2014-03-05March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Count y, Virginia, was held on March
05, 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 9:05 a.m., by 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.
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the agenda as presented. Ms. Mckeel seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek reported that Senator Tim Kaine’s representative would be at the Crozet Library to
meet with citizens on Thursday, March 13, from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. She said on March 29 from 10:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., there would be a celebration of Albemarle County’s mountain heritage at the McAllister
family home in Sugar Hollow, which will include music along with storytelling by Phil James of Crozet.
_____
Ms. Dittmar said she and Ms. McKeel attended the Chairs Institute in Richmond which is a
training seminar provided by the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), along with other county
supervisors from around the state.
Ms. Dittmar reported that she met with Pat Hogan, Executive Vice President at the University of
Virginia, to discuss University/County relations; and also had a meeting with Charlottesville Mayor
Satyendra Huja.
Ms. Dittmar commended police, fire, rescue and utilities for its handling of two recent major
snowfalls, as well as the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for its snow removal efforts.
Ms. Dittmar reported on the survey to gather information about how other county boards of
supervisors operate in the state was underway and would be available as early as next month. She said
Assistant Clerk, Travis Morris, was working on a committee notebook.
Ms. Dittmar reported that she and Ms. McKeel meet with Mr. Foley once per month prior to
release of the Board agenda, to go over the meeting agenda and to review any other items of interest.
She asked fellow Board members to contact them if anyone had additional items to bring forth.
Mr. Foley clarified that the plan is to get Board packets out on Wednesdays instead of Fridays, so
the Chair and Vice-Chair meeting would be held the Monday before that Wednesday.
_____
Ms. McKeel announced that she would hold a town hall meeting on Tuesday, March 11, at Jack
Jouett Middle School and that District’s School Board representative, Kate Acuff, Planning Commissioner
Mac Lafferty, a police representative and other members of committees would be present.
_____
Ms. Palmer said she and Ms. Dittmar would hold a town hall meeting on the evening of March 18
at Monticello High School with Eric Strucko of the School Board and someone from the police department
in attendance.
Ms. Mallek said her last town hall meeting would be held March 8 at the Whitehall Community
Center from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and Captain Jenkins from the Southern District would also be
there.
Ms. Dittmar announced that she would hold a town hall meeting at Stone Robinson on March 11,
and another one on March 17 in the Town of Scottsville.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Sheffield said he was working with Lee Catlin on four town hall dates, but has not secured the
locations yet.
Ms. Palmer said she is working on a few town halls meetings as well, but had not gotten
confirmation from everyone yet.
_____
Ms. Mallek read a recognition for Albemarle County Principal Planner Elaine Echols, for her
election to the College of Fellows for the American Institute of Certified Planners, which has fewer than
500 members nationwide and only six in Virginia prior to Ms. Echols’ honor. She noted that , in
Charlottesville, Mayor Satyendra Huja, Frank Duke and Ms. Echols are the only three from this region.
Ms. Mallek reported that a broad study had been done on the economic benefit of tourism for
neighboring communities of national parks, and said that tourism to Shenandoah National Park creates
$76 million in economic benefit with visitor spending supporting 945 jobs in the local economy in
surrounding communities. She stated that, in addition to the recreational value, there is a very substantial
dollar value asset.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions.
Item No. 6a. Proclamation recognizing THE BIG READ 2014: True Grit, by Charles Portis.
Mr. Sheffield read and presented the proclamation to Mr. Gary Grant:
THE BIG READ 2014: True Grit by Charles Portis
WHEREAS, THE BIG READ is designed to restore reading to the center of American culture and
provides our citizens with the opportunity to read and discuss a single book within our community; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library invites all book lovers to participate in THE
BIG READ that will be held throughout March 2014. The Library's goal is to encourage all residents of
Central Virginia to read and discuss TRUE GRIT by Charles Portis; and
WHEREAS, the novel recounts Mattie Ross’ youthful quest to avenge the murder of her father
with the aid of a down-at-the-heels federal marshal named Rooster Cogburn; and
WHEREAS, THE BIG READ is an initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts in partnership
with Arts Midwest; and is supported by the Art and Jane Hess Fund of the Library Endowment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Jane D. Dittmar, Chair of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, proclaim THE BIG READ during March 2014 and encourage all
residents to read TRUE GRIT during this time.
Mr. Gary Grant of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL) addressed the Board on behalf
of the Library Director, John Halladay, the Library President, Bryan LaFontaine, and the nine trustees of
the Library Board. He invited the 250,000 residents of the JMRL service area to participate in THE BIG
READ.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Fran Lawrence addressed the Board, stating that he is President of the Lewis & Clark
Exploratory Center, which is located at Darden Towe Park, and is jointly owned by the City and the
County. Mr. Lawrence referenced a packet provided to the Board, which shows pictures of the Center at
95% completion and includes a conceptual drawing of the interior.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was any update on the Center serving as the eastern gateway to the
Lewis & Clark Trail. Mr. Lawrence stated that the Center is on the Journey Through Hallowed Ground
Trail and is also designated by the Park Service as an eastern connection. He said it is his understanding
that the Center would be considered the starting point of the trail.
__________
Mr. David Zube addressed the Board, stating that he is the Chief Research Officer for the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and a resident of Albemarle County. He said the Institute is a
nonprofit research and communications organization, and its mission is to reduce deaths and injuries as
well as the extent of economic loss associated with car crashes. Mr. Zube stated that he would share a
summary of research done on red light cameras and the Photo Safe program. He said red light running is
a serious problem and, in 2012 in the U.S., 638 people were killed and 133,000 were injured as a result
with more than half of the deaths being pedestrians, cyclists, or people riding in cars that were struck. Mr.
Zube stated that red light cameras reduce the violations, and studies done in Oxnard, California and in
Fairfax, Virginia show that, when cameras are put in place, violations fall by about 40% in the first year of
installation. He noted that these reductions also spill over to other intersections in the community that do
not have cameras. He reported that, in their most recent study which was conducted in Arlington,
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Virginia, it showed a significant reduction in violations there and the longer the red light cameras were
installed, the larger the increase in violations. Mr. Zube said there was a 39% reduction for violations
occurring a half-second after the red light turned, and 86% a second and a half after the red light turned,
which means the most dangerous violations are reduced by the most. He stated that the study at
Oxnard, California found similar results with a 29% reduction in front-to-side collisions and a 32%
reduction in injuries from crashes. Mr. Zube said installation of red light cameras will sometimes result in
an increase in rear-end collisions, but studies are generally finding that more serious crashes are reduced
by more than the increase in minor crashes so the overall reduction in injuries is beneficial to the
community. He stated that they have also done surveys in other communities with red light cameras, and
the public generally supports ranges from 75-80%.
__________
Mr. John Martin of Free Union, Virginia addressed the Board, stating that much has been said
over the years about the corporate/political organization of the Rivanna Authorities, which are responsible
for water, wastewater and solid waste services for Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Mr. Martin said
through no fault of the people involved in governance of these authorities as presently organized, the
structure is old-fashioned, outmoded, inefficient, and conducive to corrosive political conf lict between the
member jurisdictions. He stated that something must be done to resolve this in the future, and the near
disastrous future water supply planning process is an example of this dysfunction. Mr. Martin said treated
drinking water is delivered to residents of the City and County through an interlocking grid of pipes criss-
crossing political boundaries and, since City pipes are much older than County pipes, it is believed there
is more leakage in the City than in the County but, without a way to measure actual leakage in the City,
the concern is that City residents are not paying its fair share for leaked water, so County residents are
essentially subsidizing those customers for leaky City pipes. Mr. Martin emphasized that a tru ly regional
water authority whereby political boundaries did not matter would ensure every customer could be
charged the same amount for water and for fixing leaks, wherever those might be occurring. He said the
adopted solution thus far has been to install multiple water meters at points where water crosses the City
limits to obtain an estimate of the amount of water flowing across boundaries at a cost of $6 million
dollars. Mr. Martin stated that these meters serve no operational purpose, only a politic al one, and they
do not fix leaks. He said the Rivanna Authorities need to be reorganized to provide truly regional service,
and it needs to get City-County politics out of the business of water, wastewater and solid waste.
__________
Mr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that a group in Cary, North Carolina called
“Imagine Cary” uses well-established group consensus techniques to lead all discussions toward
predetermined sustainable development of a smart growth master plan. Mr. Battig said this is the same
thing that happened in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, based on the premise that lifestyles,
homes, businesses and transportation all contribute to global warming, social and economic inequity,
health problems, etc. and sustainable development is touted as being able to correct all of this. He stated
that, in 1998, Gary Lawrence admitted that they used names to cover up the United Nations Local
Agenda 21, which formed the foundation for comprehensive planning. Mr. Battig said, in May 2012, the
Journal of the American Planning Association debunked claims of “growing cities sustainably.” He stated
that a recent University of California study supported the same findings that smart growth projects across
the country aim to jam people into high-density housing near mass transit systems, and proponents think
this will make people abandon their automobiles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but new
research shows that “stack and pack housing” is ineffective, as well as being a blueprint f or misery. Mr.
Battig said Albemarle County would have to have a ten-fold increase to realize a 25% impact on
greenhouse gas emissions.
__________
Mr. Ed Bain addressed the Board, stating that 25-30% of students in County schools are on free
or reduced lunch programs and noted that there is significant poverty in Albemarle. Mr. Bain said the
Board needs to focus on what it can do locally to address the problem, including referencing the poverty
study that staff worked on in fall 2007 and the updated census figures from 2010. He stated that the
Board should also look at how zoning contributes to this and develop strategies on how to help alleviate
poverty, along with evaluation of the education and justice systems. Mr. Bain suggested that Board
members and staff attend some of the national and regional meetings related to poverty and bring that
knowledge back, and engage a local task force which would develop recommendations that would then
come back to the Board.
__________
Mr. Paul Grady addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of Crozet and is speaking on
behalf of a number of citizens who are concerned about the imminent need for a practical, comprehensive
trash management policy in the County. Mr. Grady said, on January 8, he launched a petition drive to
keep the Ivy Transfer Station open. He said the fact that the Board agreed to keep it open for another
year, along with conversations held with Ann Mallek at the Crozet Community Association meeting the
following night, convinced them to go forward and use the petition to support her petition as she was one
of the first to sign it. Mr. Grady stated that the original petition was for the Ivy transfer station as a
western convenience center, and that the County not waste taxpayer’s money building a duplicate of it
somewhere else which would provide fewer services. He said the petition focused efforts in an area from
Whitehall in the north, Batesville in the south, and Crossroads to the east. He thanked all who signed the
petition over the last seven weeks. Mr. Grady stated that, despite many unforeseen obstacles during
those seven weeks, they were able to secure the signatures of 2,518 concerned citizens. He said the
focus now should be on the creation of a com prehensive trash management policy, with a greater portion
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
of the trash being recycled, but citizens will also need a place to put trash a year from now and he hoped
it would be Ivy.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) addressed the Board, stating that
the attack on sustainability is offensive to him as a planner and as a man of integrity. He said the rural
area plan does not suggest that people cannot move to the rural area adding that there are thousands of
vacant lots available now. Mr. Werner stated that, regarding solutions for Route 29 congestion, the Board
should consider allocating some of the economic development funding toward establishing a business
assistance program for the corridor. He noted that the proposed improvements are not a problem for the
corridor; they are an investment in it. Mr. Werner said Daily Progress editorial staff appears to have a
“selective memory” about proposed improvements, and the initial report done by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (TJPDC) summarizes improvements based on analysis – not by a political
process. He noted that VDOT contributed to that process at a very high cost and, if anyone asks “what
should be done,” the answers are already in place: the widening of Route 29 north of the river, the Best
Buy ramp, the Hillsdale Drive extension, and the light sequencing on Rt. 29 North. Mr. Werner said, while
those things move forward, the Board needs to initiate the planning for the Berkmar Drive extension and
the evaluation of improvements for the intersections at Rio and Hydraulic. He stated that the Board has a
plan, has community support to move forward, and offered PEC’s ass istance in that regard. Mr. Werner
stated that he hoped no one in this community was working toward the County getting “nothing” toward
improvements, and opponents of the western bypass are not opposed to getting something done to
improve conditions on Route 29.
__________
Ms. Mallek commented that the Rivanna Authorities were originally formed to get politics out, and
that seems to have gone astray. She also stated that she had read an article the day before in the
Washington Post that mentioned a decrease in traffic congestion in the metro area, due to more people
living in highly compressed areas like Ballston and Courthouse which are built around transit and those
property values have increased more than anywhere else. She added that the discussion of poverty is a
very important one that should be discussed at the Board’s strategic retreat during the summer.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to see a copy of the poverty report that was mentioned. Mr.
Foley stated that staff would provide the report.
There being no further speakers, the Chair closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Mr. Boyd moved to approve Item 8.1, as read, through
Item 8.6, and to accept the remaining on the Consent Agenda for information. Ms. McKeel seconded the
motion. (Note: Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda item.) Roll was called, and
the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: September 4, October 2 and December 3, 2013; and January
8 and January 30, 2014.
Mr. Boyd had not read the minutes of September 4, 2013 and asked that they be pulled and
carried forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Mallek had not read the minutes of October 2, 2013 and asked that they be pulled and
carried forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Palmer had not read the minutes of January 30, 2014 and asked that they be pulled and
carried forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Dittmar had read the minutes of December 3, 2013, and found them to be in order.
Ms. McKeel had read the minutes of January 8, 2014, pages 1-30, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Sheffield had read the minutes of January 8, 2014, pages 31-end, and found them to be in
order.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read. The remaining minutes
were carried forward to the next meeting.
__________
Item No. 8.2. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) Support Agreements.
The executive summary states that over the last two years, the County has explored alternatives
to continuing to contract for solid waste services with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA). During
this review period, the County has maintained service agreements with the RSWA for service at the Ivy
Material Utilization Center (MUC) and the McIntire Road Recycling Center (McIntire). At the January 8,
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
2014 meeting, the Board requested RSWA to extend the agreements for both MUC and McIntire through
FY15 so that the County could continue its consideration of long-term options. On January 28, 2014, the
RSWA Board agreed to the County’s request to extend the agreements through FY 15. The attached
amendments to the current agreements (Attachments A and B) were approved by the RSWA Board and
are provided to the Board of Supervisors for its approval.
The Amendment No. 3 to Ivy Material Utilization Center Programs Agreement (Attachment A) and
the Amendment No. 3 to Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs (Attachment B)
continue the current funding arrangement and services at MUC and McIntire from July 2014 through June
2015. With the exception of the effective dates, the terms and conditions of the agreements are the same
as the current agreements. It is noted that the agreement for McIntire includes the City as a participant,
while the MUC agreement does not.
Based on the RSWA FY14 adopted budget, staff anticipates the County will pay approximately
$450,000 in FY 15 for services provided by the agreements. The County Executive’s recommended
FY15 budget includes this funding.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the attached RSWA
support agreement amendments on behalf of the County, subject to approval as to content and form by
the County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the RSWA
support agreement amendments on behalf of the County, subject to approval as to content and
form by the County Attorney.
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AGREEMENT FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS
AMONG
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
AND
THE RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
This Amendment No. 3 to the Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs (this
“Amendment”) is made this ___day of ___________, 2014 by and among the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia (the “City”), the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “County”) and the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority (the “Authority”, individually a “Party”, and together referred to as the “Parties”).
WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into a certain Local Government Support
Agreement for Recycling Programs dated August 23, 2011 (the “Original Agreement”)
providing the terms of the City’s and County’s shared financial support and Authority’s
operation of the Recycling Services; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement provided that such financial support and operations continue
through the Authority’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, with the City and Coun ty
retaining an exclusive option to extend the Original Agreement for two successive one-
year periods by giving prior written notice to the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City and County exercised their first option to extend the term of the Original
Agreement through June 30, 2013, but the County elected not to exercise its second
option to extend the term through June 30, 2014 and instead requested, with the
concurrence of the City, an extension of the Original Agreement through December 31,
2013; and
WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Original
Agreement dated June 5, 2013 extending the term of the Original Agreement through
December 31, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Original
Agreement dated October 23, 2013 extending the term of the Original Agreement through
June 30, 2014 (the Original Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 and
Amendment No. 2, hereinafter, the “Agreement”); and,
WHEREAS, the County desires an additional extension of the term of the Agreement through June
30, 2015, and the City is agreeable to an extension for such period.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Amendment to Section 4. Section 4 of the Agreement, entitled “Term of Agreement,” is
amended and restated as follows:
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
4. Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall be effective upon execution and the financial participation
requirements shall be retroactive to July 1, 2011 and shall continue through June 30,
2015.
2. Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in the Agreement unless otherwise specifically defined herein. Except as expressly modified
hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full
force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the dates below.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
______________________________ __________________
Maurice Jones Date
City Manager
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
______________________________ __________________
Thomas C. Foley Date
County Executive
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY:
Thomas L. Frederick, Jr. Date
Executive Director
*****
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
IVY MATERIAL UTILIZATION CENTER PROGRAMS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
AND
THE RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
This Amendment No. 3 to the Ivy Material Utilization Center Programs Agreement (this
“Amendment”) is made this ___day of ___________, 2014 by and between the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the “County”) and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (the “Authority”, individually a “Party”,
and together referred to as the “Parties”).
WHEREAS, the County and the Authority entered into a certain Ivy Material Utilization Center
Programs Agreement dated August 23, 2011 (the “Original Agreement”), providing for the
County’s financial support for, and the Authority’s operation of, the Ivy MUC; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement provided that such financial support and operations c ontinue
through the Authority’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, with the County retaining an
exclusive option to extend the Original Agreement for two successive one-year periods
by giving prior written notice to the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the County exercised its first option to extend the term of the Original Agreement through
June 30, 2013, but elected not to exercise its second option to extend the term through
June 30, 2014 and instead requested an extension of the term of the Original Agreement
through December 31, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Original Agreement
dated June 7, 2013 extending the term of the Original Agreement through December 31,
2013; and,
WHEREAS, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Original Agreement
dated October 23, 2013 extending the term of the Original Agreement through June 30,
2014 (the Original Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2,
hereinafter, the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the County desires an additional extension of the term of the Agreement through June
30, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
1. Amendment to Section 6. Section 6 of the Agreement, entitled “Term of Agreement,” is
amended and restated as follows:
6. Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall be effective upon execution and the County’s financial participation
requirements shall be retroactive to July 1, 2011 and shall continue through June 30,
2015.
2. Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in the Agreement unless otherwise specifically defined herein. Except as expressly modified
hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unc hanged and shall continue in full
force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the dates below.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
______________________________ __________________
Thomas C. Foley Date
County Executive
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY:
Thomas L. Frederick, Jr. Date
Executive Director
__________
Item No. 8.3. ACE; Grant from Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for
easement acquisition.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services’ (“VDACS”), Office of Farmland Preservation, has awarded a grant in the amount of $149,678.46
to the County under a program established by the 2007 General Assembly to provide funds for the
preservation of working farms and forest lands. (See award letter, Attachment A)
The County was awarded similar grants of $160,715.64 in 2013, $110,952.46 in 2012,
$55,290.31 in 2011, $93,932.19 in 2010, $49,900.00 in 2009 and $403,219.75 in 2008. The 2013
General Assembly appropriated $1,000,000 for this grant program statewide, and Albemarle County is
one of eight localities to receive a grant this year, and one of only seven to receive the full amount
requested.
VDACS has requested that the County enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the
“Agreement”) (Attachment B) as a condition for receiving this grant. While the County has yet to identify
the specific easement(s) to which it would apply these funds, it intends to apply them toward the
acquisition of the next qualifying easement. This should come from the current pool of applications that
were received in April, 2013. This grant will remain available to (partially) reimburse any qualifying
purchase for up to two years from the date of the Agreement. The key provisions of the Agreement are
summarized below.
1. The Agreement would obligate VDACS to set aside the grant amount in a restricted
account and reimburse the County for its eligible costs for the purchase of conservation
easement(s). The County’s funds would be restricted exclusively for the County’s
qualifying costs for a period of up to two years.
2. The Agreement also would restrict conversion or diversion of a subject property from
open-space use, unless the conversion or diversion satisfied the requirements of the
Open Space Land Act. Conversion or diversion of land is permitted under the Open-
Space Land Act in limited circumstances upon the concurrence of the County and the
Public Recreational Facilities Authority and upon the placement of substitute land of
equal or greater value and quality under an open-space easement. The Agreement
would entitle VDACS to reimbursement of its pro rata share of the market value of the
easement if conversion or diversion ever occurred.
3. In exchange for the state’s grant commitment, the Agreement would obligate the County
to:
appropriate matching funds equal to the grant amount for the purchase of a
subject easement,
apply the grant funds to the purchase of the easement,
provide VDACS with annual progress reports (while the grant Agreement is in
force) describing the County’s efforts to obtain easements on other working farms,
and its programs for public outreach, stewardship and monitoring, and measuring
the effectiveness of the County’s efforts to bring working farms under easement.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
maintain sufficient title insurance for the subject easement(s), which is already a
standard County practice,
allow VDACS the opportunity to review easement instruments and the title
insurance policy prior to closing,
receive copies of the recorded easement instrument after closing,
provide notice to VDACS if the County receives an application to convert or divert
a subject easement from its permitted easement uses, and
enforce the terms and conditions of the deed of easement.
Staff has reviewed the terms of this year’s proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between
VDACS and the County and finds its terms acceptable.
The County’s execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement would allow the County to receive
$149,678.46 in state funding to apply to the ACE program. In order for the County to receive these funds,
it must appropriate matching funds of $149,678.46. That local match is available through funds
previously appropriated for ACE by the Board in FY14.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement
(Attachment B) on behalf of the County, provided that it is first approved as to form and content by the
County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the County, provided that it is first approved as to form and content by the
County Attorney.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Between
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
and
Albemarle County
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is entered into this 31st day of December, 2013, in
the City of Richmond, Virginia, between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(“VDACS”) and Albemarle County (collectively, “the parties”) to provide mutually advantageous terms for
cooperation between VDACS and Albemarle County to implement VDACS’ contribution of funds in
support of Albemarle County’s purchase of agricultural conservation easements.
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, by Chapter 806 of the 2013 Acts of Assembly, has
appropriated $1,000,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014 to VDACS for the continuation of a state
fund to match local government purchase of development rights program funds for the preservation of
working farms and forest lands; and,
WHEREAS, § 3.2-201 of the Code of Virginia authorizes VDACS’ Office of Farmland
Preservation to develop methods and sources of revenue for allocating funds to localities to purchase
agricultural conservation easements, and to distribute these funds to localities under policies, procedures,
and guidelines developed by VDACS’ Office of Farmland Preservation; and,
WHEREAS, for all purposes of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, the term
“agricultural conservation easement” shall mean a negative easement in gross that has the primary
conservation purpose of preserving working farm and/or forest land; and,
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has enacted an ordinance or passed a
resolution that: authorizes, in accordance with Title 10.1, Chapter 17 of the Code of Virginia (“the Open-
Space Land Act”) and other applicable law, Albemarle County to purchase agricultural conservation
easements from landowners (each hereinafter called “Grantor”); sets forth a clear, consistent, and
equitable administrative process governing such purchases; and outlines the goals and purposes of
Albemarle County’s farmland preservation program; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to maintain a public outreach program designed to
educate various stakeholders in Albemarle County—including farmers, landowners, public officials, and
the non-farming public—about Albemarle County’s initiatives to preserve working farms and forest lands;
and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a transparent and replicable process for
valuation of agricultural conservation easements; and,
WHEREAS, the purchase of agricultural conservation easements is one component of Albemarle
County’s broader farmland preservation program; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to use a deed of easement that is sufficiently flexible
to allow for future agricultural production in purchases of agricultural conservation easements for which
Albemarle County uses funds contributed to it by VDACS; and,
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed that any agricultural conservation easemen t
purchased as per the terms of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT shall meet the definition of
"real estate devoted to agricultural use", "real estate devoted to horticultural use" or "real estate devoted
to forest use" as established in § 58.1-3230 of the Code of Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a clear strategy for monitoring and
enforcing the terms of the agricultural conservation easements that Albemarle County purchases; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a process that Albemarle County will use
to evaluate the effectiveness of its farmland preservation program, including a protocol for making
changes to Albemarle County’s agricultural conservation efforts based on such evaluations; and,
WHEREAS, VDACS, in reliance on the veracity of the foregoing recitals, certifies Albemarle
County is eligible to receive contributions of funds from VDACS in reimbursement for certain costs
Albemarle County actually incurs in the course of purchasing agricultural conservation easements; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, and the agents and employees of Albemarle County, in the
performance of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, are acting on behalf of Albemarle County,
and not as officers or employees or agents of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
NOW, THEREFORE, VDACS and Albemarle County agree their respective responsibilities,
pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, shall be defined as follows:
1. VDACS Responsibilities
a. VDACS shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of this INTERGOVERN-
MENTAL AGREEMENT, restrict $149,678.46 (hereinafter “the allocation amount’) in an
account, from which VDACS shall withdraw funds only to pay contributions of funds that
Albemarle County is eligible to receive pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, except that upon the expiration of two (2) years from the date of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, or immediately upon Albemarle County’s failure
to perform any of its obligations under the terms of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, VDACS shall have the right to withdraw any funds then remaining in such
account and the right to redirect those funds to other localities that VDACS certifies as
being eligible to receive matching funds and that enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with VDACS to govern the distribution of matching funds for the purchase of
agricultural conservation easements. The allocation amount from this and any prior
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT shall not be considered to be a grant as that
term is used in paragraph 1(b) of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
b. Upon Albemarle County or any agent acting on behalf of Albemarle County’s recordation
of a deed evidencing Albemarle County’s purchase of an agricultural conservation
easement in the circuit court of the city or county where the Grantor’s land is located and
Albemarle County’s submission to VDACS of a completed claim for reimbursement, on a
form prescribed by VDACS, together with the supporting documentation required under
paragraph 2(e) of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, VDACS shall reimburse
Albemarle County fifty percent (50%) of the reimbursable costs that Albemarle County
actually incurred in the course of purchasing that agricultural conservation easement,
limited to that portion of the allocation amount remaining in the account maintained by
VDACS pursuant to paragraph 1(a) of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. The
following shall not be considered to be reimbursable costs that Albemarle County actually
incurred and shall be subtracted from the total amount of reimbursable costs considered
for reimbursement by VDACS in connection with any particular agricultural conservation
easement transaction: grants made by the United States of America, the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF), or any
other governmental agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
payments made by any other funding sources either directly to the landowner or to
reimburse Albemarle County; or in-kind donations or contributions. VDACS may make
alternative arrangements for the distribution of funds pursuant to this INTERGOVERN -
MENTAL AGREEMENT, provided Albemarle County presents a written request for such
alternative arrangement to the Commissioner of VDACS or the Commissioner of
VDACS’s designated agent (referred collectively hereinafter as “the Grant Manager”)
prior to incurring any expense for which Albemarle County seeks a distribution of funds
under the proposed alternative arrangement.
For purposes of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, “reimbursable costs”
include:
1. The purchase price of the agricultural conservation easement actually incurred
by Albemarle County, at present value, including any portion that Albemarle
County will pay over time pursuant to an installment purchase agreement;
2. The cost of title insurance actually incurred by Albemarle County;
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
3. The cost actually incurred by Albemarle County of any appraisal of the land by a
licensed real estate appraiser upon which Albemarle County purchases an
agricultural conservation easement;
4. The cost actually incurred by Albemarle County of any survey of the physical
boundaries of the land by a licensed land surveyor upon whic h Albemarle County
purchases an agricultural conservation easement, including the cost of producing
a baseline report of the conditions existing on the land at the time of the
conveyance of the agricultural conservation easement;
5. Reasonable attorney fees actually incurred by Albemarle County associated with
the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement, where reasonable
attorney fees include those fees associated with outside counsel required for the
completion of the easement, but do not include fees related to county or city
attorneys serving as staff and who are paid regular salary in the county’s or city’s
employ;
6. The cost actually incurred by Albemarle County of issuing public hearing notices
associated with Albemarle County’s purchase of an agricultural conservation
easement that Albemarle County is required by law to issue; and
7. Any recordation fees actually incurred by Albemarle County that Albemarle
County is required to pay pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
c. VDACS shall only be responsible for reimbursing Albemarle County under paragraph 1(b)
of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT for reimbursable costs that Albemarle
County actually incurs in the course of purchasing an agricultural conservation easement
when Albemarle County or any agent acting on behalf of Albemarle County acquires, by
such purchase, a deed of easement that, at a minimum, provides:
1. The primary conservation purpose of the easement conveyed by the deed of
easement is the conservation of the land in perpetuity for working farm and/or
forestal uses.
2. The Grantor and Albemarle County agree that the land subject to the agricultural
conservation easement shall not be converted or diverted, as the Open-Space
Land Act employs those terms, until and unless the Grant Manager, with the
concurrence of Albemarle County or an assignee of Albemarle County’s interest
in the agricultural conservation easement, certifies that such conversion or
diversion satisfies the requirements of the Open-Space Land Act.
3. The Grantor and Albemarle County agree that, in the event of an extinguishment
of the restrictions of the agricultural conservation easement that results in the
receipt of monetary proceeds by Albemarle County or an assignee of Albemarle
County’s interest in an agricultural conservation easement in compensation for
the loss of such property interest, VDACS shall be entitled to a share of those
proceeds proportional to VDACS’ contribution toward the total reimbursable cost
of acquiring the agricultural conservation easement as evidenced by the
completed claim for reimbursement required under paragraph 1(b) of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
4. If the Grantor conveys the agricultural conservation easement for less than its fair
market value, the Grantor and Albemarle County mutually acknowledge that
approval of the terms of this Deed of Easement by VDACS and/or its legal
counsel does not constitute a warranty or other representation as to the Grantor’s
qualification for any exemption, deduction, or credit against the Grantor’s liability
for the payment of any taxes under any provision of federal or state law.
5. All mortgagors and other holders of liens on the property subject to the
restrictions contained in the deed of easement have subordinated their
respective liens to the restrictions of the deed of easement acquired by
Albemarle County. All such mortgagors and other holders of liens shall manifest
their assent to the easement’s priority over their respective liens by endorsing the
deed of easement.
6. A baseline report documenting the conditions existing on the land at the time of
the conveyance of the agricultural conservation easement is incorporated into the
deed of easement by reference.
2. Albemarle County Responsibilities
a. Albemarle County shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, have available local funds greater than or equal
to the allocation amount for the purpose of purchasing agricultural conservation
easements.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
b. Albemarle County shall use matching funds that VDACS contributes to Albemarle
County, pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, only for the purpose of
purchasing agricultural conservation easements that are perpetual and that have the
primary conservation purpose of preserving working farm and/or forest lands.
c. Within one (1) year from the date of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, and for
each subsequent year in which the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT or a
subsequent agreement is in force, Albemarle County shall submit to VDACS a progress
report that:
1. describes any properties that Albemarle County has identified as prospects for
Albemarle County’s purchase of agricultural conservation easements and the
status of any negotiations for the purchase of such agricultural conservation
easements;
2. estimates the timeframes within which Albemarle County will execute contracts
for any such purchases, close on such purchases, and request reimbursement of
reimbursable costs for those purchases from VDACS;
3. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop and/or
maintain a public outreach program designed to educate various stakeholders in
Albemarle County’s community—including farmers, landowners, public officials,
and the non-farming public—about Albemarle County’s agricultural conservation
easement program and other initiatives to preserve working agricultural land;
4. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop and/or
maintain a formal plan for stewardship and monitoring of the working agricultural
land on which Albemarle County acquires agricultural conservation easements;
and
5. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop and/or
maintain a process that Albemarle County will use to evaluate the effectiveness
of its program, including a protocol for making changes to Albemarle County’s
agricultural conservation efforts based on such evaluations.
d. For any purchase of agricultural conservation easements for which Albemarle County
requests reimbursement from VDACS pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall obtain a policy of title insurance on its purchased
interest that covers at least an amount equal to the amount for which Albemarle County
requests reimbursement from VDACS.
e. Prior to closing on a purchase of an agricultural conservation easement for which
Albemarle County requests reimbursement from VDACS pursuant to this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall submit, for review and
approval by VDACS and its legal counsel, the following documentation:
1. a written agreement setting forth, in the manner prescribed by Albemarle
County’s ordinance or resolution governing its program to acquire agricultural
conservation easements, the terms of Albemarle County’s purchase of the
agricultural conservation easement, including the purchase price;
2. a written confirmation from the Albemarle County Commissioner of Revenue or
Director of Finance, or the Albemarle County Commissioner of Revenue’s or
Director of Finance’s designated agent that the property/properties to be
encumbered by the agricultural conservation easement meet the definition of
"real estate devoted to agricultural use", "real estate devoted to horticultural use"
or "real estate devoted to forest use" as established in § 58.1-3230 of the Code
of Virginia;
3. a written description of the agricultural, environmental and social characteristics
of the property/properties to be encumbered by the agricultural conservation
easement;
4. any installment purchase agreement;
5. the deed of easement that the Grantor will deliver to Albemarle County at closing,
including all exhibits, attachments, and/or addenda;
6. a title insurance commitment for a policy to insure the easement interest under
contract indicating an amount of coverage at least equal to the amount of funds
for which Albemarle County requests reimbursement from VDACS; and
7. an itemized list of all reimbursable costs that Albemarle County has or will, up to
the time of closing, incur in the course of purchasing the agricultural conservation
easement.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Albemarle County shall make whatever changes to the proposed deed of
easement and/or the installment purchase agreement, where applicable, that
VDACS and/or its legal counsel deem necessary to ensure compliance with
applicable state law and the requirements and purposes of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
Albemarle County may fulfill its obligation under this paragraph by submitting
accurate and complete copies of all documents enumerated in this paragraph,
provided that Albemarle County shall deliver or make available the original
documents to VDACS for review at VDACS’ request.
f. Together with any claim for reimbursement pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT that Albemarle County submits to VDACS, Albemarle County shall also
submit the following supporting documentation:
1. a copy of the recorded deed of easement that VDACS and/or its legal counsel
approved prior to closing, showing the locality, deed book, and page of
recordation, and including all exhibits, attachments, and/or addenda;
2. copies of invoices, bills of sale, and cancelled checks evidencing Albemarle
County’s incursion of reimbursable costs in the course of purchasing the
agricultural conservation easement;
3. a copy of any executed installment purchase agreement related to the purchase,
which shall indicate the purchase price; and
4. a copy of any deed of trust related to the purchase.
g. Albemarle County shall provide the Grant Manager immediate written notice of Albemarle
County’s receipt of any application or proposal for the conversion or diversion of the use
of any land upon which Albemarle County or its assignee, where applicable, holds an
agricultural conservation easement, for the purchase of which VDACS contributed funds
pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
h. Albemarle County, or any assignee of Albemarle County’s interest in an agricultural
conservation easement for which Albemarle County receives a contribution from VDACS
pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT shall at all times enforce the
terms of that easement. Albemarle County shall provide the Grant Manager immediate
written notice of any actions, whether at law, in equity, or otherwise, taken by locality to
enforce the terms of the easement or to abate, prevent, or enjoin any violation thereof by
any party. Any failure by Albemarle County or such assignee to perform its enforcement
responsibility shall constitute a breach of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT,
for which VDACS shall have a remedy by way of a civil action for specific performance of
that enforcement responsibility; or, VDACS shall have the right and authority, at its
option, to demand and receive from Albemarle County a portion of the full market value of
the agricultural conservation easement at the time of the breach in proportion to VDACS’
contribution toward the total reimbursable cost of acquiring the agricultural conservation
easement as evidenced by the completed claim for reimbursement required under
paragraph 1(b) of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
i. For any purchase of an agricultural conservation easement for which Albemarle County
requests reimbursement from VDACS pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall derive its valuation of the agricultural
conservation easement according to the valuation methods prescribed by ordinance or
resolution.
3. Merger and Supersedure of Prior Agreement
The parties agree that terms of any INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT previously entered
into between the parties to govern VDACS’ distribution of funds to Albemarle County in support of
Albemarle County’s purchase of agricultural conservation easements shall be merged into the
instant INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, the latter of which shall supersede all former
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS to the extent that there are any inconsistencies
between the terms of these INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS. Notwithstanding the
language of this paragraph, VDACS shall be required to restrict the allocation amount(s) provided
in paragraph 1(a) of any prior agreement(s) in addition to the current allocation amount, but shall
only be required to restrict any prior allocation amount(s) until the expiration of two (2) years from
the date of execution of the prior agreement(s).
4. Recertification
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT pertains exclusively to VDACS’ contribution of
funds that the General Assembly has appropriated to VDACS through the fiscal year ending June
30, 2014. VDACS shall not contribute other funds in the future to Albemarle County except upon
VDACS’ recertification of Albemarle County’s eligibility to receive such funds. VDACS may
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
establish and communicate to Albemarle County certain benchmarks of program development
that VDACS will impose upon Albemarle County as preconditions to Albemarle County’s
recertification for future contributions.
5. Governing Law
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is governed by and shall be interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In all actions undertaken pursuant to
this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, preferred venue shall be in the City of Richmond,
Virginia, at the option of VDACS.
6. Assignment
Albemarle County shall not assign this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, either in whole
or in part, or any interest in an agricultural conservation easement for the purchase of which
VDACS contributes funds pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, without the
prior, written approval of the Grant Manager.
7. Modifications
The parties shall not amend this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, except by their mutual,
written consent.
8. Severability
In the event that any provision of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is unenforceable
or held to be unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby.
In witness, whereof, the parties hereto have executed this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT as of
the day and year first written above.
________________________________ ________________________________
Sandra J. Adams Date Name Date
Acting Commissioner County Executive
Virginia Department of Agriculture &
Consumer Services
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY:
________________________________ ________________________________
Assistant Attorney General Date County Attorney Date
__________
Item No. 8.4. Resolution to add roads in Liberty Hall Subdivision into the State Secondary System
of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer, and b y the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution to add roads in Liberty Hall subdivision into the State Secondary System
of Highways.
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Liberty Hall Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated March 5, 2014, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Liberty Hall, as described on
the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated March 5, 2014, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be for warded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
*****
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Radford Lane (State Route 1370) from Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) to 0.102
miles north to Route 1371 (Colony Drive), as shown on plat recorded in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639,
642 and 647, with a 50-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.10 miles.
2) Radford Lane (State Route 1370) from Route 1371 (Colony Drive) to 0.052 miles north
to Route 1372 (Frontier Lane), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639, 642 and 647,
with a 50-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 miles.
3) Colony Drive (State Route 1371) from Route 1373 (Patriot Way) to 0.02 miles west to
end of State maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639, 642 and 647,
with a 54-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.02 miles.
4) Patriot Way (State Route 1373) from Route 1372 (Frontier Lane) to 0.036 miles north to
end of State maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639, 642 and 647,
with a 50-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04 miles.
5) Colony Drive (State Route 1371) from Route 1370 (Radford Lane) to 0.049 miles west
to Route 1373 (Patriot Way), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639, 642 and 647,
with a 54-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 miles.
6) Radford Lane (State Route 1370) from Route 1372 (Frontier Lane) to 0.025 miles north
to end of State maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639, 642 and 647,
with a 50-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.03 miles.
7) Frontier Lane (State Route 1372) from Route 1370 (Radford Lane) to 0.056 miles west
to Route 1373 (Patriot Way), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639, 642 and 647,
with a 54-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 miles.
8) Colony Drive (State Route 1371) from Route 1370 (Radford Lane) to 0.035 miles east
to end of State maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639, 642 and 647,
with a 54-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04 miles.
9) Patriot Way (State Route 1373) from Route 1371 (Colony Drive) to 0.047 miles north to
Route 1372 (Frontier Lane), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3374 and 3719, pages 524, 639, 642 and 647,
with a 50-foot variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.00 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.39
__________
Item No. 8.5. 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 $991,855.00. A
budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of two (2) appropriations as follows:
One appropriation (#2014081) totaling $20,688.00 to appropriate federal and state
revenue for an additional Eligibility Worker (1.0 FTE) in the Department of Social
Services; and
One appropriation (#2014082) totaling $971,167.00 to appropriate funding related to
state revenue from the Abott Labs asset forfeiture funds for the Regional Public Safety
Firearms Training Center.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #2014081 and #2014082 for general government
programs as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2014081 $20,688.00
Source State Revenue $ 7,345.00
Federal Revenue $ 13,343.00
This request is to appropriate $20,688.00 in state and federal pass-through revenue for an additional
Eligibility Worker (1.0 FTE) in the Albemarle County Department of Social Services (DSS). This state and
federal revenue will fund 84.5% of this position’s costs. The local share of 15.5% will be provided thro ugh
anticipated savings in DSS’s current appropriated budget.
The Virginia Department of Social Services has allocated additional funding to Albemarle County in FY14
to support the transfer of Family Access to Medical Insurance Security (FAMIS) cases to DSS. FAMIS is a
federal/state program that provides low-cost health insurance for children in families that earn too much
for FAMIS Plus (Medicaid), but do not have private health insurance. In April 2014, 625 existing FAMIS
cases will be transferred from the state’s Central Processing Unit to DSS. Additionally, because the
Central Processing Unit had a 73% denial rate, approximately 2,300 total applications may need to be
processed by DSS annually.
Appropriation #2014082 $971,167.00
Source: State Revenue $ 971,167.00
This request is to appropriate $971,167.00 in state revenue from the Abott Labs asset forfeiture funds for
the Regional Public Safety Firearms Training Center. This is the County’s share of the award described to
the Board in the January 8, 2014 Regional Public Safety Firearms Training Center executive
summary. The Office of the Attorney General announced on December 18, 2013 an award of
approximately $2.9 Million to fund capital costs associated with the Center, which assumes the
participation of the County, City and UVA at a regional facility. The award stipulates that all funds will be
expended within 24 months of the award. The current schedule for design and construction of the facility
falls within this time constraint.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved appropriations #2014081 and #2014082
for general government programs.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2014081 3-1000-24000-324000-240111-1005 $7,345.00 state revenue
2014081 3-1000-33000-333000-330020-1005 13,343.00 federal revenue
2014081 4-1000-53012-453010-110000-1005 $13,234.00 Salaries
2014081 4-1000-53012-453010-210000-1005 $1,012.00 FICA
2014081 4-1000-53012-453010-221000-1005 $1,852.00 VRS
2014081 4-1000-53012-453010-241000-1005 $157.00 Group Life
2014081 4-1000-53012-453010-231000-1005 $2,406.00 Health
2014081 4-1000-53012-453010-232000-1005 $95.00 Dental
2014081 4-1000-53012-453010-270000-1005 $13.00 Worker's Compensation
2014081 4-1000-53012-453010-800200-1005 $1,919.00 furniture
2014082 3-1236-24000-324000-240443-1003 971,167.00 Firearms Range Asset Forfeiture Award
2014082 4-1236-39000-439000-580905-1003 $971,167.00 Public Safety Contribution – Regional
Firearms Range
TOTAL 1,983,710.00
__________
Item No. 8.6. Mainstream Housing Voucher Program.
The executive summary states that Mainstream Voucher Program vouchers enable families
having a person with disabilities to lease affordable private housing of their choice. The Program is
funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) under annual renewal
contracts. Public Housing Agencies and certain nonprofits are eligible to apply for and administer the
program. The Program authority and regulations are guided by 24 CFR 982, which are the same
regulations governing the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
The Piedmont Housing Alliance (the “PHA”) has administered the Mainstream Voucher Program
for several years with seventy-five (75) vouchers allotted by HUD. The Program, as designed, covers
Planning District 10. The PHA has requested that the County take over the administration of the
Program, and the PHA’s Board approved a Resolution (Attachment A) on December 5, 2013 to transfer
the administration of the Program to the Albemarle County Office of Housing (“ACOH”).Strategic Plan
Goal 5 is to ensure the health and safety of the community.
HUD requires that both agencies involved in the transfer of the administration of the Program
adopt a resolution approving the action and submit a written request to HUD at least ninety (90) days
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
prior to the transfer date. Transfers can only take place on January 1 or July 1 of any year. Therefore, the
resolutions and letters from the PHA and the County must be submitted to HUD prior to April 1, 2014 in
order for the transfer to take place on July 1, 2014.
Staff has reviewed the PHA Board’s request and determined the following as favorable to the
consideration of the requested transfer:
ACOH can administer the additional vouchers with current staffing by reassigning
workloads. An existing Office Associate would need to be reassigned as a Housing
Specialist with a salary adjustment of approximately $4000 annually. The ability to
absorb the additional vouchers is in part due to an upgrade of the software used to
manage existing programs.
Staff anticipates that the annual contributions contract with HUD would include
approximately $450,000 for rental assistance (transfer payments to landlords) and
$60,000 in fees for program administration. To date, this Program has not been impacted
by sequestration as has the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Seventy-one (71) vouchers are currently under lease with 20 in Albemarle, 39 in
Charlottesville, 7 in Louisa, 1 in Fluvanna, 1 in Greene and 3 out of the area. The out -of-
area vouchers will be administered as “port-outs” with the agencies in those jurisdictions
administering the vouchers and billing ACOH.
The one unfavorable aspect of administering the Program is the uncertainty of funding levels from
one year to the next, as with the Housing Choice Voucher Program. This uncertainty would limit the
ability of ACOH to plan for more than one year at a time. ACOH would adjust the number of vouchers
issued as necessary to operate within the annual budget provided by HUD.
The County would receive approximately $60,000 from HUD annually to administer the Program.
The primary additional, on-going expense to administer the Program would be to reclassify an Office
Associate to a Housing Specialist at a cost of approximately $4,000 in the first year. Staff estimates that
other costs, mainly consisting of travel expenses associated with inspections, would be less than
$5,000.00 per year. The balance of the additional revenue would be available to off-set local funding for
the Housing Office.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution (Attachment B) approving the
request to HUD for the transfer of the administration of the Mainstream Housing Voucher Program from
the PHA to ACOH and to authorize the County Executive to submit a letter to HUD requesting the transfer
and to execute any documents necessary for the transfer after approval as to form by the County
Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
request to HUD for the transfer and administration of the Mainstream Housing Voucher Program
from the PHA to ACOH and authorized the County Executive to submit a letter to HUD requesting
the transfer and to execute any documents necessary for the transfer after approval as to form by
the County Attorney:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Piedmont Housing Alliance (the “PHA”) administers the Mainstream Housing
Voucher Program (the “Program”) funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(“HUD”); and
WHEREAS, the PHA’s Board of Directors has approved the transfer of the Program to the
Albemarle County Office of Housing (“ACOH”) pursuant to HUD guidelines; and
WHEREAS, ACOH staff has reviewed the request and determined that the expected impacts
related to ACOH administering the Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
approves the request from the PHA for the County to administer the Mainstream Housing Voucher
Program, subject to HUD’s approval, and authorizes the County Executive to submit a letter and to
execute any documents necessary for the transfer of the administration from PHA to the County after
approval as to form by the County Attorney.
__________
Item No. 8.7. March 2014 VDOT Charlottesville Residency Monthly Report for Albemarle County,
was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.8. Copy of letter dated February 20, 2014 to Mr. Keith Lancaster, from Mr. Francis H.
