the ordinance because there
are new requirements not only for the County but also for the owners – to monitor, to inspect, to maintain,
and to report any problems with their facilities or discharges that are not authorized.
Mr. Kamptner presented information on the key differences between the current and proposed
Water Protection Ordinance, noting that there will now be a single streamlined erosion and sediment
control and stormwater management review process, rather than separate procedures, for most land-
disturbing activity. He stated that the general application process will be similar to that implemented in
the site plan and subdivision regulations. The MS4 permit is a more obvious element in the proposed
ordinance. He said that the technical criteria are new and the DEQ is still finalizing those, although the
regulations are already referenced in the new ordinance. Mr. Kamptner said that the County is also
taking over the review and administration of new plans, which the state had overseen up until now, and
those are the pollution prevention and stormwater prevention plans, which are additional services and
oversight the County will be providing at the local level. He stated that the County also has new
mandated responsibilities related to compliance for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting to DEQ.
Mr. Graham stated that there will be a different fee structure than what has historically been used,
and it will be based on what the state regulations have provided. He said that the proposed fees, based
on Board direction, have been set based on the anticipated number of applications and the revenues
received – so they get to 100% cost recovery for the new program, with 28% of the collected fees
required to be passed onto the state for their overall program administration. Mr. Graham stated that the
proposed fees will cover the County’s costs for administering these activities, but it does not give full cost
recovery with the additional programs the County has, such as the stream buffers.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Ms. Mallek asked if the recovery was actually 72%, given the 28% subtracted. Mr. Graham said
that the 28% is above and beyond the 100% cost recovery.
Ms. Palmer said that is just for the new parts of it. Mr. Graham responded that is correct. He
added that the stream and groundwater program do not fall within that, because they are not part of the
state-mandated stormwater management program.
Ms. Palmer asked if he could clarify the definition of “timely,” when they have to “timely” cover
denuded areas. Mr. Graham explained that there is a requirement that once the land disturbance permit
is started, the area have permanent vegetation installed within nine months. The ordinance also provides
for an administrative extension up to an additional six months. Beyond that the applicant may make a
request to the Board for additional extensions. He noted that there have been several requests for
extensions, and there will be one coming to the Board next month for the Ragged Mountain Reservoir.
Ms. Palmer asked if someone could continue on just by getting extensions. Mr. Graham said that
they could, but they would have to get a new permit each time.
Ms. Mallek commented that it happened on Pantops when an applicant hit rock, but this does
away with the 30-day dance where they would bring out the machinery on day 29, which would throw
everything back. Mr. Graham said that that’s still in the ordinance, as it is part of the state requirement
and must be maintained as part of the program. He stated that beyond that there is a requirement that
within nine months the status allows for installation of permanent stabilization.
Ms. Palmer asked for confirmation that if someone starts construction and then stops for 28 or 29
days, and then goes out and disturbs the dirt again, they can only do that for nine mo nths. Mr. Graham
said that was correct. If an applicant is actively working on a project but stops for a period of time, there
is a requirement for temporary vegetation to be installed after a certain amount of time if they haven’t
disturbed it – or permanent vegetation. Staff got into these situations where projects would start and stop
based on those timelines.
Ms. Palmer asked when the clock actually starts. Mr. Graham responded that it starts when they
disturb the ground for the first time, under that particular permit.
Ms. Palmer commented that they can just apply for another permit.
Ms. Mallek said that it is not a given that they will get it, and it is a big expense as well.
Mr. Graham agreed that it is an additional expense to obtain another permit, although there are
reasons why a developer might do that. He emphasized that the financial interest of the developer would
be on finishing the project as quickly as possible.
Ms. McKeel asked what qualifies as “disturbing” the land. Mr. Graham said that the threshold is
10,000 square feet of ground – 100 x 100 feet – and it is possible that the land disturbance is exempt, so
staff must determine whether it falls into that category and if it is not the applicant is cited with a violation
and required to get a permit.
Ms. McKeel asked how staff handles the inspections. Mr. Graham said that they have a routine
inspection program and a minimal schedule with a goal of visiting a project at least once per month – but
if it is an active project, they visit at least every two weeks to verify that everything is in compliance. He
stated that if a project is very active with elements changing rapidly, staff could be out there two or three
times per week.
Ms. McKeel asked how the nine months is established. Mr. Graham said that it is established
when they actually break ground, so it is timed from when they start the disturbance. He said that if the
County has received no notification, they go to the date that the permit was issued.
Ms. McKeel asked why the specific time frame of nine months was chosen. Mr. Graham said that
they based it on what they felt was a reasonable amount of time to reach a “rough grade” on most
projects. Staff found that most can reach that level in nine months – but it does not include the building
site itself, and parking lots would just need to be stabilized.
Mr. Boyd said that years ago the County had a problem with Hollymead Town Center and did not
have much leeway as to how to make the situation better as far as erosion control, and asked if these
changes will help with those circumstances in the future.
Mr. Graham said that it will, but not a big difference; it will only be a marginal improvement. The
County still has the risk of those types of things happening. He said that the risk is best managed by
ongoing inspection activities and also having a developer with a strong interest in assuring that they are
keeping things safe. Mr. Graham said that with the general permit being managed now, if a developer
gets into violation, it becomes much more expensive for them to try to get back into compliance – so there
is some financial incentive on their part.
Ms. Palmer said she thought they were saying that situation could only occur for nine months.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks that is correct. They have already addressed the five -year business
where a developer clear cut 55 acres and did not do anything for that five years. That will not happen
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
again because the site cannot sit for more than nine months. They also do not allow universal cutting
anymore; there is phasing. There have been a lot of improvements since 2004.
Mr. Graham stated that the nine months regulations the County did is beyond State regulations.
This is not something that is being implemented today; it is in the current ordinance and is being carried
forward. The nine months was something the Board implemented in response to concerns that projects
seemed to be dragging on without the developer showing much interest in finishing the project and
getting the area stabilized.
Mr. Boyd noted that it was done in response to what was happening at Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Graham confirmed that it was.
Ms. Palmer said that they have strengthened the timeliness aspect by adding the word “timely
disturbance” to the language. Mr. Graham agreed, stating that there are things that are not considered a
land disturbance – such as cutting trees – whereas grubbing the stumps would be. He said that the
Hollymead Town Center circumstance was one in which the developer came in and clear-cut the trees,
while the property was still zoned Rural Area, which they still have the right to do without any kind of
permit oversight by the County.
Ms. McKeel asked what concerns Mr. Graham had, as the ordinance currently stands. Mr.
Graham said that he would like to see more and more responsibility for the management and ongoing
inspections assigned to the development community. This mandate has shifted a lot of responsibility to
the County that did not previously exist – along with some liability they did not previously have. He said
that the state could come in and say the County isn’t effectively managing the program, and there are
consequences to that.
Ms. McKeel asked what he recommends the County do, given that the state has shifted a lot of
responsibilities to localities. Mr. Graham said that he is reluctant to answer that off the cuff, and they
need to seriously consider legislative changes for the future. Ms. Mckeel said that she would like staff to
give that some thought and get back with the Board.
Mr. Kamptner said that the state did provide the County with the authority to increase standards
above the state minimum mandated standard, but a change in state law a few years ago stipulated that
any increased standards must be supported by a study and findings done on a local or regional
watershed basis, and then approved by the State Water Control Board.
Ms. Palmer asked if there are other liabilities and costs that are not directly covered by the fees.
Mr. Graham said that is an excellent point, as they were covering the direct cost with the program but
there were obviously a lot of indirect costs not reflected – from Mr. Foley to the program administrators –
and those costs are not assigned.
Ms. Palmer asked if that was possible under state law. Mr. Graham stated that they would need
to come up with some justification that could be legally supported that showed it was a fair part of the
cost, and right now they have their hands full just trying to get the program implemented. He said that
they have taken a shot at the direct costs related to applications, but there is no field experience at this
point and he would recommend taking a few years to understand what they are doing and identify any
problems and issues.
Ms. Dittmar said that the Board wants to hear about challenges, and with other kinds of laws at
the state and federal level, they have had the idea of sunset provisions – and she wondered if they could
have a set point for which to go back and see if this is working. Mr. Kamptner said that there are a
number of previous ordinances for which staff let the Board know that they would track how the ordinance
was working and report back to the Board after one or two years.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would like to do that with this ordinance.
Ms. Mallek noted that the fee cycles have a standard consideration. Mr. Graham said that cycle
is every two years.
Ms. McKeel stated that there is an assigned cost for the projects handled through County schools
as an “overhead,” and she didn’t know if that structure would be applicable here. Mr. Foley said that they
do that for all capital projects.
Mr. Davis said that in order to justify any new fees, the County would have to support them with a
study.
Ms. Mallek asked if they would restart the groundwater monitoring program as part of this. Mr.
Graham said that they currently have certifications in advance of building permits or site plan approvals –
tier one or two studies – but they are not planning to restart the groundwater program again.
Ms. Mallek said that at some point later she would like to know what that would entail, because
they have missed three years and now have a gap, so the old data has probably been disc arded. She
stated that elements of that allow the County to make better decisions, as they provide the Board with
some empirical knowledge.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Mallek also asked about what precautions and preventions they have to guard against
developments that should have a plan, inspections, etc., but just build one house at a time and pay just a
small amount rather than a subdivision fee.
Mr. Graham said that this is similar to what the County has now in terms of agreements in lieu of
a plan, and those are intended for developments where people come in for building permits and there is
already a permit for the overall development going on. He said that is the same type of provision here,
with circumstances where there is already an overall permit either in the subdivision plan or a site plan.
Mr. Graham said that it is possible for someone to come in on an existing two-acre lot and fall within this
provision, but not an entirely new subdivision.
Ms. Mallek asked why they were giving up the registration statement that provides an affidavit,
even for a single-family house. Mr. Kamptner said that it is a state-mandated requirement under HB1173.
Mr. Graham said that he does not feel they are giving up much with that provision, because in the
case of single-family houses they still have the requirements and could put them under an individual plan
if necessary.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was still an affidavit of compliance when someone does one of these in
lieu of other requirements. Mr. Graham said that the County still has the enforcement capacity.
Mr. Kamptner stated that in the County regulations and under state law, even though these
particular projects do not require the registration statement, they still must comply with the permits and a ll
of the other laws – and that is built into the ordinance.
Mr. Graham said that they still get cited with a violation, the same as if they had a registration
statement.
Ms. Palmer asked what the situation would be if someone has 10 acres and wanted to build five
houses on it, and had five established lots – but they only put a house on every two-acre lot every year or
two. She asked if the person buying the lot and building the house pays $209, or if the large parcel owner
paid that in the beginning. Mr. Graham said that if the subdivision bond was still active, and they were
still building the roads or improvements necessary for the subdivision, then the fee would need to be paid
up front – but if it was after a longer period of time, with someone coming in later wanting to build a house
on that lot, then staff would have to evaluate whether it fit under the lower fee.
Ms. Mallek asked for confirmation that in order to get the subdivision plan approved, the applicant
would have to do the big plan. Mr. Graham said that was correct.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, on behalf of the Free Enterprise Forum, stating that he
did not attend the roundtable but did have representatives there who raised significant questions about
the fees. Mr. Williamson said that in looking at the chart of fees, 28% of the fee is going to the state –
and the County is recouping 100% of the cost, so the cost being paid is 128% of the cost for the County
to do this. He stated that it is not the County’s fault, as that is the way the Code is written, but it is an
unfair mandate. Mr. Williamson said that the specific question that came up with regard to the fee
schedule was one of renewals – fee for service, and what it would take to do a renewal, and it didn’t seem
as though the difference between a new application and a renewal was significant enough for what is
effectively a renewal, not a full-blown application. He stated that in addition, the concept of the Water
Protection Ordinance is one of shared values, and in talking about adding overhead for Mr. Foley’s time
working on the ordinance, there is a community benefit to having it – so perhaps that overhead is part of
the community buy-in for the ordinance. Mr. Williamson said that the development community sees the
County as receiving the new authority from the state, and the requirement from the state to do the work
and send one-quarter of the money to them – and that is not fair, but that is the way it is. He asked that
the Board examine the renewal fees and ascertain that it is a recapturing of costs, and that this fee
schedule will be on the same schedule for a fee study to have as little impact on the development
community as possible.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Palmer noted that the protections that are over and above the state mandates are being paid
for out of County taxes.
Mr. Graham said that Mr. Williamson is referring to a “permit maintenance fee,” stipulated in the
ordinance under 17-208, and that is set at one-half of the initial permit issuance fee – which was a
deliberate effort on staff’s part. He stated that staff looked at the initial year’s permit cost, and estimated
that if 28% of that is going to the state, then 22% is the up-front issuance and the other one-half covers
ongoing inspection costs for the first year of the permit. Mr. Graham said that the renewal fee reflects the
ongoing inspection costs in each of the subsequent years.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the Water Protection Ordinance as presented by staff, with the
effective ordinance date of July 1, 2014. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Palmer asked staff to comment on who is grandfathered under this, as there are some
developments already proposed that could be impacted. Mr. Graham explained that the grandfathering is
under Section 17-501 of the ordinance, and under part C there are a number of applications that had
approvals prior to July 1, 2012 – either approved rezoning applications or preliminary subdivision plats,
which have a different set of technical standards they have to comply with. He said that would include
looking at developments such as Stonefield, Northpointe, the Hollymead Town Center, Old Trail, and
newly developed pieces that fall under their old zoning.
Ms. Palmer said that the 800+ dwellings proposed for Northpointe would be grandfathered for this
because it has its own plan. Mr. Graham confirmed that was the case.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that there is a sunset clause for projects that are grandfathered. They
are grandfathered for two additional general permit cycles – which are five years.
Mr. Graham said that with Northpointe, they would be grandfathered to July 1, 2019.
Mr. Davis commented that staff – Mark Graham, Glenn Brooks, Greg Harper – and especially Mr.
Kamptner in his office, have put a tremendous amount of work into this ordinance. He said that
Albemarle is recognized as a leader in the state on developing these ordinances, and is always on time
and responsive.
Mr. Graham stated that the rest of staff would have been lost without Mr. Kamptner, as this set of
state regulations was extremely complex.
Ms. Mallek said that she is grateful that Mr. Kamptner stood up to the state and advocated for
more clear and understandable language, and had that incorporated.
Mr. Kamptner said it is a problem that is endemic in all the state regulations.
Ms. Dittmar recognized Mr. Kamptner for his work. By the time this came to the Board, it was
easier for them to figure out what they were trying to accomplish and how they wanted it worded for
compliance.
Ms. McKeel also thanked Mr. Kamptner for the email in advance of this meeting.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-17(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, WATER PROTECTION, 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
17, Water Protection, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17-101 Authority
Sec. 17-102 Purposes
By Amending and Renumbering:
Old New
Sec. 17-103 Sec. 17-204 Rules of construction
Sec. 17-104 Sec. 17-205 Definitions
Sec. 17-106 Sec. 17-108 Saving provision
Sec. 17-318 Sec. 17-601 Management of stream buffer
Sec. 17-400 Sec. 17-1000 Applicability
Sec. 17-401 Sec. 17-1001 Tier 1 assessments
Sec. 17-402 Sec. 17-1002 Tier 2 assessments
Sec. 17-403 Sec. 17-1003 Tier 3 assessments
Sec. 17-404 Sec. 17-1004 Tier 4 assessments
Sec. 17-405 Sec. 17-1005 Fees
Sec. 17-500 Sec. 17-700 Applicability
Sec. 17-501 Sec. 17-701 Illicit discharges prohibited; exempt and authorized discharge
Sec. 17-502 Sec. 17-702 Illicit connections prohibited
Sec. 17-503 Sec. 17-703 Dumping prohibited
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
By Amending, Renumbering and Renaming:
Old New
Sec. 17-107 Sec. 17-106 Relation of chapter to other laws Integration with other programs
Sec. 17-205 Sec. 17-402 Erosion and sediment control plans, and agreements in lieu of a
plan; form and content
Sec. 17-208 Sec. 17-418 Amendment of Modifications and variances to approved erosion
and sediment control plans
Sec. 17-209 Sec. 17-207 Fees for land disturbing activity subject solely to the VESCP
Sec. 17-212 Sec. 17-810 Inspections by the administrator under the VESCP
Sec. 17-214 Sec. 17-902 Cessation of land disturbing activity Stop work orders; procedure
Sec. 17-215 Sec. 17-903 Penalties and rRemedies under the VESCP
Sec. 17-301 Sec. 17-600 Designation of water resources areas Extent of stream buffers;
retention and establishment
Sec. 17-307 Sec. 17-419 Amendments and modification to approved of stormwater
management/BMP plans
Sec. 17-308 Sec. 17-408 Exceptions from the requirements of the VSMP
Sec. 17-310 Sec. 17-208 Fees for land disturbing activity under VSMP
Sec. 17-317 Sec. 17-600 Duty to retain or establish stream buffer Extent of stream buffers;
retention and establishment
Sec. 17-319 Sec. 17-602 Types of development improvements and activities exempt from
duties to retain, establish, or manage a stream buffer
Sec. 17-320 Sec. 17-603 Types of development structures; improvements and activities
authorized in a stream buffer
Sec. 17-321 Sec. 17-604 Types of development structures, improvements and activities
which may be allowed in a stream buffer by program authority
Sec. 17-322 Sec. 17-406 Mitigation plan if development allowed in a stream buffer; form
and content
Sec. 17-324 Sec. 17-811 Inspections by the administrator under the VSMP
Sec. 17-326 Sec. 17-904 Penalties and rRemedies under the VSMP
Sec. 17-504 Sec. 17-802 Maintaining the functional performance of streams Duty to
maintain the functional performance of storm drainage systems
and streams
Sec. 17-506 Sec. 17-806 Discovery, containment, cleanup and notification of discharge
Duty to report discharges or noncompliance
Sec. 17-507 Sec. 17-904 Penalties and rRemedies under the VSMP
By Amending, Renaming and Reorganizing:
Old New
Sec. 17-105 Designation of Sec. 17-200 Designation of program authority
program authority; Sec. 17-202 Administrator, plan reviewers and
powers and duties inspectors; certificates of competence
***
Sec. 17-200 Applicability Sec. 17-300 Land disturbing activities and site
conditions subject to the VESCP
Sec. 17-301 Land disturbing activities exempt
from the VESCP
Sec. 17-304 Determining the status of a land disturbing activity or site condition
***
Sec. 17-201 Determination of Sec. 17-304 Determining the status of a land disturbing
land disturbing activity or site condition
activity Sec. 17-305 Notice of determination regarding status of land
disturbing activity or site condition
Sec. 17-306 Owner’s obligation upon receipt of notice of
determination
***
Sec. 17-202 Determination of Sec. 17-304 Determining the status of a land disturbing\
erosion impact area activity or site condition
Sec. 17-305 Notice of determination regarding status of land
disturbing activity or site condition
***
Sec. 17-203 Erosion and sediment Sec. 17-400 Responsibility to prepare, submit and obtain
control plan approval of application; multi-jurisdictional
developments
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Sec. 17-402 Erosion and sediment control plans, and agreements in lieu of a plan; form and content
Sec. 17-500 Erosion and sediment control plans; applicable technical criteria
***
Sec. 17-204 Review and approval Sec. 17-410 Review and action on application
of erosion and Sec. 17-424 Effect of failure to obtain grading, building or
sediment control plan other permit; void for inactivity
***
Sec. 17-206 Monitoring and Sec. 17-804 Duty to inspect and take corrective action
reporting Sec. 17-805 Duty to provide information pertaining to
discharges and compliance
***
Sec. 17-207 Issuance of permit; Sec. 17-414 Agreement with surety
surety Sec. 17-416 Effect of approvals
Sec. 17-417 Prerequisites to land disturbing activity
***
Sec. 17-210 Review of certain Sec. 17-211 Review of administrator’s action by the board of
program authority supervisors; judicial review
actions Sec. 17-413 Appeal of decision of the administrator
***
Sec. 17-211 Duty to comply, Sec. 17-800 Duty to comply
maintain and repair Sec. 17-801 Duty to maintain structures, systems, facilities
and techniques
***
Sec. 17-213 Determination of Sec. 17-900 Notice to comply
noncompliance with Sec. 17-901 Failure to comply with notice; revocation, order
plan; procedure to stop work, enforcement
***
Sec. 17-300 Applicability Sec. 17-302 Land disturbing activities subject to the VSMP
Sec. 17-303 Land disturbing activities exempt from the VSMP
***
Sec. 17-303 Stormwater Sec. 17-400 Responsibility to prepare, submit and obtain
management/BMP approval of applications; multi-jurisdictional
plan; requirements developments
Sec. 17-403 Stormwater management plans; form and
content
Sec. 17-501 VSMP permit application; applicable technical
criteria
***
Sec. 17-304 Review and approval Sec. 17-410 Review and action on application
of stormwater Sec. 17-415 Stormwater management maintenance
management/BMP agreement
plan Sec. 17-424 Effect of failure to obtain grading, building or
other permit; void for inactivity
***
Sec. 17-305 Monitoring and Sec. 17-804 Duty to inspect and take corrective action
reporting Sec. 17-805 Duty to provide information pertaining to
discharges and compliance
***
Sec. 17-306 Issuance of permit; Sec. 17-414 Agreement with surety
surety Sec. 17-416 Effect of approvals
Sec. 17-417 Prerequisites to land disturbing activity
Sec. 17-423 Release of surety
***
Sec 17-311 Review of certain Sec. 17-211 Review of administrator’s action by the board of
program authority supervisors; judicial review
actions Sec. 17-413 Appeal of decision of the administrator
***
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Sec. 17-323 Duty to comply, Sec. 17-800 Duty to comply
maintain and repair; Sec. 17-801 Duty to maintain structures, systems, facilities,
maintenance agreement and techniques
***
Sec. 17-325 Determination of Sec. 17-900 Notice to comply
noncompliance with Sec. 17-901 Failure to comply with notice; revocation, order
plan; procedure to stop work; enforcement
Sec. 17-902 Stop work orders; procedure
By Adding:
Sec. 17-103 Applicability
Sec. 17-104 Land disturbing activity prohibited without approved plans; responsibility
Sec. 17-105 Assumptions
Sec. 17-107 Obligation to comply with all State laws
Sec. 17-201 Designation of program administrator; powers and duties; express designations
Sec. 17-203 Administrator; reporting and recordkeeping.
Sec. 17-206 Records; disclosure and exemptions
Sec. 17-209 Fees; payment
Sec. 17-210 Fees; incomplete and late payments
Sec. 17-401 VSMP permit application; form and content
Sec. 17-404 Pollution prevention plans; form and content
Sec. 17-405 Stormwater pollution prevention plan; form and content
Sec. 17-407 Variances from requirements of the VESCP
Sec. 17-409 Submittal of application; determination of completeness
Sec. 17-411 Deferral of review of application; when application deemed withdrawn
Sec. 17-412 Coordination of review of erosion and sediment contr ol plans with the review of
subdivision plats and site plans
Sec. 17-420 Amendments to pollution prevention plans
Sec. 17-421 Amendments to stormwater pollution prevention plans
Sec. 17-422 Construction record drawing; submittal
Sec. 17-502 VSMP permit application; offsite nutrient credits
Sec. 17-803 Duty to maintain general permit, stormwater pollution prevention plan, and other
documents onsite
Sec. 17-807 Duty to provide records and notice pertaining to general permit
Sec. 17-809 Right of administrator to enter to obtain information, conduct surveys, or in accordance
with a performance bond
Sec. 17-814 Third party complaints regarding impacts from land disturbing activities
Sec. 17-905 Enforcement of general permits and other State permits
By Repealing:
Sec. 17-302 Overlapping water resources areas
Sec. 17-309 Dedication of stormwater management facilities
Sec. 17-312 Stormwater management facilities and channels.
Sec. 17-313 Non-structural measures.
Sec. 17-314 Control of peak rate and velocity of runoff.
Sec. 17-315 Best management practices.
Sec. 17-316 Contribution to regional stormwater management program
Chapter 17
Water Protection
Article I. General
Sec. 17-100 Short title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Water Protection Ordinance.”
(2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-1; § 17-100, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 17-101 Authority.
Articles I through IX of this chapter are adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the Virginia
Stormwater Management Act (Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:24 et seq.), as authorized by Virginia Code §
62.1-44.15:27, the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:51 et seq.), as
authorized by Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:54, the regulations implementing the Virginia Stormwater
Management Act and the Erosion and Sediment Control Law in 9VAC25-830 through 9VAC25-890, as
applicable, including the general Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for discharges
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
from the County’s small municipal separate storm sewer system, and Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:73,
which is a part of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Virginia Code § 62.1 -44.15:67 et seq.).
(§ 7-1, 6-18-75, § 2, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.2-3, 6-19-91, § 3; § 19.3-2, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-1, 19.2-
3, 19.3-2; § 17-101, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:54, 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-830 through 9VAC25-890.
Sec. 17-102 Purposes.
The purposes of this chapter are to:
A. Protect public health, safety and welfare. Protect the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the County and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
B. Protect quality and quantity of State waters from unmanaged stormwater. Protect the quality and
quantity of State waters from the potential harm of unmanaged stormwater and to effectively
control soil erosion, sediment deposition and nonagricultural runoff by requiring control measures
that will maintain, protect and improve the water quality and quantity of receiving State waters.
C. Protect property and natural resources. Prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties,
stream channels, waters, and other natural resources.
D. Reduce pollution and illicit discharges to protect water quality. Establish a comprehensive
program to manage sources of stormwater. Runoff from lands modified by human activities can
harm surface water resources by, among other things, changing natural hydrologic patterns,
increasing runoff velocity, and by elevating pollutant concentrations and loadings. Runoff may
contain or mobilize high levels of contaminants, such as sediment, suspended solids, nutrients,
heavy metals, pathogens, toxins, oxygen-demanding substances, and floatables.
E. Sustainability of groundwater resources. Promote the long-term sustainability of groundwater
resources.
F. Implement State laws. Implement the applicable parts of the State Water Control Law (Virginia
Code § 62.1-44.3 et seq.), including the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Virginia Code §
62.1-44.15:24 et seq.), as required by Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:27, and the Erosion and
Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:51 et seq.), as required by Virginia Code §
62.1-44.15:54, and the regulations implementing the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and
the Erosion and Sediment Control Law in 9VAC25-830 through 9VAC25-890, as applicable, and
as required thereby, including the general Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
for discharges from the County’s small municipal separate storm sewer system, and to provide
for the proper administration and enforcement of this chapter.
(§ 7-1, 6-18-75, § 2, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.1-4, 9-29-77, art. I, § 1, 7-11-90; § 19.2-2, 6-19-91, § 2; §
19.3-3, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-1, 19.1-4, 19.2-2, 19.3-3; § 17-102, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-17(1),
adopted 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:25, 62.1-44.15:52; 9VAC 25-870-40, 9VAC 25-870-46, 9VAC 25-870-400.
Sec. 17-103 Applicability.
This chapter, or the applicable parts thereof, shall apply to:
A. Land disturbing activity within the County and the Town of Scottsville. Any land disturbing activity
within the County and within the Town of Scottsville, including that portion of the Town of
Scottsville located within the County of Fluvanna, to which the VESCP, the VSMP, or both, apply
under this chapter and under State and Federal law.
B. Erosion impact areas. Any land identified by the administrator as an erosion impact area within
the County and the Town of Scottsville, to which the parts of this chapter pertaining to erosion
and sediment control, including the requirement for the submittal and approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan, shall apply.
C. Stream buffers. Any area within the County and the Town of Scottsville designated as a stream
buffer under this chapter.
D. Permanent stormwater management facilities. Any areas served by a public permanent
stormwater management facility.
E. Discharges, connections and dumping. All activities that cause or allow to be caused direct or
indirect illicit discharges, illicit connections, and the prohibited dumping of refuse and pollutants,
or which negatively impede the flow capacity of the County’s MS4 or State waters.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:33, 62.1-44.15:34, 62.1-44.15:54, 62.1-44.15:55, 62.1-
44.15:73; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-104 Land disturbing activity prohibited without approved plans; responsibility.
No owner shall engage in land disturbing activity subject to the requirements of this chapter, or allow land
disturbing activity to occur, on his property, until:
A. Erosion and sediment control plan approved under the VESCP. The owner has submitted to the
administrator an erosion and sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity and the plan
has been reviewed and approved by the administrator, and all other prerequisites to engaging in
land disturbing activity have been satisfied, as provided in section 17-400 et seq.; and
B. Permit approved under the VSMP. The owner has submitted to the administrator an application
for a VSMP permit to conduct land disturbing activity and the permit has been reviewed and
approved by the administrator, and all other prerequisites to engaging in land disturbing activity
have been satisfied, as provided in section 17-400 et seq.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:34, 62.1-44.15:55; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-105 Assumptions.
The administration of the requirements of this chapter is assumed to comply with the County’s obligations
under its MS4 permit, that the control measures and best management practices approved by the
administrator in conjunction with any erosion and sediment control plan or VSMP permit are effective
based upon current control technologies and best management practices. It also is assumed that control
technologies and best management practices are constantly being refined and improved and, as a result,
the requirements of State law, this chapter, and the Design Standards Manual will be responsive to these
refinements and improvements in administering this chapter.
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-400.
Sec. 17-106 Integration with other programs.
The requirements of this chapter shall be integrated and implemented in conjunction with any project
requiring compliance prior to any land disturbing activity, including subdivisions, site plans, and any other
plans of development, those projects within the flood hazard overlay district established in the Zonin g
Ordinance, and any dam break inundation zone that has been mapped as provided in Virginia Code §
10.1-606.3.
(§ 17-107, Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:54.
Sec. 17-107 Obligation to comply with all State laws.
Neither any provision in this chapter, nor any omission from this chapter of a self -executing requirement
of State law, shall relieve any owner from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established under
applicable State law nor preclude the institution of any legal action by the County, the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality, or any other public entity with enforcement powers under State law.
State law reference – 9VAC25-880-70.
Sec. 17-108 Saving provision.
The adoption of this chapter, which shall be effective July 1, 2014, shall not abate any pending action,
liability, or penalty of any person accruing or about to accrue, nor waive any right of the County under
chapter 17 in effect prior to July 1, 2014, unless expressly provided for in this chapter. Any erosion and
sediment control plan, stormwater management plan, mitigation plan and, to the extent they pertain to
stormwater management, any final site plan or subdivision plat, approved prior to July 1, 2014, s hall
remain in full force and effect, and all rights and remedies of the County in enforcing those plans, permits
and plats are hereby preserved.
(2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-7; § 17-106, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Article II. Administration
Sec. 17-200 Designation of program authority.
The County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby designated the program authority (the “program authority”)
for the purpose of administering the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program (“VESCP”) and the
Virginia Stormwater Management Program (“VSMP”) within the County and the Town of Scottsville. In
addition, to further administer the VESCP and the VSMP:
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
A. Agreements. The County may enter into agreements with soil and water conservation districts,
adjacent localities, or other public or private entities to assist with administering and implementing
the VESCP and the VSMP.
B. Cooperation with State and Federal agencies. The County may cooperate and enter into
agreements with any State or Federal agency in connection with the requirements for erosion and
sediment control with respect to land disturbing activities or for land disturbing activities for
stormwater management.
(§ 7-9, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-6, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-9, 19.3-6; § 17-105, Ord. 98-A(1),
8-5-98; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:50, 62.1-44.15:54, 62.1-44.15:58, 62.1-44.15:61.
Sec. 17-201 Designation of program administrator; powers and duties; express designations.
The County engineer is hereby designated the program administrator (the “administrator”) for the purpose
of administering this chapter. The administrator shall have the powers and duties to administer and
enforce the VESCP and the VSMP, and to exercise all powers and perform those duties of the program
authority as provided in this chapter. In addition, the following officers and employees are hereby
designated specific tasks in order to assist the administrator in administering this chapter:
A. Plan reviewers and inspectors. County employees qualified under section 17-202 and under
State law are designated to act as certified plan reviewers and certified inspectors under the
VESCP and the VSMP.
B. Administrator for post-construction stormwater management facilities and best management
practices. The director of the County’s Department of General Services is hereby designated to
administer the VSMP for post-construction stormwater management facilities and best
management practices.
C. Administrator for the County’s MS4 permit and MS4 program plan. The director of the County’s
Department of General Services is hereby designated as the administrator of the County’s MS4
permit in order to ensure compliance therewith, and to develop and administer the County’s MS4
program plan.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:54.
Sec. 17-202 Administrator, plan reviewers and inspectors; certificates of competence.
The administrator, any person reviewing VESCP or VSMP plans, and each person conducting project
inspections under either the VESCP or the VSMP, shall hold a valid certificate of competence for the
classification of the task to be performed, or its equivalent, as provided in 9VAC25-850-10 et seq. The
administrator and any other person may hold certificates for more than one classified task.
For purposes of program compliance reviews and evaluations by the State Water Control Board, the
enrollment of persons in certification programs shall be deemed to meet the certification requirements as
provided in 9VAC25-850-55.
(§ 7-9, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-6, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-9, 19.3-6; § 17-105, Ord. 98-A(1),
8-5-98; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:30, 62.1-44.15:54; 9VAC25-850-10 et seq.
Sec. 17-203 Administrator; reporting and recordkeeping.
The administrator, on behalf of the authority, shall report and keep records as follows:
A. Reporting. On a fiscal year basis (July 1 to June 30), the administrator shall report to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality by October 1 of each year in a format provided by the
department. The information to be provided shall include the following:
1. Permanent stormwater management facilities completed. Information on each permanent
stormwater management facility completed during the fiscal year to include type of
stormwater management facility, geographic coordinates, acres treated, and the surface
waters or karst features into which the stormwater management facility will discharge.
2. Enforcement actions. The number and type of enforcement actions during the fiscal year.
3. Exceptions granted. The number of exceptions granted during the fiscal year.
B. Recordkeeping; period to retain. The administrator shall keep records in accordance with the
following:
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
1. Project records. Project records, including approved stormwater management plans, shall
be kept for three (3) years after the date of project completion or termination of the VSMP
permit.
2. Inspection records. Stormwater management facility inspection records shall be
documented and retained for at least five (5) years after the date of inspection.
3. Construction record drawings. Construction record drawings shall be maintained in
perpetuity or until a stormwater management facility is removed.
4. Registration statements. All registration statements submitted in accordance with section
17-401 shall be documented and retained for at least three (3) years after the date of
project completion or termination of the VSMP permit.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:25, 62.1-44.15:28; 9VAC25-870-122, 9VAC25-870-126, 9VAC25-870-
148(A)(9).
Sec. 17-204 Rules of construction.
This chapter protects paramount public interests and shall be liberally construed to effectuate its several
purposes. In addition to the rules of construction set forth in Albemarle County Code § 1-101, the
following rules of construction apply to the construction of this chapter, unless the application would be
contrary to the purposes of this chapter or the context clearly indicates otherwise:
A. All references to any statute, regulation, guideline, handbook, manual or standard are to that
statute, regulation, guideline, handbook, manual or standard as it exists on the date of adoption of
this chapter, and includes any amendment thereafter or reissue in a subsequent edition.
B. All references to the “administrator” include, in the appropriate context, a certified plan reviewer,
certified inspector, or any other person designated to act under this chapter.
C. All references to the “owner” include, in the appropriate context, the applicant, the permittee, the
operator.
D. All references to the “County,” when referring to physical territory in articles I through IX of this
chapter, include the physical territory of both the County of Albemarle and the Town of Scottsville.
E. All references to “this chapter,” when used in articles I through IX, are referring to articles I
through IX.
F. The word “days” means calendar days, unless otherwise expressly provided.
G. All distances and areas shall be measured in a horizontal plane unless oth erwise expressly
provided.
H. The word “current” means the point in time at which a matter is under consideration and shall not
mean the date of adoption of the most recent amendment to this chapter.
I. The word “maintain” or “maintenance” also includes, repair, replace and reconstruct.
J. All provisions requiring that improvements be designed or constructed to prescribed standards, or
otherwise comply with delineated standards, refer to the minimum standard and nothing in this
chapter shall prohibit an improvement from exceeding the standard.
K. Any word or phrase used in this chapter that is not defined in section 17-205 shall be defined as it
is in the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:24 et seq.), the
Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:51 et seq.), and in the applicable
regulations in 9VAC25-830 through 9VAC25-890. If the word or phrase is not defined therein, the
meaning of the word or phrase shall be defined as it is in other chapters of this Code and if it is
not defined therein, by resort to other sources determined to be appropriate.
(2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-4; § 17-103, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:54.
Sec. 17-205 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the administration of this chapter:
Administrator. The term “administrator” means the County engineer.
Adequate channel. The term “adequate channel” means a watercourse that will convey the designated
frequency storm event without overtopping its banks or causing erosive damage to the bed, banks and
overbank sections of the same.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Agreement in lieu of a plan. The term “agreement in lieu of a plan” means a written contract between the
County and the owner that specifies conservation measures that must be implemented in the construction
of a single-family residence, in lieu of an erosion and sediment control plan.
Agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan. The term “agreement in lieu of a stormwater
management plan” means a written contract between the County and the owner or permittee that
specifies methods that shall be implemented to comply with the requirements of the VSMP for the
construction of a single-family residence, in lieu of a stormwater management plan.
Agricultural land. The term “agricultural land” means land used for horticulture, viticulture, silviculture or
other gardening which may involve the tilling of soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of livestock and/or
poultry; and/or agricultural industries or businesses, such as, but not limited to, orchards, fruit packing
plants, dairies, nurseries or wayside stands.
Agricultural road. The term “agricultural road” means a road or portion of a road that is constructed
exclusively for access to agricultural land and is located on or serves a lot which is not the subject of a
pending or approved preliminary or final plat, initial or final site plan, zoning map amendment to a non-
agricultural zoning district, or a special use permit for a use or activity not directly related to agriculture.
Amendment to approved plan. The term “amendment to approved plan” means an owner-requested
change to an approved plan or to approved permit conditions.
Applicant. The term “applicant” means any person submitting an application for a permit or plan approval
under this chapter.
Application. The term “application,” as used in Article IV, means an application for approval of an erosion
and sediment control plan, for land disturbing activity for which a VSMP permit is not required, or an
application for approval of a VSMP permit.
Best management practice (BMP). The term “best management practice” or “BMP” means schedules of
activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent
or reduce the pollution of surface waters and groundwater systems, and includes both structural and
nonstructural practices described as follows:
A. Structural best management practice. Structural best management practices include storage
practices such as wet ponds and extended-detention outlet structures; filtration practices such as
biofilters, grassed swales, sand filters and filter strips; infiltration practices such as infiltration
basins and infiltration trenches; and any post-construction BMP listed in the Virginia Stormwater
BMP Clearinghouse Website (http://vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/PostConstructionBMP s.html).
B. Nonstructural best management practice. Nonstructural best management practices are
preventative actions that involve management and source controls such as: (i) policies and
regulations that provide requirements and standards to direct growth to identified areas, protect
sensitive areas such as wetlands and riparian areas, maintain and/or increase open space
(including a dedicated funding source for open space acquisition), provide buffers along sensitive
water bodies, minimize impervious surf aces, and minimize disturbance of soils and vegetation; (ii)
policies or regulations that encourage infill development in higher density urban areas, and areas
with existing infrastructure; (iii) education programs for developers and the public about proje ct
designs and maintenance activities that minimize water quality impacts; and (iv) measures such
as minimizing the percentage of impervious area after development and minimizing directly
connected impervious areas.
Board. The term “Board” means the State Water Control Board, unless the context indicates that the term
refers to the board of supervisors.
Bypass. The term “bypass” means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a
treatment facility.
Certified inspector. The term “certified inspector” means an employee or agent of the County who: (i)
holds a certificate of competence from the State Water Control Board in the area of project inspection; or
(ii) is enrolled in the State Water Control Board’s training program for proj ect inspection and successfully
completes the program within one year after enrollment.
Certified plan reviewer. The term “certified plan reviewer” means an employee or agent of the County
who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the State Water Control Board in the area of plan review;
(ii) is enrolled in the State Water Control Board’s training program for plan review and successfully
completes the program within one year after enrollment; or (iii) is licensed as a professional engineer,
architect, landscape architect, land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (Virginia Code § 54.1-400 et seq.) of
Chapter 4 of Title 54.1 of the Virginia Code, or a professional soil scientist as defined in Virginia Code §
54.1-2200.
Certified program administrator. The term “certified program administrator” means an employee or agent
of the County who: (i) holds a certificate of competence from the State Water Control Board in the area of
program administration; or (ii) is enrolled in the State Water Control Board’s training program for program
administration and successfully completes the program within one year after enrollment.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Channel. The term “channel” means a natural stream or manmade waterway.
Clean Water Act (CWA). The term “Clean Water Act” or “CWA” means the federal Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217,
Public Law 95-576, Public Law 96-483, and Public Law 97-117, or any subsequent revisions thereto.
Common plan of development or sale. The term “common plan of development or sale” means a
contiguous area where separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at dif ferent times
on different schedules.
Construction activity. The term “construction activity” means any clearing, grading or excavation
associated with large construction activity or associated with small construction activity.
Contiguous nontidal wetlands. The term “contiguous nontidal wetlands” means nontidal wetlands that lie
within or adjacent to a stream channel or within the flood plain of that stream channel so that there is a
hydrologic connection between the stream and the wetland, and which inclu de impoundments of water
along a natural stream channel.
Control measure. The term “control measure” means any best management practice or stormwater
facility, or other method used to minimize the discharge of pollutants to State waters, or otherwise rest rict
or alter the hydraulics of stormwater flow and discharge.
Dam. The term “dam” means a barrier to confine or raise water for storage or diversion, to create a
hydraulic head, to prevent gully erosion, or to retain soil, rock or other debris.
Denuded. The term “denuded” means land that has been physically disturbed and no longer supports
vegetative cover.
Department of community development. The term “department of community development” means the
County department of community development.