MacCall, Principal Planner, re: LOD-2014-00001 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF
RECORD – Tax Map 61A, Parcel 34 (Property of William A. Pruett, Jr.) – Rio Magisterial District, was
received for information.
__________
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Item. No. 8.9. Copy of letter dated February 21, 2014 to Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc., from
Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, re: LOD-2013-00018 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 129, Parcel 9 (Property of Liberty Corner
Farm, LLC) – Samuel Miller Magisterial District, was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.10. 2013 Fourth Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the Community Development
Department, was received for information.
The report states that during the fourth quarter of 2013, 81 building permits were issued for 81
dwelling units. There were two permits issued for mobile homes in an existing park, at an exchange rate
of $2,500, for a total of $5,000. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a
condominium.
__________
Item No. 8.11. 2013 Fourth Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report, as prepared by the
Community Development Department, was received for information.
The report states that during the fourth quarter of 2013, 84 certificates of occupancy were issued
for 84 dwelling units. There were two certificate of occupancy issued for mobile homes in an existing park,
at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $5,000. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for
the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
__________
Item No. 8.12. County Grant Application 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.
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of two grant awards received for the time
period of January 16, 2014 to February 13, 2014. The budget impact is noted in the summary of each
grant. This report is for information only.
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY from January 18, 2014 through February 13, 2014
Applications were made for the following grants: None at this time.
Awards were received for the following grants:
Granting
Entity
Grant Type Amount
Requested
Match
Required
Dept Purpose
VA Department
of Forestry
VA Trees for
Clean Water
State $1,214 0 General
Services
To plant trees that restore
and improve the waters of the
Chesapeake Bay for the
benefit of current and future
citizens of the
Commonwealth and to
achieve long-term
improvements in water quality
through long-lived tree cover
and increased public
involvement.
VA Department
of Agriculture
Consumer
Services
(VCACS)
ACE
Program
State $149,678 $149,678 Community
Development
To purchase “fee simple title
to or other rights, interests or
privileges in property for the
protection or preservation of
ecological, cultural or
historical resources, lands for
recreational purposes, state
forest lands, and lands for
threatened or endangered
species, fish and wildlife
habitat, natural areas,
agricultural and forested
lands and open space.”
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Board of Supervisors Annual Retreat.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that the Board of Supervisors has
formally engaged in the County’s strategic planning efforts since 2001. Strategic planning is considered a
best practice and is a critical component of the adopted excellence framework under which the County
operates. As shown in Attachment A, the County’s strategic plan helps to link many inputs, including the
Comprehensive Plan and other significant drivers, to ultimately determine resource allocation. The
County’s current five-year strategic plan was adopted on July 1, 2012.
To focus on this strategic work, the Board has typically held annual one-day retreats in the
summer/fall to provide clear direction to staff on its strategic priorities. Every five years, the plan is fully
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
reconsidered and the other annual meetings serve as priority setting sessions by the Board within the
context of the strategic plan, as well as an assessment of progress. Staff usually begins to plan for and
schedule these retreats several months in advance. If possible, these events are held off-site at a location
within the County that is available at little or no cost. Prior to these retreats, staff or outside facilitators
usually meet one-on-one with Board members to get input and feedback. Outside facilitators are often
used at these retreats to help manage discussion and assist the group in finding common ground and
consensus. Past facilitators have included Ron Carlee, past International City/County Management
Association (ICMA) President, and Michael Chandler (past President of the Virginia Citizens Planning
Association, past member of American Planning Association National Board of Directors, and former
Blacksburg elected official), among others.
At these retreats, particularly at the five year update of the plan and at the other retreats,
depending on the topic, the Board has considered input from a variety of sources, including:
A detailed progress report on accomplishments associated with the adopted strategic
plan
Data from Albemarle County’s most recent National Citizen Survey. This independent
and scientifically valid survey is endorsed by the ICMA as a way to gather resident
opinion on a wide range of community issues. Specifically, the survey measures eight
aspects of community livability: community engagement; education and enrichment;
recreation and wellness; economy; built environment; national environment; safety; and
mobility. The survey has been used for over a decade by more than 300 communities in
45 states. Albemarle County has conducted regular citizen surveys since 1996, usually
on a biennial basis.
Input on the County’s strategic challenges and opportunities from employees in all
functional areas of the organization and all levels of the organization, including the
County’s Leadership Council. Prior to the retreat, the County Executive usually reaches
out to staff throughout the organization to get their unique perspective and input to bring
before the Board.
Economic data from the Virginia Employment Commission. This data includes
employment rates and industry and occupation data for the County, both current and
projected when possible.
Demographic data from the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center and US
Census Bureau. This data includes gender, age, and ethnicity information for the County,
both current and projected.
When appropriate, outside presenters have been invited to present additional data to the
Board. For example, when the national and state economies had the potential for
dramatic shifts in 2012 (due in part to the “fiscal cliff”), a deputy director from George
Mason University’s School of Public Policy provided an overview of how those economies
might impact Albemarle County. That year, the Board also read some ICMA material
which discussed the changing role of local government.
The annual retreat shapes and informs the County’s strategic plan.
As shown in Attachment C, the Board’s annual retreat is really a Board priority setting process
within the framework of the Strategic Plan rather than a reconsideration of the strategic plan itself. This
retreat offers the best opportunity for the Board to provide direction to staff on its priorities for the County,
away from the day-to-day business of the Board’s regular meeting agendas. As is shown in Attachment
C, it is the most effective way for the Board to set its “agenda” and becomes an important driver for
development and consideration of the Five Year Financial Plan and the annual budget process.
Given the number of new Board members, staff feels this year’s retreat is particularly important to
ensure that the direction and priorities established in the adopted strategic plan are consistent with the
current Board’s priorities. Beyond the vision and goals established in the plan, which would typically not
change during the five years of the plan, the objectives identified under each goal should reflect current
priority issues that become the focus of staff’s efforts and provide direction fo r financial planning.
Because of the progress made over the past two years, there is a compelling need and opportunity to
consider and clarify top objectives and priorities under each goal going forward and to ensure staff’s work
is aligned with Board priorities. In addition, assuming the Board substantially endorses the plan, a
discussion that gives clear direction for desired priorities for the remaining three years of the plan would
be useful. For reference, at last year’s retreat, the Board discussed a general desire to explore further
some specific strategic challenges for the remaining three years, including:
Capacity of the capital program;
Connectivity issues, including transit and trails; and
Community aesthetics that maintain and promote Albemarle County’s “character”.
Discussing priority objectives to move these ideas forward would be helpful in giving shape to the
next three years of the plan.
To begin the process of clarifying strategic plan priorities going forward, staff has included “draft
additions” to the existing objectives under each goal (Attachment B), all of which are based on what staff
understands the current priorities to be. However, these additions are only intended as a starting point for
discussion and may not include other priority objectives the Board feels should become the focus of the
next three years. For this reason, staff felt a Board retreat early this summer would help create clarity on
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
priorities and provide clear direction for staff to assure the Board and staff are aligned and working in an
effective partnership to move forward with important community issues.
Staff is aware of the Board’s desire to have joint meetings with the Charlottesville City Council
and the Albemarle County School Board and fully recognizes the importance of these partnerships,
particularly given many of the challenges the County is facing. It is staff’s belief that a Board retreat in
advance of those meetings would help develop a greater consensus on its shared priorities, including
relationships with the City and the School Division, among others. Staff recognizes that the Board may
prefer another approach and stands ready to proceed in whatever direction the Board decides.
The FY13-17 Strategic Plan provides direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and
annual budget processes.
Staff requests that the Board provide direction on planning for the summer/fall annual Board
retreat and other meetings to discuss and clarify direction on priorities, the Five -Year Financial Plan and
the annual budget process.
_____
Ms. Louise Wyatt, Organizational Development Manager, addressed the Board, stating that the
County has been formally engaging in strategic planning since 2001, which is a best practice and a
critical component of the adopted excellence framework used for the County. Ms. Wyatt presented
information on the role of the strategic plan, stating that it links things such as the Comprehensive Plan
and other drivers to ultimately help determine resource allocation. She stated that the County’s current
strategic plan was adopted July 1, 2012, and there are three years remaining in the current plan.
Ms. Wyatt reported that the Board’s annual retreats are typically one-day events held in the
summer or the fall to focus on strategic planning work and, every five years, the plan is fully reconsidered
– with the other meetings being priority-setting sessions for the Board in the context of the existing
strategic plan and a review of progress to date. She stated that , at the five-year retreat and some of the
interim meetings, the Board uses a wide variety of sources to talk about challenges and opportunities,
such as detailed progress reports, citizen survey results, staff recommendations, economic and
demographic data, and projections with outside experts brought in as appropriate. Ms. Wyatt said the
budget would be adopted in April, with summer serving as the time for the Board to build consensus
around the priorities that will drive the five-year financial plan, starting in September, and then going into
the annual budgeting process. She stated that, given the number of new Board members, staff feels this
year’s retreat is especially important to ensure that the direction and objectives in the adopted plan are
consistent with the current Board’s priorities.
Ms. Wyatt referenced a copy of the strategic plan which she had provided the Board, stating that,
for each goal, there is a section that lists potential priorities/work alignment – and these initiatives are
ones which staff has heard the current Board express as a priority, a priority that was generally discussed
by the previous Board at the 2013 retreat, and/or additional emerging issues and challenges identified by
staff for Board consideration. She said this document is intended to be a starting point for discussion and
may not include priority objectives the Board feels should be included and, for this reason, staff feels a
retreat early in the summer would help provide clarity on the priorities and establish clear direction.
Ms. Wyatt reviewed the goals within the strategic plan, noting that , under goal one of “Providing
excellent educational opportunities to all County residents,” potential priorities staff has heard include
completing a review for expanding internet service, completing assessment of a pre-K program, and
addressing areas of mutual interest with the School Board. Under the second goal of “Providing
community facilities that meet existing and future needs,” she said priorities include addressing
connectivity issues such as transit and trails, long term solid waste disposal, solutions for the courts,
regional public safety initiatives such as the firearms range, proffers, water resources funding, and
possible Board support for voter referendum. For goal three, Ms. Wyatt stated that some of the priorities
include establishing and setting direction for an independent office of economic development, and
developing a partnership with the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to move economic
development forward. Regarding goal four of “Protecting parks, natural, scenic and his toric resources,”
she said priorities include establishing connectivity through transit and trails, focusing on community
aesthetics, determining levels of service for meeting permit requirements, determining commitment for
long-term funding of Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE), and completing the Comp Plan
review. She stated that, for goal five, “Ensuring the health and safety of the community,” some of the
potential priorities include developing Pantops fire station with direction and timeline, completing the
County/City fire contract, determining direction on geo-policing, expansion of Emergency Medical Service
(EMS) billing, and achieving a “Safe Community” designation from the National Safety Council.
Ms. Wyatt reported that goal six, “Promoting individual responsibility and citizen ownership of
community challenges,” includes potential priorities of establishing and implementing community
engagement processes for all major capital projects and policy initiatives, evaluating Yancey School for
its potential uses, and determining the level of staff support for community advisory councils. She stated
that goal seven of “Promoting a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer
service” includes potential priorities of evaluating the establishment of a customer interaction center,
aligning some Human Resources (HR) processes with organizational vision and values, and creating
sustainable funding for more enhanced staff training.
Ms. Wyatt stated that staff believes it would be helpful for the Board to have a retreat prior to its
joint meetings with City Council and the School Board in order to develop consensus on items including
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
what partnerships might look like. Ms. Wyatt said staff recognizes the Board may want to proceed in a
different direction, and is prepared to move forward with its input.
Mr. Foley said there may be a number of items that have not been discussed yet which should be
included within the framework of the strategic plan objectives, but this is a starting point.
Ms. Mallek said several directives should be definite, not tentative, and noted that she continues
to find the strategic planning sessions to be extremely valuable. She mentioned a meeting several years
before in which a speaker from George Mason had talked about what to expect from the economic
downturn, and said that it is essential for Board governance to continue holding the retreats.
Mr. Foley stated that Supervisors should decide whether to hold the retreat first, or to hold its joint
meetings with City Council and School Board first.
Mr. Sheffield said he does not see why those other meetings should be delayed and noted that, in
February, Ms. Jordan had distributed two proposed dates.
Ms. Dittmar said Board members should revisit those because she is not sure she held those on
her calendar.
Mr. Foley said staff would explore potential dates with them, adding that it would be helpful to
have a facilitator involved so it may require additional time to secure a date which works for everyone.
Ms. Palmer stated that the meeting with the City would be very important and might be difficult to
schedule, but felt it should not need as much work on staff’s part.
Ms. Dittmar suggested the Board discuss it further under the “Matters From the Board” section of
the agenda.
Mr. Foley stated that it would be helpful for the Board to have a conversation about what its
expected outcomes are. He said he and the City Manager have already discussed a potential retreat,
and a School Board retreat is also in the works. Mr. Foley said he would like to get as much input as
possible on all three settings which will help staff feed into the financial planning process and ensure that
some of the Board’s priorities will turn into implementation plans.
Mr. Boyd said he was not aware of any joint meeting with the City, and asked what the
expectations for that meeting would be.
Ms. Dittmar said this would be discussed for the first time later in this meeting, adding that it had
not yet been discussed by the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Courts Project Update.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that In July 2011, the County contracted
with PSA-Dewberry, Inc. to conduct a needs assessment and to develop renovation and/or new building
options for the provision of court facilities, to include the Circuit, General District and Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Districts Courts, in order to assist the County in determining its next step in
addressing current and future space needs for the courts. The scope of the PSA-Dewberry study was to:
Assess the County’s long term needs for the General District and Circuit Court operations
(2030+)
Analyze three courts development options as follows:
o Downtown Option (renovation of existing courts and development of Levy site);
o Split Location Option (Circuit Court downtown, General District Court at McIntire
location – County Office Building property);
o County Complex Option (new courts complex on County site).
Develop “order of magnitude” cost estimates for each option.
At its February 6, 2013 meeting, the Board received the results of the study and PSA-Dewberry’s
draft report (Attachment A). The report details the current facility conditions of the Court Complex and
identifies concerns with aging building systems, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance
limitations, and overall concerns with existing security and needed improvements. The study analyzed
current and future space needs by evaluating caseloads which showed current court capacity being
exceeded and the need to substantially expand the courts to accommodate future needs based on
population growth. During the February 6th meeting staff reviewed the three development options with the
Board, including scope, design concept, pros/cons, and conceptual square foot cost estimates. Based on
all factors considered, the Board favored the Downtown Option and, to a slightly lesser extent, a modified
version of the Split Location Option involving relocation of the General District Court to a County owned
property at Mill Creek. The Board did not feel that the McIntire location offered any significant advantage
over the Downtown option, nor would it allow for future expansion, as would the Mill Creek site. At the
conclusion of the discussion, the Board directed staff to pursue the Downtown option and to meet with the
key courts stakeholders on the project to confirm the timeline for necessary improvements , while keeping
the split option at Mill Creek as a secondary option. The Board also dir ected staff to initiate preliminary
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
discussions with the City on the acquisition of the jointly owned Levy Building and options for improved
parking to accommodate the courts remaining downtown.
Pursuant to the Board’s direction, a follow-up meeting with the key stakeholders (Judges,
Commonwealth’s Attorney, Sheriff, Court Clerks, County Executive, etc.) was held. There was agreement
among the courts’ stakeholders to recommend the Downtown Option to avoid significant disruptions to all
court functions and efficiencies that would occur if any portion of the courts were to be located off -site.
There was also strong agreement to act as soon as possible to address the current operational
constraints. The results of the meeting were provided to the B oard on May 1, 2013, at which time the
Board directed staff to continue to focus on the Downtown Option, to move forward with an appraisal on
the jointly owned City-County properties, and to commence negotiations with the City on the property and
parking. A final decision to proceed with the Downtown Option is contingent upon a favorable outcome of
the negotiations with the City on property acquisition and parking. Strategic Plan Goal 2 is to provide
community facilities that meet existing and future needs.
Based on the Board’s direction, staff is continuing discussions with the City on the acquisition of
the Levy properties and the development of a parking solution, and has submitted a FY15 Capital
Improvement Program request that commences design in the summer. The purpose of this presentation
is to provide background information regarding the study and the Board’s prior discussions on the courts
developments options and a status report on the project.
The total CIP request for the courts project is approximately $43-Million over a 7-year period.
Staff requests that the Board review the Board’s prior direction to staff and provide direction to
advance the courts project.
___________
Mr. Bill Letteri, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that the County
operates three court systems downtown: the Circuit Court, General District Court, and a joint Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court. He said the Board of Supervisors have acknowledged that the facilities
need to be expanded due to increasing caseloads; an inadequate number of courtrooms, facilities and
waiting spaces; security concerns and the overall deterioration and condition of the current courts which
support the need to make a pretty substantial investment in court facilities . Mr. Letteri said, in 2011, the
Board directed staff to engage a consultant, PSA Dewberry, and to present a series of options for the
Board to consider, including current and future.
Mr. Letteri stated he and Mr. Henry would be providing a high level summary of the outcome of
the Needs Assessment, the various options, and how to proceed forward. He said the second step would
be to discuss the prior Boards’ direction as it relates to those options. Mr. Letteri said staff wants to make
sure the Board understands in which direction staff is headed now. He said the last step would be for staff
to provide an update on the status of where they are. Mr. Letteri s aid, at the end of today’s meeting, staff
will need the Board’s direction as follows: a) whether it wants to move forward with current changes, or b)
change the course on how it should continue with the project.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development (OFD), stated that the County
had contracted with PSA Dewberry, an experienced designer of courts, based in Fairfax, VA. He said
staff also utilized an outfit from the National Center for State Courts, which does data mining and
projections of court needs. Mr. Henry said both of those sources helped put together a report which was
shared with the previous Board. He said the purpose of the study was to assess the courts’ current
conditions/needs, and to look at caseload projections based on population growth and other data. In
February 2011, he said county staff issued an RFP and the contract with PSA Dewberry was awarded in
August of that year. Mr. Henry said the last 18 months have been spent working with the consultants
preparing data analysis, conducting meetings and interviews, assessments of current conditions, various
options for the future, etc. Mr. Henry said staff presented those results to the Board just over a year ago,
at which time, it narrowed the options down to two, and this was then followed up with meetings of key
court personnel, including judges, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office, the Sheriff, Clerks of Court,
public defenders, etc. to review those options. He stated that there was overwhelming support from that
group to remain downtown, and staff reported back to the Board in May 2013 at which time Supervisors
directed staff to proceed with vetting the downtown option, authorized staff to appraise the joint properties
owned in collaboration with the City and evaluate the parking situation, as well as proceeding with a CIP
submission for the 2015 planning cycle.
Mr. Henry presented a graphic showing the court building orientation downtown, noting that the
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court was renovated in 2009, however, that does not play into the overall
recommendation, because the current facility should meet court needs for the next 20 years. He stated
that the Levy Building is in a “mothballed state,” and is currently being used for records storage. Mr.
Henry said the building is jointly owned with the City, and the parking lot is a separate p arcel. He said the
Jessup House is a building that is jointly owned with the City, is currently being rented, and provides a
revenue stream for both. He added that the 7th & Market Street parking lot is also jointly owned with the
City. Mr. Henry stated there have been lots of parking concerns raised with downtown, but if one
measures the distance from the parking deck to the courts complex, it is only 200 yards.
Mr. Henry stated that Section One of the report details the history of the courts and is primarily to
report out on the facility conditions. He stated that security and circulation is noted as a concern
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
throughout the report and is one of the drivers to make improvements. He said there are some space
restrictions, with insufficient courtroom space currently with some hearings being held in meeting rooms
that are not designed for court activity. Mr. Henry said many of the systems were designed in the late
1980’s, and it would take several million dollars to upgrade those, if nothing else were done. He stated
that Chang Ming, a well-renowned leader of the National Center for State Courts, was contracted by the
state to provide an overview for the entire state where he looked at projected population growth to
forecast needs currently, through 2030, 2040 and beyond. Mr. Henry said the outcome of that process
was finding that, in 20 years, two court sets would accommodate the growth, but there may be a need for
a third set out beyond 2040. He said it was determined that there is a need to separate prisoner
movement from the public and judicial movement, provide a separate and more secure space for the
Commonwealth’s Attorney, and adequate, secured record storage for now and into the future.
Mr. Henry said the study evaluated and developed a courts renovation program which includes
about 90,000 square feet to meet the needs of both Circuit and General District Court. He stated that the
program also defines a “court set” as a new concept including the courtroom as the main feature, with
chambers for the judges. Included in this concept, he explained, are adjacent areas for the jurors to
deliberate and separate spaces for prisoner holding. Mr. Henry presented a schematic drawing of the
first of three options, noting the location of the existing courts in relation to High Street and other
landmarks. He stated that the premise for selecting the downtown option would be to take advantage of
the Levy Building/Opera House, which is a historic building. He said this plan would demolish the annex,
renovate the building, add a new addition of at least two floors to build out the two court sets and provide
space for the Clerk’s offices and records storage. Mr. Henry said the phasing would proceed with the
demolition of the addition, followed by renovations to the Levy Building. He said once that work is
completed, the Commonwealth’s Attorney would relocate to this space and, once the addition work is
done, that would allow the General District Court to relocate, and then renovation for the existing courts
complex for Circuit Court would be last. He stated that the process is anticipated to take six or seven
years, as reflected in the current CIP request, and would begin with design in calendar year July 2014.
Ms. Palmer asked if other parking options had been explored, as it is not uncommon to go to the
downtown parking garage and not be able to find a space. Mr. Henry stated that this issue was
previously discussed with the Board and staff was advised to move forward using the downtown option as
its primary option. He said a split option is still in the background for two reasons: 1) to see how the
acquisition of Levy would work with the City and to gather appraisals and 2) to meet with the City to
discuss parking solutions.
Mr. Letteri said, at the end of discussion of all three options, he would come back to the Board
and talk about parking options.
Mr. Henry stated that this design cost includes only secure parking at Levy for judges, attorneys,
etc. but none for the public.
Mr. Henry reported that the second option is a hybrid option which involves splitting the Circuit
and General District Courts. He said this option would follow the same renovation process as the
previous one but the General District Court would be built in a to-be-determined space in the County,
presumably on land it already owns. He said, from a cost perspective, it is about the same as the
downtown option – with the variable being the acquisition cost of Levy and any potential additional costs
which might be required for parking. Mr. Henry said the study for the Circuit Court contemplated a “bump-
out” addition to that facility and, last summer, the Board had received a letter from the Albemarle
Historical Society expressing concern about that. He stated that the concept was for programming and
cost-estimate purposes. He explained that the best practice is to put the judge chambers and jury
deliberation rooms adjacent to the courtroom, however, the actual design may not be able to achieve that,
due to stakeholder concerns. He said the biggest concern with the split operations would be the potential
burden on sheriffs, commonwealth’s attorney, etc. regarding movement from court to court. Mr. Henry
stated that the downtown concept allows attorneys and police to cover cases at courts which are close to
one another; therefore, there are some operational concerns about this concept.
Mr. Henry said the final option was a complete relocation of all the court complexes to a site in
Albemarle County. He stated that this option would mean moving the Circuit Court, the General D istrict
Court, the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Court Services Unit to a new,
90,000 square foot facility. He said the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court is anticipated to remain in its
current location with some split operation for a period of 10-20 years. Mr. Henry stated there are
advantages to moving two large court functions into one place; however, there are issues such as the
referendum required in order to move the County seat , which was one of the least supported options of
the stakeholder group. He said the cost will range between $48-52 million including the site location and
the land acquisition if it is not a County-owned facility.
Ms. Mallek asked if the issue of separating the flow of people would exist with either Option One
or Option Two due to the location of the Circuit Court. Mr. Henry confirmed that it would.
Ms. Mallek asked if the cost differential from downtown to a split would mostly be in the event
additional parking was included, such as a deck. Mr. Henry said it would be a cost estimate of an
additional $2-3 million on top of the $42 million.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County would still have to make a considerable investment in the current
facilities to get them through the 10 years it would take to accomplish that. Mr. Henry said any of the
options are 7-9 years with some immediate needs being addressed now. He noted that his office and
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
General Services have met with Judge Barkley to look at the current constraints they have, and are
looking for some short-term relief to that situation. Mr. Henry stated that he attended several court
sessions in the fall, and it was pretty remarkable, in terms of the “controlled chaos”, and how well they
handle it. He said if they went to the third option, there would need to be some additional work done to
keep the current operation functioning over the next several years.
Mr. Foley stated that, during the discussions of moving the courts out to an alternate site, the
possibility that it might spur some economic development in that area was considered. He stated that a
public/private partnership might allow the County to develop a new court complex, generate some
economic activity, and provide more modern facilities. He said the cost difference between the $42
million and the $48 million reflects the land acquisition cost. W ith a public/private partnership, he
explained that someone could come to the table with property and the County would put the infrastructure
in for the courts, then the owner could have space that was more usable. Mr. Foley stated that the
master plan for Places 29 talks about “midtown” around the Rio/29 interchange and “uptown” around the
Airport Road/29 intersection. He stated that the idea of moving out into the County leverages the
public/private partnership, while providing more modern facilities. He said there is the possibility that
population growth would necessitate another move from downtown in the future, after the current
renovation is done and paid for, which would give the County limited options.
Mr. Letteri said, based on prior Board direction to proceed with the downtown option, the first step
was to acquire the Levy property. He explained that the City and County had jointly purchased three
properties downtown – the Levy property, the 7th & Market Street property, and the Jessup property,
which is adjacent to Levy. Mr. Letteri said the concept was the County would relinquish its ownership of
the 7th and Jessup properties back to the City and, in turn, the City would provide full title to the Levy
property. He stated that, as part of that process and in accordance with the joint ownership agreement,
they appraised the three properties and, based on that assessment, the net cost to the County would be
about $300,000 to acquire the Levy property outright. Mr. Letteri said the City is prepared to proceed with
that, if the County is so inclined. He stated that the second part was related to parking concerns, as has
been mentioned. He said he has had numerous conversations with the City about how to either provide
dedicated parking or mitigate parking concerns. He reported that the City feels, with the additional added
space, the two parking decks and the on-street parking, that there is adequate space to handle the
County’s needs. He said the City also suggested the County participate in the “stamp” program , which
gives court users two free hours of parking. He stated that, if the County decides to utilize the “stamp”
program, it would have to subsidize that program and analysis of that suggestion is underway now. Mr.
Letteri said a third discussion was related to a possible deck being built in the downtown area in the
future, and the City has suggested that the County might partner with them in that effort.
Mr. Letteri said the County continues to be in discussion mode with the City and, at this point, is
waiting for further direction from the Board on how to proceed.
Ms. Mallek stated that, if there is no space, the stamp program does not do any good. She said
two hours does not do much good in court, because one never knows how long you are going to be there.
She asked if purchasing the Levy building in the land swap would provide enough squar e footage to
implement the new General District Court on the larger lot. Mr. Letteri said it would.
Ms. Mallek suggested getting that particular project under control prior to moving onto the next
phase of negotiations. Mr. Foley said it could be argued that it was necessary to do because of int erim
solutions, even if the Board decided to do something completely different.
Ms. Palmer asked if staff had exhausted all the possibilities for additional parking on the Levy
property, and wondered if there was anything innovative that could be done for above or below-ground
parking. Mr. Letteri said the consultants have advised not to put public parking underneath a court facility
because of security issues, therefore, the only parking proposed in the downtown option is about 24
spaces for staff along with secure parking for the judges.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the security concerns were with parking g oing under the court building.
Mr. Foley and Mr. Henry explained that the Oklahoma City bombing event changed the practice of putting
public parking under court buildings, unless it is secure parking.
Mr. Boyd said he was never a strong supporter of the downtown location, primarily because of the
parking issues. He stated that he went along with it due to the general consensus of the Board. He said
he would not be opposed to considering opportunities to move the Court Complex out of the downtown
area.
Ms. Mallek agreed, but emphasized she would like to get the Levy transaction resolved first.
Ms. McKeel said it sounds to her as though the Levy building is needed regardless.
Mr. Henry stated that staff would need to evaluate it further, adding that the County is currently
using the building for record storage. He said there have been some discussions about expanding some
General District Court operations in the interim.
Mr. Letteri said, when the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court was being built, renovations to
Levy were made to accommodate that court for a period of time. He stated that those renovations and
improvements still exist and could possibly serve as a swing space to alleviate some immediate
problems.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Foley said, if the County were to build a new complex out in the County, the time required to
build that would mean some solutions would be necessary in the interim. He stated that, if the County
purchased the Levy building and used it for three to five-years, it could then be put on the market once
the new facility is completed.
Ms. McKeel said she is very concerned about the parking situation downtown, and $40 million is
taking the CIP to a new level. She said the parking issue is huge and she has concerns regarding it.
She said the County has been talking about this court process for a very long time and, if the users want
to stay downtown but parking remains an issue, perhaps there could be a work session to discuss it. Ms.
McKeel said she thinks this would help the Board move past square one.
Ms. Mallek said she would love to do that, but only after the Levy building transaction is complete .
She said she has concerns that the process may fall apart if the conversation diverts elsewhere.
Ms. Dittmar agreed that a meeting with the court users and the City would be a good idea, as
there have not been a lot of occasions for them to sit down and discuss it. She also said pulling the
courts away from each other will also create a burden on the judges.
Mr. Henry clarified that multiple meetings were held with the judges. At the March 2013
stakeholder meeting, attendees included the judges, the commonwealth attorney, sheriff’s office, the bar
association representative, and others. The meeting was very comprehensive and they went through the
entire process in-depth, including all of the options and floor plans. He said there was strong feedback
among them to stay downtown and not split the court operations. The City did not participate in that
particular meeting, as it was solely for County Court function. Mr. Henry stated that staff could reconvene
that group for additional discussion if necessary.
Ms. Dittmar said it would be helpful for the new Supervisors to hear directly from the people being
affected by it.
Mr. Foley said staff could bring everyone back together and do some additional presentations and
the Board could then have a conversation about the outcome of that meeting.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to hold a meeting and invite the City to attend. At this point, she
said she did not feel she could move forward with a downtown option unless the parking issue is
resolved. She stated that we are one community and there must be a way to figure this out. Perhaps,
she stated, a few select people could be invited to attend and provide representation for the different
stakeholders.
Ms. Palmer asked if the option of moving the entire courts complex to another location could
handle all of the ancillary offices which have been discussed previously.
Mr. Henry said that option was presented to the Board in February 2013, and the option which
emerged from that session was to narrow it to two options. He stated that the Board had discounted
moving all of the court functions into the County, so it was not presented to the stakeholder group.
Mr. Foley said that would be a question for the community/Board roundtable, and whether the
Board wants to bring that option back on the table is up to Supervisors.
Ms. Palmer said, from what she is hearing, the split option is the one that should be off the table.
She said the County should either solve the parking problem or do a much larger project.
Ms. McKeel said she still think s there is a way to bring people together and talk about the parking
situation.
Ms. Mallek stated that she is happy to move forward, but she wants to see if there is support from
the Board to conclude the Levy swap.
Mr. Boyd said parking was part of that conversation, and asked if she wanted to drop parking as
part of the issue.
Ms. Mallek said, for the Levy swap alone, she would be willing to go ahead with it as presented,
because it gives the Board some certainty on the ability to function for five years.
Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer agreed.
Ms. Dittmar suggested convening a stakeholder meeting before the Board’s second meeting in
April with judges, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, etc.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that the Board seems to be moving in the direction of trying to micro-
manage staff, adding that these were tasks which were left to staff to do before. He said staff met with all
of the stakeholders, and reported back to the Board on the findings with some of the stakeholders even
addressing the Board. Mr. Boyd said it is not his job as a Supervisor to micro-manage staff in this way.
He stated that the Board either needs to rely on staff to do the legwork and do the meetings with
stakeholders, or take over the sessions themselves.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Dittmar said Supervisors do not want to micro-manage staff but, in this particular instance, it
is the Board’s responsibility to listen to stakeholders and figure everything out. She stated that she was
not part of that discussion the previous year, and neither were several other Supervisors . With that in
mind, she said she would like to hear directly from the citizens.
Mr. Boyd said he understands, however, he is more concerned with how the Board is
approaching things conceptually. He said he does not want to get to the point where the Board would be
taking over staff’s responsibilities, such as negotiating with the City on parking, taking over the
stakeholder meetings, etc. He said he does not want to set that as a precedent. He stated that he
understands doing it in this situation, but he does not want to see the Board move in that direction.
Mr. Foley stated that the work staff has done to get to this point has been valuable. He stated,
however, that the County is at a point now where a stakeholder meeting with the Board present may be
needed. He said this could help get the Board to the next stage of the process. He said, if the Board
wants to leave the possibility of moving out into the County on the table due to parking and the cost of the
project, it would be healthy to hold an open discussion. Mr. Foley said staff would check the schedule to
see if the Board can accommodate a work session prior to the second meeting in April, which is the night
meeting.
Mr. Davis said, if the Board wants to have judges and the Commonwealth’s Attorney present,
staff will want to check schedules first.
Commonwealth’s Attorney, Denise Lunsford ,addressed the Board and said she would like very
much to have the opportunity to speak with the Board directly, and asked for suggested dates. She
stated that an afternoon meeting would be preferable for judges.
Ms. McKeel said it would be important to clarify that this is not another public hearing.
Mr. Foley suggested a representative from the City and the Bar Association also be invited along
with the Judges and Commonwealth’s Attorney. He asked the Board if it wanted anyone else to be in
attendance.
Ms. Dittmar suggested Judge Downer be invited, as he handles General District Court and fills in
frequently for Judge Barkley. She also asked if the County had talked with the City about its needs for
General District Court, stating that she had informally asked Mayor Huja about it.
Mr. Foley said the properties were purchased jointly, with the thought that the City would also
have the same needs. He stated that it was determined from the study, however, that the City did not.
Mr. Letteri stated that the County started a joint study with the City in 2001 to look at the long-
term needs of the courts and, for some time, the City had expected doing a joint General District Court.
He said several different options were identified at that time, with the Levy property being the most viable
one. Since that time, he said the City has signaled it no longer needs to expand the General District
Court and no longer is interested in a joint project in Levy.
Ms. McKeel said this should be part of the discussion when this group meets together.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the County’s costs would likely come down if the City was interested in a
joint General District project.
Mr. Foley said the County would probably realize some cost savings, and the possibility of a
partnership is certainly something staff would need to determine. He stated that the County has been in
negotiation with the City on its desired disposal of Levy, since the City does not feel they need it for a joint
project. He said the terms of the exchange would need to be discussed in closed session, given a price
difference.
Mr. Letteri stated that the County has an agreement with the City which relates to the ownership
of these three properties. He said this agreement dictates how these entities would go about disposing or
acquiring the properties.
Mr. Foley suggested that staff pull the facts and figures together on this and have a closed
session, then determine how to proceed at that point.
Board members agreed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Photosafe Program – Three-year Analysis.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on December 12, 2010, the Police
Department activated the County’s Photosafe Program at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio
Road. The photo enforcement technology captures incidents involving the running of red light traffic
signals for all southbound lanes of Seminole Trail and all eastbound lanes of Rio Road. The purpose of
this presentation is to provide a comprehensive review of the system after three years of data.
The total number of crashes at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road decreased
16.22% from 2010 (37) to 2013 (31). The number of crashes in the southbound lanes of Seminole Trail
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
and the eastbound lanes of Rio Road decreased 30.00% from 2010 (20) to 2013 (14). These numbers
show that the number of crashes in the monitored lanes averages approximately 53.10% of the crashes
in the intersection. The number of crashes due to red light running on southbound Seminole Trail and
eastbound Rio Road also decreased 50.00% from 2010 (6) to 2013 (3). Note that the percent change
may appear larger than the actual impact due to the small sample size.
Most types of crashes decreased in frequency from 2010 to 2013. Notably, angle crashes
decreased 45.45% (11 in 2010, 6 in 2013), sideswipe crashes decreased 25.00% (4 in 2010, 3 in 2013),
and rear-impact crashes decreased by 20.00% in 2013 (5 in 2010, 4 in 2013). The percentage of increase
in head-on crashes could not be calculated, as there were 0 crashes in 2010 and there was 1 crash in
2013.
The number of serious injury crashes in the monitored lanes has fluctuated over the last 4 years.
There were 2 serious injury crashes in 2010, 5 in 2011, 4 in 2012, and 3 in 2013. This is a 50.00%
increase from 2010 to 2013, though the percentage increase is deceptive as the numbers are very small.
The total injur y crashes for the monitored lanes of the intersection increased 66.67% from 2010 (3) to
2013 (5). It should be noted, however, that the crashes resulting in serious injuries were generally not the
result of rear-impact crashes. In 2013, 2 crashes resulting in serious injury were angle crashes, and the
other was a head-on crash.
Further, in examining the total number of crashes that resulted in injuries in the entire intersection,
the percentage of those that resulted in serious injuries has decreased steadily since the installation of
red light cameras. In 2010, there were 4 total injury crashes with all 4 of those crashes (100.00%)
resulting in serious injuries. In 2013, there were 8 total crashes that resulted in injuries, but only 5 of these
(62.50%) resulted in serious injuries.
Regarding the causes of the crashes on southbound Seminole Trail and eastbound Rio Road, the
most common was driver error (28 from 2010 through 2013). Illegal turns (13), failure to obey the traffic
signals (9), hit and runs (8), and driver quick stops (7) were also cited as reasons why crashes occu rred.
Driver quick stops include incidents in which one vehicle stopped quickly either to avoid another vehicle
or to stop at the traffic light. Of interest in this study, there was an increase in reported driver quick stops
in 2011 after the installation of the red light cameras (5 in 2011, 2 in 2010). However, this was not
reported as a factor for a crash in 2012 or 2013. In the three years that the red light cameras have been
active, only twice did drivers involved in crashes mention quick stops as a possible factor in their crash (1
in 2011, 1 in 2013).
The collected data indicates that driver behavior has changed as well. In 2011, there were 6,187
summonses issued. This number decreased to 5,656 in 2012 and to 4,695 in 2013. These figures
indicate a 24.12% reduction in the number of red light summonses issued between 2011 and 2013. As
expected, based on the number of summonses issued, revenue from the red light camera also
decreased.
The program still requires an investment of staff time to administer (approximately 170 hours
annually). For each violation captured by the Photosafe system, Redflex rejects 27%. The remaining
violations are forwarded to traffic enforcement officers for review, where an additional 17% are rejected.
Officers are then required to attend General District Court to provide testimony for cases where violators
contest the charges. Contested cases average 3 per year.
Recently, the National Motorist Association has voiced concerns over the timing of the yellow
lights and the use of red light cameras. More specifically, it is objecting to the formula used by VDOT to
calculate the yellow turn interval on eastbound Rio Road. Its calculations conclude that the appropriate
timing should be set to 4.5 seconds, not the current 4 seconds. In 2010, a County engineering safety
analysis of the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road was conducted. This study confirmed that the
clearance interval of the yellow light for all lanes was set to 4.00 seconds. The National Motorist
Association (NMA) believes that VDOT is not accurately applying the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) recommended methodology in determining the proper length of time for the yellow turn
signal. Staff consulted with VDOT, and VDOT has concluded that it is in compliance with ITE standards
and that the yellow interval on Eastbound Rio Road is properly timed in accordance with law. It should be
noted that the Photosafe system provides an additional 0.5-second grace period between the time the
signal turns red and the time the first violation is recorded. This provides a 4.5-second total clearance
interval for the traffic light before a violation is recorded.
The Photosafe Program generated $82,787 of revenue in 2011, $88,227 in 2012, and $57,270 in
2013. These revenues pay for the administration of the Program with the balance designated for traffic
safety and accident prevention programs. Revenues will decrease as driver behavior improves and the
number of summonses trends downward.
Based on the data available, including evidence of an overall decline in crashes and a positive
change in driver behavior as evidenced by a decrease in summonses, staff’s opinion is that the Photosafe
Program is working as intended and therefore recommends that the Board continue the program.
_____
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Colonel Steve Sellers, Albemarle County Chief of Police, addressed the Board. Col. Sellers
introduced Jenny Zowich who is the new Crime Analyst for the department and the architect of the study.
He stated that activation and enforcement of the current photo-safe system began in January 2011, and
provides photo enforcement for southbound US 29 and eastbound Rio Road. Col. Sellers said the yellow
traffic signal cycle time is set to four seconds, with another half-second added as a “grace period,” for a
total of 4.5 seconds before a summons is issued. He stated that violations are reviewed by Red-Flex
employees, where approximately 27% are rejected, and the remaining violations are forwarded to the
Albemarle County Police Department Traffic Unit for review where an additional 17% are rejected. Col.
Sellers said violations are rejected for a number of different reasons, i.e., glare from the sun or large
trucks perhaps blocking a driver’s view.
Col. Sellers stated that, once the violations are reviewed by a traffic enforcement officer, violators
are mailed a notice by the vendor. He said vehicle owners who are not the driver of the car at the time of
the incident can mail an affidavit certifying they were not driving the vehicle and these cases are typically
dismissed. Col. Sellers said individuals wishing to contest their ticket can go to traffic court and have
their case heard adding that, on average, three individuals per month go to court to contest the charge.
Col. Sellers said violators are provided a link when they are mailed their violation notice, so they can view
their video and photograph on line. He explained that current law provides adequate protection for
individuals concerned about privacy, and the state code says the data must be used for traffic light
enforcement. Col. Sellers stated that the data is protected from unauthorized disclosure, and is purged
from the system within 60 days of the collection of the fine. He said, in instances where a summons is
not issued, data is destroyed within 2 to 12 days with the only exception being a valid court order.
Mr. Sheffield asked what data was included in the purge of the system. Col. Sellers said video
and photographs are all purged from the system.
Col. Sellers explained that the purpose of the red-light system is to reduce the most serious types
of crashes, the angle or T-bone crashes at light-controlled intersections through both education and
enforcement. He said there is a large sign on Route 29 at Rio Road which indicates “Photo Enforcement
Ahead.” Col. Sellers said it ultimately strives to improve driver behavior in an effort to save lives and
reduce serious injuries. He stated that the study itself evaluates the overall number of crashes due to red-
light running, types of crashes, serious injuries and injury crashes. Col. Sellers said serious injuries are
defined as those which require transport by ambulance to the hospital, with injury crashes ranging from
minor to more severe. He stated that they also study changes in driving behavior, revenue and revenue
use.
Col. Sellers said the study is very detailed and, for purposes of the study, they compared four
years of data: 2010 through 2013. He stated that, when compared to 2010, overall crashes at the
intersection were down 16.22% and, for the monitored lanes, those where the camera is monitoring for
violations, red-light running crashes have reduced 50% from 2010 to 2013. Col. Sellers said rear-end
crashes for the monitored lanes have decreased 20% since 2010, with a significant spike in 2011 after
the installation of the system which is another indication that drivers’ behavior in this region has changed
as a result of the system. He stated that rear-end collisions are much less injurious than angle or T-bone
crashes, primarily due to better occupant protection measures in the front and rear of vehicles. Col.
Sellers said, while the number of crashes resulting in injury increased, the percentage of those crashes
with serious injuries in which EMS was needed decreased. He reported another indicator of drivers’
behavior can be found in the number of summonses issued from the system, and the study shows a
steady decline since the system was installed with 24.1% of motorists traveling through the intersection
changing their driving behavior.
Col. Sellers stated that the County has made it a priority to reinvest the revenue from the red-light
camera program into other traffic safety initiatives. He said they have purchased variable message
boards, public service announcements, ligar devices, traffic study technology, traffic safety cones, texting
and driving simulators, and a traffic officer through BOS-authorized funding. He said the reinvestment of
revenue has contributed to its success as a County in reducing crashes and traffic fatalities and injuries at
a rate of 15.1% countywide from 2012 to 2013. Col. Sellers stated that there was a spike in revenue in
2012, which is a result of the summons during the spike in 2011 that were not paid until the carryover
year.
Col. Sellers said, last year, the Board approved the installation of a second system at the
intersection of US Route 250 and State Route 20, however, due to area congestion concerns, pedestrian
safety concerns and ongoing traffic studies in the general area of the intersection, which could impact the
intersection in the near future, the County traffic engineer has recommended delaying installation of a
system at that location at this time. Col. Sellers said the Police Department is willing to reevaluate other
intersections at the Board’s request, as staff does have a list of the top crash intersections.
Col. Sellers stated that there is an ongoing conflict between the National Motorists Association
(NMA) and certain Virginia cities with photo red-light camera enforcement and VDOT regarding the
application and interpretation of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Formula for setting the yellow
light timing, particularly the left turn timing at East Rio Road onto Route 29 North. Col. Sellers said Mr.
Joe Mahon of the NMA has shared his personal analysis of VDOT’s calculation on the yellow turn timing
for US 29 and eastbound Rio Road, and has asked the County to stop photo red-light enforcement in the
left turn area on eastbound Rio Road. He said Mr. Mahon believes VDOT should reset the timing to 4.5
seconds to allow motorists time to safely traverse the intersection when turning left. He said, currently,
the left turn yellow light signal is set at an interval of four seconds by VDOT . Col. Sellers said the photo-
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
red camera is set to begin enforcement at 4.5 seconds, giving motorists ample time to traverse the
intersection before a summons is issued.
Ms. Mallek said it was her understanding that the 4.5 seconds begins when one crosses the bar
entering the intersection and not how long it takes to get through it. Col. Sellers confirmed that was the
case.
Col. Sellers reported that he had communicated with Joel DeNunzio at VDOT and his traffic
engineer in this region insisted that VDOT is properly following the ITE formula. Col. Sellers said Mr.
DeNunzio was rechecking with VDOT Headquarters for verification and would report back to the Police
Department. He stated that, if the information comes in revealing that VDOT must modify the timing, the
Board will be notified.
Col. Sellers said there has been information in the media about Redflex, the photo-safe camera
company, and some of its practices in larger jurisdictions such as Chicago, and allegations of bribery of
public officials have emerged. He stated that he has found the company to be an excellent vendor, very
responsive and ethical adding that no offers or bribery have been made to him or his staff. Col. Sellers
said he and his department members have not had any contact with the specific individuals who were let
go by the Red-Flex company. In conclusion, he said the department recommends that the County
continue with the photo red-light enforcement program. He pointed out that four years of data show the
photo-safe camera has reduced the most serious types of crashes due to red-light running and has
changed driver behavior that has resulted in fewer violations.
Mr. Sheffield asked Col. Sellers to email a list of problematic intersections, in terms of accidents,
and asked what the contingency plan is should the red-light company go out of business. Col. Sellers said
they would have to go back through the usual procurement process and reevaluate what vendors are
available, then follow those procedures.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the largest issue of summons is eastbound Rio Road, right turn, and
asked Col. Sellers what his sense is regarding people not coming to a complete stop at the light.
Ms. Zowich said the great thing about the review process is there are sworn officers reviewing the
turns being made, ensuring that people are stopping and then turning, instead of just rolling through.
Mr. Sheffield asked how that would compare countywide, to see how the red-light camera makes
a difference. Col. Sellers said staff would provide that information to him.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Pantops photo red-light camera was not going to happen now. Mr. Sellers
said there are some concerns being worked through with the Fontana community that relate to
congestion at the intersection and the changing of the timing of the traffic light at the intersection that
VDOT implemented there to reduce congestion. He stated that they need that to settle down first prior to
embarking on the red-light camera project.
Mr. Boyd stated that there are some re-laning projects slated for that intersection, and he has
been trying for some time to get those done with VDOT.
Ms. Mallek said she is distressed to hear it is being postponed, as the calm that exists at Rio
since this was installed has made it much safer for everyone. She stated that, if one is going 45 mph,
they should have plenty of time to stop in four seconds if the light turns to yellow.
Mr. Boyd asked if the City was still backing out of the plan to put a photo-red camera at the
intersection of Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. Mr. Sellers said that intersection is still at the top of the list,
as it is a high-crash intersection, and there are portions of that intersection in the County so they could
put a system on the county side.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Boyd if the Pantops Community Advisory Council could help with the
Fontana community.
Mr. Boyd said it is not an issue they have addressed, and Fontana’s concern is the cut-through
traffic because people are avoiding the intersection by winding through their neighborhood. He explained
that there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood, so people are walking in the streets while the cars are
cutting through. He noted that they are working to increase the fines and looking at a few other measures
to help reduce that behavior.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Report on the Health and Welfare of the Volunteer Fire and EMS System .
The executive summary forwarded to Board members stated that Albemarle County Code § 6-
107 (Attachment B) sets forth certain specific responsibilities of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services
(FEMS) Board. One responsibility of the FEMS Board is to “…report at least annually to the board of
supervisors regarding the health and welfare of the volunteer system.” Accordingly, FEMS Board
members and County staff have worked collaboratively to prepare the 2014 Report on the Health and
Welfare of the Volunteer Fire and EMS System (Attachment A). This is the first such report on the
volunteer system since the adoption of the ordinance creating the FEMS Board and establishin g its
responsibilities.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
At its regular meeting in December 2013, the FEMS Board appointed a Committee to work with
Tom LaBelle, Chief of Volunteer Services, to develop a comprehensive report on the Health and Welfare
of the Volunteer Fire and EMS System for presentation to the Board of Supervisors. The Committee
included Chief Officers from the Charlottesville Albemarle Volunteer Rescue Squad, the Scottsville
Volunteer Fire Department, and the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department. The Committee, worki ng
with Fire Rescue staff, created a specific outline for the report, which was later approved by the FEMS
Board at its January 2014 regular meeting. The attached report is consistent with the outline approved by
the FEMS Board.
In preparing the report, the Committee recognized that some context was needed to enable the
Board of Supervisors to more fully understand the broader challenges facing emergency services
volunteerism nationally, many of which are faced here locally. To this end, the Committee primarily
utilized the study by the US Fire Administration and St. Joseph’s University from 2007 entitled: Retention
and Recruitment for the Volunteer Emergency Services, Challenges and Solutions (Attachment C) as a
resource. In this study a number of key strategies and concepts supporting the success of the Volunteer
Fire and EMS service, at both a national and local level, are identified. These strategies, along with
information gleaned from key volunteers within the local Fire & EMS system, help form th e foundation of
the Report on the Health and Welfare of the Volunteer Fire and EMS System. In addition, the Report
includes a summary of each of the volunteer agencies, including the number of volunteers, current chief
officers, annual budget, geographic size of the first due response area, and apparatus in service.
Overall, the County Volunteer Fire and EMS system is robust and healthy. Currently, the total
number of reported operational volunteers is 687. This includes 322 firefighting volunteers and 3 65 EMS
volunteers (Note: these totals do not reflect the number of administrative and support volunteers, which is
not known at this time.) Over the last year the volunteer system experienced meaningful development,
including the addition of 86 new volunteers, the graduation of 160 volunteers from County-sponsored
basic training courses (Fire Fighter/Fire Attack, Driver/Pump Operator, etc.), and the graduation of 23
volunteers from County-sponsored Hazardous Materials courses. Finally, a total of 40 volunteers have
either graduated or are anticipated to graduate from various County sponsored EMT courses that began
during 2013.
Although the Volunteer Fire and EMS system is healthy, the Committee identified two key
recruitment and retention strategies to help ensure that it remains so. These strategies are referred to as
the Pathway to Joining and the Pathway to Fulfillment.
The Pathway to Joining relies on several basic assumptions, including that citizens volunteer
locally in order to protect and give back to the community in which they live. For this reason, local identity
and connection with the community is a key marketing effort successfully used by many volunteer
agencies. To date, Albemarle County has used County-wide recruitment campaigns funded primarily by
federal grants, such as the Join campaign and the marketing aspect of the Volunteer Workforce Solutions
(VWS). Future recruitment efforts will focus more locally and will capitalize on unique branding rather
than choosing a more generic County-wide brand. Data available at the local level through the VWS
grant program (see report - Attachment D) will be used to support this effort.
The Pathway to Joining envisions a clear and concise procedure for becoming a volunteer.
Accordingly, the FEMS Board and Fire Rescue staff continue to streamline processes and reduce
administrative burdens to the extent possible. For example, the addition of Line of Duty Act (LODA)
physicals, while very beneficial for volunteer member health and safety, has caused additional
administrative work. Staff and volunteer leaders are working to clarify and simplify this process, as well as
other administrative processes that might be seen as barriers to becoming a volunteer. The Pathway to
Joining also includes a clear process for training and release to serve to perform as a provider. Staff, the
FEMS Board training committee, and the FEMS Board have worked closely together for the last several
months and are in the final stages of adopting a formalized release process. This release process not
only helps to increase consistency in response levels, but also provides a clear process for releasing
volunteer personnel.
Staff will work closely with the newly re-formed County Recruitment and Retention (R&R)
Committee, made up of representatives from all of our volunteer Fire & EMS agencies, to ensure the
success of the Pathway to Joining. The Comm ittee now meets monthly to assist with administering the
volunteer process, recruiting new members, helping to establish mentors to assist new members in
becoming released providers, and creating/implementing strategies for the retention of existing member s.
The Pathway to Fulfillment is an important strategy to help ensure that volunteers remain
engaged and have on-going positive volunteer experiences. Supporting volunteers with strong programs
focused on education, training, and personal development is a key component to retaining volunteers.
Additionally, because volunteer retention is much more effective than recruitment for attaining quality
volunteer participation, ensuring that members understand and get the most out of membership benefits
is vital. The County offers many benefits to volunteers to aid in retention, but not all of them are well
known or fully utilized by members and their families. The FEMS Board and staff intend to review the
benefit programs over the next year in an effort to identify the most effective ways to recruit and retain
volunteers.
In summary, the key strategies tied to the Pathway to Joining and the Pathway to Fulfillment
include the following elements:
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Keep local volunteerism local:
Focus on community rather than County-wide with an emphasis on local branding;
Unify outreach efforts through a renewed Recruitment and Retention Committee that
supports all stations/ efforts;
Increase communications through social media, public safety announcements, and
advertising;
Continue to use the VWS data for focused marketing of new and diverse membership.
Create a clear process for new volunteers:
Ensure everyone within and joining the system understands how to become a volunteer;
Provide training for members on effective recruitment of new members;
Assist in local and regional outreach for volunteers during community events.
Ensure members get “the most” from their volunteering:
Assist volunteers in developing clear pathways to job functions and titles;
Provide access to training, including corporate/organizational training beyond standard
roles;
Increase levels of volunteer benefits, including both long-term and short-term tangible
items.
No additional funding is being requested at this time.
This executive summary is for information only and no action is required at this time.
_____
Mr. Tom LaBelle, Division Chief for Volunteer Services, addressed the Board. Mr. LaBelle stated
that this report is required under Albemarle County Code, Section 6107, and is actually a report of the
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS) Board. Mr. LaBelle said, in December 2013, the FEMS
Board put together a working committee and members include Tim Cersley of the Scottsville Volunteer
Fire Department, Dayton Haugh of Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue System (CARS), and Chief Danny
Tawney of the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. LaBelle said several meetings were held
and discussion involved an overarching strategy and theme for the report, which was brought back to the
FEMS Board and subsequently approved. He stated that, as a group, they decided it would be helpful to
start with some national context for the report and the good news is volunteerism in general is up;
however, the type of volunteerism tends to be different. Mr. LaBelle said there is a trend toward “guerilla
volunteerism,” with a short timeframe rather than a long-term commitment, such as what is required for
fire and EMS.
Mr. LaBelle stated that the committee looked at the U.S. Fire Administration’s 2007 report –
“Retention and Recruitment for Volunteer and Emergency Services” – which was a follow-up to a 2002
report and had virtually the same findings: successful organizations’ volunteers feel that their time is well-
spent and rewarding, and worth their time and energy. Mr. LaBelle said they also feel that training is not
excessive, but that tends to be in the eye of the beholder and it is not necessarily within their control, as
the State Department of Health mandates EMS training requirements; national standards dictate fire
training requirements. He said the reports also show that individuals are motivated by a feeling of
personal sense of value: that they are needed, wanted and valued in the community. Mr. LaBelle noted
that one of the important factors in retention is good leadership with minimal conflict within the
organization and ample support for the organization, along with members feeling that the community as a
whole as well as the organization itself values their participation. Mr. LaBelle said the report includes a
page on each one of the departments/companies in the County with an overview of the current chief, the
station officers, apparatus, and also information on volunteering.
Mr. LaBelle reported that Albemarle County does have a healthy system overall with 687
operational volunteers - 322 in fire and 356 in EMS - with some crossover. He stated that the number is
not as straightforward as it could be, as a member with six months of service is counted the same as one
with 10 or 20 years of service; and the member who volunteers 24 hours a month versus a member who
volunteers 60 hours a month is not “apples to apples.” Mr. LaBelle said, over time, they will need to
determine how to provide a census of membership as a whole, how to get a good feeling for who is out
there and at what level they are participating. He stated that, in 2013, they had 86 new volunteers come
into the system, with 160 volunteers trained at the basic level. Mr. LaBelle said, this year, they also
unveiled an officer development program that was very successful with 23 volunteers that received
hazardous materials training and 40 volunteers trained at the EMT level. He commented that they can
bring more volunteers in but, if they cannot provide training, they will run into a big barrier.
Mr. LaBelle stated that, after context, the committee started to address “pathways” to a healthy
volunteer system, beginning with how someone becomes a volunteer. He said one of the things they felt
strongly about was keeping volunteers local and in their communities, but the recruitment and retention
materials focus on a “county” system – so they are beginning to shift to local branding. He said they also
want to make sure there is a clear and easy process for joining which is understood throughout the
agency so, if someone shows up at a station and wants to join, anyone who is there can at least tell them
what they need to do.
Ms. Mallek said the first question should be “where do you live” so they are directed to the closest
volunteer station, not just Station 11 and Station 12.
Mr. LaBelle said, since he has been here, he has directed several people to Monticello and to
East Rivanna, and several who wanted to join Ivy back to Crozet. He stated that they also want to
reinvigorate the recruitment and retention committee, and have had several meetings already focusing
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
primarily on retention. Mr. LaBelle said they also want to increase the use and support of social media,
and stated that they received a grant several years ago – the “Virginia Workforce Solutions Grant” –
which involved in-depth study of consumer data and identification of member habits and shopping
patterns. He stated that this has helped in understanding the key members as well as identifying those
they are not attracting and trying to figure out how to expand diversity in the system as a whole. Mr.
LaBelle said they are also providing training for members of the recruitment and retention committee,
along with future plans to provide recruitment and retention training for members within each
agency/department.
Mr. LaBelle stated the second component of these recruitment efforts is to develop a pathway to
fulfillment, and getting members to stay by making sure they feel fulfilled. He explained that recruitment
and retention are very different things which need to be treated as such, although they tend to be lumped
together. Mr. LaBelle said a large number of members will stay at the task level and enjoy that for their
entire career, but others want to be able to do more in the organization. He stated that they need to be
able to help train those individuals on how to deal with human resources and management issues beyond
just the basic fire responsibilities. Mr. Labelle stated that the County Human Resources Department
offers many training opportunities which could be available to volunteers within the agency. Mr. LaBelle
said the last thing being considered is increasing retention benefits, as there are some simple things such
as park passes, however, there is nothing on the pass that says volunteers are getting it because of their
volunteer service.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would also like to encourage station leaders to enhance their
mentoring so it does not all come from ACFR, and would like to further explore the possibility of putting
volunteers on health insurance.
Mr. LaBelle said they had a meeting with career and volunteer staff earlier in the day about how
to increase participation of both volunteer and career staff in sharing their knowledge and expertise, and
they seemed to embrace the effort.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she had recently met with Chief Dan Eggleston and East Rivanna Chief ,
Calvin Butler, and discussed volunteerism at that particular station. She said they discussed the fact that
a lot of the volunteers at that station live in Fluvanna but volunteer at Albemarle County stations, so they
were talking about approaching Fluvanna for some of the benefits.
Ms. Dittmar asked what areas were lacking in volunteer recruitment, as there had been an overall
increase but not in all regions.
Mr. LaBelle said the report talks about volunteering at the national level, where there is an
increase in overall volunteerism, but only for short-term initiatives.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she had also heard Chief Butler talk to a community group in Glenmore
about the need for volunteers who have financial and fundraising expertise and are retired, and asked if
they were strategizing overall to recruit those types of individuals.
Mr. LaBelle said, when they talk about a pathway to volunteerism, it means there is more to the
system than riding in an ambulance or on an engine. He said the reality is that large fires are a small
percentage of what they do, and tend not to be a large-scale event. He said part of it depends on how
they advertise and, as they move forward with recruitment and retention material, it will mirror all the job
functions, not just fire-fighting. Mr. LaBelle said he learned in working with New York City firefighter
recruitment that it is important to include pictures of people they want to attract. He said people need to
be able to see themselves when they look at promotional materials.
Ms. Mallek stated that they also need to include all stations, so people know when they pick up
the information that there are many options throughout the County, not just at the big stations.
Mr. LaBelle agreed, adding that the County system overall is a great system and he is thrilled to
be a part of it.
Ms. Dittmar asked if volunteers could be trained in prevention services, as she has heard there is
not enough manpower to do that at all of the stations.
Mr. LaBelle said the answer is yes. He said, several months ago, he met to discuss expanding
the volunteers in the Fire Corps Program who are not directly involved in fire suppression or EMS but
could be utilized to support fire prevention and recruitment/retention ef forts. He said Chief Howard
Lagomarsino and Chief John Oprandy have been working on unified efforts for recruitment and retention.
Mr. LaBelle noted that they are also starting to have FEMS Board meetings in the field at various stations,
rather than at the County Office Building.
Ms. Mallek stated that, several years ago, they had 450 volunteers and now there are over 600+
which is a huge gain.
Mr. Foley said this report was required by ordinance, so accepting it by motion is all that is
necessary.
Ms. Mallek moved to accept the first annual report on the health and welfare of the volunteer fire
and EMS system in the County. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Closed Meeting.
At 11:47 a.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. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:34 p.m., 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. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Ms. McKeel moved to make the following appointments/reappointments:
appoint Edward Smith to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee,
with said term to expire August 1, 2016.
appoint David Stoner, Kim Connolly and Matthew Sposato to the Crozet Community
Advisory Council, with said terms to expire March 31, 2016.
re appoint Kim Guenther, Brenda Plantz, Philip Best, Leslie Burns and George Barlow to
the Crozet Community Advisory Council, with said terms to expire March 31, 2016.
appoint Thomas Torrance to the Natural Heritage Committee, with said term to expire
September 30, 2018.
appoint Cynthia Burket and Bucky Walsh to the Police Department Citizens Advisory
Committee, with said terms to expire March 5, 2016.
reappoint Bonnie Brewer, Lloyd Wood and Richard Hewitt to the Police Department
Citizens Advisory Committee, with said terms to expire March 5, 2016.
reappoint Tim Kaczmarek, George Larie, Charles Lebo, Cynthia Neff and Jane
Williamson to the Places 29 Community Advisory Council, with said terms to expire
January 31, 2016.
reappoint Betsy Gohdes-Baten, Neil Means and Dottie Martin to the Village of Rivanna
Community Advisory Council, with said terms to expire March 31, 2016.
appoint Debbie Stone to the Board of Social Services as the Rio District representative,
with said term to expire December 31, 2017
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(The next two agenda items were held concurrently:)
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: ZTA-2013-00007. Flood Hazard Overlay District
(FHOD). Ordinance to amend Secs. 18-30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District – FH, and its subordinate
sections, 18-32.5.2, Contents of an initial site plan, 18-35.1, Fees, 18-36.1, Violations, and add Sec. 18-
32.5.7, Flood hazard overlay district, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend Sec 18-30.3 by amending and reorganizing current Secs. 18-30.3.01 through 18-
30.3.10 and adding new sections to establish procedures, standards and restrictions to develop in the
FHOD, as follows: Secs.18-30.3.1, Purpose and intent, 18-30.3.2, Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood
Insurance Study, 18-30.3.3, Applicability (added), 18-30.3.4, Disclaimer, 18-30.3.5, Definitions, 18-30.3.6,
Designation of floodplain administrator; powers and duties (added), 18-30.3.7, Administration;
interpretation of Flood Insurance Rate Map, 18-30.3.8, Administration; interpretation of district boundaries
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
(added), 18-30.3.9, Administration; amendment to district boundaries, 18-30.3.10, Administration; Letters
of Map Change; 18-30.3.11, Permitted and prohibited uses and structures, 18-30.3.12, Prerequisites to
development; required permits and certifications, 18-30.3.13, Encroachment standards; determining
impact on base flood elevation, 18-30.3.14, Encroachment standards; fill in the floodway fringe, 18-
30.3.15, Construction standards, 18-30.3.16, Nonconforming uses and structures, and 18-30.3.17,
Variances. This ordinance also would amend Sec. 18-32.5.2 by requiring that an initial site plan include
USGS vertical datum, the boundaries of the flood hazard overlay district (FHOD), the base flood
elevation, and other related information; and add Sec. 18-32.5.7 by requiring that the developer submit
topographic information showing that the design is reasonably safe from flooding and that the design will
minimize flood damage and reduce exposure to flood hazards; the additional information required by
Secs. 18-32.5.2 and 18-32.5.7 would apply to any site plan having any portion within the FHOD . This
ordinance also would amend Sec. 35.1 to add a $150 fee to review a Letter of Map Change (LOMC)
(topographic plan only), a $300 fee to review an LOMC (topographic plan with floodplain model), and a
$300 fee to review a Floodplain Impact Plan. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code §§ 15.2-
2241(9) and 15.2-2286(A)(6). This ordinance also would amend Sec. 36.1 to expressly provide that a
use, structure or improvement established, conducted, operated or maintained without a required permit
or certification is a violation of Chapter 18. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February17 and February
24, 2014.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: STA-2014-00002. Flood Hazard. An ordinance to amend
Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code by amending Sec. 14-302, Contents of
preliminary plat, and 14-308, Flood plain and topographic information. This ordinance would amend Sec.
14-302 by requiring that a preliminary plat include USGS vertical datum, the boundaries of the flood
hazard overlay district (FHOD), the base flood elevation, and other related information; and Sec. 14 -308
by requiring that the subdivider submit topographic information showing that the design is reasonably safe
from flooding and that the design will minimize flood damage and reduce exposure to flood hazards; the
additional information required by these amendments would apply to any subdivision having any portion
within the FHOD. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February17 and February 24, 2014.)
The executive summary forwarded to Board members state that In order to prevent loss of life
and property, and to prevent the creation of health and safety hazards, the County’s Flood Hazard
Overlay District (FHOD) regulations regulate the uses and structures that may be established in stream
channels and the surrounding areas prone to inundation during a 100-year flood event. The boundaries of
the FHOD are based on Flood Insurance Rate Maps created by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). The FHOD was established as an overlay zoning district in 1980, and the County’s
regulations have allowed the County to participate in the federal flood insurance program.
FEMA is adding a note to the panel of the County Flood Insurance Rate Map depicting the
Scottsville levee. The note states that the levee may protect certain identified areas in the Town of
Scottsville from flooding during a 100-year flood event. This revision, which becomes effective April 2,
2014, triggered the requirement that the County update its FHOD and related subdivision regulations to
be in compliance with current federal requirements. These amendments must be adopted no later than
April 2, 2014 in order for the County to continue its participation in the federal flood insurance program.
The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance on
November 12, 2013 and a resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance on January 14, 2014
(Attachment C). The Planning Commission held a work session on December 3, 2013 (Attachment D),
and a public informational roundtable was held on January 30, 2014 (Attachment G). The Planning
Commission recommended approval (with two minor revisions) at its public hearing on February 4, 2014
(Attachment E).
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), which administers the federal
floodplain management program in Virginia, has reviewed and approved the proposed ordinances.
The proposed zoning text amendment (Attachment A) comprehensively revises and reorganizes
the current FHOD regulations in order to ensure that the County’s regulations satisfy all federal
requirements. The proposed revisions designate the county engineer as the floodplain administrator,
delineate the powers and duties of the floodplain administrator, establish encroachment and construction
standards for authorized uses and development in the floodplain, and establish procedures for
administering the County’s floodplain management program.
Attachment F provides a summary of the proposed amendments and identifies them as a)
mandatory changes or b) additional recommended changes. Staff recommends that the County’s
floodplain regulations continue to exceed the minimum federal regulations relating to new construction,
grading and uses in the floodplain by 1) not permitting buildings “on stilts” to raise the habitable space
above the flood elevation; 2) continuing to require a special use permit for significant fill; and 3) prohibiting
a substantial improvement for habitable space within the floodplain.
There are two key substantive changes to the current FHOD regulations requiring further
discussion: standards for fencing across a floodway and providing freeboard. FEMA has a new
requirement that fencing that crosses a stream channel meet a breakaway construction standard and that
the landowner obtain a permit from the floodplain administrator for the fencing. Because the regulation of
fencing is new (it is currently exempt from most County regulations) and farmers need to be im mediately
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
responsive to repairing fence breaks, it is staff’s goal to establish a simplified process to meet these
mandatory requirements. County staff proposes to partner with Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water
Conservation District (TJSWCD) staff to administer the fencing program because TJSWCD interfaces
with many farmers through its livestock exclusion fencing grant program. Through a memorandum of
understanding, TJSWCD will administer the permitting for those landowners in its program on the
County’s behalf. This approach has received tentative approval from DCR.
The second focused issue relates to the establishment of a one-foot freeboard. “Freeboard” is a
factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of floodplain manag ement. The
zoning text amendment proposes a freeboard of one-foot, meaning that the finished floor in any structure
in the floodplain would have to be one foot above the base flood elevation. Establishing a freeboard is
strongly recommended by FEMA and DCR because it provides an additional safety factor to compensate
for development and fill in the floodplain that may contribute to flood levels greater than the calculated
level. In addition, a freeboard results in significant reductions in flood insurance premiums for the
landowner. While the proposed ordinance amendments introduce the freeboard requirement, it applies
only to establishing the finished floor elevation for new construction within the FHOD, which in Albemarle
County is limited to accessory agricultural and recreationa l structures.
The proposed zoning text amendment and subdivision text amendment also address federal
regulations requiring that specific floodplain and related information be provided on site plans and
subdivision plats, and that developments and subdivisions having lands in the FHOD be designed to
minimize flood damage.
Staff does not anticipate that these ordinance amendments will result in the need for additional
staff or funding.
After the public hearings, staff recommends that the Board adopt th e proposed Zoning Ordinance
(Attachment A) and the proposed Subdivision Ordinance (Attachment B).
_____
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, addressed the Board, stating that this was first heard as a
resolution of intent by the Planning Commission in November; and in a work session in December, the
Commission requested more input from the public so a roundtable was held on January 30 with a p ublic
hearing in February. Mr. Brooks said that this was before them for mandatory adoption by April 2, as
mandated by FEMA because of a map change in the Scottsville District.
Mr. Brooks reviewed the basics of what a floodplain program is and what a f lood hazard overlay
district is, noting excerpts from FEMA documents and stating that floodplain development alters floodplain
and the dynamics of flooding that can cause consequences like building and infrastructure damage,
injuries to people, surface water pollution, and health hazards that accrue later. He said that the National
Flood Insurance program began in 1968 after a failed program of dykes and levies, and at that time it was
distributed to local governments and the private sector through their m apping program – and the County
joined it in the early 1970s. As a requirement of that program, he said, they must have an ordinance and
follow the minimum regulations set forth. Mr. Brooks said that the County established its overlay district in
1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was created, and that was modified in 2005 with a change to the
mapping. He stated that currently the program, based on data from 2009, has 229 dwellings in the
floodplain and 343 other structures such as barns and sheds; the estim ated population dwelling in the
floodplain is about 200 persons.
Mr. Brooks stated that the National Flood Insurance program has provided statistics on the
number of flood insurance policies they’ve issued, which is about 341, and the approximate value of that
insurance with how many claims have been paid out to date. He presented a map on the zoning districts,
stating that the flood hazard overlay district is put over the base zoning – which adds additional
requirements to stay out of the floodplain or follow certain rules. Mr. Brooks said that the district and
boundaries are not changing, but the ordinance language is changing. He stated that the County
restrictions on buildings in the floodplain are more restrictive than what FEMA would allow, and t he
Department of Conservation and Recreation has reviewed all of the ordinance changes and are satisfied
with them. Mr. Brooks mentioned that this was prompted in 2013 by a map change in Scottsville in which
a note was changed at the Scottsville levy, which generated a review of all the County’s regulations.
Mr. Brooks said that the mandatory changes from FEMA consistent with its model ordinance
require a floodplain administrator, which must be a designated person – the County Engineer in this case
– and designated duties that are copied into the ordinance. He stated that there must also be a process
for review and approval of FEMA map changes and amendments.
Mr. Boyd asked if the floodplain administrator must be a single person or if it could be a group of
people. Mr. Brooks responded that in his understanding, it must be a person.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, said that the floodplain administrator is authorized
in the ordinance to delegate responsibilities to his staff, and in this case has entered into agreements with
the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District to help out in administering the program.
Mr. Boyd said that he is just concerned about putting all of that power into one person’s hands,
and would rather have a representative group or at least a few people involved in the process.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Brooks what that person would be evaluating. Mr. Brooks said that typically
when a FEMA application comes in, it has various forms on the elevations that exist today and the new
elevations an individual is proposing or the fact they believe the map is wrong. He stated that there is a
“community acknowledgement form” that a designated individual must sign – and they are basically
checking on the technical data that a landowner has had a professional surveyor or engineer prepare to
verify that it is correct. In cases where there is a proposal to put fill in or alter the floodplain, he said, the
individual is looking for approval of that. Mr. Brooks said that the way the County’s ordinance is set up
currently, everything comes to the Board as a special use permit for approval, and then it comes to him
for final signature.
Mr. Boyd stated that there was a situation in which the Board made a different decision and
couldn’t override Mr. Brooks’ decision.
Mr. Brooks said that the case to which he was referring was a situation where someone was
proposing to put fill in a floodway, and FEMA allows for fill in the floodway fringe, but not in the floodway
itself. He explained that there is a process to change the floodway line, and the application that came
before the Board was a chicken and egg problem as to whether to change the floodway first or to come
before the Board for an SP – and his decision was that the person could not do that, because fill and
development were not allowed in the floodway by the County or FEMA. Mr. Brooks said that the person
would first need to go to FEMA and demonstrate that the floodway is not there, and that they are not
proposing a development in the floodway – but the landowner wanted to go around the ordinance
provision and come straight to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with it as long as there are not discretionary opinions
involved in it.
Mr. Brooks said that the only way he could see that happening would be for something that did
not come before the Board, such as a provision on a map that a landowner did not agree with and
contested so the property line was interpreted, along with professional data.
Mr. Boyd stated that there has been a lot of concern that the FEMA maps are not accurate, and
he was not sure how these ordinance changes would impact that situation.
Mr. Brooks said that they had a DCR representative from the program come to a roundtable
meeting, and one of the topics discussed was the accuracy of the maps and the availability of better data
in the event of inaccuracies. He stated that the representative indicated that the County does not have
much power to change those lines, and would prefer that the County come to FEMA with a map
amendment if they perceive a significant deviation in the data. Mr. Brooks said that he can make some
interpretations as to the plus or minus accuracy of the map itself, but anything discernable in a larger view
on a map would have to go through FEMA.
Ms. Palmer asked whether the applications currently came before the Planning Commission, or
went straight to the Board. Mr. Brooks said that they come straight to him, and he makes a determination
as to whether he can sign them or make them get a special use permit from the Board. He noted that
there was one for the Stoney Creek Apartments off of Route 20, and the map upda tes increased the
floodplain for that area – which is Cow’s Branch – and showed some of those apartment buildings in the
floodplain. Mr. Brooks stated that they were concerned because they got a notice they had to get flood
insurance from their lender, which is expensive, so they hired a surveyor to do a more detailed analysis of
the area and show that it is outside the floodplain. He said that in a sense he was already wielding this
“power,” and this just formalizes it and makes it a process that is ordinance-driven and appealable to
them.
Mr. Kamptner said that it can also be appealed to the BZA if there is disagreement over the
district boundaries interpretation, since it is a zoning regulation.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said that the two areas in which they are allowing
administrative approval of what is now a special use permit are minor amounts of fill in the floodplain and
extremely limited stream crossings. She noted that there are very clear criteria and not so much a
discretionary decision, so it would be clear to the applicant if they qualify.
Ms. McKeel asked if the FEMA maps are being revised with this process, or if they are revised
after someone has an issue with a boundary. Mr. Brooks explained that FEMA issues map amendment
letters, but they don’t revise the boundary map very often; Albemarle’s has only been changed once since
1980. He stated that FEMA then holds all of the amendments until they update the entire map group for
this area, which will probably be 10 or 20 years from now.
Ms. McKeel said that she was surprised at the turnaround time, given technology. Mr. Brooks
stated that that is the chief complaint they hear from the private sector – the FEMA process is slow,
expensive, and holds them back.
Mr. Brooks reported that another formal process they will have to create for FEMA is a
documented floodplain development permit for any development in the floodplain, including agricultural
structures that are currently allowed under the County ordinance. He said that in the case of stream
crossings that do not affect the floodplain, a typical driveway crossing with a small culvert and a small
stream that has an approximated floodplain is not noticeable on the maps – as long as there is not any
substantial fill, because it can usually be demonstrated that it has no impact on the floodway boundaries.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Brooks stated that there are not many of those situations now, but people are also doing it without
asking for permission. He said that if staff disagrees about the impact of a new driveway, the landowner
will have to go through the special permitting process, and this mostly affects small rural driveways that
are built on-grade.
Mr. Brooks stated that they currently do not have construction standards because they do not
allow occupied buildings in the floodplain. However, there are cases of older structures or ag structures
with an office – and those will have to follow the construction standards to keep the habitable space out of
the flood elevation zone. He said this is something that FEMA requires, even though the County has
indicated it does not allow any structures in the flood plain, and this would be applied to any improvements
made to those structures. Mr. Brooks noted that the County would be required to show elevation
information on site plans and plats, and they are now required to give FEMA variances – which is not in
the ordinance currently. He also reported that the issue of fencing had come up in the County’s
roundtable discussion, and DCR and FEMA want to permit fences that cross a stream or a floodplain. He
explained that the County has tried to streamline a process through the Soil and Water Conservation
District’s agricultural stream-fencing program, and this would be a form acknowledgement that any fence
built across a floodplain would be a breakaway type that would not impede flood waters.
Mr. Boyd asked if that was an expensive process to go through. Mr. Brooks said the
conservation district staff has said that they have it already and do it in most cases because it saves the
fencing and does not pull it along in the event of a flood. He stated that it is not expensive, but it is an
added detail to deal with.
Mr. Boyd said that the reason he has mentioned it is because it is hoped that farmers will keep
cattle out of streams as part of the TMDL requirements.
Ms. Mallek stated that the designs that are approved for the cost shares are very durable, and
they are designed to be obstruction-free, so there are no posts in the center that would catch items
floating by. She said that there is a cost-sharing arrangement for cattle fencing, and the landowner
usually has to have about 50% invested – with some cost offset overtime.
Mr. Brooks reported that in addition to the mandatory changes, they have a list of recommended
changes including a floodplain impact plan – which would be part of the development permit, but would
request data up front to conclude that there is no impact to the floodplain, such as in the case of the
driveways they had discussed. He said that the intent would be to provide a way for people to get out of
the special use permit process if it is unnecessary for things like insignificant fill. Mr. Brooks noted they
have a provision for restoration of streams and channels, and in the past they have required “no
manmade materials,” but technology has come a long way and there are hybrid materials th at are much
better, so they are changing the requirement to allow some materials that are not completely natural. He
said the next item is to not allow towers in the floodplain, and the last is a requirement for a provision that
adds to the height that a habitable structure must be built if it is already in the floodplain.
Ms. Palmer asked Mr. Brooks to comment on how the County’s ordinances are stricter than what
FEMA requires. Mr. Brooks explained that the County’s ordinances require a special use perm it for fill in
the floodplain, which is a legislative process that comes to the Board, and that is an added procedural
protection. He said they also do not allow any habitable structures in the floodplain, and some localities
do.
Ms. Palmer said that she thought the whole idea of the FEMA floodplain and insurance was that if
you build in the floodplain, you do not get the insurance. Mr. Brooks said it is really the opposite – it is an
insurance program for people in the floodplain, so theoretically it could encourage building in the
floodplain but FEMA’s stated goal is to mitigate that and keep people out of it. He stated that there is
cheaper insurance for people to build in the floodplain, but it is up to the community to regulate whether
you can build in a floodplain – and lenders have a requirement that you demonstrate insurance for your
home.
Ms. McCulley clarified that there is a new act in Congress, the Biggert-Waters Act, that tries to
catch up with premiums covering the value of insured property in the floodplain, and there is some
confusion because even though FEMA has a “flood insurance program” they are not the ones selling the
insurance policies as they are handled by private insurers. She said that there are many requirements
that have to be met in order to qualify for that insurance – you must be in a community that meets these
standards, has flood mapping and regulations, etc.
Ms. Mallek said her understanding from the National Association of Counties is that the act was
floundering, and all of the people in the river areas, taking benefit from it got their reforms scuttled in the
bill. Ms. Mallek said they did not want their constituents living along rivers to have to pay premiums that
were justified by the losses they would have, and the two-buyout cap was also axed.
Ms. McCulley stated what they have chosen to practice locally is more restrictive in terms of
construction in the floodplain, and it is working when you consider that the per-year value of loss is less
than $9,000 over 35 years.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Chair open the public hearing for both ZTA-2013-0007 and STA-
2014-0002, related ordinance items which the presentation had already covered.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
There was no public comment, and the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt ZTA-2013-0007 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Ms. Palmer
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DI STRICT REGULATIONS,
ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, AND ARTICLE V, VIOLATION AND PENALTY, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, Article IV, Procedure, and Article V, Violation and Penalty, are
hereby amended and re-ordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan
Sec. 35.1 Fees
Sec. 36.1 Violations
By Amending, Renumbering and Renaming:
Old New
Sec. 30.3.01 Sec. 30.3.1 Intent Purpose and intent
Sec. 30.3.02.2 Sec. 30.3.7 Determinations of floodway fringe in the approximated flood plain
Administration; interpretation of Flood Insurance Rate Map
Sec. 30.3.08 Sec. 30.3.4 Warning and disclaimer of liability Disclaimer
Sec. 30.3.09 Sec. 30.3.16 Restoration or replacement of nonconforming uses Nonconforming
structures and uses
Sec. 30.3.10 Sec. 30.3.17 Waiver, modification, and variance regulations Variances
By Amending, Renaming and Separating Into Multiple Sections:
Old New
Sec. 30.3.02.1 Definitions – Generally Sec. 30.3.2 Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood
Insurance Study
Sec. 30.3.5 Definitions
***
Sec. 30.3.03.2 Development permit; Sec. 30.3.12 Prerequisite to development; permits
building permit; grading and certifications
permit Sec. 30.3.13 Encroachment standards;
Sec. 30.3.03.3 Alteration or relocation of determining impact on base flood
a watercourse elevation
Sec. 30.3.15 Construction standards
***
Sec. 30.3.07 Amendment to the flood Sec. 30.3.9 Administration; amendment to district
hazard overlay district boundaries
Sec. 30.3.10 Administration; Letters of Map Change
By Amending, Renaming and Combining Multiple Sections:
Old New
Sec. 30.3.04 Prohibited uses Sec. 30.3.11 Permitted and prohibited uses and
Sec. 30.3.05 Permitted uses structures
Sec. 30.3.05.1 By right
Sec. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodway
Sec. 30.3.05.1.2 By right within the floodway
fringe
Sec. 30.3.05.2 By special use permit
Sec. 30.3.05.2.1 By special use permit within
the floodway
Sec. 30.3.05.2.2 By special use permit within
the floodway fringe
***
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Sec. 30.3.06 Landfill permits for flood Sec. 30.3.14 Encroachment standards; fill in the
plain alteration floodway fringe
Sec. 30.3.06.1 Permit requirements
By Adding:
Sec. 30.3.3 Applicability
Sec. 30.3.6 Designation of floodplain administrator; powers and duties
Sec. 30.3.8 Administration; interpretation of district boundaries
Sec. 32.5.7 Flood hazard overlay district
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Section 30.3
Flood Hazard Overlay District – FH
Sec. 30.3 Flood hazard overlay district - FH
Sec. 30.3.1 Purposes and intent.
Under the authority of Virginia Code § 15.2-2280, the purposes and intent of section 30.3 are to:
A. Prevention of harm. Prevent the loss of life and property, the creation of health and safety
hazards, the disruption of commerce and governmental services, the extraordinary and
unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief, and the impairment of the
tax base.
B. Means used. In order to prevent the several harms described in subsection (A), section 30.3
establishes an overlay zoning district to: (i) regulate uses, activities, and development which,
alone or in combination with other existing or future uses, activities, and development, will cause
unacceptable increases in flood heights, velocities, and frequencies; (ii) r estrict or prohibit certain
uses, activities, and development from locating within areas subject to flooding; (iii) require all of
those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in areas subject to flooding to be protected
or flood-proofed, or both, against flooding and flood damage; and (iv) protect individuals from
buying land and structures which are unsuited for intended purposes because of flood hazards.
C. Flood insurance. Address a local need for flood insurance and to participate in the Nat ional Flood
Insurance Program.
(§ 30.3.01, 12-10-80; Ord. 05-18(1), 1-5-05, effective 2-5-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR §§ 59.22(a)(1) , (a)(2).
Sec. 30.3.2 Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Insurance Study.
The flood hazard overlay district shall be composed of all areas of the county within the special flood
hazard areas delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Albemarle County, Virginia and
Incorporated Areas and the Independent City of Charl ottesville, most recently amended effective on and
after April 2, 2014 (the “Flood Insurance Rate Map”), and the Flood Insurance Study for Albemarle County
and Incorporated Areas and the Independent City of Charlottesville prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, most recently amended effective on and after April 2, 2014 (the “Flood Insurance
Study”), and includes all subsequent revisions and amendments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map and
Flood Insurance Study.
The Flood Insurance Rate Map and the Flood Insurance Study are incorporated herein by reference. The
Flood Insurance Rate Map, including all of the special flood hazard area zones designated thereon, is
hereby adopted as the zoning map of the flood hazard overlay district.
(§ 30.3.02.1 (part), 12-10-80; 6-10-87; Ord. 05-18(1), 1-5-05, effective 2-5-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.2(h).
Sec. 30.3.3 Applicability.
Section 30.3 applies as follows:
A. Territory. Section 30.3 shall apply to all privately and publicly owned lands within the county that
are identified as being within a special flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate
Map provided to the county by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
B. Relationship to other regulations. The regulations in section 30.3 supersede any less restrictive
conflicting ordinances and regulations.
C. New uses and development. On and after April 2, 2014, no land shall be developed and no
structure shall be located, relocated, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged, or structurally altered
except in full compliance with the terms and provisions of section 30.3, this chapter, and any other
applicable ordinances and regulations which apply to uses within the county.
D. Pre-existing uses and development. Any use or development lawfully existing on April 2, 2014
shall be nonconforming to the extent that it is not in compliance with section 30.3.
E. Presumptions. Any, use, structure or other development lawfully established after April 2, 2014
without a floodplain development permit, elevation certificate, or any other certification or
documentation (collectively, the “documentation”) required for development within the flood
hazard overlay district is presumed to be a violation of this chapter until the documentation is
provided to the floodplain administrator and determined to satisfy the requirements of the district.
(§ 30.3.3 (new))
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.1(b).
Sec. 30.3.4 Disclaimer.
The degree of flood protection sought by the provisions in section 30.3 is considered reasonable for
regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable engineering methods of study, but does not imply total
flood protection. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man -
made or natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. Therefore:
A. Flooding and flood damage may occur outside of flood hazard overlay district. Section 30.3 does
not imply that lands or uses outside of the flood hazard overlay district will be free from flooding or
flood damage.
B. Disclaimer. Section 30.3 is not a waiver of sovereign immunity or any statutory immunities and
shall not create liability on the part of the county or any of its officers or employees for any flood
damage resulting from reliance on this section or any decision or determination lawfully made
under this chapter.
(§ 30.3.08, 12-10-80)
Sec. 30.3.5 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of section 30.3:
Accessory structure: An accessory structure, as defined in section 3.1, having a footprint that does not
exceed two hundred (200) square feet.
Base flood: The flood having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year,
and also referred to as the “one hundred year flood.”
Base flood elevation: The water surface elevation of the base flood in relation to the datum specified on
the county’s Flood Insurance Rate Map or the elevation determined pursuant to section 30.3.13(C).
Basement: Any area of a building having its floor sub-grade (below ground level) on all sides.
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR): A formal review and comment by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency as to whether a proposed flood protection project or other project complies with the
minimum National Flood Insurance Program requirements for such projects with respect to the delineation
of special flood hazard areas, but which does not revise the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood
Insurance Study.
Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to,
buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or
storage of equipment or materials.
Elevated building: A building without a basement built to have the lowest floor elevated above the ground
level by means of solid foundation perimeter walls, pilings, or columns (posts and piers).
Encroachment: The advance or infringement of uses, plant growth, fill, excavation, buildings, permanent
structures or development into a floodplain, which may impede or alter the flow capacity of a floodplain.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Existing manufactured home park or subdivision: Any manufactured home park or subdivision lawfully
approved and recorded before the effective date of the Flood Insurance Rate Map or before January 1,
1975 for Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective before that date.
Existing structure: Any structure for which the “start of construction” commenced before the effective date
of the Flood Insurance Rate Map or before January 1, 1975 for Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective before
that date.
Flood or flooding: Either (i) a general or temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally
dry land areas from the overflow of inland waters, the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface
waters from any source; or mudflows which are proximately caused by flooding from unusual and rapid
accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, and are akin to a river of liquid and flow ing mud
on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and deposited
along the path of the current; or (ii) the collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other
body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding
anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water,
accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature such as a fla sh flood, or by some
similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding from the overflow of inland waters.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): A map of the county on which the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable within the
county.
Flood Insurance Study (FIS): A report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that examines,
evaluates and determines flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surf ace elevations, or
an examination, evaluation and determination of mudflow and/or flood-related erosion hazards.
Floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source.
Flood proofing: Any combination of structural and non-structural additions, changes, or adjustments to
structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and
sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.
Floodplain impact plan. A plan prepared by a professional engineer or other professional of demonstrated
qualifications, and submitted to the floodplain administrator in sufficient detail as provided in the Design
Standards Manual to allow him to conduct a complete review of the impacts to the floodplain that m ay be
caused by an encroachment, wherein the plan is composed of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practices and demonstrating that a proposed
encroachment will not result in an increase in water surface elevation or a change in boundaries of the
base flood above that allowed in the particular zone within the county during the occurrence of the base
flood discharge, and studies, analyses, computations, and the plan preparer’s certification that the
technical methods used correctly reflect currently-accepted technical concepts.
Floodway, regulatory: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must
be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation
more than one (1) foot.
Floodway fringe: The portion of the floodplain subject to a one (1) percent or greater chance of flooding in
any given year that lies between the regulatory floodway and the outer limits of the special flood hazard
area depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Freeboard: A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of floodplain
management, for the primary purpose of compensating for the many unknown factors that could
contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway
conditions, such as wave action, bridge openings, and the hydrological effect of urbanization in the
watershed, all of which, in turn, may allow flood insurance premiums to be reduced below that which they
might otherwise be.
Freeboard elevation. The base flood elevation plus one (1) foot.
Habitable space. An enclosed area having more than twenty (20) linear feet of finished walls composed
of, but not limited to, drywall, paneling, lath and plaster, or used for any purpose other than solely for
parking of vehicles, building access, or storage.
Highest adjacent grade: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to
the proposed walls of a structure.
Historic structure: Any structure that is: (i) listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a
listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the
Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; (ii) certified or
preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a
registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered
historic district; (iii) individually listed on a Secretary of the Interior-approved State inventory of historic
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
places; or (iv) individually listed on a county inventory of historic places under a county historic
preservation program that has been certified by an approved State program as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior.
Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses: Analyses performed by a licensed professional engineer, in
accordance with standard engineering practices that are accepted by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, used to determine the
base flood, other frequency floods, flood elevations, floodway information and boundaries, and flood
profiles.
Letter of Map Change (LOMC): An official Federal Emergency Management Agency determination, by
letter, that amends or revises an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood Insurance Study in the form
of a Letter of Map Amendment, a Letter of Map Revision, or any other similar official Federal Emergency
Management Agency determination made by letter.
Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA): An amendment based on technical data showing that a parcel, site or
structure was incorrectly included in a designated special flood hazard area. A LOMA amends the current
effective Flood Insurance Rate Map and establishes that a particular parcel or site as described by metes
and bounds, or a structure, is not located in a special flood hazard area.
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR): A revision based on technical data that may show changes to flood
zones, flood elevations, floodplain and regulatory floodway delineations, and planimetric features.
Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F): A revision based on technical data making the
determination that a parcel, site or structure has been elevated by fill, authorized and placed in
accordance with section 30.3 and all other requirements of this chapter, above the base flood elevation
and is, therefore, no longer exposed to flooding associated with the base flood.
Lowest floor: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement) of a building, provided
that an unfinished or flood-resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or
storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building’s lowest floor, and further
provided that the enclosed area is not built so as to render the building in violation of the applicable non-
elevation design requirements of section 30.3.15 and 44 CFR §60.3.
Manufactured home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent
chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required
utilities and, for floodplain management purposes, includes park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar
vehicles placed on a site for longer than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days, but does not include a
recreational vehicle.
Manufactured home park or subdivision: A parcel or site divided into two or more manufactured home lots
for rent or sale.
New construction: For floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which
the start of construction commenced on or after December 16, 1980 and includes any subsequent
improvements to such structures.
Post-FIRM structures: A structure for which construction or substantial improvement lawfully occurred on
or after December 16, 1980.