Department. The term “Department” means the Department of Environmental Quality, unless the context
indicates that the term refers to a County department.
Department of general services. The term “department of general services” means the County
department of general services.
Design Standards Manual. The term “Design Standards Manual” means the manual developed and
maintained by the administrator that includes, among other things, the technical criteria required under
the VESCP and the VSMP, and best management practices.
Development. The term “development” means: (i) for the purposes of the VESCP, a tract or parcel of land
developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be
used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three or more residential dwelling ; and (ii) for
purposes of the VSMP, land disturbance and the resulting landform associated with the construction of
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation, transportation, or utility facilities or structures
or the clearing of land for nonagricultural or nonsilvicultural purposes; the regulation of discharges from
development, for purposes of these regulations, does not include the exemptions found in 9VAC25-870-
300.
Development area. The term “development area” means any portion of the County designated as such in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Dike. The term “dike” means an earthen embankment constructed to confine or control water, especially
one built along the banks of a river to prevent overflow of lowlands; a levee.
Discharge. The term “discharge,” when used without qualification, means the discharge of a pollutant.
Discharge of a pollutant. The term “discharge of a pollutant” means any addition of any pollutant or
combination of pollutants to State waters from any point source, and includes additions of pollutants into
surface waters from surface runoff that is collected or channeled by man; dis charges through pipes,
sewers, or other conveyances owned by the State, the County, or other person that do not lead to a
treatment works; and discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances, leading into privately
owned treatment works; provided that this definition does not include an addition of pollutants by any
indirect discharger.
Drainage area. The term “drainage area” means a land area, water area, or both from which runoff flows
to a common point or boundary.
Erosion and sediment control plan. The term “erosion and sediment control plan” means a document
containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It
may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory and management information
with needed interpretations, and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan
shall contain all major conservation decisions and all information deemed necessary by the program
authority to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation
objectives.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Erosion impact area. The term “erosion impact area” means an area of land not associated with current
land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto
neighboring properties or into State waters; provided that the area of land is not a lot or parcel of ten
thousand (10,000) square feet or less used for residential purposes or a shoreline where the erosion
results from wave action or other coastal processes.
Facility or activity. The term “facility or activity” means any point source or treatment works treating
domestic sewage or any other facility or activity, including land or appurtenances thereto, that is subject
to regulation under the VSMP.
Floodplain. The term “floodplain” means the area adjacent to a channel, river, stream, or other water body
that is susceptible to being inundated by water normally associated with the one hundred (100) year flood
or storm event, and includes, but is not limited to, the floodplain designated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency on a Flood Insurance Rate Map.
General permit. The term “general permit” means a general permit authorizing a ca tegory of discharges
under the Clean Water Act and the Stormwater Management Act within a geographical area. The full title
of the general permit is “General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities” as
provided in 9VAC25-880.
Hazardous substance. The term “hazardous substance” means any substance designated under the
Code of Virginia or 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
Illicit discharge. The term “illicit discharge” means any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that
is not composed entirely of stormwater, except discharges pursuant to a separate VPDES or general
permit (other than the state permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer), discharges
resulting from firefighting activities, and discharges identified by and in compliance with 9VAC25-870-
400(D)(2)(c)(3).
Inspection. The term “inspection” means an onsite review of a project’s compliance with an approved
erosion and sediment control plan, an approved VSMP permit, the general permit, the VESCP, the
VSMP, and any applicable design criteria, or an onsite review to obtain information or conduct surveys or
investigations necessary for the implementation or enf orcement of this chapter.
Intermittent stream. The term “intermittent stream” means a natural stream or portion of a natural stream
that has a defined bed and defined banks within which water flows in response to precipitation, through
near surface groundwater flow, or from springs, and which is not a perennial stream.
Land disturbance or land disturbing activity. The term “land disturbance” or “land disturbing activity”
means: (i) for purposes of the VESCP, any man-made change to the land surface that may result in soil
erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into State waters or onto lands in the State,
including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting, and filling of land, but does not
include those land disturbing activities exempt under section 17-301; and (2) for purposes of the VSMP, a
man-made change to the land surface that potentially changes its runoff characteristics including clearing,
grading, or excavation, but does not include those land disturbing activities that are exempt under Virginia
Code § 62.1-44.15:34 and section 17-303.
Large construction activity. The term “large construction activity” means construction activity, including
clearing, grading and excavation resulting in the disturbance of five (5) acres or more of total land area;
provided that the disturbance of less than five (5) acres of total land area is a large construction activity if
it is part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb
five (5) acres or more. Large construction activity does not include routine maintenance that is performed
to maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility.
Layout. The term “layout” means a conceptual drawing sufficient to provide for the specified stormwater
management facilities required at the time of approval.
Linear development project. The term “linear development project” means a land-disturbing activity that is
linear in nature such as, but not limited to: (i) the construction of electric and telephone utility lines, and
natural gas pipelines; (ii) construction of tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other
related structures of a railroad company; (iii) highway construction projects; (iv) construction of
stormwater channels and stream restoration activities; and (v) water and sewer lines; provided that
private subdivision roads or streets are not linear development projects.
Major modification. The term “major modification” means, for the purposes of this chapter, the
modification or amendment of an existing general permit before its expiration that is not a minor
modification.
Man-made. The term “man-made” means constructed by man.
Maximum extent practicable (MEP). The term “maximum extent practicable” or “MEP” means the
technology-based discharge standard for municipal separate storm sewer systems established by CWA §
402(p) and which is achieved, in part, by selecting and implementing effective structural and n onstructural
best management practices (BMPs) and rejecting ineffective BMPs and replacing them with effective best
management practices (BMPs). MEP is an iterative standard, which evolves over time as urban runoff
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
management knowledge increases. As such, the County’s MS4 program must continually be assessed
and modified to incorporate improved programs, control measures, BMPs, and other practices,
procedures and requirements, to attain compliance with water quality standards.
Minimize. The term “minimize” means to reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the extent
achievable using stormwater controls that are technologically available and economically practicable.
Minor modification. The term “minor modification” means a minor modification or amendment of an
existing general permit before its expiration for the reasons listed in 40 CFR 122.63 and as specified in
9VAC25-870-640, and other modifications and amendments not requiring extensive review and
evaluation including, but not limited to, changes in United States Environmental Protection Agency-
promulgated test protocols, increasing monitoring frequency requirements, changes in sampling
locations, and changes to compliance dates within the overall compliance schedules. A minor general
permit modification or amendment does not substantially alter general permit conditions, substantially
increase or decrease the amount of surface water impacts, increase the size of the operation, or reduce
the capacity of the facility to protect human health or the environment.
Mitigation plan. The term “mitigation plan” means a plan which meets the requirements of section 17-406
that describes how encroachments into a stream buffer will be mitigated through runoff treatment,
revegetation, the addition of extra buffer areas, or other appropriate best management practices. A
mitigation plan may be a component of a VSMP permit, or an erosion and sediment control plan if the
land disturbing activity is subject solely to the VESCP.
Municipal separate storm sewer. The term “municipal separate storm sewer” means a conveyance or
system of conveyances otherwise known as a municipal separate storm sewer system, including roads
with drainage systems, streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or st orm drains:
(i) owned or operated by a federal, state, city, town, county, district, association, or other public body,
created by or pursuant to State law, having jurisdiction or delegated authority for erosion and sediment
control and stormwater management, or a designated and approved management agency under § 208 of
the CWA that discharges to surface waters; (ii) designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater;
(iii) that is not a combined sewer; and (iv) that is not part of a publicly owned tre atment works.
Municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The term “municipal separate storm sewer system” or
“MS4” means all separate storm sewers that are defined as “large” or “medium” or “small” municipal
separate storm sewer systems or designated under 9VAC25-870-380(A)(1).
Natural stream. The term “natural stream” means a tidal or nontidal watercourse that is part of the natural
topography, that usually maintains a continuous or seasonal flow during the year, and is characterized as
being irregular in cross-section with a meandering course. Constructed channels such as drainage
ditches or swales shall not be considered natural streams; however, channels designed using natural
channel design concepts may be considered natural streams.
Necessary infrastructure. The term “necessary infrastructure” means components of a site development
necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare, and environmental features and they
include, but are not limited to. drainage channels, structures and facilities, best management practices,
access roads for emergency vehicles, and access roads in order to maintain stormwater management
facilities or water-dependent facilities, or both.
Nonpoint source pollution. The term “nonpoint source pollution” means pollution such as sediment,
nitrogen, phosphorus, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and toxics whose sources cannot be pinpointed but
rather are washed from the land surface in a diffuse manner by runoff.
Nontidal wetlands. The term “nontidal wetlands” means wetlands other than tidal wetlands that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturate d soil
conditions, as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 404 of
the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations.
Nutrient credit. The term “nutrient credit” or “credit” means a nutrient credit certified pursuant to Virginia
Code § 62.1-44.19:12 et seq.
Operator. The term “operator” means the owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to regulation
under this Ordinance.
Other rural land. The term “other rural land” means any portion of the County that is designated Rural
Area in the Comprehensive Plan but which is not within a water supply protection area.
Outfall. The term “outfall” means, when used in reference to municipal separate storm sewers, a point
source at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges to surface waters and does not
include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate storm sewers, or pipes, tunnels or other
conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other surface waters and are used to
convey surface waters.
Owner. The term “owner” means the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions including, but not
limited to, sanitation district commissions and authorities, and any public or private institution, corporation,
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
association, firm or company organized or existing under the laws of this or any other state or country, or
any officer or agency of the United States, or any person or group of persons acting individually or as a
group that owns, operates, charters, rents, or otherwise exercises control over or is responsible for any
actual or potential discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes or pollutants to state waters, or
any facility or operation that has the capability to alter the physical, chemical, or biological properties of
state waters in contravention of Virginia Code § 62.1-44.5, the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and
9VAC25-870.
Peak flow rate. The term “peak flow rate” means the maximum instantaneous flow from a prescribed
design storm at a particular location.
Perennial stream. The term “perennial stream” means any stream that is depicted as a continuous blue
line on the most recent United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps (scale
1:24,000), which is determined by the program authority to be perennial following a site-specific
evaluation using the guidance entitled “Determinations of Water Bodies with Perennial Flow,” dated
September 2003, issued by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, or which is delineated as
a perennial stream by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, or under the Virginia Water Protection program.
Permittee. The term “permittee” means the person to whom the County has issued a permit.
Person. The term “person” means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, state,
municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a state, governmental body, including a Federal,
State, or local entity as applicable, any interstate body or any other legal entity.
Plan of development. The term “plan of development” means the process for site plan or plat review to
ensure compliance with Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:74 and this chapter which is required as a precedent
to clearing, grading, or other land disturbing activity on a site or the issuance of a building permit.
Plat. The term “plat” means a preliminary or final plat, or a plat for any other class of subdivision as
provided in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Point of discharge. The term “point of discharge” means a location at which concentrated runoff is
released.
Point source. The term “point source” means any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance
including, but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, vessel, or other
floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include return flows from
irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff.
Pollutant. The term “pollutant” means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash,
sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials
(except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC § 2011 et seq.)),
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged into water; provided that this term does not mean: (i) sewage from vessels; or (ii) water,
gas, or other material that is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in
association with oil and gas production and disposed of in a well if the well used either to facilitate
production or for disposal purposes is approved by the State Water Control Board and if it determines that
the injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of groundwater or surface water resources.
Pollutant discharge. The term “pollutant discharge” means the average amount of a particular pollutant
measured in pounds per year or other standard reportable unit as appropriate, delivered by runoff.
Pollution. The term “pollution” means the alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of
any State waters as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render the waters:(i) harmful or detrimental or
injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or to the health of animals, fish or aquatic life; (ii)
unsuitable with reasonable treatment for use as present or possible future sources of public water supply;
or (iii) unsuitable for recreational, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or other reasonable uses, provided
that (a) an alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological property of State waters, or a discharge or
deposit of sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes to State waters by any owner which by itself is not
sufficient to cause pollution, but which, in combination with such alteration of or discharge or deposit to
State waters by other owners, is sufficient to cause pollution; (b) the discharge of untreated sewage by
any owner into State waters; and (c) contributing to the contravention of standards of water quality duly
established by the State Water Control Board, are “pollution” for the purposes of this chapter.
Pollution prevention plan. The term “pollution prevention plan” means a plan which meets the
requirements of section 17-404 for implementing pollution prevention measures during construction
activities and which details the design, installation, implementation, and maintenance of e ffective pollution
prevention measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants. A pollution prevention plan is a component
of a VSMP permit.
Postdevelopment. The term “postdevelopment” means the conditions that reasonably may be expected or
anticipated to exist after completion of the land development activity on a specific site.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Predevelopment. The term “predevelopment” means the conditions that exist at the time that plans for the
land development of a tract of land are submitted to the authority. Where phased development or plan
approval occurs (preliminary grading, demolition of existing structures, roads and utilities, and similar
acts), the existing conditions at the time prior to the first item being submitted shall establish
predevelopment conditions.
Program. The term “program” means the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program or the Virginia
Stormwater Program or, in the appropriate context, both.
Regulations. The term “regulations,” when referring to State regulations, means those regulat ions
implementing the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the Erosion and Sediment Control Law in
9VAC25-830 through 9VAC25-890.
Reinspection. The term “reinspection” means any inspection necessary to determine whether any
deficiency or violation in a notice of violation or a stop work order has been corrected.
Runoff. The term “runoff” means that portion of precipitation that is discharged across the land surface or
through conveyances to one or more waterways.
Runoff characteristics. The term “runoff characteristics” includes maximum velocity, peak flow rate,
volume, flow duration, and any other measure of the nature of the discharge.
Runoff volume. The term “runoff volume” means the volume of runoff that runs off the site from a
prescribed design storm.
Sediment basin. The term “sediment basin” means a temporary impoundment built to retain sediment and
debris with a controlled stormwater release structure.
Sewage disposal system. The term “sewage disposal system” means a sewerage system or treatment
works composed of a facility or combination of facilities constructed for the transport or treatment, or both,
of domestic, commercial or industrial sewage, but not including plumbing, fixtures, lateral pipes from a
dwelling unit to a septic tank , lateral pipes from a dwelling unit to a publicly owned sewerage facility, or
publicly owned facilities for the transport or treatment, or both, of sewage.
Site. The term “site” means the land or water area composed of one or more parcels where any facility or
land disturbing activity is physically located or conducted, including adjacent land used or preserved in
connection with the facility or land disturbing activity.
Small construction activity. The term “small construction activity” means:
A. Construction activities including clearing, grading, and excavating that results in land disturbance
of equal to or greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, and less than five (5) acres, or a
land disturbance of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet that is part of a larger common
plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb equal to or greater
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet and less than five (5) acres. Small construction activity
does not include routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the original line and grade,
hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility. The State Water Control Board may waive
the otherwise applicable requirements in a general permit for a stormwater discharge from
construction activities that disturb less than five (5) acres where stormwater controls are not
needed based on an approved “total maximum daily load” (TMDL) that addresses the pollutant(s)
of concern or, for nonimpaired waters that do not require TMDLs, an equivalent analysis that
determines allocations for small construction sites for the pollutant(s) of concern or that
determines that such allocations are not needed to protect water quality based on consideration
of existing in-stream concentrations, expected growth in pollutant contributions from all sources,
and a margin of safety. For the purpose of this subdivision, the pollutant(s) of concern include
sediment or a parameter that addresses sediment (such as total suspended solids, turbidity or
siltation) and any other pollutant that has been identified as a cause of impairment of any water
body that will receive a discharge from the construction activity. The operator must certify to the
State Water Control Board that the construction activity wil l take place, and stormwater
discharges will occur, within the drainage area addressed by the TMDL or equivalent analysis; or
B. Any other construction activity designated by either the State Water Control Board or the United
States Environmental Protection Agency’s regional administrator, based on the potential for
contribution to a violation of a water quality standard or for significant contribution of pollutants to
surface waters.
Source. The term “source” means any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may
be a discharge of pollutants.
Stabilized. The term “stabilized” means land that has been treated to withstand normal exposure to
natural forces without incurring erosion damage.
State. The term “State” means the Commonwealth of Virginia.
State Water Control Law. The term “State Water Control Law” means Chapter 3.1 (Virginia Code § 62.1-
44.2 et seq.) of Title 62.1 of the Virginia Code.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
State waters. The term “State waters” means all water, on the surface and under the ground, wholly or
partially within or bordering the State or within its jurisdiction, including wetlands.
Stormwater. The term “stormwater” means precipitation that is discharged across the land surface or
through conveyances to one or more waterways and that may include runoff, snow melt runoff, and
surface runoff and drainage.
Stormwater conveyance system. The term “stormwater conveyance system” means a combination of
drainage components that are used to convey stormwater discharge, either within or downstream of the
land disturbing activity, and includes a man-made, natural, or restored stormwater conveyance system
described as follows:
A. Man-made stormwater conveyance system. The term “man-made stormwater conveyance
system” means a pipe, ditch, vegetated swale, or other stormwater conveyance system
constructed by man except for restored stormwater conveyance systems.
B. Natural stormwater conveyance system. The term “natural stormwater conveyance system”
means the main channel of a natural stream and the flood-prone area adjacent to the main
channel.
C. Restored stormwater conveyance system. The term “restored stormwater conveyance system”
means a stormwater conveyance system that has been designed and constructed using natural
channel design concepts, and they include the main channel and the flood-prone area adjacent to
the main channel.
Stormwater detention. The term “stormwater detention” means the process of temporarily impounding
runoff and discharging it through a hydraulic outlet structure to a downstream stormwater conveyance
system.
Stormwater discharge. The term “stormwater discharge” means a discharge of runoff from sites where
one or more of the following are located: (i) land disturbing activities including, but not limited to, clearing,
grading, or excavation; (ii) construction materials or equipment storage or maintenance including, but not
limited to, fill piles, borrow area, concrete truck washout, fueling; or (iii) other industrial stormwater directly
related to the construction process including, but not limited to, concrete or asphalt batch plants.
Stormwater management facility. The term “stormwater management facility” means a control measure
that controls stormwater runoff and changes the characteristics of that runoff including, but not limited to,
the quantity and quality, the period of release or the velocity of flow.
Stormwater management plan. The term “stormwater management plan” means a plan which meets the
requirements of section 17-403 containing information for describing methods for complying with the
applicable requirements of this chapter, and which typically contains two major components: (i) measures
addressing stormwater detention for water quantity and discharge characteristics impacts; and (ii)
measures addressing nutrient loadings and water quality. A stormwater management plan is a
component of a VSMP permit.
Stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The term “stormwater pollution prevention plan” or
“SWPPP” means a document that is prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and that
identifies potential sources of pollutants that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of
stormwater discharges. An SWPPP required under the VSMP for construction activities shall identify and
require the implementation of control measures, and shall include, but not be limited to the inclusion of, or
the incorporation by reference of, an approved erosion and sediment control plan, an ap proved
stormwater management plan, and a pollution prevention plan.
Stream buffer. The term “stream buffer” means an area of land at or near a tributary streambank or
nontidal wetland, or both, that has an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecologic al and biological
processes it performs or is otherwise sensitive to changes which may result in significant degradation to
the quality of State waters.
Subdivision. The term “subdivision” means the same as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Subdivision Ordinance. The term “Subdivision Ordinance” means the subdivision regulations of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia codified in Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code.
Surface waters. The term “surface waters” means: (i) all waters that are currently used, were used in the
past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject
to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; (iii) all other waters
such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or
destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters
that are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; from which
fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or that are used or cou ld
be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; (iv) all impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as surface waters under this definition; (v) tributaries of waters identified in subdivisions
(i) through (iv) of this definition; and (vi) wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are
themselves wetlands) identified in subdivisions (i) through (v) of this definition; provided that waste
treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Clean
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Water Act and the law, are not surface waters, and surface waters do not include prior converted
cropland as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Ten-year storm. The term “ten-year storm” means a storm that is capable of producing rainfall expected to
be equaled or exceeded on the average of once in ten (10) years, and which also may be expressed as
an exceedance probability with a ten (10) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year.
Total maximum daily load (TMDL). The term “total maximum daily load” or “TMDL” means the sum of the
individual wasteload allocations for point sources, load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, natural
background loading and a margin of safety, and which can be expressed in terms of either mass per time,
toxicity, or other appropriate measure.
Town of Scottsville. The term “Town of Scottsville” means all of that territory within the incorporated
boundaries of the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, located within the County of Albemarle, Virginia and the
County of Fluvanna, Virginia.
Tract. The term “tract,” as used in the definition of “development,” means more than one parcel, or any
part thereof, including more than one parcel shown on a subdivision plat or a site plan.
Two-year storm. The term “two-year storm” means a storm that is capable of producing rainfall expected
to be equaled or exceeded on the average of once in two (2) years, and which also may be exp ressed as
an exceedance probability with a fifty (50) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year.
Twenty-five year storm. The term “twenty-five year storm” means a storm that is capable of producing
rainfall expected to be equaled or exceeded on the average of once in twenty-five (25) years, and which
also may be expressed as an exceedance probability with a four (4) percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year.
Upset. The term “upset” means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology based general permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the
reasonable control of the operator; provided that the term does not include noncompliance to the extent
caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack
of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
VESCP. The acronym “VESCP” means the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
VSMP. The acronym “VSMP” means the Virginia Stormwater Management Program.
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program (VESCP). The term “Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Program” means the program established by this chapter and approved by the State W ater
Control Board for the effective control of soil erosion, sediment deposition, and nonagricultural runoff
associated with a land disturbing activity to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream
channels, waters, and other natural resources and include this chapter and all other applicable rules,
permit requirements, annual standards and specifications, policies and guidelines, technical materials,
and requirements for plan review, inspection, enforcement, and evaluation consistent with the
requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Law and related regulations.
Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse Website. The term “Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse
Website” means a website that contains the authorized detailed design standards and specifications for
control measures that may be used in the State to comply with the requirements of the Virginia
Stormwater Management Act and related State regulations, and whose ISP address as of July 1, 2014 is
http://vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/PostConstructionBMPs.html.
Virginia Stormwater Management Act. The term “Virginia Stormwater Management Act” means Article 2.3
(Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:24 et seq.) of Chapter 3.1 of Title 62.1 of the Virginia Code.
Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP). The term “Virginia Stormwater Management
Program” means the program established by this chapter and approved by the State Water Quality
Control Board to manage the quality and quantity of runoff resulting from land disturbing activities and
includes this chapter and all other applicable rules, permit requirements, annual standards and
specifications, policies and guidelines, technical materials, and requirements for plan review, inspection,
enforcement, and evaluation consistent with the requirements of the Virginia Stormwater Management
Act and related regulations.
VSMP authority. The term “VSMP authority” means an authority approved by the State Water Control
Board after September 13, 2011, to operate a Virginia Stormwater Management Program or, until such
approval is given, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. An authority may include a locality;
state entity, including the department; federal entity; or, for linear projects subject to annual standards and
specifications in accordance with Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:31(B), electric, natural gas, and telephone
utility companies, interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline companies, railroad companies, or
authorities created pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-5102. Prior to approval, the State Water Control
Board must find that the ordinances adopted by the locality’s VSMP authority are consistent with the
Virginia Stormwater Management Act and 9VAC25-870 including the General Permit for Discharges of
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Stormwater from Construction Activities (9VAC25-880). Within the boundaries of the County of Albemarle
and the Town of Scottsville, the County is the VSMP authority.
VSMP permit or permit. The terms “VSMP permit” and “permit” mean an approval to conduct a land-
disturbing activity issued by the County for the initiation of a land-disturbing activity after evidence of
general permit coverage has been provided where applicable.
Wasteload allocation (WLA). The term “wasteload allocation” or “WLA” means the portion of a receiving
surface water’s loading or assimilative capacity allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of
pollution, and is a type of water quality-based effluent limitation.
Water-dependent facility. The term “water-dependent facility” means a development that cannot exist
outside of the stream buffer and must be located on the shoreline because of the intrinsic nature of its
operation and which include, but are not limited to: (i) the intake and outfall structures of power plants,
sewage treatment plants, water treatment plants, and storm sewers; (ii) public water-oriented recreation
areas; and (iii) boat docks and ramps.
Water supply protection area. The term “water supply protection area” means those areas of land within
the County that are within the watershed of a public water supply reservoir or water supply intake, and
those areas shall consist of all land within the County that drains naturally to the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir, Beaver Creek Reservoir, Totier Creek Reservoir, Sugar Hollow Reservoir, Ragged Mountain
Reservoir, Chris Greene Lake, the North Fork Rivanna River intake, and to any impoundment or water
supply intake designated in the future by the board of supervisors as a public water supply reservoir.
Watershed. The term “watershed” means a defined land area drained by a river or stream, karst system,
or system of connecting rivers or streams such that all surface water within the area flows through a
single outlet; provided that in karst areas, the karst feature to which water drains may be considered the
single outlet for the watershed.
Wetlands. The term “wetlands” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface wat er or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, and which
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Written notice. The term “written notice” means a written communication from the administrator that is
delivered either mailed by first class mail, personal delivery, or, if consented to by the owner in writing, in
conjunction with submitting an application or otherwise, by fax or email.
Zoning Ordinance. The term “Zoning Ordinance” means the zoning regulations of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia codified in Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code.
(§ 7-2, 6-18-75, § 4, 7-9-80, 2-11-87, 3-18-92, § 19.1-5, 9-29-77, art. I, § 2, 9-13-78, 7-11-90, 8-3-94; §
19.2-4, 6-19-91; § 19.3-5, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-2, 19.1-5, 19.2-4, 19.3-5; § 17-104, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:24, 62.1-44.15:51; 9VAC25-840-10, 9VAC25-870-10.
Sec. 17-206 Records; disclosure and exemptions.
Any records required by the administrator to be submitted by the owner or in the possession of the
administrator are subject to disclosure to the public as follows:
A. Records not exempt from disclosure. The following records are not exempt from disclosure: (i)
personal information, to the extent as may be authorized under the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act (Virginia Code § 2.2-3700 et seq.); (ii) records related to inspection reports,
notices of violation, and documents detailing the nature of any land disturbing activity that may
have occurred, or similar documents; (iii) the name and address of any general permit applicant
or permittee; (iv) general permit applications, general permits, and effluent data; and (v)
information required by general permit application forms provided by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, including information submitted on the forms themselves and any
attachments used to supply information required by the forms.
B. Records exempt from disclosure. The following records are exempt from disclosure to the public:
(i) any records relating to active Federal environmental enforcement actions that are con sidered
confidential under Federal law; and any records relating to enforcement strategies, including
proposed sanctions for enforcement actions; provided that, upon request, the records are subject
to disclosure after a proposed sanction resulting from the investigation has been determined by
the State Water Control Board, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, or the
administrator; and (ii) any secret formula, secret processes, or secret methods other than effluent
data submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality pursuant to State law may be
claimed as confidential by the submitter in accordance with 40 CFR 122.7 .
C. Freedom of Information Act. Except as expressly provided in subsection (B), any other public
record of the County pertaining to this chapter and any record submitted by an owner under this
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
chapter shall be subject to disclosure, or may be exempt from disclosure, as provided under the
Virginia Freedom of Information Act (Virginia Code § 2.2-3700 et seq.).
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:40; 9VAC25-870-340.
Sec. 17-207 Fees for land disturbing activity subject solely to the VESCP.
The following fees are for any land disturbing activity subject solely to the VESCP and shall apply to the
services provided by the County under this chapter. Any required fee shall be paid upon submittal of an
application and prior to each reinspection. N either the County nor the County school board shall be
required to pay any fee if it is the applicant:
Land disturbing activity pertaining to single family dwelling unit
Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit located in a residential
development $150
Agreement in lieu of a plan if single family dwelling unit not located in a residential
development $150
Plan review for a single family dwelling unit $150
Permit and first year inspection fees for a single family dwelling unit $150
Annual permit renewal and inspection fees for a single family dwelling unit, starting with
second year $150
Each reinspection $150
Land disturbing activity pertaining to non-exempt agricultural land
Plan review $150 per review
Permit and first year inspection fees $150
Each reinspection $150
Annual permit renewal and inspection fees, starting with second year $150
All other land disturbing activity
Plan review, disturbed area less than one acre $150 per review
Permit and first year inspection fees, disturbed area less than one acre $200
Annual permit renewal and inspection fee, disturbed area less than one acre $200
Plan review, disturbed area one acre or larger $300 per review
Permit and first year inspection fees, disturbed area one acre or larger $100 per disturbed acre
Annual permit renewal and inspection fee, disturbed area one acre or larger, starting
with second year $100 per disturbed acre
Each reinspection $250
Each request for partial or full release of surety $250
Amendment to approved plan $200 per plan review
Other services
Review of mitigation plan pertaining to a land disturbing activity in a stream buffer $150
Variances $150 per request
(§ 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; § 19.3-17,
2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-4, 19.3-17;§ 17-209, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-17(1), 11-11-98; Ord. 02-
17(1), 7-3-02; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08; Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:54; 9VAC25-840-30.
Sec. 17-208 Fees for land disturbing activity under VSMP.
Each owner seeking coverage under the general permit, each owner requesting a transfer or modification
of its existing registration statement for coverage under the general permit, each owner requesting a
major modification to a general permit, and each owner covered under the general permit required to
maintain permit coverage shall pay a fee upon submittal of the VSMP permit application or, for the permit
maintenance fee, annually, in the amounts according to the following schedule:
Fee Type
Permit
Issuance
Fee 1
State Portion of
Permit Issuance
Fee 2
Transfer or
Modification
Fee Amount 3
Permit
Maintenance
Fee 4
Small construction activity or land clearing
that is less than 1 acre/if involves
construction of a sole single family
detached dwelling
$290/$209 $81/None $20 $140
Small construction activity or land clearing
that is equal to or greater than 1 acre and
less than 5 acres/ if involves construction of
a sole single family detached dwelling
$2,700/$209 $756/None $200 $1,350
Large construction activity or land clearing
that is equal to or greater than 5 acres and
less than 10 acres
$3,400 $952 $250 $1,700
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Large construction activity/land clearing
that is equal to or greater than 10 acres
and less than 50 acres
$4,500 $1,260 $300 $2,250
Large construction activity/land clearing
that is equal to or greater than 50 acres
and less than 100 acres
$6,100 $1,708 $450 $3,050
Large construction activity/land clearing
that is equal to or greater than 100 acres
not involving construction of a sole single
family detached dwelling
$9,600 $2,688 $700 $4,800
Other services Fee
Each reinspection $250
Bond agreement with surety; establish, amend or replace $250
Each request for partial or full release of surety $250
Amendment to approved plan $200 per plan
review
Review of mitigation plan pertaining to a land disturbing activity in a stream buffer $150
Exceptions $240 per
request
Construction record drawing; review $300
1. The fees imposed by this column are the total fees to be paid by the owner to cover the County’s
costs to review a stormwater management and other required plans, VSMP registration statement
review, if such a statement is required under sections 17-401(C) and 17-405(A)(1), VSMP permit
issuance, general permit coverage verification, inspections, reporting and compliance associated
with a land disturbing activity. Any land disturbing activity subject to the fees in this section is not
subject to the separate fees under section 17-207. For any site that has been purchased for
development within a previously permitted common plan of development or sale, the applicant
shall be subject to the applicable fees required by this column. The reduced fee if the construc tion
or land clearing involves construction of a sole single family detached dwelling applies regardless
of whether the activity and the dwelling are within or outside a common plan of development or
sale.
2. The amounts in this column are not a separate fee but reflect the portion of the fee required by
column 1 that must be paid by the County to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
pursuant to Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:28(A)(5)(a). These amounts are twenty-eight (28) percent
of the fee required by column 1.
3. The fees imposed by this column are intended to cover the County’s costs to review a request to
modify or transfer registration statements from the general permit and major modifications to the
general permit that result in changes to stormwater management plans that require additional
review by the County. The applicable fee shall be based on the total disturbed acreage of the site.
In addition to the general permit modification fee, any modification resulting in an increase in total
disturbed acreage shall pay the difference in the fee imposed by column 1 that was initially paid
and the permit fee imposed by column 1 that would have applied for the modified total disturbed
acreage. No fee shall be required for a minor modification.
4. The fees imposed by this column are an annual permit maintenance fee, and include fees
imposed on expired permits that have been administratively continued. The fee, which shall be
prorated in the first year, shall be paid at the time provided in section 17-209(B). With respect to
the general permit, these fees shall apply until the general permit coverage is terminated.
(§ 19.3-34, 2-11-98; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, § 3, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-8, 19.3-34; § 17-310, Ord.
98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-17(1), 7-3-02; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08; Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:28, 62.1-44.15:31, 62.1-44.15:34, 62.1-44.15:36; 9VAC25-870-730,
9VAC25-870-820, 9VAC25-870-825, 9VAC25-870-830.
Sec. 17-209 Fees; payment.
Each owner shall pay the fees imposed by sections 17-207 and 17-208 as follows:
A. Form. Each fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the “County of Albemarle.”
B. When payment to be made. Payments shall be made as follows:
1. VESCP. Each owner seeking approval of an erosion and sediment control plan shall pay
all applicable fees upon submittal of the application.
2. VSMP; permit issuance. Each owner required to pay the permit issuance fee shall pay
one-half of the applicable total fee required by column 1 of the table in section 17-208
upon submittal of the application, and the remaining one-half shall be paid prior to
issuance of coverage under the general permit.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
3. VSMP; transfer or modification. Each owner required to pay the transfer or modification
fee required by column 3 of the table in section 17-208 shall pay the fee upon submittal of
the application to transfer or modify.
3. VSMP; annual maintenance fee. Each owner required to pay the general permit coverage
maintenance fee required by column 4 of the table in section 17-208 shall pay the fee
annually to the County until a notice of termination is effective. The maintenance fee shall
be due by April 1 of each year. On the first April 1 after the land disturbing activity has
begun, this fee shall be prorated on a monthly basis, and the full fee shall be paid by April
1 of each year thereafter. No fee shall be refunded for land disturbing activity that is
completed in months other than April.
C. Required information to be included with VSMP permit application payments . Each owner shall
submit the following information with the fee payment, or submit a completed Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality permit application fee form:
1. Applicant name, address and daytime phone number.
2. The name of the facility or activity and its location.
3. The type of general permit applied for.
4. Whether the application is for a new general permit issuance, general permit reissuance,
general perm it maintenance, or general permit modification.
5. The amount of fee submitted.
6. The existing general permit number, if applicable.
7. Other information as required by the administrator.
D. Use of fees. The County’s portion of the fees imposed under sections 17-207 and 17-208 shall be
used solely to carry out the County’s responsibilities under the Virginia Stormwater Management
Act, the Erosion and Sediment Control Law, the applicable regulations in 9VAC25 -830 through
9VAC25-890, this chapter and any other applicable standards and specifications.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:36, 62.1-44.15:54; 9VAC25-840-30, 9 VAC25-870-700, 9VAC25-870-750,
9VAC25-870-760, 9VAC25-870-780, 9VAC25-870-820.
Sec. 17-210 Fees; incomplete and late payments
Incomplete and late payments of fees required by sections 17-207 and 17-208 shall be subject to the
following:
A. Incomplete payments. The failure of an owner to pay the fee due as required by this chapter for
the application or service shall be deemed to be a nonpayment of the fee and: (i) the application
shall not be processed; and (ii) no service shall be provided by the County. The administrator
shall provide written notice to the owner of any incomplete payment within ten (10) days after the
determination that the payment is incomplete.
B. Late payments. Any late payment shall be subject to interest at the underpayment rate provided
in Virginia Code § 58.1-15 and shall be calculated on a monthly basis at the applicable periodic
rate. A ten (10) percent late payment fee shall be charged to any account more than ninety (90)
days past due.
C. Remedies. The County may pursue any remedies provided by State law to collect any past due
amount. In addition, the County or the administrator may pursue the remedies provided in section
17-900 et seq., including revocation of any approval.
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-770.
Sec. 17-211 Review of administrator’s action by the board of supervisors; judicial review.
Any person aggrieved by an action or inaction of the administrator may request that the program authority
review the action or inaction and may thereafter request judicial review of the program authority’s final
decision, as provided herein:
A. Actions that may be reviewed. Any of the following actions by the administrator may be reviewed:
(i) the disapproval of an erosion and sediment control plan or VSMP permit; (ii) the approval of an
erosion and sediment control plan or VSMP permit with conditions the owner objects to; (iii) the
disapproval of a variance or exception; (iv) any determination made under sections 17-300
through 17-306; (v) any general permit decision made by the administrator; (vi) any enforcement
decision made by the administrator; (vii) the failure of the administrator to act within the time
periods required by this chapter; and (viii) the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan or
VSMP permit where the issue is compliance with 9VAC25-840-40(19).
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
B. Standing. Any owner who is an applicant, permittee, operator or any other person subject to
general permit requirements under the VSMP who is aggrieved by any action or inaction under
subsection (A)(i) through (vii) has standing to seek review under this section. Any downstream
owner who is aggrieved by an action under subsection (A)(viii) has standing to seek review under
this section.
C. Request for hearing and time in which to make request; contents. Any person who has standing
under subsection (B) (hereinafter, the “appellant”) may request in writing that the program
authority conduct a hearing, provided that the request is filed with the clerk of the board of
supervisors: (i) within thirty (30) days after the date of notice of the action, when review is sought
under subsection (A)(i) through (A)(vi); (ii) within thirty (30) days after the date by which the
administrator was required to act but failed to do so, when review is sought under subsection
(A)(vii); or (iii) within thirty (30) days after the date of the administrator’s approval of the erosion
and sediment control plan or VSMP permit, when review is sought under subsection (A)(viii). The
request shall specify the grounds for the appeal. The thirty (30) day period within which the
hearing shall be held shall not begin unless and until the request specifies the grounds for the
appeal.
D. Conduct of hearing. The hearing shall be conducted as follows:
1. Hearing officer. The hearing before the program authority shall be conducted by the
director of community development, who shall act as the hearing officer for the program
authority.
2. When the hearing shall be held. The hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days after
receipt of the petition requesting a hearing. The hearing shall be held on a date and at a
time at which both the appellant and the administrator may be present. At the request of
the appellant, the hearing officer may extend the hearing date beyond the thirty (30) day
period. The failure of the hearing officer to conduct the hearing within the thirty (30) day
period or any extension thereof shall not divest the hearing officer of jurisdiction t o
consider the appeal.
3. Evidence and law. When reviewing the administrator’s action or inaction, the hearing
officer shall consider relevant and material laws and evidence presented by the owner,
the administrator, and any other person as he deems to be necessary for a complete
review of the matter.
4. Record. The record of the hearing shall be composed of relevant files, a recording of the
hearing, and other writings. The recording of the hearing shall be transcribed only if
judicial review of the decision is sought under subsection (F).
E. Decision. The hearing officer shall make a final decision within forty five (45) days after
the hearing is concluded. The hearing officer may affirm, reverse, or modify the action of
the administrator, or he may take any action the administrator failed to take. The decision
shall be in writing and state the date of the decision and the reasons for the decision.
Notice of the hearing officer’s decision shall be provided to the administrator and to the
appellant.
F. Judicial review. A final decision by the hearing officer under this section may be subject
to judicial review, provided that an appeal is filed by the person aggrieved in the circuit
court within thirty (30) days after the date of the hearing officer’s written decision. Judicial
review shall be conducted as provided in Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:46.
(§ 17-210: § 7-7, 6-18-75, § 9, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-18, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-7, 19.3-18; §17-
210, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) (§ 17-311: 2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-35; § 17-311, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.26, 62.1-44.15:45, 62.1-44.15:46, 62.1-44.15:62; 9VAC25-870-118.
Article III. Applicability of the VESCP and the VSMP
to a Land Disturbing Activity or a Site Condition
Sec. 17-300 Land disturbing activities and site conditions subject to the VESCP.
The following land disturbing activities and site conditions are subject to the VESCP, and the owner shall
comply with all applicable requirements of the VESCP in this chapter and under State law:
A. Land disturbance of 10,000 square feet or more . Any land disturbance of ten thousand (10,000)
square feet or more, including the harvesting of forest crops, unless the activity is exempt under
section 17-301.
B. Land disturbance of less than 10,000 square feet; common plan of development or sale. Any land
disturbance of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet if the disturbance is part of a common
plan of development or sale whose total land disturbance will exceed ten thousand (10,000)
square feet, unless the activity is exempt under section 17-301.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
C. Erosion impact area. The administrator determines that a site is an erosion impact area under
section 17-304, regardless of whether the activity resulting in the condition is otherwise exempt
under section 17-301.
D. Agricultural road included within a plan of development. The administrator determines that any
previously constructed agricultural road, exempt at the time of its construction under section 17-
301, is no longer exempt because the owner submitted an initial site plan, preliminary plat, any
other subdivision plat, or special use permit for a use or activity not directly related to agriculture,
for the site on which the agricultural road is located, and: (i) the initial site plan, subdivision plat,
or special use permit application was submitted within twenty-four (24) months after construction
of the agricultural road began; and (ii) the administrator determines that the dimensions and
alignment of the agricultural road substantially correspond to the dimensions and alignment of a
road proposed on the plan, plat, or any document submitted as part of the special use permit
application.
(§ 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-8, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-3, 19.3-8;
§ 17-200, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:51; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-301 Land disturbing activities exempt from the VESCP.
The following land disturbing activities are exempt from the VESCP:
A. Minor residential-related activities. Minor residential-related land disturbing activities such as
home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs, and maintenance work.
B. Connections. Individual service connections.
C. Public utility lines. Installing, maintaining, or repairing any underground public utility lines when
the activity occurs on an existing hard surfaced road, street, or sidewalk, provided that the land
disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street, or sidewalk that is hard surfaced.