Pre-FIRM structures: A structure for which construction or substantial improvement lawfully occurred
before December 16, 1980.
Recreational vehicle: A vehicle which is: (i) built on a single chassis; (ii) four hundred (400) square feet or
less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; (iii) designed to be self -propelled or permanently
towable by a light duty truck; and (iv) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as
temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
Repetitive loss structure: A building covered by a contract for flood insurance that has incurred flood-
related damage on two (2) occasions during a ten (10)-year period ending on the date of the event for
which a second claim is made, in which the cost of repairing the flood damage, on the average, equaled
or exceeded twenty-five (25) percent of the market value of the building at the time of each flood event.
Shallow flooding area: A special flood hazard area with base flood depths from one (1) to three (3) feet
where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and
indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be evident, and where the flooding may be characterized by
ponding or sheet flow.
Special flood hazard area: The land in the floodplain subject to a one (1) percent or greater chance of
flooding in any given year and which may be designated as Zone A on the Flood Hazard Boundary Map
and, after detailed ratemaking has been completed in preparation for publication of the Flood Insurance
Rate Map, designated as Zones A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE, A99, AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, or
AR/A.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Start of construction: The date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction,
repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, substantial improvement or other improvement
was within one hundred eighty (180) days after the date the permit was issued; provided that: (i) “actual
start” means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the
pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the
stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation; (ii) “permanent
construction” does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling, nor the installation of
streets or walkways, or both; nor any excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundati ons or the
erection of temporary forms; nor the installation on the site of accessory buildings, such as garages or
sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure; and further provided that, for a
substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling,
floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of
the building.
Structure: For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid
storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home.
Substantial damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the
structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty (50) percent of the market value of
the structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial improvement: Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure,
the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure before the start of
construction of the improvement and includes structures which have incurred substantial damage
regardless of the actual repair work performed; provided that the term does not include: (i) any project for
improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or county health, sanitary, or safety code
regulations which have been identified by the zoning administrator, the building official or any other code
enforcement officer and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or (ii) any
alteration of a historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued
designation as a historic structure.
Water-dependent facility. Facilities that cannot exist outside of the flood hazard overlay district 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.
Watercourse: A lake, river, creek, stream, wash, channel or other topographic feature on or over which
waters flow at least periodically, and includes specifically designated areas in which substantial flood
damage may occur.
Zone A. A special flood hazard area that is subject to inundation by the one (1) percent annual chance
flood event (one hundred year flood) where detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed and no
base flood elevations or flood depths are shown.
Zone AE or A1-30. A special flood hazard area that is subject to inundation by the one (1) percent annual
chance flood event (one hundred year flood) determined by detailed methods where base flood
elevations are shown. Zone AE is the designation replacing Zone A1-30 on new and revised Flood
Insurance Rate Maps.
Zone AH. A special flood hazard area that is subject to inundation by one (1) percent annual chance (one
hundred year flood) shallow flooding, usually areas of ponding, where average depths are one to three
feet and base flood elevations derived from detailed hydraulic analyses are shown.
Zone AO. A special flood hazard area that is subject to inundation by one percent annual chance (one
hundred year flood) shallow flooding, usually sheet flow on sloping terrain, where average depths are one
to three feet and average flood depths derived from detailed hydraulic analyses are shown.
(§ 30.3.02.1 (part), 12-10-80; 6-10-87; Ord. 05-18(1), 1-5-05, effective 2-5-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 59.11.
Sec. 30.3.6 Designation of floodplain administrator; powers and duties.
The county engineer is hereby designated the floodplain administrator (the “floodplain administrator”) and
shall have any and all powers and duties authorized by law to administer and to enforce section 30.3,
including, but not limited to, the following:
A. Administration. Administer section 30.3 which shall include, but not be limited to, performing all
applicable duties and responsibilities of the county as provided in 44 CFR § 60.3(a), (b), (c ), and
(d) relevant to the administration of section 30.3.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
B. Delegation to qualified employees and authorized public entities. Delegate any duties and
responsibilities set forth in section 30.3: (i) to qualified technical personnel, plan examiners,
inspectors, and other employees; and (ii) with the prior consent of the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, to an authorized public entity by written memorandum of
understanding or memorandum of agreement; provided that the floodplain administr ator and the
county shall remain responsible for complying with the requirements of this section and all
applicable state and federal laws.
C. Implement commitments. Implement the commitments required to be made by the county under
44 CFR § 59.22(a).
D. Recordkeeping. Maintain and permanently keep records that are necessary for the administration
of section 30.3, including: (i) Flood Insurance Studies, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (including
historic studies and maps and current effective studies and maps) and Letters of Map Change;
and (ii) documentation supporting issuance and denial of permits, elevation certificates,
documentation of the elevation (in relation to the datum on the Flood Insurance Rate Map) to
which structures have been flood-proofed, other required design certifications, variances, and
records of enforcement actions taken to correct violations of these regulations.
E. Reporting. Report information as required by law, including the following:
1. Periodic report regarding County participation in program. Submit to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, either annually or biennially as he determines, a report
concerning the county’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, including,
but not limited to, the county’s development and implementation of floodplain regulations,
under 44 CFR § 59.22(b).
2. Report of buildings, development and related permits. Upon the request of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, complete and submit a report concerning participation in
the National Flood Insurance Program , and which may include information regarding the
number of buildings in the special flood hazard areas, number of permits issued for
development in the special flood hazard areas, and number of variances issued for
development in the special flood hazard areas.
3. Changes to base flood elevation. As soon as practicable, but not later than six (6) months
after the date information regarding an increase or decrease to the county’s base flood
elevations resulting from physical changes affecting flooding conditions becomes
available, the administrator shall notify the Federal Emergency Management Agency of
the changes by submitting technical or scientific data.
F. Signatory on applications for Letters of Map Change. Sign as the community official on
applications for Letters of Map Change to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
G. Enforcement. In conjunction with the zoning administrator who is authorized by section
31.1 to enforce this chapter, enforce section 30.3, investigate alleged violations, issue
notices to comply, notices of violation, or stop work orders, as authorized by law, and
require permit holders to take corrective action.
(§ 30.3.6 (new))
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR §§ 59.22(b), 60.2(e), 60.3(b)(5), 65.3.
Sec. 30.3.7 Administration; interpretation of Flood Insurance Rate Map.
The floodplain administrator shall make interpretations, where needed, as to the exact location of special
flood hazard areas, floodplain boundaries, including the approximated floodplain, and regulator y floodway
boundaries. The following shall apply to the use and interpretation of a Flood Insurance Rate Map and
data:
A. Where field surveyed topography indicates that adjacent ground elevations above or below base
flood elevation. Where field surveyed topography indicates that adjacent ground elevations are:
1. Above base flood elevation. Above the base flood elevation, the area shall be regulated
as a special flood hazard area unless the applicant obtains a Letter of Map Change that
removes the area from the special flood hazard area.
2. Below base flood elevation. Below the base flood elevation, even in an area not
delineated as a special flood hazard area on a Flood Insurance Rate Map, the area shall
be regulated as a special flood hazard area and subject to the requirements of section
30.3.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
B. Special flood hazard area identified, where base flood elevation and floodway data not identified
(approximated floodplain). In any special flood hazard area where base flood elevation and
floodway data have not been identified and the floodplain is approximated, any other flood hazard
data available from a federal, state, or other sources shall be reviewed and reasonably used and,
for example, the floodplain administrator may use as guidance the Federal Em ergency
Management Agency publication entitled “Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate
Zone A Areas: A Guide for Obtaining and Developing Base (100-Year) Flood Elevations.”
C. Special flood hazard area not identified. In any area where a special flood hazard area has not
been identified, any other flood hazard data available from a federal, state, or other source shall
be reviewed and reasonably used.
D. Elevations and boundaries on Flood Insurance Rate Map and in Flood Insurance Study take
precedence. The base flood elevations and regulatory floodway boundaries on a Flood Insurance
Rate Map and in a Flood Insurance Study shall take precedence over base flood elevations and
regulatory floodway boundaries by any other sources if those sources show reduced regulatory
floodway widths, lower base flood elevations, or both.
E. Reasonable use of other data sources. Other sources of data shall be reasonably used if they
show increased base flood elevations, larger floodway areas, or both, than are shown on a Flood
Insurance Rate Map and in a Flood Insurance Study.
F. Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map; preliminary Flood Insurance Study . If a preliminary Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Flood Insurance Study, or both has been provided by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Letter of Final Determination . Prior to the issuance of a Letter of
Final Determination by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the use of
preliminary flood hazard data: (i) is permitted where the preliminary base flood elevations
or floodway areas exceed the base flood elevations, regulatory floodway widths, or both, in
existing flood hazard data provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; (ii)
shall be deemed the best available data and used where no base flood elevations,
floodway areas, or both, are provided on the effective; and (iii) any such preliminary data
may be subject to change, appeal to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or
both.
2. Upon the issuance of a Letter of Final Determination. Upon the issuance of a Letter of
Final Determination by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the preliminary flood
hazard data shall be used and shall replace the flood hazard data previously provided from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purposes of administering section
30.3.
(§ 30.3.02.2, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 05-18(1), 1-5-05, effective 2-5-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.3.
Sec. 30.3.8 Administration; interpretation of district boundaries.
The zoning administrator, in consultation with the floodplain administrator, is authorized to interpret the
boundaries of the flood hazard overlay district, as provided in sec tion 31.1(a), subject to any aggrieved
person’s right to appeal any decision, determination or order to the board of zoning appeals as provided
in section 34.
(§ 30.3.8 (New))
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2286, 15.2-2311.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 59.22(b)(1).
Sec. 30.3.9 Administration; amendment to district boundaries.
With the prior approval of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the board of supervisors may
amend the boundaries of the flood hazard overlay district in one or more of the following cases: (i) where
natural or man-made changes have occurred; (ii) where more detailed studies have been conducted or
undertaken by the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified agency; or (iii) an individual
documents the need for such change.
(§ 30.3.07 (part), 12-10-80; Ord. 05-18(1), 1-5-05, effective 2-5-05)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2285, 15.2-2286
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 59.22(b)(1).
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Sec. 30.3.10 Administration; Letters of Map Change.
Letters of Map Change are subject to the following:
A. Request. Any owner, developer or subdivider (collectively, the “owner”) shall or may request a
Letter of Map Change or a Conditional Letter of Map Change as provided by federal law, and as
follows:
1. Letter of Map Amendment (“LOMA”) or Conditional Letter of Map Amendment
(“CLOMA”). If survey data shows that a parcel, site or structure is or will be above the
base flood elevation and the owner wants the parcel, site or structure removed from the
special flood hazard area designation, he may request a Letter of Map Amendment from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The owner also shall provide survey data
to the floodplain administrator, which shall be in a form and of a substance that is
satisfactory to the floodplain administrator. If the survey data is satisfactory to the
floodplain administrator, he shall record the data. An owner may request a Conditional
Letter of Map Amendment for an undeveloped parcel.
2. Letter of Map Revision (“LOMR”) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR),
optional. If a new flood study has been conducted showing that the original study was in
error or that the new study is based on more accurate or better technical data, an owner
may request a Letter of Map Revision or a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency to change the floodplain or regulatory floodway
boundaries or to include new flood data.
3. Letter of Map Revision (“LOMR”) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR),
required. If development, or proposed development, in the floodplain may result in a
change to the base flood elevation in any special flood hazard area, encroaches on the
regulatory floodway, or would alter or relocate a stream, the owner shall request a Letter
of Map Revision or a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. If the requested Letter of Map Revision is based on new fill in the
floodway fringe where a regulatory floodway is defined, the owner shall request a Letter
of Map Revision-fill (“LOMR-F”) or a Conditional Letter of Map Revision – fill (“CLOMR-
F”).
4. Minimal submittal requirements to the floodplain administrator; signature . The owner shall
submit to the floodplain administrator two (2) copies of the proposed application, together
with supporting documentation and models, and the applicable fee, for review and
approval prior to the floodplain administrator signing the application as the community
official. If the owner is required to obtain a special use permit for any proposed
development in the flood hazard overlay district, the owner shall first obtain approval of
the special use permit and satisfy all applicable conditions of the special use permit
before the floodplain administrator signs the application.
B. Effect of conditional Letter of Map Change. A Conditional Letter of Map Change informs the
owner and others that when the development is completed, and if the owner submits an elevation
certificate and as-built drawings certified b y a land surveyor or a professional engineer to
demonstrate that the development was built as approved in the Conditional Letter of Map of Map
Change, it will qualify for the particular Letter of Map Change, which must be requested from and
issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order for the map to be amended or
revised.
C. Effect of Letter of Map Change on permitting and uses. A proposed or pending request for a
Letter of Map Change affects permitting and uses as follows:
1. Letter of Map Amendment or Conditional Letter of Map Amendment. If the owner has or
will be requesting a Letter of Map Amendment or a Conditional Letter of Map Amendment
as provided in subsection (A)(1), the administrator or any other county official or body
may act on any pending application and any authorized use may begin, provided that the
owner furnished to the administrator the survey data on which a Letter of Map
Amendment or Conditional Letter of Map Amendment is or will be based before the Letter
of Map Amendment or Conditional Letter of Map Amendment is issued.
2. Letter of Map Revision or Conditional Letter of Map Revision, optional. If the owner has
or will be requesting an optional Letter of Map Revision or Conditional Letter of Map
Revision as provided in subsection (A)(2), the administrator or any other county official or
body may act on any pending application and any authorized use may begin, provided
that if the Letter of Map Revision or Conditional Letter of Map Revision, if issued, would
reduce any design or construction standard, or change the special flood hazard area
designation of the parcel, site or structure from the regulatory floodway to the floodway
fringe, any approval may be conditioned on, and no use shall be begin, until the Federal
Insurance Administrator issues the Letter of Map Revision or Conditional Letter of Map
Revision.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
3. Letter of Map Revision (“LOMR”) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR),
required. If the owner has or will be requesting a required Letter of Map Revision or
Conditional Letter of Map Revision as provided in subsection (A)(3), the administrator or
any other county official or body shall not act on any pending application and no use shall
begin until the Federal Emergency Management Agency issues the Letter of Map
Revision and all requirements of 44 CFR § 65.12 are satisfied.
(§ 30.3.07 (part), 12-10-80; Ord. 05-18(1), 1-5-05, effective 2-5-05)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR §§ 59.22(b)(1), 65.3, 65.6.
Sec. 30.3.11 Permitted and prohibited uses and structures.
The uses and structures permitted by right and by special use permit, and the uses and structures
expressly prohibited, in the flood hazard overlay district are as follows:
Use or Structure Regulatory
Floodway
Floodway
Fringe
Agricultural, Natural Resources, and Recreational Uses and Structures*
Agricultural uses, limited to field crops, pasture, grazing, livestock, raising
poultry, horticulture, viticulture and forestry; provided that no primary or
accessory structures are permitted under this classification
BR
BR
Structures accessory to a permitted agricultural use; provided that no accessory
structures having habitable space are permitted
N BR
Recreational uses including, but not limited to, parks, swimming areas, golf
courses and driving ranges, picnic areas, wildlife and nature preserves, game
farms, fish hatcheries, hunting, fishing and hiking areas, athletic fields, and
horse show grounds; provided that no primary or accessory structures are
permitted under this classification
BR
BR
Structures accessory to a permitted recreational use; provided that no
accessory structures for human habitation are permitted
N BR
Sod farming SP SP
Topsoil, sand, and gravel removal SP SP
Flood and Water Related Uses and Structures*
Flood warning aids and devices, water monitoring devices, and similar uses BR BR
Flood control or environmental restoration projects which: (i) are designed or
directed by the county, a soil and water conservation district, or a public agency
authorized to carry out flood control or environmental restoration measures; or
(ii) are reviewed and approved by the department of community development in
accordance with the water protection ordinance
BR
BR
Dams, levees and other structures for flood control or for the public drinking
water supply
SP SP
Engineered structures, including, but not limited to, retaining walls and
revetments made of non-natural materials such as concrete which are
constructed along channels or watercourses for the purpose of water
conveyance or flood control
SP
SP
Water related uses such as boat docks and canoe liveries SP SP
Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26) SP SP
Public Utility and Telecommunications Uses and Structures*
Electric, gas, oil and communications facilities, including poles, lines, pipes,
meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and
operated by a public utility, but excluding tower structures
BR
BR
Water distribution and sewage collection lines and appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, but excluding pumping
stations and holding ponds; public water and sewer transmission lines, main or
trunk lines, and interceptors, but excluding treatment facilities and pumping
stations, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
BR
BR
Pump stations for water or wastewater, including power supply and control
devices, holding ponds and other appurtenances
SP SP
Electrical transmission lines and related towers; microwave and radio -wave
transmission and relay towers
SP SP
Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities that are attached to an
existing structure
N BR
Tier III personal wireless service facilities N N
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Stream Crossings and Grading Activities*
Stream crossings for driveways serving single-family dwellings and pedestrian
trails, including, but not limited to, pedestrian and multi-use paths that are within
county-owned or operated parks and greenways, and any footbridges
necessary to cross tributary streams, watercourses and swales, that: (i) meet
the applicable requirements of sections 17-406 and 17-604; (ii) demonstrate, in
a floodplain impact plan, to the floodplain administrator’s satisfaction, that
construction of the crossing will have no impact on the elevations or limits of the
floodplain; and (iii) will serve one dwelling unit that could not be accessed by
any other means.
BR
BR
Bridges, ferries and culverts not serving single-family dwellings SP SP
Grading activities in compliance with the Water Protection Ordinance; provided
that it is demonstrated, in a floodplain impact plan that the grading will have no
impact on the elevations or limits of the floodplain and further provided that any
cut or fill shall be only to level areas for playfields, correct erosion problems,
build trails, or other fine grading activities which will have no impact on the
floodplain.
N
BR
Grading activities, including cut or fill, in compliance with the Water Protection
Ordinance, but for which the floodplain administrator determines will or may
cause the base flood elevation to rise or the horizontal limits of the floodplain to
expand
N
SP
Miscellaneous Structures*
Aircraft landing strips; provided that structures other than the landing strip,
aircraft parking, and aircraft storage are prohibited
SP SP
Fences BR BR
Structures accessory to uses permitted by right in the regulatory floodway,
excluding structures having habitable space; provided that any such structure
permitted shall be flood-proofed and anchored per FEMA standards.
N
SP
Structure having habitable space, including any manufactured home, regardless
of the structure’s proposed use, whether it qualifies as a dwelling unit, and
whether it is a primary or accessory structure
N
N
Storage as a Primary or Accessory Use*
Storage of gasoline, kerosene and other petroleum products N N
Storage of flammable liquids, dynamite, blasting caps and other explosives N N
Storage of pesticides and poisons and other similar materials N N
Storage of machinery and motor vehicles except as accessory to a use allowed
by right or by special use permit
N N
Storage of junk N N
*Heading is for organizational purposes only and is not a use classification.
**Heading denotes that the use classifications are prohibited as either primary or accessory uses.
BR: The use is permitted by right, provided that the use or structure satisfies all applicable requirements
of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the permitting requirements of section 30.3.12 and the
encroachment and construction standards in sections 30.3.13 through 30.3.15.
SP: The use is permitted by special use permit, provided that the use or structure satisfies all applicable
requirements of this chapter. including, but not limited to, the permitting requirements of section 30.3.12
and the encroachment and construction standards in sections 30.3.13 through 30 .3.15.
N: The use is not permitted.
(§ 30.3.04, 12-10-80); (§ 30.3.05, 12-10-80); (§ 30.3.05.1, 12-10-80); (§ 30.3.05.1.1, 12-10-80, 7-1-81, 5-
12-93; Ord. 98-18(2); 9-16-98; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 09-18(2), 5-13-09); (§ 30.3.05.1.2, 12-10-80;
Ord. 05-18(1), 1-5-05, effective 2-5-05); (§ 30.3.05.2, 12-10-80); (§ 30.3.05.2.1, 12-10-80, 4-28-82, Ord.
98-18(2); 9-16-98; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04); (§ 30.3.05.2.2, 12-10-80)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.1(d).
Sec. 30.3.12 Prerequisite to development; required permits and certifications.
In addition to the requirements for any other permits under this chapter, no use, structure, or any other
development (collectively, the “development”) within the flood hazard overlay district shall commence
without the owner first obtaining or providing the following:
A. Floodplain development permit. A floodplain development permit for any development, including
those for which other permits or certificates are required under subsections (B) through (E),
issued by the floodplain administrator, which shall be deemed to be certification of the following:
1. Uses, structures or development subject to permit. The owner submitted documentation
that the proposed development is authorized within the district as it has been proposed
and approved under this chapter and that it is in compliance with all applicable state and
federal laws.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
2. Compliance with all applicable laws. The development is authorized to be undertaken
only in strict compliance with the requirements of the flood hazard overlay district, this
chapter, and all other applicable laws, including the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the Water Protection Ordinance.
3. Reasonably safe from flooding. The site has been reviewed by the floodplain
administrator and he is assured that it is reasonably safe from flooding. This assurance
shall be based, in part, upon any documentation provided by the owner showing the
elevation of the lowest floor, including the basement, of any new and substantially
improved structures and, if the structure has been flood-proofed in accordance with the
requirements of the flood hazard overlay district, the elevation (in relation to mean sea
level) to which the structure has been flood-proofed.
4. Adverse effect on capacity of channels and floodways prohibited. Under no
circumstances shall any development adversely affect the capacity of the channels or
floodways of any watercourse, drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system.
5. Floodway or in a riverine floodplain where the floodway is not mapped. For any
development in the regulatory floodway or in a riverine floodplain where the floodway is
not mapped, the owner shall submit to the floodplain administrator a no-rise certificate
composed of a professional engineer’s certification that the development will not cause
an increase in flood levels, based on the technical data required by section 30.3.13. The
no-rise certificate shall be on a form provided by the floodplain administrator.
B. Grading permit. No grading permit shall be issued for fill in the floodway fringe unless the
floodplain administrator determines that the proposed fill satisfies the requirements of section
30.3.14.
C. Permit to relocate or alter a watercourse; required notice. Prior to any proposed alteration or
relocation of any channels or of any watercourse within the flood hazard overlay district, the
owner shall obtain all required permits from the United States Corps of Engineers, the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (a joint
permit application is available from any of these organizations). In riverine areas, notification of
the proposed relocation or alteration shall be given by the owner to all affected adjacent
jurisdictions, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Dam Safety and
Floodplain Management, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and any other public
agencies required to be notified by state or federal law. The flood carrying capacity within an
altered or relocated portion of any watercourse shall be maintained.
D. Building permits. No building permit shall be issued for any structure within the flood hazard
overlay district unless:
1. Elevations. The building permit includes the existing and proposed ground elevations, the
boundaries of the flood hazard overlay district, the base flood elevation on the site, the
elevation of the lowest floor, including any basement, and for any structures to be flood -
proofed as required by section 30.3, the elevation to which the structure will be flood-
proofed.
2. Elevation certificate. The owner submits to the floodplain administrator an elevation
certificate, to be retained by the floodplain administrator, certifying that the lowest floor is
elevated at or above the freeboard elevation. The elevation certificate shall be either on
the Federal Emergency Management Agency Elevation form or a form provided by the
floodplain administrator.
3. Flood-proofing certificate; non-residential buildings. The owner submits to the floodplain
administrator a flood-proofing certificate composed of a professional engineer’s
certification that a non-residential building was properly flood-proofed as required by
section 30.3.15. The flood-proofing certificate shall be either on the Federal Emergency
Management Agency Elevation form or a form provided by the floodplain administrator.
(§ 30.3.03.2 (part), 12-10-80, 6-10-87); (§ 30.3.03.3, 12-10-80)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR §§ 60.3(a)(1), (a)(2). (a)(4)(i), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(6), (b)(7).
Sec. 30.3.13 Encroachment standards; determining impact on base flood elevation.
Any use, structure or other development authorized by section 30.3.11 shall be subject to the following:
A. Within the floodway in Zone A1-30 or AE. The following shall apply within the regulatory floodway
of any Zone A1-30 or AE:
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
1. Encroachment prohibited unless owner demonstrates no increase in water surface
elevation of the base flood. Any encroachment, including new construction, substantial
improvements, fencing crossing a stream channel, or other development, but excluding
fill, is prohibited unless the owner demonstrates in a floodplain impact plan that the
proposed encroachment will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of
the base flood within the county during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. Fill is
prohibited in the regulatory floodway regardless of whether the owner demonstrates that
the fill will not result in any increase in the water surface elevation of the base flood.
2. Encroachment which would increase the water surface elevation may be allowed with
Conditional Letter of Map Revision. Any encroachment, including fill, new construction,
substantial improvements, or other development, which would increase the water surface
elevation of the base flood may be allowed provided that the owner first applies, with the
floodplain administrator’s endorsement, for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision as
provided in section 30.3.10, and receives the approval of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
3. Authorized encroachments; applicable design standards . All new construction and
substantial improvements shall comply with the applicable standards in section 30.3.15.
A replacement manufactured home may be placed on a lot in an existing manufactured
home park or subdivision to replace an existing manufactured home, provided the
anchoring, elevation, and encroachment standards in section 30.3.15(A) and (B) are
satisfied.
B. Within Zone A1-30, AE or AH, floodway not designated. The following shall apply within any Zone
A1-30, AE or AH where the floodway is not designated:
1. Encroachment prohibited unless owner demonstrates cumulative increase in wat er
surface elevation of the base flood will not exceed one (1) foot. Any encroachment,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, fencing crossing a stream
channel, or other development, is prohibited unless the owner demonstrates in a
floodplain impact plan that the cumulative effect of the proposed encroachment, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not result in an
increase in water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one (1) foot within the
county during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
2. Encroachment which would increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by
more than one foot may be allowed with Conditional Letter of Map Revision. Any
encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or other
development, which would increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by more
than one (1) foot may be allowed provided that the owner first applies, with the floodplain
administrator’s endorsement, for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision as provided in
section 30.3.10, and receives the approval of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
C. Within Zone A; floodway not designated and floodplain boundary approximated . The following
shall apply within any Zone A where the floodway is not designated and the floodplain boundary
is approximated, in order to determine the location of the floodway and the floodplain, and the
elevation of the base flood:
1. Floodway and base flood elevation. The base flood elevation and floodway shall be
determined for the proposed development using information from federal, state, and other
acceptable sources shall be used to determine the floodway and base flood elevation,
when available. These sources shall include, but are not limited to, the United States
Army Corps of Engineers Floodplain Information Reports and the United States
Geological Survey Flood-Prone Quadrangles. If the base flood elevation cannot be
determined using these sources of data, then the applicant for the proposed
encroachment shall determine the base flood elevation, as follows:
a. Other sources. Base flood elevation data shall be obtained from other sources or
developed using detailed methodologies, comparable to those contained in a
Flood Insurance Study for subdivisions, site plans, and other proposed
development proposals that exceed fifty (50) lots or five (5) acres, whichever is
the lesser; or
b. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. In his discretion, the floodplain administrator
may require a floodplain impact plan.
2. Approximated floodplain. In the approximated floodplain, the applicant shall use technical
methods that correctly reflect currently accepted non-detailed technical concepts, such as
point on boundary, high water marks, detailed methodologies, or hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses. Studies, analyses, computations, and other information shall be submitted to
the floodplain administrator in sufficient detail to allow him to conduct a complete review
of the analyses. In his discretion, the floodplain administrator may require the owner to
submit a floodplain impact plan.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
D. Any zone; additional information. The floodplain administrator may require a hydrologic and
hydraulic analysis for any development. When the base flood elevation data is used, the lowest
floor shall be elevated to or above the freeboard elevation.
(§ 30.3.03.2 (part), 12-10-80, 6-10-87)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR §§ 59.1, 60.3(b), (c) , (d).
Sec. 30.3.14 Encroachment standards; fill in the floodway fringe.
Any fill in the floodway fringe authorized by special use permit under section 30.3.11 shall, in addition to
any condition of approval of the special use permit and any applicable encroachment standard in section
30.3.13, be subject to the following:
A. Minimize obstruction. The fill shall be designed and constructed to minimize obstruction to and
effect upon the flow of water such that: (i) the fill will not, in the opinion of the floodplain
administrator, result in any increase in the base flood elevation above that authorized in section
30.3.13; and (ii) no fill is placed in the regulatory floodway.
B. Protect against erosion. The fill shall be effectively protected against erosion by vegetative cover,
riprap, gabions, bulkhead or another method acceptable to the floodplain administrator. Any
structure, equipment or material installed to protect against erosion shall be firmly anc hored to
prevent dislocation due to flooding.
C. Non-polluting. The fill shall be of a material that will not pollute surface water or groundwater.
D. Additional information. The floodplain administrator may require any owner to submit additional
topographic, engineering and other data or studies as the administrator deems necessary to
determine the effect of flooding on a proposed structure or fill, the effect of the structure or fill, or
both, on the flow of water during a flood.
E. Certification by floodplain administrator. No fill activity shall occur before the owner submits a site
plan for review, the floodplain administrator certifies that the requirements of subsections (A)
through (D), and all other applicable requirements of the Code, have been satisfied.
(§§ 30.3.06, 30.3.06.1, 12-10-80)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.1(d).
Sec. 30.3.15 Construction standards.
The following standards shall apply to any structure authorized under section 30.3.11 within the flood
hazard overlay district, and its special flood hazard area zones:
A. Structures and related improvements in any special flood hazard area; general standards . Any
structures and related improvements in any special flood hazard area zone shall satisfy the
following:
1. Compliance with building code and required anchoring . New construction and substantial
improvements shall be according to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, and
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure.
2. Use materials resistant to flood damage. New construction and substantial improvements
shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
3. Use methods to minimize flood damage. New construction or substantial improvements
shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
4. Design to prevent water entering systems. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air
conditioning equipment and other service facilities, including duct work, shall be designed
and/or located to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components
during conditions of flooding.
5. Design to prevent water entering water supply systems. New and replacement water
supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into
the system.
6. Design to prevent water entering sanitary sewage systems. New and replacement
sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
7. Design to prevent impairment or contamination of on-site waste disposal systems. On-
site waste disposal systems shall be located and constructed to avoid impairment to them
or contamination from them during flooding.
8. Historic structures. Any historic structure undergoing repair or rehabilitation that would
constitute a substantial improvement shall comply with any requirements of the flood
hazard overlay district that do not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a
historic structure. The owner shall provide documentation from the Secretary of the
Interior or the State Historic Preservation Officer that a specific requirement of the flood
hazard overlay district will cause removal of the structure from the National Register of
Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic places, as applicable. Any relief from
any requirement shall be the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and
design of the structure.
B. Buildings in Zones A, A1-30, AE, and AH; elevation and construction standards. Any buildings in
Zones A, A1-30, AE, and AH, where base flood elevations have been provided in the Flood
Insurance Study or generated by a certified professional, shall satisfy the following:
1. Existing residential building. Any substantial improvement of any residential building,
including any manufactured home, shall have the lowest floor, including the basement,
elevated to or above the freeboard elevation.
2. Non-residential buildings. Any new construction or substantial improvement of any non-
residential building shall: (i) have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or
above the freeboard elevation; or (ii) in any Zone A1-30, AE, or AH, the building may be
flood-proofed in lieu of being elevated to or above the freeboard elevation, provided that
all areas of the building components below the freeboard elevation are water tight with
walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and use structural components
having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effect of
buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or architect shall certify that the standards
of this subsection are satisfied. The certification, including the specific elevation, in relation
to mean sea level, to which such structures are flood-proofed, shall be maintained by the
floodplain administration.
3. Drainage paths. Within Zone AH, adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes
shall be established and maintained to guide floodwaters around and away from all
proposed structures.
C. Buildings in Zone AO. Any buildings in Zone AO shall satisfy the following:
1. Existing residential building. Any substantial improvements of any residential building
shall have the lowest floor, including the basement, elevated to or above the flood depth
specified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map above the highest adjacent grade at least as
high as the flood depth number specified in feet on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. If no
flood depth number is specified, the lowest floor, including the basement, shall be
elevated no less than two (2) feet above the highest adjacent grade.
2. Non-residential buildings. All new construction and substantial improvements of non-
residential buildings shall satisfy either of the following: (i) the lowest floor, including the
basement, shall be elevated to or above the flood depth specified on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number
specified in feet on the Flood Insurance Rate Map; if no flood depth number is specified,
the lowest floor, including the basement, shall be elevated at least two (2) feet above the
highest adjacent grade; or (ii) completely flood-proof the building, including any utility and
sanitary facilities, to the freeboard elevation so that any space below that level is
watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with
structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
loads and effects of buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or architect shall certify
that the standards of this subsection are satisfied.
3. Drainage paths. Adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes shall be
established and maintained to guide floodwaters around and away from all proposed
structures.
D. Structures in Zones A, A1-30, AE, AH and AO; design, construction and use standards for space
below the freeboard elevation. Any fully enclosed area below the freeboard elevation (the
“enclosed area”) in any new construction or substantially improved structure in Zones A, A1 -30,
AE, AH and AO, where base flood elevations have been provided, shall satisfy the f ollowing:
1. Uses. The enclosed area shall be used only for parking vehicles, building access, or the
limited storage of maintenance equipment not otherwise prohibited by section 30.3.11
that is used in connection with the premises.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
2. Access. Access to the enclosed area shall be the minimum necessary to allow for parking
vehicles (garage door) or limited storage of maintenance equipment (standard exterior
door), or entry to other areas of the structure (stairway or elevator).
3. Construction materials. The enclosed area shall be constructed entirely of flood resistant
materials below the freeboard elevation.
4. Openings. The enclosed area shall include measures to automatically equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on walls by allowing floodwat ers to enter and exit. To meet this
requirement, openings shall be provided that are either certified by a professional
engineer or architect, or meet the following minimum design criteria:
a. Minimum number. Provide a minimum of two (2) openings on different sides of
each enclosed area.
b. Minimum net area. The total net area of all openings shall be at least one (1)
square inch for each square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding.
c. Multiple enclosed areas. If a structure has more than one enclosed area, each
area must have openings to allow floodwaters to automatically enter and exit.
d. Bottom of opening. The bottom of all required openings shall be no higher than
one (1) foot above the adjacent grade.
e. Permitted equipment on openings. Openings may be equipped with screens,
louvers, or other opening coverings or devices, provided they permit the
automatic flow of floodwaters in both directions.
f. Flexible skirting, masonry and wood foundations; requirement for openings .
Foundation enclosures made of flexible skirting do not create enclosed areas and
do not require openings. Masonry or wood underpinning, regardless of structural
status, is considered an enclosure and requires openings.
E. Recreational vehicles. Any recreational vehicle in Zone A1-30, AE or AH where base flood
elevations have been provided shall either: (i) be stored on the lot for fewer than one hundred
eighty (180) consecutive days, be fully licensed and ready for highway use; or (ii) satisfy all
requirements for new construction in subsections (A) and (B). For the purposes of this
subsection, a recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system,
is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devic es, and has no
permanently attached additions.
F. Fences. Any fence crossing a stream channel that, as determined by the floodplain administrator,
may block the passage of floodwaters or may catch debris during a flood, shall be designed and
constructed to be a breakaway fence that will give way on one end under a specified amount of
pressure in order to swing parallel to the flow and minimize both resistance to floodwaters and
catching debris.
(§ 30.03.02 (part), 12-10-80, 6-10-87)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2286, 36-98.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR §§ 60.3(a), (b), (c), (d).
Sec. 30.3.16 Nonconforming uses and structures.
Any pre-FIRM structure or any use which lawfully existed before December 16, 1980, but which is not in
conformity with the requirements of the flood hazard overlay district, may continue, subject to the
following:
A. Expansion or enlargement of existing uses or structures. Existing uses or structures shall not be
expanded or enlarged.
B. Modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvement of an existing use or structure; not
a substantial improvement. Existing uses or structures may be modified, altered, repaired,
reconstructed or improved (collectively, the “improvements”), but not enlarged or expande d,
where the improvements are not a substantial improvement, provided that the improvements: (i)
are authorized by sections 6.2 and 6.3, as applicable; and (ii) comply with the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code.
C. Modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction or improvement of an existing use or structure;
substantial improvement. Existing uses or structures may be modified, altered, repaired,
reconstructed or improved (the “improvements”), where the improvements qualify as a substantial
improvement, provided that: (i) the entire use or structure complies with the requirements of the
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
flood hazard overlay district and all other applicable laws; and (ii) the entire structure complies
with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
D. Repair or rehabilitation of historic structure; substantial improvement. Any historic structure
undergoing repair or rehabilitation that would constitute a substantial improvement shall comply
with any requirements of the flood hazard overlay district that do not preclude the structure’s
continued designation as a historic structure. The owner shall provide documentation from the
Secretary of the Interior or the State Historic Preservation Officer that a specific requirement of
the flood hazard overlay district will cause removal of the structure from the National Register of
Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic places, as applicable. Any relief from any
requirement shall be the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the
structure.
(§30.3.09, 12-10-80)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2286, 15.2-2307.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.1(d).
Sec. 30.3.17 Variances.
The board of zoning appeals is authorized to consider and act on applications for variances, subject to
the following:
A. Eligibility. Variances may be issued in the following circumstances:
1. New construction or substantial improvements; nearby structures constructed below the
base flood elevation. For new construction and substantial improvements to be erected
on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing
structures constructed below the base flood elevation, provided that the board of zoning
appeals may, upon good cause shown, consider a variance application pertaining to a lot
larger than one-half acre.
2. New construction, substantial improvement, or development; required for water -
dependent facilities. For new construction, substantial improvements, or other
development necessary for a water-dependent facility, not otherwise authorized by a
special use permit, provided that all applicable requirements of the flood hazard overlay
district not varied are satisfied and any structure or other developm ent is protected by
methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and create no additional
threats to public safety.
B. What may be varied. The following may be varied within the flood hazard overlay district: (i) any
requirement of this chapter that is eligible to be varied under section 34.2 and Virginia Code §
15.2-2309; (ii) any minimum encroachment standard in sections 30.3.13 and 30.3.14; (iii) any
minimum construction standard in section 30.3.15; or (iv) any standard applicable to
nonconforming uses and structures in 30.3.16. Neither any part of section 30.3.11 nor any
administrative or procedural requirement of the flood hazard overlay district may be varied.
C. Procedures. The procedures and requirements for applying for and acting on a variance
application shall be as provided in section 34.
D. Factors to be considered. In considering a variance application under this section, the board of
zoning appeals shall consider the following factors in addition to those in section 34.2:
1. Danger to life and property. The danger to life and property due to increased flood
heights or velocities caused by encroachments. No variance shall be granted for any
proposed use, development, or activity within any regulatory floodway that will caus e any
increase in the base flood elevation.
2. Danger of materials being swept away. The danger that materials may be swept on to
other lands or downstream to the injury of others.
3. Water supply and sewage systems. The proposed water supply and sanitary sewage
systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and
unsanitary conditions.
4. Susceptibility to flood damage. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents
to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owners.
5. Importance of services. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility
to the community.
6. Need for waterfront location. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
7. Availability of alternative locations. The availability of alternative locations not subject to
flooding for the proposed use.
8. Compatibility. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and
development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
9. Comprehensive plan and flood management program. The relationship of the proposed
use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for the area.
10. Vehicular access. The safety of access by emergency and non-emergency vehicles to
the site in time of flood.
11. Flood waters. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment
transport of the flood waters expected at the site.
12. Historic nature of structure. The historic nature of a structure and whether the proposed
repair or rehabilitation will preclude the structure’s continued designation as a historic
structure.
E. Referral to obtain technical assistance. The board of zoning appeals may refer any application
and accompanying documentation pertaining to any request for a variance to the floodplain
administrator for technical assistance in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood
heights and velocities, and the adequacy of the plans for flood protection and other related
matters.
F. Findings. A variance may be issued if the board of zoning appeals finds:
1. Cause. The owner has demonstrated good and sufficient cause consistent with the
requirements of this section.
2. Undue hardship. The failure to issue the variance would result in undue hardship.
3. Impacts. The issuance of the variance will not: (i) result in unacceptable or prohibited
increases in flood heights; (ii) result in additional threats to public safety; (iii) result in
extraordinary public expense; (iv) create a public or private nuisance; (v) cause fraud or
victimization of the public; and (vi) conflict with county regulations.
4. Variance is minimum required. The variance to be issued will be the minimum required to
provide relief.
5. Additional finding for historic structures. In addition to findings (1) through (4) above, the
proposed repair or rehabilitation of the historic structure will not preclude the structure’s
continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary
to preserve the historic character and design of the structure.
G. Structure below base flood elevation; notice to owner of effect of issuing a variance . The board of
zoning appeals shall notify the applicant in writing that the issuance of a variance to construct a
structure below the base flood elevation increases the risks to life and property and will result in
increased premium rates for flood insurance. Providing this information on a variance application
form shall satisfy the notice requirements of this subsection.
H. Recordkeeping. A record shall be maintained of the above notification, as well as all variance
actions, including justification for the issuance of the variances. Any variances that are issued
shall be noted in the annual or biennial report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administrator.
I. Use variances. No variance may be issued to authorize a use in the flood hazard overlay district
not otherwise expressly authorized.
(§30.3.10, 12-10-80)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2309.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.6.
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan.
Each initial site plan shall contain the following information:
a. General information. The name of the development; names of the owner, developer and
individual who prepared the plan; tax map and parcel number; boundary dimensions; zoning
district; descriptions of all proffers, special use permits and conditions thereof, special exceptions
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
and conditions thereof, variances and conditions thereof, application plans, codes of development
and bonus factors applicable to the site; magisterial district; county and state; north point; scale;
one datum reference for elevation (section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, applies to any
portion of the site, United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or
correlated to plan topography and show existing and proposed ground elevations); the source of
the topography; departing lot lines; minimum setback lines, yard and building separation
requirements; the source of the survey; sheet number and total number of sheets; and the names
of the owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel numbers and present uses of abutting parcels.
b. Information regarding the proposed use. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate
that the site can accommodate the proposed uses, including proposed uses and maximum
acreage occupied by each use; maximum number of dwelling units by type including the number
of bedrooms for multi-family dwellings; gross residential density; square footage of recreational
areas; the percentage and acreage of open space; maximum square footage for commercial and
industrial uses; maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage for industrial use; maximum height of
all structures; schedule of parking including the maximum amount required and the amount
provided; the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site; and if a landscape plan is
required, the maximum amount of paved parking and other vehicular circulation areas.
c. Phase lines. If phasing is planned, phase lines and the proposed timing of development.
d. Topography and proposed grading. Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope,
maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours)
for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite
features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site
unless otherwise approved by the agent; proposed grading (maximum five [5] foot contours)
supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are
critical slopes.
e. Landscape features. The existing landscape features as described in section 32.7.9.4(c).
f. Watercourses and other bodies of water. The name and location of all watercourses and other
bodies of water adjacent to or on the site; indicate whether the site is located within the
watershed of a public water supply reservoir.
g. Onsite sewage system setback lines. The location of onsite sewage system setback lines from
watercourses including intermittent streams and other bodies of water.
h. Floodplain and related information. The boundaries of the flood hazard overlay district, the base
flood elevation on the site, the elevation of the lowest floor, including any basement, and for any
structures to be flood-proofed as required by section 30.3, the elevation to which the structures
will be flood-proofed.
i. Streets, easements and travelways. The existing and proposed streets, including proposed bike
lanes, access easements, alley easements and rights-of-way, and travelways, together with
street names, state route numbers, right-of-way lines and widths, centerline radii and pavement
widths.
j. Existing sewer and drainage facilities. The location and size of existing water and sewer facilities
and easements, the storm drainage system, drainage channels, and drainage easements.
k. Proposed sewer and drainage facilities. The proposed conceptual layout for water and sewer
facilities and the storm drainage system, indicating the direction of flow in all pipes and
watercourses with arrows.
l. Existing and proposed utilities. The location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility
easements, including existing telephone, cable, electric and gas easements.
m. Ingress and egress. The location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the
property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection.
n. Existing and proposed improvements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed
improvements including buildings (maximum footprint and height) and other structures; walkways;
fences; walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting; landscaped areas and open space; recre ational
areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas; loading and service areas; signs; and the
proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways.
o. Areas to be dedicated or reserved. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use
under sections 32.7.1.1, 32.7.1.2 and 32.7.1.3, and shall include a note on the plan stating that
the land is to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
p. Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9, if it is required to be
submitted with the initial site plan.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
q. Traffic generation figures. If deemed appropriate by the agent due to the intensity of the
development, estimated traffic generation figures for the site based on current Virginia
Department of Transportation rates; indicate the estimated number of vehicles per day and the
direction of travel for all connections from the site to a public street.
r. Symbols and abbreviations. A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan.
s. Additional information. The agent may require additional information to be shown on the initial site
plan as deemed necessary to provide sufficient information for the agent and the site review
committee to adequately review the plan.
t. Dam break inundation zones. The limits of a dam break inundation zone.
(§ 32.5.2, Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12, effective 1-1-13; Ord. 13-18(7), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14 (§ 32.5.6, 5-1-
87, 2-6-02 (§ 32.4.5, 12-10-80))
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.3(b)(3).
Sec. 32.5.7 Flood hazard overlay district.
If the proposed development is located wholly or partially within the flood hazard overlay district, the site
review committee shall review the initial site plan to determine that the site will be reasonably safe from
flooding and, if the development is in a flood-prone area: (i) that it is designed to minimize flood damage
within a flood-prone area; (ii) all public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water
systems will be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; and (iii) adequate
drainage will be provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2280.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.3(a)(4).
Sec. 35.1 Fees.
Each applicant shall pay the following applicable fees, provided that neither the county nor the county
school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant:
. . .
g. Matters considered by the zoning administrator or other officials:
1. Official determinations regarding compliance: $185.00
2. All other official determinations, including development rights: $100.00
3. Zoning clearance for tourist lodging: $100.00
4. Zoning clearance for a home occupation, class A, a major home occupation, or a minor
home occupation: $25.00
5. Zoning clearance for temporary fundraising activity: No fee
6. All other zoning clearances: $50.00
7. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; no ARB review required: $25.00
8. Sign permits under section 4.15.4; ARB review required: $120.00
9. Letter of Map Change review: $150.00 (topographic plan only); $300.00 (topographic
plan with floodplain model)
10. Floodplain Impact Plan review: $300.00
. . .
(Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; Ord. 10-18(7),
adopted 8-4-10, effective 1-1-11; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(7), 6-1-11; Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,
effective 1-1-13; Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; Ord. 13-18(7), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2286(A)(6), 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2243.1.
Article V. Violation and Penalty
Sec. 36.1 Violations.
The following are violations of this chapter and are declared to be unlawful:
a. Uses. Any use of a structure, improvement or land, established, conducted, operated or
maintained in violation of any provision of this chapter, any approved application plan, site plan,
code of development, zoning clearance, or condition ac cepted or imposed in conjunction with any
county approval under this chapter, or without any required permit, certificate or other required
approval under this chapter.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
b. Structures or improvements. Any structure or improvement and, within the flood hazard overlay
district, any development as that term is defined in section 30.3.5, that is established, conducted,
operated or maintained in violation of any provision of this chapter, any approved application
plan, site plan, code of development, zoning permit, zoning clearance, or condition accepted or
imposed in conjunction with any county approval under this chapter, or without any required
permit, certificate or other required approval under this chapter.
c. Structures without building permits. Any structure for which a building permit application is
required that is started, established, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged or altered without a
building permit.
d. Use of structure or site without certificate of occupancy . Any use of a structure or site for which a
certificate of occupancy is required that is conducted, operated or maintained without a certificate
of occupancy.
(§ 36.1, 12-10-80, 12-20-80; Subsection c: § 31.2.1, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; subsection d: §
31.2.3.1, 12-10-80, 6-2-82, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 09-18(3), 7-1-09)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286.
_____
Ms. Mallek then moved to adopt STA-2014-0002 Flood Hazard. Ms. McKeel seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-14(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE III, SUBDIVISION
PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED, 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 14,
Subdivision of Land, Article III, Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted, is hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 14-308 Flood plain Floodplain and topographic information; information to demonstrate that
damage from flooding will be minimized.
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat.
A preliminary plat shall contain the following information:
A. A preliminary plat shall contain the following information, which must be included in order for a
preliminary plat to be deemed complete under section 14-216(B):
1. Name of subdivision. The title under which the subdivision is proposed to be recorded.
The title shall not duplicate or be a homonym of an existing or reserved subdivision name
within the county, the City of Charlottesville, or the Town of Scottsville, except if the
subdivision is an extension of an existing subdivision.
2. Vicinity map. A map at a scale of one (1) inch equal to two thousand (2,000) feet showing
the property and its relationship with adjoining land and streets, its relationship with
landmarks in the area and, if the subdivision is a phased subdivision, all other phases of
the subdivision for which a final plat has been approved, in detail adequate to describe
the location of the property without field review.
3. Existing or platted streets. The location, width and names of all existing or platted streets
and all other rights-of-way.
4. Private easements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed private
easements. Existing easements shall be labeled with the deed book and page number
and the name of the owner of record.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
5. Public easements. The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed public
easements outside of a street right-of-way. Existing easements shall be labeled with the
deed book and page number and the name of the public owner of record. Proposed
easements shall be labeled as “dedicated to public use.”
6. Alleys and shared driveways. The location and dimensions of all easements for alleys
and shared driveways.
7. Existing and departing lot lines. If the property consists of more than one existing lot, then
the identification of the existing lots and their outlines, which shall be indicated by dashed
lines; and, the location of departing lot lines of abutting lots.
8. Proposed lots. The number, approximate dimensions, and area of each proposed lot.
9. Building sites on proposed lots. The location, area and dimensions of a building site on
each proposed lot complying with the requirements of section 4.2 of the zoning
ordinance. The plat shall also contain the following note: “Parcel [letter or number] and
the residue of Tax Map/Parcel [numbers] each contain a building site that complies with
section 4.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.”
10. Right of further division of proposed lots. The number of lots, as assigned by the
subdivider, into which each proposed lot may be further divided by right pursuant to
section 10.3.1 of the zoning ordinance, if applicable. The plat shall also contain the
following note: “Parcel [letter or number] is assigned [number] development rights and
may/may not be further divided and when further divided these rights shall not comprise
more than [number] acres. The residue of Tax Map/Parcel [numbers] is retaining
[number] development rights and when further divided it shall not consist of more than
[number] acres.” Development rights need not be assigned to a special lot.
11. Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The deed book and page number
of the instrument whereby the property was created, as recorded in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court of the county.
12. Topography. Existing topography at the time of plat submittal at up to twenty [20] percent
slope, with a contour interval that is not greater than the interval on aerial topography
available from the county. The source of topography, including survey date and name of
the licensed professional; or a statement that topography data provided by the county
was used Proposed grading, with a contour interval equal to the intervals of the existing
topography, supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where
existing slopes are twenty-five (25) percent or greater. Existing topography for the entire
site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features
and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site
unless otherwise approved by the agent. For property in the rural areas zoning district,
the proposed grading shall show all grading on each proposed lot, including access,
clearing and all other lot improvements.
13. Proposed facilities. The location of proposed water and sewer lines and related
improvements; proposed drainage and stormwater management facilities and related
improvements.
14. Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved. The location, acreage, and current owner of all
land intended to be dedicated in fee or reserved for public use, or to be reserved in a
deed for the common use of lot owners in the subdivision.
15. Identification of all owners and certain interest holders. The names and addresses of
each owner of record and holders of any easements affecting the property.
B. A preliminary plat shall also contain the following information, provided that the preliminary plat
shall not be deemed incomplete for purposes of section 14-216(B) if it does not include this
information in the initial plat submittal:
1. General information. The date of drawing, including the date of the last revision, the
number of sheets, the north point, and the scale. If true north is used, the method of
determination shall be shown.
2. Name of plat preparer. The name of the person who prepared the plat.
3. Public areas, facilities or uses. The location of all areas shown in the comprehensive plan
as proposed sites for public areas, facilities or uses, as described in Virginia Code § 15.2 -
2232, which are located wholly or in part within the property.
4. Places of burial. The location of any grave, object or structure marking a place of burial
located on the property.
5. Zoning classification. The zoning classification of the property, including all applicable
zoning overlay districts, proffers, special use permits and variances.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
6. Tax map and parcel number. The county tax map and parcel number of the property.
7. Reservior watershed; agricultural-forestal district. A notation as to whether the land is
within an Albemarle County and/or City of Charlottesville water supply watershed or an
agricultural-forestal district.
8. Yards. The location of all yards required by this chapter and the zoning ordinance, which
may be shown graphically or described in a note on the plat.
9. Floodplain and related information. If section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, applies to
any portion of the site, United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown
and/or correlated to plat topography and show existing and proposed ground elevations.
The boundaries of the flood hazard overlay district, the base flood elevation on the site,
the elevation of the lowest floor, including any basement, and for any structures to be
flood-proofed as required by section 30.3, the elevation to which the structures will be
flood-proofed.
10. Stream buffers. The location of stream buffers required by section 17-317 of the water
protection ordinance, with the following note: “The stream buffer(s) shown hereon shall
be managed in accordance with the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance.”
(9-5-96, 2-4-81, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-52; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-
20-05; Ord. 08-14(1), 2-6-08; Ord. 11-14(1), 6-1-11)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2262.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.3(b)(3).
Sec. 14-308 Floodplain and topographic information; information to demonstrate that damage
from flooding will be minimized.
The subdivider shall submit with each final plat floodplain and topographic information in a form
acceptable to the county engineer which demonstrates:
A. Flood limits. For each natural stream with an upstream drainage area of fifty (50) acres or more,
the flood limits for a one hundred (100) year storm; provided that the county engineer may waive
this requirement for drainage areas of less than one hundred (100) acres upon his determination
that the information is unnecessary for review of the proposed final plat.
B. Natural drainage not impeded. The property contains sufficient land upon which to place
structures without impeding natural drainage.
C. The floodplain limits, elevations, and floodplain profiles and cross-sections, if floodplain profiles
and cross-sections are determined by the county engineer to be necessary.
D. Design to minimize flood damage. The subdivision will be reasonably safe from flooding and, if
the subdivision is in a flood-prone area: (i) that it is designed to minimize flood damage within a
flood-prone area; (ii) all public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water
systems will be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; and (iii) adequate
drainage will be provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards.
(9-5-96, 12-15-82, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988 Code, § 18-21; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05,
effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2262, 15.2-2280.
Federal law reference – 44 CFR § 60.3(a)(4).
_______________
(The next three agenda items were heard concurrently:)
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: ZTA-2012-00012. Steep Slopes. An ordinance to amend
Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code by establishing a steep slopes overlay district and
regulations pertaining thereto. This ordinance would amend Sec. 18 -3.1, Definitions, by adding definitions
of steep slopes and two classes of steep slopes of 25% or greater – managed slopes and preserved
slopes, and amending the definition of critical slopes; adding Secs. 18-37.1 through 18-37.6 to establish
the district, establish standards and procedures for disturbing and preserving managed and preserved
slopes; amend Sec. 18-35.1, Fees, to provide that no fees are required for certain applications pertaining
to steep slopes; and amend Secs. 18-4.2.1, Building site required, 18-4.2.3, Location of structures and
improvements, 18-4.2.6, Exemptions, 18-4.7, Open space, 18-32.4.1.3, Contents of pre-application plan,
18-32.5.2, Contents of an initial site plan, 18-32.7.5.2, Location of utilities above and below ground, and
18-33.4, Uniform procedures for owner-initiated zoning map amendments and special use permits, to add
references to managed or preserved slopes where critical slopes are already referenced, as appropriate .
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 2014.)
_____
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: ZMA-2014-00001. Steep Slopes. An ordinance to amend
the zoning map adopted under Sec. 18-1.7, Zoning Map, contained in Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code by adding one or more maps delineating the boundaries of the steep slopes
overlay district and depicting managed and preserved slopes of 25% or greater therein. The general
usage within the overlay district on managed slopes are those uses allowed by right and by special use
permit in the base zoning district, and the general usage on preserved slopes are residential, uses
approved by county legislative action, necessary utilities and facilities, trails and accessory residential
uses; the density within the overlay district is that allowed by the base zoning distr ict. The general usage
and density range under the comprehensive plan is unchanged. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
February 17 and February 24, 2014.)
_____
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: STA-2014-00001. Steep Slopes. An ordinance to amend
Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Secs. 14 -216, Contents of
preapplication schematic plat, 14-302, Contents of preliminary plat, 14-304, Request to disturb critical
slopes, 14-404, Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway, 14-410, Standards
for all streets and alleys, 14-420, Location of utilities above- and underground, 14-422, Sidewalks and
planting strips, to add references to steep, managed or preserved slopes where critical or steep slopes
are already referenced. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 2014.)
The executive summary forwarded to Board members state that this amendment has had
significant public involvement and has been delayed for a number of years due limited County resources.
Direct public involvement has included two roundtables, a work session with all of the Board appointed
advisory committees and the mailing of approximately 5,000 notices to potentially affected property
owners. The direct mailings resulted in direct one on one contact with over 500 individuals. There has
also been a work session with the Board of Supervisors (11/17/12) and the Planning Commission
(8/13/13). As a result of the comments made by the public, the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors an ordinance has been developed.
Staff considered the comments made during meetings with the public, Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors, reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and conducted research to determine best
planning practices in other localities. Staff also utilized the experience gained by processing a large
number of waivers to determine what is most important to the community. Based on the cumulative result
of this research staff undertook to map all critical slopes (slopes of 25% or greater) in the Development
Areas and categorize those slopes. It is important to point out that staff has only reviewed critical slopes
in the Development Areas. Currently development on all slopes of 25% or greater is regulated by the
ordinance and all slopes of 25% or greater will still receive some form of regulation. The staff proposal is
to recognize that not all slopes of 25% or greater are equal in character. Some areas should be
“Preserved”. In “Preserved” areas development would not be permitted with the exception of uses to allow
reasonable use of the property and insure that a taking has not occurred. Other areas would be
designated as “Managed”. In “Managed” areas development would be permitt ed by right, provided that
development standards are met. The designation of the two types of critical slope areas would be
included in a new slopes overlay district in the Zoning Ordinance. The attached maps show those areas
designated as Preserved and Managed. The topography used to develop the maps is from the County’s
topographic database, available on the County’s Geographic Information GIS system. The topography is
not field run. Staff has used the GIS level of accuracy to develop the ordinance becaus e it matches the
current ordinance regulations. In both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances an applicant may use the
County topography in the GIS system for the submittal and review of plans. This data is then used to
determine if critical slopes are present on the property. In some cases field run topography may show
differing areas of critical slopes. Staff experience has been that while differences in field run and County
GIS data do occur these differences have been relatively small. Staff used the following criteria in
preparing the maps:
The following factors tended to support designation of a slope as Preserved:
- The slopes are part of a system of slopes associated with a water feature.
- The slopes are part of a hillside system.
- The slopes are identified as a resource in the Open Space Plan.
- The slopes are identified as a resource in the Comprehensive Plan.
- The slopes may be of significant value to the Entrance Corridor District.
- The slopes are a contiguous area of 10,000 square feet or more or a close grouping of slopes
less than 10,000 square feet.
- The slopes are shown to be preserved by a prior County action.
The following factors tended to support designation of a slope as Managed:
- The contiguous area of critical slopes is limited or fragmented.
- The slopes are not associated with a water feature.
- The slopes are not natural.
- The slopes have been significantly disturbed prior to June 1, 2012.
- The slopes are located within previously approved single family residential lots.
- The slopes are shown to be disturbed by a prior County action.
The slopes shown on the attached maps do not expand or decrease the area of critical slopes
regulated. All areas shown as either orange or green on the attached maps are existing critical slopes
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
based on the County GIS. The green areas are proposed “Protected” slopes and the orange areas are
proposed “Managed” slopes. No proposal is being made to expand or decrease the acreage of critical
slopes regulated.
After mapping the critical slope resources of the development areas, staff considered what the
typical impacts are to critical slopes. Slopes are cut and filled to achieve a level surface for roads, parking
and buildings. Below are diagrams providing a basic exam ple of what occurs during the development of
critical slopes:
As can be seen from the above diagrams the creation of a flat area can result in the creation of
slopes steeper than previously existed.
Based on staff research and the comments made at the meetings with the public, staff opinion is
that the resulting character of development on critical slopes is important to the community and consistent
with best planning practices.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
EXAMPLES OF RETAINING WALL DESIGNS TO AVOID AND PROMOTE
To achieve the desired grading character the use of development standards should be
implemented. By using development standards the disturbance of “Managed” critical slopes can be
processed administratively. Developers will know what standards to use and can incorporate those
standards into their designing and planning processes at the beginning of the project layout. Neither the
developer nor the citizens of the County will have to wonder if the development of a certain area will be
permitted or what it will look like. Some areas will not be permitted to be developed while others may be
developed with known standards. Staff researched the practices of other localities in an effort to develop
standards appropriate for Albemarle County. The attached draft zoning ordinance language is intended to
incorporate the best standards of other communities and the desires expressed by the public during
public meetings.
It is recognized that certain activities should be permitted in “Protected” areas. These activities
potentially include:
- Road Construction.
- Sanitary Water and Sanitary Sewer facilities.
- Stormwater facilities.
- Public Utilities.
- Public and Private recreation, such as trails.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
- Accessory uses on previously developed residential lots such as, gardens, sheds, driveways,
decks and patios.
- Expansion of an existing structure.
- The establishment of the first dwelling on previously approved residential lots.
- Development if topographic information of superior quality to County topography is submitted
verifying that the slope is less than 25%.
These are examples of the general types of activities that may be permitted in “Protected” areas.
Some of these uses are included in the proposed ordinance as “by-right” with standards for determining
when the use will be permitted and some are included as uses by special use permit.
The establishment of development standards will allow for a more efficient review of projects
ultimately reducing staff and Board workload required to review waiver requests. This should have an
estimated positive budget impact of between $25,000 and $50,000 a year.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission support this zoning text amendment, zoning
map amendment and subdivision text amendment and recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors.
_____
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects, addressed the Board, distributing an updated version of
the language to the zoning text amendment. He explained that there is a zoning text amendment that
establishes the steeps slope overlay district, a zoning map amendment that maps the district established
by the ZTA, and a subdivision amendment that implements the provisions of the ZTA. Mr. Fritz reported
that 25% slopes are those that rise or fall one foot in a four-foot run, or a slope of 14%, and the ordinance
currently has limited criteria for reviewing of special exceptions and not all activities for critical slopes are
subject to regulation. He said that the statements before the Board are summaries of language that is
contained in the existing ordinance, and the regulation of development on critical slopes is important to
preserve the quality of the County’s and the Commonwealth’s water supply, health, streams and aesthetic
resources. Mr. Fritz stated that the current Comprehensive Plan also states in part that “the County
recognizes that not all steep slopes should be preserved from development in the development areas.”
Mr. Fritz said that to develop an ordinance, the Board and Commission have held work sessions
and public hearings, staff has worked directly with the public by holding two roundtables, they have held a
work session with the BOS-appointed advisory committees, and they have mailed approximately 5,000
notices directly to affected property owners – which resulted in direct staff contact by phone, email or in-
person of over 450 individuals. Mr. Fritz said that staff considered all of the comments made as a result
of public outreach and work sessions, reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, studied how other localities
have regulated critical slopes, and applied their own experiences in processing a large number of waivers
to determine the most important issues to the community. He stated that this led to the development of
key concepts in generating a new ordinance, and the ordinance being proposed applies only in the
development areas – and there is no change in how slopes in the rural areas are treated, and no change
was proposed or evaluated for the rural areas. Mr. Fritz said that the ordinance doesn’t increase the
amount of acreage protected by the ordinance, and all current critical slopes retain some level of
protection through a tiered concept.
He stated that a “steep slopes overlay district” is now being proposed, and within that district
there would be preserved and managed slopes – with preserved slopes protected by prohibition of most
activities on them, and managed slopes allowing all uses but protected by the inclusion of performanc e
standards that must be implemented whenever development does occur. Mr. Fritz said that critical slopes
will still exist – but will only be called that in the rural areas – and these regulations only apply to steep
slopes in the development areas. He stated that using those key concepts, staff mapped the areas as
preserved or managed, and the criteria here are not absolute. Mr. Fritz presented a large map showing
all of the steep slopes in the Pantops neighborhood, noting the location of “preserved” and “managed”
slopes. He said that the steep slopes overlay is only in the development areas, and the mapping of
slopes does not extend into the rural areas. He also presented a map of the Piney Mountain
neighborhood, again noting the location of preserved and managed slopes and commented that this is an
area that exhibits some mixed characteristics. Mr. Fritz explained that the areas near the river behind the
former Badger-Powhatan site are manufactured, which would tend to make them managed slopes – but
due to their size and location near the floodplain of the river, they are proposed to be preserve d slopes.
He said that other locations near the entrance to Briarwood are fairly contiguous large areas, but due to
prior approvals they are marked as “managed” to reflect the actions of the County.
Mr. Fritz said that managed slopes may be disturbed, and staff is recommending development
standards to address those potential impacts generated by developing on these slopes. He presented a
slide showing how cut and fill occur, stating that when this happens, slopes steeper than previously
existed are created by establishment of a flat area – and on the bottom slope, that is only 15%, but the fill
area shows a resulting slope of 2 to 1, or 50%, or possibly even a retaining wall. Mr. Fritz said that the
sequential slides would show graphically the type of development standards proposed to address the
impacts caused by grading. He pointed out how slopes can be rounded to provide a more natural
appearance, and said they found these guidelines in various other places and used them to help develop
the design standards. Mr. Fritz stated that abrupt changes are discouraged as is extensive steepness,
and the rounding of slopes, maximum steepness and minimization of slope length before a reverse slope
is incorporated are features included in the design manual. He noted that a limitation on maximum
retaining wall height, which is six feet, is included in the design standards – and in locations where the
overall wall height will exceed six feet, a stair-step approach is included in the design standards – along
with a provision for the landscaping of the landings.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
Mr. Fritz stated in the area of preserved slopes, the existing ordinance allows expansion of
existing structures, and the proposed ordinance allows the expansion of single-family dwellings and
requires the design standards to be met. He said that the existing ordinance allows construction of the
first single-family dwelling if there’s no other non-critical slope area available, and the proposed ordinance
does the same thing but also requires design standards to be met. Mr. Fritz stated the existing ordinance
allows a wide range of ancillary uses associated with the development, and the proposed ordinance
allows ancillary public uses and requires design standards to be met. He stated that private uses – the
elements needed to support the development of the house – will still be permitted, but by special use
permit. Mr. Fritz said that under the existing ordinance, trails are permitted, and under the proposed
ordinance trails will also be permitted but would require design standards to be met. He stated the
existing ordinance allows accessory uses not requiring a building permit, and the proposed ordinance
allows all accessory uses but requires design standards to be met. Mr. Fritz said the existing ordinance
allows distribution facilities for water, sewer and energy – and telecommunications would be added to
that, and design standards would need to be met. He reiterated that these are uses permitted on
preserved slopes; all uses are permitted on managed slopes, but they must meet design standards.
Mr. Fritz said the proposed ordinance allows disturbance consistent with prior County action, but
it requires the design standards to be met. For example, if a neighborhood model development is
approved and specifically shows disturbance on critical slopes, for the development to come forward , the
applicant must submit an application for a special exception and it must come forward to the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Fritz stated every time this has happened, the special exception has been approved
and there is not a known instance where the Board has not approved it. Therefore, what the ordinance is
saying is if the activity was specifically permitted by a prior County action, then it is permitted on
preserved slopes; if it was not, then it would not be permitted. He explained that under the existing
ordinance, if you can demonstrate that the slopes are less than 25% b y using superior topography, you
can do any development on it. Under the proposed ordinance, that would remain the same except the
design standards would still need to be met. Mr. Fritz noted that this last provision was added based on
the last Planning Commission work session. He presented a list of the critical slopes uses that are
currently exempt, and a list of the permitted uses on preserved slopes.
Mr. Fritz referenced a map showing houses with critical slopes surrounding them . He stated that
under the current ordinance, any disturbance to construct a deck, a shed, or a terrace garden involving a
retaining wall of two feet or higher, would not be permitted unless a special exception was applied for and
obtained. This would require an application, fee, and hearing by the Board. Mr. Fritz said these factors
may result in the homeowner either not undertaking the improvements or installing them without a
building permit. He said that of the few applications for special except ions submitted, they have all been
approved. Under the proposed ordinance, he said, the owner would only need to apply for the
appropriate type of building permit and verify that the design standards are met. He also stated that for
most residential development types, adherence to the design standards would be a very simple matter
that most likely would not require any special plans or site design. Mr. Fritz stated that staff
recommended this because they believe it will encourage people to enhance properties within the
development areas, making it an even more desirable place to live.
Ms. Mallek asked if these were for existing properties as of today. Mr. Fritz confirmed that this
was only for existing properties.
Ms. Mallek asked if a new property would have different rules and would not be built in this slope
to begin with. Mr. Fritz confirmed that was the case, and said that the lot would not have been created.
Mr. Fritz presented a summary of the benefits of a steep slopes overlay district, stating that it
increases protection for the most important slopes, the preserved slopes. He said it allows reasonable
use of the County’s development area by allowing development on managed slopes . It provides certainty
in the development because the applicants, development community and residents know whether slopes
can or cannot be touched, and the parameters if they are able to be developed. Mr. Fritz said that it
decreases the cost to both the applicant and the County by limiting the review process, and i t addresses
the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court and the Town of Occoquan vs. Elm Street Development, Inc.
Mr. Fritz said that staff is recommending approval of the zoning text amendment, zoning map amendment
and subdivision text amendment.
Ms. Palmer asked if he was going to explain more about accessory uses. Mr. Fritz explained that
under the existing ordinance, if you wanted to do accessory uses such as a shed or garden, you would
not be able to do that unless you came forward for a special exception or did it without telling anyone. He
said that under the proposed ordinance, you could apply for a building permit and the County would be
able to see that you are meeting design standards – which are there to minimize adverse impacts. Mr.
Fritz stated that it makes it easier to enhance the properties and modernize them, and make them more
attractive to the community.
Ms. Palmer asked if there was a definition of shed, with limits on size, etc. Mr. Fritz said that
during various work sessions there was discussion on whether there should be limitation on the size of a
shed or the size of a pool, but staff received no direction to move forward with that. He said that instead,
the approach they took was to use the design standards, which would minimize the impacts. W ith
standards set on things such as the height of a retaining wall, the projection of water onto neighbors’
property, or doing a cut so the neighboring property does not have the proper lateral support. Mr. Fritz
emphasized that there was discussion about further limiting it, but staff did not receive direction to do so
and instead came up with design standards.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Ms. Palmer said this is a wonderful change, but her concern is that a property owner might decide
to build an extremely large shed – and asked if staff was thinking that some other aspect would take care
of that. Mr. Fritz said that staff is relying on two other aspects: the design standards, which would
minimize adverse impacts; and the location within the development areas, which means relatively small
parcels. He stated they are not talking about barns, they are talking about ten by ten or maybe twenty by
twenty.
Ms. Mallek said there are three-car garages that people call a “shed,” and asked if there was a
proportion to the size of the house versus the size of the shed. Mr. Fritz stated that under the existing
ordinance, if you have an existing house and wanted to do an attached garage on a critical slope, you
could do that today without regulation. W ith the proposed ordinance, you can still do that but you would
have to be able to meet design standards. He noted if you have a detached or an accessory structure it
would be a different situation.
Ms. Palmer said that she is concerned because of a personal experience when someone in her
former neighborhood had a lawn service business and built a very large shed on a hill, which was pretty
imposing.
Mr. Fritz stated that staff has not seen that as an issue in the development areas. He said,
however, it would still have to be an accessory structure. The case that she is talking about would be
considered a home occupation, and would be subject to a whole different set of regulations such as
building setbacks, etc. He said that staff could not really find a way to impose certain limitations on
square footage, and relied instead on the design standards.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were any limitations on soil disturbance. For example, installing
something like a tennis court could impact a pretty big area and would cause tremendous runoff to
neighbors as it runs downhill. Mr. Fritz said that under the current ordinance regulations, you could do
that today because the tennis court does not require a building permit. The critical slopes only come into
effect if there is a use requiring a building permit or site plan. He stated that building a tennis court today
on critical slopes under the current ordinance, would be permitted. However, the applicant would have to
meet the erosion and sediment control measures. Under the proposed ordinance, you would have to
meet those measures and the design standards stipulated in the steep slopes overlay district.
Ms. Mallek commented that it has always bothered her that the County has allowed its most
critical resources such as greenways and streams to be butchered with sewer pipe installation. She said it
seems they are doing the same under the new ordinance. She said that if people were not allowed to do
that, they would keep those things in the less critical areas and preserving those resources. Mr. Fritz
explained that the changes are on pages 1, 6 and 7 – and they are adding language that states, “To the
extent that distribution facilities are established on preserved slopes, the preserved slopes should be
preserved to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay
district.” He said that public facilities such as water and sewer are provided for, but private facilities would
require a special use permit. He said this is a big change that addresses many of the environmental
concerns. Mr. Fritz emphasized that sometimes a public facility does need to go on a slope, and staff has
tried to build into the ordinance the practice of only going into the preserved areas if there is no
alternative.
Ms. Mallek asked if “practical” meant “cheapest,” because the shortest route might mean going
right through a hill rather than around it. Mr. Fritz responded that they have not used cost as the
determining factor, and these are public facilities so staff must be aware of them, which they consider
through the provisions of the ordinance and the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek said that “public” is what Rivanna does, not what a developer like Northpointe is
installing within their property lines. Mr. Fritz stated that if they are going to turn those over to the County
to become public lines, the County still has a place at the table under the new ordinance to decide where
they should go because they would be taking them over.
Mr. Boyd commented that this would save the County and the public money and time. He said
this is the type of thing to which he was referring in their budget considerations where they are improving
the efficiency of the department.
The Chair then opened the public hearing and invited comment.
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, addressed the Board, and asked
Mr. Fritz if the three changes mentioned were the only changes to the ordinance since it was presented to
the public the previous week.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that those were the only changes.
Mr. Butler said that the SELC supports the goals behind this measure, which is to facilitate
development occurring in the development areas while ensuring that the development respects and
avoids the important natural resources located there. He stated at the Planning Commission public
hearing held on this matter several weeks earlier, the SELC raised the concern that the by-right
allowances on the slopes designated for preservation were too expansive. Since that time, in response to
public comment and Planning Commission input, staff has made a few clarifications and changes to the
draft that help address their primary concerns. Mr. Butler thanked staff for that effort, stating that the
additional language Mr. Fritz presented for the distribution facilities will also be helpful. He said with the
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
provision related to prior rezoning approvals, the only way a use would be allowed by-right on a
preserved slope from a prior rezoning, is if it was approved in a formal development plan that showed that
use on a critical slope. In other words, they want to ensure there is not blanket approval for all prior re-
zonings to be able to disturb any critical slopes located on a site. Mr. Fritz stated that it is important to
clarify that the approval of a development did not necessarily carry with it approval to disturb critical
slopes, and to make sure that those cases would not be allowed on preserved slopes by-right. Assuming
that is the case, he said, the SELC supports the goals behind the measure and notes that it has been
improved significantly and their primary concerns have been addressed. Mr. Butler stated that if
implementation shows that the balance needs to be tweaked further, this is something they can revisit in
the future.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board on behalf of the Free Enterprise Forum, stating that
they are in favor of most of what is in the ordinances – as it adds a level of understanding and certainty
for the public. He said that the concern remains as to what happens when the map is wrong, as maps
created by people have errors. Iin the Planning Commission discussion it was stated that the property
would have to come back for a special rezoning – but the current standard of administrative approval at
25% is the right way to go providing there is sufficient topographical data from a design professional with
a stamp, to protect the County and meet the goals of the ordinance. Mr. Williamson stated with regard to
grandfathering development proposals that would clearly impact what are now being called “preserved
slopes,”. He encouraged the County to continue that concept as these plans are put together rather
carefully, and the entire balance of the project often hinges on the slope being disturbed. He thanked
staff for engaging the community on this issue and Morgan Butler for his hard work to achieve a balance
in this ordinance, in which everyone comes out ahead.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the m atter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Palmer asked if Mr. Fritz could address the issues raised by the speakers. Mr. Fritz said that
the ordinance does address those concerns, and the issue Mr. Butler raised regarding the use would
have to be something specifically shown in a prior rezoning – special use permit, site plan, something that
was previously done – and it would need to show that it was disturbing an area already permitted for
disturbance with the rezoning or special use permit originally granted. He said that if it’s uncertain and
staff rejects it, there is an appeal process for an applicant, and the provision states that there is no
rezoning required if the map is wrong; superior topography showing slopes at less than 25% would mean
an applicant can do activities on those slopes as a permitted use.
Ms. Mallek commented that a 14% slope would be similar to East High Street across the str eet
going up toward the church.
Ms. Palmer then moved to adopt ZTA-2012-00012 Steep Slopes as presented. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-18(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Regulations, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and
Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required
Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements
Sec. 4.2.6 Exemptions
Sec. 4.7 Open space
Sec. 32.4.1.3 Contents of preapplication plan
Sec. 32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan
Sec. 32.7.5.2 Location of utilities above and below ground
Sec. 33.4 Uniform procedures for owner-initiated zoning map amendments and special use permits
Sec. 35.1 Fees
By Adding:
Sec. 30.7.1 Purpose and intent
Sec. 30.7.2 Applicability
Sec. 30.7.3 Characteristics of steep slopes
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Sec. 30.7.4 Permitted uses
Sec. 30.7.5 Design standards
Sec. 30.7.6 Amendment of district boundaries
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions.
. . .
Slopes, critical: Slopes, other than managed or preserved slopes, of twenty-five (25) percent or greater as
determined by reference to either current topographic mapping available from the county or a more
accurate field survey certified by a professional surveyor or engineer. Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent
or greater which are lawfully created within a development that was approved by the county shall not be
considered critical slopes. (Added 7-11-12)
Slopes, managed: Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater depicted as a managed slope on the map
entitled “Steep Slopes Overlay District,” adopted by the board of supervisors on March 5, 2014.
Slopes, preserved: Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater depicted as a preserved slope on the
map entitled “Steep Slopes Overlay District,” adopted by the board of supervisors on March 5, 2014.
Slopes, steep. Steep slopes are referred to as critical slopes on lands outside of the steep slopes overlay
district and are referred to as either managed or preserved slopes within the steep slopes overlay district.
. . .
(§ 20-3.1, 12-10-80, 7-1-81, 12-16-81, 2-10-82, 6-2-82, 1-1-83, 7-6-83, 11-7-84, 7-17-85, 3-5-86, 1-1-87,
6-10-87, 12-2-87, 7-20-88, 12-7-88, 11-1-89, 6-10-92, 7-8-92, 9-15-93, 8-10-94, 10-11-95, 11-15-95, 10-
9-96, 12-10-97; § 18-3.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 01-18(9), 10-17-01; Ord. 02-
18(2), 2-6-02; Ord. 02-18(5), 7-3-02; Ord. 02-18(7), 10-9-02; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-
03; Ord. 04-18(2), 10-13-04; 05-18(2), 2-2-05; Ord. 05-18(7), 6-8-05; Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05; Ord. 06-
18(2), 12-13-06; Ord. 07-18(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 07-18(2), 10-3-07; Ord. 08-18(3), 6-11-08; Ord. 08-18(4), 6-
11-08; Ord. 08-18(6), 11-12-08; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(3), 7-1-09; Ord. 09-18(5), 7-1-09;
09-18(8), 8-5-09; Ord. 09-18(9), 10-14-09; Ord. 09-18(10), 12-2-09; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-
18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(5), 6-1-
11; Ord. 11-18(6), 6-1-11; Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12; Ord. 12-18(4), 7-11-12; Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12, effective
1-1-13; Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; Ord. 13-18(1), 4-3-13; Ord. 13-18(2), 4-3-13; Ord. 13-
18(3), 5-8-13)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required.
No lot other than a special lot shall have less than one (1) building site, subject to the following:
a. Composition of building site. A building site shall be composed of a contiguous area of land and
may not contain any area of land that is: (i) in critical or preserved slopes; (ii) within the flood
hazard overlay district; (iii) under water during normal hydrological conditions; (iv) within two
hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public water supply
reservoir; and (v) within a stream buffer under chapter 17 of the Code, provided that nothing
contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit or impair the program authority from exercising its
discretion as authorized in chapter 17.
b. Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5, any requirement of section 4.2.1(a) may be
waived or modified by special exception under section 33.5 upon the board of supervisors’
consideration of whether (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or ot her
unusual physical condition; or (ii) development in a stream buffer on the parcel was authorized as
provided in section 17-321 of the Code.
(§20-4.2.1, 12-10-80; 11-11-87; 9-9-92; § 18-4.2.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 11-18(6), 6-1-11; Ord. 12-
18(4), 7-11-12)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(3).
Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements.
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.2.2, this section applies to the location of any structure for
which a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on
a site plan pursuant to section 32 of this chapter.
a. No structure or improvement shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a
building site.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
b. No structure, improvement, or land disturbing activity to establish the structure or improvement
shall be located on critical slopes or preserved slopes except as otherwise permitted under
sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.3.1 and 30.7.4.
(§ 20-4.2.3, 12-10-80, 11-15-89; § 18-4.2.3, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01; § 20-4.2.3.1,
12-10-80, 11-15-89, § 18-4.2.3.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; § 4.2.3.2, 12-10-80, § 18-4.2.3.2, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98; § 18-4.2.3, Ord. 12-18(4), 7-11-12)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.2.6 Exemptions.
A lot, structure, or improvement may be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 as provided herein:
(Added 10-17-01)
a. Any structure which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of this chapter and which
is nonconforming solely on the basis of the requirements of section 4.2, may be expanded,
enlarged, extended, modified and/or reconstructed as though such structure were a conforming
structure. For the purposes of this section, the term “lawfully in existence” shall also apply to any
structure for which a site development plan was approved or a building permit was issued prior to
the effective date of this chapter, provided such plan or permit has not expired. (Amended 10-17-
01)
b. Any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of this chapter
shall be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the establishment of the first single -
family detached dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; provided that section 4.2.3(b) shall apply to
such lot or parcel if it contains adequate land area that is not in critical slopes for the location of
such structure. For the purposes of this section a manufactured home shall be deemed a single-
family detached dwelling unit. (Amended 10-17-01)
c. Accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances, stormwater management facilities, and any
other public facilities necessary to allow the use of the parcel shall not be required to be located
within a building site and shall not be subject to the requirements of this section 4.2.2, provided
that the applicant demonstrates that no reasonable alternative location or alignment exists. The
county engineer shall require that protective and restorative measures be installed and
maintained as deemed necessary to insure that the development will be consistent with the intent
of section 4.2 of this chapter. (Added 10-17-01)
(§ 20-4.2.6, 12-10-80; § 18-4.2.6, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.7 Open space.
Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows:
a. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive
to development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. The
commission and the board of supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and
maintenance of open space in their review and approval of zoning map amendments. The
subdivision agent and the site plan agent (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “agent”) shall
apply the following principles when reviewing open space provided on a subdivision plat or site
plan.
b. Uses permitted. Open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed
with any improvements, provided that the agent may authorize the open space to be used and
improved for the following purposes: (i) agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate
structures; (ii) game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial
recreational uses and structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells; (vi) in a cluster
development, onsite sewage systems if the Department of Health determines that there are no
suitable locations for a subsurface drainfield on a development lot; and (vii) stormwater
management facilities and flood control devices.
c. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows:
1. Lands that may be required. The agent may require that open space include: (i) areas
deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development including, but not limited to, land
in the one-hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales, land in slopes of
twenty-five (25) percent or greater, public utility easements for transmission lines,
stormwater management facilities and flood control devices, and lands having permanent
or seasonally high water tables; (ii) areas to satisfy section 4.16, and (iii) areas to provide
reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within the development and between the
development and adjoining properties.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed development
to accommodate open space areas as may be required under this section 4.7, provided
that the redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted under the
applicable zoning district.
3. Limitation on certain elements. If open space is required by this chapter, not more than
eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the following: (i)
land located within the one-hundred year flood plain; (ii) land subject to occasional,
common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985; (iii) critical or preserved slopes; and (iv) land
devoted to stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the
facility or feature is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake or other water feature
deemed by the agent to constitute a desirable open space amenity.
d. Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open
space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and
preservation of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in
conjunction with the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public
use shall be dedicated to the county in the manner provided by law. Open space dedicated to
public use shall count toward the minimum required open space.
(§ 20-4.7, 12-10-80, § 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4; 6-3-81, 11-15-89; § 18-4.7, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
09-18(1), 1-14-09, § 20-4.1.7, 6-3-81, § 18-4.1.7, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; § 18-4.7, Ord. 12-18(4), 7-11-12)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.7 Steep Slopes Overlay District.
Sec. 30.7.1 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this section 30.7 is to establish an overlay district on those lands within the development
areas of the county as delineated in the comprehensive plan which have steep slopes and for which
additional development design care and consideration must be given, prior to permitted development
occurring.
The board of supervisors finds that whenever steep slopes within the overlay district are disturbed, their
disturbance should be subject to appropriate consideration and care in their design and construction in
order to protect the integrity of the steep slope areas, protect downstream lands and waterways from the
adverse effects of the unregulated disturbance of steep slopes, including the rapid or large -scale
movement of soil and rock, or both, excessive stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and to
enhance and preserve the character and beauty of the steep slopes in the development areas of the
county.
The board also finds that certain steep slopes, because of their characteristics, should be preserved to
the maximum extent practical, and that other steep slopes, whose preservation is not required, should be
managed. Preserved slopes are those slopes that have characteristics that warrant their preservation by
the prohibition of disturbance except in the limited conditions provided in this overlay district. Managed
slopes are those slopes where development may occur, provided that design standards are sat isfied to
mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(1), (2), 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Sec. 30.7.2 Applicability.
Section 30.7 shall apply to all privately and publicly owned lands within the coun ty that are within the
boundaries of the steep slopes overlay district and depicted as being managed or preserved slopes on
the series of maps entitled “Steep Slopes Overlay District,” which are hereby adopted as the zoning map
of the steep slopes overlay district. Within this overlay district, the regulations in this chapter pertaining to
critical slopes shall not apply.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(1), (2), 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Sec. 30.7.3 Characteristics of steep slopes.
The characteristics of the steep slopes within the overlay district are as follows:
a. Managed slopes. The characteristics of managed slopes are the following: (i) the contiguous area
of steep slopes is limited or fragmented; (ii) the slopes are not associated with or abutting a water
feature, including, but not limited to, a river, stream, reservoir or pond; (iii) the slopes are not
natural but, instead, are manufactured; (iv) the slopes were significantly disturbed prior to June 1,
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
2012; (v) the slopes are located within previously approved single-family residential lots; or (vi)
the slopes are shown to be disturbed, or allowed to be disturbed, by a prior county action.
b. Preserved slopes. The characteristics of preserved slopes are the following: (i) the slopes are a
contiguous area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more or a close grouping of slopes, any
or all of which may be less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet but whose aggregate area is
ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more; (ii) the slopes are part of a system of slopes
associated with or abutting a water feature including, but not limited to, a river, stream, reservoir
or pond; (iii) the slopes are part of a hillside system; (iv) the slopes are identified as a resource
designated for preservation in the comprehensive plan; (v) the slopes are identified as a resource
in the comprehensive plan; (vi) the slopes are of significant value to the entrance corridor overlay
district; or (vii) the slopes have been preserved by a prior county action, including, but not limited
to, the placement of an easement on the slopes or the acceptance of a proffer or the imposition of
a condition, restricting land disturbing activity on the slopes.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(1), (2), 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Sec. 30.7.4 Permitted uses.
The following uses and structures are permitted by right or by special use permit on managed or
preserved slopes, provided that the land disturbing activity to establish the use or structure complies with
design standards in section 30.7.5 and all other applicable requirements of the Code:
a. Managed slopes. The uses permitted by right and by special use permit on managed slopes are
as follows, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
1. By right. The uses permitted by right in the underlying district shall be permitted by right
on managed slopes.
2. By special use permit. The uses permitted by special use permit in the underlying district
shall be permitted by special use permit on managed slopes.
b. Preserved slopes. The uses permitted by right and by special use permit on preserved slopes are
as follows, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
1. By right. The uses permitted by right on preserved slopes are the following:
a. Existing single-family dwelling unit. Any single-family detached or single-family attached
dwelling unit which was lawfully in existence prior to March 5, 2014 may be expanded,
enlarged, extended, modified or reconstructed. For the purposes of this subsection, the
term “lawfully in existence” includes, but is not limited to, any single-family detached or
single-family attached dwelling unit for which a building permit was issued prior to March
5, 2014; provided that the building permit has not expired.
b. Existing lot of record; first single-family detached dwelling unit. Any lot which was a lawful
lot of record on March 5, 2014 may establish the first single-family detached dwelling unit
on the lot; provided the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved
slopes to locate the dwelling unit. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “lawful lot
of record” includes any lot shown on a subdivision plat approved prior to March 5, 2014;
provided that the plat is still valid.
c. Necessary public facilities. Public facilities necessary to allow the use of the lot, provided
that the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate
the public facilities and one or more of the following exist: (i) the land disturbing activity
avoids impacts on other protected resources such as stream buffers or floodplain; (ii) the
alignment of the public facilities is consistent with the alignment of public facilities
depicted or described in the comprehensive plan; (iii) the disturbance is necessary to
provide interconnection required by the Code or the applicable regulations of other public
entities; or (iv) prohibiting the facilities from being located on preserved slopes will cause
an unnecessary hardship. To the extent that public facilities are established on preserved
slopes, the preserved slopes should be preserved to the maximum extent practicable
consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay district,
d. Trails. Public or private pedestrian and bicycle trails.
e. Accessory uses and structures. Any uses or structures accessory to a dwelling unit
authorized by subsection (b)(1)(a) and (b)(1)(b).
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
f. Distribution facilities. Water, sewer, energy, and communications distribution facilities. To
the extent that distribution facilities are established on preserved slopes, the preserved
slopes should be preserved to the maximum extent practicable consistent with the intent
and purpose of this overlay district,
g. Legislative zoning actions related to the underlying district. Any use or structure approved
by the board of supervisors in a zoning map amendment whose location is expressly
authorized in an approved application plan, code of development, or an accepted proffer,
in a special use perm it authorized in the underlying district regulations, or in a special
exception authorizing a waiver or modification of the requirements of section 4.2.3;
provided that the legislative action is still valid and that the use or structure complies with
all requirements and conditions approved or imposed in conjunction with the legislative
zoning action.
h. Slopes less than 25% based on new topographic information. Any use or structure
allowed by right or by special use permit in the underlying district, pro vided that the owner
submits new topographic information that is based on more accurate or better technical
data demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the county engineer, that the slopes are less
than twenty-five (25) percent.
2. By special use permit. The only use permitted by special use permit on preserved slopes are
private facilities such as accessways, utility lines and appurtenances, and stormwater
management facilities, not otherwise permitted by right under subsection (b)(1)(e), where the lot
does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the private
facilities.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(1), (2), 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Sec. 30.7.5 Design standards.
The following design standards apply to land disturbing activity to establish a use permitted by right or by
special use permit in the steep slopes overlay district.
a. Retaining walls. Retaining walls shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
1. Wall height. The maximum height for a single retaining wall, measured from grade to
grade, shall be six (6) feet, except as provided in subsection (a)(3). When the overall
retained height would exceed six (6) feet, the retaining wall shall be broken into multiple
stepped walls.
2. Multiple stepped walls; separation. A minimum horizontal distance of three (3) feet shall
be maintained between each individual wall in a stepped wall system, and shall be
landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten (10) foot centers.
3. Incorporation of wall into design of a building. Retaining walls may be incorporated into
the design of a building so that they become part of the building. Retaining walls
incorporated into the design of a building shall not be subject to height limitations of
subsection (a)(1).
b. Cuts and fills. Any cut or fill shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
1. Rounding off. Any cut or fill shall be rounded off to eliminate sharp angles at the top,
bottom and side of regraded slopes.
2. Location of toe of the fill slope. The toe of any fill slope shall not be located within ten (10)
feet horizontally of the top of an existing or proposed cut slope.
3. Tops and bottoms. Tops and bottoms of cut and fill slopes shall be located either: (i) a
distance from existing and proposed property lines at least equal to the lesser of three (3)
feet plus one-fifth (1/5) of the height of the cut or fill, or ten (10) feet; (ii) any lesser
distance than provided in subsection (b)(3)(i) the zoning administrator determines would
not adversely impact the abutting parcel based on information provided by the owner of
the abutting parcel; or (iii) on the abutting parcel if the owner obtains an easement
authorizing the slope on the abutting owner’s parcel.
4. Steepness. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than a 2:1 (fifty (50) percent) slope. If
the slope is to be mowed, the slope shall be no steeper than a 3:1 (thirty-three (33)
percent) slope.
c. Reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion. Reverse slope benches or a surface water
diversion shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
1. When required. Reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion shall be provided
whenever: (i) the vertical interval (height) of any 2:1 (fifty (50) percent)) slope exceeds
twenty (20) feet; (ii) the vertical interval (height) of any 3:1 (thirty-three (33) percent))
slope exceeds thirty (30) feet; or (iii) the vertical interval (height) of any 4:1 (twenty-five
(25) percent)) slope exceeds forty (40) feet.
2. Width and location of benches. Reverse slope benches shall be at least six (6) feet wide
and located to divide the slope face as equally as possible and shall convey the water to
a stable outlet. Benches shall be designed with a reverse slope of 6:1 (approximately
seventeen (17) percent)) or flatter to the toe of the upper slope and have a minimum of
one (1) foot. The bench gradient to the outlet shall be between two (2) percent) and three
(3) percent), unless accompanied by appropriate design and computations.