D. Conventional onsite sewage systems. Septic tank lines or drainage fields for a conventional
onsite sewage system unless they are included in an overall plan for land disturbing activity
related to constructing the building to be served by the system.
E. Mining, oil and gas operations and projects. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and
projects, and oil and gas operations and projects conducted pursuant to Title 45.1 of the Virginia
Code.
F. Agricultural, horticultural, and forestal activities. Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural,
horticultural, or forest crops, livestock feedlot operations, the construction of agricultural roads
unless and until a plan of development is submitted and the road is no longer exempt as provided
in section 17-300(D), or as additionally set forth by the State Water Control Board in regulations;
provided that this exemption shall not apply to the harvesting of forest crops unless the area on
which the harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 11 (Virginia Code § 10.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 10.1 of the Virginia Code or is
converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in Virginia Code § 10.1 -
1163(B).
G. Agricultural engineering operations. Agricultural engineering operations including, but not limited
to, constructing terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required
to comply with the provisions of the Dam Safety Act (Virginia Code § 10.1-604 et seq.), ditches,
strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land
irrigation.
H. Railroad improvements. Repairing or rebuilding the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication
facilities, and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company.
I. Posts and poles. Installing fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of
posts or poles.
J. Emergency work. Emergency work to protect life, limb, or property, and emergency repairs;
provided that if the land disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and
sediment control plan if the activity was not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be
shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the County.
(§ 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-8, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-3, 19.3-8; §
17-200, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:51.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Sec. 17-302 Land disturbing activities subject to the VSMP.
The following land disturbing activities are subject to the VSMP, and the owner shall comply with all
applicable requirements of the VSMP in this chapter and under State law:
A. Land disturbance of 10,000 square feet or more. Any land disturbing activities that disturb ten
thousand (10,000) square feet or more, including the harvesting of forest crops, unless the
activity is exempt under section 17-303.
B. Land disturbance of less than 10,000 square feet; common plan of development or sale. Any land
disturbing activities that disturb less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet if the disturbance is
part of a common plan of development or sale whose total land disturbance will exceed ten
thousand (10,000) square feet, unless the activity is exempt under section 17-303.
(§ 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. II, § 1, 10-19-77, 9-13-78, 10-22-80, 7-11-90, 8-3-94; § 19.2-5, 6-19-91, § 5; §
19.3-24, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-6, 19.2-5, 19.3-24; § 17-300, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-17(1),
2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:24, 62.1-44.15:34; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-303 Land disturbing activities exempt from the VSMP.
The following land disturbing activities are exempt from the VSMP requirements of this chapter, unless
otherwise required by federal law:
A. Mining, oil and gas operations and projects. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and
projects, and oil and gas operations and projects conducted pursuant to Title 45.1 of the Virginia
Code.
B. Agricultural, horticultural, and forestal activities. Clearing of lands specifically for agricultural
purposes and the management, tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or
forest crops, livestock feedlot operations, or as additionally set forth by the State Water Control
Board in regulations, including engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace
outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing,
contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; however, this exception
shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is
reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 (Virginia Code §
10.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 10.1 of the Virginia Code or is converted to bona fide agricultural or
improved pasture use as described in Virginia Code § 10.1-1163(B).
C. Single-family residences. Single-family residences separately built and disturbing less than one
acre and not part of a larger common plan of development or sale, including additions or
modifications to existing single-family detached residential structures.
D. Land disturbance of less than 10,000 square feet. Land disturbing activities that disturb less than
ten thousand (10,000) square feet of land area except for land disturbing activities that are part of
a larger common plan of development or sale that is ten thousand (10,000) square feet or greater
of disturbance
E. Discharges. Discharges to a sanitary sewer or a combined sewer system.
F. Reclamation of abandoned property. Activities under a State or Federal reclamation program to
return an abandoned property to an agricultural or open land use.
G. Project maintenance. Routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the original line and
grade, hydraulic capacity, or original construction of the project. The paving of an existing road
with a compacted or impervious surface and reestablishment of existing associated ditches and
shoulders shall be deemed routine maintenance if performed in accordance with this subsection.
H. Emergencies. Conducting land disturbing activities in response to a public emergency where the
related work requires immediate authorization to avoid imminent endangerment to human health
or the environment. In a public emergency, the owner shall advise the administrator of the
disturbance within seven (7) days after commencing the land disturbing activity, and compliance
with the administrative requirements of this chapter to obtain approval of a VSMP permit is
required within thirty (30) days after commencing the land disturbing activity.
(§ 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. II, § 1, 10-19-77, 9-13-78, 10-22-80, 7-11-90, 8-3-94; § 19.2-5, 6-19-91, § 5; §
19.3-24, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-6, 19.2-5, 19.3-24; § 17-300, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-17(1),
2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:24, 62.1-44.15:34.
Sec. 17-304 Determining the status of a land disturbing activity or a site condition.
The administrator shall determine:
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
A. Whether an activity is subject to this chapter. Whether an activity is a land disturbing activity and,
if it is so, whether it is subject to the VESCP, the VSMP, or both, or whether it is exempt
therefrom.
B. Whether an erosion impact area exists. Whether an erosion impact area exists on a site.
C. Whether an agricultural road is part of a plan of development. Whether a road is an agricultural
road and whether it is part of a plan of development under section 17-300(D).
D. Related offsite land disturbing activity. When a land disturbing activity includes activity at a
separate location, including but not limited to borrow and disposal areas, whether: (i) the offsite
activity should be considered as being part of the proposed land disturbing activity; or (ii) to
require the power to provide proof of an approved erosion and sediment control plan if the owner
asserts that the offsite activity is already covered by an approved erosion and sediment control
plan, and to require that the owner certify that the plan will be implemented in accordance with
applicable VESCP regulations in this chapter.
E. Adjacent offsite land disturbing activity. When a land disturbing activity or plan requires land
disturbing activity on adjacent or abutting property, whether: (i) the owner of the adjacent or
abutting property must be a signatory on the application; or (ii) to require a recorded easement
and agreement for the offsite land disturbing activity before further land disturbing activity occurs,
or in the case of a proposed plan, prior to further review or approval.
(§ 17-200: § 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-8, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-3,
19.3-8; § 17-200, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08) (§ 17-201: 2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-9; §
17-201, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) (§17-202: § 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-
10, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-3, 19.3-10; § 17-202, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-15.44:27, 62.1-15.44:54, 62.1-15.44:55; 9VAC25-840-80.
Sec. 17-305 Notice of determination regarding status of land disturbing activity or site condition.
The administrator shall provide notice to the owner of any determination under section 17-304(A) that a
proposed land disturbing activity is subject to this chapter where an owner asserts that the activity is
exempt, any determination under section 17-304(B) that an erosion impact area exists, any determination
under section 17-304(C) that an agricultural road is now subject to the VESCP, as follows:
A. Notice. Upon making a determination, the administrator shall immediately inform the owner of the
determination. The notice may either be informal, by the administrator speaking to the owner by
telephone or in person, or a written notice. The written notice shall: (i) state the basis for the
determination; (ii) instruct the owner to submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review
and approval; and (iii) for determinations pertaining to erosion impact areas or agricultural roads,
state the date by which the plan shall be submitted.
B. When written notice required. If informal notice as provided in subsection (A) is first provided to
the owner and the owner either requests written notice or fails to comply with the informal notice,
the administrator shall then provide written notice to the owner as provided in subsection (A).
(§ 17-201: 2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-9; § 17-201, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) (§17-202: § 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5,
2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-10, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-3, 19.3-10; § 17-202, Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-15.44:27, 62.1-15.44:54.
Sec. 17-306 Owner’s obligation upon receipt of notice of determination.
Upon receipt of the notice provided by the administrator under section 17 -305, the owner shall be
obligated to act as follows:
A. Determination that land disturbing activity is subject to the VESCP or the VSMP, or both. If the
administrator determines that a land disturbing activity is subject to the VESCP, the VSMP, or
both, under section 17-305(A) or (C), the owner shall immediately comply with the applicable
requirements of this chapter and the applicable requirements of this chapter shall be immediately
enforced.
B. Determination that an erosion impact area exists. If the administrator determines that an erosion
impact area exists under section 17-305(B), the owner shall: (i) not permit any portion of that land
to remain in a condition so that soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable
damage or harm to adjacent or downstream property, roads, streams, lakes, or ponds; and (ii)
immediately comply with the applicable requirements of the notice and this chapter. If good cause
is shown, the administrator may grant to an owner an extension of time to comply with the
requirements of this subsection and this chapter.
(2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-9; § 17-201, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-15.44:27, 62.1-15.44:54, 62.1-15.44:55; 9VAC25-840-80.
Article IV. Procedure for Submitting, Reviewing and Acting on Applications;
Post-Approval Rights and Obligations
Division 1. Application Requirements
Sec. 17-400 Responsibility to prepare, submit and obtain approval of applications; multi -
jurisdictional developments.
The procedures in this article, and all related requirements of this chapter, apply to any land disturbing
activity subject to the VESCP and the VSMP, as well as any land disturbing activity subject to the VESCP
but not the VSMP. Any land disturbing activity subject only to the VESCP shall be subject only to the
requirements of this chapter applicable under the VESCP. An application shall be submitted as follows:
A. Responsibility of the owner. Each owner is responsible for preparing, submitting, and obtaining
approval of an application prior to engaging in land disturbing activity subject to this chapter.
When the land disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work
pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission, and obtaining approval of the
plan shall be the responsibility of the owner.
B. Submittal of application to the administrator. Subject to subsection (C), each application shall be
submitted to the administrator as provided in this chapter.
C. Multi-jurisdictional developments. If a proposed land disturbing activity involves lands under the
jurisdiction of the Count y’s program and another public entity’s program, in lieu of the owner
submitting separate applications to each program, either:
1. Request that State review plan. The administrator or the other program, or both, may
request that the application be submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality for review and action; or
2. Agreement that single program administer the project. The administrator may enter into
an agreement on behalf of the County with the other program regarding the
administration of the project, whereby the program containing the greater portion of the
project shall be responsible for all or part of ensuring that the applicable program
requirements are satisfied. The greater portion of the project shall include all anticipated
future phases and development of the project, as determined by the administrator.
(§ 17-203: § 19.3-11, 2-11-98; § 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 7-4, 6-18-75, §
6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; Code 1988, §§ 7-
3, 7-4, 19.3-11; § 17-203, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-17(1), 7-11-01; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-
5-09) (§ 17-303: § 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. II, § 1, 10-19-77, 9-13-78, 10-22-80, 7-11-90, 8-3-94; § 19.1-7, 9-
29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.3-27, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-6, 19.2-7, 19.3-27; § 17-303, Ord. 98-
A(1), 6-17-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:34, 62.1-44.15:55; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-401 VSMP permit application; form and content.
Any owner whose proposed land disturbing activity is subject to the VSMP shall submit an application for
a VSMP permit that includes all of the following, in the form required by the administrator:
A. Application form. A completed application on an application form provided by the administrator,
signed by the owner.
B. Fees. All applicable fees required by section 17-207 and the applicable fee form.
C. Registration statement. A complete and accurate registration statement, if such a statement is
required, from the operator on the official form provided by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality in order to apply for general permit coverage. The registration statement
shall be signed by the owner in accordance with 9VAC25-870-370 and 9VAC25-880-70. A
registration statement is not required for construction of a detached single -family dwelling within
or outside of a common plan of development or sale, provided that the project complies with the
requirements of the general permit.
D. Erosion and sediment control plan. An erosion and sediment control plan satisfying the
requirements of sections 17-402.
E. Stormwater management plan. A stormwater management plan satisfying the requirements of
sections 17-403 or an executed agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan.
F. Pollution prevention plan. A pollution prevention plan satisfying the requirements of section 17-
404.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
G. Stormwater pollution prevention plan. A stormwater pollution prevention plan satisfying the
requirements of section 17-405.
H. Mitigation plan. A mitigation plan satisfying the requirements of section 17-406 if land disturbing
activity is proposed within a stream buffer under section 17-604.
I. Requested variations or exceptions. A request for any variation or exception as provided in
sections 17-407 and 17-408.
J. Construction record drawings. Construction record drawings if existing stormwater management
facilities are used, satisfying the requirements of section 17-422.
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:34; 9VAC25-870-59, 9VAC25-870-370, 9VAC25-880-70.
Sec. 17-402 Erosion and sediment control plans, and agreements in lieu of a plan; form and
content.
Any owner whose proposed land disturbing activity is subject to the VSMP, or is subject solely to the
VESCP, shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan for review that includes the following, in the
form required by the administrator:
A. Application form. A completed application on an application form provided by the administrator, if
the land disturbing activity is subject only to the VESCP and a VSMP permit is not required.
B. Fee. The fee required by section 17-207, if the land disturbing activity is subject only to the
VESCP, and a VSMP permit is not required.
C. Elements of plan. Except as provided in subsection (D), an erosion and sediment control plan that
contains all of the following elements:
1. Temporary and permanent controls. The specifications for temporary and permanent
controls of soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as the administrator deems to be
reasonably adequate, considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturbing
activity, implementing appropriate erosion and sediment control best management
practices and satisfying the requirements of 9VAC25-880-70, Part II(A)(2). All control
measures required by the plan shall be designed and installed in accordance with good
engineering practices.
2. Maintenance responsibilities. A statement describing the maintenance responsibilities of
the owner to ensure that the land disturbing activity will satisfy the purposes and
requirements of this chapter.
3. Technical criteria. The technical criteria required by section 17-500.
4. Identification of land disturber. Identify the person holding a certificate of competence
required by Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:54, who shall be in charge of and responsible for
carrying out the land disturbing activity.
5. Additional information. Additional information required by the administrator as determined
to be necessary for a complete review of the plan.
6. Certification. A certification on a form provided by the administrator and signed by the
owner stating that all requirements of the approved plan will be complied with.
D. Agreement in lieu of a plan. Notwithstanding subsection (C), if the land disturbing activity is for
the purpose of establishing or modifying a single family dwelling unit, the administrator may allow
an agreement in lieu of a plan for the land disturbing activity required for constructing the
dwelling; provided:
1. Eligibility. The single family dwelling unit is on an individual lot of one (1) acre or less
which is not subject to an active erosion and sediment control plan or is not part of a
common plan of development or sale.
2. Other factors to be considered by administrator. In determining whether to allow an
agreement in lieu of a plan under this section, the administrator shall consider the
potential threat to water quality and to adjacent land resulting from the land disturbing
activity, and whether the land disturbing activity is within the mountain overlay district
identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Contents and form of the agreement in lieu of a plan. The contents of any agreement in
lieu of a plan shall be established by the administrator, and they shall: (i) be sufficient to
ensure that the purposes and requirements of the VESCP, including the requirements of
9VAC25-880-70, Part II(A)(2) are satisfied; and (ii) identify the person in charge of and
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
responsible for carrying out the land disturbing activity and holding a valid certificate of
competence for that task. The form of the agreement shall be subject to review and
approval by the County attorney.
4. Effect of agreement in administration of the VESCP. Except as provided in subsection (C)
and section 17-500 pertaining to the content and technical criteria applicable to erosion
and sediment control plans, all other references in this chapter to an erosion and
sediment control plan shall include an agreement in lieu of a plan, and the County and
the owner shall have all of the rights, responsibilities and remedies set forth in this
chapter as though the agreement in lieu of a plan was an erosion and sediment control
plan.
(§ 17-203: § 19.3-11, 2-11-98; § 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 7-4, 6-18-75, §
6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; Code 1988, §§ 7-
3, 7-4, 19.3-11; § 17-203, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-17(1), 7-11-01; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-
5-09) (§ 17-205: § 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-
18-92; § 19.3-13, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-4, 19.3-13; § 17-205, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-17(1), 7-
11-01)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:55; 9VAC25-840-60, 9VAC25-870-400, 9VAC25-880-70, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-403 Stormwater management plans; form and content.
Any owner whose proposed land disturbing activity is subject to the VSMP shall submit a stormwater
management plan for review that includes the following, in the form required by the administrator:
A. Elements of plan. Except as provided in subsection (B), a stormwater management plan for the
entire land disturbing activity, where applicable, which shall be considered to be a single land
disturbing activity even when there are individual parcels in a new residential, commercial, or
industrial development. The plan shall contain all of the following elements:
1. Stormwater discharges and features. The plan shall consider all sources of surface runoff
and all sources of subsurface and groundwater flows converted to surface runoff, and
shall include information on the type of and location of stormwater discharges,
information on the features to which stormwater is being discharged including surface
waters, and predevelopment and postdevelopment drainage areas.
2. Contact information. Contact information including the name, address, telephone number,
and email address of the owner and the tax reference number and parcel number of the
property or properties affected.
3. Details pertaining to, or narrative of, current and final site conditions . Either sufficient plan
information provided and documented during the review process that addresses the
current and final site conditions, or a narrative that includes a description of current site
conditions and final site conditions or
4. Description of proposed stormwater management facilities . A detailed plan of the
proposed stormwater management facilities, including all best management practices,
that will satisfy the requirements of this chapter and a description of all facilities and best
management practices that will prevent or minimize water quality impacts for any new
development or redevelopment project that will result in land disturbing activity of ten
thousand (10,000) square feet or more.
5. Description of long-term operation and maintenance. A description of the mechanism
through which the facilities, including all best m anagement practices, will be operated and
maintained after construction is complete, provided that this description is satisfied if the
stormwater management facility will be subject to the agreement required by section 17 -
415.
6. Information about proposed stormwater management facilities. The following information
about the proposed stormwater management facilities, including: (i) the type of facilities;
(ii) the location, including geographic coordinates; (iii) acres treated; (iv) the surface
waters into which the facility will discharge; and (v) any other information required by the
administrator in order to comply with any requirements of the County’s MS4 permit.
7. Documentation demonstrating compliance. Documentation and calculations, including all
hydrologic and hydraulic computations and runoff characteristics, verifying compliance
with the water quality and quantity requirements of the technical criteria in section 17-
501.
8. Maps. One or more maps of the site depicting the topography of the site and: (i) all
contributing drainage areas; (ii) existing streams, ponds, culverts, ditches, wetlands,
other water bodies, and floodplains; (iii) soil types, geologic formations if karst features
are present in the area, forest cover, and other vegetative areas; (iv) current land use
including existing structures, roads, and locations of known utilities and easements; (v)
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
sufficient information on adjoining parcels to assess the impacts of stormwater from the
site on these parcels; (vi) the limits of clearing and grading, and the proposed drainage
patterns on the site; (vii) proposed buildings, roads, parking areas, utilities, and
stormwater management facilities; (viii) proposed land uses, with tabulation of the
percentage of surface area to be adapted to various uses, including but not limited to
planned locations of utilities, roads, and easements; and (ix) other site information
deemed necessary by the administrator.
9. Offsite compliance options. If an owner intends to meet the requirements established in
section 17-502, which implements 9VAC25-870-63 and 9VAC25-870-66, through the use
of off-site compliance options, where applicable, a letter of availability from the off-site
provider.
10. Additional information. Additional information deemed necessary by the administrator for
a complete review of the plan.
B. Agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan. Notwithstanding subsection (A), if the land
disturbing activity is for the purpose of establishing a single family dwelling unit, the administrator
may allow an agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan for the land disturbing activity
required for constructing the dwelling.
C. Seals and signatures. Any elements of the stormwater management plan that include activities
regulated under Virginia Code § 54.1-400 et seq. shall be appropriately sealed and signed by a
professional registered in the State pursuant to Virginia Code § 54.1-400 et seq. Any stormwater
management plan requiring an appropriate seal and signature shall be deemed to be incomplete
under section 17-409 if it is not sealed and signed as required by this section.
(§ 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. II, § 1, 10-19-77, 9-13-78, 10-22-80, 7-11-90, 8-3-94; § 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2,
7-11-90; § 19.3-27, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-6, 19.2-7, 19.3-27; § 17-303, Ord. 98-A(1), 6-17-98)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:34; 9VAC25-870-55, 9VAC25-870-108, 9VAC25-870-400, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-404 Pollution prevention plans; form and content.
Any owner whose proposed land disturbing activity is subject to the VSMP shall submit a pollution
prevention plan for review that includes the foll owing, in the form required by the administrator:
A. Elements of plan. A pollution prevention plan containing all of the following elements:
1. Sources of pollutants. Identify potential pollutant generating activities and the pollutant
that is expected to be exposed to stormwater.
2. Location of pollutant generating activities. Describe the location where the potential
pollutant generating activities will occur, or if identified on a site plan, refer to the site
plan.
3. Non-stormwater discharges. Identify all non-stormwater discharges as provided in
9VAC25-880-70, Part I(E), that are or will be commingled with stormwater discharges
from the construction activity, including any support activity.
4. Person responsible. Identify the person responsible for implementing the pollution
prevention practices for each pollutant generating activity, if different from the person
listed as the qualified personnel in the stormwater pollution prevention plan.
5. Practices and procedures. Describe the pollution prevention practices and procedures
that will be implemented to respond to the categories of leaks, spills and discharges in
9VAC25-880-70, Part II(A)(4)(e).
6. Pollution prevention awareness. Describe the procedures for providing pollution
prevention awareness of all applicable wastes, including any wash water, disposal
practices and applicable disposal locations of these wastes to personnel in order to
comply with the State.
B. Details of measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants. The pollution prevention plan shall
detail the design, installation, implementation, and maintenance of effective pollution prevention
measures in accordance with 40 CFR 450.21(d) to minimize the discharge of pollutants. The
following are the minimum requirements for minimizing the discharge of pollutants:
1. Minimum control measures. At a minimum, the control measures shall be designed,
installed, implemented, and maintained to address the following:
a. Wash waters. Minimize the discharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle
washing, wheel wash water, and other wash waters. Wash waters must be
treated in a sediment basin or alternative control that provides equivalent or
better treatment prior to discharge.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
b. Minimization of exposure to precipitation and stormwater. Minimize the exposure
of building materials, building products, construction wastes, trash, landscape
materials, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste, and other
materials present on the site to precipitation and to stormwater.
c. Minimize discharges from spills and leaks. Minimize the discharge of pollutants
from spills and leaks and implement chemical spill and leak prevention and
response procedures.
2. Best management practices. The pollution prevention plan shall provide effective best
management practices to prohibit the following discharges in accordance with 40 CFR
450.21(e):
a. Washout of concrete. Wastewater from the washout of concrete.
b. Washout of stucco and other materials. Wastewater from washout and cleanout
of stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds, and other construction
materials.
c. Vehicle and equipment maintenance and operation. Fuels, oils, or other
pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation and maintenance.
d. Vehicle and equipment washing. Soaps, solvents or detergents used in vehicle
and equipment washing.
3. Discharges from dewatering activities prohibited. Discharges from dewatering activities,
including discharges from dewatering trenches and excavations, are prohibited unless
managed by appropriate controls in accordance with 40 CFR 450.21(c).
4. Control of waste. The pollution prevention plan shall include measures for controlling
waste such as discarded building materials, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the
construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality.
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-54, 9VAC25-870-56, 9VAC25-870-400, 9VAC25-880-70, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-405 Stormwater pollution prevention plan; form and content.
Any owner whose proposed land disturbing activity is subject to the VSMP shall submit a stormwater
pollution prevention plan for review that includes the following, in the form required by the administrator:
A. Elements of plan. A stormwater pollution prevention plan containing all of the following elements:
1. Registration statement. A signed copy of the registration statement, if such a statement is
required, for coverage under the general permit. A registration statement is not required
for construction of a detached single-family dwelling within or outside of a common plan
of development or sale, provided that the project complies with the requirements of the
general permit.
2. Notice of general permit coverage. Upon receipt, a copy of the notice of coverage under
the general permit.
3. General permit. A copy of the general permit.
4. Nature of activity. A narrative description of the nature of the construction activity,
including the function of the project (e.g., low density residential, shopping mall,
highway).
5. Plan of the site. A plan of the site, satisfying the form and style for such a plan as
provided in the Design Standards Manual, identifying:
a. Direction of stormwater flow. Directions of stormwater flow and approximate
slopes anticipated after major grading activities.
b. Limits of land disturbance. Limits of land disturbance including steep slopes and
natural buffers around surface waters that will not be disturbed.
c. Major structural and nonstructural control measures. Locations of major structural
and nonstructural control measures including sediment basins and traps,
perimeter dikes, sediment barriers, and other measures intended to filter, settle,
or similarly treat sediment that will be installed between disturbed areas and the
undisturbed vegetated areas, in order to increase sediment removal and
maximize stormwater infiltration;
d. Surface waters. Locations of surface waters.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
e. Concentrated stormwater. Locations where concentrated stormwater is
discharged.
f. Support activities. Locations of support activities, when applicable and when
required by the administrator, including but not limited to: (i) areas where
equipment and vehicle washing, wheel wash water, and other wash water is to
occur; (ii) storage areas for chemicals such as acids, fuels, fertilizers and other
lawn care chemicals; (iii) concrete wash out areas; (iv) vehicle fueling and
maintenance areas; (v) sanitary waste facilities, including those temporarily
placed on the construction site; and (vi) construction waste storage.
6. Requirements of 40 CFR 450.21. The plan must address the following requirements as
specified in 40 CFR 450.21, to the extent not otherwise addressed in the erosion and
sediment control plan submitted for the site:
a. Runoff volume and velocity. Control runoff volume and velocity within the site to
minimize soil erosion.
b. Stormwater discharges. Control stormwater discharges, including both peak flow
rates and total stormwater volume, to minimize erosion at outlets and to minimize
downstream channel and stream bank erosion.
c. Minimize soil exposure. Minimize the amount of soil exposed during construction
activity.
d. Minimize disturbance of steep slopes. Minimize the disturbance of slopes of
twenty-five (25) percent or greater.
e. Minimize sediment discharges. Minimize sediment discharges from the site by
designing, installing and maintaining erosion and sediment controls that address
factors such as the amount, frequency, intensity and duration of precipitation, the
nature of resulting runoff, and soil characteristics, including the range of soil
particle sizes expected to be present on the site.
f. Buffers. Provide and maintain natural buffers around surface waters, direct
stormwater to vegetated areas to increase sediment removal and maximize
stormwater infiltration, unless infeasible.
g. Soil compaction. Minimize soil compaction and, unless infeasible, preserve
topsoil.
h. Stabilize disturbed areas. Stabilization of disturbed areas must, at a minimum, be
initiated immediately whenever any clearing, grading, excavating, or other earth
disturbing activities have permanently ceased on any portion of the site, or
temporarily ceased on any portion of the site and will not resume for a period
exceeding fourteen (14) calendar days. Stabilization must be completed within
the period of time determined by the administrator. In arid, semiarid, and drought-
stricken areas where initiating vegetative stabilization measures immediately is
infeasible, alternative stabilization measures must be employed as specified by
the administrator.
i. Outlet structures. Use outlet structures that withdraw water from the surface,
unless infeasible, when discharging from basins and impoundments.
7. Discharges to impaired waters, surface waters within an applicable TMDL wasteload
allocation, and exceptional waters. Discharges to impaired waters, surface waters within
an applicable TMDL wasteload allocation established and approved prior to July 1, 2014,
and exceptional waters shall include the information required by 9VAC25-880-70, Part
II(A)(5).
B. Qualified personnel. The name, telephone number, and qualifications of the qualified personnel
conducting inspections.
C. Delegation of authority. The persons or positions with authority to sign inspection reports or to
modify the stormwater pollution prevention plan.
D. Additional elements of an approved plan. In addition to the elements in subsection (A), an
approved stormwater pollution prevention plan is composed of, once they are approved, the
approved erosion and sediment control plan, including the elements of that plan addressing the
requirements of 9VAC25-870-54(F), the approved stormwater management plan, and the
pollution prevention plan for the land disturbing activity to which the stormwater pollution
prevention plan applies.
E. Signature. The plan shall be signed by a person authorized under 9VAC25-880-70, Part III(K).
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-54, 9VAC25-880-70, 9VAC25-890-40.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Sec. 17-406 Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer; form and content.
Each owner who seeks to develop in a stream buffer pursuant to section 17-604 shall submit a mitigation
plan that includes the following in the form required by the administrator:
A. Elements of plan. Except as provided in subsection (B), each mitigation plan shall contain all of
the following:
1. Identify impacts and specify mitigation measures. Identify the impacts of the proposed
development on water quality and lands within the stream buffer, and specify the
mitigation measures that will address water quality and stream buffer impacts.
2. Disturbance to land and vegetation minimized. Ensure that, where development takes
place within a stream buffer: (i) the proposed development, including the alignment and
design of any stream crossing, shall be located on those portions of a site and in a
manner that will be least disruptive to the natural functions of the stream buffer; (ii) no
more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to allow a development that is permitted in
the underlying zoning district under the applicable regulations of the Zoning Ordinance;
and (iii) native vegetation shall be preserved to the fullest extent possible, co nsistent with
the proposed development.
3. Multiple stream crossings; demonstrate environmental advantage over single stream
crossing. If an owner seeks to establish more than one stream crossing as provided in
section 17-604(C)(7), demonstrate that the environmental impacts from the entire road,
street or driveway necessitated by a single stream crossing would be greater than the
environmental impacts caused by an additional crossing and its associated road, street or
driveway. For the purposes of this subsection, the environmental impacts considered by
the administrator include, but are not limited to, impacts to soil, soil erosion, stormwater
quantity, water quality, loss of vegetated stream buffer, impacts to stream beds and
stream banks, the creation of impervious surfaces, and the disturbance of slopes of
twenty-five (25) percent or greater.
4. Additional information. Additional information deemed necessary by the administrator for
a complete review of the plan.
B. Building permit in lieu of satisfying requirements of subsection (A). For any mitigation plan
pertaining to the development of one single-family detached dwelling, the administrator may, in
his discretion, accept the building permit for the dwelling in lieu of satisfying the requirements of
subsection (A).
(§ 19.3-46, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; § 19.1-13, 6-19-91, § 13; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-13, 19.2-8,
19.3-46; § 17-322, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(2), 5-7-08; Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-407 Variances from requirements of the VESCP.
The administrator may waive or modify any applicable requirements of the VESCP that he deems to be
inappropriate or too restrictive for the site conditions, by granting a variance in conjunction with his review
of the erosion and sediment control plan, subject to the following:
A. When variance may be requested. An owner may request that a variance be granted at the time
the plan is submitted or while it is under review by the administrator.
B. Reason for variance. The owner shall explain in writing the reasons for requesting any variance.
C. Factors to be considered. The administrator shall consider the reasons given by the owner for
requesting the variance, the purposes of this chapter, and the competing need of the owner to
maximize cost effectiveness and the need to protect offsite properties and resour ces from
damage.
D. Variance incorporated into approved plan. Any approved variance shall become part of, and be
documented in, the approved plan.
State law reference – 9VAC25-840-50.
Sec. 17-408 Exceptions from the requirements of the VSMP.
The administrator may grant exceptions from the requirements of the VSMP as follows:
A. When exception may be requested. At the time the VSMP permit application is submitted and
while it is under review, an owner may request an exception from any technical c riteria in
9VAC25-870-62 through 9VAC25-870-92 or in 9VAC25-870-93 through 9VAC25-870-99.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
B. Factors to be considered. The administrator may grant an exception if: (i) the exception is the
minimum necessary to afford relief; (ii) reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as
necessary to ensure that the intent of the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and this chapter
are preserved; (iii) granting the exception will not confer any special privileges that are denied in
other similar circumstances; and (iv) the exception request is not based upon conditions or
circumstances that are self-imposed or self-created. Economic hardship alone is not a sufficient
reason to grant an exception.
C. Certain exceptions expressly prohibited. The following exceptions are expressly prohibited:
1. Requirement for general permit. Any exception to the requirement that the land-disturbing
activity obtain any required general permits
2. Using unapproved BMP. Any exception to allow using a best management practice that is
not found on the Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse Website
(http://vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/PostConstructionBMPs.html), except where allowed under
9VAC25-870-93 et seq., or is not found in the Design Standards Manual
3. Phosphorous reductions. Any exception to allow phosphorous reductions, unless offsite
options available through 9VAC25-870-69 have been considered and found not available.
4. Postdevelopment nonpoint nutrient runoff compliance. Any exception from
postdevelopment nonpoint nutrient runoff compliance requirements, unless offsite options
have been considered and found not available.
(2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-32; § 17-308, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:35; 9VAC25-870-57, 9VAC25-870-122.
Division 2. Submittal, Review and Action
Sec. 17-409 Submittal of application; determination of completeness.
The administrator shall determine whether a submitted application is complete as follows:
A. Date of official submittal. An application shall be deemed to be officially submitted on the date of
the next application deadline established by the administrator after the application has been
submitted and the administrator has determined that the application is complete.
B. Timing of review to determine completeness. The administrator’s review to determine whether an
application is complete shall be made within ten (10) days after he receives the application.
C. Effect of failure to make timely determination of completeness. If a determination of completeness
is not made and timely communicated to the applicant, the permit application shall be deemed to
be complete on the date the application was submitted.
D. Determination that application is incomplete; notice. An application omitting any information
required by sections 17-401 through 17-408 shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be
accepted for official submittal by the administrator. The administrator shall inform the owner in
writing of the reasons the plan is incomplete, with citation to the applicable section of this chapter
or other law, and what corrections or modifications must be made for the application to be
complete. The administrator shall inform the owner or his or her agent of the d etermination by
written notice.
E. Resubmittal. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the written notice under subsection (D) was
mailed or delivered by the administrator, the owner may resubmit the application. If the owner
fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen (15) day period, the application shall be deemed
to be disapproved and a new application and fee shall be required to resubmit.
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:55; 9VAC25-870-108.
Sec. 17-410 Review and action on application.
The administrator shall review and act on an application as follows:
A. Review. The administrator shall ensure that the plan is reviewed by a certified plan reviewer (but
referred to herein as the “administrator”) who shall review the plan for compliance with the
technical requirements for an application in sections 17-400 through 17-408 and other applicable
laws. This review shall be completed within forty-five (45) days after the application was deemed
to be complete under section 17-409.
B. Identification of required changes. Upon completion of review, the administrator shall identify all
applicable requirements of this chapter that must be addressed in order for the application to be
approved.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
C. Revisions required. The owner shall revise the application to address all of the required changes
before the application may be approved.
D. Time for action. The administrator shall act on the application within sixty (60) days after the date
the application was deemed to be complete, pro vided:
1. Time for action if changes required; notice of required changes . If the administrator
requires or recommends changes to the application, he shall issue within forty-five (45)
days after the application was deemed to be complete a written notic e to the owner
identifying the required changes that must be made and the recommended changes that
may, in the owner’s discretion, be made.
2. Suspension of running of time for action. The running of the time by which the
administrator must act on an application shall be suspended: (i) from the date the appeal
of the disapproval of a variance or exception is submitted until the date the board of
supervisors acts on the appeal under section 17-211; (ii) from the date of the written
notice to the owner until the date the revised application addressing the required changes
is submitted; (iii) from the date of the owner’s request for a deferral of review under
section 17-411(A); (iv) during any extension granted under section 17-411(C); and (v) for
any multi-jurisdictional land disturbing activity, from the date either Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality review was requested or a multi-jurisdictional agreement was
identified as necessary until the date the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
informs the administrator in writing that it will accept review or the date of the multi -
jurisdictional agreement.
E. Action to approve and notice of approval. If the administrator determines that the application
complies with all applicable requirements, he shall approve the application and promptly either
indicate by stamp or signature on every plan that it is approved or issue a written notice to the
owner informing him of the approval.
F. Action to disapprove and notice of disapproval. If the administrator determines that the application
does not satisfy all applicable requirements, he shall disapprove the application and promptly
issue a written notice to the owner stating the reasons for disapproval by identifying the
application’s deficiencies and citing the applicable sections of this chapter or other applicable
laws, and what modifications, terms and conditions will permit approval of the application.
G. Failure to timely act. If the administrator fails to act on an application within the time s pecified in
subsection (D), the application shall be deemed approved, subject to compliance with the
requirements of sections 17-414 through 17-422.
(§ 17-204: § 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-12, 2-
11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-5, 19.3-12; § 17-204, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08; Ord. 09-17(1),
8-5-09, effective 9-5-09) (§ 17-304: § 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, § 3, 7-
11-90; § 19.3-28, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.1-8, 19.3-28; § 17-304, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09; Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:34, 62.1-44.15:53, 62.1-44.15:55; 9VAC25-870-108.
Sec. 17-411 Deferral of review of application; when application deemed withdrawn.
The administrator’s review and action on an application may be deferred, and the application may be
deemed withdrawn, as follows:
A. Request to defer by owner. An owner may request that review or action on the application be
deferred for a specified period up to six (6) months. If during the deferral period the owner does
not request the administrator to take action on the application as provided in section 17-408
within six (6) months after the date the deferral was requested, the application shall be deemed to
have been voluntarily withdrawn.
B. Failure to submit revised application. If an owner fails to submit a revised application to address
all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of the written notice as provided in
section 17-410(D)(1), the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the
owner.
C. Extension of deferral period or period to submit revised plan. Before the deferral period in
subsection (A) expires, the owner may request that the administrator extend the period before the
application is deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn. The request must be received by the
administrator before the deferral period expires. The administrator may grant one extension for a
period not to exceed three (3) months, taking into consideration the size or nature of the
proposed development, the complexity of the review, and the laws in effect at the time the
extension request is made.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:34, 62.1-44.15:54.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Sec. 17-412 Coordination of review of erosion and sediment control plans with the review of
subdivision plats and site plans.
The review and action on any application shall be coordinated with the review of a subdi vision plat or site
plan, to the extent authorized by law.
A. Site plans. An application may be approved for early (or mass) grading upon approval of an initial
site plan under section18-32.4.2.8, provided that the developer has satisfied any conditions of
approval identified by the agent in the letter required by section 18-32.4.2.5(c). An application for
land disturbing activity within a planned development district may be approved prior to approval of
an initial site plan as provided in section 18-8.5.5.4(b). However, no grading permit, building or
other permit shall be issued and no land disturbing activity may begin until the developer satisfies
the requirements of sections 17-414 through 17-417; provided that land disturbing activity may
occur prior to approval of a stormwater management plan if the activity was previously covered
under the general permit issued July 1, 2009.
B. Subdivision plats. An application may be approved for early (or mass) grading upon approval of a
preliminary plat for a subdivision within a planned development district under Albemarle County
Code § 14-225, provided that the subdivider has satisfied any conditions of approval identified by
the agent in the letter required by section 14-222(C), and further provided that an application for
land disturbing activity within a planned development district may be approved prior to approval of
a preliminary plat as provided in section 18-8.5.5.4(b). However, no grading, building or other
permit shall be issued and no land disturbing activity may begin until the subdivider satisfies the
requirements of sections 17-414 through 17-417; provided that land disturbing activity may occur
prior to approval of a stormwater management plan if the activity was previously covered under
the general permit issued July 1, 2009.
C. Other circumstances. The administrator may approve an erosion and sediment control plan prior
to approval of an initial site plan or a preliminary plat in the following circumstances:
1. Correct existing condition. To correct erosion or excessive sedimentation which is
occasioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of God or other cause
beyond the control of the owner; provided that the activity proposed shall be strictly
limited to correcting the condition.
2. Install underground utility improvements. To install underground public utility mains,
interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans have been previously
approved by the operating utility and approved by the County as being substantially in
accord with the comprehensive plan, if necessary.
3. Borrow, fill or waste areas. To establish borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with
sections 18-5.1.28 and 18-10.2.1.18.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:55; 9VAC25-870-54, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-413 Appeal of decision of the administrator.
Any decision of the administrator under section 17-411 may be appealed by the owner as provided in
section 17-211.
(§ 17-210: § 7-7, 6-18-75, § 9, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-18, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-7, 19.3-18; §17-
210, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) (§ 17-311: 2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-35; § 17-311, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:26, 62.1-44.15:44, 62.1-44.15:45, 62.1-44.15:46, 62.1-44.15:62; 9VAC25-
870-118.
Division 3. Required Agreements as Prerequisites to Approval: Surety and Maintenance
Sec. 17-414 Agreement with surety.
Any agreement with surety required by this chapter shall be provided by the owner as a prerequisite to
approval of the application, as follows:
A. Purpose for agreement. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the County to take all
appropriate measures required by the approved plan or a condition of the VSMP permit
(collectively, the “conservation actions”).
B. Form of the agreement. The agreement accompanying the surety shall be on a form prepared by
the County attorney and any proposed amendment to the agreement shall be subject to review
and approval by the County attorney.
C. Purpose for surety; type of surety permitted amount. The owner shall provide a surety to
guarantee that the conservation actions will be taken and satisfied. The applicant shall furnish to
the administrator a cash escrow, certified check, official check, bond with surety, letter of credit,
or collaterally assign funds in a manner satisfactory to the County attorney (collectively, the
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
“surety instrument”), in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the satisfactory
performance of all conservation actions. Any proposed surety instrument shall be subject to being
acceptable to the administrator, shall be in a form and have the substance approved by the
County attorney, and shall be subject to review and approval by the County attorney.
D. Estimate. The owner shall submit a request for an estimate of the surety amount to the
administrator. The administrator shall prepare an estimate of the total estimated cost to initiate
and maintain appropriate all conservation actions based on the unit price for new public or private
sector construction in the County and a reasonable allowance for estimated administrative costs
and inflation, which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the estimated cost of the
conservation actions.
E. Use of surety. The County may make use of monies guaranteed by the surety instrument if either:
(i) the owner fails to timely renew the bond with surety, letter of credit, or the collaterally assigned
funds; or (ii) the administrator, in his discretion, determines that the owner, after written notice,
failed within the time specified in the notice to initiate, maintain or complete appropriate
conservation actions required by the approved plan or by a condition of the permit.
F. Right to collect shortfall. If the County takes a conservation action because the owner failed to do
so, the County may collect from the owner the difference if the amount of the reasonable cost of
the conservation action exceeds the amount of the security held.