3. Flow length within a bench. The flow length within a reverse slope bench shall not exceed
eight hundred (800) feet unless accompanied by appropriate design and computations
demonstrating that the flow length is designed to be adequate to ensure the stability o f
the slope and prevent or minimize erosion.
d. Surface water diversions. Surface water shall be diverted from the face of all cut and/or fill slopes
by the use of diversions, ditches and swales or conveyed downslope by using a designed structure. The
face of the slope shall not be subject to any concentrated flows of surface water such as from natural
drainage ways, graded swales, downspouts, or similar conveyances.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(1), (2), 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Sec. 30.7.6 Amendment of district boundaries.
The boundaries of the steep slopes overlay district, including any lands depicted as managed or
preserved slopes on the steep slopes overlay district map, or a slope’s designation as preserved or
managed, may be amended b y the board of supervisors under section 33. In order to remove any lands
from the district, the applicant shall submit, in addition to any information required by section 33, field run
topography prepared by a licensed engineer, surveyor or landscape architect demonstrating that the
lands to be removed from the district do not contain slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(1), (2), 15.2-2285, 15.2-2286(A)(4).
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 32.4.1.3 Contents of preapplication plan.
Each preapplication plan shall contain the following information:
. . .
d. Topography and proposed grading. Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope,
maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours)
for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite
features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site
unless otherwise approved by the agent; proposed grading (maximum five [5] foot contours)
supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are
steep slopes.
. . .
(§ 32.4.1.3, Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12, effective 1-1-13; Ord. 13-18(7), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14 (§ 32.4.1.1,
5-1-87; § 32.3.1, 12-10-80))
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.5.2 Contents of an initial site plan.
Each initial site plan shall contain the following information:
. . .
d. Topography and proposed grading. Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope,
maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours)
for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite
features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site
unless otherwise approved by the agent; proposed grading (maximum five [5] foot contours)
supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are
steep slopes.
. . .
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 74)
(§ 32.5.2, Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12, effective 1-1-13; Ord. 13-18(7), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14 (§ 32.5.6, 5-1-
87, 2-6-02 (§ 32.4.5, 12-10-80))
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Sec. 32.7.5.2 Location of utilities above and below ground.
All utilities, including but not limited to wires, cables, pipes, conduits and appurtenant equipment for
electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone or similar service, shall be located within a site as follows:
a. Conforming to natural topography. Each utility shall be located, to the extent practicable, in a
manner that conforms to the natural topography, minimizes the disturbance of steep slopes and
natural drainage areas, and allows vehicular and pedestrian interconnections within the site and
existing or future development on adjoining lands.
b. Undergrounding. All new utilities shall be located underground except the following, which may be
located above ground: (i) electric transmission lines and facilities; (ii) equipment, including electric
distribution transformers, switch gear, meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, outdoor lighting
poles or standards, radio antennae and associated equipment, which is, under accepted utility
practices, normally installed aboveground; (iii) meters, service connections, and similar
equipment normally attached to the outside wall of a utility customer’s premises; and (iv) satellite
dishes.
c. Within public street right-of-way. If it is necessary to locate a new or existing public utility within
the right-of-way of a public street, the developer shall first obtain a permit from the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
d. Allowing street trees and landscaping. Installation of utilities in or adjacent to the right-of-way
shall not preclude the installation of street trees or required landscaping.
(§ 32.7.5.2, Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12, effective 1-1-13)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2241(4).
Sec. 33.4 Uniform procedures for owner-initiated zoning map amendments and special use
permits.
Each application for an owner-initiated zoning map amendment or special use permit, except for those
delegated by this chapter to the board of zoning appeals under section 4.15.5, shall be subject to the
following:
. . .
c. Elements of the supplemental information. The supplemental information is the following:
. . .
8. Application plan for zoning map amendments for planned development districts . For an
application to establish a planned development district or to amend an approved
application plan for an existing planned development district, an application plan showing,
as applicable: (i) the street network, including circulation within the project and
connections to existing and proposed or planned streets within and outside of the project;
(ii) typical cross-sections to show proportions, scale and streetscape/cross -
sections/circulation; (iii) the general location of pedestrian and bicycle facilities; (iv)
building envelopes; (v) parking envelopes; (vi) public spaces and amenities; (vii) areas to
be designated as conservation and/or preservation areas; (viii) conceptual stormwater
detention facility locations; (ix) conceptual grading; (x) a use t able delineating use types,
the number of dwelling units, non-residential square footage, building stories and/or
heights, build-to lines, setbacks and yards, and other features; (xi) topography, using the
county’s geographic information system or better topographical information, and the
source of the topographical information, supplemented where necessary by spot
elevations and areas of the site where there are existing steep slopes; (xii) the general
layout for water and sewer systems; (xiii) the location of central features or major
elements within the project essential to the design of the project, such as major
employment areas, parking areas and structures, civic areas, parks, open space, green
spaces, amenities and recreation areas; (xiv) standards of development including
proposed yards, open space characteristics, and any landscape or architectural
characteristics related to scale, proportions, and massing at the edge of the district; (xv) a
conceptual lot layout; and (xvi) if the application is to establish a neighborhood model
district, the location of proposed green spaces and amenities as provided in section
20A.9.
. . .
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 75)
(§ 33.4, Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13 (§ 33.2, 12-10-80) (§ 33.4,12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-
03) (§ 33.5, 12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03) (§ 33.6, 12-10-80) (§ 33.7, 12-10-80, 6-19-96; Ord. 01-
18(6), 10-3-01) (§ 33.8, 12-10-80, 6-19-96) (§ 33.8.1, 12-10-80, 6-19-96; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01) (§
33.8.2, 12-10-80, 6-19-96) (§ 33.8.3, 12-10-80, 6-19-96))
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2204, 15.2-2285, 15.2-2286(A)(3), (4), (7), (B).
Sec. 35.1 Fees.
Each applicant shall pay the following applicable fees, provided that neither the county nor the county
school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant:
. ..
b. Zoning map amendments:
1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission: $2500.00
2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission: $1250.00
3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission: $3500.00
4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission: $1750.00
5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant’s request: $180.00
6. Amendments submitted under section 30.7.6: (i) because the slopes are not steep
slopes: no fee; (ii) to change any slope’s designation from preserved to managed or to
remove steep slopes from the steeps slopes overlay district: any applicable fee under
subsections (b)(1) through (5).
. . .
j. Required notice:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: $200.00, except for uses
under sections 5.1.47 and 5.2A, or applications submitted under section 30.7.6, for which
there shall be no fee.
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00 plus the actual
cost of first class postage. No fee shall be required for applications submitted under
section 30.7.6.
3. Published notice: cost based on a cost quote from the publisher, except for farmers’
markets under section 35.1(c)(7) and (8), or applications submitted under section 30.7.6,
for which there shall be no fee.
Except as provided in subsection (d)(13), the fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the
“County of Albemarle.” An application presented without the required fee shall not be deemed to be
submitted and shall not be processed, provided that for applications for zoning map amend ments and
special use permits, the fee shall be paid when the application is determined to be complete. If the zoning
administrator determines after a fee has been paid that the review and approval to which the fee pertains
is not required to establish the use or structure, the fee shall be refunded to the applicant in full.
(Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; Ord. 10-18(7),
adopted 8-4-10, effective 1-1-11; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(7), 6-1-11; Ord. 12-18(6), 10-3-12,
effective 1-1-13; Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12, effective 4-1-13; Ord. 13-18(7), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2286(A)(6), 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2243.1.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after March 5, 2014; provided that: (i) any application for a
special exception to disturb critical slopes within the boundaries of the steep slopes overlay district
submitted on or before March 5, 2014 may, at the option of the applicant, be reviewed and acted upon
under the critical slopes and special exception regulations in effect on March 4, 2014; and (ii) the special
exception is approved by May 7, 2014.
_______
Mr. Boyd moved to approve ZMA-2014-00001 as presented, which includes all of the maps
included as Attachments D-J of the staff report which are to be attached to the ordinance as Exhibit A.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-A(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE STEEP SLOPES OVERLAY DISTRICT
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 76)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that, pursuant to the
authority contained in Virginia Code § 15.2-2280, et seq., including the purposes for zoning ordinances in
Virginia Code § 15.2-2283 and the material and relevant factors for establishing zoning districts set out in
Virginia Code § 15.2-2284, the zoning map is hereby amended to establish the steep slopes overlay
district on those lands shown on the maps attached hereto as Exhibit A, which Exhibit is incorporated
herein by reference.
This ordinance shall be effective immediately.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 77)
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 78)
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 79)
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 80)
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 81)
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 82)
_______________
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt STA-2014-00001 as presented. Mr. Sheffield seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Fritz stated that a lot of staff people worked on this, including Glenn Brooks and Elaine
Echols, and he wanted to acknowledge them.
Mr. Foley commented that when Morgan Butler and Neil Williamson are praising them on the
same day on the same issue, it is a big success.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 83)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-14(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, ARTICLE III, SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED, AND ARTICLE IV, ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIGN, 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
14, Subdivision of Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, Article III, Subdivision Plat
Requirements, and Article IV, On-Site Improvements and Design, are hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-216 Contents of preapplication schematic plat
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat
Sec. 14-404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway
Sec. 14-410 Standards for all streets and alleys
Sec. 14-420 Location of utilities above- and underground
Sec. 14-422 Sidewalks and planting strips
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 14-304 Request to disturb critical steep slopes
Chapter 14
Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
Sec. 14-216 Contents of preapplication schematic plat.
Each preapplication schematic plat shall contain the following information:
. . .
D. Topography and proposed grading. Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope,
maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours) for the
entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features and
physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site unless otherwise
approved by the agent; proposed grading (maximum five [5] foot contours) supplemented where
necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are steep slopes.
. . .
(Ord. 13-14(1), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9), 15.2-2255, 15.2-2258, 15.2-2286(A)(8).
Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat.
A preliminary plat shall contain the following information:
A. A preliminary plat shall contain the following information, which must be included in order
for a preliminary plat to be deemed complete under section 14-218:
. . .
12. Topography. Existing topography at the time of plat submittal at up to twenty [20]
percent slope, with a contour interval that is not greater than the interval on aerial topography available
from the county. The source of topography, including survey date and name of the licensed professional;
or a statement that topography data provided by the county was used Proposed gra ding, with a contour
interval equal to the intervals of the existing topography, supplemented where necessary by spot
elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are steep slopes. Existing topography for the entire
site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features and physical
characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site unless otherwise approved by the
agent. For property in the rural areas zoning district, the proposed grading shall show all grading on each
proposed lot, including access, clearing and all other lot improvements.
. . .
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 84)
(8-28-74; 2-4-81; § 18-52, 9-5-96; § 14-302, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-
05; Ord. 08-14(1), 2-6-08; Ord. 11-14(1), 6-1-11; Ord. 13-14(1), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(1), 15.2-2258, 15.2-2262.
Sec. 14-304 Request to disturb steep slopes.
If the proposed subdivision will require disturbing steep slopes, the subdivider shall submit with
each preliminary plat, or if none, with each final plat, a written request or application under the applicable
sections of the zoning ordinance.
(Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 13-14(1), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(9).
Article IV. On-site Improvements and Design
Sec. 14-404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway.
Each lot within a subdivision shall be located as follows:
A. Single point of access required. Each lot, other than a corner lot within the development
areas, shall have reasonable access to the building site from only one street, shared driveway or alley
established at the same time as the subdivision; provided that, if the subdivision is in the rural areas, each
lot created from the subsequent division of any lot within the subdivision shall enter only onto such
street(s) established at the same time as the original subdivision and shall have no immediate access
onto any other public street.
B. Conditions when single point of access not required. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a
lot may be located so that it has reasonable access to the building site from a public street abutting the
subdivision if: (i) the agent appro ves a variation or exception under subsection (D) and section 14 -203.1;
(ii) the subdivider obtains an entrance permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation for the
access; (iii) the entrance complies with the design standards set forth in section s 14-410(F) and 14-
410(G); and (iv) the subdivider demonstrates to the agent prior to approval of the final plat that the
variation or exception does not violate any covenants to be recorded for the subdivision.
C. Lots exempt from requirements of subsections (A) and (B). The requirements of
subsections (A) and (B) shall not apply to the subdivision of a parcel where two (2) or more dwellings
existed on the parcel on October 14, 2009 and one existing dwelling would be located on each lot
created.
D. Standards for variation or exception. The requirements of subsection (A) may be varied
or excepted by the agent as provided in section 14-203.1. A request for a variation or exception may be
made prior to or with submittal of a preliminary or final plat, as follows:
1. Information to be submitted. A request shall include a justification for the variation
or exception and a conceptual plan. The conceptual plan shall: (i) be drawn at a scale no smaller than
one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property or an alternative
scale approved by the agent; (ii) show the topography of the property at the best interval available from
the County including delineation of proposed building sites; (iii) show the locations of streams, stream
buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, and known wetlands; and (v) show the proposed layout of lots, location
of existing features such as buildings, fences, dra infields, existing driveways or other access ways, or
other significant features.
2. Consideration. In reviewing a request for a variation or exception and
determining whether the findings provided in section 14-203.1 can be made, the agent shall consider
whether: (i) installing a single point of access would substantially impact environmental resources such as
streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, and floodplain; (ii) construction of a single point of access would
substantially impact features existing on the property prior to October 14, 2009; (iii) granting the variation
or exception would contribute to maintaining an agricultural or forestal use of the property; and (iv)
granting the a variation or exception would facilitate development of areas identified in the open space
plan as containing significant resources.
E. Terms defined. For purposes of this section, the term “reasonable access” means a
location for a driveway or, if a driveway location is not provided, a location for a suitable foot path from the
parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance to the building site; the term “within the subdivision”
means within the exterior boundary lines of the lands being divided.
((§ 14-500(C): (§ 18-29(part), 8-28-74; 9-5-96)(§ 18-34(part), 8-28-74; 9-5-96);§§ 18-29, 18-34; § 14-500;
Ord. 98-A1, 8-5-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02) (§14-505: (§ 18-36 (part): 8-38-74; 9-5-96)(§ 18-39 (part): 8-
28-74; 5-10-77; 10-19-77; 9-5-96); §§ 18-36, 18-39; § 14-505, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98); §§ 14-500(C), 14-
505; § 14-404, Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(2), 10-14-09; Ord. 10-14(1), 2-10-10;
Ord. 13-14(1), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 85)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(5), 15.2-2242(1).
Sec. 14-410 Standards for all streets and alleys.
The following minimum design standards shall apply to all streets and alleys within a subdivision:
A. Layout. Each street shall be configured, to the extent practicable, to conform to the
natural topography, to minimize the disturbance of steep slopes and natural drainage areas, and to
provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections within the subdivision and existing or future
development on adjoining lands, as provided in section 14-409.
. . .
((§ 18-37: 8-28-74; 3-29-78; 11-21-79; 9-5-96)(§ 18-39 (part): 8-28-74; 5-10-77; 10-19-77; 9-5-96); §§ 18-
37, 18-39; § 14-512, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02, § 14-410, Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05,
effective 6-20-05; Ord. 13-14(1), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(4), 15.2-2242(1), 15.2-2242(3).
Sec. 14-420 Location of utilities above- and underground.
All utilities, including but not limited to wires, cables, pipes, conduits and appurtenant equipment
for electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone or similar service, shall be located within a subdivision as
follows:
A. Each utility shall be located, to the extent practicable, in a manner that conforms to the
natural topography, minimizes the disturbance of steep slopes and natural drainage areas, and allows
vehicular and pedestrian interconnections within the subdivision and existing or future development on
adjoining lands.
B. All new utilities shall be located underground except the following, which may be located
above-ground: (i) electric transmission lines and facilities; (ii) equipment, including electric distribution
transformers, switch gear, meter pedestals, telephone pedestals, outdoor lighting poles or standards,
radio antennae and associated equipment, which is, under accepted utility practices, normally installed
above-ground; (iii) meters, service connections, and similar equipment normally attached to the outside
wall of a utility customer’s premises; and (iv) satellite dishes.
C. If it is necessary to locate a new or existing public utility within the right-of-way of a public
street, the subdivider shall first obtain a permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
D. Installation of utilities in or adjacent to the right-of-way shall not preclude the installation
of street trees or required landscaping.
E. The requirements of this section may be varied or excepted by the agent as provided in
section 14-203.1. In reviewing a request for a variation or exception, the agent shall consider whether the
requirement would unreasonably impact the existing above-ground electrical network so that extensive
off-site improvements are necessary.
(§ 2, 8-28-74; § 18-12, 9-5-96; § 14-523, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; § 14-420, Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective
6-20-05; Ord. 13-14(1), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(4), 15.2-2242(1).
Sec. 14-422 Sidewalks and planting strips.
Sidewalks and planting strips shall be provided as follows:
A. Requirement. Sidewalks and planting strips for street trees and other vegetation shall be
established on both sides of each new street within a subdivision creating lots for single family detached
and single family attached dwellings in the development areas.
B. Sidewalk design. Each sidewalk proposed to be accepted for maintenance by the
Virginia Department of Transportation shall be designed and constructed according to Virginia
Department of Transportation standards or to the standards in the design standards manual, whichever is
greater. Each sidewalk proposed to be privately maintained shall be constructed using concrete,
designed so that no concentrated water flow runs over them, and otherwise satisfy the standards in the
design standards manual. The agent may allow privately maintained sidewalks to be a 10-foot multi-use
asphalt path in unique circumstances such as a path leading to a school or major employment center.
The asphalt path generally shall run parallel to the street and shall be constructed to a standard deemed
adequate by the county engineer to be equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the design
standards manual, so as to adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 86)
C. Sidewalk ownership. Each sidewalk proposed to be accepted for maintenance by the
Virginia Department of Transportation shall be dedicated to public use. Each sidewalk proposed to be
privately maintained shall be conveyed to a homeowners association for ownership and maintenance.
The agent may require that a sidewalk proposed by the s ubdivider to be privately maintained instead be
dedicated to public use if the agent determines there is a need for the sidewalks to be publicly owned and
maintained.
D. Planting strip design. Each planting strip shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width
except that the minimum width may be less in areas of transition between rural cross -section and urban
cross-section streets. On an urban cross-section street, the planting strip shall be located between the
curb and the sidewalk. The planting strip shall be located between the paved travelway and the sidewalk.
E. Variation of or exception to sidewalk requirements . The requirements for sidewalks may
be varied or excepted by the commission as provided in section 14 -203.1. A request for a variation or
exception may be made prior to or with submittal of a preliminary plat or with an application to rezone the
land, as follows:
1. Information to be submitted. If such a request is made, it shall include: (i) a
justification for the request; (ii) a vicinity map showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller than
one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (iii) a conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch
equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property; (i v) topography of the
property at five (5) foot intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance of
five hundred (500) feet from the boundary line or a lesser distance determined to be sufficient by the
agent; (v) the locations of streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; (vi) the
proposed layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as applicable; and (vii) the
location of any existing pedestrian network in the area, whether it is publicly or privately maintained,
descriptions by widths and surfaces of the pedestrian ways within the existing pedestrian network, a
proposed alternative profile and the intended ownership and maintenance.
2. Consideration. In reviewing a request to vary or except the requirement for
sidewalks, the commission shall consider whether: (i) a variation or exception to allow a rural cross -
section has been granted; (ii) a surface other than concrete is more appropriate for the subdivision
because of the character of the proposed subdivision and the surrounding neighborhood; (iii) sidewalks
on one side of the street are appropriate due to environmental constraints such as streams, stream
buffers, steep slopes, floodplain, or wetlands, or because lots are provided on only one side of the street;
(iv) the sidewalks reasonably can connect into an existing or future pedestrian system in the area; (v) the
length of the street is so short and the density of the development is so low that it is unlikely that the
sidewalk would be used to an extent that it would provide a public benefit; (vi) an alternate pedestrian
system including an alternative pavement could provide more appropriate access throughout the
subdivision and to adjoining lands, based on a propos ed alternative profile submitted by the subdivider;
(vii) the sidewalks would be publicly or privately maintained; (viii) the waiver promotes the goals of the
comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model, and the applicable neighborhood master plan; and (ix)
waiving the requirement would enable a different principle of the neighborhood model to be more fully
achieved.
F. Variation of or exception to planting strip requirements . The requirements for planting
strips may be varied or excepted by the commiss ion as provided in section 14-203.1. A request for a
variation or exception may be made prior to or with submittal of a preliminary plat or with an application to
rezone the land, as follows:
1. Information to be submitted. If such a request is made, it shall include: (i) a
justification for the request; (ii) a vicinity map showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller than
one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (iii) a conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch
equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property; (iv) topography of the
property at five (5) foot intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance of
five hundred (500) feet from the boundary line or a lesser dist ance determined to be sufficient by the
agent; (v) the locations of streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; and (vi) the
proposed layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as applicable.
2. Consideration. In reviewing a request to vary or except any requirement for
planting strips, the commission shall consider whether: (i) a variation or exception to allow a rural cross-
section has been granted; (ii) a sidewalk variation or exception has been granted; (iii) reducing the size of
or eliminating the planting strip promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan, the neighborhood model,
and the applicable neighborhood master plan; and (iv) waiving the requirement would enable a different
principle of the neighborhood model to be more fully achieved.
(8-28-74; 5-10-77; 10-19-77; § 38-39, 9-5-96; § 14-422, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-525; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-
20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 13-14(1), 12-4-13, effective 1-1-14)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(5), 15.2-2242(1).
_______________
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 87)
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: ZTA-2012-00010. Off-site Signs. An ordinance to amend
Secs. 18-4.15.2, Definitions, and 18-4.15.5, Signs authorized by special use permit, and to add Sec. 18-
4.15.5A, Signs authorized by special use permit; off-site signs, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle
County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 18-4.15.2, Definitions, by adding definitions of terms
related to off-site signs, amend Sec. 18-4.15.15 to pertain only to electric message signs and to move the
regulation of off-site signs to new Sec. 18-4.15.5A, which establishes three classes of off-site signs –
bundle signs, directional signs, and signs in the public right -of-way – allowed by special use permit, and
establishes eligibility criteria, minimum standards, and exemptions from the SP requirement. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 2014.)
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that County Code § 18-4.15
establishes the procedures and standards for two classes of signs allowed by special use permit: electric
message signs and off-site signs. The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) would amend § 18-4.15.5 to
pertain only to electric message signs, and would add § 18-4.15.5A to establish new regulations for off-
site signs.
Off-site signs are signs that are not located on the same parcel as the use to which the sign
pertains. Currently, off-site signs are allowed only by special use permit issued by the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) with the exception of political, subdivision, temporary, and agricultural product signs, as
well as signs within planned developments, which are allowed off -site by-right subject to location
restrictions.
In addition to the general criteria for issuing special use permits, special use permits for off -site
signs currently require that the BZA find that “the issuance of a special use permit is necessary because
an on-site sign would be ineffective to communicate its message off -site because of topography or
vegetation.” The impetus for this proposed amendment was in response to concerns that this finding is
too restrictive and the BZA’s concern that the finding was too difficult for it to administer. Staff has
proposed several changes to the off-site sign regulations to clarify when an off-site sign may be allowed
and where that sign may be located (see Attachment B). The proposed changes 1) establish two new
classes of off-site signs: directional signs and bundle signs; 2) establish new eligibility criteria for both
directional and bundle signs; and 3) limit the placement of off-site signs to certain locations. In response
to the Planning Commission’s request for administrative review of off -site sign applications when
possible, staff has also introduced a by-right option for directional signs and bundle signs under certain
circumstances. The County’s current and proposed off-site sign regulations do not allow additional
signage beyond what would otherwise be allowed on the parcel on which the off-site sign is located.
The Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance on January 4, 2012
(Attachment C); the Planning Commission held work sessions on June 26, 2012, February 12, 2013 and
April 23, 2013 (Attachments D, E and F) and recommended approval (with minor revisions) at its
December 3, 2013 public hearing (Attachment G).
The proposed ordinance would establish two classes of off -site signs: directional signs and
bundle signs.
Directional signs are off-site signs that direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic to an establishment
and display the establishment name, the distance to the establishment, an arrow providing direction, or
any combination thereof.
Directional Signs
Eligibility Permitted location of sign Zoning district
of sign
location
By right 24-hour emergency medical
service facilities or any public
use (up to 2 signs)
24-hour emergency medical service
facilities: no restriction; other public
uses: within ½ mile of the site entrance
along the street providing direct access
to the site, or a greater distance or
alternative location if the owner
demonstrates to the zoning
administrator that a location within ½
mile is unavailable
All zoning
districts
By special use
permit
Owner exhausts all on-site
signage and demonstrates that
an on-site sign face located at
the site entrance would not be
visible from the street providing
direct access to the site
entrance within 100 feet of the
site entrance
Within ½ mile of the site entrance along
the street providing direct access to the
site, or a greater distance or alternative
location if the owner demonstrates to
the BZA that a location within ½ mile is
unavailable
All zoning
districts
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 88)
Bundle signs
Bundle signs are off-site signs that identify two or more establishments or sites that are not part of
a planned development district but which share a common entrance or access road. For purposes of
bundle signs, an access road is a public or private street that is not a through street, but which provides
frontage to 10 or fewer parcels.
Bundle Signs
Eligibility Permitted location of
sign
Zoning district of sign
location
By right Establishments located in
industrial or commercial
districts, or a residential
district allowing 6 or more
dwelling units per acre, and
sharing a common entrance
or access road
Parcel having frontage on
the inter-section of a
street and an access
road or entrance serving
the establishments to
which the sign pertains
Industrial, commercial, or
planned development
district, or a residential
district allowing 6 or
more dwelling units per
acre
By special use
permit
Establishments located in a
residential district allowing
less than 6 dwelling units per
acre, and sharing a common
entrance or access road
Parcel having frontage on
the inter-section of a
street and an access
road or entrance serving
the establishments to
which the sign pertains
Industrial, commercial, or
planned development
district, or a residential
district allowing 6 or
more dwelling units per
acre
Directional signs and bundle signs in entrance corridors
If the parcel on which a directional sign or a bundle sign will be located is within an entrance
corridor, the owner or lessee of the parcel must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the
Architectural Review Board before the sign is erected. This requirement applies to directional and bundle
signs allowed by right or by special use permit.
Other classes of off-site signs
The proposed ordinance allows political signs, subdivision signs, agricultural product signs and
temporary signs by right. Signs in the public right of way are also allowed b y right, subject to location
restrictions and VDOT approval. All of these sign classes are allowed by right under the current off -site
signs regulations as well.
Staff does not anticipate that this ordinance will result in the need f or additional staff or
funding.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinance
(Attachment A).
_____
Ms. Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that she would provide
policy context for the County’s sign regulations and present a slide with excerpts of Section 4.15.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance – “Purpose and Intent” – for overall sign regulations. Ms. Burbage said that the
ordinance acknowledges that signs are an important means of communication but, when unregulated,
can become a public nuisance detrimental to public health and safety. She stated that the zoning
amendments before them establish regulations that limit the proliferation of offsite signs, serving the
County’s interests in protecting public health and safety, and maintaining the aesthetics of its roadways.
Ms. Burbage said 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
stated that political, temporary, subdivision, planned development and agricultural product signs are
permitted by-right, and signs in the right of way are regulated by VDOT – with all other offsite signs
allowed by special use permit, which are the focus of this amendment. She said that special use permits
for offsite signs are reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals and require a finding that onsite si gnage is
“ineffective to communicate its message offsite because of topography or vegetation.” Ms. Burbage
reported that the BZA has found this language problematic because it limits the conditions of eligibility to
two specific things – topography and vegetation; and because it’s unclear where the offsite sign should be
visible from. Because of these challenges, she said, staff was tasked with reworking the regulations so
the BZA has an easier time administering the special use permit process.
Ms. Burbage stated that the County’s offsite sign regulations do not allow for additional signage
for the lot where the sign is located, and this isn’t being changed at all under the new amendment – so
currently a property is typically entitled to one sign per street frontage, with the square footage varying
based on zoning district but usually 24 or 32 square feet. She said that if a property had a sign in an area
with a 24 square-foot allowance and already had 12 square feet taken, they would only be allowed to
have 12 more square feet. Ms. Burbage stated that regarding the history of the ZTA, the resolution of
intent was adopted by the Board in January 2012, and staff held three work sessions that resulted in the
amendments now before the Board.
She reported that staff felt there were two distinct occasions that call for offsite signs – one when
a sign is necessary to guide travelers to entrances of locations where there is poor visibility, and to
provide the opportunity for multiple businesses that share a comm on entrance or access road to collocate
their signage at a shared entrance – which is currently only permitted for planned developments. Ms.
Burbage said that the proposed regulations establish eligibility criteria that are specific to directional and
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 89)
bundle signs, and this will help the BZA in determining when an establishment is eligible for one or the
other. She stated that they have also introduced by-right options for both directional and bundle signs at
the request of the Planning Commission, so there can be administrative review in some cases. Ms.
Burbage said that the proposed regulations also impose limitations on the locations of directional and
bundle signs, and currently offsite signs can be located anywhere in any zoning district. She noted that
the purpose of the proposed regulations is to encourage the use of offsite signs for way-finding purposes
and not for marketing on major roadways.
Ms. Burbage said that in December 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
changes before them and recommended approval with a few minor revisions.
She stated that she would walk them through the major elements of directional and bundle signs,
stating that staff is proposing that 24-hour emergency medical establishments or public uses be eligible
for directional signs by-right, but be limited to two signs – as suggested by the Planning Commission at
the public hearing. She said that all other establishments would be eligible for a directional sign by
special use permit, if the property owner can demonstrate that no onsite sign face located at their
property entrance is visible within 100 feet of the entrance. Ms. Burbage commented that this provides
slightly more specificity than the previous language about being “ineffective to communicate” because of
topography or vegetation. She stated that the location is permitted in any zoning district, and said she
would review the location criteria used to determine where a directional sign can be located. She noted
that the County is trying to encourage these signs to be as close as possible to the establishment, and
not just to the most visible high-traffic roadway. Ms. Burbage said that option one would be within a half -
mile of the entrance that serves the property; option two would only be permitted if a location in option
one were not possible, and that would be within a quarter-mile of a turning decision onto the road
providing access to the property. If that were not possible, she stated, then a third location could be
considered by the BZA, or in the case of by-right signs, by the Zoning Administrator since those would not
be going before the BZA. She noted that this would apply to any sign except emergency medical, which
would not be restricted by location criteria. Ms. Burbage said that these regulations would apply to any
zoning district, but planned developments already qualify to have the equivalent of a “bundle sign” at their
entrance.
Ms. Burbage stated that for bundle signs, any property that is located within a commercial,
industrial, or residential district that shares a common entrance or access road, is eligible to have a
bundle sign. She said that an establishment that is located in a commercial, industrial, R -6 or greater
residential district, is eligible for a bundle sig n by-right – and staff wanted to encourage establishments in
these districts to collocate their signage; if they satisfy the criteria, it should be made as easy as possible
to consolidate signage. In cases where an establishment is located in a less dense residential district,
she said, a property would be eligible to locate on a bundle sign by special use permit. She stated that
the location of the bundle sign can be in any industrial, commercial, planned development, or R -6 or
greater residential district – and the inclusion of planned development is to allow for collocation for other
parcels served by access roads to existing planned developments. Ms. Burbage said that the parcel on
which the bundle sign may be located on must be in an intersection with the access road that serves the
parcels listed on the sign and any other road, so the idea is to help people find where they can access all
of the establishments listed on the sign.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, stated that each property that has road frontage –
with some having more than one road frontage side – qualifies for freestanding signage, so a large
department store such at Kohl’s could have a freestanding sign on each road that it fronts, including the
access road and the exterior road. She said that in addition to having fewer individual signs through sign
consolidation, the goal is to get signs in the locations where people are making turning decisions.
Ms. Burbage said that the other classes of offsite signs mentioned earlier – political, subdivision,
agricultural products, temporary and planned development – would still be permitted by right, which is no
change from the current regulations, and they are not affecting signs in the right of way at all.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification of staff’s interpretation of “temporary sign.” Ms. McCulley said
that an allowed temporary sign is a sign that is subject to a permit and meets the temporary sign
regulations of no more than a total of 60 days – and no more than 15 days at one time. She stated that
staff was keeping tracking of that and was even keeping track of the time a sign is up without a permit,
and deducting that from their 60 days. Ms. McCulley said that a lot of people don’t bother to get sign
permits or observe their time limitations.
Ms. Burbage concluded her presentation by stating that staff’s findings are that the new
ordinance provides clear eligibility criteria to create more certainty during the review process, which
benefits both BZA and the applicant; avenues for administrative review that currently don’t exist, as the
Planning Commission requested; incentives for sign consolidation; and protection of the safety and
aesthetics of roadways by discouraging a proliferation of offsite signage. She stated that staff
recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance language, following the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd asked what the rationale is behind the provision in the proposed ordinance of 24 square
feet for one sign or two 12 square foot signs. Ms. McCulley said that in the commercial districts an
applicant can have a 32-square foot sign for each commercial sign, and in planned development
shopping center districts, you can go up to a much higher standard. She stated that in those districts with
a more residential nature, the sign allowance is smaller – which is pretty common practice. Ms. McCulley
said that the presentation gave an example to demonstrate that for offsite signs, there isn’t additional
signage, but you are using up the allotment that’s already al lowed for that property – so if it is a planned
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 90)
residential development, such as R-10, and there’s already 12 square feet used, then you’re limited to
adding 12 square feet to it. She stated that an applicant can have one or two per street frontage – with
two divided at the entrance so they can be seen from either direction – but there is a limit to the number
and size of signs, and that’s been in the ordinance for about 24 years.
Mr. Boyd said that he understands the need for limitations on signs, but he doesn’t understand
why two signs can’t be the same size.
Ms. McCulley clarified that they could be the same size, and that would be up to the applicant to
work out.
Ms. Mallek said that they can have signs that are the same size, as long as they total n o more
than 24 square feet.
Ms. McCulley stated that they can have as many as the property allows, and if they wanted to go
above it they could ask for a variance based on hardship. She emphasized that it’s not two signs per
property – it’s based on street frontages, so one frontage can have one on either side of the entrance.
Ms. McCulley said that many of the larger properties have more than one entrance or more than one
access road, especially with an effort to get reverse access roads and limits on t he number of entrances
onto primary routes.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the reference to parcels “offsite” meant that directional or bundled signs
could be put on another parcel if they get agreement from that neighboring property owner.
Staff confirmed that was the case.
Mr. Sheffield asked who made the determination that all onsite locations had been exhausted.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, said that the Zoning Administrator made that determination.
Ms. McCulley said that staff would be looking at all signage permitted onsite on that property –
wall signage, projecting signage, freestanding signage, based on all their access – with the idea of
ensuring that they’ve exhausted their other options before turning to an offsite sign.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he was slightly confused, because some of the ordinance assigns
responsibility to the BZA, but some of it is with the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Davis said that the Zoning Administrator would make a determination as to whether it would
be permitted, and if they determined that it required a special use permit then the BZA would make a
determination as to whether or not they would grant that offsite sign – and it would be a legislative action
that they would not be required to grant, but they could do so along with imposing conditions upon the
approval.
Mr. Sheffield said that the way the proposed ordinance language reads, if there’s a determination
that onsite locations have been exhausted, they would move into permitted locations through staff review
– with the BZA removed from the equation.
Ms. McCulley explained that starting with directional signs, by-right signs are limited to public
uses or 24-hour emergency medical uses, and within that there is a decision as to sign location made by
the Zoning Administrator. She clarified that anything else that is a directional sign that doesn’t meet the
public or medical criteria – in other words, typical commercial uses – go through the special use permit
process.
Mr. Davis said that the ordinance restricts where the BZA can approve those signs, through the
special use permit process.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the ordinance language under “eligibility” includes nothing as to who
makes the determination after an owner “exhausts all onsite signs and onsite face-located.”
Mr. Kamptner said that eligibility is determined by the Zoning Administrator, so an applicant must
first make that showing to her that they are eligible for a directional sign, then they apply for the special
use permit; the BZA then determines whether they are eligible to have the sign within a half -mile of the
other options.
Ms. Burbage stated that the language regarding eligibility determination made by the Zoning
Administrator is in the proposed ordinance language 4.15.5.A.C.2.
Mr. Sheffield asked if they ever cleared up the potential impact on bundled signs if access roads
become thoroughfares, as this would apply to Belvedere and other developments. Ms. Burbage said that
they would become nonconforming, so as long as the signs weren’t taken down they could continue to be
refaced.
Mr. Boyd asked about VDOT signs on interstates, and asked if their blue signs out on interstates
showing gas and restaurants coming up were exempt. Mr. Kamptner responded that the VDOT-related
signs are exempt from County regulations completely.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 91)
Mr. Sheffield said that they started this process several years ago due to clarity with the BZA and
offsite signs, and they are trying to be more efficient with bundling signs.
Ms. Mallek said that it’s a great incentive to address the proliferation and clutter of signs, which you see in
places where there is no regulation – and you can’t find the sign you want because there are so many
others in the way.
Mr. Sheffield stated that this ordinance actually incentives more bundled signs, and possibly more
directional signs, because it offers a by-right avenue for property owners.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, stating that the Free Enterprise Forum has attended
several of the roundtables and has been involved in the discussion for some time. He said that offsite
signage for many businesses is a lifeline, and some of development designs that the Comp Plan
envisions involves uses that have parking behind businesses, and they need to have a way to get
customers to their sites. Mr. Williamson stated that he appreciates the concern of illegal signs and
temporary signs, etc., but the people applying for the signs being discussed are the economic engine of
the area. He stated that this ordinance is a good step forward and he didn’t think it would create a
proliferation of signs, and it may cut down on the number of distressed customers trying to find
businesses.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she had worked on the first sign ordinance revision in 1992, at which time
she had just started as Chamber of Commerce president, and businesses were very concerned about the
potential implications. She said that the process they followed at that time was really solid, which
involved representatives from businesses along the Route 29 corridor plus business people with
engineering expertise meeting with staff. Ms. Dittmar stated that they came to the conclusion that signs
are not just directional – they are advertising – and while they don’t want to get too restrictive,
communities without any sign regulations are really ugly.
Mr. Sheffield commented that he does think there will be a proliferation of signs, and he is looking
at the growth area and the mixed uses – with the potential for lots of bundled signs. He stated that he’s
OK with about 75% of the ordinance, but the 25% left to uncertainty concerns him.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification of his concerns.
Mr. Sheffield explained that his neighborhood is a planned unit development, so they can put up
a bundled sign but must have the parcel for it – which makes it difficult. Moving forward with the new
ordinance, he said, they would be able to put up something larger and more robust, and further away
from the Belvedere entrance. He said that he envisions this happening more on other developments, and
currently planned developments must put signs on their own parcel unless they have a legal agreement
with a neighboring landowner.
Ms. McCulley confirmed that it would be a by-right use currently on their own parcel, and one of
the problems with Belvedere is that the frontage is so narrow that they can’t meet the sign setback within
that frontage.
Mr. Sheffield said that with the new ordinance they could take it even further and skip the whole
BZA approach, and put up a bundled sign by-right offsite, as long as they have a willing neighboring
landowner.
Ms. Burbage said that they would not qualify for a bundled sign, because their common access
road serves more than 10 properties – and that’s why staff wanted to narrow the definition of “access
road” to include just the short spikes of road that serve a small cluster of businesses.
Ms. McCulley stated that they could apply for a special use permit for a directional sign.
Mr. Sheffield said that when they started this process, it was to address an unclear process with
the Board of Zoning Appeals and offsite signs, and they seem to have gotten away from that – and he
has a problem with this seeming like overkill, as the current process isn’t really broken.
Ms. Burbage stated that the proposed ordinance represents an evolution occurring over a
number of different work sessions, and a lot of these points were issues that the Planning Commission
raised.
Mr. Sheffield said that he knows a lot of work has been put into this, prior to the new Board
coming on, and that’s why he didn’t want to come out strongly as being “against” it.
Ms. McCulley stated that the board that currently administers offsite signs by special use permit is
the Board of Zoning Appeals – the ones that aren’t exempted and allowed by-right – and the BZA has
expressed that the process is broken and the language is problematic, which makes it difficult for them to
recommend approval of anything that comes before them. She said that fortunately, they don’t get many
requests and the County discourages people from doing it. Ms. McCulley said that if the Board is
concerned about expansion of administrative approval for these signs, they could have tight criteria but
leave them by special permit with the exception of the public and 24-hour medical uses.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 92)
Mr. Sheffield stated that the bundled signs are his main concern, and he noted that the Entrance
Corridor signs are reviewed by the ARB but it’s the others that fall outside of that which concern him. He
emphasized that he doesn’t want to stop the work that’s been done on this ordinance thus far, but he is
inclined to vote against the ordinance because of his concerns about signs popping up.
Ms. Mallek asked if his concerns wer e related more to the bundled signs or the individual store
signs, or both.
Mr. Sheffield said that he is concerned about manipulation of the ordinance, as a landowner
could divide their property into two different uses and claim that they need a bundled sign – and there just
seem to be a lot of loopholes in the ordinance. He said that in his district, he could envision a lot of
scenarios that would enable signs to pop up everywhere.
Ms. Palmer said that they can still appreciate the hard work done and not go forward with this
today until he’s had a chance to have his concerns addressed.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he could sit down with Ms. McCulley and review some of those
scenarios.
Mr. Boyd said that at the beginning of this presentation, staff said that the whole process had
been originated because the BZA had asked them to tighten up this process – and they were the ones
really driving the changes because they didn’t feel the ordinance addressed these things properly.
Mr. Sheffield said that’s true, but the BZA hadn’t had any of these applications this year – and this
originated because of Clifton Inn and one other development.
Ms. Mallek stated that there were many other situations in which this was an issue.
Ms. McCulley said that regardless of what they choose to do in terms of permissions granted by
right or by special use permit, the current criteria are too vague and too easily debatable as to meaning.
She stated that the BZA hasn’t been specific about what should be provided, other than to say they want
“clear criteria.” Ms. McCulley said that the Planning Commission suggested that they should allow a
certain amount of administrative approvals if they fit the standards, so both of those things have facilitated
the change.
Mr. Boyd asked if they would have to go back through the Planning Commission if they seriously
tweak this again. Mr. Davis said that would only be the case if they make it more intensive, and they
would be required to have an additional public hearing, but if they change it from a by-right use to a
conditional use, it can be done without any additional process. He stated that Mr. Sheffield’s point of
concern seems to be that some bundled signs can be permitted by right, and his preference would be that
they be by special use permit.
Mr. Sheffield agreed, saying that it would require a public hearing in that case.
Ms. McCulley said that was fine, as it gets them where they need to be and allows for more of a
public process for the review of those.
Mr. Boyd stated that he wouldn’t want to go through that process without having the stakeholders
weigh in, as it is a high-visibility issue for commercial companies here.
Mr. Sheffield agreed, stating that he was trying to be sensitive to that.
Ms. Mallek said that the current status is a special use permit requirement, so leaving that part
alone and making the other accommodations in the ordinance would seem to cover it.
Ms. McCulley stated that it would be adding criteria for eligibility as well as specifics for sign
locations, so they’re not arguing about a sign that’s five miles away.
Ms. Mallek said that actually did happen in Crozet, with a business that wanted a sign at the I -64
exit on Route 250 although their property was five miles down the road – so she was glad to see the half-
mile provision. She asked if there would still be a permitting process though, even with a by-right use.
Ms. Mallek said that there was a sign permit, and staff would have an eye on that to ensure it
meets requirements.
Mr. Davis said that under the ordinance, there are certain exemptions for signs that can be
permitted by right without a special use permit, and Mr. Sheffield’s concerns focus on which of those
should be allowed without a special use permit.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that the Board weigh in on the other sections and give Mr. Sheffield time
to work with staff on this, rather than start the process over from the beginning.
Mr. Sheffield said that he would like time to run through some of those scenarios with Ms .
McCulley, as his district has the most Route 29 commercial frontage of any Supervisor – from Hollymead
Town Center down to Greenbrier. He said that his district has a lot of planned development,
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 93)
neighborhood model and mixed use development occurring, and he has concerns about the possibilities
there as well.
Ms. Mallek agreed with his desire to further review the scenarios, as it occurred to her that this
applies to offsite bundled signs, and an alternative would be to move forward with everything except the
second provision.
Ms. McKeel agreed that this would be a good approach.
Mr. Sheffield said that there is also some uncertainty as to what a bundled sign is versus a
directional sign, and he has concerns about the potential scenarios.
Mr. Boyd stated that he has a significant amount of frontage property in places like Pantops, so
he would like to sit in on those conversations.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that they include members of the business community at that point.
Mr. Sheffield asked if there was a target date to bring this back if they defer it.
Ms. McCulley said they could do it at their April 9 meeting, so that Ms. Burbage can attend.
Mr. Sheffield moved for deferral of ZTA-2012-00010 Offsite Signs until April 9, 2014. Ms. McKeel
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Board to Board Monthly Report – School Board Chairman. Rescheduled to
April 2, 2014.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Update on Dominion Power projects.
Mr. Brandon Stites, Director of Energy Conservation and Metering with Dominion Virginia Power,
addressed the Board, stating that Dominion is scheduled to start installing smart meters in the County
beginning in April. Mr. Stites stated that they started evaluating smart meters in 2009, and in 2010 came
to Charlottesville and Albemarle with some initial meter installations and are now evaluating some of that
meter data. He said that he would review their five core capabilities, the first being the basic meter
reading – which allows two-way communication to the houses and businesses that are served. Mr. Stites
stated that this allows for daily reading and a lot more information from the meter, with 48 readings per
day available to customers. He presented a graph that is available to customers on a “manage your
account” site, so customers who have the meters they can sign onto the site and see daily usage
information for up to 90 days, and that is correlated to high and low temperatures for the day. Mr. Stites
said that there is increased efficiency with this system versus evaluation done by rolling trucks, and this
has also provided improved read reliability – currently at about 99.6% accuracy on a daily basis.
He reported that their second capability is being pioneered at Dominion – voltage conservation –
and that allows for voltage level monitoring at the home with more power made available to the customer
because of improved delivery precision, and with that comes energy savings. Mr. Stites said that the idea
is to drop down into the lower end of the range, and this result in energy savings with an average of 2.5%
- sometimes up to 4% or greater. He stated that their measurements show almost $2.5 million in avoided
power purchase, which is passed directly to customers. Mr. Stites said that the meters also provide direct
communication to the company when power goes out, and when it is restored. He stated that the meters
are equipped with a disconnect switch inside them, so rather than having to roll a truck every time there is
a customer turn-on or turn-off, they can do it over the air – and since its implementation in April 2011,
they’ve avoided over 45,000 truck rolls. Mr. Stites said that using the old system to address connection
problems, it can take up to two hours, and using the smart meter system, it takes about two minutes. He
stated that they have the ability to store 30-minute interval data for customers, and with that it allows them
to introduce dynamic pricing plans. He said that in the summer of 2011, Dominion introduced a smart
pricing plan pilot for customers that have smart meters, and the company is incentivizing them for off-
peak consumption – with the average customer savings at $2.50 per month for the last period evaluated,
and a reduction in peak energy reduction by 6%. Mr. Stites noted that the smart meters were also used
for their solar and net metering programs.
Mr. Stites stated that Dominion would begin installations in mid-April, with about 80,000 meters to
be done in Charlottesville and Albemarle over a 12-month period. He said that prior to coming into the
area, the company sends out a direct mail piece notifying customers and explaining the process. Mr.
Stites said that residential customers typically experience about a five -minute outage, and commercial
customers will not have any outage. He stated that Dominion would also use bill inser ts periodically to
talk about the program and encourage give the public to participate in the off -peak incentives, and said
there was more information available on the dom.com website under “smart meter.”
Ms. Mallek asked about opt-out provisions.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 94)
Mr. Stites explained that they have come up with an opt-out program, which they call the “non-
communicating meter option,” and that would mean that the network interface and communication
aspects are disabled on the device – and only one reading per month is stored, which is essentially basic
metering function. He noted that of Dominion’s 300,000 customers, there were 182 who had signed up
for the opt-out measure.
Ms. Mallek said that the wireless capabilities can cause health problems for certain people, so
they may opt out. Mr. Stites said there are various reasons why customers choose to opt out, and
emphasized that they turn off the RF (radio frequency) capability of the device.
Mr. Boyd asked how customers would go about opting out. Mr. Stites responded that a customer
could get that information online or call 1-866-DOM-HELP to get the details on how to opt out.
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek expressed concern that the company was not communicating that to
customers, and they were having to seek it out themselves. Ms. Mallek said that 30% of her constituents
did not have internet, so it was really unfair to expect them to find out that way. Mr. Stites said that
representatives leave a door tag that details the information, and if customers have any questions on the
program they can call or go to the website.
Ms. Palmer stated that by the time they get the door tag, it’s already set up. Mr. Stites pointed
out that two to four-weeks in advance of installation, they get notice that it’s going to be put in – and the
direct mail provides contact information.
Ms. Palmer asked if the direct mail has opt-out directions. Mr. Stites said that the direct mail does
not specifically say there is an opt-out program.
Ms. Dittmar asked if they could add that.
Ms. Mallek said that they’ve probably already printed 500,000, so it may be their jobs as
Supervisors to get the word out locally. She asked if the people who chose to keep the smart meters
would have a reduced rate, while people who opted out would not.
Mr. Stites stated that the benefit would actually help every customer, as there would be less
energy purchased.
Ms. Palmer asked what would be done in the case of someone missing the door hanger or
announcement of installation, and they call up and want it disconn ected. Mr. Stites explained that
Dominion would come out to their house and do an exchange to install a disabled meter.
Mr. Boyd asked if this was the next generation of his meter, which provides data that compares
his house to his neighbors and sends him that information in the mail. Mr. Stites said that this some
customers received smart meters in 2010 as an energy conservation pilot, and since that time Dominion
has done technical evaluations of various systems – determining that their choice is not what they
introduced in 2010 but is instead a different system, which they would swap out with the older systems.
Mr. Boyd asked what Dominion would be doing with the information gathered from the half -hour
interval metering. Mr. Stites responded that Dominion has the capability of doing 30-minute interval data,
but would be doing the daily metering for those who want that information. He stated that the 30-minute
data would be used for customers who participate in programs like the dynamic pricing plan, and wouldn’t
be saved for customers outside of those programs.
Mr. Boyd said that the reason he’s asking is because of the discussions surrounding the NSA and
Google and building profiles on individuals, and asked if any of that information would be used for
marketing purposes or sold to other companies. Mr. Stites stated that it absolutely would not be available
to any third party, but a customer could intentionally request that data and use it for their own reasons.
Mr. Boyd said that he just want to make sure that it isn’t used by people who do data mining, etc.
Mr. Stites reiterated that it would be available for customer use only.
Ms. McKeel asked if she would still get the $40 rebate every year, after the new meters are
installed. Mr. Stites said that’s a different program – air-conditioner recycling – which is separate from the
meter installation.
Ms. Dittmar said that it might be a good idea for the County to try to get the word out about this
since it’s not going to be in the Dominion bills and many people in her jurisdiction don’t have internet
either.
Ms. Mallek said that talk radio was a good way to get this out.
Ms. Palmer suggested that they put a notice in The Rural Virginian.
Mr. Stites said that Dominion was using a variety of avenues to get the word out, including
community discussions like this meeting.
Ms. Dittmar thanked him for the presentation, and encouraged him to take back to the company
that the County would like more means of communication than just the doorknob hanger. She also
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 95)
mentioned that the Board had been complimentary about the way Dominion handled the power during the
last two snowstorms.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Update.
Albemarle County Service Authority Executive Director, Mr. Gary O’Connell addressed the Board,
stating that the ACSA is in the process of finishing their budget process and have a major rate review
underway – with two meetings with their Board and a third at the end of the month. He stated that it’s
likely they will have a rate increase, which they’ve not had in several years, and are in the process of
figuring out how to spread it out to minimize its impact on customers. Mr. O’Connell said that the
financing for the granular-activated carbon comes into next year’s budget, which also drives up the need
for increased cost. He stated that he had put the latest water quality report in the Board’s packets, noting
that there had been community concerns about discoloration in the water. Mr. O’C onnell said that water
is the most monitored product that anyone consumes, with the ACSA testing hourly, daily, weekly,
monthly, annually, and does all kinds of testing. He stated that they do everything in partnership with the
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority to make sure that the water is safe to drink, doing field testing in the
event of citizen concern.
Mr. O’Connell reported that there are 27 capital projects underway with about $5 million in capital
projects done every year, with the focus for the next few years being waterline replacements. He said
that there are several big line projects planned and scheduled, and some projects are planned to
interconnect in loop systems for emergency redundancy purposes, but in most cases the system is just
getting older and they’re having to replace pipes that have breaks in them or a propensity for breakage.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a cost-sharing agreement in place yet with the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. O’Connell stated that City Council was in discuss ion that day, and also has a public hearing and vote
scheduled for March 17.
Mr. Boyd commented that it’s something they’ve been working on for two years now.
Ms. Palmer said that she thought there might be agreement on it soon.
Ms. Mallek asked about the status of addressing the capacity issues in Crozet and possible pump
booster for Mechum’s River. Mr. O’Connell responded that they are looking into capacity in Crozet and
have a study in the Rivanna projects to analyze development and its impact on the sewer system,
including the possibility of capacity constraints. He said that if they would suddenly have a big
development that would occur all at once, it could be a fairly major issue, but their position over time has
been to evaluate it overall and consider a major capital project in the future.
Ms. Mallek asked what the threshold was between a small and a large development. Mr.
O’Connell said that they usually see 30-40 units at a time and those are often phased, with ever y one of
those generating a capacity study.
Ms. Mallek said that there are a lot of approved units sitting on the shelf since the economic
downturn, and the community is only “halfway there on their 4,000 units.” Mr. O’Connell responded that
they are looking at that as part of their overall evaluation, and what would immediately create an impact
would be a very large development that’s not already known – not the smaller residential developments.
Ms. Palmer thanked him for bringing up the point of how highly tested the local water is, stating
that it’s more regulated than bottled water you can buy.
Ms. Mallek commented that it’s going to get even better with the GAC.
Mr. Boyd said that he had already seen some of the materials for the City Council agenda for
March 17, but stated that other Board members may have not and the draft of the cost -sharing agreement
would be part of the public information for that meeting agenda.
Mr. O’Connell stated that the ACSA Board would meet on March 20 and it would be out for that
as well, adding that it’s basically a “user pay” type of agreement that includes a metering project to better
assess City and County uses and more clearly define the costs.
Mr. Boyd said that the need for this was prompted by the Rivanna Pump Station, which is in
Woolen Mills, and the previous Board took exception to that because of the additional cost being added
for the odor control in that neighborhood.
Mr. O’Connell stated that the ACSA Board took the angle that a user-pay approach, which is
engineering-based and looks at all of the wastewater projects – now totaling $80 million – and try to bring
that together into one agreement, and that includes the Rivanna Pump Station. He mentioned that
Rivanna has a vote scheduled on a bond at the end of the month, so all of these facets are coming
together at once to be in place for that.
Ms. Palmer said that the community’s predominate objection was having the pump station
enlarged rather than the odor, and the tunnel was the project element they had to pay a portion of – and
they exchanged that for the hope they could have an agreement that covered all future sewer projects.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 96)
Mr. O’Connell pointed out that the ACSA’s rates are below the state average by about 6%, so
even with a rate increase they will be at the state average or close to it – and they are also 10% less than
the City when comparing bills for an average residential user.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Update.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, addressed the Board, stating that the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority is the wholesaler for the Albemarle County Service Authority and serves the City of
Charlottesville, as well as the County through the ACSA. He said that Rivanna c overs water treatment,
wastewater treatment, water supply and major transmission – but does not do distribution to homes and
businesses. Mr. Frederick stated that the Rivanna staff provides support to a separate entity, the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority – which has limited scope, primarily post-closure care and corrective
action of a closed landfill in the Ivy area, and limited solid waste services as the Board or Council choose
to ask be provided by a public agency.
He said that he had distributed a report the previous day with a few items for discussion, some of
which have already been mentioned. He said that Rivanna is moving forward with the granular -activated
carbon project at all five water treatment plants, which would make their water the best in the state and
among the best in the country. Mr. Frederick reported that Rivanna introduced its operating budget to its
board of directors in February, and sewer is fairly flat – with wastewater operators continuing to learn the
new nutrient removal process implemented a few years earlier for the benefit of the Chesapeake Bay, so
they are getting increasingly better at optimizing costs. He stated that water wholesale rates will increase
in the 10-15% range in the next year due to the activated carbon project, which is still running within
budget compared to what Rivanna announced to the various boards when the decision was made to
choose carbon over other alternatives. Mr. Frederick reported that their capital improve ment plan was
adopted by the Rivanna board in January, and as they have advanced wastewater efforts with investment
in infrastructure rehabilitation over the last 10 years, they are now shifting the focus to water treatment
facilities – which are still aging, with the newest one built in the 1960s. He stated that the Ragged
Mountain Dam project schedule has been delayed due to weather conditions, as freezing temperatures
and moisture are not ideal for compacting earth.
Regarding solid waste, Mr. Frederick stated that the Board had asked for a year’s extension in
service – which has been put in place. He said that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has
requested a meeting, which they have the right to do because the facility at Ivy is a permit ted facility with
that department. Mr. Frederick stated that they also invited County staff to attend, and DEQ is drafting a
“letter of agreement,” which Rivanna’s attorney will be reviewing and sharing with the County. He said
that the letter would say that by April 1, 2015, Rivanna will submit to DEQ a letter that says they are
closing on June 30, 2015, or a written plan describing in detail what will be constructed in its place –
either on the Ivy site or on a different site. Mr. Frederick said that in the discussions, both Rivanna and
County representatives were asking for as much flexibility as possible in engaging the public – and at one
point the DEQ official said “plans,” which could be as simple as a written document with an outline of what
they’re going to do along with timelines, but would not need to be engineered drawings.
Mr. Frederick noted that he learned in the DEQ conversation that due to public pressure and a
lawsuit, there was a strong need to close the landfill to municipal solid was te – and DEQ felt that unless
something was provided in its place, there would be no means for the community to dispose of its solid
waste, which would be a huge environmental and public health crises. Mr. Frederick said that DEQ
allowed for an outdoor transfer station to be built onsite, and it is the only outdoor transfer station in the
state – but they allowed it because at the time there was public opposition to putting in another building
with an enclosure on the site, and that led the Board of Superv isors at that time through zoning to not
allow another building onsite. Mr. Frederick said that the DEQ felt the outdoor transfer station was going
to be temporary in nature, and the County hasn’t been able to make a decision in the last 15 years to
replace it – and DEQ’s concern is that it is becoming permanent by default. He stated that the DEQ also
mentioned the fact that an outdoor transfer station requires a lot more labor to operate and meet
environmental goals, and it’s much more cost effective to be indoors.
Mr. Foley stated that exploring a convenience center at the Ivy site – rather than a transfer
station, which requires a permit – is something the Board had previously considered, and they would be
talking about it more in April.
Ms. Palmer mentioned that a constituent had come in with a petition including 2,518 signatures to
keep the Ivy Transfer Station open.
Mr. Frederick offered to answer questions for Board members at any time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Sheffield said that he had received a letter from the homeowners association president at
Squirrel Ridge, and no matter what happens with the 29 Bypass, some residents and neighborhoods
have been held hostage for too long. He stated that he would be meeting with the Squirrel Ridge
neighborhood during the coming weekend, and they would be talking about what approach they’d like to
see – which may result in some action he would like to see the Board tak e, including the possibility of
demolishing some of the homes that can’t be rehabilitated if they’re sold back.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 97)
Ms. McKeel asked that he let her know what her residents group can do to help, as they are in
the same situation.
Ms. Mallek said that it’s an excellent idea to hold a meeting with Squirrel Ridge, and said they
should also discuss it at the MPO level.
Ms. Dittmar commented that one of her concerns with the reallocation of funding from the
Western Bypass project to the Places 29 projects is the oversight of the process, as their resolution asked
for the money to be shifted but they need to make sure that it is not diverted to other areas.
Mr. Sheffield said that allocation of funds for transportation projects generally falls within the MPO
process, but watching those particular funds could require a broader cooperative approach.
Ms. Mallek said that it would need to be “all hands on deck.”
Mr. Boyd said that a lot of that funding is federal highway money that can’t be used for secondary
roads.
Mr. Sheffield stated that it can’t be used for secondary roads, but it could be used for US 29
corridor projects – and Mr. Lynch has pointed out that these are “discretionary funds.”
Mr. Foley said that staff could do some follow-up on the specific funds that might be in jeopardy,
and the Commonwealth Transportation Board has the ability to move some funds, and they would be
meeting on March 19. He stated that the particular issue of how to monitor and influence these
allocations would be addressed by the Places 29 task force being formed, so they can at least make a
statement as to where they’d like it to go. Mr. Foley said that the MPO staff is looking into a number of
these issues, and County staff can follow up from that angle.
Mr. Boyd stated that in listening to the CTB meeting from the transcript that Ms. McKeel had sent
out, some of the things omitted were the fact that two other localities have already said “we’ll take that
money.”
Ms. Dittmar said she was hopeful that Governor McAuliffe and Secretary Layne would assist the
County in its written request, at least to let them know what steps were involved – and to keep apprised of
the lobbying efforts going on for other localities.
Ms. Mallek stated that they need to be lobbying to keep the money here, and that will require
being organized and ready to go to meetings on short notice – and the Places 29 task force may not even
go forward based on what they decide.
Mr. Foley said that at a minimum, staff would follow up on the process issues surrounding the
allocation – including who makes the decision – and get that back to the Board immediately.
Ms. Mallek said that they had wanted to discuss outcomes of a City/County meeting and asked if
they wanted to do that now or postpone it until the following week.
Ms. Dittmar explained that there was a discussion between Mr. Foley and City Manager Maurice
Jones, and at a Planning District Commission meeting which she and Ms. Palmer had attended, Mr. Huja
was there with Mr. Jones and mentioned that it would be a good idea to get together and talk about their
relationship. Ms. Dittmar said that she and Ms. McKeel had also attended a presentation at the Chairs
Institute from the Commission on Localities, which inspired them to explore more joint options with the
City. She stated that the only follow-up she did was a general chat with Mr. Huja the next time she ran
into him on the benefits of meeting jointly. Ms. Dittmar asked fellow Board members to think about the
desired outcomes for that meeting, adding that she wasn’t thinking about an all-day retreat but just a
meeting of elected officials.
Ms. Mallek suggested that the reports done for the five different study committees be circulated to
all the Board members, which were the product of a collaborat ive meeting organized by Delegate David
Toscano. She said that the information is recent history that they should be aware of before doing any
more.
Ms. McKeel said that regarding the earlier discussion about the courts, she would like for Chris
Lloyd from McGuire Woods to give the Board a presentation on public/private partnerships, perhaps in a
work session setting.
Ms. Dittmar asked if it would be a good idea to contact the City to see what outcomes they are
expecting from a joint meeting.
Mr. Foley said that he and Mr. Jones have discussed it several times – the previous week, and
back in January – and agreed that they needed to have more conversation about it in order to come up
with an agenda. He stated that if there’s agreement from both Council and Board to have a meeting, then
he can move forward with getting it on calendars as it will take some time to get it scheduled.
Ms. Mallek suggested that he circulate the same reports, as some of the councilors were not
seated at the time.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 98)
Mr. Foley said that if the outcome is relationship-building, it would be good to have the
background information in those reports, but it doesn’t indicate that they’re convening to make a decision
on any particular matter.
Mr. Davis mentioned that staff had made a presentation to the Board on procurement options,
including public/private partnerships, and the recommendation at that time was that it could be a useful
tool – but it should be driven by specific projects, rather than adopting an ordinance that allows
unsolicited proposals.
Ms. McKeel said that she would just like to better understand the concept of public/private
partnerships, and asked if there was something he could share with the Board.
Mr. Foley suggested that they carry both of those items onto an agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked staff for a reminder of the date for the minutes for the procurement and
partnership information, as it’s already in the minutes.
Board members agreed.
Ms. Dittmar said that the only other item she had been interested in was the update on the
business property tax, and Mr. Foley said he would provide an update on it.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley distributed his monthly County Executive’s Report, stating that based on the input of
several Board members, a letter has been sent to the business community to help clarify the issue of
business personal property tax. He said that staff has tried to do an improved job of communication
regarding this matter and to clarify what is required and not required, and to let the community know that
there is a transition that allows for grouping of receipts and an estimation of items rather than an exacting
level of detail is now acceptable. Mr. Foley stated that the Chamber of Commerce has also asked staff to
answer a number of questions on the issue, and as of this meeting the County has provided answers to
those. He said that staff is ready and trained to respond to questions, in addition to the lette r has been
mailed.
Mr. Boyd asked if they had extended the filing date, because it had been due the first of March.
Mr. Foley said that his understanding is that the deadline is May 1, but he would get an answer to that
and let him know.
Mr. Davis stated that there is a different deadline for business license than for property taxes.
Mr. Sheffield said that the business license tax was due on March 1.
Mr. Foley stated that what’s before the Board is an enhanced County Executive’s report, noting
the four items he would provide to them on a regular basis including a tentative two-month agenda
planner with major agenda items. He asked if the Board wanted to provide any direction to him on the
“uncertain agenda item” related to City/County partnership on solid waste processing, as Dennis Rooker
had wanted a meeting on that and Mr. Boyd had supported it.
Ms. Mallek suggested that they change the wording so that it doesn’t continue to reference the
way they do trash in their two communities, when that process hasn’t existed for four or five years.
Mr. Foley said he could bring it back for general discussion before they make any firm decisions
about it.
Ms. Dittmar said that it would be helpful to have some background discussion on that prior to
making any decisions.
Ms. Palmer mentioned that years before, she had worked with a student group from the Darden
School on “inter-jurisdictional water authority governance in Virginia,” and had actually presented to the
Board on it at that time. She stated that she is struggling with how to move forward with that when they
don’t know what they’re going to do with the trash, and perhaps they should have some conversation
about that prior to having the governance discussion.
Ms. Mallek commented that it’s a bit of a chicken and egg, because the opportunities to do
something depend on whether they have any control or not – and clearly they don’t currently.
Mr. Foley said that that’s one of the primary issues they need to talk about when they look at
long-term solid waste options, and the issue of governance must be part of that discussion. He said that
perhaps the broader issue could wait until May because staff would be coming to the Board in April with
the solid waste information in order to get further direction. Mr. Foley stated that realistically, there may
need to be some interim options for solid waste while they figure out what the long-term is.
He also stated that a new item in his report was “Board discussion follow-up issues,” for items
that come out of their meeting discussions but are not necessarily action items. Mr. Foley said that his
report also includes a list of all the major policy decisions the Board is involved in along with a calendar,
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 99)
and stated that the reason the page is blank is because staff is in the process of trying to figure out how
they want to proceed, what process they should use, how the public should be engaged, etc. He said
that it will function similarly to an annual workplan, which will help them stay on track, and the strategic
planning and priority-setting sessions will feed into it as well. Mr. Foley said that the last item in his report
is his monthly status report on major projects underway, and all of these things are linked tog ether.
Mr. Foley reported that he and Maurice Jones had met with John Lynch the day before to help
clarify what’s on the CTB agenda for March 19, and Mr. Lynch stated that the main purpose would be to
present the idea of a task force to start the process of addressing 29 corridor challenges. He stated that
there is an assumption that out of that will come approval of a process and people to serve on the task
force, and he talked to Mr. Lynch about a possible presentation of Places 29, and everyone seems t o
agree that the time to bring it forward would be when the task force is formed. Mr. Foley said that in
advance of that presentation, they should send an email under the Chair’s signature that will give
background on Places 29 and why they think it’s a m ore effective solution. He mentioned that Alison De
Toncq was also present at that meeting, and she would be very involved with the CTB meeting. Mr.
Foley said that the anticipated order would be the CTB meeting on March 19, hopefully approving a task
force for the corridor that will involve the County and others, and at that time they will work toward a
presentation and preliminary email on Places 29.
Ms. Mallek said that her understanding was that they were going to decide at that point whether
or not to create a task force, because if they had information about Places 29 they may question the
viability of a task force – and many of them are in a complete information vacuum as to what’s been going
on in the County. She stated that there had been “a lot of filtering of information,” and CTB members
haven’t had a chance to see all of it.
Mr. Foley agreed that staff could prepare an email to send to CTB members prior to March 19.
Ms. Dittmar asked if they could possibly present at the CTB meeting. Mr. Foley stated that there
is a public comment period at which time they could present information, but he is looking for Board
direction – although getting on the CTB agenda to do a full presentation would be more challenging at this
point.
Ms. Dittmar said that if they can’t accommodate a 10-minute presentation, there should at least
be someone there to distribute information from Places 29 and offer to answer questions.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he didn’t mind attending, but the Board has a meeting that mo rning.
Mr. Foley said that staff would work with the Board on what to prepare, noting that his
conversation with Mr. Lynch had just happened the previous afternoon.
Ms. Dittmar complimented Mr. Foley on his report, stating that it was very helpful and was a step
closer to an annual plan concept.
Mr. Foley said that his last item was to schedule the Board retreat in June, and they narrowed it
down to June 9 and June 10.
Mr. Davis confirmed that the filing deadline for the business property tax is May 1, but applicants
are encouraged to file by March 1 to assure proper assessment of the first half bill.
Ms. Palmer asked how many other Board members would be attending the Virginia stormwater
meeting, and no other members indicated they would be going.
_______________
Non-Agenda Item. The Board recessed their meeting at 4:46 p.m., and reconvened at 5:00 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 28. Work Session: FY 2014/2015 Operating and Capital Budgets (continued
from March 4, 2014).
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Board has a list of items from previous budget meetings which were
put aside for further discussion. She stated that the budget is a work in progress representing almost a
year’s worth of effort by staff prior to the first public hearing on it. She said the Board needs now to
establish the advertised tax rate at this meeting, stating that Supervisors would need to establish the
maximum rate it would consider. Ms. Dittmar stated that there would be numerous opportunities for the
public to comment – through email, town hall meetings, etc. – prior to the final public hearing on April 8.
She emphasized that the tax rate being advertised is not an established tax rate, but a starting point from
which Board members can move forward.
Mr. Foley clarified that there were several scenarios previously discussed as to how the school
challenges might be met, and the question had arisen as to what the tax rate would need to be to
eliminate the current shortfall of $5.8 million from the schools – and the correct answer is 85.2 cents, a
6.9 cent increase over the amount in the recommended budget of 1.7 cents in order to close the gap, and
8.6 cents higher than the current rate.
Mr. Boyd asked what the increase would be for the average homeowner based on averag e
assessment values. Mr. Foley said staff would calculate that and bring it back.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 100)
Mr. Sheffield asked if the Board could specifically earmark a certain amount of pennies on the tax
rate for the school system to avoid the 60/40 split. Mr. Foley said that is correct, adding that the Board
could dedicate some of the revenue increase to any purpose it identifies. He clarified that a tax increase
would increase the total amount of revenue going to schools from that day forward.
Ms. McKeel asked for confirmation that the 8.6-cent increase is not assuming the monies which
would be realized in June. Mr. Foley said this is why there was some confusion, because there were
different proposals thrown around, and the Board could provide the schools with some one-time money
based upon additional revenue that will come in this year if the Board raises the tax rate – but what the
schools are asking for is additional ongoing money.
Ms. Dittmar said, last year, the Board dedicated 4/10 of a cent to the schools and, this year, that
amount is not dedicated anymore, it is part of the 60/40 split. She stated that the Board could dedicate it
this year but, if it reverts to the split again, it would leave the schools in the same situation and would
again leave the Board in the position of sorting it out.
Mr. Foley stated that dedicating money to the schools is an important scenario and, if the Board
wants to provide more than the 60/40 split would, it would have a decision to make as to what to do with
the extra 40% under the current formula. In FY16, he said there is a two-cent tax increase dedicated to
capital so, if the rate is raised to a certain point and there is more money on the local government side
than needed for the list, that money could go to the capital side to help avoid a tax increase the following
year. He stated that the grants that will run out for the seven firefighters next year would mean the
County would be starting the year off with a hole, unless those positions are eliminated. Mr. Foley said if
the County were to have some excess money beyond the list, those funds could be put in reserve which
previous Boards have done, by sending the first year to the capital program and building it into the budget
for operating expenses for future years.
Ms. Lori Allshouse addressed the Board, stating that the Board would discuss the items identified
in prior work sessions, which staff has compiled and assigned dollar amounts to. She stated that the
Board would also need to set the proposed tax rate for advertising and public hearing, and staff would like
the Board to approve the proposed budget – although Supervisors could approve it at the March 12
meeting if necessary. Ms. Allshouse said, after the Board sees how including or deleting items plays out
financially, Supervisors would take a break and then staff would come back with a revised budget.
Mr. Foley said, depending on what the decisions are on the priority list, staff would have to re-
calculate and then let the Board know what tax rate would be needed to support those items.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she had spoken with Ms. Mallek and Mr. Boyd about how this has been
done in the past, and they indicated that at least four Board members would need to agree to move
forward with an item in order to leave it on the list.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to start with the school item first.
Ms. McKeel stated that she just wanted to make sure it was clear on how the 1.7 cents impacts
the budget.
Ms. Allshouse said it would be made clear, and there is only one item from the list that is currently
in Mr. Foley’s budget, and all others would be additions.
Mr. Foley stated that the Board would be starting with the recommended budget as a baseline,
although some Board members may not even want to start there but that would mean Supervisors would
have to make cuts from the start.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification that the additional 1.7 cents tax increase covers the proposed
salary increase and the increase in VRS for the schools. Mr. Foley said that was correct, adding that a
simple way to look at the list of set-aside items would be that an additional penny on the tax rate would
fund the list as presented and would also send an additional $800,000 to schools, given the 60/40 split.
Ms. Mallek stated that the remaining question is what lump sum Supervisors would want to put
toward the extra gap over and above the things Mr. Foley has already budgeted for the schools’ increase.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to know what would be cut from the schools, and the Board may
not be able to have that information because schools are not in charge of the budget.
Ms. McKeel stated that the School Division is in a better position to make a determination as to
what would be cut.
Ms. Mallek asked if it was a reasonable assumption that some of the new coordinators and
positions that were in the school budget would not happen as a first round if the County could not fund the
whole gap.
Mr. Foley asked if the schools had done “tiers” so they could fund based on levels of priority.
Ms. McKeel stated that the School Division did not do tiers this year.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 101)
Ms. Palmer said there are two parts to this issue, as most of the constituents she has heard from
have said they want the schools to have a balanced budget but, on the other hand, the rest of the
community is going to balk at this unprecedented tax increase, and she would rat her do it incrementally
so people can plan. She stated that she feels uncomfortable about the unintended consequences from
the public in putting out this kind of a tax increase.
Ms. McKeel stated that there are a few options, and perhaps the Board could look at it from that
standpoint – as there is the option for dedicated funding, and then there is the shared part. She said
Board members need to throw out some scenarios in order to get started, and suggested that, in order to
get the ball rolling, she proposed a 1.9 cents additional dedicated to the schools and see how that would
help close the gap.
Ms. Allshouse said another way to look at it would be to consider a penny being equal to $1.5
million, so a 1.9-cent addition would be about $3 million.
Ms. McKeel said that would leave schools with a portion of their gap to close, but would give them
dedicated money.
Ms. Mallek asked what she meant by dedicated.
Ms. McKeel said it would mean dedicating 1.9 cents as a one-time allocation, as the Board had
done the previous year.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she does not like the idea of not having a sustainable decision, and does
not want to turn around and be back here next year. She said School Board member, Ned Galloway, has
offered to analyze this over the summer, including how the budget is funded, commitments and
responsibilities, in an effort to avoid this annual dilemma between excellent schools and funding them on
balance with fair tax rates.
Mr. Sheffield said he agreed with Ms. McKeel’s position, and what he is having trouble accepting
is that the Board is not funding the growth which is already occurring.
Ms. Mallek stated that there are 120 more school children enrolled than the previous year.
Mr. Sheffield said, currently, the County is funding just the VRS difference and the 2% salary
increase, not the growth in enrollment or a few other initiatives and also including the lapse factor.
Ms. Mallek said 1.9 cents would be about $3 million toward closing the schools’ gap.
Ms. Palmer said she is having trouble coming at this from an angle other than one that
contemplates what is reasonable to expect citizens to handle on an increase each year. She stated that,
while there are a lot of people in the community who can afford to absorb a tax increase, there are a
whole lot who cannot. She said the 12% is very painful to consider doing in one year.
Ms. Mallek asked if Board members wanted to go ahead and vote now on whether to eliminate
that scenario.
Ms. Dittmar said it would certainly narrow the scope of the discussion if the Board already knows
it cannot get to those items which are deeper on the list, and focus now on a conversation of dedicated
versus a 60/40 split.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he is leaning toward the 1.9 cents as dedicated, because i t will help with
future years and demands such as the court projects.
Mr. Foley clarified that if the Board dedicated the 1.9 cents, there would be no money to go to the
local government side because Supervisors will not be using the formula – so it would still need to review
the list of set-aside projects and determine whether the Board wanted to fund those at all.
Ms. Mallek commented that the 1.9 cents would provide $3 million for the schools if it all went
there, or it would be $1.6 million with the remaining $800K into capital reserve, etc., if it were not
dedicated.
Ms. Dittmar stated that there are a few ways to approach this: figure out what the top rate is that
the Board could bear to advertise, and see what that would generate for the schools, and then look at the
set-aside project list; or determine, in advance, what the school systems should get this year and decide
whether it is dedicated revenue or the 60/40 split.
Mr. Sheffield said he was in favor of the first option and, if the Board funds the full $489,000 that
would put $815,000 into the school pot – which is a .8 cent increase, and that gives him a basis on which
to have the school discussion.
Ms. Mallek said that is how it has been done in the past.
Mr. Foley stated that staff put it together in order to deal with the things on the Board’s list and
then determined whether more money would be dedicated to the schools in order to get to where
Supervisors want to be. He said if the Board wants to give the schools $3 million, it could move onto the
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 102)
next piece and see how Board members wanted to handle the set-aside list; however, the Board would
then have to back out the difference.
Ms. Allshouse explained that, if the Board dedicates a penny to schools, the formula works such
that it becomes the base – and the 60/40 would pertain to new revenue growth and it stays there. She
said the future growth is what the 60/40 split would be on next year.
Mr. Foley clarified that, if the Board gives schools an extra penny dedicated, the School Division
would always have that going forward.
Ms. Dittmar said she would be hesitant to add to the base prior to doing the sustainability exercise
with the School Board, although she is only one voice.
Ms. Mallek said, if Board members do the list, it would be at Column E on the set-aside list, while
also providing $850,000 for schools.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the list would require $500,000 and, under the 60/40 split, that would be
one penny with some given to the capital program and some to the schools, so the split also sends some
funds to capital.
Ms. Palmer said she hates to cut off all of the conversation from people who want to fully fund the
schools, but she does not think the Board can fully fund Dr. Moran’s budget adding that she wants the
public to be part of the conversation in which the schools discuss what will be cut out. She emphasized
that she is trying to give people choices, and would like to have an explanation of what the School Board
process would look like. Ms. Palmer said, if the Board puts a tax rate out there, she would like to know at
what point the schools would respond to that and start discussing what would be cut.
Mr. Foley stated that Ms. McKeel knows how that process would work given her 12 years of
service on the School Board.
Ms. McKeel said it has always been a good process for the schools to present “tiers” of need, but
they chose not to do that this year. She asked if taking the 1.9 and adding another 4/10 cent would cover
everything, except for schools.
Mr. Sheffield explained that, if the Board added the .4 cents to the 1.9 cents, it would still end up
being split, so it does not really mean all of that would be allocated. He mentioned that Mr. Davis had just
reminded him that .7 cents is dedicated for stormwater, so it would be two cents on the rate split 60/40.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board needs to philosophically discuss the possibility of dedicating an
income stream, which messes up the 60/40 and tweaks a sustainable model.
Mr. Sheffield stated that, what is bothering him is the fact that the County has to fund mandates
and gaps because of directives from the state, and he would like to know how much that has totale d over
the last several years because the schools are being hit even more than the general fund.
Ms. McKeel said the schools have been covering its mandates for several years now out of its
own fund balance.
Mr. Foley stated that this has been going on for years, and the County has been trying to
overcome the mandates – with the stormwater mandate alone amounting to .7 cents.
Mr. Sheffield emphasized that he is not hiding behind the fact there are mandates, he is just
dealing with the facts in front of the Board.
Ms. Dittmar said federal and state officials must be getting sick of this, which may provide an
opportunity for local officials to make some headway in the future, but the Board’s task tonight is to
address the budget proposal – which addresses the VRS mandate and takes care of employee raises.
She stated that the task at hand is really to figure out how much more of the gap Supervisors wish to
cover, and how to cover it – either with dedicated revenue or more funding that would be in the 60/40
split.
Mr. Foley said what Mr. Sheffield proposed was how staff put it together starting with one penny
on the rate, which would take care of the Board’s set-aside list and give $850K to schools; but, if Board
members want to get to $3 million, it would need to figure out if anything after that is dedicated to the
schools to get there.
Ms. Dittmar stated that Ms. Mallek’s idea is good and that is to identify if this is what the Board
wants to fund and build it from there.
Ms. Palmer asked if the reduced allocation for MACAA would aff ect the Head Start program.
Ms. Allshouse explained that funding was reduced for the CARES program, which was moved to
a line item in the budget that could be provided back to MACAA, and that was done to allow the City and
County some time to determine whether that program could be done more effectively by the agency or
some other methodology.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 103)
Ms. Palmer said the letter she received from the MACAA director seemed to imply that the Head
Start program would also be impacted.
Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services, addressed the Board and stated that MACAA’s
application was rated as “fair,” which means there is an automatic reduction. Ms. Ralston read from the
review of the application, stating that the MACAA application “demonstrates a solid un derstanding of
beneficiaries and uses evidence-based practice; however, projected outcomes were not fully achieved,
[and] application did not describe any meaningful collaboration.” She said the team was also concerned
that MACAA was not serving the number of City residents projected, so there were several things about
the application that were concerning. Ms. Ralston also stated that Head Start had received some
reductions at the federal level due to sequestration, but the President’s budget has requeste d more
money for preschool.
Mr. Foley said staff could set aside the MACAA item for future discussion.
Ms. Mallek said the money would be set aside until those issues are worked out.
Ms. Allshouse pointed out that the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) is comprised of City,
County and community members, and they make recommendations based on a thorough review.
Ms. Ralston confirmed that Greer, Yancey and Baker-Butler are the schools with Head Start
programs, and Bright Stars is at different schools but that is a separate program. She said some schools
have no preschool programs.
Mr. Doug Walker, Assistant County Executive for Community Services, addressed the Board,
stating that the reduced total amount to MACAA was $44,240, and that includes the amount of the
contingency set aside for the CARES program in the amount of $18,650 – which leaves about $25,590 for
the net difference needed to restore MACAA to its current budgeted amount. He said he would need to
do further analysis as to how the cuts would impact CARES or Head Start, and how restoration would
affect that.
Ms. Dittmar and Ms. McKeel said they were willing to hold off on that for the time being.
Ms. Mallek suggested putting that money into reserves, and perhaps it could be reassigned to
Bright Stars as those funds might add extra classrooms for that program. Ms. Allshouse agreed to put it
aside as “Pre-K reserve.”
Ms. McKeel said there are waiting lists for Pre-K, and Bright Stars is a great program so that
should be part of a discussion with the School Board about the overall educational vision for the County.
Mr. Foley said funding could still be put into a reserve while it is being discussed.
Ms. Allshouse clarified that the dollar amount to be set aside for further discussion was $25,590.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to know if it is going to impact the Head Start programs at the
schools.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he had not had time to consider this in the larger scheme of things.
Mr. Foley suggested the Board determine if there was a majority to add it to the list.
Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer indicated they would like to add it to the list, but no other members
expressed support for including it.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the list starts with two additional police officers, which would add two
more officers to the three new positions that were included in the budget and would help the department
reach its goal of having 10-hour shifts. She presented the budget cost associated with the addition,
stating that they would also use some fund balance money for the one-time startup cost for the officers –
so the amount that affects the Board’s conversation about taxes would be $163,130.
Mr. Sheffield stated that this amount was lower than he thought it would be.
Mr. Boyd said he had a comment in general about all of the items on the list, stating that there is
nothing he could not support – but the Board has a process it goes through for this budget, and there are
a lot of wants out there which did not make the list from agencies, departments, schools, etc. He stated
that he is not in favor of increasing it by any of the items on this last because of the inequity; for example,
there is an item on the list for additional hours at Crozet Library, but people at Northside Library have
been asking for that for years and the County has never given it to them. Mr. Boyd said, when the new
library is built and opened in the fall, they will come back and ask for additional hours too.
Ms. Mallek said the Board would support additional hours for that library out of reserves because
it is a really important community function.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Board can put only so many burdens on taxpayers, and he would not
vote for inclusion of any of the items on the list.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 104)
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board felt informed enough about the list to move forward with a
decision. Mr. Foley said the way to look at this was whether any of the items on the list were things the
Board supported enough to take to public hearing as an addition to t he recommended budget.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the next item on the list is for a community engagement position, and
that was included in the recommended FY15 budget but was put on the list for future discussion.
Ms. Mallek said she wanted it to be included because all of the community advisory councils and
other citizens involved in master plan implementation need more planning capability – not a scheduling
capability – and she would prefer it to be a community planner position who could restore the County
closer to a level it was before, with expertise on the projects underway.
Mr. Foley noted that, prior to the recession, the County had talked about having neighborhood
planners – similar to geo-policing – who work with the communities, but the County does not have the
budget to have one in each of the nine neighborhoods.
Ms. Mallek said they would have to go around and deal with several neighborhoods.
Mr. Foley stated that, currently, staff is struggling with community engagement and the citizen
advisory committees, and is more general rather than for specific neighborhoods.
Ms. Mallek said this person could be the liaison to those committees, and the person who had
held that position in the past had to bring regular staff to provide expertise to those committees and, for
the new position, she feels technical expertise is more important than the communications side.
Ms. Palmer stated that she would love to see a new community engagement position but, under
the tight budget circumstances, felt it was not something the County should do now.
Ms. Dittmar said Board members are stressed with its ability to add components to the community
engagement program, and she was not sure if this position would add to that part of it – as citizens’
advisory committees need a lot of attention, but that is just one part of it. She asked if this position was
intended to help the County get out into the community and hear from citizens.
Mr. Foley stated that there are a number of major projects coming up including solid waste and
courts, and the County is trying to engage with the public in general on policy, including the advisory
councils.
Ms. Lee Catlin addressed the Board and distributed the community engagement specialist job
description, stating that the position was created “for enhancing and promoting community participation in
County government activities and facilitating the partnerships that must occur in developing innovative
solutions to County issues; leading County efforts to ensure meaningful and credible public education and
involvement in planning and policy development; building organizational capacity to work with
neighborhoods and citizen groups, including training and mentoring; enhancing information flow and
citizen participation; helping citizens better understand and utilize County resources.” She stated that this
is not just a scheduling and coordination position, and there is certainly a need for planning expertise at
community advisory council meetings, as well as a need for parks and recreation, police and facilities
development expertise.
Ms. Catlin said this would need to be a logistical person to bring all that together and serve as a
trusted familiar face in the community that builds the relationships which start to make meaningful
engagement happen. She said that is just the advisory council aspect and, considering that the capital
program is up and building, and there are policy issues that the Board wants the community to be
meaningfully engaged in, that is not a planner’s role as it requires a somewhat different skill set. Ms.
Catlin stated that the Board has at least eight town hall meetings for which the Board has asked staff for
assistance, a water resources roundtable, a road closure and major detour in Crozet, and a joint advisory
town hall meeting with all four advisory councils. She stated that there has been interest in a
homeowners’ association database and training program, and staff cannot do a quality job in engaging
the community at that level if they do not have the skill set and resources to make it happen. Ms. Catlin
emphasized that staff thinks it is important to be credible, effective, professional and consistent in how
they engage with the community – and it is challenging to do that without a plan to make it happen.
Mr. Foley pointed out that this is one of the priorities that rose to the t op for staff because of the
realities of what they are facing currently – not as some enhanced level of service – as they are struggling
to keep up with growing demands in the community as well as the Board’s desire to further engage the
public, which are all good reasons.
Mr. Boyd said if they are talking about raising this position to a different level than it was before,
that should be kept in the budget.
Mr. Sheffield stated that there are many other community initiatives underway as well, including
the Route 29 corridor issues and sustainable funding for schools, and he can only see the next year
having more town hall meetings and community engagement needs.
Mr. Foley said this is the place where the County looks either good or bad depending on how they
handle it as county government and, if the meetings are not handled well, it raises concerns with the
public.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 105)
Ms. Dittmar said there are also perception problems if the County does not hold any meetings.
Ms. Mallek stated that the expertise required for this position seems so broad; she cannot
imagine how this person can handle all of it including the planning aspects.
Ms. McKeel said her recommendation is to leave it in the budget.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she would like to leave it in, as she continues to advocate for transparency
and public engagement.
Board members agreed to leave the item on the list.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the next item on the list is funding for Yancey School custodial
services for four hours on Saturdays, and also includes classroom rentals for a total of $9,568.
Ms. Palmer asked why there were rental fees.
Ms. Mallek said the County has to pay the schools to have community activities there.
Ms. Palmer stated that the idea was to get the custodial service paid for by the people who were
renting the space and having the activities, but that seems to be a barrier to get things rolling, so the
County would essentially pay for someone to open and lock the doors on Saturdays and do a little bit of
pickup. She said 80% of kids in the community are on free and reduced lunch, and there is a group that
has been working hard to get some classes and activities going there. Ms. Palmer stated that a lot of
people in that area have no internet, and this allows them to use the building on weekends for that
purpose which would also help students.
Ms. Mallek asked if the school librarian was monitoring the media center as part of that planned
use.
Ms. Palmer said she was not sure about the media center use, but anyone can go in and use the
internet anywhere in the school if you have your own laptop. She stated that this has been the barrier to
opening, and the group there has indicated that they envision covering the cost in the future and this was
just to get over the initial concern about being able to open.
Ms. Mallek asked if they could just take this out of reserves instead of putting it in the budget.
Mr. Foley said, if it is clear the school only needs one year to carry it through, the Board could use one-
time money for it.
Ms. Palmer said the group described it to her as, “they needed something to get over the hump.”
Ms. McKeel stated that the Yancey workgroup would be coming back to the Board with a report,
and she would prefer that the Board wait until after the group provides its final report and
recommendations.
Ms. Palmer said she would not want to wait a year for it.
Ms. McKeel suggested those funds could be taken out of reserves when the group comes back to
the Board, so it would not have to be built into the budget.
Mr. Foley noted that the report would be coming before the Board on April 2, and it would be easy
to use reserves on a small amount such as this.
The Board agreed to take that item off the set-aside list and come back to it as a future
recommendation after getting the group’s report.
Ms. Allshouse said the next item on the list is a foster care adoption/family services specialist
position. She said there is some funding coming from the state and federal to help s upport it; however,
this amount is local government’s share at $57,000.
Ms. McKeel asked what the match would be for this. Ms. Ralston said the match would range
between 28-30% of federal dollars, with the remainder being local dollars.
Ms. Dittmar asked if this position would help the Social Services Department with its increased
foster care load.
Ms. Ralston stated that it would help explaining that, in the child welfare division which comprises
foster care adoption, child protective services, and ongoing child protective services based on caseload
standards, they are down about 11 positions. She said adding one absolutely helps, and the Department
would make a decision on the best place to put that person, as it may be in the Family Preservation area
which will soon be subject to a new mandate of weekly visits.
Ms. Mallek said she would be happy to include it on the list and let Ms. Ralston have the
discretion as to the best place to use it.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 106)
Ms. Allshouse reported that the next item is the Municipal Band funding restored to the FY14
level, and would be an addition of $3,000.
Ms. McKeel said, after looking at this item, she feels comfortable about the process chosen.
Ms. Allshouse clarified that the band is not in the ABRT process, but was in the special cultural
group which was reviewed by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) on
the basis of cultural standards and using a tiered approach.
Ms. Palmer asked if one of the problems was with a return on investment for this, because there
were no dollars coming back for funding. Ms. Allshouse confirmed that was the case, stating that the
groups that brought in a bigger return on investment were separated out.
Ms. Mallek said the bigger festivals have six or seven-figure budgets and lots of outside funding
opportunities, however, the County will reap the economic benefit that the Municipal Band provides as
they do free concerts all around the community yet have to pay rent f or those venues. She said she
would support restoring funding to the Municipal Band to what it was two years ago.
Ms. McKeel agreed, stating that she had thought they went through a different process and it was
not really fair to compare them to the Virginia Film Festival.
The Board had three votes for support to keep the band on the list, but Mr. Sheffield said he could
not leave it there without also considering support for the Tom Tom Founders Festival, etc.
Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer stated that the Municipal Band has a different audience and does free
events like the 4th of July at Monticello, etc. Ms. Palmer said the band has a long tradition of doing these
events, and it would not be the same without them so the County should be able to come up with the
same level of funding.
Ms. Dittmar asked for clarification on how much is being recommended for the band this year.
Ms. Allshouse said the recommendation was to fund them at $5,000, so this would make it $8,000.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the band received $8,000 in FY14 and $8,600 in FY13.
Ms. Dittmar said the County is giving a lot of money to the CACVB, and the Board might want to
ask the CACVB to look at these culturally enriching experiences as adding to the attraction of the area.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board directed the CACVB to do that two years ago and, last year, they
fell back to what they felt was more appropriate for their own charter – which was marketing only, so
organizations that did not market themselves were not included.