G. Release of surety. The surety shall be released as provided in section 17-423.
(§ 17-207: § 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-15, 2-
11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-5, 19.3-15; § 17-207, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-
09) (§ 17-306: § 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.3-30, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.3-30;
§ 17-306, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:34, 62.1-44.15:57; 9VAC25-870-104.
Sec. 17-415 Stormwater management maintenance agreement.
The long-term maintenance of permanent stormwater facilities and other techniques shall be subject to
the following:
A. Responsibility. The owner shall enter into an agreement with the County providing for the owner’s
obligation to maintain, repair, replace, reconstruct any permanent stormwater facilities and other
techniques required in conjunction with the approval of the stormwater management plan,
including as it may be amended, or modified as provided in this chapter. The agreement shall be
subject to acceptance by the administrator.
B. Form and substance of the agreement. The agreement shall be in a form and have the substance
approved by the County attorney, and shall be subject to review and approval by the County
attorney. At a minimum, the agreement shall: (i) be submitted to the administrator for review and
approval prior to approval of the stormwater management plan; (ii) be stated to run with the land;
(iii) provide for all necessary access by the administrator to the property to inspect the facility or
technique and to maintain the facility in the event the owner fails to do so; (iv) provide for periodic
inspections and maintenance by the owner according to the schedule included in the agreement,
and the owner’s obligation to submit periodic inspection and maintenance reports to the
administrator; provided that nothing herein shall preclude the administrator from conducting
inspections in lieu of any owner-conducted inspection; and (v) be enforceable by the County and
any other public entity having authority to enforce the requirements of the Virginia Stormwater
Management Act or this chapter.
C. Recordation. The agreement shall be recorded in the records of the clerk of the circuit court of the
County.
D. When agreement not required. In his discretion, the administrator is authorized not to require an
agreement for any stormwater management facility designed to treat runoff primarily from an
individual residential lot on which it is located, provided that the owner demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the administrator that future maintenance of the facility will be addressed through
an agreement or other enforceable mechanism at the discretion of the administrato r.
(§ 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, § 3, 7-11-90; § 19.3-28, 2-11-98; Code
1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.1-8, 19.3-28; § 17-304, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09;
Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11)
State law reference – 9VAC25-840-60, 9VAC25-870-58, 9VAC25-870-112, 9VAC25-880-70.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
Division 4. Post-Approval Rights and Obligations
Sec. 17-416 Effect of approvals.
The effect of an approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for any land disturbing activity subject
solely to the VESCP, or a VSMP permit, is as follows:
A. Erosion and sediment control plan. When an erosion and sediment control plan is approved for
any land disturbing activity subject solely to the VESCP, the owner may engage in the land
disturbing activity as provided in the erosion and sediment control plan and the mitigation plan, if
applicable, subject to any applicable requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to,
sections 17-417 through 17-424, and the affirmative duties in sections 17-800 and 17-801, and
State and Federal law. Any land disturbing activity shall be conduc ted only as it was approved
under the erosion and sediment control plan and the erosion and sediment control plan shall be
implemented only as it was approved.
B. VSMP permit. When a VSMP permit is approved, the permit is a consolidated permit authorizi ng
the owner to engage in land disturbing activity as provided by the approved erosion and sediment
control plan, the approved stormwater management plan, the pollution prevention plan, the
stormwater pollution prevention plan, and the mitigation plan, if applicable, and the general
permit, subject to any applicable requirements of this chapter including, but not limited to,
sections 17-417 through 17-424, and sections 17-800 through 17-807, and State and Federal
law. The consolidated permit shall include a copy of, or a reference to, the general permit
coverage to discharge stormwater. Any land disturbing activity shall be conducted only as it was
approved under the VSMP permit. Any plan approved in conjunction with a VSMP permit shall be
implemented only as it was approved.
C. Stormwater management plans for residential, commercial or industrial subdivisions govern
development. The approved stormwater management plan shall govern the development of the
individual parcels until development of the project is complete, including those parcels developed
under subsequent owners.
(§ 17-207: § 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-15, 2-
11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-5, 19.3-15; § 17-207, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-
09) (§ 17-306: § 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.3-30, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.3-30;
§ 17-306, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:28(7); 9VAC25-840-90, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-417 Prerequisites to land disturbing activity.
Upon the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for any land disturbing activity subject solely
to the VESCP, or a VSMP permit, no land disturbing activity shown on the approved erosion and
sediment control plan or stormwater management plan shall occur until all of the following are satisfied:
A. Land disturbing activity subject only to the VESCP. If the land disturbing activity is subject solely
to the VESCP, no land disturbing activity shall occur and no County department or office or any
other public entity authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for
activities involving land disturbing activities regulated under this ch apter shall issue any such
permit unless: (i) the owner submits with his application the approved erosion and sediment
control plan and certification that the plan will be followed; (ii) the person responsible for carrying
out the plan provides to the administrator the name of the person holding a certificate of
competence who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land disturbing activity;
and (iii) an agreement with surety is provided as required by section 17 -414.
B. Land disturbing activity subject to the VSMP. If the land disturbing activity requires a VSMP
permit, no land disturbing activity shall occur and no County department or office or any other
public entity authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for
activities involving land disturbing activities regulated under this chapter shall issue any such
permit unless: (i) the owner submits with his application the approved VSMP permit, including the
approved erosion and sediment control plan and the approved stormwater management plan,
evidence of general permit coverage to discharge stormwater, if such evidence is required under
sections 17-401(C) and 17-405(A)(1), and certification that the plans will be followed; (ii) the
person responsible for carrying out the plan provides to the administrator the name of the person
holding a certificate of competence who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the
land disturbing activity; and (iii) an agreement with surety is provided as required by section 17-
414; provided that land disturbing activity may occur prior to approval of stormwater management
plan if the activity was previously covered under the general permit issued July 1, 2009.
C. Revocation of approval. The administrator is authorized to revoke the approval of the plan if the
person responsible fails to provide the name of a person holding a certificate of competence prior
to engaging in the land disturbing activity and the person responsible for carrying out the plan
shall be subject to the penalties provided by State law.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
(§ 17-207: § 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-15, 2-
11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-5, 19.3-15; § 17-207, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-
09) (§ 17-306: § 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.3-30, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.3-30;
§ 17-306, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:34, 62.1-44.15:55; 9VAC25-870-54, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-418 Modifications and variances to approved erosion and sediment control plans.
Any approved erosion and sediment control plan shall or may be changed as follows:
A. Required modifications. An approved plan shall be modified as follows:
1. Plan inadequate to satisfy VESCP requirements. The administrator shall require that an
approved plan be modified if, after an inspection of the site, the administrator determines
that the approved plan: (i) is inadequate to effectively control soil erosion, sediment
deposition, and runoff to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream
channels, waters, and other natural resources; (ii) is unable to be physically implemented
as approved; or (iii) fails to satisfy any other VESCP requirement. If an amendment is
required, the administrator may also require the time by which the amendment to the plan
shall by submitted and approved.
2. Re-evaluation if land disturbing activity not begun within 180 days or ceases for more
than 180 days. If land disturbing activity is not begun within one hundred eighty (180)
days after the plan was approved, or if land disturbing activity ceases for more than one
hundred eighty (180) days, the administrator may evaluate the approved plan to
determine whether it still satisfies the applicable VESCP requirements of this chapter and
other applicable laws and to verify that all design factors are still valid. If the administrator
determines that the approved plan is inadequate, no longer satisfies all applicable
VESCP requirements, or that the design factors are no longer valid, he shall require the
person responsible for carrying out the approved plan to submit and obtain approval of a
modified plan before starting or resuming the land disturbing activity.
B. Modification by agreement. The administrator may agree to allow an approved plan to be
modified if the person responsible for carrying out the approved plan finds that because of
changed circumstances or for other reasons, the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out,
and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with all VESCP requirements, are agreed to by
the administrator and the person responsible for carrying out the plan. The agreement may be
memorialized in a stand-alone agreement or by a note added to the approved plan and signed by
the administrator.
C. Variances. The administrator may waive or modify any applicable requirement of the VESCP
otherwise applicable to an approved plan that he deems to be inappropriate or too restrictive for
the site conditions, by granting a variance, subject to the following:
1. When variance may be requested. During construction, the person responsible for
implementing the approved plan may request a variance.
2. Reason for variance. The owner shall explain in writing the reasons for requesting any
variance.
3. Factors to be considered. The administrator shall consider variance requests judiciously,
keeping in mind both the need of the applicant to maximize cost effectiveness and the
need to protect off-site properties and resources from damage.
4. Action on request. The administrator shall respond to the request in writing by either
approving or disapproving the variance. If the administrator does not approve the
variance within ten (10) days after receipt of the request, the variance shall be considered
to be disapproved. After disapproval, the applicant may resubmit a variance request with
additional documentation.
5. Variance incorporated into approved plan. Any approved variance shall become part of,
and be documented in, the approved plan.
(§ 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-16, 2-11-98; Code
1988, §§ 7-5, 19.3-16; § 17-208, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:55; 9VAC25-840-50, 9VAC25-840-80, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-419 Amendments and modifications to approved stormwater management plans.
Any approved stormwater management plan shall be amended or may be modified as follows:
A. Stormwater management plan; amendment. The administrator shall require that an approved
stormwater management plan be amended if, after an inspection of the site or submittal and
review of the construction record drawing, the administrator determines that the plan fails to
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
satisfy any VSMP requirement. If an amendment is required, the administrator also may require
the time by which the amendment to the plan shall be submitted and approved.
B. Stormwater management plan; modification. An owner may request that the administrator allow
its approved stormwater management plan be modified. Any modification is subject to review and
approval by the administrator. The administrator shall act on the request and either approve or
disapprove the proposed modification in writing within sixty (60) days after the administrator
receives the request.
(§ 19.3-31, 2-11-98; § 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. II, § 1, 10-19-77, 9-13-78; 10-22-80, 7-11-90, 8-3-94; Code
1988, §§ 19.1-6, 19.3-31; § 17-307, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-54, 9VAC25-870-108, 9VAC25-880-70, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-420 Amendments to pollution prevention plans.
An owner shall obtain approval of an amendment to a pollution prevention plan whenever:
A. Change affects discharge of pollutants. There is a change in design, construction, operation, or
maintenance that has a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to State waters which has
not previously been addressed in the plan.
B. Inadequate control measures, best management practices, or waste control. As construction
proceeds, any control measure, best management practice or waste control measure in the plan
fails to achieve the purposes of the plan.
C. Pollutants not identified in the plan. As construction proceeds, new potential sources of pollutants
not identified in the plan may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of stormwater
discharges from the construction site.
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-56.
Sec. 17-421 Amendments to stormwater pollution prevention plans.
An owner shall obtain approval of an amendment to a stormwater pollution prevention plan in the
circumstances delineated in subsections (A) through (D). Any amendment to the plan shall be updated
within seven (7) days after amendment to its implementation and include the information required by
9VAC25-880-70, Part II(B)(4) and be signed in accordance with 9VAC25-880-70, Part III(K).
A. Change affects discharge of pollutants. There is a change in design, construction, operation, or
maintenance that has a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to surface waters and that
has not been previously addressed in the plan.
B. Correction of ineffective control measures. During inspections or investigations by the owner’s
qualified personal, the administrator, or any State or Federal official, it is determined that the
existing control measures are ineffective in minimizing pollutants in discharges from construction
activity. Any required amendment to the plan shall include additional or modified control
measures designed and implemented to correct the problems identified. If approval of the control
measure by the administrator is required, the plan revisions shall be completed within seven (7)
days after the control measure is approved.
C. Discharge, release, or spill from high priority facility . Whenever deemed necessary by the
administrator to accurately reflect any discharge, release, or spill from any high priority facility
reported in accordance with 9VAC25-890-40(III)(G). For each such discharge, release, or spill,
the amended plan must include the following information: (i) the date of the incident; (ii) the
material discharged, released, or spilled; and (iii) the quantity discharged, released or spilled.
D. Change in contractor. Any change in the name and required contact information in the contractor
that will implement and maintain any control measure.
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-54, 9VAC25-870-108, 9VAC25-880-70, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-422 Construction record drawing; submittal.
When construction of any permanent stormwater management facility is completed, a construction record
drawing for the permanent stormwater management facility shall be submitted for review and action as
follows:
A. Submittal of drawing to the administrator. Each construction record drawing shall be submitted by
the owner to the administrator.
B. Fee. The applicable fee for review and action on the construction record drawing required by
section 17-208 shall be paid when the drawing is submitted.
C. Form and style. The construction record drawing shall satisfy the minimum requirements of the
form and style of a construction record drawing as provided in the Design Standards Manual.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 74)
D. Signature and certification. The construction record drawing shall be appropriately sealed and
signed by a professional registered in the State, certifying that the stormwater management
facility has been constructed in accordance with the approved plan.
E. Required measurements and calculations. If the construction record drawing shows any changes
from the approved plan, including changes to any features of the facility, including, but not limited
to, outlet structures, elevations, available volumes, plantings, spillways, and materials, the owner
shall also submit all as-built measurements and calculations necessary to demonstrate
compliance with all applicable regulations. Any other technical requirements of the construction
record drawing shall be as provided in the Design Standards Manual.
F. Determination of completeness, review and action. The procedure for the review and action on a
construction record drawing shall be as provided in sections 17-409 and 17-410, as applicable,
provided that the failure of the administrator to act within any time provided in those sections shall
not be deemed to be approval of the construction record drawing.
G. Required amendments. If the as-built stormwater management facility does not comply with all
applicable regulations, the owner shall make all required changes to the facility in order to comply
with the regulations and the administrator may require that the approved stormwater
management plan be amended as provided in section 17-417(A).
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-55.
Sec. 17-423 Release of surety.
Any surety required by this chapter shall be released as follows:
A. Partial release. In order for any surety to be partially released:
1. Request by owner. The owner shall submit a statement to the administrator on a form
provided by the administrator that adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity has
been achieved, and pay the fee for a partial release required by sections 17 -207 or 17-
208, or both.
2. Response by administrator. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the statement required
by subsection (A)(1), the administrator shall provide written notice to the owner that
responds to the request in one of the following ways: (i) grant the partial release, if an
inspection of the project by a certified inspector confirms that the requirements for partial
release are satisfied; or (ii) inform the owner that an inspection of the project by a
certified inspector confirms that the requirements for partial release are not satisfied and
identify any specified defects, deficiencies or further conservation action required.
3. Release. If the administrator grants the partial release as provided in subsection (A)(2),
the surety shall be partially release within sixty (60) days after receipt of the request
required by subsection (A)(1). The amount of the release shall be based upon the
percentage of stabilization accomplished determined by the inspection.
B. Full release. In order for any surety to be fully released:
1. Request by owner. The owner shall submit a statement to the administrator on a form
provided by the administrator and pay the fee for a full release required by sections 17 -
207 or 17-208, or both. For any surety required in conjunction with an erosion and
sediment control plan, the owner shall state that adequate permanent stabilization of the
land disturbing activity has been achieved. For any surety required in conjunction with a
VSMP permit, the owner shall state that the requirements of the permit have been
satisfied.
2. Response by administrator. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the statement required
by subsection (B)(1), the administrator shall provide written notice to the owner that
responds to the request in one of the following ways: (i) grant the full release, if an
inspection of the project by a certified inspector confirms that the requirements for full
release are satisfied; or (ii) inform the owner that an inspection of the project by a
certified inspector confirms that the requirements for full release are not satisfied and
identify any specified defects, deficiencies or further conservation action required.
3. Release. If the administrator grants the full release as provided in subsection (B)(2), the
surety shall be fully released within sixty (60) days after receipt of the request required by
subsection (B)(1).
(§ 17-207: § 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-15, 2-
11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-5, 19.3-15; § 17-207, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-
09) (§ 17-306: § 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.3-30, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.3-30;
§ 17-306, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09)
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 75)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:34; 62.1-44.15:57.
Sec. 17-424 Effect of failure to obtain grading, building or other permit; void for inactivity.
An approved erosion and sediment control plan, if the land disturbing activity is subject solely to the
VESCP, or the VSMP permit, shall be void if the owner fails to obta in a grading, building or other permit
for activities involving land disturbing activities to implement the plan within one year (1) year after the
date of its approval; provided that any plan or permit associated with a subdivision plat or site plan whose
period of validity is extended by Virginia Code § 15.2-2209.1(A) shall likewise be extended for the same
time period.
(§ 17-204: § 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-12, 2-
11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-5, 19.3-12; § 17-204, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08; Ord. 09-17(1),
8-5-09, effective 9-5-09) (§ 17-304: § 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2, 7-11-90; § 19.1-8, 9-29-77, art. II, § 3, 7-
11-90; § 19.3-28, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-7, 19.1-8, 19.3-28; § 17-304, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09; Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11)
State law reference –Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-890-40.
Article V. Technical Criteria
Sec. 17-500 Erosion and sediment control plans; applicable technical criteria.
Each erosion and sediment control plan shall satisfy the following, as applicable:
A. Erosion and sediment control minimum standards. The criteria, techniques and methods provided
in 9VAC25-840-40.
B. Annual standards and specifications. Any applicable annual standards and specifications
approved by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
C. Stormwater pollution prevention. If the land disturbing activity also requires a VSMP permit, the
requirements in 9VAC25-870-54(F) and as specified in 40 CFR 450.21.
D. Stream buffers. The procedures and requirements for land disturbing activity and development in
stream buffers, as provided in section 17-600 et seq.
E. County design standards. The technical criteria, including County notes and details, as provided
in the Design Standards Manual.
(§ 19.3-11, 2-11-98; § 7-3, 6-18-75, § 5, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 7-4, 6-18-75, § 6, 10-22-
75, 4-21-76, 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 4-17-85, 2-11-87, 12-11-87, 12-11-91, 3-18-92; Code 1988, §§ 7-3, 7-4,
19.3-11; § 17-203, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-17(1), 7-11-01; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:52, 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-840-40, 9VAC25-870-54, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-501 VSMP permit application; applicable technical criteria.
Each VSMP permit application shall satisfy the criteria, techniques and methods provided as follows:
A. Land disturbing activity that obtained general permit coverage or commenced land disturbing
activity prior to July 1, 2014. Any land disturbing activity that obtained general permit coverage or
commenced land disturbing activity prior to July 1, 2014 shall be conducted in accordance with
the technical criteria in 9VAC25-870-93 through 9VAC25-870-99. These projects shall remain
subject to the technical criteria in 9VAC25-870-93 through 9VAC25-870-99 for an additional two
general permit cycles. After that time, the portions of the project not under construction shall
become subject to any new technical criteria adopted by the State Water Control Board.
B. Land disturbing activity that obtains initial general permit coverage on or after July 1, 2014. Any
land disturbing activity that obtains initial general permit coverage on or after July 1, 2014 shall be
conducted in accordance with the technical criteria in 9VAC25-870-62 through 9VAC25-870-92,
except as provided in subsection (C). These projects shall remain subject to the technical criteria
in 9VAC25-870-62 through 9VAC25-870-92 for an additional two general permit cycles. After that
time, the portions of the project not under construction shall become subject to any new technical
criteria adopted by the State Water Control Board.
C. Land disturbing activity related to certain development approvals prior to July 1, 2012. Any land
disturbing activity shall be subject to the technical criteria in 9VAC25-870-93 through 9VAC25-
870-99, provided all of the following apply:
1. Prior qualifying approval. A proffered or conditional zoning plan, zoning with a plan of
development, preliminary or final subdivision plat, preliminary or final site plan, or any
document determined by the County to be equivalent thereto (i) was approved by the
County prior to July 1, 2012; (ii) provided a layout, (iii) the technical c riteria in 9VAC25-
870-93 through 9VAC25-870-99; and (iv) has not been subsequently modified or
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 76)
amended in a manner resulting in an increase in the amount of phosphorus leaving each
point of discharge, and such that there is no increase in the volume or rate of runoff.
2. General permit not issued. A general permit has not been issued prior to July 1, 2014.
3. Land disturbing activity not commenced. Land disturbing activity did not commence prior
to July 1, 2014.
4. Duration. These projects shall remain subject to the technical criteria in 9VAC25-870-93
through 9VAC25-870-99 for one additional general permit cycle. After that time, the
portions of the project not under construction shall become subject to any new technical
criteria adopted by the State Water Control Board.
D. Land disturbing activity related to County, State or Federal funded projects . County, State and
Federal projects shall be subject to the technical criteria in 9VAC25-870-93 through 9VAC25-870-
99, provided all of the following apply:
1. Prior qualifying obligation. There has been an obligation of County, State or Federal
funding, in whole or in part, prior to July 1, 2012, or the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality has approved a stormwater management plan prior to July 1,
2012.
2. General permit not issued. A general permit has not been issued prior to July 1, 2014.
3. Land disturbing activity not commenced. Land disturbing activity did not commence prior
to July 1, 2014.
4. Duration. These projects shall remain subject to the technical criteria in 9VAC25-870-93
through 9VAC25-870-99 for one additional general permit cycle. After that time, the
portions of the project not under construction shall become subject to any new technical
criteria adopted by the State Water Control Board.
E. Land disturbing activity related where government bonds or other instruments of p ublic debt
financing issued. For any project for which government bonds or other instruments of public debt
financing have been issued, the project shall be subject to the technical criteria in 9VAC25 -870-
93 through 9VAC25-870-99.
F. TMDLs. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL as provided in 9VAC25-890-40 and any other local TMDLs
applicable to a regulated land disturbing activity.
G. Stream buffers. Any land disturbing activity under subsections (A) through (E) also shall comply
with the requirements for stream buffers in section 17-600 et seq.
H. Pre-existing County requirements. Any criterion more stringent than the technical criteria set forth
in subsections (A) through (F) existing prior to January 1, 2005 that is set forth in this chapter or
in the Design Standards Manual.
I. Technical criteria applicable to entire common plan of development or sale . Any land disturbing
activity subject to the technical criteria under this section shall apply the applicable stormwater
management technical criteria to the entire common plan of development or sale where
applicable. Individual lots in a residential, commercial, or industrial common plan of development
or sale shall not be considered to be separate land disturbing activities. Instead, the common
plan, as a whole, shall be considered to be a single land disturbing activity. Hydrologic
parameters that reflect the ultimate land disturbance shall be used in all engineering calculations.
(§ 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. II, § 1, 10-19-77, 9-13-78, 10-22-80, 7-11-90, 8-3-94; § 19.1-7, 9-29-77, art. II, § 2,
7-11-90; § 19.3-27, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-6, 19.2-7, 19.3-27; § 17-303, Ord. 98-A(1), 6-17-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:33, 62.1-44.15:49; 9VAC25-870-47, 9VAC25-870-48, 9VAC25-870-95,
9VAC25-870-104, 9VAC25-870-400, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-502 VSMP permit application; offsite nutrient credits.
An owner shall be allowed to use offsite nutrient credits, subject to the following:
A. Eligibility to use offsite nutrient credits. An owner is eligible to use offsite nutrient credits if one or
more of the following are satisfied:
1. Less than 5 acres disturbed. Less than five acres of land will be disturbed.
2. Pollution control. The postconstruction pollution control (measured in phosphorous)
requirement is less than ten (10) pounds per year.
3. Most phosphorus nutrient reductions are achieved onsite. At least seventy-five (75)
percent of the required phosphorus nutrient reductions are achieved onsite. If at least
seventy-five (75) percent of the required phosphorus nutrient reductions cannot be
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 77)
achieved onsite, and the owner can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the administrator
that: (i) alternative site designs have been considered that may accommodate onsite best
management practices; (ii) onsite best management practices have been considered in
alternative site designs to the maximum extent practicable; (iii) appropriate onsite best
management practices will be implemented; and (iv) full compliance with post -
development nonpoint nutrient runoff compliance requirements cannot practicably be met
onsite, then the required phosphorus nutrient reductions may be achieved, in whole or in
part, through the use of offsite compliance options.
B. Eligibility to use offsite nutrient credits as a substitute for existing onsite nutrient controls. An
owner satisfying one or more of the criteria in subsection (A) is eligible to use offsite nutrient
credits as full or partial substitutes of perpetual nutrient credits for existing onsite nutrient controls
when: (i) the nutrient credits will compensate for ten (10) or fewer pounds of the annual
phosphorous requirement associated with the original land disturbing activity; or (ii) existing
onsite controls are not functioning as anticipated after reasonable attempts to comply with
applicable maintenance agreements or requirements and the use of nutrient credits will account
for the deficiency. Upon the use of the offsite credits, the party responsible for maintenance shall
be released from maintenance obligations related to the onsite controls for which the nutrient
credits are substituted.
C. Documentation of credits. The owner shall provide documentation of its acquisition of nutrient
credits to the administrator and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The
documentation shall be composed of a certification from the credit provider documenting the
number of nutrient credits acquired and the associated ratio of nutrient credits at the credit -
generating entity.
D. Minimum performance requirements. The use of offsite nutrient credits shall satisfy the following:
1. Ratio and perpetual credits. For that portion of a site’s compliance with stormwater
nonpoint nutrient runoff water quality criteria being obtained through nutrient credits, the
owner shall: (i) comply with a 1:1 ratio of the nutrient credits to the site’s remaining
postdevelopment nonpoint nutrient runoff compliance requirement being met by credit
use; and (ii) use credits certified as perpetual credits pursuant to Virginia Code § 62.1 -
44.19:12 et seq.
2. Nutrient reductions prior to land disturbing activity. Any offsite nutrient credit used shall
achieve the necessary nutrient reductions prior to the owner starting any land disturbing
activity. If a project is phased, the owner may acquire or achieve the offsite nutrient
reductions prior to starting each phase of the land disturbing activity i n an amount
sufficient for each phase.
E. Prohibited use of nutrient credits. Offsite nutrient credits may not be used in the following cases:
1. Water quantity control requirements. Offsite nutrient credits may not be used to address
water quantity control requirements.
2. Water quality based limitations. Offsite nutrient credits may not be used in contravention
of County water quality based limitations at the point of discharge that are: (i) consistent
with the determinations made pursuant to Virginia Code § 62.1-44.19:7(B); (ii) contained
in the County’s MS4 program plan; or (iii) as otherwise may be established or approved
by the State Water Control Board.
F. Crediting nutrient reductions. Nutrient reductions obtained through offsite nutrient credits shall be
credited toward compliance with any nutrient allocation assigned to the County’s MS4 permit or
any applicable TMDL to the location where the activity for which the nutrient credits are used
takes place. If the activity for which the nutrient credits are used does not discharge to a
municipal separate storm sewer system, the nutrient reductions shall be credited toward
compliance with the applicable nutrient allocation.
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:35; 9VAC25-870-69.
Article VI. Stream Buffers
Sec. 17-600 Extent of stream buffers; retention and establishment.
Except as provided in section 17-602, each erosion and sediment control plan and each VSMP permit
shall provide for stream buffers for the purposes of retarding runoff, preventing erosion, filtering nonpoint
source pollution from runoff, moderating stream temperature, and providing for the ecological integrity of
stream corridors and networks, as provided herein:
A. Development within a development area. If the development is located within a development
area, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any
lands subject to this chapter containing perennial streams, contiguous nontidal wetlands, or both.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 78)
The stream buffer shall be no less than one hundred (100) feet wide on each side of any
perennial stream and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the
contiguous nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist.
B. Development within a water supply protection area or other rural land. If the development is
located within a water supply protection area or other rural land, stream buffers shall be retained
if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this chapter containing
perennial or intermittent streams, contiguous nontidal wetlands, and flood plains. The stream
buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side
of any perennial or intermittent stream and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally
from the edge of the contiguous nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands
exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffer shall be no less than two hundred (200)
horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment.
(§ 17-301: § 19.2-6, 6-19-91, § 6; § 19.3-25, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-6, 19.3-25; § 17-301, Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07) (§ 17-317: § 19.3-41, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91; Code 1988, §§
19.2-8, 19.3-41; § 17-317, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08)
State law reference –Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-601 Management of stream buffer.
Each stream buffer required to be retained or established pursuant to section 17 -600 shall be managed
as provided herein:
A. Target vegetative cover. The preferred vegetative cover in a stream buffer shall be a native
riparian forest with ground cover, shrub, and tree canopy layers.
B. Preservation of native vegetation. When evaluating a development design under subsection (C),
when native vegetation may be disturbed or removed under subsection (D) and sections 17-603
and 17-604, and when stream buffers are maintained under subsection (E), native vegetation
shall be preserved to the fullest extent possible.
C. Incorporation into development design. Each stream buffer shall be incorporated into the design
of the development by keeping stream buffers in open or natural spaces, and out of residential
lots or areas of active use, to the fullest extent possible.
D. Retaining native vegetation; disturbance or removal. In order to maintain the runoff, erosion,
nonpoint source pollution control, stream temperature, and ecological values of the stream buffer,
no native vegetation within the stream buffer shall be disturbed or removed, regardless of the size
of the area affected, except to maintain the stream buffer as provided in subsection (E), provided
that native vegetation may be removed to construct, install, operate or maintain any improvement,
or engage in any activity, authorized by sections 17-603 and 17-604.
E. Maintaining the stream buffer. Each stream buffer shall be maintained in as natural a condition as
possible.
(§ 19.3-42, 2-11-98, § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-8, 19.3-42; § 17-318, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-
98)
State law reference –Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-602 Types of improvements and activities exempt from duties to retain, establish, or
manage a stream buffer.
The following types of improvements and activities shall not be required to retain , establish, or manage a
stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied:
A. Utility and transportation improvements. The construction, installation, operation and
maintenance of electric, gas and telephone transmission lines , railroads, and activities of the
Virginia Department of Transportation, and their appurtenant structures, which are accomplished
in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code § 62.1 -44.15:51 et seq.)
or an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the State Water Control Board.
B. Public water and sewer improvements. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public
agencies of water and sewer lines, including water and sewer lines constructed by private
interests for dedication to public agencies, provided that all of the following are satisfied:
1. Location. To the extent practical, as determined by the Albemarle County Service
Authority or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the location of the water or sewer
lines shall be outside of all stream buffer areas.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 79)
2. Disturbance minimized. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct,
install and maintain the water or sewer lines.
3. Compliance with applicable requirements. All construction, installation, and maintenance
of the water or sewer lines shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local
requirements and permits and be conducted in a manner that protects water quality.
C. Silvicultural activities. Silvicultural activities, provided that they are conducted in compliance with
the water quality protection procedures established by the Virginia Department of Forestry in its
“Virginia’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality.”
D. Public airport improvements. The construction, installation and maintenance of runways,
taxiways, and other similar or appurtenant improvements at public airports, including the
expansion or extension of those improvements, provided that all applicable Federal, State and
local permits are obtained.
(§ 19.3-43, 2-11-98; § 19.2-12, 6-19-91, § 12; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-12, 19.3-43; § 17-319, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98; Ord. 08-17(4), 9-3-08)
State law reference –Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-603 Types of structures, improvements and activities authorized in a stream buffer.
If otherwise authorized by the applicable regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, the following types of
structures, control measures and activities shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the
requirements of this section are satisfied:
A. Pre-existing buildings or structures. Any building or structure which existed on February 11, 1998
may continue in its location on that date. However, nothing in this section authorizes the
continuance, repair, replacement, expansion or enlargement of any such building or structure
except as provided in sections 18-6 and 18-30.3.
B. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures. Temporary erosion and sediment control
measures, provided that to the extent practical, as determined by the administrator, the control
measures shall be located outside of the stream buffer and disturbance impacts are minimized.
C. Water-dependent facilities and miscellaneous uses. Water-dependent facilities; water wells;
passive recreation access, such as pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; historic preservation;
archaeological activities; provided that all applicable Federal, State and local permits are
obtained.
(§ 19.3-44, 2-11-98; § 19.2-7, 6-19-91, § 7; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-7, 19.2-8, 19.3-44;
§ 17-320, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(2), 5-7-08)
State law reference –Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-604 Types of structures, improvements and activities which may be allowed in a str eam
buffer by program authority.
Structures, improvements and activities may be authorized by the administrator in the circumstances
described below, provided that a mitigation plan satisfying the requirements of section 17 -406, is
submitted to, and approved, by the administrator:
A. Within the landward 50 horizontal feet. On a lot within the fifty (50) horizontal feet of a stream
buffer that is the most landward (furthest from the stream), if the structures, improvements or
activities either: (i) would be for necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the lot; or (ii)
would be on a lot that is within a water supply protection area where the stream buffer protects an
intermittent stream and the lot is within a development area. In all cases under this subsection,
any new building site and sewage disposal system shall be located outside of the stream buffer.
B. Lakes, ponds or restoration projects. On a lot on which the development in the stream buffer will
consist of a lake, pond, or ecological/wetland restoration project.
C. Stream crossings. Stream crossings of perennial and intermittent streams for roads, streets or
driveways, provided they meet the following minimum criteria:
1. Bridges and culverts. Bridges and culverts shall satisfy the following:
a. Perennial streams. For crossings of perennial streams, bridges, arch culverts, or
box culverts shall be used for the stream crossing and shall be sized to pass the
ten (10) year storm, or the twenty-five (25) year storm if the design standards in
either section 14-410 or 18-32.7.2.1 apply, without backing water onto upstream
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 80)
properties. Bridges or arch culverts shall either leave the stream section,
consisting of the stream bed and the stream bank, undisturbed or shall allow the
stream to return to a natural stabilized cross-section upon completion of
installation. The lowest interior elevation (invert) of a box culvert installation shall
be a minimum of six (6) inches below the stream bed. Culvert walls and bridge
columns should be located outside the stream banks wherever possible.
b. Intermittent streams. For crossings of intermittent streams, bridges or culverts
shall be used for the stream crossing and sized to pass the ten (10) year storm,
or the twenty-five (25) year storm if the design standards in either section 14-410
or 18-32.7.2.1 apply, without backing water onto upstream properties.
2. Stream stabilization and energy dissipation. Stream stabilization and energy dissipation
measures below each bridge or culvert shall be provided.
3. Disturbance minimized. The stream buffer disturbance shall be the minimum necessary
for the lot(s) to be used and developed as permitted in the underlying zoning district and
under the applicable regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance. Stream cr ossings shall not
disturb more than thirty (30) linear feet of stream for driveways and sixty (60) linear feet
for roads or streets, provided that the administrator may allow additional length of stream
disturbance where fill slopes or special conditions n ecessitate additional length.
4. Stream bed and stream bank stabilization. The stream bed and stream banks shall be
stabilized within seven (7) days from the start of backfilling for the bridge or culvert.
5. Establishment of buffer vegetation. For stream crossings where any portion of the pre-
construction stream buffer is not fully vegetated as determined by the administrator, and
for any portion of a vegetated stream buffer that is disturbed during the installation of the
stream crossing, buffer vegetation shall be established and maintained within the stream
buffer but outside of the stream crossing at a ratio of two (2) square feet of stream
buffer restored for every one (1) square foot of stream buffer that was either not fully
vegetated or is disturbed during the installation of the stream crossing. Buffer vegetation
shall be established and maintained at the 2:1 ratio to the extent that the stream buffer is
fully vegetated outside of the stream crossing, provided that the owner shall not be
required to establish vegetation outside of the stream buffer in order to satisfy the 2:1
ratio. The administrator may require that the owner enter into an agreement providing for
the ongoing maintenance of the plantings in the stream buffer, and may require a bon d
with surety or other acceptable instrument as provided in section 17-414. Stream buffer
plantings shall be consistent with guidance supplied by the administrator.
6. Evidence of required permits. The owner shall provide the administrator with copies of
approved State and Federal permits associated with the stream crossing, if applicable.
7. Limitation on number of stream crossings; exception. In order to ensure that the
encroachment into or across the stream buffer is minimized, on and after May 7, 2008, it
shall be presumed that one stream crossing is adequate to serve the owner’s lot(s)
existing on that date and all lots created therefrom on and after that date. The
administrator shall allow only one stream crossing to serve all lots, provided that it may
allow additional crossings under subsection (D).
D. Stream crossings not allowed under subsection (C). On a lot on which the development in the
stream buffer will consist of the construction and maintenance of a road, street or driveway that
would not satisfy the requirements of subsection (C) and the administrator determines that the
stream buffer would prohibit access to the lot necessary for the lot to be used and developed as
permitted in the underlying zoning district and under the applicable regulations of the Subdivision
Ordinance, or to establish more than one stream crossing.
E. Water and sewer facilities or sewage disposal systems on pre-existing lots. On a lot which was of
record prior to February 11, 1998, on which the development in the stream buffer will consist of
the construction, installation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities or sewage disposal
systems, and the administrator determines that the stream buffer would prohibit the practicable
development of those facilities or systems. Any sewage disposal system must comply with all
applicable State laws.
F. Sole building sites on pre-existing lots. On a lot which was of record prior to February 11, 1998, if
the stream buffer would result in the loss of a building site, and there are no other available
building sites outside the stream buffer on the lot, or to allow redevelopment as permitted in the
underlying zoning district.
(§ 19.3-45, 2-11-98; § 19.2-8, 6-19-91, § 8; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-8, 19.3-45; § 17-321, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-
98; Ord. 08-17(1), 2-6-08; Ord. 08-17(2), 5-7-08; Ord. 11-17(1), 10-5-11; Ord. 12-17(1), 5-9-12)
State law reference – Va . Code § 62.1-44.15:73; 9VAC25-890-40.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 81)
Article VII. Illicit Discharges, Illicit Connections, and Prohibited Dumping
Sec. 17-700 Applicability.
This article shall apply to all activities that cause or allow to be caused direct or indirect illicit discharges,
illicit connections, and the prohibited dumping of refuse and pollutants, or which negatively impede the
flow capacity of the County’s MS4 or State waters that: (i) are not covered by other articles of this chapter;
and (ii) are not expressly exempt from this article.
(§ 17-500; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:33; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-701 Illicit discharges prohibited; exempt and authorized discharges.
No person shall throw, drain, or otherwise discharge, cause or allow others under their control to throw,
drain, or otherwise discharge into the County’s MS4 or State waters any pollutants or waters containing
any pollutants, other than stormwater. Commencing, conducting or continuing any illicit discharge to the
County’s MS4 or State waters is prohibited, subject to the following:
A. Conditionally exempt discharges. The following discharges are not prohibited discharges
provided that the administrator determines that the discharge is not adversely impacting State
waters:
1. Discharges pursuant to a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“VPDES”) or
Virginia Storm Management Program (“VSMP”) permit (other than a VSMP permit for
discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer).
2. Discharges resulting from fire fighting and other public safety activities.
3. Discharges associated with the maintenance or repair of public water, sanitary, and storm
sewer lines, and public drinking water reservoirs and drinking water treatment or
distributions systems conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state
regulations and standards.
4. Discharges associated with any activity by the County, its employees and agents, in the
maintenance of any component of a County-maintained stormwater management facility
conducted in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations and standards.
5. Discharges specified in writing by the administrator as being necessary to protect public
health and safety.
6. Water line flushing.
7. Irrigation water, landscape irrigation, and lawn watering.
8. Diverted stream flows.
9. Rising groundwaters.
10. Uncontaminated groundwater infiltration (as defined in 40 CFR 35.2005(20).
11. Uncontaminated pumped groundwater.
12. Discharges from potable water sources.
13. Foundation drains.
14. Air conditioning condensation.
15. Springs.
16. Water from crawl space pumps.
17. Footing drains.
18. Individual residential car washing.
19. Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands.
20. Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges having less than one (1) part per million
chlorine.
21. Street wash water.
22. Water from washed parking lots or sidewalks to remove algae or oil buildup;
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 82)
23. Application of salts or other de-icing substances to streets, sidewalks and parking lots;
24. Discharges associated with dye testing, provided that the program authority is notified in
writing before the test.
If the administrator determines that any of these conditionally exempted activities are causing
adverse impacts to State waters in a specific case, he may revoke the exemption for that specific
case. The revocation shall be effective from the date the administrator provides written notice to
the person responsible for the discharge of the determination that the exemption is revoked.
B. Discharges authorized by VPDES permit, waiver or waste discharge order . The prohibition shall
not apply to any non-stormwater discharge permitted under a VPDES permit, including the
general permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under
the authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), provided that the
discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other
applicable laws and regulations and further provided that written approval has been granted by
the EPA for any discharge to the County’s MS4.
(§ 17-501; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:33; 9VAC25-870-400, 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-702 Illicit connections prohibited.
Constructing, using, maintaining, or allowing the continued existence of an illicit connection to the
County’s MS4 is prohibited, subject to the following:
A. Pre-existing illicit connections. Any illicit connection authorized prior to February 14, 2007 is in
violation of this section unless the administrator expressly extended the date by which to comply
beyond December 31, 2007 upon good cause shown by the person requesting the extension, an d
the date by which compliance is required has not passed.
B. Disconnection and redirection. Any illicit connection shall be disconnected and redirected, if
necessary, to an approved onsite wastewater management system or the sanitary sewer system
upon approval of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
C. Locating undocumented connections. Any drain or conveyance that has not been documented in
plans, maps, or their equivalent and which appears to be connected to the County’s MS4 shall be
located by the owner, occupant, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, of that property
within the time period specified in the written notice of violation from the administrator requiring
that the connection be located. The notice shall require that: (i) the location of the drain or
conveyance be determined; (ii) the drain or conveyance be identified as a storm sewer, sanitary
sewer, or other; and (iii) the outfall location or point of connection to the County’s MS4, sanitary
sewer system, or other discharge point be identified. The results of these investigations shall be
documented and provided to the administrator.
(§ 17-502; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:33; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-703 Dumping prohibited.
No person, whether the owner, occupant, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, may dump or
discharge, or allow any other person to dump or discharge, refuse, as that term is defined in Albemarle
County Code § 13-100, or any other material or pollutant, natural or synthetic, into the County’s MS4,
State waters, or a natural stream, unless the dumping or discharge is expressly authorized by the
Albemarle County Code.
(§ 17-503; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference –Va . Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:33; 9VAC25-890-40.
Article IX. Compliance
Sec. 17-800 Duty to comply.
Each owner has the following duties to comply:
A. Upon a determination that land disturbing activity is subject to this chapter. Upon the
administrator’s determination that a land disturbing activity is subject to the VESCP, the VSMP, or
both, the owner shall immediately comply with the applicable requirements of this chapter and the
applicable requirements of this chapter shall be immediately enforced.
B. Upon approval of a VSMP permit or erosion and sediment control plan. Upon the administrator’s
approval of any VSMP permit or erosion and sediment control plan required by this chapter, the
owner shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the approved permit or plan at all times
the permit or plan is in effect, including when any activities allowed under the permit or plan are
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 83)
being performed. In addition, the owner shall comply with the requirements of the general permit
even though a registration statement was not required under sections 17-401(C) and 17-
405(A)(1).
C. All other applicable requirements of this chapter. The owner is obligated to comply with all other
applicable requirements of this chapter not addressed in subsections (A) and (B), including, but
not limited to, the express duties in the following sections.
(§ 17-211: 2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-19;§ 17-211, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 10-17(1), 7-11-01) (§ 17-
323: § 19.3-47, 2-11-98; § 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. II, § 1, 10-19-77, 9-13-78, 10-22-80, 7-11-90, 8-3-94;
Code 1988, §§ 19.1-6, 19.3-47; § 17-323, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:28, 62.1-44.15:58, 62.1-44.15:73.
Sec. 17-801 Duty to maintain structures, systems, facilities, and techniques.
Each owner has the duty to maintain and repair all structures, systems, facilities and techniques required
under the VESCP and the VSMP as follows:
A. Erosion and sediment control structures and systems. Any erosion and sediment control
structures and systems shall be maintained and repaired as needed to ensure continued
performance of their intended function at their intended level. The owner also shall perform all of
the maintenance responsibilities delineated in the approved erosion and sediment control plan.
All control measures required by the plan shall be maintained in accordance with good
engineering practices.
B. Stormwater management facilities and techniques. Any permanent stormwater management
facility or technique specified in the approved stormwater management plan to manage the
quality and quantity of runoff shall be maintained for so long as the stormwater management
facility or technique exists, in a manner that meets or exceeds the maintenance standards in the
agreement entered into under section 17-415. The owner’s obligation to maintain any such
permanent stormwater management facility or technique shall continue until all such obligations
are the responsibility of the County or another public entity empowered to own and maintain
stormwater management facilities and to implement the techniques described in the stormwater
management plan.
C. Stormwater pollution prevention plan control measures; duty to maintain. Any control measure in
the approved stormwater pollution prevention plan, including any control measure otherwise
subject to subsections (A) or (B), shall be properly maintained in effective operating condition in
accordance with good engineering practices and, where applicable, manufacturer specifications.
(§ 17-211: 2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-19;§ 17-211, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 10-17(1), 7-11-01) (§ 17-
323: § 19.3-47, 2-11-98; § 19.1-6, 9-29-77, art. II, § 1, 10-19-77, 9-13-78, 10-22-80, 7-11-90, 8-3-94;
Code 1988, §§ 19.1-6, 19.3-47; § 17-323, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – 9VAC25-840-60, 9VAC25-870-58, 9VAC25-870-112, 9VAC25-880-70.
Sec. 17-802 Duty to maintain the functional performance of storm drainage systems and streams.
Each owner of property through which a privately-maintained storm drainage system or natural stream
passes shall maintain the functional performance of the system or stream, regardless of whether they are
subject to a VSMP permit or an erosion and sediment control plan, as follows:
A. Keeping the storm drainage system and natural streams free of refuse and other obstacles. The
owner shall maintain the part of storm drainage system or natural stream on the property free of
refuse, as that term is defined in section 13-100, and other obstacles that would pollute,
contaminate, or adversely impact the system’s or the stream’s functional performance.
B. Maintaining structures within the flood hazard overlay district. The owner shall maintain all
existing privately owned structures on the property that are within the flood hazard overlay district
established under section 18-30.3 so that the structures do not become a hazard to the use,
function, or physical or ecological integrity of the stream.
(§ 17-504, Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:33; 9VAC25-890-40.
Sec. 17-803 Duty to maintain general permit, stormwater pollution prevention plan, and other
documents onsite.
If the land disturbing activity is subject to a VSMP permit, each owner shall maintain the general permit,
the general permit coverage letter, the registration statement, if such a statement was required under
sections 17-401(C) and 17-405(A)(1), and the stormwater pollution prevention plan, at a central location
at the construction site. If an onsite location is unavailable to store the documents when no personnel are
present, notice of the documents’ location must be posted near the main entrance at the construction site.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 84)
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-54, 9VAC25-880-70.
Sec. 17-804 Duty to inspect and take corrective action.
Each owner shall ensure that any inspections required by the general permit are conducted by the
qualified personnel identified in the stormwater pollution prevention plan. Any inspection shall be
conducted according to the schedule and satisfy the requirements of 9VAC25-880-70, Part II(F). Any
corrective action identified in an inspection shall be completed as follows:
A. Control measure not operating effectively. If an inspection identifies a control measure that is not
operating effectively, corrective action shall be completed as soon as practicable, but no later
than seven (7) days after discovery or a longer period allowed in writing by the administrator.
B. Control measure inadequate. If an inspection identifies an existing control measure that needs to
be modified or if an additional control measure is necessary, implementation shall be completed
prior to the next anticipated measureable storm event. If implementation before the next
anticipated measureable storm event is impractical, then it shall be implemented no later than
seven (7) days after discovery or a longer period allowed in writing by the administrator.
(§ 17-206: 2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-14; § 17-206, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) (§ 17-305: 2-11-98; Code
1988, § 19.3-29; § 17-305, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – 9VAC25-880-70.
Sec. 17-805 Duty to provide information pertaining to discharges and compliance.
Each owner shall provide within a reasonable time the following information pertaining to discharges upon
the request of the administrator:
A. Effect of discharges and wastes. Any application materials, plans, specifications, and other
pertinent information as may be necessary to determine the effect of: (i) the discharge on the
quality of State waters, or such other information as may be necessary to accomplish the
purposes of the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and 9VAC25-870; and (ii) the wastes from
the discharge on the quality of State waters, or such other information as may be necessary to
accomplish the purposes of the Clean Water Act and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act.
B. Determine compliance or other cause to change general permit. Any information request to
determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating the general
permit or to determine compliance with the general permit.
(§ 17-206: 2-11-98; Code 1988, § 19.3-14; § 17-206, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) (§ 17-305: 2-11-98; Code
1988, § 19.3-29; § 17-305, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:40; 9VAC25-870-340, 9VAC25-880-70.
Sec. 17-806 Duty to report discharges or noncompliance.
Each owner shall report discharges or noncompliance as follows:
A. Discharge of stormwater not authorized by general permit. Except in compliance with a general
permit, any person who discharges, causes, or allows a discharge of stormwater into or upon
State waters from the County’s MS4 or from a land disturbing activity, or who discharges, causes,
or allows a discharge that may reasonably be expected to enter State waters, shall notify the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the administrator of the discharge immediately
upon discovery of the discharge but in no case later than twenty-four (24) hours after discovery of
the discharge. In addition, a written report of the unauthorized discharge shall be submitted by the
owner, to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and to the administrator within five (5)
days after discovery of the discharge. The contents of the written report shall be as provided in
9VAC25-870-310.
B. Discharge of sewage, wastes, noxious, deleterious, or hazardous substances, or oil . Any owner
who discharges or causes or allows a discharge of sewage, industrial waste, other wastes or any
noxious or deleterious substance or a hazardous substance or oil in an amount equal to or in
excess of a reportable quantity established under either 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, 40
CFR Part 302, or Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:19 that occurs during a twenty-four (24) hour period
into or upon State waters or who discharges or causes or allows a discharge that may reasonably
be expected to enter state waters, shall notify the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality of
the discharge immediately upon discovery of the discharge, but in no case later than within
twenty-four (24) hours after the discovery. A written report of the unauthorized discharge shall be
submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the administrator within five
(5) days after discovery of the discharge. The written report shall satisfy the requirements of
9VAC25-880-70, Part III(G).
C. Unusual or extraordinary discharges. The owner shall promptly notify, in no case later than within
twenty-four (24) hours, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the administrator by
telephone after the discovery of any unusual or extraordinary discharge, including a “bypass” or
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 85)
“upset,” from a facility and the discharge enters or could be expected to enter Stat e waters. The
notification shall include the information required by 9VAC25-880-70, Part III(H).
D. Reports of noncompliance. The owner shall report any noncompliance which may adversely
affect State waters or may endanger public health. An oral report sh all be provided to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality within twenty-four (24) hours after discovery of the
noncompliance. A written report of the noncompliance shall be submitted to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality and the administrator within five (5) days after discovery of
the noncompliance. The oral and written reports shall include the information required by
9VAC25-880-70, Part III(I).
(§ 17-506, Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – 9VAC25-870-310, 9VAC25-880-70.
Sec. 17-807 Duty to provide records and notice pertaining to general permit.
Each owner operating under a general permit shall provide the following records and notice to the
administrator upon request or as required by the general permit:
A. Records required to be kept by general permit. Copies of records required to be kept by the
general permit.
B. Reports pertaining to compliance schedules. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or
any progress reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule of
the general permit, which shall be submitted no later than fourteen (14) days after each schedule
date.
C. Notice of planned changes. Notice to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the
administrator as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted
facility or activity, when the alteration or addition requires notice under 9VAC25-880-70(III)(J).
State law reference – 9VAC25-880-70.
Sec. 17-808 Duty to stabilize denuded areas with permanent vegetation within nine months after
commencing land disturbing activity
In addition to the authority of the administrator to require that any disturbed area be stabilized under an
approved stormwater pollution prevention plan, any owner shall install permanent vegetation on all
denuded areas on the site, subject to the following:
A. When permanent vegetation required. The owner shall install on all denuded areas on the site
within nine (9) months after the date the land disturbing activity commenced, except for areas that
the administrator determines are necessary parts of the construction that are subject to an active
building permit and areas where erosion is prevented by a non-erosive surface, including, but not
limited to, the following surfaces: (i) roadways and sidewalks covered by gravel, asphalt
pavement, or concrete; (ii) trails or paths covered by gravel, stone dust, or mulch; (iii) buildings
and other permanent structures; and such other surfaces that the administrator determines would
adequately provide a permanent barrier to erosion.
B. Extension. The time limit for installing permanent vegetation may be extended by either the
administrator or the board of supervisors, or both, as follows:
1. By the administrator. The administrator may extend the time limit for installing permanent
vegetation up to an additional six (6) months, provided the owner submits a written
request to the administrator no less than one (1) month prior to the deadline for installing
the permanent vegetation. The administrator may grant the extension if it finds that: (i)
the additional time is necessary due to factors beyond the control of the owner; (ii) the
owner had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit; and (iii) the owner has
effectively controlled erosion and sedimentation on the site during the land disturbing
activity. In granting an extension, the administrator may impose reasonable conditions.
2. By the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors may extend the time limit for
installing permanent vegetation for any duration it determines to be appropriate, provided
the owner submits a written request to the clerk of the board of superv isors no less than
two (2) months prior to the deadline for installing the permanent vegetation. The
administrator shall provide an opinion to the board as to the condition of the site with
respect to complying with this chapter and an estimate of the minimum time needed to
complete grading and install permanent vegetation for the land disturbing activity covered
by the approved erosion and sediment control plan or the VSMP permit. The board may
grant the extension if it finds that: (i) the additional time is necessary due to factors
beyond the control of the owner; (ii) the owner had made good faith efforts to comply with
the time limit; and (iii) the owner has plans to effectively control or has effectively
controlled erosion and sedimentation on the site during the land disturbing activity. In
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 86)
granting an extension, the board shall set a time limit and may impose other reasonable
conditions.
C. Changes to approved plans or permits do not extend time. An application to modify, vary, or
otherwise amend an approved erosion and sediment control plan, or to amend or modify a
stormwater management plan or any other plan approved under the approved VSMP permit, for
the site, shall not extend the time limit for installing permanent vegetation required by this section.
D. Land disturbing activity subject to this section. The installation of permanent vegetation required
by this section shall be required for those land disturbing activities subject to an erosi on and
sediment control plan approved on or after September 5, 2009, or an erosion and sediment
control plan that was approved prior to that date but was renewed on or after September 5, 2009,
regardless of whether the land disturbing activity is subject to the VSMP, or is subject solely to
the VESCP.
(§ 7-5, 6-18-75, § 7, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 6-2-76, 7-9-80, 7-8-81, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-15, 2-11-98; Code
1988, §§ 7-5, 19.3-15; § 17-207, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-17(1), 8-5-09, effective 9-5-09)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:65.
Sec. 17-809 Right of administrator to enter to obtain information, conduct surveys, or in
accordance with a performance bond.
In the administration and enforcement of the VESCP and the VSMP, the administrator or any duly
authorized agent of the County may:
A. To obtain information or conduct surveys. At reasonable times and under reasonable
circumstances, enter any establishment or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of
obtaining information or conducting surveys. If the purpose to enter the site is to conduct an
inspection to either administer or enforce this chapter, the administrator or any duly authorized
agent of the County shall comply with sections 17-810 or 17-811.
B. In accordance with an agreement with surety. In accordance with an agreement with surety
provided by the owner under section 17-414, enter any establishment or upon any property,
public or private, for the purpose of initiating or maintaining appropriate conservation actions that
are required by the approved plan or any condition of the VSMP permit associated with a land
disturbing activity when the owner, after proper notice, has failed to take acceptable conservation
actions within the time specified.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:39, 62.1-44.15:60.
Sec. 17-810 Inspections by the administrator under the VESCP.
In conjunction with the administration of the VESCP, the administrator shall inspect all land disturbing
activity as follows:
A. Notice of inspection. The administrator shall provide either prior written or verbal notice of the
inspection to the owner or other person responsible for carrying out the erosion and sediment
control plan; provided that notice shall not be required if the owner has consented to the
inspection in writing or granted a written right of entry. The administrator may request that an
owner consent to inspections on the application form or make owner consent a condition of the
erosion and sediment control plan approval.
B. Who may conduct inspection. Any inspection shall be conducted by a person holding a certificate
of competence as an inspector; provided that the administrator may waive the certificate of
competence requirement for an inspection of land disturbing activity authori zed by an agreement
in lieu of a plan for the construction of a single-family dwelling.
C. Scope of inspection. The inspection shall be conducted for the purpose of determining the land
disturbing activity’s compliance with the approved erosion and sedime nt control plan.
D. When inspections conducted. Unless an alternative inspection program is approved by the State
Water Control Board, inspections shall be conducted during or immediately following initial
installation of erosion and sediment controls, at least once in every two-week period, within forty-
eight (48) hours after any runoff producing storm event, and at the completion of the project prior
to the release of any surety.
(§ 7-6, 6-18-75, § 8, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-20, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-6, 19.3-20;
§ 17-212, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-17(3), 8-6-08)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:53, 62.1-44.15:58; 9VAC25-840-60.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 87)
Sec. 17-811 Inspections by the administrator under the VSMP.
In conjunction with the administration of the VSMP, the administrator shall inspect all land disturbing
activity as follows:
A. During construction. The administrator shall inspect all land disturbing activity during construction
as follows:
1. Notice of inspection. The administrator shall provide either prior written or verbal notice of
the inspection to the owner or other person responsible for carrying out the VSMP permit;
provided that notice shall not be required if the owner has consented to the inspection in
writing or granted a written right of entry. The administrator may request that an owner
consent to inspections on the application form or make owner consent a condition of
VSMP permit approval.
2. Who may conduct inspection. Any inspection shall be conducted by a person holding a
certificate of competence as an inspector
3. Scope of inspection. The inspection shall be conducted for the purpose of determining
the land disturbing activity’s compliance with: (i) the approved erosion and sediment
control plan; (ii) compliance with the approved stormwater management plan; (iii)
development, updating, and implementation of a pollution prevention plan; and (iv)
development and implementation of any additional control measures necessary to
address a TMDL.
4. When inspections conducted. Unless an alternative inspection program is approved by
the State Water Control Board, inspections shall be conducted at least once per month
until the adequate stabilization of the land disturbing activity has been achieved, and at
the completion of the project prior to the release of any performance bonds.
B. Post-construction. The administrator shall inspect all stormwater management facilities at least
once every five (5) years, including facilities for which there is no long-term maintenance
agreement or those serving an individual residential lot, after the land disturbing activity has
ended. If the owner and the County have entered into an agreement as provided in section 17-
415, any inspection shall be conducted as provided in that agreement. If the owner and the
County have not entered into an agreement under section 17-415, any inspection shall be
completed as follows:
1. Notice of inspection. The administrator shall provide either prior written or verbal notice of
the inspection to the owner; provided that notice shall not be required if the owner has
consented to the inspection in writing or granted a written right of entry.
2. Who may conduct inspection. Any inspection shall be conducted by a person holding a
certificate of competence as an inspector, other than the owner, provided that the
administrator may, in his sole discretion, use the inspection report of the owner of the
stormwater management facility as part of the facility’s inspection program if the
inspection is conducted by a person who is: (i) licensed as a professional engineer,
architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor pursuant to Virginia Code § 54.1-400 et
seq.; (ii) a person who works under the direction and oversight of the licensed
professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor; or (iii) a person
who holds an appropriate certificate of competence.
3. Scope of inspection. The inspection shall be conducted for the purpose of determining
the condition of the stormwater management facility.
4. When inspections conducted. Inspections shall be conducted for each stormwater
management facility at least once every five (5) years or more frequently as provided in
the County’s MS4 permit. For any other stormwater management facility, the timing of the
inspection shall be in the discretion of the administrator.
(§ 19.3-48, 2-11-98; § 19.1-9, 9-29-77, art. III, § 4, 10-19-77, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-9, 19.3-48; §
17-324, Ord. 98-A(1), 6-17-98)
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:37; 9VAC25-870-114.
Sec. 17-812 Inspections by the administrator under the VPDES and of storm drainage channels
and natural streams.
The administrator shall inspect, in the manner authorized by law, storm drainage systems and natural
streams to determine compliance with an applicable general permit and to detect illicit discharges, illicit
connections and dumping. At the written or oral request of the administrator, any owner shall promptly
remove any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the permitted facility to be
inspected, sampled, or both, and the obstructions shall not be replaced. The costs of removing such
obstructions shall be borne by the owner.
(§ 17-505, Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 88)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:27, 62.1-44.15:33, 62.1-44.15:39, 62.1-44.15:40.
Sec 17-813 Monitoring and sampling equipment by the administrator on VPDES permitted
facilities.
The administrator is authorized, either under a condition of the VSMP permit, with the owner’s consent, or
by court order: (i) to establish on any permitted facility any device deemed to be necessary by the
administrator to conduct monitoring, sampling, or both, of the facility’s stormwater discharge; and (ii) to
require the owner to install monitoring equipment deemed to be necessary by the administrator. The
facility’s sampling and monitoring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper
operating condition by the owner at its own expense. All devices used to measure stormwater flow and
quality shall be calibrated to ensure their accuracy.
(§ 17-505, Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:48, 62.1-44.15:49; 9VAC25-870-116, 9VAC25-870-460.
Sec. 17-814 Third party complaints regarding impacts from land disturbing activities.
An aggrieved landowner sustaining pecuniary damage resulting from a violation of an erosion and
sediment control plan or a required permit, or from the conduct of land disturbing activities commenced
without an approved erosion and sediment control plan or a required permit under the VESCP, may
provide written notice of the alleged violation to the administrator and to the director of the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality. If an investigation determines that a violation exists, but the
administrator has not responded to the alleged violation in a manner that causes the violation to cease
and abates the damage to the aggrieved owner’s lands within thirty (30) days following receipt of the
notice from the aggrieved owner, the aggrieved owner may pursue the remedies available under Virginia
Code § 62.1-44.15:64.
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:64.
Article IX. Enforcement
Sec. 17-900 Notice to comply.
If, after an inspection, the administrator determines that the owner has failed to comply with any
requirement of this chapter:
A. Notice to owner or other person responsible. The administrator shall provide written notice to the
owner and any other person responsible for carrying out the terms of the permit, plan or any other
applicable requirement of this chapter.
B. Contents of notice. The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the permit, plan
or other applicable requirement of this chapter, and shall specify the time within which such
measures shall be completed.
C. How notice delivered. The notice shall be mailed by certified mail, with confirmation of delivery, to
the address specified in the permit application, the plan certific ation, or, if the owner and the
County have entered into an agreement as provided in section 17-415, to the address specified
therein, or to another address provided by the owner to administrator in writing, or by personal
delivery at the site of the land disturbing or development activities to the agent or employee.
(§ 17-213: § 7-6, 6-18-75, § 8, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-21, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-
6, 19.3-21; § 17-213, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98); § 17-325: § 19.3-49, 2-11-98; § 19.1-9, 9-29-77, art. III, § 4,
10-19-77, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-9, 19.3-49; § 17-325, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:37, 62.1-44.15:58; 9VAC25-870-116.
Sec. 17-901 Failure to comply with notice; revocation, order to stop work, enforcement.
Upon the owner’s or any other responsible person’s failure to comply with the permit, plan or other
applicable requirement within the time specified in the notice provided under section 17 -900, one or more
of the following actions may be taken:
A. Revocation. The County or the administrator may revoke any permit issued in conjunction with
the land disturbing activity.
B. Order to stop work. The administrator may issue a stop work order as provided in section 17-902.
C. Enforcement. The administrator may pursue enforcement as provided in sections 17-903 and 17-
904 as applicable.
(§ 17-213: § 7-6, 6-18-75, § 8, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-21, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-
6, 19.3-21; § 17-213, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98); § 17-325: § 19.3-49, 2-11-98; § 19.1-9, 9-29-77, art. III, § 4,
10-19-77, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-9, 19.3-49; § 17-325, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 89)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:37, 62.1-44.15:58.
Sec. 17-902 Stop work orders; procedure.
The administrator is authorized to issue stop work orders as follows:
A. When stop work order may be issued. A stop work order may be issued after a notice to comply
under section 17-901 has been issued when the owner has not timely satisfactorily addressed the
noncompliance identified in the notice to comply; provided that:
1. Emergency stop work order; erosion and sediment control; notice to comply not
prerequisite. A notice to comply is not required before an emergency stop work order
may be issued if: (i) the alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of
causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds
of the State; or (ii) the land disturbing activity commenced without an approved erosion
and sediment control plan or any required permits.
2. Emergency stop work order; stormwater management; notice to comply not prerequisite .
A notice to comply is not required before an emergency stop work order may be issued if
the administrator finds that any violation of the VSMP permit is grossly affecting or
presents an imminent and substantial danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or
sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the State or otherwise
substantially impacting water qualit y.
B. Contents of the stop work order. The stop work order shall order the owner to stop all land
disturbing activity on the site until all of the specified corrective measures have been taken to the
satisfaction of the administrator, until any violation of the permit, plan or other applicable
requirement of this chapter is determined by the administrator to have abated, or that any
required plan or permit be obtained from the administrator, or any combination thereof; provided
that any emergency stop work order to be issued under subsection (A)(1) or (A)(2) also shall
direct the owner to cease immediately all land disturbing activity on the site and inform the owner
of the date, time and location of a hearing before the administrator under subsection (F), at which
time the administrator may affirm, modify, amend, or cancel the emergency stop work order.
C. How stop work order delivered. The stop work order shall be delivered as follows:
1. Noncompliance with VSMP permit or erosion and sediment control p lan. If the alleged
violation is the owner’s noncompliance with the VSMP permit or the erosion and
sediment control plan, the stop work order shall be mailed by certified mail, with
confirmation of delivery, to the address specified in the permit applicati on or the plan
certification, or by personal delivery at the site of the land disturbing activity or
development activity to the agent or employee.
2. Land disturbing activity without a VSMP permit or erosion and sediment control plan. If
the alleged violation is the owner engaging in land disturbing activity without either a
VSMP permit or an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the stop work order
shall be mailed by certified mail, with confirmation of delivery, to the address specified in
the land records of the County, and shall be posted on the site where the land disturbing
activity is occurring.
D. Duration of order. A stop work order shall remain in effect for the following periods:
1. Noncompliance with VSMP permit or erosion and sediment control plan. If the alleged
violation is the owner’s noncompliance with the VSMP permit or the approved erosion
and sediment control plan, the stop work order shall remain in effect for seven (7) days
after the date of service pending application by the County or the alleged violator to the
circuit court for appropriate relief.
2. Land disturbing activity without a VSMP permit or erosion and sediment control plan. If
the alleged violation is the owner engaging in land disturbing activity without eithe r a
VSMP permit or an approved erosion and sediment control plan, the stop work order
shall remain in effect until all required permits and plans are obtained from the
administrator, subject to the additional procedures and requirements in subsection (E).
E. Subsequent order and service; land disturbing activity without a VSMP permit or an erosion and
sediment control plan; failure to obtain approval within 7 days. If the alleged violation is the owner
engaging in land disturbing activity without either a VSMP permit or an approved erosion and
sediment control plan, and the owner has submitted a permit application or a plan but has not
obtained approval within seven (7) days after the date of service of the stop work order, the
administrator may issue a subsequent order to the owner requiring that all construction and other
work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until approval of the required
permits or plans is obtained. The subsequent order shall be served upon the owner by certified
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 90)
mail, with confirmation of delivery, to the address specified in the permit application or the land
records of the County.
F. Administrative hearing on emergency stop work order. Within a reasonable time after the
issuance of an emergency stop work order under subsection (A)(1) or (A)(2), the administrator
shall conduct a hearing at which time the owner may respond to the order, explain the corrective
measures taken, if any, raise any defenses, if any, and present any other relevant and material
information. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the administrator may affirm, modify, amend, or
cancel the emergency stop work order. A hearing is not required if the owner does not appear
and does not submit any information in writing. Nothing in this subsection compels the owner to
participate in a hearing.
G. Right to appeal. The owner may appeal the issuance of any order under subsection (A) or (E) to
the circuit court; provided that the owner shall have no right to appeal an order issued under
subsection (A)(1) or (A)(2) unless the owner participated in the administrative hearing provided
under subsection (F).
H. Authority to enforce order. The County may enforce any order issued by the administrator under
subsections (A) and (E) in an action seeking injunctive relief, mandamus, or any other appropriate
remedy.
I. Compliance; lifting order. Any order issued by the administrator under subsections (A) and (E)
shall be immediately lifted when the corrective measures have been completed and approved by
the administrator, or when all required permits or plans are obtained from the administrator, or
when the administrator determines that the requirements of this chapter have been satisfied;
provided that nothing in this section prevents the County or the administrator from pursuing any
other action or seeking any other remedy in the enforcement of this chapter.
(§ 17-214: § 7-6, 6-18-75, § 8, 2-11-76, 4-21-76, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-22, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-
6, 19.3-22; § 17-214, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98); § 17-325: § 19.3-49, 2-11-98; § 19.1-9, 9-29-77, art. III, § 4,
10-19-77, 7-11-90; Code 1988, §§ 19.1-9, 19.3-49; § 17-325, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:37, 62.1-44.15:42, 62.1-44.15:58; 9VAC25-870-116.
Sec. 17-903 Remedies under the VESCP.
The following shall apply to the enforcement of the VESCP:
A. Violations subject to this section. The County may seek the remedies provided in this section
against any person who commence land disturbing activity without an approved erosion and
sediment control plan or who violates, fails, neglects, or refuses to obey any applicable State
statute or regulation or any County regulation pertaining to the VESCP, the approved erosion and
sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity or any condition thereof, any permit or
condition issued by the County as a result of the approved erosion and sediment control plan, any
stop work order, and any emergency stop work order.
B. Civil penalties. The County may seek civil penalties as follows:
1. Procedure. Proceedings seeking civil penalties for any violation delineated in subsection
(A) shall commence by filing a civil summons in the general district court.
2. Amount of civil penalty. Any violation shall be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred
dollars ($500.00) for the initial summons, and a civil penalty of one thousand dollars
($1000.00) for each additional summons arising from the same set of operative facts;
provided that if the violation arises from commencing land disturbing activities without an
approved plan, the violation shall be subject to a civil penalty of one thousand dollars
($1,000.00) for the initial and each subsequent summons.
3. Maximum aggregate civil penalty. The total civil penalties from a series of violations
arising from the same set of operative facts shall not exceed ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00).
4. Each day a separate offense. Each day during which a violation is found to exist shall be
a separate offense.
5. Option to prepay civil penalty and waive trial. Any person summoned for a violation under
this subsection may elect to pay the civil penalty by making an appearance in person or
in writing by mail to the County’s department of finance prior to the date fixed for trial in
court. A person so appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil
penalty established for the offense charged. A signature to an admission of liability shall
have the same force and effect as a judgment of court. However, such an admission shall
not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. If a person charged with a violation
does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the violation shall be tried in the
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 91)
general district court in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as provided
by law. A finding of liability shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose.
6. Civil penalties are in lieu of criminal penalties. A violation enforced under this subsection
shall be in lieu of any criminal penalty.
7. Civil penalties; use. Civil penalties shall be paid into the treasury of the County.
C. Civil charges. In lieu of the civil penalties sought under subsection (B) and with the consent of any
person who has committed a violation described in subsection (A), the administrator may provide,
in an order he issues against the person, for the payment of civil charges for violation s in a
specific sum, not to exceed the limits specified in subsections (B)(3) and (B)(4). Civil charges
shall be paid into the treasury of the County.
D. Injunctive relief. Any violation, or the threat of any violation, described in subsection (A), may b e
enforced in a proceeding brought by the County seeking injunctive relief without the necessity of
showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist.
E. Other remedy. Without limiting the remedies that may be obtained in this section, any person
violating or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus, or other remedy
obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty
not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation.
F. Violation of agreement in lieu of plan; additional information. If a violation occurs during the land
disturbing activity authorized under an agreement in lieu of a plan, then the person responsible
for carrying out the agreement in lieu of a plan shall correct the violation and provide the name of
a person holding a certificate of competence.
(§ 7-8, 6-18-75, § 10, 2-11-87, 3-18-92; § 19.3-23, 2-11-98; Code 1988, §§ 7-8, 19.3-23; § 17-215, Ord.
98-A(1), 7-15-8)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:54, 62.1-44.15:55, 62.1-44.15:63.
Sec. 17-904 Remedies under the VSMP.
The following shall apply to the enforcement of the VSMP:
A. Violations subject to this section. The County may seek the remedies provided in this section
against any person who: (i) violates or fails, neglects or refuses to obey any applicable State
statute or regulation or any County regulation pertaining to the VSMP, including any regulation,
standard or condition adopted pursuant to the conditions of the County’s MS4 permit, including
discharging stormwater into State waters from the County’s MS4, or from land disturbing
activities, except in compliance with a general permit issued by the State Water Control Board
pursuant to the Virginia Stormwater Management Act; (ii) engages in or allows any illicit
discharge, illicit connection, or dumping; (iii) fails, neglects, or refuses to comply with any order of
the administrator, including, but not limited to, any order to maintain a stormwater management
facility; (iv) violates, fails, neglects, or refuses to obey any injunction, mandamus, or other remedy
obtained pursuant to this section.
B. Civil penalties. The County may seek civil penalties as follows:
1. Procedure. Proceedings seeking civil penalties for any violation delineated in subsection
(A) shall commence by filing a civil summons in the appropriate court.
2. Amount of civil penalty. Any violation shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to thirty-two
thousand five hundred dollars ($32,500.00) for each violatio n, in the discretion of the
court. The amount of the penalty should reflect the degree of harm caused by the
violation and take into account the economic benefit to the violator from noncompliance.
3. Each day a separate offense. Each day during which a violation is found to exist shall be
a separate offense.
4. Civil penalties; use. Civil penalties shall be paid into the treasury of the County and are to
be used for the purpose of minimizing, preventing, managing, or mitigating pollution of
the waters of the County and abating environmental pollution in the County therein in
such a manner as the court may, by order, direct.
C. Civil charges. In lieu of the civil penalties sought under subsection (B) and with the consent of any
person who has committed a violation described in subsection (A), the administrator may provide,
in an order he issues against the person, for the payment of civil charges for violations in a
specific sum, not to exceed the limits specified in subsection (B)(2). Civil charges shall be paid
into the treasury of the County.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 92)
D. Criminal penalties. Any person who willfully and knowingly violates any provision of the VSMP
regulations in this chapter is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Criminal penalties shall not be
available as a remedy for a violation of subsection (A)(iii).
E. Injunctive relief. Any violation, or the threat of any violation, described in subsection (A), may be
enforced in a proceeding brought by the County seeking injunctive relief without the necessity of
showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist.
F. Use of offsite nutrient credits. To the extent available and with the consent of the applicant, the
administrator may include the use of nutrient credits or other offsite measures in resolving
enforcement actions to compensate for: (i) nutrient control deficiencies occurring during the
period of noncompliance; and (ii) permanent nutrient control deficiencies.
(§ 17-326: § 19.3-50, 2-11-98; § 19.1-10, 9-29-77, art. III, 4-13-88, 7-11-90, § 19.2-15, 6-19-91, § 15;
Code 1988, §§ 19.1-10, 19.2-15, 19.3-50; § 17-326, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) (§ 17-507: Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-
07)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:35, 62.1-44.15:42, 62.1-44.15:48, 62.1-44.15:49; 9VAC25-870-116,
9VAC15-870-310.
Sec. 17-905 Enforcement of general permits and other State permits.
Any general permit or other State-issued permit shall be enforced by the State, inc luding but not limited to
the State Water Control Board and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, rather than by the
County or the administrator.
State law reference – Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:27.
Article X. Groundwater Assessments
Sec. 17-1000 Applicability.
This article shall apply to the establishment of land uses that will rely on privately owned wells serving as
the primary source of potable water and having not more than two (2) connections (hereinafter, “individual
wells”) or central water supplies, as defined in Albemarle County Code § 16-101. The applicable
requirements of this article are determined by the development approval sought by the owner and the
land uses within the development, as follows:
Development Approval and Timing of Submittal for Required Assessment Assessment Required
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new structure on a lot of record less than
twenty-one acres in size existing prior to the effective date of this article that will be
served by one or more individual wells
Tier 1
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new structure: (1) on a lot of record
created after February 8, 2005 that is subject to a Tier 2 or Tier 3 assessment that will
be served by one or more individual wells; or (2) associated with a use that is subject to
a Tier 3 or Tier 4 assessment that will be served by one or more individual wells
Tier 1
Prior to approval of a preliminary subdivision plat creating lots of less than twenty-one
acres that will be served by individual wells Tier 2
Prior to approval of a preliminary subdivision plat creating four or more lots where at
least three lots are five acres or less Tier 3
Prior to approval of an initial site plan for a new nonresidential or nonagricultural use
using less than 2,000 gallons/day (average) Tier 3
Prior to approval of an initial site plan for a new nonresidential or nonagricultural use
using more than 2,000 gallons/day (average) Tier 4
Prior to approval of any central water supply under chapter 16 of the Albemarle County
Code Tier 4
The administrator may require that development approvals subject to Tier 2 or Tier 3 assessments be
subject to Tier 3 or Tier 4 assessments, respectively, as provided in sections 17-1002 and 17-1003.
If an owner submits a final subdivision plat or site plan without first submitting and obtaining approval of a
preliminary subdivision plat or an initial site plan, the assessment required by section 17 -1002 shall begin
upon submittal of the final subdivision plat or site plan, and the assessment required by sections 17 -1003
or 17-1004 shall be submitted by the owner with the final subdivision plat or site plan.
(§ 17-400, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05)
Sec. 17-1001 Tier 1 assessments.
A Tier 1 assessment shall consist of the owner drilling a well on the lot and submitting the following
information to the program authority: (i) a Virginia well drilling completion report (form GW -2) for each well
drilled; and (ii) the latitude and longitude coordinates of each well’s location. The information submitted
must be accepted as complete and accurate by the administrator prior to issuance of the building permit.
(§ 17-401, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05)
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 93)
Sec. 17-1002 Tier 2 assessments.
A Tier 2 assessment shall consist of the program authority reviewing and e valuating the county’s well
database, available hydrogeologic studies, and information from the Virginia Department of Health and
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, as provided in the Design Standards Manual. Based on
this evaluation, the administrator may require that the owner provide additional groundwater assessment
data prior to subdivision plat or site plan approval, or may require that a Tier 3 assessment be submitted.
(§ 17-402, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
Sec. 17-1003 Tier 3 assessments.
A Tier 3 assessment shall consist of the following:
A. Draft groundwater management plan. The owner shall submit a draft groundwater management
plan with the preliminary plat or the initial site plan. The groundwater management plan shall
comply with the requirements for such plans in the Design Standards Manual. If the groundwater
management plan identifies special areas of concern, such as an off-site resource of high
groundwater sensitivity or a previous ly unknown source of contamination, then the administrator
may require additional groundwater assessment data prior to preliminary subdivision plat or site
plan approval.
B. Final groundwater management plan. The owner shall submit a final groundwater management
plan that must be approved by the administrator prior to approval of the final plat or site plan.
C. Surety. Any structural best management practices shall be bonded as a subdivision plat or site
plan improvement.
The administrator may require that a Tier 4 assessment be submitted instead of a Tier 3 assessment if
the special areas of concern identified in subsection (A) have not been adequately addressed by the
additional groundwater assessment data.
(§17-403, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
Sec. 17-1004 Tier 4 assessments.
A Tier 4 assessment shall consist of the following:
A. Draft groundwater management plan; aquifer testing workplan. The owner shall submit a draft
groundwater management plan and an aquifer testing workplan complying with the requirements
for these plans in the Design Standards Manual, with the preliminary plat, initial site plan, or the
application for a central water supply. The groundwater management plan must demonstrate to
the administrator’s satisfaction that the site’s groundwater conditions have been considered with
the subdivision or site plan’s layout and design. The aquifer testing workplan must be approved
by the program authority before the owner may conduct aquifer testing as required by subsection
(B).
B. Aquifer testing workplan. After the program authority approves the aquifer testing workplan, the
owner shall conduct aquifer testing as provided in the workplan.
C. Final groundwater management plan; groundwater assessment report. The owner shall submit a
final groundwater management plan and a groundwater assessment report complying with the
requirements for the report in the Design Standards Manual, based upon the results of the aquifer
testing. The final groundwater management plan and the groundwater assessment report must
be approved by the administrator prior to final subdivision plat or site plan approval.
D. Surety. Any structural best management practices shall be bonded as a subdivision plat or site
plan improvement.
(§17-404, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05; Ord. 07-17(1), 2-14-07)
Sec. 17-1005 Fees.
Each owner seeking approval of a tier assessment required by this article shall pay a fee as provided by
Albemarle County Code § 18-35.1 and Albemarle County Code § 14-203, as applicable.
(§17-405, Ord. 04-17(1), 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 36-98.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2014.
_______________
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 94)
Non-Agenda. The Board recessed their meeting at 11:15 a.m., and reconvened at 11:28 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. ZTA-2012-00010. Of-site Signs (deferred from April 2, 2014).
The executive summary states that The Board held a public hearing on ZTA 2012-10 Off-site
Signs on March 5, 2014 (see Attachment B for March 5th executive summary), but deferred action until
April 2nd, then further deferred action until May 7th. The deferrals provided an opportunity for staff to meet
with Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, and Neil Williamson to discuss Mr. Sheffield’s concerns about the proposed
regulations for by-right off-site bundle signs.
Staff met with Messrs. Sheffield, Boyd and Williamson on March 20th. Staff reviewed the
proposed by-right provisions for bundle signs and shared examples of sites in the County that would
qualify for a bundle sign under the proposed ordinance. The discussion primarily focused on whether the
allowance of by-right bundle signs would result in their proliferation throughout the Dev elopment Areas
and encourage the creation of additional access roads within new commercial, industrial, and residential
developments. While staff does not anticipate these outcomes, should the Board adopt the proposed
ordinance, staff can update the Board in a year regarding the activity that results from the new
regulations.
Following the meeting, staff further revised the organization of § 4.15.5A in the proposed
ordinance and made non-substantive changes to clarify the distinctions between provisions for bundle
signs and directional signs, and the applicable eligibility and location requirements for both sign types.
The tables in § 4.15.5A(b) of the proposed ordinance have been updated to reflect these changes. Staff
notes that, although the March 5th executive summary inaccurately referenced what constitutes an access
road, the ordinance correctly defined it as a public or private street that is not a through street or that
provides frontage to fewer than ten parcels.
Staff does not anticipate that this ordinance will result in the need for additional staff or
funding.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinance as presented in
Attachment A.
______
Ms. Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, noting that Stewart Wright – the
senior permit planner who reviews all sign applications – was also present. Ms. Burbage stated that the
purpose and intent section for signs in the Zoning Ordinance acknowledges that signs are an important
means of communication, but if unregulated can become a nuisance detrimental to public health, safety
and convenience. She said that the amendments before the Board today establish standards that limit
the proliferation of offsite signs, aligning with the County’s goals of protecting publ ic health and safety,
and maintaining the aesthetics of its roadways. Ms. Burbage stated that offsite signs are regulated under
Section 4.15.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, and are defined as “signs that are not located on the same lot as
the use to which the sign pertains.” She said that there are three groupings of offsite signs: 1) political,
temporary, subdivision, planned development, and agricultural product signs, all permitted by right; 2)
right-of-way signs, regulated by VDOT; and 3) all other offsite signs are allowed by special use permit –
and those are affected by the proposed regulations before the Board.
Ms. Burbage stated that special use permits for offsite signs are reviewed by the Board of Zoning
Appeals and currently require a finding that onsite signage is ineffective to communicate its message
offsite because of topography or vegetation. She said that this language is problematic because it limits
conditions of eligibility to two specific factors and is unclear where offsite the signs should be visible from.