Mr. Foley said the band went to CACVB, and they were funded for a year at the Board’s direction,
however, the next year, they evaluated them based on the criteria of bringing people into the area.
Ms. Dittmar stated that they are looking at a “heads and beds” formula, which is a metric that
should be respected, but it does not take into account everything. She asked if the Board were at a point
in the cycle where it could ask the CACVB to make up this shortfall.
Ms. Catlin said there has been some back and forth with this, and CACVB set up a metric that
measures a variety of things to evaluate the funding for entities – how widely their events are advertised
outside of the region, how much it brings people in to spend the night, and whether there is a marketing
plan associated with their events. She stated that she was not on the CACVB subcommittee that
evaluated this, and was not sure if the Municipal Band had even applied to them for funding. Ms. Catlin
said the CACVB has made its funding recommendations for this year, but the Board could certainly re-
approach them. She stated that the CACVB Board is not completely appointed by the County so, while
the Board can make strong suggestions, it does not have the ability to dictate CACVB direction. Ms.
Catlin said the cultural funding was brought back in-house to the County this year because of the Board’s
frustration with an independently-appointed board of directors.
Mr. Foley commented that the CACVB’s mission is defined and approved as a regional
organization to make those decisions which had previously been approved by the County Board and City
Council in the past.
Ms. Palmer stated that the Municipal Band does not really fit into a neat category, and is really
unique with a long history adding that she hates to see them struggle too much. She also noted that the
City had funded them relatively well.
There were not three votes to keep the band on the Board list, but Ms. Dittmar said she would like
to discuss the cultural aspects with the CACVB at some point in the future.
Ms. Catlin offered to do some research into who applied for funding this year, and what funding
criteria was used in its evaluation because everyone who applied for funding did get it, so perhaps the
Municipal Band did not qualify.
Ms. Mallek said, because the band got denied last year, they got the message that the CACVB
was not interested in them, and that is why they made application to the County.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 107)
Ms. Catlin stated that they were probably perceived as a cultural agency and not a tourism one,
so the direction of the Board was to bring cultural agencies to the County for evaluation.
Ms. Mallek commented that many of the Municipal Band members live in other counties and also
in Richmond, etc., so they bring their families here.
Ms. Allshouse said the City of Charlottesville had funded the Municipal Band this year at $55,000,
but was not certain if that was an increase or reduction for them.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the next item on the list was the Family Access to Medical Insurance
Security (FAMIS) position in the Department of Social Services (DSS).
Ms. Ralston explained that FAMIS is the children’s health insurance program through Medicaid.
She said this program has been largely handled through a central processing unit at the Virginia
Department of Medical Assistance Services for the last several years. She explained that, as a result of
the Affordable Care Act (ACA), that central processing unit has been discontinued as of December 31st
and are transferring all of the FAMIS cases to the local DSS departments. Ms. Ralston said the local
match for this is only 15%, and about 600 cases were transferred – but the state had a 73% denial rate,
so that could mean about 2,200 cases per year for FAMIS.
Ms. Mallek said it is on the list for her vote.
Board members agreed to leave it on the list.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the next item on the list was the public defender funding.
Ms. Mallek said she had supported it the previous year, and the Board had received some very
compelling reasons from many parts of the community.
Mr. Sheffield agreed, stating that his only issue is how the payment would be issued as it cannot
go directly to the public defender’s office.
Mr. Davis said the statute provides that payment must be made directly to the employees, with
notice to the Indigent Defense Commission of any amount provided. He stated that it is an odd statutory
requirement, but that is how it is structured.
Mr. Foley stated that, if the Board supports this item , staff would find a way to make it work
procedurally.
Ms. McKeel said this issue might be something to add to the legislative program discussion to find
out why and perhaps impact a change.
Mr. Davis stated that, when staff looked at this in FY14, the only other locality that was providing
a supplement to the Public Defender’s Office was the City of Alexandria, and he offered to contact them
to see how they were handling it.
Ms. McKeel noted that the City was providing support for the local public defender, and more and
more localities would probably go this route.
Mr. Foley said staff has provided significant analysis by email to the Board on this issue, and the
funding source for the base salaries should be where it is paid but it is being shifted down to localities.
Board members agreed to leave it on the list for the time being.
Ms. Mallek noted that Virginia is known as a prosecutorial state because of the imbalance in
funding to that side of the court.
Ms. Davis stated that the big difference is that commonwealth’s attorneys are on the County’s
payroll system, and public defenders are not.
Ms. Allshouse said the next item on the list was funding for extra hours at the Crozet Library,
which totals $32,414.
Ms. Palmer stated that this is something that allows children and others to use the internet when
they do not have it in their home. She said many people in her district do not have service and need a
place to go.
Mr. Sheffield said he would like to see how the library usage demand continues to shape up over
time, and had thought that was something the County Executive would have taken into account had there
been demand.
Mr. Foley stated that the Crozet Library had been opened very recently, with less than a year’s
history, but there is definitely evidence of increased demand. He said the budget has a 10% increase for
the library overall, on a $3 million budget, which is one of the largest increases. He said there would be
more coming because this budget does not reflect the total ongoing costs of the new library.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 108)
Mr. Sheffield said the County is trying to balance the demand not just with the Crozet Library, but
with the entire library system that serves the entire County.
Ms. Mallek stated that the grand majority of the $300K increase was to do a step increase for
librarian salaries, which were well at the bottom statewide.
Mr. Sheffield said he does not make this decision lightly, as he spent a lot of time in the library as
a child, and a 10% increase in funding is significant.
Ms. McKeel stated that she agreed with Mr. Sheffield, and said that she would rather look at the
entire library system rather than singling out Crozet for funding.
Ms. Mallek commented that the workforce element at the libraries is vital in places where people
do not have internet access, as people cannot apply for even low-level jobs without that capability. She
said the sign-up lists for computer use are extremely long. She said the librarians have taken extra
training to learn how to help people access the different workforce center classes, so this is an extension
of that tool.
Mr. Boyd said Supervisors are getting the same information from Scottsville too, for all the same
reasons as Crozet, adding that the Board funded increases last year for new salaries in Crozet.
Ms. Mallek stated that the statistics are different with Scottsville having declining use over the
years, and perhaps that is because the hours there are not enough.
Ms. Dittmar said what has happened in Crozet has been the impetus for a “friends of the library”
type group in Scottsville to begin advocating for improved service there. She stated that the demand for
Crozet is there, so this goes beyond just a salar y issue; it is a consumer demand issue and people want
to use the facility but cannot get in when they need to.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the County is creating the demand but is not really prepared to handle it,
adding that Northside is the most used branch in the system.
Ms. Mallek said this is the biggest quality of life argument in the whole budget.
Mr. Sheffield said, if they are going to expect additional hours of usage, the County needs to be
“all in” and not just piecemeal because, once Northside is open, demand will continue to increase and the
County will be faced with saying, “no, Crozet has the hours.”
Ms. Palmer stated that one of the problems that is unique to the rural areas is that there are a lot
of kids who are trying to do their homework at night but have no inter net, so this is a place where they can
go. She said those are the reasons why she is supporting it, and it does not negate her desire to have an
organized way of approaching overall library hours , adding that she knows there is a demand right now.
Mr. Sheffield pointed out that there is internet/free Wi-Fi available at Panera and Starbucks.
Ms. Mallek responded that those businesses do not exist in Crozet or Scottsville.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Board needs to have this conversation, but the item for extra hours in
Crozet would not go on the list.
Ms. McKeel said there is a sense of urgency with this issue, and there is a group working on
addressing the connectivity problems in the County.
Ms. Mallek stated that she does not think that is the way to solve the problem. Instead of
spending millions to try to hardwire or provide wireless service to all the rural areas, she said the County
has structure and facilities in place now that could be opened all week for $32,000 .
Ms. Allshouse said the next item on the list is support for The Journey Through Hallowed Ground
at a level of $11,782.
Ms. Mallek stated that she asked for this item to be put on the list because Charlottesville/
Albemarle is probably the biggest beneficiary in terms of international travelers coming here because of
its history, and she foresees a very strong return on investment.
Mr. Boyd asked if they were already getting money from the CACVB.
Ms. Catlin said they do receive funding from the CACVB, from which they look for support to
tourism-related marketing, and the advisory Council of Elected Officials has decided it would also be good
to go directly to local governments for funding of things like summer camps, educational programs, tree
planting, etc. She stated that the Journey Through Hallowed Ground is a tremendous tourism asset for
the County. She said they are funded by the CACVB at about $11,000 per year in addition to what they
are requesting from the County.
Ms. Palmer asked why they did not make the cut when the ABRT evaluated them.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 109)
Ms. Dittmar said they had made a presentation in which they stated they would not ask for money
from localities.
Ms. Mallek said they did not ask for funding in the early years, but there was not a promise to
never ask for funding from localities.
Mr. Foley stated that they have never really formally asked for it previously, but they did provide a
per-capita formula in an attachment to their annual reports. He said, this time around, they did not submit
a budget request.
Ms. Allshouse clarified that the Journey’s request had come in late, however, the County went
ahead and reviewed it along with several other agencies, and it was not recommended for funding by the
in-house group.
Ms. Mallek said new people and groups have a harder time getting in.
Mr. Foley emphasized that the lateness of their application had nothing to do with the decision not
to recommend funding, adding that other agencies did not make the cut.
Ms. Allshouse confirmed that was definitely the case.
Mr. Sheffield said, without support for some of the other initiatives, he could not support this
specific item.
Ms. Palmer agreed, adding that if the Board cannot support the Municipal Band, she could not
see supporting this either.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the next item on the list is the Natural Resources Planner at $73,920.
Ms. Palmer said this item is something she personally feels the County really needs, and was
personally surprised to learn that there is no staff for the Natural Heritage Committee as she felt that
adding hours would be the best approach.
Mr. Foley stated that there is no staff dedicated to the Natural Resources Committee because
there is one planner who does all of the rural areas issues, however, if the Board wants this person to
serve that committee, the department will need more assistance. He said he has heard for things beyond
the committee work, so staff included this item based on what the Board had requested.
Ms. Mallek said she views this as part of the economic development proposal, so citizens
understand that the rural areas are also important to the economy and will not be abandoned in favor of
economic development for the growth areas.
Mr. Sheffield suggested this item be put on the list for future discussion, because there are other
positions, such as the transportation planner, which should also be considered.
Ms. Dittmar said Supervisors have a balance of both urban and rural to consider, and it is hard
sometimes to understand that unless board members are representing a district that is largely rural. She
said piling all of the rural areas work on one planner may just be overload, and the benefit of this work is
far-reaching, so she is supportive of the idea of having a Natural Resources Planner although she is not
sure what that would look like.
Ms. Palmer stated that the County could have a planner with a lot of natural resources
experience.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the position was just now coming up, or if it had been considered b efore.
Ms. Mallek said natural resources work has been in the Comprehensive Plan for about 20 years
but has never been funded, and this specific position has been requested for about five years.
Mr. Boyd stated that he represents a rural area as well, and he is trying to figure out how many
committees have dedicated employees, especially at $74,000.
Ms. Palmer said this person would not be dedicated solely to that committee.
Mr. Foley stated that the County has scaled back on a lot of programs related to natural
resources protection through the recession, and one of those eliminated positions was related to natural
resources protection.
Mr. Boyd said, as Mr. Sheffield mentioned, a transportation planner was also cut and he hears far
more about that than natural resources.
Ms. Palmer clarified that the Natural Resources Committee had asked for a GIS plan for
biologically important resources, and also a countywide landscape habitat analysis along with a quarter-
time employee. She stated that she and Ms. Mallek have seen a lot of other places in which a r ural areas
planner could be utilized.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 110)
Mr. Sheffield said he would like to bring back those positions in a “parking lot” type of discussion,
so the Board can see how those fit into Comp Plan objectives.
Mr. Boyd said that would be a strategic planning type of discussion.
Ms. Palmer stated that the Board has also talked about increased community involvement, and
the Natural Heritage Committee is reviving itself after being dormant for several years so they do need
some help with GIS work, etc.
Ms. Mallek said the reason the Natural Heritage Committee could not get to the next level
originally is because they did not have that staff support.
Mr. Boyd said there were several committees that had the same challenge, but ended up doing
the work on their own rather than waiting for a staff person.
Ms. Palmer said this work was more technical in nature.
Mr. Boyd said there are technical people on that committee.
Mr. Foley stated that there is a broader discussion to have on this, and Mark Graham could speak
to some of those needs and how to address them.
Mr. Graham explained that one of the reasons staff did not add any planners in the request this
year is that they were waiting for the Comp Plan review to see what strategies the Board was intere sted
in pursuing. He said, if there is interest in the Natural Heritage Committee’s work, he would suggest staff
could do the work with some one-time money for interns to provide the technical assistance they need
and hold off on the long-term planner positions. Mr. Graham noted that they have a list of planners that
they used to have – historic resources, natural resources, transportation, etc. – and the Board would need
to prioritize them as it goes through the Comp Plan strategies. He said the County has found that
graduate interns from UVA, which can be obtained quite cheaply, have turned out to be as good or better
in technical expertise than some of the consultants hired. Mr. Graham said the figure of $10,000 had
been talked about a few years earlier for natural resources, but it may be as much as $20,000 now.
Mr. Foley stated that this would allow the Natural Heritage Committee to move forward and to
stay engaged while the long-term strategy could be determined through the Comp Plan.
Mr. Graham said staff would go back and talk to the committee about its needs.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would go along with intern funding.
Mr. Sheffield said he would want to have the bigger discussion first.
Mr. Foley said if the Board wanted to include funds for an intern, it could be one-time money in
this budget at $20,000, removing the $74,000 amount.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the budget is frequently amended, and the Board could bring it back in
that way also. She confirmed that it is the Board’s decision to put a one-time amount of $20,000 into the
budget for this item.
Ms. Allshouse said the next item on the Board’s set-aside list was fully funding of Charlottesville
Area Transit (CAT), costing an additional $53,421.
Ms. Mallek said those funds are to be used specifically to get people to Piedmont Virginia
Community College (PVCC) to classes and home again, so that all connections are provided between
routes.
Mr. Sheffield said his only concern was the City backing off of its obligation if the County funds it,
and he does not want to be supplanting the City’s share.
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that many City employees are riding routes that the County pays for to
reach their jobs out into the County to places such as the Pantops area.
Mr. Walker clarified that the $53K request is 50% of the cost of that entire route, and is based on
the cost of that route.
Mr. Sheffield said his understanding is that CAT would still move forward with that route.
Ms. Mallek said she thought CAT was planning to stop running at 6:00 p.m., and this funding
would allow service to run into the night.
Mr. Sheffield stated that they would probably still run the route but just cut back the service.
Mr. Foley suggested staff bring back additional information on this to Board members, keep the
$53,000 amount in for the time being and leave it open for the Board to make a final decision when it
adopts the budget.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 111)
Ms. Allshouse stated that she was finished reviewing the general fund operating part of the
budget, however, she explained that it would be helpful with calculating if the Board would address the
school operating expenses. She added that the Board would also need to leave time for the tax rate
discussion.
Mr. Foley said staff would need to calculate all the changes the Board had made and come up
with a number for those. He said the question is whether Board members had a target for schools and
then staff could recalculate to incorporate that figure.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a firm decision made for the expansion of economic development
hires, and also if there was any interest among Board members to discuss a pay raise that may not be
the whole salary range.
Mr. Sheffield said he had expressed some concern in the past about the economic development
expenditures, but he is in support of it providing there is a focus on reinvestment and redevelopment, to
help existing businesses expand and to also foster innovation. He stated that he also wants to ensure
that they were not hiring a position to achieve goals that were going to be achieved anyway. Mr. Sheffield
said he was skeptical, but staff has done a lot of work that has pushed him into the “yes” column.
Ms. Palmer stated that she thinks the County is going to get there anyway and is skeptical of this
effort, adding that there are a lot of other services which need to be provided – so this is not the year to
add a whole new department. She said it also scares her to move forward now because, next year, that
department is going to want a budget, and the Board will be faced with the same painful situation. Ms.
Palmer noted that it would also be several years before they can even discern whether it has done the
County any good.
Mr. Sheffield said he had been studying Hanover County’s budget, and they are not going to
increase their property tax from the current 81 cents. He said Hanover credits bringing in new industries
and cultivating business for increasing its sales tax base and helping fuel its economic recovery.
Ms. Palmer stated that this is not retail.
Ms. Mallek said that is not where the improvement comes from and, once she got clarification that
it was not retail, it helped her to support it.
Mr. Sheffield stated that this growth was for existing businesses that were looking to expand and
were on the brink of either failing or relocating. He said if businesses see the benefit of this position, they
may provide some resources towards it.
Ms. Palmer said her concern is whether these things are going to take place anyway, and
whether there is just someone taking credit for those.
Ms. Dittmar stated that those were legitimate concerns and, after they get a baseline inventory of
businesses, it will alleviate some of the pressure on the tax base. She said she has wanted this in the
County for years, has watched how other localities have done it, and she thinks it is really worth the
investment.
Ms. Palmer said they are not going after more sales tax because they are not going after more
retail.
Mr. Sheffield said, if you grow the strength of existing businesses, then the sales tax goes up, and
there is more the County can be doing to help increase the visibility of products and services.
Mr. Boyd said it is about growing the overall economy.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the next generation coming out of college and high school is very bright
and has some very good ideas, and they need someone to be able to help direct them.
Ms. McKeel said she is supportive of this effort also.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that the focus should be 90% on “growing our own,” along with the
counter-balance of what the Board has agreed to do as a first step toward the rural areas.
The Board discussed the proposed raise for County employees.
Ms. Mallek said the raise the Board had discussed in the fall was for budgeting purposes, and
now is the time for a decision.
Ms. Palmer stated that she realizes staff is working reall y hard and is deserving of a raise, but she
is having a hard time thinking about telling a person who is just barely making it that she is going to
increase taxes so she can give a County employee making $100K or $120K a raise.
Mr. Foley said he wants everyone to understand that the raise is tied to keeping the County at the
market level and, if the County does not keep up with that, then it will fall behind that market and run into
retention problems – or have a large amount to catch up to in the future. He emphasized that the Board
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 112)
and School Board together have researched and adopted a strategy that is not just about rewarding
employees, it is about keeping up with how the market is changing so they do not lose people.
Ms. McKeel stated that she is supportive of maintaining the Board-adopted strategy on salaries,
and approves going forward with the 2% increase.
Ms. Dittmar asked when the County last gave raises.
Mr. Foley said the County gave raises in FY14 and, prior to that, had not given raises in three
years. He stated that they have been able to keep up with market during the recession, and their study
showed that 2.5% would be more in line but the Board and School Board decided to go with 2%. He said
staff does research every year to see if they are falling behind, but it is about retaining and recruiting folks
to come in at a salary that is competitive for the same kind of job being done somewhere else.
Ms. Dittmar asked for clarification as to whether the County has kept up with inflation, because
the staff report says that the “cumulative increase was 8.3%” since 2008.
Mr. Foley said that has gone up, but so have health insurance costs and VRS. He said the
County gave employees a raise which covered that, but the other issues were related to keeping up with
market. He stated that the health insurance increase was 8% this year, 8% last year, and those factors
have offset some of the gain from raises.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she was worried about staff’s spending power based on inflationary
trends.
Ms. Palmer said she was worried about all of the retired people on fixed incomes who are really
hurting because they have basically had a decrease in income for several years.
Ms. McKeel stated that, in the long run, it will end up costing the County more, as reported by the
Human Resources Department, and there will be people leap-frogging over one another which will create
a huge compression issue. She said Supervisors value all employees, and know they are all working
hard – whether they are making $34,000 or $100,000 – so both Boards should go forward with what was
agreed upon in the fall.
Ms. Palmer said she certainly agrees that the Board values all employees, but she values all
citizens too.
Ms. McKeel agreed, but said the Board should send a message that everyone is treated fairly.
Mr. Sheffield asked for clarification as to what was on the table.
Mr. Foley said a 2% raise was included in the recommended budget, and the only issue is
whether to reduce the recommended budget.
Mr. Sheffield asked if there was a dollar amount associated with that raise. Mr. Foley said this
item had been talked about before, but it was never put on the list.
Ms. Mallek said she had assumed it was a “given” on the list, not an extra item.
Mr. Foley stated that it would be a pretty large number which could impact the tax rate, and staff
might be able to quickly assess what that cost would be.
Ms. Allshouse said staff would have to compute for both schools and local government, since
both entities do a commonality approach to raises.
Ms. Mallek said she thought it was $1.4 million for every 1%.
Ms. Palmer stated that Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek had asked for it via email, and Ms. Allshouse
had responded.
Ms. Allshouse said she had provided that information and Mr. Boyd had also asked for some
follow-up information, which she had sent out just before this meeting.
Mr. Foley stated that his recollection was a cost of $400,000-$500,000 for local government and
for schools it would be at around $1 million, for every 1%.
Ms. Mallek said she thought it would be a total cost of $3 million for the entire proposed 2% raise.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he would like to see those numbers in more specificity, and he would like
to stay on the path the Board was headed down with salaries. He added that this is a broader discussion
which he would like to have at a different time.
Mr. Foley said it is important for the new Board members who have not gone through the process
with the School Board to get educated on this and understand it well, as it has a huge impact on staff and
morale, and also on the level of service Supervisors wish to provide.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 113)
Mr. Sheffield stated that he would like to have firm numbers so he can be inform ed when he
answers questions from constituents.
Mr. Foley said staff would get that information to the Board as soon as possible.
Mr. Sheffield asked if any deviation from salaries requires the School Board to accept it too.
Mr. Davis said that is the current approach, but the School Board could decide to deviate from
commonality.
Mr. Foley said commonality is one of the things Albemarle County does really well when
compared to other localities in the state.
Ms. McKeel stated that the commonality approach stopped the argument every year over what
raises would be for employees which was a very divisive process.
Ms. Mallek said people doing the same job in both divisions need to be paid the same thing and,
in past years, there has been a raise percentage discussion during the budget process that has been
accepted.
Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent of Albemarle County Schools, addressed the Board and stated
that, when staff talks about “directions and mandates,” they had been focusing on salaries and VRS – but
there are other mandates which the School Division must meet. She explained that the schools are
mandated to transfer $170,000 to the Comprehensive Services Act; they have a health insurance
increase of $980,000; they have a $65,000 increase in utility costs for the coming year; and they have an
obligation to the Piedmont Regional Education Program for special education which results in having less
money for special education at almost $300,000. Dr. Moran said the growth in student enrollment of 125
students would cost the schools approximately $414,000 for staff, with additional staff need ed for English
as a Second Language (ESL) students at a cost of $68,000. She stated that the schools need to expand
the early childhood special education program in the west end of the County because of the growth in that
population at a cost of $150,000, which is a mandated expense, and th ey also have overall special
education staffing growth at a cost of approximately $171,000. Dr. Moran said they have passed the $1.3
million, which would cover restoration of things like professional development and learning resources, and
new initiatives, such as world languages. She stated that, when removing that $1.3 million, they have
about $7.5 million in new expenses for the next year that are not in this year’s budget. Dr. Moran pointed
out that the reason they have not done a tiered approach with this budget is because the School Board
did not want to make those tiered decisions until it knew what it had to deal with in terms of revenues.
Mr. Dean Tistadt, Chief Operating Officer, addressed the Board, stating that he had asked Human
Resources for an analysis of the impact of pay increases and, when adjusted for VRS and the 8.3%
inflation, employees are making less today than they did in 2008. He stated that , despite all the
mandates and increases, the school system’s expenditure increase is 5.8%, which is totally consistent
with the County’s general fund increase of 5.7%. Mr. Tistadt said, if they had to make a $1.5 million
reduction in the school budget, their increase would be down well below 5%. He stated that the County
Executive’s budget is very reasonable, as is the school’s budget. Mr. Tistadt said there have been some
decisions made in the past that were very reasonable and, last year, the decision was made to push the
envelope on salary lapse – because historically, they have been achieving about $2 million in salary
lapse, so this time last year the decision was made to push the envelope and budget $2 million ins tead of
$700,000. He said the fund balance accumulated by the School Board was largely because the balance
exceeded the projected budget, and they pushed the envelope with salaries. Mr. Tistadt stated that the
people coming in were paid roughly equal to the people leaving, and they are just not getting the salary
savings anymore, and current circumstances would continue. He said another decision made last year
was to use the fund balance to balance the budget and, historically, that works as long as you keep
feeding back into it with savings out of the salary lapse; however, without that savings, they do not have a
fund balance this year to help next year.
Mr. Tistadt stated that there are two issues here: an expenditure issue because of VRS
mandates, etc.; and a revenue problem which creates a $2.6 million deficit in the fund balance that
partially offsets the benefit of the transfer increase from the County.
Dr. Moran said she and Mr. Tistadt had been running numbers as to what it would look like if they
got $3 million, $4 million, or $2 million more – and she asked Mr. Tistadt to address how those cuts would
have to be made.
Mr. Tistadt said cuts would have to come off the expenditure side, and that is why the School
Board chose to provide a list of areas where potential reductions could occur. He stated that the money
in the school system is in compensation, and the majority of that is in schools. Mr. Tistadt said the cuts
that can be made in Central Office have already been done, and any further cuts would touch children
and schools – because that is where the money is, with the big ticket items being compensation and class
size. He stated that the two and three million-dollar cut area would have to be accomplished that way, as
he sees it.
Ms. Mallek said all of the categories Dr. Moran listed add up to $2.318 million, with a $1.5 million
lapse in contingency bringing the total to about $3.8 million. She stated that the $4.4 million to address
the VRS and employee raises is being taken care of by the penny on the tax rate already in the proposed
budget, and another penny would cover the $3.8 million.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 114)
Mr. Sheffield said 4 cents provides $3.2 million, which breaks down to .7 cents dedicated to
stormwater, one cent to cover VRS and the 2% raise, and .64 cents covering what the Board just covered
on its list – leaving about $630,000 for schools, which means another 1.66 cents would be needed to
cover the schools’ gap as indicated by Dr. Moran. He stated that this would not cover restoration or new
initiatives and, while that is a difficult decision, it would need to go back to the School Board to figure out
how to adjust for the difference between $5.8 million and $3.2 million.
Dr. Moran stated that the School Board will work with staff to make those decisions, and that is
why she suggested putting aside the $1.3 million in restorations and new initiatives and focus instead on
the things that they have to do. She said if they do not get coverage for the mandates, then they will have
to go onto the reductions list to do that.
Mr. Sheffield noted that his calculations show the tax rate at 80.6 cents, which is exactly the 4
cents – a 5.2% increase in the tax.
Ms. Palmer and Ms. McKeel stated that they also came up with those same figures.
Mr. Foley said staff would put that into a formula to provide an exact rate, and the question is
which number should be used to assum e the additional school dollars.
Mr. Sheffield said he would recommend advertising the 80.6 cent tax rate.
Ms. Palmer stated that, in talking with teachers and other constituents, they say, “Whatever you
do, do not increase class size, because that is just the worst.” She said she has heard from some of
them that they would rather not have the raise than increase class size. Ms. Palmer asked Dr. Moran if
the schools would still increase class size if there were a 5% increase in the tax rate.
Dr. Moran said class size has been a real community value in the County, and it is incredibly
important because of the relationships teachers build and the desire to provide individual attention, and
she wants to preserve that. She stated that compensation is also important, and she sees that all down
the line – from principals to teachers, who are also citizens and taxpayers in the County. Dr. Moran said ,
when the School Board starts to look at making adjustments, she tends to go for the newest things on the
list, but the School Board will also look at those places with the least impact – including the restoration
and new initiatives list, which is $1.3 million. She stated that one of the things on the list is a 5-10%
reduction in discretionary money for departments and schools, but that money often goes for things like
spelling bees, or National History Day, or Destination Imagination or classroom resources or field trips,
assemblies and classroom supplies. Dr. Moran said they know class size is a community value,
regardless of where they are sitting.
Ms. Palmer said she has had so many parents ask how they can donate money, and asked how
active the schools and parents are in promoting private support.
Dr. Moran stated that parent groups are trying to activate for special projects and initiatives that
are funded through means such as the Public Education Fund, and one of the things that concerns her is
donations that come in by school could create disparity throughout the school system because of the
concentration of wealth in certain areas, size of schools, etc.
Ms. McKeel asked her to address recruitment issues among classified staff such as principals
and assistant principals.
Dr. Moran said they have had much weaker pools of candidates when they have had open
positions advertised for high school or elementary principals, and she and Mr. Foley have identified the
reasons for that as being competing school systems which are able to attract those highly qualified
candidates.
Mr. Foley said the County has had similar issues, with several attempts needed before attracting
a good finance director, etc. He stated that the County is trying to stay competitive with that market, and
he gets more and more requests from applicants about going beyond the midpoint – which he does not
like to do.
Dr. Moran stated that a goal for the schools has been to accelerate its employees to midpoint so
that, if they are below that point and are getting raises, they go faster in salar y increases toward the
midpoint but, once they hit the midpoint that decelerates.
Ms. Palmer said Ms. Dittmar had mentioned a constituent with rental property who had asked her
not to raise the tax rate too quickly, because they had commercial leases which spanned multiple years.
She stated that it is one more consideration to think about when contemplating increases and the benefit
of perhaps phasing them in.
Ms. Dittmar stated that, in other areas, there seems to be a policy of “triple-net leases,” which
means that expenses like tax increases can be passed along to tenants, however, this does not happen
locally, so those owners do not have an opportunity to pass those costs on for several years.
Mr. Foley said, if Supervisors have a number in mind for the school increase, the Board could
take a brief break in order to give staff time to calculate what tax rate would be needed to support those
additional expenditures. He stated that Mr. Sheffield’s figures were very close, with a slight formula
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 115)
adjustment needed for capital, and is easy to calculate if the Board would provide a target number. Mr.
Foley said the first penny, split 60/40, would fund the local government needs as identified on the Board’s
list and put about $850K to schools; and $160K would also go to capital. Beyond that, he said, the
calculation needs to be how many more pennies would need to be added to get to a certain number.
Mr. Sheffield said his thought was to have staff look at the pennies and proceed in that manner.
Ms. Allshouse stated that it would be more difficult to approach it that way. She explained that
knowing in advance how much the Board felt would go to the schools – and also whether it was dedicated
or not dedicated – would be helpful.
Mr. Foley suggested talking about the $3.8 million figure for schools as a starting point, since the
Board had mentioned that amount, and then staff could do an adjustment from that point onward. He
clarified that, after the first penny, all of the increase could go to the schools for this particular budget.
Mr. Sheffield noted that there were some savings mentioned previously for dental plans, CATEC,
and voluntary early retirement, providing $22K, $136K, and $566K in savings.
Mr. Tistadt said those were realized savings which could mitigate some of the expenditures but, in
addition to the expenditure side, there is a $2.6 million fund balance problem on the revenue side, so if
the Board only looks at the expenditure issues without considering the revenue side , there would need to
be more expenditure decreases.
Ms. Mallek said she thought that is what the $1.5 million lapse factor account was supposed to go
toward – the contingency that they had used the fund balance for previously.
Mr. Foley clarified that the revenue and expenditure factors are all part of the $5.8 million gap as
a bottom line.
Dr. Moran said she did not go through all the savings in her presentation, because she wanted to
be sure the Board understood the expense side which the schools are challenged to cover.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she finds it easiest to set a ceiling for advertising and see where that ends
up, and then Board members can work back from there.
Mr. Foley asked for confirmation that the amount was $3.8 million, and he exp lained that the fund
balance and additional expenditure issues are all captured in what was originally the $6.6 million deficit
which has now been brought down to $5.8 million – the number the Board has been working on since the
recommended budget came forward. He stated that $3.8 million would address all but $2 million of the
schools’ deficit and, from that point, they can adjust.
_______________
Non-Agenda. At 7:52 p.m., the Board took a recess, and reconvened at 8:09 p.m.
_______________
Ms. Allshouse presented a revised spreadsheet and noted the “tax rate summary,” with the
current tax rate of 76.6 cents, the FY15 County Executive recommended budget tax rate of 78.3 cents,
and the proposed change from the Board meeting at 1 cent shared plus 1.9 cents dedicated to schools
for a tax rate of 81.2 cents – a 4.6 cent change from its current rate.
Ms. Allshouse said, in order to prepare the revised budget, she toggled a “yes” or a “no” on
individual decisions, and the revenue adjustment of 1 cent local share provides $561,312 to local
government, with revenue picked up for the foster care adoption/family services specialist and the FAMIS
position, and use of fund balance for the one-time cost associated with additional police officers. She
stated that the revenue adjustment without the dedicated pennies is approximately $764K. With
expenditure adjustments, she said there are two police officers with a one-time cost, the foster care
adoption/family services specialist and FAMIS position, the public defen der support, the natural resources
intern, and fully funding the CAT request – all totaling $581,164. She stated that the other adjustment is
what was made between the two budgets for human resources, adding that the total provides remaining
funding on the local government side of $239,000. Ms. Allshouse reported that, for revenue dedicated to
schools, the calculation from the shared penny would provide $841,968 for schools, and 1.9 cents
dedicated to the schools would generate $2.9 million, for a total of $3.8 million. She stated that the
County would also pick up $158,997 from the one penny shared per the formula, and concluded by
saying that this is the entire model based on a tax rate of 81.2 cents.
Mr. Foley reminded the Board that this would be the rate to advertise, stating that the $239,000
could go to reserve but, at this tax rate, the Board would have generated one-time monies in the current
fiscal year of about $3.4 million. If that money goes to capital as has been done in the past, he said it
could push out any need for a tax increase in the second year of the five -year plan, and may even push
the two cents out for the court needs.
Ms. Palmer said the schools are going to need more, because the County is not really funding
what it needs over the long term, and they would also have increased VRS obligations.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 116)
Mr. Foley stated that there have been “compelling needs” identified for both schools and local
government, but the one-time money they get from the increased rate this year will not reall y be a source
to pay for those needs going forward.
Mr. Boyd said he calculates the tax rate increase as 6% so, on top of appraisal increases at
1.27%, the Board is really talking about a 7.27% increase in people’s tax rates.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the 1.2% is an accurate average which would vary for different types of
property.
Ms. Dittmar asked how the Board felt about the 81.2 cent tax rate.
Ms. Mallek said she thought they were starting at a rate that was about a penny less than that.
Ms. Allshouse clarified that the total would provide an additional $3.8 million for schools.
Mr. Foley explained that it was recurring and, next year, it would be in the school’s base as it is
on-going money.
Ms. McKeel said that still leaves a substantial gap for the schools.
Ms. Allshouse said the $5.8 million is the gap, and the gap would be $2 million. She stated that
the base changes for everyone, so the dedicated amount would be more severely adjusted than a portion
of a penny would. She explained that everyone’s base is the starting point, and then they calculate new
revenues and share based on the formula.
Ms. Mallek stated that she did not think they were going to continue with the base adjustment,
and thought it was one-time money.
Mr. Foley said this is an ongoing $3.8 million increase because, if the schools for example were to
hire someone out of that, the money would need to remain there in the future. He said this is an increase
on top of the $4.5 million in the recomm ended budget.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she does not like the idea of “dedicated” and, since the County has a
model that splits 60/40, she would prefer that as a long-term solution.
Ms. McKeel asked if it was possible to give the schools money from the Boa rd fund balance.
Mr. Foley said it could not be used for recurring, ongoing expenses and the reason the schools’
increase is larger is because they are decreasing reliance on its own fund balance.
Mr. Boyd stated that they could have done what he suggested earlier and removed the
transportation-sharing money – which has not been getting them much more than sidewalks in the last
few years, and the reinstated ACE money at $1.6 million which has been programmed out for the next
five years. He said this could be shifted out and put into the school budget, because that is much more
important than those other initiatives. Mr. Boyd said 20% of the land is in conservation easement now,
and he did not know what percentage they were shooting for and what the long-term goal was.
Ms. Palmer stated that it would become increasingly important as taxes increase, in order to
provide tax relief, and she would like to keep the ACE money in there. She said she has heard from
many farmers that they are barely able to make ends meet, and several of them have applied to ACE and
were not accepted.
Ms. Dittmar asked about the transportation matching funds and what they were for.
Mr. Boyd explained that localities can apply for up to $10 million as long as it is matched 50/50,
and the County’s share has been about $1 million.
Mr. Sheffield said an example would be the In-Synch light synchronization project.
Ms. Mallek said the County will never get to the big projects if it does not do it.
Ms. Palmer stated that the Board could always come down on the rate which it sets today, so
perhaps Supervisors should just move forward and hear from the public as to what it wants.
Ms. Dittmar said she really feels the need to defend what the Board decides, especially in her
town hall meetings, so she wants to set the advertised rate as close as possible to what she will actually
support.
Ms. Palmer stated that she feels torn about this high of a tax increase but, at the same time, had
a whole room full of people who said “fund the schools.”
Ms. Mallek said it has bothered her in the past that the tax rate has been set too low, which
means Supervisors had nothing to work with and, in turn, no one comes to the public hearings. She
stated that she would prefer the rate stay in the 70s, but perhaps it will be valuable to solicit public input
on those items that would be on the chopping block and could help inform the Board’s decision.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 117)
Ms. Palmer stated that Board members can truthfully say most of it will be going to the schools.
Ms. Mallek said Supervisors have good information from this meeting today and from the previous
work sessions about these numbers and where they come from, and she is aware that she will have
many constituents who will be completely outraged at the proposed increase.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he did not have anything more to add, but Supervisors need to put
something out there.
Ms. Dittmar said she understands wanting to proceed with advertising a higher rat e, but she did
not feel comfortable voting for anything that crosses the 80-cent threshold. She stated that the County at
one point did have a rate of over 80 cents, but that was prior to its recent history.
Ms. Palmer stated that her line to hold was a 5% increase.
Ms. McKeel asked if it would be possible to use $1 million from the Board’s fund balance to tide
the schools over until both Boards have a discussion during the summer about this.
Mr. Foley stated that if there is already a sustainability problem and Supervisors give $1 million in
one-time funding, the Board would actually be adding to the problem by creating more to make up in
ongoing funding.
Mr. Foley stated that, if the Board wanted to keep the threshold at 80 cents, it would have to take
1.2 cents off of this, which has a value of $1.9 million, and Supervisors would then have to go back over
the expenditures and figure out how to come up with that amount. Mr. Foley also said that the money
going into the CIP is transferring in there based on a formula the Board has had in place for several years
and, if it is moved out of revenue-sharing for transportation and ACE, the question is whether Supervisors
should leave it in the CIP to fund the court items.
Ms. Palmer said she would not want to change the formula at this point, and it sounds as though
some Supervisors are comfortable with advertising at a 5% increase – with everything possible dedicated
to the schools.
Ms. Mallek stated that the split could be figured out at the next work session, if necessary.
Mr. Davis clarified that what is required to be advertised 30 days in advance – which is the
following Sunday – is the increase in the tax rate, which is an ad the County has not had to do for the last
five years because of assessed values. He said the budget ad showing the revenues matching the
expenditures, and other tax rates such as personal property, have to be advertised at least seven days
prior to the public hearing. Mr. Davis stated that the public hearings held on April 8 would be one for the
tax rate and a separate one for the budget which, by law, must be separate public hearings but can be
held on the same day.
Mr. Foley pointed out that, when there is an assessment increase, the County must advertise an
“effective tax rate increase.”
Mr. Davis said the effective tax rate would actually be around 75.6 cents.
Ms. Allshouse confirmed that the effective tax rate the assessor provided was 75.6 cents, so the
effective tax rate is what is required legally for the advertisement.
Mr. Davis said that is the tax rate which would be required to generate the same amount of
revenue next year as the current year, so there would essentially be a lower tax rate to generate the
same amount of revenue because the assessed values have gone up. He stated that the proposed tax
rate from the Board will then be compared to that as an effective tax rate increase, so it will look bigger
than what is being considered.
Ms. Mallek said that is the basis of the “equalized rate” the Board had talked about in its
deliberations in past years.
Ms. Palmer stated that, if the Board took the .6 cents out of schools, it would have a 4-cent
increase and would still have its local government list. She said she would like to keep the rate under 80
cents.
Ms. Allshouse said using.7 cents to be shared does not provide much of a remaining balance on
the top list and gets 2.7 cents for the schools which puts the total rate at 80.4 cents.
Mr. Foley explained that the effective tax rate advertisement is basically saying, “If you do not
drop your rate down there [to 75.6 cents], you will have a tax increase for the value” and, on top of that,
the other numbers would be added.
Ms. Dittmar said, if she is the average person reading the paper who has not had the benefit of
this in-depth discussion, it would look like a 5-cent increase to her.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 118)
Mr. Davis explained that it would be the difference of 75.6 cents – called the “effective tax rate” in
the ad – and whatever the Board’s proposed tax rate is, and it would also show a percentage increase as
another number.
Ms. Dittmar said it is fair to look at it that way, and it becomes more startling to have the rate jump
up 4.8 cents as opposed to looking at the effective rate.
Ms. McKeel asked what the school gap would be under that scenario.
Mr. Foley clarified that, under this scenario, schools would have about $2.8 million more but the
deficit is $5.8, so the difference would be $3 million.
Mr. Davis stated that the 75.6 rate would be referenced in the ad as “the lowered rate necessary
to offset increased assessment,” and the next requirement in the ad would be for an “effective rate
increase” number – which is the difference between the lowered tax rate and the proposed r ate, and a
percentage must be shown for that. The third requirement, he said, would show the total proposed
budget increase, which is the percentage that this budget number is larger than last year’s budget based
on revenue.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the only tax the Board has to deal with at the moment is the real estate
tax rate, which also applies to public service property and to manufactured homes, so the rate
Supervisors set for real estate would apply to those three categories and that is how it would have to be
advertised.
Ms. Palmer moved that the County advertise a tax rate for public hearing as follows: the real
estate tax rate at 80.4 cents per $100 of assessed value, for real estate, public service property and
mobile homes for the 2014 tax year. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Ms. McKeel commented that this would be a dram atic gap for the schools to cover.
Mr. Sheffield said he was open to Mr. Boyd’s notion of shifting the transportation revenue-sharing
money for just this year, but not the ACE. He emphasized that there must be a serious discussion about
sustainable education funding.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would like to have a meeting with the schools, but would also like to
have a meeting with legislators in April or May.
Ms. Mallek said there was a legislative meeting a year ago that had posters all around the room
for every single county, with information about mandates clearly visible for them to see.
Ms. Dittmar asked about Mr. Sheffield’s willingness to shift the transportation revenue-sharing
money.
Mr. Sheffield said it would be a temporary solution, and staff would have to speak more as to how
it would affect specific projects, and that amount was a little over $1 million.
Mr. Foley confirmed with the Board that the idea was to transfer those funds over to the schools
instead of using it for capital to pay for transportation.
Mr. Davis said that would effectively be using one-time money.
Ms. Mallek said, next year, there would be $1 million more in the school budget though, to equal
the $1 million one-time money that would be added this year.
Mr. Foley stated that $20 million would be transferred to the CIP this year – which pays for debt
and capital – and the Board is proposing to take $1 million of that funding stream and have it stay in
operating to help pay for ongoing expenses for schools and what is on the list.
Mr. Sheffield said he wants the increase for one year only.
Ms. Mallek said it cannot be for only one year, because it would now be built into the regular
operating budgets.
Mr. Foley stated that, if the Board felt the transportation funding was less of a priority at this point,
it could certainly shift that over but, if it gets back next year and have not done it with ongoing revenue –
then the County would start the year with a $1 million operating problem right off the bat. He said his
recommendation would be to not transfer that million for transportation, leave it to take care of this if the
Board is trying to get the rate down, or the Board can give more back to the schools.
Board members agreed that its goal was to try to give more back to the schools.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Board could hear more from Trevor Henry at its work session on
March 12, and advertises the tax rate as discussed and could also be able to respond at that point to
citizen comments.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 119)
Mr. Foley said that would be one of the Board’s options, but currently the rate only funds the
schools at $2.7 million.
Ms. Mallek said the other option would be to go out with an advertised 81.2-cent rate.
Ms. Palmer suggested a vote be taken on the 80.4-cent rate. She withdrew her previous motion.
Ms. Mallek withdrew her second.
Mr. Sheffield moved to advertise the 2014 tax rates for public hearing as follows: to advertise the
2014 tax rates for public hearing as follows: a real estate tax rate at $0.81.2/$100 of assessed valuation
for real estate, public service property and mobile homes for the 2014 tax year and at $4.28/$100
assessed value for the personal property tax rate, including machinery and tools . Ms. McKeel seconded
the motion.
Ms. Dittmar asked for clarification as to whether the advertised tax rate would be 75.6 cents.
Mr. Davis said the terminology would be “lowered tax rate” at 75.6 cents to generate the same
amount of revenue as last year’s tax rate did.
Mr. Foley said it would also have to state what the percentage increase is, and that will be 7.4%.
Mr. Sheffield said he has encouraged constituents to reach out to Board members to let it know
where priorities stand because, if $1 million is taken out of transportation, it impacts those needs but
helps the school system. He said he is not happy with a 81.2 cents tax rate, but the discussion has to
start somewhere.
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Palmer.
Ms. Palmer moved to advertise the 2014 tax rates for public hearing as follows: a real estate tax
rate at $0.808/$100 of assessed valuation for real estate, public service property and mobile homes for
the 2014 tax year and at $4.28/$100 assessed value for the personal property tax rate, includ ing
machinery and tools. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Mr. Walker clarified that this would mean $3.4 million in additional funding for schools, with a
dedicated 1.8 cents on the tax rate.
Ms. McKeel said she was very uncomfortable with increasing local government expenditures
while schools having to make cuts.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
Ms. Palmer said she wants to give everything to the schools, but questioned how fast the County
can raise taxes on people in one year adding that there are a lot of people out there who are not getting a
2% increase in their salaries.
Ms. McKeel said she wished the Board could supplement with something that would not affect
what is being discussed here.
Ms. Mallek said Board members are not going to be able to figure that out tonight.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Board could use the March 12 work session for that.
Mr. Foley said staff could take some of the ideas that have been thrown out and try to break them
down.
Mr. Davis said the only decision the Board would have to make today is the advertised tax rate,
and that would be the maximum tax rate it could adopt.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the total amount this would be for schools over the County Executive’s
proposed budget.
Mr. Foley said it would be $3.4 million, in addition to the $4.5 million already in his budget.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would come back on March 12 to finalize expenditures, and would also
do more analysis to bring back to the Board.
Mr. Davis asked what time the Board wanted to adjourn the meeting to on March 12, since the
public hearing was scheduled for 6:00 p.m. as part of the night meeting.
March 05, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 120)
Mr. Foley said the Board could meet at 3:00 p.m. and, if it finishes early, Supervisors would have
another break.
Board members agreed to start its work session at 3:00 p.m. on March 12.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to receive a copy of the chart with the 80.8-cent tax rate as soon
as possible.
_______________
Agenda Item No. Adjourn to March 12, 2014, 4:00 p.m.
At 9:10 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Boyd moved to adjourn until
3:00 p.m., March 12, 2014. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 03/04/2015
Initials: EWJ