Ms. Burbage stated that the BZA was concerned that current regulations don’t discourage the use of
offsite signs for marketing on major roadways. She noted that it was these two issues that were driving
factors for the zoning text am endment. Ms. Burbage said that both the current and proposed offsite sign
regulations do not allow for additional signage for the lot where the sign is located. The current
regulations allow one free-standing sign per street frontage or two per entrance. For residential properties
the square footage allotment is 25 square feet. For commercial industrial and planned development
properties, it is 32 square feet – and that can be divided into up to two different signs. She said that these
regulations are not changing that total allotment.
Ms. Burbage reported that the Board adopted a resolution of intent on this amendment in January
2012. Staff then held three work sessions that resulted in the amendments before the Board today. She
said that the changes include the creation of two offsite sign classifications – directional signs and bundle
signs – and the establishment of eligibility criteria with specific standards that limit who can qualify for
directional and for bundle signs, and limitations on the locations for directional and bundle signs, to
encourage proximity and deter businesses from locating their signs on major roadways. Ms. Burbage
said that on December 3, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
approval with minor revisions. The Board held a public hearing on March 5, 2014 and deferred action to
allow time for staff to hold a meeting with Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Neil Williamson to discuss Mr.
Sheffield’s concerns about bundle signs. She stated that when staff met with these individuals on March
20, they discussed the proposed regulations pertaining to bundle signs and provided a few examples of
different sites in the County that would qualify for a bundle sign. Ms. Burbage s aid that Mr. Sheffield’s
concerns included his opinion that a by-right provision for bundle signs may result in a proliferation of
them in the County, that they may spur future development with access roads that would qualify for by-
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 95)
right bundle signs, and that the ordinance in general gets beyond dealing with the problematic language
and qualifying criteria.
Mr. Sheffield said that was correct.
Ms. Burbage said that since that time, staff had made non-substantive changes to clarify the
distinctions between provisions for bundle signs and directional signs, as reflected in Attachment A of the
staff report. She stated that one of the Planning Commission’s requests of staff was to explore
opportunities for administrative review of offsite sign applications when possible. The proposed
regulations for directional signs introduce by-right provisions for 24-hour emergency medical and public
uses that are eligible for up to two directional offsite signs – and all other directional signs are by special
use permit. She said that to be eligible for a special use permit, a property must exhaust all opportunities
for onsite signage and still demonstrate that no onsite sign face located at an entrance would be visible
from within 100 feet of the entrance on the roadway. Ms. Burbage said that directional signs can be
located within any zoning district, and with the exception of emergency medical signs – which can locate
anywhere – all other directional signs must be located according to the criteria illustrated in th e diagram
presented. She stated that the first option must be within one-half mile of an entrance on the road
providing access to the parcel, and if that is not possible then within one-quarter mile of the turning
decision; if that is not possible, then the BZA or the Zoning Administrator can consider an alternate
location – which depends on who is reviewing the application, either by right or by special use permit.
Ms. Mallek asked if “possible” was contingent on whether an applicant could get permission from
a landowner to put it up, because if it is not in the highway right of way they would have to be on private
property. Ms. Burbage said that was correct.
Ms. Burbage reported that bundle signs are available to two or more industrial, commercial or
residential properties that are served by a common entrance or access road . An access road is defined
as a road that is not a through street or provides frontage to fewer than 10 parcels, so it is a very limited
set of street conditions that qualify as an access road. She said that staff proposes that bundle signs be
permitted by right for establishments located in industrial, commercial or R -6 or higher residential zoning
districts. Allowing them by right incentivizes bundling and affords them the same entrance sign privileges
that planned developments currently have. Ms. Burbage said that a special use permit would be
necessary for properties located in lower density below R-6 residential zoning districts. She stated that
bundle signs can be located in any commercial, planned development, industrial or R-6 or greater zoning
district, and within the permitted districts the bundle signs must be located on a lot that has frontage with
the intersection of the access road that serves all of the parcels located on the sign – so it is a very limited
number of lots that would be allowed to have a bundle sign.
She stated that the other classes of offsite signs as mentioned before are not affected by the
proposed regulations, but all signs that fall within an entrance corridor will continue to be subject to the
ARB’s review. Ms. Burbage said that it is staff’s opinion that the proposed regulations will provide greater
certainty during the review process, which benefits the BZA and the applicant by having clear eligibility
criteria as to who qualifies for bundle or directional signs; create avenues for administrative review which
currently do not exist; encourage sign consolidation through by-right provisions for bundle signs; and
protect the safety and aesthetics of the County’s roadways by discouraging a proliferation of signage.
Ms. Burbage said that staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance language.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a limit to the number of bundle signs that one parcel could have in
one of these commercial districts. Ms. Burbage said that there isn’t an expressed limit written into the
language, but the size and square footage would limit how many businesses could list on that sign . The
regulations do not affect how many signs would still only get the 24 square feet or 32 square feet,
depending on their zoning designation. She stated that the VDOT signs are not in the County’s purview,
and agricultural product signs would still be by right.
Ms. Mallek asked about the distance from the farm which someone is advertising strawberries,
etc. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, stated that the agricultural product signs were created
by the County as a by-right use, to make it easier for people to get to the farm, and that was incorporated
into the ordinance when they upgraded the “farm sales” and “farm stand” provisions.
Ms. Mallek said that she had not made the connection that there could be more than one sign at
a primary intersection. If they are by right it seems that they could be sprinkled everywhere. Ms.
McCulley stated that she would check on that, but that aspect of the regulation is not being proposed to
change at all with the ordinance modifications.
Mr. Sheffield said that when they had their meeting, there was a comment in the executive
summary about “access road,” and he misunderstood that it would not be a through street and provided
fewer than 10 parcels – but it is actually not a through street OR provided fewer than 10 parcels. He
stated that his concern about the by-right bundled signs still stand, and with this ordinance they seem to
be far exceeding what the original intent was.
Ms. McKeel asked what the driver was for the ordinance.
Mr. Boyd responded that it was the BZA.
Mr. Sheffield explained that the BZA wanted clarification as to where to place an offsite sign and
what constituted the need for it, because currently it is just vegetation and topography. He said that the
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 96)
ordinance provides a little more clarity, but goes way beyond the scope . By denying this ordinance, THE
Board is not taking anything away from existing landowners. This ordinance is undoubtedly a clarification.
Ms. Mallek asked if this change would allow the subdivision near Clover Lawn to have its sign –
which was previously denied – down at I-64. Ms. McCulley responded that it would not, and stated that
the current language did not give staff and the BZA the breadth of discretion to clarify where that sign
should go when they do qualify for an offsite sign, so it became a discussion about marketing on the
primary road with the greatest amount of traffic.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was an assumption that there is always a place for a sign. She asked
how a property qualifies to have one if they are completely without visibility. Ms. McCulley said that many
properties will not qualify for an offsite sign. The preference is always to use onsite signage because that
entitles a property owner to freestanding signage, wall signage, and other types in a portfolio of signs that
are allowable. She stated that it is more problematic for businesses that are off any type of road, and it is
difficult to get people there. That is why the County wants to encourage people to consolidate signage,
putting it at key turning decision points where people are sharing a sign. Ms. McCulley noted that staff is
not proposing any change in the size of signs; in the rural areas and residential, freestanding signs are 24
square feet, and in the commercial and industrial zones they are 32 square feet. In response to Ms.
Mallek’s earlier question about agricultural products, they are limited to two offsite signs.
Ms. Palmer asked if they could get the clarification needed by removing Mr. Sheffield’s concerns,
or if it could be done a different way. Ms. McCulley said that what they are doing with directional signs is
really not becoming more permissive, with the exception of emergency medical uses and public uses.
She stated that those are the only uses that are by-right as a result of the ordinance, and everything else
is by special use permit, clarifying the criteria by which they would qualify and where that sign goe s. Ms.
McCulley said that what is more permissive is the bundle signage, and that is where Mr. Sheffield’s
concerns lie. She stated that she does not think they are going to have a proliferation of these signs, but
staff could report back to them in a year with findings – or they could pull back and not have by-right
bundle signs, but instead have them all be granted by special use permit with the Board of Zoning
Appeals with clearer criteria.
Mr. Sheffield said that it would require another public hearing because it would involve tightening
the ordinance.
Ms. Palmer asked how he would feel about tightening the ordinances. Mr. Sheffield said that it
addresses that concern. His underlying concern is that they have created a “beast of an ordinance” for a
very simple concern. He said that there are some who would say that this is just government bloating
itself more with regulation. Mr. Sheffield stated that he understands the BZA’s frustration in not having
clarity on this, so there is probably a balance to be achieved somewhere.
Ms. Mallek said that this is a new angle, because in the presentations over the last year the
examples given have been the major shopping center entrances, such as Albemarle Square – not every
little side road having these, which seems to be Mr. Sheffield’s concern.
Mr. Sheffield said that his third concern is the access road definition of being not a through road
or less than 10 parcels, given that there are a lot of large parcels in the community that are adjacent to a
road that cuts through.
Ms. Palmer asked how he would fix it. Mr. Sheffield said that he does not have an answer, but he
would not approve the ordinance as presented.
Ms. Mallek said that taking out the access road portion might be one step. Mr. Sheffield said that
defining “access road” is new, but it must be done because it is mentioned throughout the ordinance.
Ms. Dittmar said that they should do a review process far enough out so they have examples, but
soon enough to have a public hearing and make adjustments.
Mr. Sheffield said that he will not vote for it, so reviewing it in a year is fine if other Board
members want to do that.
Ms. McCulley stated that she feels it is important for the Board to know that there is currently not
a level playing field, as you can have physically identical development that is the same density and
intensity – but because it is zoned Planned Development, it gets an offsite sign by right. She said that the
same development zoned otherwise such as Highway Commercial does not have an allowance for by-
right offsite signs. There currently exists an inequity and this ordinance intends to rectify that inequity.
Ms. McCulley stated that in terms of access roads, staff is not getting many access roads that dead end
after serving 10 lots or establishments – they are getting interconnections. She said that it is perhaps a
more limited situation than the Board might think. Staff can come back in three or six months to let them
know how many they have received at that time – but this is really about leveling the playing field, and it is
a more limited qualifying situation than they may be concerned about.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to support this, because it does more good than harm . He
understands Mr. Sheffield’s concerns but does not think there will be a proliferation of it. He stated that
they should give it a year and review it again at that time.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 97)
Mr. Sheffield asked if the Planned Unit Developments still ha ve to go through a special use permit
process for review, or if they get to put up a sign wherever they wanted without the County’s approval.
Ms. Mallek said they are prescribed locations, and the ARB would also have review.
Ms. McCulley explained that by right, planned development signs can be off the site of the
establishment that’s being advertised on that sign, as long as it is within the planned development. She
said that they treat the site as the whole zoned planned development properties, which may consist of
many parcels. They are now allowed to have offsite signs by right – and anything on an entrance corridor
is subject to ARB approval.
Mr. Sheffield said that the difference is that the County is still going through the review process of
a planned unit development. Ms. McCulley clarified that the sign is a simple building permit application
that meets size, height and setback requirements and then goes through ARB if it’s su bject to that – but
they qualify for an offsite sign automatically.
Mr. Sheffield said that happens when the PUD is approved . For example when Stonefield came
in to rezone, it was all considered under the rezoning.
Ms. McCulley stated that it does not get attached to the rezoning. It is inherent with any planned
development-zoned properties that they are entitled to offsite signs within that PUD.
Mr. Sheffield said that it is considered during that process, but under this new ordinance they
would be doing by right for bundled signs, which no one on the Board or Planning Commission would
have a say on. He said that this ordinance tips the playing field the other way to where by-right means
that any development can do what they would like under the sign size, etc., whereas under a planned unit
development it goes through a review process to where appointed bodies or elected bodies have some
sort of say in the ultimate outcome.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, stated that theoretically that is the case, but in actuality the
County does not review the signs as part of the rezoning request and review.
Ms. Mallek said that the PUD often has interior offices and spaces that are not visible at all, so it
makes sense that they would be listed on a bundled sign – whereas highway commercial generally has
its’ own visibility. She asked if there is highway commercial property that is “deep,” thus creating the need
for signage on an access road.
Ms. McCulley stated that there is some – perhaps not to the same extent as a planned
development in terms of depth and distance off the main road. The ordinance also applies to C-1, CO, R-
15, R-10, so there is more than just commercial zoning that would benefit from what is being proposed by
bundling or consolidating their signage.
Ms. Mallek asked if they have individual signs now, or just do not have signs. Ms. McCulley said
they try to get offsite signs when they need them, and if they are on a main road they do not need them
because their sign onsite is visible. She stated that the County had a request in Avinity for the
Independence, and it was several roads off of Route 20. They were having trouble getting people with
deliveries, ambulances, and other people to their facility. Ms. McCulley stated that they didn’t qualify for
an offsite sign, so staff recommended denial, which the BZA subsequently denied. The criteria were not
strong enough to really guide staff in that type of review about where it should go if they did quality.
Ms. Mallek asked how passing this would have affected them, as they are not a medical facility.
Ms. McCulley said that if the Board passes this and Avinity were to bundle in the intersection at the
access road, then it would be by-right. If the Board passed it and they didn’t bundle with someone else, it
would be a special use permit. She stated that the location criteria in this ordinance would stipulate
where that sign would go – in this case, up on Fontana Drive – and that the locating aspect has been
one-half the battle for County staff.
Mr. Sheffield said that you can’t bundle an offsite sign. Ms. McCulley said that is what a bundle
sign is. T ypically with a bundle sign, the establishment on the site on which the sign is located is also on
that sign, but that is not required because it may be a vacant lot.
Ms. Mallek said that is another problem, having signs with no associated business. Ms. McCulley
said she does not think that will happen.
Ms. McKeel stated that the prospect of opening this up and then trying to pull it back is very
concerning to her. She asked if there were parts they might want to look at more carefully.
Mr. Sheffield said that the primary concern for him is the by right, and he trusts staff’s assessment
of conditions that exist as to whether signs are needed or not. He said that not having a review process
is his primary concern, with the access road issue being secondary, and the underlying issue being
having such a big ordinance for such a small purpose.
Ms. Mallek stated that a special exception would be less bureaucracy but would still allow review
and could come up on a consent agenda so that people could at least see it, and that process in and of
itself might help improve the quality of the presentation being made.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 98)
Mr. Stewart Wright, Senior Permit Planner, addressed the Board, stating that he reviews all the
sign permits and knows the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Wright said that he was at the BZA meeting at which
they expressed their concerns about the criteria for a special use permit for an offsite sign. The BZA’s
frustration was that the criteria were so strict that it is almost impossible to approve one based on the
criteria – even when it is a situation when the sign should be there. He said that the BZA expressed
frustration that their hands were tied because they could not approve any of them – not that they feel they
must approve all of them, but the other extreme. Mr. Wright stated that the BZA felt it would be great to
come up with a way to administratively approve some of these requests, where the sign location was
appropriate, rather bringing it before them. He said that one example would be Mill Creek Industrial Park
– which is zoned Planned Development Industrial Park. Shenandoah Pride’s property is right on the
corner of their access road in, and Avon Street. Mr. Wright said that Shenandoah Pride had a sign out
there and didn’t need that much signage on it, and all of the other tenants wanted a sign out on the road
so the County kept getting requests to add a tenant panel to the freestanding sign – then it got to the
point that staff agreed to just allow panels for all tenants providing it didn’t exceed the 32 square feet, and
that was the end result of the special use permit process for that sign. He stated that at the time, they
had not changed the regulations to allow an offsite sign within a planned development – and what
happened at Mill Creek was essentially by right, but if the property was zoned Light Industrial it would still
require a special use permit.
Mr. Wright said that Ms. McCulley clarified that offsite signs must be within the development. In
the past week he discussed with a developer who has a planned development in Crozet – not on the
main road – neighborhood model development, residential, with a commercial component moving in. He
stated that they want a sign down by Route 250 to get to the eye doctor’s office . If the Board changes the
regulations today, the doctor would not be allowed to have a bundled sign down by the road by right
because the property that wants the offsite sign is a planned development. Mr. Wright said that his only
recourse is a special use permit for an offsite directional sign, or a by-right subdivision sign located at the
entrance.
Ms. Palmer asked how long it takes someone to get a special use permit for a sign. Ms.
McCulley said that it is roughly a one-month process, and to restate why there is one special use permit
out of all of them going to the BZA is because staff felt it was really something that should only qualify
under a hardship situation. The BZA deals with hardships all the time under variance review. She stated
that if the Board is comfortable approving this today, staff will report back within a year or sooner . If the
Board defers it, staff could come back with something that would have less bundle signage by right and
more by special use permit – but still tight on criteria and location, and stay with the Board of Zoning
Appeals because with good criteria, it’s working. Ms. McCulley noted that it is a pretty quick process, as
these procedures go in the County.
Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer said they could support that.
Ms. Mallek said that the one month pertains to the existing BZA process.
Ms. Palmer said she was saying that she would rather defer rather than approving it now and
looking at it a year from now.
Mr. Sheffield said that if the Board defers, they need to give specific direction to staff.
Ms. Dittmar stated that if there is a majority agreeing there is more work to be done on this, then
they should defer it, but she feels this is generally a well thought-out set of criteria and she is not afraid of
trying something that is this well-formed, or pulling it back and tweaking it. She can support going forward
with the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek said that she has had her questions answered, and with the understanding t hat if
there is evidence to the contrary they would be making a very swift adjustment. She added that she is
ready to vote.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Sheffield what specific changes he would want to see if this were deferred.
Mr. Sheffield said that he would want to see increased approval of signs, and the rate of sign
requests – and they would have to take case by case whether an existing sign would have been put up
before this ordinance was approved, and if not, then why not.
Ms. McKeel said that Ms. McCulley framed it well in terms of what staff would come back with.
Ms. McCulley clarified that what she suggested though, is further restricting what would be by
right, and leaving emergency medical and public use etc. but putting everything else into the s pecial use
permit category with the criteria for qualifying and for the location of offsite signs, to the BZA.
Mr. Boyd said that this would create more work for staff; all of these items with a long process
create more work for staff.
Ms. Mallek said that Mr. Wright has to do the evaluation of the sign applications anyway, so he
would prepare that and pass it onto the BZA.
Mr. Wright stated that staff always tries to steer an applicant to a by-right option because 99% of
the time it is the best option. He said that the one point that is very important to remember is that getting
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 99)
permission to put a sign on somebody else’s property is the biggest hurdle, and if you have an access
road that leads to six commercial establishments and you have the building with decent visibility, there
would need to be a motivation for allowing someone else to locate there.
Ms. McCulley said that because this is not additional signage, and many other localities that allow
offsite signs allow it as additional sign allocation on top of the by-right onsite signage, and because it is
not an additional sign, the property at the corner is giving up their own sign area to allow someone offsite
to use it – so there are limitations inherent in that fact in terms of the proliferation of those signs.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the properties gaining the bundle signs now have two signs – a by-right
one on their property and an additional one on the bundle.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that they have a square foot limitation.
Ms. McCulley agreed, stating that they have limitations on square footage, height and the number
– but the onsite sign is not being effective, which is why they are allowing it onsite.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board is inclined to find a way to support this now with clarification of
reporting and review requirements.
Mr. Sheffield said that he would not support it.
Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer said that they want Ms. McCulley to bring it back as suggeste d, and
once the signs are up it is hard to pull them back.
Mr. Sheffield said that if they change the ordinance, they could be subject to litigation as there
would be future approvals that contradict previous denials.
Ms. Dittmar said that they could be grandfathered in.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he is not trying to prevent the convenience of locating customers, he is
trying to prevent a proliferation of signs.
Mr. Davis clarified that they would only need another public hearing if the ordinance were to
become more intensive. If the Board takes it from a by-right use to a special use they would not need
one – but they may want to have one because the ordinance is changing significantly. He suggested
having it deferred to a time when staff has an opportunity to look at what changes might be needed, and
share it with the Board in some fashion, then schedule a public hearing, if necessary.
Ms. Dittmar said that in working on the sign ordinance in the 1990s, they changed the way the
community landscape looked. She did not realize how dramatically and aesthetically how they could
create byways and highways and neighborhoods, until she went to other communities that did not have
sign ordinances. She stated that the other side of this is that businesses need to let people know where
they are, so it is a balance, and she wants to make sure that they keep in mind that directional signs are
very important. She hopes that they not get too restrictive.
Ms. McCulley said that staff is recommending that this item be deferred to the June 4th meeting,
and are proposing that the ordinance reflect the elimination of all by-right offsite signs under the new
provisions – with the exception of 24-hour emergency medical and public use – and retain the eligibility,
which is the criteria by which they would even qualify for an offsite sign, the sign location requirements.
Everything would be by special use permit for offsite signs except for the two exceptions and what
already exists, such as agricultural products.
Ms. Mallek asked if they could just change the language now and go forward, rather than
deferring it. Ms. McCulley said that they could, but they would need to have a written ordinance in hand,
and the Board has a lot on their agenda.
Mr. Davis noted that it could be on their consent agenda in June if it meets their satisfaction.
Ms. McKeel moved to defer ZTA-2012-00010 to June 4, 2014. Ms. Palmer seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Mr. Sheffield and Mr. Boyd.
Ms. McCulley said that staff understood that this would be a consent agenda item, but in light of
the votes, perhaps not.
Ms. McKeel stated that she was not assuming consent agenda.
Ms. Mallek said they have already established what the change is; it is right before them on the
screen, and they need to get it done.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the changes still d o not address his concerns.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 100)
Mr. Foley clarified that this item could come back on their June 4, 2014 regular meeting agenda,
not as a consent agenda item.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Review of County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and the
VDOT Secondary Six-Year Plan.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board was going to proceed with this item before lunch.
Due to the Board’s current schedule, Mr. Foley suggested that this item be deferred to the
afternoon of May 14, 2014. If Board members are available, it can be scheduled at 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Benish stated that the hearing in Culpeper is for the Primary Plan, which the Board did by
consent agenda. The Six-Year Plan must be approved by June.
It was the consensus of the Board to meet at 3:00 p.m. on May 14, 2014.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio, of VDOT, said that either he or Mr. Greg Banks could attend that date and
time, but the Secretary of Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board is also meeting in
Charlottesville that day.
Ms. Mallek noted that the CTB meeting starts at 10:00 a.m.
Mr. DeNunzio said that he does not have to attend that meeting, but needs to be available.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Meeting.
At 12:30 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees and commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments; and
under Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal
matters requiring legal advice relating to: 1) negotiation of an agreement for further implementing a
cooperative cost recovery program for emergency service transports, 2) the negotiation of easements on
the County Office Building property, 3) the negotiation of a regional public safety agreement, 4) a notice
of investigation received by the County, and 5) imminent domain funds received by the County; under
Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation
concerning three retired employees’ compensation claims because a public discussion would adversely
affect the litigating posture of the County; and under Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal
counsel and staff regarding probable litigation regarding a personnel matter because a public discussion
would adversely affect the litigating posture of the County. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:24 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting, and Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board
certified by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the
closed meeting. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Ms. McKeel moved that the Board appoint Ms. Judy Savage Jones to the Equalization Board,
representing the Rio District, with said term to expire on December 31, 2014. Mr. Sheffield seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 101)
Non-Agenda Item. Resolution – No Reconsideration of Claims Denied on June 2, 2010.
Ms. McKeel moved for adoption of a resolution of no reconsideration of claims denied on June 2,
2010. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
NO RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS DENIED ON JUNE 2, 2010
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has received a le tter dated April 10,
2014, from David W. Thomas representing three retired employees on compensation claims; and
WHEREAS, the compensation claims of Deborah J. Chambers and Gordon Carter (hereafter,
“Claimants”) were previously presented to the Board in 2010 and disallowed by the Board by a Resolution
adopted June 2, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the claims were fully considered and disallowed by the Board on June 2, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the claims were not appealed as required by Virginia Code § 15.2 -1246 after written
notice of the disallowance was given to the Claimants; and
WHEREAS, the Board does not consent to any action by the Claimants against the County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1247, the disallowance of the claims is final and not
appealable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
hereby declines to reconsider the claims of Deborah J. Chambers and Gordo n Carter previously
presented to the Board in 2010 and disallowed by the Board by a Resolution adopted June 2, 2010.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does not consent to any action by
the Claimants against the County.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Quarterly CAT Presentation.
Mr. John Jones, Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Manager, addressed the Board, stating that
he would report on the first quarter of calendar year 2014 with regard to overall route performance. Mr.
Jones noted that he’d provided Board members a written report earlier in the week (attached), adding that
the routes in which the County is a partner include Route 1, 3, 5, 10 and 11.
Mr. Jones reported that, in March, ridership was down 6.55%; ridership on local routes was up
6.42%; the two routes that had ridership declines were Route 9 and 10 – with Route 9 being a City local
route, and Route 10 serving Pantops in the County. He said ridership was down over 24%, attributable to
the weather and the change in the routes that put a supermarket anchor on three other routes so riders
don’t have to transfer to Route 10; there is also no night service in that area, as old Route 24 was
abandoned in January and Route 10 was not extended. Mr. Jones said Route 1, which services the
County, was up 9.8% in March; Route 3, which the County finances to serve areas including Southwood,
was up 46.91% in March; Route 5, which the County finances 100%, was up 2.86% during that period.
He said Route 11 had a high total of 5,092 riders in March, the highest total it’s had to date. Mr. Jones
reported that, for the quarter, Route 1 was up 2.8%; Route 3 was up almost 31%; Route 5 was down
about 2.15%; and Route 11 had 14,248 riders for the quarter. He stated that those are the routes held in
partnership with the County, and CAT values that partnership. Mr. Jon es said CAT is looking forward to
extending some of the routes according to what they’ve asked for from the County in the budget, and is
hoping to enhance the partnership over the years to become a more regional provider.
Mr. Sheffield asked him to provide an overview of the shelter at the Senior Center. Mr. Jones
explained that CAT received a call a little after midnight one night from Dominion Virginia Power to move
the shelter, but obviously they couldn’t get a crew out there at that time to move it – so Dominion Virginia
ended up smashing out the glass in order to obtain access to make electrica l repairs. Mr. Jones said
CAT removed the shelter, and the contract has been approved for the shelter replacement in a new
location that has been checked out with Miss Utility and the necessary inspectors. He stated that it
should be replaced in a similar location sometime later this month, along with a companion stop across
the street from the Senior Center so there will be two stops on Hillsdale. Mr. Jones noted that it wasn’t
CAT’s fault, but they have taken care of it.
Ms. Mallek asked if Dominion would cover the cost of the new shelter, noting that Susan King is
the outreach person there, and she needed to hear about this. Mr. Jones said it turned out to be just a
few glass panes, and the shelter that’s being replaced is the one they took out, with new glass.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 102)
Ms. Mallek asked if the restoration of the later service on Pantops would begin in July, which is
why ridership on that route is plummeting. Mr. Jones said it would commence the first Saturday in
August, and that’s when they would begin the service changes – with meetings held in the area regarding
that process. He stated that CAT would make all the route changes on that date.
Ms. Mallek asked which grocery stores were destinations for the rerouted busses. Mr. Jones said
it was Willoughby Square and, prior to the January change, Route 4 and Route 6 did not serve any
grocery stores at all and, since then, those routes now serve Willoughby. He said CAT sees that a lot of
the patrons use those stores rather than going downtown and transferring to one of the other busses to
get to a Kroger or a different Food Lion location like Pantops, which they previously used.
Ms. McKeel asked him to provide a quick summary of bus stops and shelters on County roads –
who maintains them, and how the process works in terms of installing a new bus stop.
Mr. Jones explained that CAT would have to get approval from VDOT to locate it, and would have
to go through Miss Utility for that aspect, and the decision to put one up depends on ridership volume. He
said the process is, when they determine the need for a bus stop, the first thing CAT provides is a sign on
a pole then, once the volume gets to a certain level, they provide a trash receptacle and a bench, and
when ridership reaches a level of 20-25 passengers per hour, they put a shelter up at that point. He
stated that shelter placement is a bit more challenging because it is a rather expensive amenity to put up,
with a shelter costing about $7,500 to purchase and another $4,000 to erect with all of the necessary
inspections. Mr. Jones stated that CAT maintains all the shelters once they’re put up, cleaning in and
around them, replacing any broken glass and removing graffiti. He said they were going to put up some
solar lighting poles beginning in June or July, with th e contract awarded the previous week for forty poles
in order to light some of the darker areas in the County and City for people utilizing the buses at night.
Ms. McKeel asked if CAT could let the Board know where those would be going. Mr. Jones said
he would forward the list of stops getting solar lighting to Ms. Jordan, stating that they are nice solar
apparatus, tastefully designed, and shining light down in a 10-foot diameter around the pole in the shelter
area. He stated that they would have the ability to set what times of the day and night the lights are
turned on.
Ms. McKeel asked how it was determined which bus stops to upgrade, and assumed that was
done by request. Mr. Jones said CAT looks at them periodically as far as condition, and upgrading from a
target sign to a bench or from a bench to a shelter, is based upon the volume actually gathered on that
route. He stated that they would have better information on that when they complete fare collection
upgrade, which had been delayed due to a change in ownership of the company they may be awarding
the contract to – but that data would be collected at the stop and time levels, to provide a better idea of
who’s getting on and where, and what types of volumes they would be seeing. Mr. Jones said, after they
gather that information, they will have a better plan as to where to place amenities.
Mr. Sheffield noted that what he’s referring to is a new fare-box system, which also allows them to
implement smart cards – and will hopefully be a big incentive to regular riders.
Mr. Jones said it looked like a September 1 rollout for that, stating that the project got pushed
back due to some contract negotiations but is almost completed and ready to be awarded with a
purchase order, with a 45-50 day wait for the fare boxes to be delivered. He noted that this is a
completely different system, so all the drivers would need to be retrained on how to use it. Mr. Jones said
the back end of the data collection is completely different, with a different manufacturer, but this system
will have the ability to generate tickets at the point of sale – on the bus – whereas now, someone would
have to give the fare to driver, who places it in the fare box and hands the rider a printed piece of paper.
He stated that, with this system, the rider places the fare directly into the box and the driver hits a button
that generates a coded day pass out of the fare box, and will allow for smart card capability – with all of it
providing better tracking data, eventually connecting to CAT’s AVL system.
Mr. Jones expressed CAT’s appreciation for the partnership with the County, stating that they
hope to see it grow over the coming years and noted that there are a lot of big things getting ready to
happen locally that would require a better transit infrastructure. He added that they want to work with the
Board and City Council to make it a more regional system.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.
Ms. Sarah Rhodes addressed the Board, on behalf of the Charlottesville Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), stating that she would talk about the long-range transportation plan (report
attached). She said the plan is a project the MPO has been working on for the last two years, with the
MPO policy board anticipated to vote on it May 28. Ms. Rhodes said they are in a unique situation with
this plan because of the Route 29 solutions process going on in tandem with their long -range
transportation plan completion, and the Rt. 29 process could produce a series of projects which need to
be included in the long-range plan. She stated that, as Mr. Philip Shucet had said at the last Route 29
solutions meeting, the projects approved by the advisory panel must be included in the long-range
transportation plan – and then the Commonwealth Transportation Board would vote for the projects to be
in the six-year improvement program. Ms. Rhodes said the plan the Board has before it is subject to
change, and they are also constrained by the fact they must have the plan approved in some way by May
28 as indicated by their FHWA representative, or the plan lapses – which means the transportation
improvement program cannot be amended.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 103)
Ms. Rhodes presented a constrained project list, noting that it is the core of the long-range
transportation plan and stating that these projects set the vision as to how transportation is perceived to
look in the future. Ms. Rhodes stated that the plan must be fiscally constrained, which means they cannot
spend more money than the community is estimated to receive, and the estimate that came in December
from VDOT’s central office is $565 million. She said the projects that are already in the six-year
improvement program do not take away from that $565 million, as it is just for new projects. She
referenced the first page of the constrained project list, which provides an overview of how to read the
project list, and a list of a series of projects already in the long-range transportation plan. Ms. Rhodes
said project S-4 is the Route 29 Bypass, stating that it is currently being reevaluated as part of the Route
29 solutions process, so this list is the best they can do at the time until they know more about what
comes out of that process. She stated that other projects on this list include the U.S. 29 widening project
from Town Center Drive to Ashwood Boulevard; the Best Buy ramp project or U.S. 29/250 interchange
improvements; the Fontaine Avenue project, which is mostly in the City; the McIntire Road interchange,
which is a Cit y project; and Hillsdale Drive Extended. Ms. Rhodes stated that she also had a list of bridge
projects, most of which are in the County, and provided a map outlining the major projects and bridge
locations that are part of the list.
Ms. Rhodes presented detailed information on roadway projects that are being considered for
inclusion in the final long-range transportation plan – two interchange projects, one at I-64 and U.S. 29 at
Exit 118; and one at I-64 and U.S. 250 at Exit 124. She said this list of projects also includes an
interchange at Rio Road. Ms. Rhodes said, with Berkmar Drive Extended, things get complicated, and
they are trying to fit as many projects in under the total budget of $565 million – and Berkmar’s right of
way changed the overall project estimate. She stated that project N-2 for Berkmar funds the bridge-only
component of the project, which would likely need to be fully funded and would not receive any additional
funding from developers or proffers.
Mr. Boyd said Ms. Rhodes stated that the Rio Road interchange is in the six-year plan, but that
was nothing that he or the Board ever voted on.
Ms. Rhodes explained that the next list of projects is just those in the long -range transportation
plan, and the Rio Road interchange is in that – but not in the six-year program. She said the bridge
component of Berkmar Drive Extended is fully funded, but the road component is not and they are trying
to figure out the best way to fund the project and get other projects funded, so this is a pre liminary
engineering (PE)-only study. Ms. Rhodes said this project is one of the most debated as part of the
Route 29 solutions process, but this is how they structured it before any of this happened, which falls
under the category of attempting to do the best they can with what they have at this time – and the
structure is likely to change. She stated that other PE-only projects would be studied for further
development and include a widening of U.S. 29/250 from Barracks Road to the I-64 interchange. Ms.
Rhodes presented a map of the PE-only projects, noting that the list also includes a widening of U.S. 250
from Exit 124 off of I-64 to North Milton Road.
Ms. Rhodes reported that the next series of projects includes three transit projects – a bus rapid
transit route along U.S. 29, a transit-only link that would allow CAT Route 10 to connect into Pantops
without congestion at Free Bridge, and a link from downtown Charlottesville out to Crozet that would run
during peak hour. She said some of these projects are subject to change with the Route 29 solutions
process, and the transit projects are not fiscally constrained in the $565 million as there are no funding
estimates for transit projects at this time. Ms. Rhodes presented a map as to where those projec ts would
be located, stating that bus rapid transit and the Rt. 29 corridor would go from NGIC into downtown; the
existing Route 10 structure would not change; and the Crozet link would go out to Old Trail and back.
She stated that there’s not much discussion regarding bridge projects, as bridges are designated for the
long-range transportation plan based on sufficiency rating, and the Board and MPO committees review
the lists and provide input – with that taken back to VDOT and addressed as part of the overall list. She
noted that the list has basically been provided to the MPO based on the Culpeper District’s bridge priority
process, and it does come out of the $565 million.
Ms. McKeel stated that there are five bridges in Albemarle County that are “fracture critical,” one
of which is on the list and, for those bridges that fall into that category, she asked for confirmation that
VDOT would be making the determination on what goes on the list as far as the importance of the repairs.
Ms. Rhodes said it depends on the bridge and the road structure, and there is a process for
bridges that are on secondary roadways, with the MPO typically not making decisions with regard to
bridges.
Ms. Rhodes presented the bicycle and pedestrian project list, stating that it includes about 39
projects which are pulled from other plans both in the City and County that have been refined, with about
$52 million available to allocate to these projects. Ms. Rhodes stated that they started off with a list of
about 250 total bike and pedestrian improvements, which was whittled down to 69, and then down to 39
projects in the fiscally-constrained budget. She said key improvements include bridge crossings at
Darden Towe and Penn Park, and bridge crossings at Riverview Park into the County behind State Farm.
Ms. Rhodes said this was the first time the MPO attempted to look at small-scale intersection
improvements as part of the long-range transportation planning process, which was difficult because
those plans are usually large visioning views of the community not small-scale decisions. She stated that
they tried to isolate intersections based on safety concerns – those intersections which had high-crash
incidents – and that information was presented to MPO committees, but they cou ldn’t agree on
intersections because they were just too small scale for this type of plan. Ms. Rhodes said all of the
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 104)
money that would have been allocated is still allocated and doesn’t go anywhere, and the way this is
structured provides more freedom for staff to make suggestions that this project needs to be included and
move forward.
Ms. Mallek stated that one example of that category would be improvements at Owensville Road
and Rockfish Gap Turnpike, where it’s out there in the future and there is no design or final funding
decision.
Ms. Rhodes said that was the case, and the MPO knew there needed to be some kind of
intersection improvements but they weren’t sure what kind of improvement, so that’s very challenging to
cost estimate.
Ms. Rhodes presented the overall fiscal constraint chart, reiterating that they have $565 million to
allocate and noting how the funding breaks out – with roadways at $319 million, bridges at $139 million,
bike and pedestrian improvements at $51.9 million, and intersection/safety improvements at $54 million.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $319 million for roadways included the $244 million attributed to the
bypass. Ms. Rhodes said it does not, because the bypass is in the six-year improvement program and
these are all new projects – adding that most of the $319 million covers the two interchange
improvements on I-64.
Ms. Mallek asked if the study for widening Rt. 29/250 would be done later than the improvements
at Exit 118, so that the timing would allow for the extra traffic to have someplace to go. Ms. Rhodes said
Exit 118 is a fully funded project that the committees have put into the short term, so that would be a
project that would come first – whereas the widening would be something done in the out years.
Ms. Rhodes reported that the list includes a series of visioning projects, and this includes projects
that the MPO considered during the process but decided not to fiscally constrain – and it does not include
all potential projects that anyone would like to see in the community in the future. Ms. Rhodes said
“visioning” provides them the opportunity to move things into the long-range transportation plan should
more funding become available.
Ms. Mallek said an example would be the Hydraulic Road improvements at Rt. 29, which is
something that will require more community involvement going forward to get it to move one way or the
other.
Ms. Palmer asked where the bike and pedestrian projects in the visioning section came from, and
whether they were just things on the list that didn’t rise to the top from the County. Ms. Rhodes said that
was the case, and many of the projects were those considered long-range projects, and they have to
inflate the cost estimate for each project based on year of expenditure. She expla ined that, if a project is
anticipated to be built towards the year 2040, that project is more expensive and takes more of t he $565
million because of inflation, and that’s an FHWA requirement in developing long-range transportation
plans. Ms. Rhodes noted that many of the projects that were removed from the bike and pedestrian list
were removed because they were long range and, therefore, more expensive, and would take a lot of the
$52 million available.
Ms. Mallek commented that a lot of these would be taken care of through redevelopment,
projects, and other things along the way.
Ms. Rhodes said that was a very good point, adding that the plan is intended to be malleable –
with projects pulled off the list and others added as other funding sources becom e available.
Ms. McKeel asked why Barracks Road, Georgetown Road, and Old Garth Road were listed under
City projects when they are in the County.
Ms. Rhodes said these were organized based on mapping, so it’s the map where you can best
see it – and it’s not jurisdictional. She stated that she would be sure to note that in the final draft.
Ms. Palmer stated that they need to revisit the bike and pedestrian long-range plan, because she
sees things that have a tremendous amount of benefit but are way off in the future.
Mr. Sheffield asked if they were pulling some of the bike and pedestrian projects out of the Comp
Plan. Ms. Rhodes confirmed that was the case, and their refinement process focused on creating inter -
jurisdictional connections – so some of the connections that would benefit just the County might have
been overlooked in favor of trying to create a more regional network. She stated that they vetted all of
this with County staff and VDOT, and took this to the public and the MPO committee beginn ing in October
2013, so there was a lot of debate about which projects would move forward.
Ms. Dittmar said she had received an email stating that the Rt. 29 solutions presentation to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board would be the following Tuesday, but they wouldn’t vote on it until its
June meeting. She asked Ms. Rhodes to revisit her earlier comment about adopting the MPO plan on
May 28.
Ms. Mallek said the MPO’s federal long-range plan, which is an FHWA requirement, is separate
from the task force efforts.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 105)
Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. Rhodes if this impacted anything the MPO would do on May 28, since they
weren’t going to have a vote until June. Ms. Rhodes said she wasn’t sure at this time and was still
working with VDOT to help develop a process as to how they want to handle this as it is a unique
situation. She explained that the deadline for the long-range transportation plan is a firm deadline, and
the plans need to be updated every five years for attainment communities like Charlottesville/Albemar le,
and if they aren’t updated, they lapse which causes funding consequences for projects currently
underway.
Ms. Dittmar noted that they can amend the plan if necessary.
Ms. Mallek said that would be the plan, because things are in flux but, rather than creating
confusion with funding, they should adopt what they have on May 28, and immediately go into the
process of fixing it because of the recent changes. She said they may know the following day more
details on what will be in the recommendation, as the task force is meeting, so there may be some of the
components they can get in before May 28 to get it a bit closer than it is right now.
Mr. Sheffield said the FHWA indicated they were the ones who threw a wrench into the works
here, but also said they were not going to extend the deadline on the long-range transportation plan.
Ms. Dittmar said the CTB cannot adopt something that’s not in the long-range plan so, in the
event the panel suggests something that the Secretary asks the CTB to vote on, they can’t vote on it if it’s
not in the long-range plan.
Ms. Rhodes said that is the appropriate process, with the projects needing to be in the long-range
transportation plan before they can move into the six -year improvement program. She emphasized that
they would strive to make sure the MPO can facilitate the process as soon as possible.
Mr. Sheffield said they want to make sure to provide a public hearing opportunity when they
amend the long-range plan and six-year program.
Ms. Mallek said the Board received an email the previous day from a middle school student who
was very concerned about public input in transportation decisions and why citizens weren’t asked to be
more involved, and it reminded her to try to engage the public on a more long-term basis rather than
condensing it all into a period of a few months.
Ms. Rhodes said the MPO is trying its best to keep people informed of the process as quickly as
possible.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Update on FY 15 Budget Status.
Mr. Sheffield disclosed that he serves as Assistant Director for JAUNT, and has a transactional
relationship with the organization, but felt he could consider the budget items objectively.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that she would facilitate another work session on the FY15 budget and noting that the budget
office’s desired outcome is that the Board approve the budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014,
hopefully today but at the latest on May 14. She said they need the budget in place to help the schools
set up their CIP projects for the summer, as they have a small window when children aren’t at the schools
to do some of the CIP projects, and it’s important for planning purposes for both departments and
agencies so they know what their budgets are and can move forward. Ms. Allshouse stated that they
would start with updates since the Board’s last work session, noting that the major update is that the
School Board has approved a revised funding request, with two pieces that affect general government’s
budget; and they would also talk about any other items identified by the Board that would need additional
discussion.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the School Board has requested that general government assume all
of the funding for Bright Stars and the Family Support Program, which would reduce the School Division’s
support by $289,804 – and, in addition to reducing that amount of money, they would also lose some
matching funds from the Department of Education preschool grant in the amount of $97,000. Ms.
Allshouse noted that it’s a 50% match in general funds and is based on the composite index – capped at
.50. She said this would reduce funding in two places: the Bright Stars prog ram, which is a separate
fund contributed to by both schools and local government, and it would reduce funding by $101,466. She
stated that it would also reduce funding for the Family Support Program by $18 8,338. Ms. Allshouse said
the School Division would continue its in-kind support, for things such as classrooms, custodial services,
transportation, and cafeteria use. She stated that this wouldn’t take all of the programs away, as there
would still be other Bright Stars and Family Support services. She stated that the Board had received a
lot of information about the program over the last few months and, like other joint efforts between schools
and local government, it is a collaborative program with a lot of history. Ms. Allshouse stated that the
Bright Stars program has 10 preschool classrooms, 14.5 full-time equivalent teachers and teacher’s
aides, and 4.2 full-time equivalent program coordinator and family coordinators. She said the Family
Support arm of this has 14.3 full-time equivalent family support workers, and it supports school children
and their families as well as Bright Stars alumni over the years. Ms. Allshouse said the combination of
the two has equaled student success and healthy families.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 106)
Ms. Allshouse reported that the Bright Stars program is a $1.2 million program, with general
government providing 57% of the funding, the state Department of Education providing 35% of the
funding, and schools providing 8% of the funding. She said the numbers equate to $661,000 for general
government, $411,000 for the state, and $97,495 for the schools.
Ms. McKeel asked if the schools’ 8% represented in-kind support also. Ms. Allshouse said it only
represented the cash contribution, not the in-kind.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the Family Support program is also a million-dollar program, with
schools providing $188,388 in the current year; the federal government provides $274,000; and general
government provides $591,897. She noted that, as a combined program, it totals $2.2 million, with the
state contributing 19%, federal sources contributing 12%, general government providing 56%, and
schools providing 13%.
Ms. Allshouse presented a chart of the Bright Stars program’s milestones, stating that the
program began in 1996 with a state Department of Education grant and local government match, with one
classroom at Stone Robinson – expanding to four classrooms by 2000. She said there was no school
division support at that time. In FY01, she said general government provided $268,000 for the program,
and the school division began contributing $26,250 – providing a portion of funding for the new classroom
in Scottsville. Ms. Allshouse stated that, in FY01, both entities continued to support the program. In
FY07, she said local government’s contribution increased to $708,000 and the School Division’s
contribution was $87,737, to provide support and funding for a new classroom at G reer Elementary. She
said, in FY15, the proposed budget is $698,321 for general g overnment, and $101,466 for the School
Division. Ms. Allshouse said, if the school’s funding is reduced and they were to put it on the general
government side, their support would increase to $799,787.
Ms. Allshouse presented a chart on the Family Suppor t program, stating that it began in FY99 at
which time it was funded entirely with a federal revenue grant except for some small amounts fro m local
government – $22,500 one-time in FY01, and $11,000 in general government support in FY05. She said
that, in FY06, along with local government, School Division support continued because federal funding
was reduced, as both felt it was important to continue the program – but they continued it at a lower level
than what it had been funded by the federal government. Ms. Allshouse said, in FY07, the School
Division requested and used their funds to support an additional part-time position at Jack Jouett
Elementary; and, along with increases in funding by local government, restored some of the FY06 service
reductions. In FY15, she said the schools’ reduction would be $188,338, which would increase local
government’s support to $808,872.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the Board has many options to consider on this item, with the first
being to not pick up the School Division’s funding reduction – and, based on the historical collaborative
funding arrangements, this would result in service reductions and reduce the Department of Education’s
preschool initiative grant funding by $97,500, so the total reduction t o the program would be $387,304.
She said this would reduce the number of classrooms by two – at Greer and Scottsville – based on how
the funding has been built over the years, and the school positions would have to be reduced by the
schools, with a total of four positions including two teachers and two teacher’s aides. She said it would
also eliminate a family worker position at Jack Jouett, and three general government positions that work
in the schools would be reassigned to the Department of Social Services (DSS) in support of adult
services or case management to support child welfare – or one could be allocated to Red Hill preschool
with two to DSS. Ms. Allshouse said the social services workers in Family Support work directly in the
schools.
Ms. Allshouse said the second option would be to maintain the current level of service, and they
could request the School Division to maintain its support or could provide one year of support in the
amount of $289,804 from general government, to offset the School Board’s funding elimination in FY15.
Ms. Allshouse said staff suggests holding further discussions with the schools about this ongoing
obligation in future years.
Ms. Mallek asked if the $97,000 state grant would continue if local government picked up the
$284,000 amount.
Ms. Allshouse said, if local government picked it up, the County could continue to get the grant
because of the match. She explained that they are allowed to have more “slots” and , currently, they have
about 90 children but could have more with additional matching money from the state. Ms. Allshouse
noted that this is a strategic plan goal for the Board and is important to the School Board as well.
Ms. McKeel asked how many slots were available. Mr. Doug Walker, Assistant County
Executive, said there were 137 slots available currently and, more recently, the County has been
authorized for 175.
Ms. McKeel said the waiting list she had seen indicated 80 students. Ms. Allshouse said it was
90 students.
Mr. Sheffield said he would like to hear from the schools about the in-kind contributions.
Mr. Ned Gallaway, Chairman of School Board, addressed the Board, stating that he could list off
the top of his head what those were but he would need some time to prepare an itemized list.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 107)
Mr. Sheffield said he was hoping that in-kind support wasn’t going away. Mr. Gallaway said it
would not.
Mr. Foley said Ms. Allshouse had provided a list of that information.
Mr. Walker said the report included in-kind support from the schools and DSS through a
methodology they have in collaborating each year to identify that support. He said the current estimate
for FY15 from the School Division would be $250,000, with Social Services contributing $136,000, and
that would be for custodial services, clerical support, specials such as art, music and P.E., office space for
family workers, IT, teacher assistants, and supplies – but is exclusive of classroom space. Mr. Walker
stated that this covered the Bright Stars and Family Support program throughout th e school system.
Mr. Sheffield noted that providing $289,000 leverages the $300,000.
Ms. Dittmar said she and Mr. Gallaway have discussed this before, but said this was a decision
by the School Board brought on by their own budget constraints. She asked if he felt it was a school
readiness program, and others have characterized it as a social services program.
Mr. Gallaway said there are some members of the School Board who have advocated that there
is a line of distinction between social workers and K-12 educators, and that viewpoint has not been the
consensus of the School Board. He stated that there isn’t a current or past School Board member who
would speak against the program or say it didn’t have value – however, the conversation this year
focused solely on the fact they have a $4 million gap, which hadn’t originall y been on the table for cutting
but, faced with their budgetary circumstances, it would be difficult to continue this program. Mr. Gallaway
said the fine line of distinction between social workers and education got more traction in conversation,
with the idea of local government taking this on – and historically, the schools have assumed some costs
as well. He said Kathy Ralston’s historical perspective on the program was very detailed and informative,
and stated that the School Board’s line of thought was that the program didn’t fall within a core K-12
service even though it’s vital and critically important to those services. Mr. Gallaway stated that their line
of thought was that the funding responsibility for it fell out of the core K-12 responsibility, so they agreed
to go to the funders of things outside of those core responsibilities . He said, for whatever reason, those
conversations haven’t yet occurred, which is why it has come to the forefront today.
Ms. Dittmar said, from what Mr. Gallaway is saying, the School Board feels this program would
not be a priority for the schools.
Mr. Gallaway said, if they weren’t under the funding constraints that they had, they wouldn’t be
having the conversation about this program – but, when it goes to the extent of having to cut items, it was
a decision of maintaining core K-12 services. He stated that it’s a program they feel should continue, and
they need help funding it but, since it falls outside of the core K-12 services, it would be difficult to cut
those core services in favor of a non-core service.
Ms. Dittmar asked, if the Board were to pick up funding for this program at least for the year while
it ensures future funding, would the teachers that local government would be paying for now work for the
County rather than the schools. Mr. Gallaway said, in his letter to the Board, he was addressing the
family support workers, which fall under the Department of Social Services.
Ms. Dittmar said they wouldn’t be funding teachers as part of this then.
Ms. Mallek said they actually would, because those positions are teachers.
Mr. Gallaway said, up to now, both schools and local government have been very interested in
this program. He stated that, if local government were to fund this, then the teachers would be under the
Department of Social Services, but the schools would still provide in-kind support for the program.
Ms. Dittmar commented that if the School Board is defining itself as an education provider, but
narrowing its focus for K-12, then the County needs to think about how it provides education to citizens
through other providers.
Mr. Gallaway said it’s not the School Board who decides to narrow focus to K-12, and that’s their
responsibility as it is set up – with preschool and post high-school being a different area of responsibility.
He stated that they make a lot of investment in students as they progress through the school system,
particularly special education students and, as they leave the schools and progress out on their own,
there are not strong programs for that – such as a program like Bright Stars on the other end of the
spectrum.
Ms. Dittmar said she isn’t faulting the School Board for deciding that its responsibility is only K -12,
she is just looking for clarification because County government needs to view education as a lifelong
learning experience. She stated that this seems to be part of a larger discussion whereby the County
must allocate funds along a continuum, and perhaps that will fiscally constrain funding for K -12 because
they are now responsible for a broader view. Ms. Dittmar asked if the schools wanted to be in the
business of being an “education division” not just a school division, and perhaps that could wait for a
retreat, as it raises the broader question as to who fulfills these responsibilities for the County.
Mr. Gallaway said this is one of the reasons why the School Division has asked, on different
occasions, for help with some things to get them through this year, so they can have that joint discussion
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 108)
and try to figure out the priorities of both divisions and find the sustainable funding streams. He stated
that it helps in their discussion of one-time funding requests to bridge to that conversation, so that they’re
not doing this type of negotiating going forward.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Gallaway to define “sustainable school funding.” Mr. Gallaway said he hasn’t
used that term, but has said that “sustainable revenue streams” beyond what they have now need s to be
identified.
Mr. Boyd asked him to define sustainable revenue streams. Mr. Gallaway said Chair Dittmar’s
idea has been to utilize different taxing authorities to help raise money, and the expenditures forced upon
them by the state are not going to go away nor are they things they’ve spent money on in the past – so
they either need to go to current revenue streams, property taxes, or find other ways to bring more
revenue in. He said, unless they can do that, they can’t continue to cut services to pay for mandated
services on either side.
Mr. Boyd said he has an issue with that way of thinking, because he doesn’t look at fully funding a
retirement system as some sort of mandate.
Mr. Gallaway said the solution suggested by the state isn’t going to fix the retirement system, so
it’s just passing the cost onto the schools and making them cut other things.
Ms. Palmer said the state has a different range of taxes that are more appropriate to cover that.
She thanked Mr. Gallaway for his input and said she was looking forward to the discussion with the
schools this summer. Ms. Palmer said the Bright Stars and Family Support program has been so
collaborative that she was having trouble determining whose responsibility it actually was and, because of
its value, she feels they should go ahead and fund it.
Mr. Boyd said he agreed that this program should be fully funded but, if the County is going to
fund education on the local government side, the Board should have more control over things like salary
structure – as it might be possible to hire preschool teachers for less than high school teachers.
Mr. Sheffield said, at one point, the schools weren’t providing any funding for Bright Stars and the
teachers weren’t local government employees, so this is really a reversion back to how the County used
to fund it.
Ms. Mallek said family support workers were paid for by the County but they weren’t paying for
teachers in classrooms and, as soon as there were classrooms, that became a school effort.
Mr. Sheffield said the County would be reverting back to the old way of funding.
Ms. Allshouse explained that the Bright Stars program was a fund – not in the general fund or
school fund – with its own place because it is essentially a grant. She said funds were transferred in from
schools and general government to that fund, which then can transfer money back out. Ms. Allshouse
said that it transfers money back out to the schools for teachers and to DSS for teachers, and it’s very
possible that it’s always been done that way.
Mr. Sheffield said he would like to find out how that was structured, although it wouldn’t affect his
decision today.
Mr. Davis said the County never hired teachers, the School Board hired teachers.
Ms. Mallek asked if they’re being told that’s their new role because, in that case, they would need
to figure out a way to fund it.
Mr. Sheffield said that is not what they are discussing here; they are talking about whether to
defund the fund.
Mr. Foley said County staff is not in the position of overseeing teachers, but they’ve raised an
important question as to where this goes – which will be the focus of a future meeting between the two
Boards. He stated that the issue is about who puts the money into the fund, and they need to keep the
supervision and the same structure of the program until they figure out what they’re going to do long term
– and that would certainly be staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Boyd said the reason he raised the question about the provision of teachers is that County
teacher salaries are based on the number of years they’ve worked and the level of education they have –
and the private sector may not do that – so if they’re going in that direction, he doesn’t see why they
wouldn’t look into what the going rate is for a preschool educator.
Mr. Foley said that is a legitimate question and one that needs to be explored further, and noted
that the United Way is looking at expanded programs, so they may be able to do this in a whole different
way. He stated that there may be other provider options, but that’s a lot to think through in the context of
this discussion.
Ms. Dittmar said it might be helpful to hold a stakeholder meeting similar to what the County did
for the courts project in order to figure out what’s going on and how to move forward.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 109)
Ms. Allshouse noted that this is a Virginia Department of Education grant, so there may be some
restrictions and requirements because of that.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the School Board has revised its FY15 budget request to provide a
1% compensation increase beginning July 1, 2014, adding that the initial suggestion of 2% was based on
a joint discussion with schools and local government. She said staff’s proposal before them today would
be to consider 2%, but to begin it in January instead of July. Ms. Allshouse said staff believes this is
consistent with the Board’s joint adopted compensation strategy, which targets strategies at the m edian of
the adopted market. She stated that it is important for employee morale, recruitment and retention – and
if they start with 1%, they will start falling behind and, in the next year, will be trying to figure out how to
catch up, with the market getting further and further ahead. Ms. Allshouse stated that they feel it’s very
important to stay with the market and, when the market information is provided to them as a County, they
need to stay with its compensation strategy. She said the ‘World at Work’ data presented to the Boards
in October projected a 2.9% increase in market and, at that point, the Boards agreed to go with 2%
because the World at Work projections are higher than actua l. Ms. Allshouse said, if they go with 2%
later in the year, it still retains the commonality and in both versions of the state budget – the Governor’s
version and the Senate’s version – there’s funding for the SOQ instructional staff in schools, and that
usually requires a local match to pull it down. Ms. Allshouse said there’s a strong potential for them to be
able to start pulling down 2% and, in FY16, that could turn into a large amount of money – about $1/2
million of state money that the County might leave on the table.
Ms. Allshouse presented recent market data from the Human Resources Department from other
localities, noting that Augusta County was offering a 3% raise to employees, with their schools offering
1.5%; Charlottesville City was offering 2%; Chesapeake was proposing 3% beginning in October instead
of July 1; Chesterfield County was proposing 1% for both government and schools; Fauquier was
proposing 2%; Fluvanna was proposing 1.5%-4% depending on a number of variables; Hanover was
offering a phased increase of 2%; Henrico was offering 2.4%-3%; Loudoun County was offering 3%;
Lynchburg City was offering 2%; and other localities as listed were in the 2% and 3% range. Ms.
Allshouse said the Albemarle County Service Authority is proposing a 3% raise; Rivanna is offering 2.5%;
the regional jail and Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center were proposing 2%.
Ms. Palmer said the County was targeting a specific quartile, and asked if these other localities
had that target.
Mr. Foley explained that, for the County employees subject to commonality – which excludes
teachers – the target is the median of the market; but for teachers, the school system is targeting the
bottom of the top quartile of the teachers’ market, so they have a higher target and are not subject to
commonality in the same kind of analysis.
Ms. Palmer asked if the other localities were also targeting the median.
Ms. Allshouse said she didn’t know if they were targeting the median, but some localities are
market, some are COLA, etc. – and those details are summarized in her report.
Mr. Bill Letteri asked if Ms. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources, had anything to add.
Ms. Lorna Gerome addressed the Board, stating that staff collect this general data to find out
what other localities and school divisions are projecting for their increase and, over the summer, they do a
detailed survey from which they get information on positions – so that allows them to gather information
on medians. She said what Ms. Allshouse presented from HR was a general mark to show what the
market is doing, and that’s presented to both boards in the fall.
Ms. McKeel said staff is operating off of the previous year’s information but, over the years, it’s
worked well.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has used that as a “true-up” as to whether or not the County has stayed
with the market in the fall, and the reason it’s difficult to get this information is because not all localities
have passed their budgets.
Ms. Gerome stated that most of this information was from budgets that had been passed and, in
several instances, staff indicated where they hadn’t yet been adopted.
Ms. Allshouse presented information on the impact of funding a 2% increase but, for one half
year; and the school’s request is to do 1% for a whole year – which is the same amount of money. She
said, for FY15, the schools have enough in their budget to cover it, and they may even be able to pull
down additional money from the state. Ms. Allshouse noted that general government does have enough
funding to do a 2% increase for the whole fiscal year, and the Board could decide to use a portion of that
to support the Bright Stars and Family Support program. She said, if they started the raises in January,
they could also take some of the half-year funding and move it to capital.
Mr. Letteri said some Board members had raised the question as to whether a change in class
size would impact the employment of certain teachers. He said he spoke the previous day with Dr. Matt
Haas about the actual impact of the 0.2 class size increases – and what he indicated was that, if you
spread this out over the entire system, it would primarily affect the hours of teacher ’s aide positions. He
said the reduction in force (RIF) happens every year, with 102 letters sent the previous year and 77 in the
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 110)
current year, relating to changes in enrollment – and it is anticipated that most of those would be recalled
although there may be some layoffs.
Mr. Foley said the RIF program is not actually budget-related, it is enrollment-related.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that there are also a certain number of teachers that retire every year, so
this doesn’t necessarily mean there won’t be a place in the system for the RIF employees.
Mr. Letteri said some of the challenge is that the qualifications of the teachers may not match up
to open positions within the school system.
Mr. Foley said there are retirements and normal turnover every year, which creates positions to
be filled – and the question as to whether there will be layoffs, nine teachers are actually impacted by the
increase in class size but those teachers would likely have other opportunities.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification on delaying the 2% salary increase to January 1 and if that would
allow enough savings to fully fund the Bright Stars program plus move $127,000 to the CIP.
Ms. Allshouse confirmed that was the case, adding that they would consider that to be one-time
funding, and the Board could discuss it further for the FY16 budget. She said staff’s proposal for FY16 is
that schools and general government dedicate the first growth in revenue to support raises before funding
any other initiatives, which would be a strong statement for both s ides. Ms. Allshouse mentioned that the
transfer to schools projection for FY16 is $114.3 million, which is a $4.5 million or 4.1% increase over the
current transfer in the FY15 budget, based on current growth in revenues. She noted that this is one
funding stream for the schools, but they have other sources from state and federal sources.
Ms. Palmer commented that the Board has no way of knowing what the schools are planning to
do with that money, as it may already be earmarked for something.
Mr. Foley explained that staff’s recommendation is to achieve market salary which is so critical
across both organizations and should be a priority, but staff did want the Board to know about the
projected increase in income.
Ms. Allshouse mentioned that there is support for a teacher raise in all versions of the state
budget, but two versions say 2% and offer support for the SOQ – which doesn’t cover everyone in the
school system but is significant money.
Ms. McKeel asked if the number came from the schools as an estimate. Ms. Allshouse said the
$128,000 is a quarter, so it’s multiplied out for the year.
Mr. Foley said the schools have indicated that their read is that, under the two versions of the
state budget, the amount would be $500,000 on an ongoing basis. He stated that there is some question
as to whether they can pull that down with a 1% raise in July, but that hasn’t been completely defined yet.
He said, at the current time, none of that money is projected in the school budget so, if any of that
happens, it will be more revenue than what is currently being projected – and there is a likelihood that
some money would come from the state.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board wanted to adopt the budget at its day meeting the following week,
given that there are still some questions, or continue with the discussion and move it forward at this
meeting.
Board members agreed to continue the discussion.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the schools have requested a 1% salary increase, support for Bright
Stars, and use of one-time general fund balance monies. She said the fund balance number for FY13 is
an audited number at $503,000, which is slightly less than the Board has in its budget document at
$667,000. She noted that the additional funding has been reserved for two police officer positions added
since the time of the recommended budget, per Board direction, and would cover one-time startup costs.
Ms. Allshouse said that’s the number which would go to capital, and doesn’t have a specific purpose at
this point. She stated that they would start with the $503,000 at the top, and the quarterly financial report
in their packets actually shows slightly decreased revenues, which would update that top f igure. Ms.
Allshouse said school division staff had offered a figure of some of their costs, comprising the $1.4 million
and, based on FY14, if they provided that to the School Division, the Board would only have $500,000 in
reserves – which would eventually go to capital at the end of an audit.
Ms. Allshouse revisited staff’s recommendations, stating that they endorse a 2% compensation
increase beginning January 2015, no decreased funding for Bright Stars and Family Support, and provide
one year of support from general government to offset the School Board funding elimination. She stated
that this concluded her presentation.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there were other items to discuss with Mr. Gallaway in order to maximize his
time.
Ms. McKeel said she had several questions for Mr. Gallaway.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 111)
Ms. Palmer said she spoke with Mr. Gallaway the previous day, and he explained to her that the
School Board contemplated the 2% raise in January 2015, but decided that they didn’t want to take the
risk on what the state would do. She stated that this has been such a difficult year, and she wants to
make sure Schools do not do anything to have that happen again the following year, and that is her
concern.
Ms. McKeel agreed, stating that the 2% in January would leave the School Division with a
considerable deficit going into the next year, so they’d be right back where they’d started.
Mr. Gallaway said there were other reasons why they elected to do the 1% in July rather than the
2% in January, one being that it’s not cost-neutral. He said, if they did a 2% in January, it would actually
give them about $128,000 extra in cost – primarily because January 1 is not their midpoint in the contract
year, so that would need to be accounted for. He stated that, with health insurance benefit increases
borne on the side of the employees, not doing a 1% increase until January could actually decrease their
take-home pay in that six-month timeframe. Mr. Gallaway said the 1% salary increase would be on
paper, but wouldn’t mean much in take-home pay, and it’s important to him to hold people’s take-home
pay harmless or even increase it a bit – and if they waited until January to do the full 2%, there would be
a timeframe in which additional costs would come out of their paycheck. He stated that they’re fine in
terms of the money pulled down from the state, the schools are fine for FY14/15, and the 1% gets the job
done for that – but the current piece, which hasn’t been decided on, would be in the following year so, if
there had to be a full 2%, there’s still time to make that decision. Mr. Gallaway said they considered the
2% starting in January, thinking about the state and what they may do – but, because the state only
provides monies through the SOQ positions, it doesn’t fully fund the schools. He said there would be
about $500,000 pulled down from the state, but that leaves the schools with a $700,000 bill to provide the
increase to everyone. Mr. Gallaway stated that, based on current projections in the long-term plan, they
have the projected revenue increase of $4 million – and, at the 1%, that leaves them with a $200,000 gap
looking into next year’s budget. He said, if they did this and the state provided the $500,000, they’d have
the $700,000 plus $200,000 – or a nearly $1 million gap going forward; if the state did nothing, they’d
have a gap of $1.2 or $1.3 million plus the $200,000, so they’d be looking at a $1.5 million gap based on
current projections. Mr. Gallaway stated that the School Board did not have a lot of interest in gambling
on that after this year’s budget cycle, in the hands of what the state may or may not do.
Mr. Gallaway stated that Albemarle County Schools implemented the full 5% VRS mandated
increase several years ago, and their choice was to do a full 5% or incremental percentages – and in
Fluvanna, they elected to do 1%, then another 1%, and then a full 3% raise. He said, in looking at
counties who are giving raises, 3% goes to fund VRS, and a small percentage will offset the tax burden,
so a 4% raise is about a 0.2 or 0.3% raise. Mr. Gallaway stated that Charlottesville City Schools
implemented a full 5% when Albemarle did, and they’re giving a 2% raise with no VRS catch-up on that.
He said many counties didn’t do the full 5% raise, and are now trying to catch up, and realize no w that it
was smarter to do the full 5% because it saves money in the long haul.
Mr. Gallaway said the School Division is very concerned about how they would address a $1.2
million gap going into next year, based on current projections, and there will sti ll be enrollment growth and
other mandates, VRS increases, and other expenditures. He stated that they would like nothing more
than to give a 2% increase, and his recommendation initially was to provide 2.9%, but it’s not something
in the current funding situation that Schools can do. He said they even considered going to a 0.5%
increase instead of a full 1% but, because it knocked them out of the state match, they stayed with the
higher level.
Ms. Mallek said Ms. Allshouse had indicated there would be a $4.5 million increase in transfer for
next year’s budget, but what Mr. Gallaway said was that this amount plus $700,000 would be needed to
fund the 2% moving from this year to next year, if the 2% were done now.
Mr. Gallaway said, under the current piece, based on schools’ projections, at the 1% salary raise
plus the increase in revenue for the next budget year, they’re at a $200,000 gap. He said if they do the
2% in January, and the state gives them $500,000, that increases the gap to $900,000 – and if the state
doesn’t come through, it jumps to $1.4 million.
Ms. Mallek said she thought a 1% raise equaled $1.5 million.
Mr. Gallaway said it’s just under that but, if the state comes through, they would get about
$500,000 to help pay for that – but if they don’t, the schools will have to do the entire piece. He said they
are already projecting the $4.5 million revenue increase in their budget.
Mr. Foley said local government is using that same scenario, with some local government money
anticipated based on projections and, in their five-year plan, they have earmarked it for police officers and
other obligations – but what they’re saying now is that the raise trumps that and would be taken off the
top. He emphasized that, if they get behind market, it’s not as if they won’t have to catch up someday,
and staff is suggesting that the priority be placed on compensation.
Ms. Allshouse said one of the items earmarked in the school budget, according to her
conversations with Dean Tistadt, was a 2% raise planned for FY16 – so if they did the 2% now, they
might not be able to do it in the future.
Mr. Gallaway said part of this is trying to figure out how to take advantage of what the state might
do, so if they stipulate that it has to be a 2% in FY15/16, they are trying to budget under that scenario.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 112)
Ms. Dittmar said the School Board has looked at this and has found that it’s not a comfortable
place for them to be.
Mr. Gallaway asked if she meant to dedicate the revenue increase to salary.
Mr. Foley said it would be to dedicate the first growth in revenue to the 2% in January.
Mr. Gallaway said the School Board would not support the 2% raise in January, because they’ve
already voted on that – but looking forward, a discussion of dedicating increased revenue to future
compensation increases is not something he’s prepared to speak on, on behalf of the School Board, until
they’ve had that conversation.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she had spent time with Ms. Gerome and other staff about why
commonality is so important, and she has been discussing the origin of policies and why they’re important
to maintain – and asked staff to clarify those reasons and the importance of staying with that strategy.
Mr. Foley said commonality applies to classified employees, and there’s a certain target they’re
aiming for – so that a secretary in general government is paid the same as a secretary in the schools –
which staff feels is an important principle. He stated that, when they talk about “commonality,” they mix
the other half of school employees into that conversation – the teachers – but the schools do a separate
administration of that based on where those teachers are in the scale. Mr. Foley said staff feels that it’s
important for classified employees to stay in that place, and they are just trying to figure out a way to
achieve that. He stated that, if they fall behind – and it would appear that they are, based on the data,
and they did take into account that other localities didn’t do the five years, 5% on the VRS – someday
they will have to make it up, or they will have a recruitment and retention problem. Mr. Foley said staff
puts that before the Board, and it’s important to separate that from the teachers’ sc ale, which is going to a
much higher target than the commonality group of employees.
Mr. Boyd asked if anyone had looked at the possibility of maintai ning commonality for classified
employees, excluding all instructional classified staff in the school sys tem at a 1% rate, and asked what
the impact of that might be. He said they could maintain the commonality on the classified jobs that are
similar between the two organizations, and stated that there is a specific category of “instructional” staff
on the school side.
Mr. Foley said half of the school employees are “instructional” staff.
Ms. Gerome explained that the salary administration is the same for everyone except for
teachers, so there are 28 pay grades and they use the same job evaluation factor whether it’s a
custodian, principal, finance director, etc. She said they’re placed on one of those pay grades, which they
try to keep at market. She stated that, for teachers, while their scale is different, they still follow the same
process in terms of getting the data from the market and looking at where they are relative to that market
and making recommendations. Ms. Gerome said there have been many years where the increase for
teachers hasn’t been the same as the recommendation for classified, based on that market data, so it’s a
little confusing this year because the recommendation is the same even though there’s a different target.
She emphasized that they always go through two analyses of that, but they do treat all classified
employees separately.
Mr. Boyd said he feels employees are doing a fantastic job, carrying the County through some
very challenging economic times, and he doesn’t want to have another year where the Board does not
give them a 2% increase – and, if the school system doesn’t think they can afford that, that’s their
decision to make. He stated that, from his standpoint, he would give up commonality in order to give local
government employees the 2% increase that the Board said they intended to do.
Ms. Mallek noted that the 2% salary increase was for budget purposes only.
Ms. Gerome added that the number came from the strategy and analysis from the fall where the
2% was the number for both.
Mr. Boyd said the difference is that the Board balanced a budget with a 2% increase and, if the
School Board can’t do that, it’s up to them to deal with.
Ms. Dittmar clarified that what they have is a situation in which the School Division cannot afford
the 2% as the Board has endorsed, yet there is a policy of commonality that is ill-advisable to change.
She said she can’t think of anything creative to stick with the 2%.
Ms. Palmer said the Board needs to talk with the School Board this summer and, hopefully, do
right by the employees next year, and hopefully employees will hang in there until the Boards get this
issue worked out.
Ms. McKeel said it’s critical that the Boards establish a process for a sustainable funding stream,
and do it pretty quickly so the Boards do not end up back here next year in the same place.
Ms. Mallek said these are legislative fixes, and people have been doing that for 20 years.
Ms. McKeel said they’re not talking about legislative fixes.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 113)
Mr. Foley said there would be two decisions on getting the budget adopted – what the salary
increase would be and when it is effective; and if any savings should be allocated to Bright Stars. He said
if those decisions were made, the only thing left would be whether they want to provide any one-time
money. He said that would get staff to the point where they could revise something and, even by the end
of the day, get the Board to a final resolution in order to adopt the budget. Mr. Foley stated that the
quickest approach would be to take a vote on the salary, and then take up the Bright Starts item to move
that along.
Ms. Palmer moved to authorize a 1% salary increase for classified staff in order to maintain
commonality with the schools. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Mr. Sheffield asked Mr. Foley if he saw any downsides to doing the 1% instead of the 2%.
Mr. Foley said the only downside would be not keeping up with market, otherwise, staff would just
move forward.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is in favor of the 2% increase for staff, but his other overriding reason is
that he’s not willing to abdicate local government salary decisions to the School Board, and that’s what
they’re doing. He said he has a real problem with that, as it’s taking away from what he was elected to do
as a member of the Board, and most of the School Board members – with all due respect to them – were
elected unopposed.
Ms. McKeel stated that their decision was based and forced by a funding gap that the Board gave
them, unfortunately.
Ms. Mallek said it was based on the choices they made with the money they had.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board had to make decisions, just as the Board did.
Ms. Palmer stated that what they discussed at a School Board meeting was if they were willing to
go with the 1% – and the School Board did it first. She said she didn’t feel they were dictating to the
Board, she felt they were trying to work something out for this year which is compatible for both sides.
Ms. Dittmar said they are doing this to work something out that’s compatible, honoring a policy
that predates her service – one that she wouldn’t challenge until she understood it better. Regarding the
commonality issue, she stated that it’s an event if it happens one time, but it’s a pattern if it goes another
year.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t disagree, but this was going to put the Board in a bad position next year
by having to play catch up to stay with the market, not just with the school system.
Ms. Dittmar restated that the motion was a 1% increase, and Mr. Foley noted that it was effective
as of July 1, 2014.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Foley stated that the Board had roughly $400,000 now with that change, and $289,000 of it
would be needed if it decided to take over the cost of the Bright Stars program . He said staff suggests
that the balance of that, $127,000, go to the capital program.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there was a motion to use $289,000 for Bright Stars.
Ms. Mallek moved to support the Bright Stars and Family Support program in the amount of
$289,000 for FY16.
Mr. Foley said staff’s recommendation is to have a discussion with the School Board on the long-
term funding of that program.
Ms. Mallek modified her motion to include a requirement to have future deliberations and decision
about ongoing funding of the program.
Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would vote in favor of this because it is too important a program to not
fund next year, and is also very important to both the school and the community. He said he is
disappointed that the School Board decided not to fully fund it, and his preference would have been to
withhold money from them. Mr. Boyd stated that he has watched the Bright Stars Program over the
years, since the beginning, and knows what great success they’ve had with it.
Ms. Dittmar said she likes the motion because it leaves the door open for further discussion,
including involvement from other experts in the community regarding what to do with t he program in the
future.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 114)
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Foley said the two things left would be the use of the balance of savings, and direction from
the Board as to whether it wanted to provide one-time money to the schools. He noted that staff has not
made a recommendation on that at this point.
Ms. Mallek moved to support the extended hours for the Crozet Library at a cost of $34,000, out
of the $127,000 remainder.
Ms. Dittmar noted that the $34,000 still leaves some remainder.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the Board could postpone this discussion until all of the possible items were
on the table.
Mr. Foley suggested the Board go ahead and adopt the budget and put the remainder in the
Board contingency reserve, as it can be revisited at any point.
Ms. Dittmar seconded the motion.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she is reminded of railroads and the lack of connectivity – with the train
station downtown and the airport 10 miles away – because they didn’t think about the entire system of
“transportation.” Ms. Dittmar said similarly, “education” in the community is not just K-12, but covers
everyone – and libraries are the classrooms for many citizens. She stated that , even though Crozet is far
away from her district, it is a beautiful facility for citizens for which they aren’t extending hours.
Mr. Boyd said the Board is talking about using one-time money for an ongoing expense, so if the
hours are extended, the Board wouldn’t want to pull those hours back next year.
Mr. Foley stated that it would actually be ongoing money because it was budgeted for salaries.
Ms. Palmer said Ms. Dittmar’s rationale is exactly why she continues to vote for it when Ms.
Mallek brings it up.
Ms. Mallek said the workforce element is incredibly important because of the cross-training that
librarians provide to help job-seekers who come to the library first, because it’s within five miles of their
house versus 30 miles to the one-stop shop at Hydraulic.
Mr. Boyd asked why the library can’t use volunteers to cover those additional hours and asked if it
was a library board requirement.
Ms. Mallek said the library has many volunteers, but they must have a paid staff person on duty
when the library building is open and in use due to state requirements. She emphasized that there are
volunteers at the library every hour that the library is open, and there are all sorts of background checks
and other things required of people who are working with children. Ms. Mallek said she was sure they
would utilize as many volunteers as possible, and restated her motion to use $34,000 for additional
Crozet Library hours.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Mr. Sheffield and Mr. Boyd.
Ms. Allshouse pointed out that the actual requested amount from Crozet Library was $32,414.
Mr. Davis said the real vote was on the budget, so the motion would fund the library request.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to discuss the use of one-time monies for schools, and said that
the School Board had provided staff with a list of items for use of these one-time funds.
Mr. Gallaway addressed the Board, stating that all that remains on this list , after the actions the
School Board had taken were half of the Design 2015 in the amount of $125,000 which would go to the
Western Albemarle High School labs, and also the world languages program at $287,000 to continue the
pilot program at Cale. He said the School Board agrees with the idea of one-time money for one-time
expenditures, and agreed not to do the labs associated with the Design 2015 program, which is an
environmental studies academy. Mr. Gallaway explained that, when they got to the level of $600,000+
without touching class size, it was the consensus of the Board to do the remainder of the cuts in class
size – and that’s when the discussion of using one-time monies emerged, with the renewed request. He
said, if they could find one-time expenditures to offset, then it could be repurposed so it goes back to a
continuing expense.
Ms. McKeel asked about the 5% operating funds. Mr. Gallaway said it was originally on this list,
and this would have allowed two 5% cuts to be spread over two years. He stated that there were
members of the Board of Supervisors that felt class size needed to be protected, and there are members
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 115)
of the School Board that feel one-time monies could be used for something else – and the School Board
would have to go back and have a conversation about where that money would be used . He added that
some members would feel it was a way to negate the class size increase, but that’s not representative of
every member of the Board.
Ms. Mallek asked if the labs would not happen unless the transfer takes place. Mr. Gallaway
responded that they cut Design 2015 in half, and the $125,000 was to pay for the labs at Western
Albemarle – so, in the current vote, it is being paid for but, with one-time monies transferred over, it would
allow them to repurpose some of the previously cut items.
Ms. Palmer asked him to re-explain whether or not they did cut the labs or didn’t cut the labs. Mr.
Gallaway explained that, in Design 2015, half of that amount was purposed for the labs at Western
Albemarle, and they saved that amount in their action; the other item saved was the World Languages
Program pilot. He said all the rest, with the exception of the $125,000 was cut.
Ms. McKeel said all of those items would come back if the Board gave Schools the one-time
money.
Ms. Mallek said they didn’t really know.
Mr. Gallaway stated that it would only free up $125,000, so there would have to be other places
to find use for that as it doesn’t get the job done. He said the School Board had debated whether to stop
with a $600,000 gap, but the consensus was to balance the budget and move forward – so that’s where
this request is coming from.
Mr. Sheffield said, if the Board were to grant $500,000 for example and stipulated which items
they’d like to see restored, it’s really not their choice and it would go back to the School Board to figure
out what changes it would make.
Mr. Gallaway said one-time monies wouldn’t free up enough resources to offset the class size
expenditure, and bringing these items back would be allowed but wouldn’t go to offsetting somethi ng else.
Ms. Mallek said she feels that the excess really belongs in capital right now, until there is
something thoughtfully presented and planned out – and she isn’t ready to look at only having $557,000
at the end of an unaudited year as a safe position to be in, when Board members don’t really know what’s
going to happen.
Ms. Allshouse said she wouldn’t go back to the unaudited FY14 year at all, she would go back to
FY13 – which was about $500,000.
Mr. Sheffield said he supports using the one-time money, but he would like some clarity and
commitment as to what those funds would be used for. He suggested the Board table the matter until the
School Board can meet and make an itemization of what that money would be used for.
Ms. McKeel asked if it was possible to bring this back for further discussion. Mr. Foley said, if
there’s a desire to talk about this further, he would recommend setting it aside and adopting the budget –
because the Board can come back and revisit one-time funds any time.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the Board needed to formally request that the School Board take action.
Mr. Gallaway stated that the School Board met the following night and its previous action
presumed that one-time monies would not come over – and every cut they made was for something
important, so anything that can be restored would be important to the School Division.
Mr. Sheffield said it would be helpful for the School Board to come back with several “packages”
for their requests, with levels of funding associated with each.
Ms. Palmer said the Board needs to look at the CIP also, because some of the school projects
have been on that list for 15 years.
Ms. Mallek said those items keep getting pushed back for this very reason, because the Board is
not putting enough into capital.
Ms. McKeel said $1 million could do a lot of good for the school items whereas it probably
wouldn’t do a lot in the CIP.
Ms. Mallek said the CIP will never get to $6 million for Crozet Elementary unless the Board puts
$1 million away right now.
Mr. Boyd asked where the $1 million was going to come from.
Ms. Allshouse explained that, when they have fund balance discussions, they want the money to
be audited first, and then have a conversation – but, when they go into FY14, they’re not going to have an
audit of that figure until the fall.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 116)
Mr. Foley said the last audited balance that would be available and staff would be comfortable
with, is designated to go to the CIP – and that is $2.5 million, which is the last number they know they
actually have that’s been audited. He said the question is to make sure there are four votes, prior to
having the School Board do a lot of work on this.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board could table it tonight.
Mr. Sheffield agreed with Mr. Foley, and said he agreed with the use of some one-time money,
but not all of it. He emphasized that he wasn’t trying to micro-manage the School Board, but just trying to
set his expectations for how the one-time money would be allocated.
Ms. Mallek said Board members are the ones entrusted with the taxing power so it has to ask
these questions, otherwise, Board members are not doing its job.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to give the schools that opportunity, and for the Board to have
that discussion at another time.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Gallaway to convey to the School Board that they are open to discussing
one-time money but need more detail or at least an ongoing conversation about it.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to see it go to the CIP and, if there were a smaller package, she’d
be willing to look at.
Ms. Mallek stated that she agreed with Ms. Palmer, and wanted it to go to the CIP – unless it is
something very small and targeted.
Ms. Dittmar and Ms. McKeel said they’d like to have more detail.
Mr. Davis said, if small and limited is what the majority would require to get the fourth vote, that’s
a message the School Board should hear.
Mr. Gallaway commented that it wouldn’t be $4 million.
Mr. Sheffield said it probably wouldn’t even be $1 million.
Ms. Mallek said she was thinking more along the lines of one-quarter of that amount.
_______________
Non-Agenda. The Board recessed their meeting at 4:55 p.m., and reconvened at 5:08 p.m.
_______________
Ms. Allshouse stated that there is a budget resolution before the Board, as prepared by Laura
Vinzant, based on the Board’s previous conversation. She said the resolution includes changes the
Board made in its budget, and the total budget includes the school fund, general government and CIP
fund.
Ms. Palmer moved that the Board adopt the budget resolution as presented, based on staff’s
recommendations and the changes made by the Board. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd stated that he wasn’t going to vote for the resolution, because he feels that employees
deserve a bigger increase than what’s being provided in this budget.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
Ms. Allshouse said the next step would be a resolution of appropriations, which would be brought
back to the Board in June.
Ms. Mallek and Ms. Dittmar thanked Ms. Allshouse and all of the staff for their work on the budget
this year.
FY 2014/2015
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2014 is made up of the
County Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of
Supervisors.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2014 is summarized as
follows:
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 117)
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2014 as described in 1) and
2) above is approved.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 22. Work Session – CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment,
to begin with public comments and possible Board direction.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the format the Board had agreed upon would include public comment at the
beginning, then discussion of the section to be reviewed – with any changes in language or any
redirection of items provided to staff to bring back to the Board later. She said it was her understanding
that anyone could comment on the Comp Plan – either at the beginning of meetings under “From the
Public” or at future Comp Plan meetings, and asked Ms. Echols if she was prepared to call those into the
appropriate places.
Mr. Sheffield asked if there was a way this could put on the website to let people know, if they
had a comment they want the Board to consider during that section, to send it to bos@albemarle.org. Mr.
Foley said that’s an easy thing to set up, the Board would just need to make it more specific.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to replace the schedule for “Meeting 1, Meeting 2 and Meeting 3” with
actual dates and times.
Ms. Mallek said the Board may not stick to the stated topics on those dates, but at least it would
provide a guideline.
Mr. Foley said, if the Board falls behind, the site can be updated as needed.
Ms. Dittmar asked if an email sent to the entire Board would need to be forwarded to Ms. Echols,
or would those be something that would be triggered.
Ms. Mallek asked if e-mails could be forwarded to Ms. Echols by Ms. Jordan.
Mr. Sheffield said e-mails could probably be forwarded.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, said her main concern is if it’s something the Board would
want her to respond to.
Mr. Sheffield said a lot of people have made comments in the past, and he’s always encouraged
them to repeat themselves – so, if the Board hits a section that someone is very passionate about, he
doesn’t want the public to miss an opportunity to still make a comment to the Board – and to him, an
email is just as effective as having people speak at a meeting.
Mr. Foley said if it’s a matter of recording the comments and reflecting them back to the Board in
a summary, that’s fine, but he wouldn’t want a situation in which they were responding to the emails.
Board members emphasized that that would not be their intent.
Mr. Tom Olivier addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Samuel Miller District
and was speaking as an individual. He said it’s essential that the Comprehensive Plan be based on a
substantial vision statement, and the vision proposed by the Sierra Club is a goo d start. At the very least,
he said the vision should address the right size for the community and be committed to a pursuit of
sustainability and protection of natural resources. Mr. Olivier said most of the goals described in the staff
report seem sound; however, the first – “Growth Management” – is not. He said the current growth
management policy focuses on concentrating developed land uses in designated development areas.
Mr. Olivier said the introduction to the draft plan notes that the sustainability accords – which are
FY 15 Adopted
Administration $11,636,926
Judicial 4,324,049
Public Safety 36,197,535
General Services 4,268,584
Health & Welfare (including PVCC)16,281,226
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 6,946,144
Community Development 6,823,787
Other General Government 2,079,585
General Government Special Revenue Funds 17,226,037
General Government Capital Projects 22,499,579
General Government Debt Service 5,954,373
Education - School Operations and Self-Sustaining Funds 172,155,757
Education - Capital Projects 16,313,401
Education - Debt Service 12,816,005
City/County Revenue Sharing 16,466,981
TOTAL $351,989,969
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 118)
incorporated into the existing Comp Plan – call for a population size and distribution compatible with
protection of natural resources for future generations, adopted over 15 years ago. He stated that the
current growth management policy and current draft plan both fail to ask whether the size and distribution
of the population is compatible with sustainability. Mr. Olivier said the County’s population continues to
grow rapidly – with 50,000 new residents projected by 2040 – and 200+ new homes are built each year in
the rural areas, converting and fragmenting open spaces. He stated that the Natura l Heritage Committee
has pointed out in an email to the Board that, “Current growth management policies are not protecting our
natural resources,” and it’s time that planning process es acknowledge this fact. Mr. Olivier said new
thinking in the County’s approaches to growth is needed, and Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle
Population (ASAP) has proposed that the County initiate a public process aimed at identifying the
community’s right size – a finite size compatible with sustainability and a high quality of life for residents.
He said he hoped the Board would consider ASAP’s request.
Mr. Jack Marshall addressed the Board, speaking on behalf of ASAP. He stated that one expects
the Comp Plan’s vision statement to sketch a notion of what the Board intends to leave to the generations
that follow, to articulate the dream of what it wants the community to become. Mr. Marshall said there
may be no attribute of Albemarle County’s future that will have more impact than its population size, and
the number of residents will have a tremendous impact on the social fabric and political structure, the
economy and taxes, the built environment and the natural environment. He said , whether or not one
believes that demography is destiny, it’s inarguable that size matters. Mr. Marshall stated that it’s
puzzling that, in drafting a vision for the County, the previous authors of the Comp Plan conspicuously
avoided any reference to the population size they wished for the future. He said there are several
possible reasons for this omission, and perhaps the authors of the earlier draft contend that Albemarle
County can grow endlessly or feel that the subject of population size is sufficiently covered by the
occasional references to smart growth mechanisms, or argue tha t growth is beyond government control –
or simply think that unknown mechanisms will keep the local population from passing thresholds at which
“bad stuff” begins to happen. He said ASAP’s guess is that the authors were well aware that the topic of
future population size and the notion of deliberately managing it is a political hot potato. Moreover, he
said the authors likely had no idea how big the County should be in the future – and given these
complications, the easiest way to handle population size is simply by avoiding the topic. Mr. Marshall
stated that ASAP trusts this Board won’t follow its predecessors by dealing with population issues through
denial and magical thinking, and said it can fill the void in the vision statement by incorporating the
concept of “sustainability” into the sentence about vision; and by adding the phrase “with a population
size not significantly larger than it is today,” after “a thr iving community.” He said, in the Growth
Management section on recommended goals, the phr ase that begins, “By directing growth” should be
preceded by, “Our community will work to estimate its optimal sustainable population size to use as a
planning tool.”
Mr. Foley said Ms. Catlin has been working on making sure the public engagement piece is set
up, stating that the website provides opportunities for people to make comments, provides the schedule
of the dates, and that staff would keep that site current.
Ms. Echols said she and Ms. Catlin had worked together on the site, and she was looking at the
dates – not opening up the link to make comments, all of which would allow people to make comments
and would ensure that all of those remarks were shared with Board members.
Ms. Echols stated that staff is seeking direction from the Board on the Commission’s
recommendations on the Comp Plan vision and goals and, if there are any particular objectives or
strategies that the Board wishes to focus on or are of concern, it could identify those as they get to each
chapter. She said, after the Board provides that direction, staff will bring back a final draft before the
public hearing, perhaps sometime this fall.
Ms. Mallek asked if staff could keep a red-line copy available from this point forward, so it would
be easy to find those areas of concern. Ms. Echols confirmed that staff would do that.
Ms. Echols stated that staff has two questions to ask about the vision: what parts of the vision
statement does the Board like, and what is not resonating with Board members – what needs to be added
and/or taken away.
Ms. Mallek said she doesn’t understand the use of the word “honors” in front of “its heritage,
scenic beauty, etc…” and she would like to substitute “respects its rural heritage” and “protects its scenic
beauty and natural resources” in order to use words that are more active in there.
Ms. Palmer said that was her first comment also, and the use of the word “honor” makes her think
of a memorial service, and she would rather “protect” or “sustain” them. She stated that she would prefer
not to open up with “a strong economy,” and feels that the first statement should have something more
about quality of life. Ms. Palmer said there are many different aspects related to quality of life, and she
would like to look at those things which help maintain it – which include all of the things listed and more.
Ms. McKeel said she agreed and also would prefer to use the word “community” over “county,” as
it reflects more of what she wants to have here.
Mr. Boyd stated that, based on the “gut-wrenching” process the Board just went through, he
doesn’t see how it can afford the educational needs and quality of life they want to have here without a
vibrant economy – and feels it should be mentioned early in the vision.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 119)
Ms. Mallek said she likes the idea of starting with, “Albemarle County envisions a thriving
community that protects its…,” and then, “all anchored by a strong economy and an excellent education
system.”
Ms. Palmer said she definitely didn’t want to take “strong economy” and “excellent schools” out,
she just didn’t want to see them as the first mention of the vision statement – and she would like to see
wording which refers to sustainability, future generations and that kind of thing.
Ms. McKeel suggested, along with the word “sustainability,” use terms such as “thoughtful
protection” or “stewardship.”
Ms. Dittmar said she liked all of those concepts, and felt that the word “system” didn’t need to
modify “education.”
Mr. Sheffield said Ms. Palmer had suggested opening the vision statement with a reference to “a
vibrant community,” yet still mentioning how that’s anchored with a strong economy and an excellent
school system.
Ms. Palmer said she’d like to refer to quality of life in some way first.
Ms. McKeel said the use of the word “community” should be used there.
Ms. Palmer reiterated the need to remove the word “honors” out, as it needs to be stronger, and
said she would like some reference to “sustainability.”
Ms. Dittmar suggested “stewardship,” and said “quality of life” is used so frequently by all kinds of
different organizations – and “sustainability” may also be an overused word if they’re looking for a real
punch.
Ms. Palmer said “stewardship” is also used a lot and, if you put something in there for future
generations, you’re implying sustainability without saying it, and you’re defining stewardship a little better.
Ms. Dittmar reiterated that she didn’t like the word “system” used with education.
Ms. Palmer said clarifying stewardship by adding “for future generations” would be important if
they are not using the word “sustainability,” and she wants to make sure the concept is still there.
Ms. Mallek said it fits very well, reading the statement as: “Albemarle envisions a county that
protects its rural heritage, scenic beauty and natural resources for future generations, while fostering
attractive and vibrant communities anchored by a strong economy.”
Ms. Echols clarified that the Board did not want to use the term “sustainability” anymore, but
instead wanted something that relates to stewardship and future generations, and something about the
“quality of life.”
Ms. Palmer said “quality of life” is used for many different things, and she uses it often in her work
with end of life care. She stated that it could be implied by using all those other words.
Ms. Echols said the Board wanted to remove “honors,” and replace it with “respect” or “protect.”
She noted that Board members wanted wording that speaks to “community” at the beginning and anchors
at the end, and to remove the word “system.”
Ms. Palmer said she likes the word “healthy” because it implies they have a lot of amenities that
keep citizens healthy such as parks and trails, keeping health care costs down.
Ms. Mallek said she liked the phrase “healthy community.”
Ms. McKeel asked if the Plan needed to mention or reference growth areas and rural areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said the County has a growth management goal, and the Board should be careful
with adding things to the vision statement because, if they want it to resonate with people, the statement
should be something they can at least remember in terms of concepts – and if they keep adding things, it
may be less memorable or identifiable.
Ms. Palmer said, on the page where the “Vision” and “Values” are, there’s a narrative – and that
would be the perfect place to add references to sustainability, reflective planning, and other statements.
Ms. Mallek commented that the sustainability accords are still in the Comp Plan, and perhaps
they should follow the vision page.
Ms. Echols said staff could do that, adding that the accords are referenced in the introduction
section.
Ms. Mallek read a revised statement: “Albemarle County envisions a healthy community tha t
protects its rural heritage, scenic beauty and natural resources for future generations. Its vibrant
neighborhoods are anchored by a thriving economy and excellent education.”
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 120)
Ms. Echols said the “fostering attractive and vibrant communities” was the d evelopment area
concept, and that’s why they had it written in there in that way, which is not quite as explicit as it is in the
growth management section.
Ms. Palmer said the way this is set up is that the vision statement is at the front of every chapter,
which is another reason she would want to ensure it is something that sounds like “sustainability.”
Ms. Echols asked if “stewardship” and “future generations” take care of that.
Ms. Palmer stated that those together mean sustainability, and the whole idea is to get that
concept in there without actually stating it.
Ms. McKeel said she agrees with Ms. Dittmar’s point about “system,” but she wants to make sure
they somehow say that they are supporting education and providing excellent educational opportunities.
Ms. Palmer emphasized that this is a very smart community.
Ms. McKeel commented that education is at the heart of the community, and a strength of the
community.
Ms. Palmer said natural resources are important and also a strength. She said those are
important to her and, while some people feel that natural resources were just water and air for people, a
lot more is known about trying to protect biodiversity for sustainability – and she would like to find a way
to work biodiversity into the vision without being too wordy.
Mr. Sheffield said this is for the average person to read and, to him, natural resources is easier to
understand than biodiversity.
Ms. Palmer said this is an educated community, but perhaps there’s another word which means
the same, such as ecosystems.
Ms. Mallek suggested adding “ecosystems” after “future generations” which would work quite
well.
Ms. Mallek said she would send her draft of the vision statement to staff for further editing.
Ms. Echols stated that the next step would be for the Board to go through the goals and identify
the places where they’re OK with the concept and, if they’re not OK with the concept of the goal, identify it
and go back to it – because they may find they have more agreement than disagreement on any of the
goals in particular. She presented the goals for growth management and natural resources.
Ms. Palmer asked where the goals were in the Board books.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that, based on Board direction, staff put the goals, objectives and
strategies, and the accumulation of them in a summary section of the plan – because the Board had
indicated that it wanted to talk about what among the goals, objectives and strategies staff needed to be
emphasizing as they went through the chapters. He said staff wasn’t intending to make this chapter-
based for this discussion, but tried to make it a more broad discussion of what the vision is and what the
goals say, to ensure the Board is identifying anything that needs to be revisited as it goes through the
chapters.
Ms. Echols clarified that, on the second page of the executive summary, all the goals are listed
together.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board also has a link to the summary section of the goals as part of the
second page of the executive summary.
Ms. Palmer stated that, in the growth management section, she felt there were other protective
measures which needed to be taken to protect the rural areas other than just directing growth to the
development areas, and noted that other chapters might address this.
Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Board that these things are flowing throughout the vision, so they’re
trying to make sure that each particular chapter focuses on how it’s supporting the vision.
Ms. Palmer said, in the natural resources goal, she has “maintain and encourage biodiversity,”
which is stronger than what’s written currently.
Ms. Echols stated that the statement, “the large areas of habitat for diversity of flora and fauna”
was intended to capture all of those things without using the word “ecosystem” or “biodiversity.”
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Sheffield that the Board would be better off keeping the language as
simple as possible.
Ms. Mallek said, in the introduction paragraphs for each chapter, staff can hammer it harder,
because that’s really where the power is going to be.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 121)
Mr. Boyd said there’s a lot more to follow every one of these goals and objectives.
Ms. Palmer read, “Albemarle’s streams, rivers and air will be clean. Rural areas, mountains,
woodlands, wetlands will provide large areas of habitat for diversity.”
Ms. Echols said the Board may want to include something in the natural resources chapter, more
than just the rural areas.
Ms. Palmer said the goal doesn’t have anything about what the County is going to do.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that this is the goal, and the next is the strategy, which co mes in the14
pages that follow and provides the “how we’re going to do it.”
Ms. Echols said the “how it is going to be done” is in the objectives and the strategies; the
objectives provide the category, and the strategies address approaches as to how they’re going to do it.
Ms. Palmer stated that it doesn’t mention how much mountains, woodlands and wetland they will
provide – large areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said that’s going to be in the chapter review.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t know if this was the right approach because it seems like they’re g oing to
have to address the goal followed by the details that go with it in each chapter, as opposed to trying to go
through just the goals.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff’s original recommendation was to go through a chapter by chapter
review, but the Board asked that the goals come to them first so they could identify anything which might
catch their attention.
Mr. Sheffield said he was thinking more along the lines of the strategies, the teeth of it, not
necessarily the goals.
Mr. Foley said it is sometimes difficult to know the best approach until one gets started.
Ms. Dittmar said there is still some merit to what the Board is doing, and what Ms. Palmer is
trying to work through is the strategy for growth management and yet, when you go over to natural
resources, it is more of a goal statement – so that’s confusing.
Ms. McKeel commented that they don’t match.
Ms. Mallek said the statement under growth management should be called “rural protection.”
Ms. Palmer said what bothers her about the natural resources section is that there’s nothing
quantifying the amounts.
Mr. Cilimberg said those are covered in the strategies.
Mr. Boyd said, in looking at the growth management policy after the goal, it goes into very
detailed strategies.
Ms. Palmer said there is no goal for quantity, and it could be some of the rivers, all of the rivers,
etc.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the strategies and tactics are measurable – and somehow the Board should
identify anything when reviewing the chapters which seem discordant with the goal statements.
Ms. Echols said that’s why staff wanted to go through this process, to identify any big picture
things and anything policy-wise that the Board would like to change.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that each goal is written in the presentation, and staff is asking for feedback
on any one of those which might be missing the mark.
Ms. Palmer said she would like for the Board to consider that greenways and paths can be more
than just recreation – they can be transportation corridors.
Ms. Mallek said they’re also natural resources corridors, and they talk about “multi-modal” in the
transportation section.
Ms. Palmer said it could just be more specific.
Ms. Echols said, in the chapters, transportation and also a whole section on greenways, including
ecological value, is discussed. She said what she is gleaning from Ms. Palmer is that this should be
elevated a bit in the goal.
Ms. Palmer said some are much more detailed than others, and she was just trying to get more
consistency among them. She also asked if there is a maximum number of goals they could have.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 122)
Ms. Echols said the reason why they are structured this way is because they relate to particular
topics.
Mr. Sheffield stated that goals are more generalized, a nd strategies are more specific – such as
trying to direct people into the growth area, which has a specific outcome.
Ms. Mallek said this is all very helpful because, no matter how it is approached, the Board will
have to have this analysis.
Mr. Cilimberg said the advantage here is the Board is actually getting a chance to see if the goals
are consistent and read in a way that’s conveying what the Board wants – and, as it gets into the
chapters, they can focus more on the details of how to achieve things the Board wants.
Ms. Palmer asked if having sustainable local food production would be a strategy or a stand -
alone goal.
Ms. Echols said there is a strategy for that under rural areas, and also there are some strategies
in the development areas which talk about urban agriculture, but those tie back to the idea of sustainable
foods.
Ms. Mallek said community resiliency would be a goal unto itself, adding that locally grown food is
one of the elements along with opportunities for health, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would make a note of that and then, when they get to the chapter
where it’s covered, if the Board feels that it needs to be extracted and addressed independently in its own
chapter, they can pull it back out.
Mr. Boyd suggested starting on a chapter by chapter basis, beginning with the goal, then the
strategy, then the outcome, and then reference material which supports it all. He said that seems to be a
logical way to go through it.
Ms. Dittmar suggested some consistency in the wording of how the sentences begin, i.e.,
“Albemarle will…..”
Ms. Echols said, if the Board goes through the chapters in that way, it is really important for the
Board to read the text which supports those particular strategies so that Board members understand what
it’s relating to – because every time they are put in a list, they don’t totally read well alone – and they’ve
tried to add those words, which are descriptive about what they’re trying to do without the text underneath
it, but they really need the text to get the rationale for why they’re doing this.
Mr. Boyd agreed that they need to read the chapters, adding that they can go through it with
goals, then strategies, then the outcomes. He said he agreed with Ms. Mallek’s statements that the
review process is always a struggle.
Ms. Dittmar suggested enhancing the process as they go along. She stated that her mind will not
work well if they split a chapter in two, such as natural resources, and said that staff might consi der the
need for speed versus the need for reflection and processing similar thoughts on subject matter.
Ms. Palmer stated that a huge number of comments she received on the Comp Plan related to
the rural areas, and she expected that discussion would take a while.
Ms. Echols said staff could rearrange these, but it will probably require more meetings, and the
reason she split natural resources is to divide topics based on ones which would generate the most public
speakers so that there is plenty of time to give notice. She stated that the Board can certainly dedicate its
work session the following week to the introduction with the sustainability accords in Area B and growth
management, and then start on natural resources after that.
Ms. Palmer agreed that natural resources will likely generate a significant level of comments, and
there will be people coming in just to talk about the overlay district and minerals extraction in Schuyler.
Ms. Mallek said it might be reassuring to report out what the recommendation is for that district,
as it will help put people’s minds at ease.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that one of the outcomes of the schedule the Board has is that staff already
needs to do the executive summary for the following week’s work session, so Board members will see
when it receives that report today that it does address natural resources – but staff will put it on the work
session agenda for June 4, with economic development moving to June 11, and that would mean the
Board would have extra meetings.
Ms. Echols said Board and staff would essentially do a chapter at each meeting.
Board members said their preference was to take adequate time with each chapter.
Ms. Mallek said the most important thing is to not keep punting it, and they did make progress
today.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 123)
Ms. Echols said staff would redo the schedule and post it on the website and, the following week,
the Board would talk about the introductory chapter along with the sustainability accords and Area B, and
the growth management chapter – but natural resources would not be a part of that.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff had the capability to post comments online, similar to what is being done
with the Route 29 Solutions discussion.
Ms. Mallek said people would need to provide their real names, as she wasn’t interested in
anonymous comments, as a ground rule.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would have to defer to Ms. Catlin on that matter.
Mr. Foley said Ms. Catlin is working on a new software package which allows for full interaction
with the public.
Ms. Echols said, for next week, the Board has its packet and staff would see if there was anything
else they needed to help them with by email, and noted that all of the information is online.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22b. Consent Agenda Item No 8.4 – Zoning Text Amendment – Personal
Wireless Services Facilities.
Ms. Palmer said, when the Board got this information on April 2, it was at the end of a long
meeting and Board members were pretty tired. She asked how this particular item is different than what
was at the previous meeting.
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects, stated that what they were discussing was part two or
phase two, which included a wide-ranging review of the County’s wireless policy – including some
potential and rather significant changes as to how facilities are designed and sited, and what those would
look like. He said there were also some relatively minor changes to the types of information submitted
with an application and the mechanics of how to go through the process. Mr. Fritz said staff took the
Board’s direction to continue working on that small piece, the mechanical piece, which doesn’t result in
any change in the types of facilities permitted or what they look lik e. He said this is basically what they’ve
learned in the 14 years they’ve been doing this to make the process more efficient, getting them the
information needed to review the applications without getting more than is needed or required. He stated
that staff is working on a joint work session with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
to step back – because there are issues of broadband and wireless that are becoming intertwined – and
discuss it as a separate issue, looking at the broadband and how wireless is a component of that. Mr.
Fritz said this is a massive project, so staff wants to step back and do a big -picture view of broadband
and wireless, and then approach how to tackle the individual pieces. He stated that what’s before the
Board now is a proposed resolution of intent to tackle some very minor issues that will make processing
more efficient, and also addresses something missing in the ordinance – the cell on wheels (COWS). Mr.
Fritz said staff views this resolution of intent as something to address very simple things, and staff is
planning to bring it to the Planning Commission in June and then to the Board in August, because the
items are relatively minor.
Ms. Mallek said she didn’t think they were minor, because these issues keep coming back with
each application.
Mr. Fritz said the resolution of intent would be to look at critical slopes provisions – which the
Board directed staff to work on previously, to revise the tree submittal requirements – and that’s how the
application gives them information to review, would add the authority to require photo simulations, clarify
setback requirements for wireless facilities, add wireless facilities to structures in the Entrance Corridor
district for which a certificate of appropriateness is not required, and establish a policy for the cell on
wheels (COWs).
Ms. Mallek stated that there’s other stuff in the 55 pages of this ordinance, and she is concerned
that this is what’s being taken to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Fritz said only the things in the executive summary will be taken to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Palmer said one of the things she sees in this is a stipulation to only measure the reference
tree – the tallest tree – rather than any of the other trees and, while she understands the futility of
measuring every tree in the forest, she wondered if there was something in between as you can give an
inaccurate vision of the situation by measuring just one tree. She stated that her other question would be
on the critical slopes, if they take out the application for the waiver and rely on performance standards,
she was assuming that a lot of people don’t bring applications forward because they’re on critical slopes –
so saying “we’ve never denied one, therefore let’s rely on the performance standards” has her question
how reasonable that is if people aren’t coming forward. Ms. Palmer said her other question is whether
this is a total duplication: performance standards versus the critical slopes waiver, and if they accomplish
the same things.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 124)
Ms. Palmer stated that, if they send this over to the Planning Commission, she wants to know if
they are implying that the Board of Supervisors agrees with the things in here.
Ms. McKeel said that was a great question, and she was wondering the same thing.
Mr. Fritz said it means the Board has directed staff to work on it, and that the Board intends to
review a possible zoning text amendment, but has not committed to making any particular change. He
said staff agrees with the comm ent about the tree survey, for example, and has included some language
to allow flexibility so that staff can require what’s needed in a particular case without having such a high
standard so they can use their experience to say if one needs more, and one needs less. Mr. Fritz stated
that photographs are often a better way of doing it than the plans, so when the zoning inspectors go
onsite they can see which trees are supposed to stay, which is more difficult with just a plan – such as
distinguishing between an elm and a maple when it’s wintertime. He emphasized that this doesn’t commit
to any particular language, it just commits to working on it.
Ms. McKeel said that they are vetting this through the Planning Commission.
Mr. Foley said they’re simply asking for this to be reviewed, and they’re not asking the Planning
Commission to review the more significant things which Ms. Mallek is talking about.
Ms. Dittmar stated that what they need to delineate is the tools staff needs, which they would like
to move ahead for the Planning Commission to review and recommend to the Board; and Ms. Mallek and
Ms. Palmer are saying that some of these may tie into broader issues, and they don’t have a comfort level
with separating them out for review at this time.
Ms. Palmer said she just wanted to make sure that the Board wasn’t implying to the Planning
Commission that it was going to agree with these in any way, and that this has somehow passed through
the Board of Supervisors with approval. She said the process is another issue, and she doesn’t know if
the critical slopes waiver does the same thing as a performance standard.
Ms. Mallek said this assumes that everything would be approved when there is a performance
standard, and there are clearly places where they should never put a road that’s going to take a concrete
truck to develop a cell tower halfway up a mountainside – and somewhere along the way, someone
needs to have the ability to say “no” to that.
Mr. Fritz said this Board and previous Boards have clearl y stated that, when critical slopes are
discussed, they’re talking about it within the tower site itself – the lease area, not the access to it.
Ms. Palmer said the performance standard would apply to the tower and equipment, and the
critical slopes waiver would address the road, and her question is whether the performance standard
would cover the same thing as a critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Fritz said staff has not developed that yet, but they believe they can do that, and that’s what
would be vetted with the Commission and Board, with a public hearing once the actual language is before
the Board.
Ms. Mallek said the example that comes to mind is the one at Key West on the rock face on the
river, as there is no way to catch the erosion between there and the water. She said that went away
because they couldn’t substantiate the critical slopes waiver, so doing away with the waiver requirement
would mean that type of tower would be permitted with minimal erosion control. Ms. Mallek said this
troubles her a lot, because it brings them back to where they were in the 1980s and 90s when there was
so much flexibility that everything was an argument. She stated that it puts a lot of burden on staff to
evaluate all these things and deal with angry applicants who don’t get their way, and she’d rather have
the public yelling at the Board for the process and procedures.
Ms. Palmer said Mr. Fritz has indicated that he was writing performance standards that staff
thinks will duplicate the critical slopes waiver, and the Board just has to see if that’s the case.
Mr. Fritz agreed.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there was anything the Board would not want in there so it could then signal
to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Palmer said she just wanted to ensure that the Board was not implying to the Planning
Commission that these standards were all acceptable to the Board, such as having one tree measured for
example.
Mr. Fritz said staff knows what this Board and previous Boards have said about certain things,
and they would try to incorporate that into how they craft the ordinance, and they would try to explain
some of the history to the Commission and to the Board. He said, whenever the Board adopts a
resolution of intent, it directs staff to go forward and work on it – and unless there is some background
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 125)
where the Board has indicated some very specific measures it wants, there are no presumptions other
than having staff work on it and make it the best possible ordinance.
Ms. Palmer said she just wants to make sure that, if the ordinance is going to exempt people from
critical slopes waivers to put towers and equipment in, the County has something which addresses the
impacts just like a waiver – such as visibility, tree measurements, etc.
Mr. Fritz agreed, stating that staff feels they can develop some language which will allow for a
more efficient review and still address concerns.
Ms. Mallek said she doesn’t want staff to feel bullied by the wireless industry that says it’s so hard
to do tree surveys and things, because they’re really just trying to cut costs, and there are plenty of
resources available to quickly identify things like tree heights. She said she also wanted to make sure
there are effective enforcement mechanisms and, while this resolution suggests taking the Arc hitectural
Review Board (ARB) out, their review was the whole basis of the special exception – which sped up the
process so they didn’t have to come to the Board for a special use permit. Ms. Mallek said she doesn’t
think the Board should consider taking that out.
Mr. Fritz said if they’d like that taken out, staff would need some direction because the Board had
previously directed staff to develop a countywide certificate of appropriateness for wireless facilities –
which would mean those wouldn’t have to go to the ARB.
Ms. Dittmar stated that staff is asking to take forward some preliminary work for the Planning
Commission to do, but they run the risk of having that come back and the Board not knowing how it fits
into a broader ordinance – which is disjointed.
Mr. Fritz said staff was following what they thought was the lead of the Board of Supervisors, and
they were asked to try to move phase two along – and saw an opportunity based on the previous meeting
to move a small portion of it forward but, if the Board would like to hold off on phase two a little longer,
that could be the Board’s directive.
Ms. Dittmar said that’s not her particular desire, but she sees this relating to other things – and
there may be some things in the resolution that are not as straightforward as the COW issue, for
example.
Mr. Fritz said this resolution only covers the items in the executive summary.
Ms. Palmer said she got one email saying not to take the ARB out of it, and she didn’t really know
enough to comment. She said she is OK with sending it forward, but would like to look into that particular
facet a bit more.
Ms. Mallek then moved to adopt the proposed resolution of intent and to direct staff to proceed
with work on the zoning text amendment. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Ms. Mallek said there may
be a different collective view now than in the previous four years, when everything was “a gallop in one
direction,” and asked staff to be mindful of that.
Ms. Palmer said she has a lot of confidence in her Planning Commissioner, so she’d be having
some conversations with her to try to understand it better.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, County Code § 18-5.1.40, which is part of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
establishes regulations pertaining to personal wireless service facilities; and
WHEREAS, practical experience resulting from administering County Code § 18-5.1.40 since it
was adopted in 2004 has allowed the County to identify several application requirements and procedures
that may be appropriate for amendment; and
WHEREAS, in order to promote the efficient and effective administration of the County’s
regulations, it may be desirable to amend County Code § 18 -5.1.40, together with County Code §§ 18-
3.1, Definitions, and 18-30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, to change certain application
requirements and procedures for reviewing and approving personal wireless service facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending County Code §§ 18 -3.1, 18-5.1.40, 18-30.6, and any other
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 126)
sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate, to achieve the purposes described herein;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, a nd make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
_________________
Agenda Item. No. 23. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar reported that she had a brief conversation with Mayor Huja regarding parking for the
courts, and she wanted to check in as to when Board members should move forward with a discussion
with the City about it.
Mr. Foley said there’s no reason not to talk about it with them, adding that staff is coming back in
June to be sure they understand whether both options are still on the table.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board left the stakeholder meeting with that door open.
Ms. Palmer said she wanted more information about the parking to determine whether both
options are on the table.
Mr. Boyd stated that he was in favor of talking about it, but he left the meeting with the impression
that the City would provide whatever parking the County was willing to pay for, and that was the part that
bothered him.
Ms. Dittmar said that’s what they want to know.
Ms. Mallek said the Board was pretty clear at the last meeting, and she’s surprised that the City
doesn’t know what the County wants.
Ms. Dittmar said the City is waiting to hear back from the Board as to which specific items they
are willing to move forward with.
Ms. Palmer stated that the City will need to assess what the cost would be for those specific
items.
Mr. Boyd said the Board first needs to resolve the issue as to whether to stay downtown, and he
wanted to see some hard cost figures for that.
Ms. Mallek said the cost figures are important to the discussion of location.
Ms. Dittmar said she was told by staff that the major impediment to being downtown was parking,
so she thought the County needed to resolve that before the Board could make a determination.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the County had already made a proposal to the City about parking.
Mr. Foley said the County had made a proposal, and he would like to sit down with the Chair and
review where they’ve been on this – and then figure out some kind of strategy that makes sense going
forward. He stated that the City needs to know this isn’t a staff-driven process anymore, and the Board is
looking for certain things that will reset the discussion.
*****
Ms. Dittmar reported that they had also talked about looking at governance for the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, and thought it should throw the governance of
the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau into that conversation.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to see a list of how many authorities the County partners with and
which ones the County acts as fiscal agent for.
Mr. Davis said the Regional Jail, the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center, and the Airport
Authority would be the others.
Ms. Palmer said the Public Recreation Facilities Authority (PRFA) came to her attention.
Mr. Davis said the PRFA was set up by the Board 25 years ago to hold title to open space
easements.
Mr. Foley said he would provide the Board with a list of all authorities for which the County is a
partner.
*****
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 127)
Ms. Dittmar said, for the next MPO meeting, TJPDC Executive Director Chip Boyles has asked
which Board members might be interested in certain regional cooperation initiatives, and this occurs after
the Board’s retreat so some of those ideas could be captured at the upcoming retreat.
Ms. Dittmar stated that Mr. Boyd had forwarded an email from Tom Frederick regarding solid
waste options, and she wanted to make sure the County did not cut the deadline too close.
Mr. Foley said the Ivy option is on the Board’s meeting calendar for July, and staff would also
bring back information on recycling options.
Ms. Palmer said, at the last RSWA meeting, Tom Frederick talked about a percentage of Ivy kept
as a permanent reserve for the landfill, and she wanted some clarification on that.
Mr. Foley said he could clarify that in July, but it’s not a simple thing.
*****
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Board also needs to keep in mind the meeting with legislators when
the General Assembly recesses, and a joint meeting with the School Board.
Mr. Foley said those are all scheduled as well.
*****
Ms. Dittmar stated that the last Route 29 panel meeting would be held the next day, and she
needed to know whether four or more Board members would attend.
Mr. Davis said the Board either needs to adjourn to that meeting or ask Ms. Jordan to notice a
special meeting, explaining that the advantage of the latter – even though it’s late to notice it – is that
Board members wouldn’t have to gather at the panel meeting and adjourn again to its May 14 meeting.
The Board agreed to adjourn and then adjourn again.
Mr. Davis said, if for some reason they didn’t have four members, the Board would need to call a
special meeting for the following Wednesday.
Ms. Dittmar noted that the four Route 29 solution alternatives are on the website, but those are
packages which were put together by VDOT engineers and people trying to assist the panel. She said
her guess is that the Board will serve in an advisory capacity, and the advice of their group will be taken
by Philip Shucet and reported out at the CTB meeting after a conversation with Secretary Layne. She
said, at 2:00 p.m. on May 13, CTB would hear the report, and there would be no action; at the June
meeting, there would be action taken. Ms. Dittmar said there was a meeting yesterday hosted by the
Chamber of Commerce, attended by business leaders along the corridor – and John Lynch of VDOT
brought forth some facts on the alternatives being discussed, particularly the intersection treatments. She
stated that Mr. Foley presented, and reassured that the County really cares about businesses and would
engage in some creative initiatives to assist businesses in the event of any construction disruption. Ms.
Dittmar said there is great concern about grade-separated interchanges at Rio, Hydraulic, Greenbrier,
Hollymead and Hilton Heights, but it was a cordial and fact-filled meeting.
Mr. Foley said there was a high level of concern with what’s on the table now.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to know what some of the ideas are that would help businesses.
Mr. Foley said staff would put a report together and, based on the meeting that Ms. Dittmar had
initiated, she asked that staff do some research on business assistance programs.
Ms. Mallek said that would also help the Board with talking points.
Mr. Foley said these are not dramatic things, but could be things like advertising and signage to
help during the construction period.
Ms. McKeel said another county in Virginia had a “business assistance program,” and asked if
that was one of the tools available here during the construction period.
Ms. Dittmar suggested checking first with Fairfax and McLean.
Ms. Mallek said it may involve something like deferral of property tax for a year.
Mr. Foley said staff would check into that.
Ms. McKeel said it might be a good idea to communicate with businesses via letter about what
initiatives are being considered and to also get the County’s story out there.
Ms. Dittmar said other states have put together “survive and thrive” guides from their highway
departments, and perhaps VDOT could develop that for the whole Commonwealth.
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 128)
Mr. Foley said anything like that would need to be run through the Economic Development
Authority so they can apply for grants, etc., and a letter could come after further discussions about that.
Mr. Boyd said he was concerned and confused about something, because he thought the Rio
Road grade-separated interchange was in the MPO plan somewhere on the list, and must be available for
funding from VDOT. He asked why Hydraulic Road wasn’t on that list, because the City wouldn’t put it on
their list, and he didn’t understand why the County wasn’t taking the same approach. Mr. Boyd said that
the City is going to block that any way they can, and he thinks they should do the same thing at Rio Road.
Ms. Mallek said if the County can make the Rio example successful, the City will follow suit.
Ms. Palmer stated that she had received comments from constituents that they are now shopping
at Stonefield instead of going downtown because of the traffic and, once the County starts moving
forward and recognizes the problems, it will succeed.
Mr. Boyd disagreed, stating that it would be a “nightmare,” with a lot of lost jobs and tax revenue,
and even putting together some supplemental subsidy program s wouldn’t offset that. He suggested that
Board members talk to businesses that were operating when Rt. 29 was widened, and all the business
that was lost.
Ms. Mallek suggested looking at those issues now because, while it’s not perfect, it’s going to be
much better in the long run.
Ms. Dittmar said she believes they will be widening Route 29 many more lanes further north, and
that in itself is a big construction project which may have some similarities to the challenges of the 29
widening in the 1990s – and that would be the case with any construction in the community.
Mr. Boyd said that’s a rural area though that Rt. 29 would be going through, not businesses.
Ms. Dittmar said, once construction started, it would provide a choke point that would affect
businesses, and this type of construction is impactful regardless of where it happens.
Ms. Dittmar reported that Board members have been invited to a reception on the evening of May
13 welcoming the new Commonwealth Transportation Board members to the sou th.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 24. From the County Executive: Reports on Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley said the monthly County Executive Report the Board is receiving is trying to track these
projects, but he encouraged Board members to contact him with any process improvements. He stated
that the spreadsheet with all the major projects – an annual plan – is starting to take more of a life in
terms of decisions the Board has made about processes for review. Mr. Foley encouraged the Board to
take a look at that also. He reported that the agenda for the Board meeting the following week includes a
discussion on personnel and performance reviews in closed session, which would be set at the beginning
of the meeting. Mr. Foley said there is a Consent Agenda item on the health and dental plans, but staff
will need to do an overview of that, so 3:00 p.m. is the best start time to get all of those items covered.
Mr. Boyd said there are some Affordable Care Act provisions that would impact the County and
the budget in 2018, so he doesn’t want to wait until then to address those issues and would like to
address them as part of the five-year plan. Mr. Foley said that’s the reason staff would like to have that
conversation with the Board, and will plan to have some information about deductibles and premium
increases.
*****
Mr. Foley announced that Chip Boyles would also be in attendance at the Board meeting for an
introduction.
*****
Mr. Foley said public recognition week which the Board mentioned earlier would also include
pancake breakfasts for the employees – at the COB, 5th Street, the ECC, and at fire stations. Mr. Foley
said, at the fire stations, Chief Dan Eggleston and all the battalion chiefs would go around and serve
donuts as part of the “employee thank you breakfast.”
*****
Ms. Dittmar noted that she liked having more in-depth items early in the meeting.
Mr. Foley stated that one of the ideas staff has discussed with Ms. Dittmar was to start meetings
at 3:00 p.m. on the afternoons before its night meetings from this point forward, and will plan to bring
forward other ideas which the Board had shared with staff .
_______________
May 07, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 129)
Agenda Item. No. 25. Adjourn to May 14, 2014, 5:00 p.m., Auditorium.
The Board determined that they didn’t need to adjourn to the May 13 CTB meeting, as it was a
social event.
Ms. Mallek asked about the 2:00 p.m. CTB meeting that day.
Mr. Sheffield said it would be just like the other CTB in which they all drove down and listened.
Mr. Davis clarified that if they just go down and listen, with no discussion or transaction of
business by any Board member while they are assembled, it will not be considered a meeting.
Mr. Foley asked what the situation would be if they go as individual members a nd made
comments on their own behalf.
Mr. Davis said it could technically be a violation.
Mr. Foley stated that he would coordinate minutes and get with the Chair about getting to the right
places on those days, and if something were to go awry, they would adjourn and call a special meeting
for 3:00 p.m. on May 14.
At 7:04 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved to adjourn the Board meeting to May 8, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. at
the Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, 530 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville.
Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 11/05/2014
Initials: EWJ