2014-07-09July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An afternoon adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on July 9, 2014, at 4:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. The regular night meeting was held at 6:00 p.m. The afternoon meeting was
adjourned from July 8, 2014.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann H. 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 4:05 p.m., by the Chair Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Regional Firearms Training Center. (Rescheduled to August
meeting).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Closed Meeting.
At 4:05 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(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;
under subsection (1) to complete the annual performance review of the County Executive and to discuss
his employment agreement; and under subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by leg al counsel and
staff regarding probable litigation concerning a violation of a subdivision agreement because a public
discussion would adversely affect the litigating posture of the County. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 5:05 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board certify 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 authoriz ing the
closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Non-Agenda. Approval of Employment Agreement – County Executive.
Ms. McKeel moved to approve the Amended Employment Agreement for the County Executive.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
(The agreement is set out below:)
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this _______ day of July, 2014 by and between the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors, hereinafter “Employer” and Thomas C. Foley, hereinafter “Employee.”
RECITALS
The parties recite and declare:
A. Employer is in need of the services of a person possessing the skills an d ability required
to be the County Executive; and
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
B. Employee, through education and experience, possesses the requisite skills to perform
these duties; and
C. Employer desires, therefore, to engage the services of Employee as County Executive
under the direction of the Employer, pursuant to the authority vested in Employer by
Section 15.2-509 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
D. The parties acknowledge that Employee is a member of the International City/County
Management Association (ICMA) and that Employee is subject to the ICMA Code of
Ethics, but the provisions of that Code are in no way incorporated into this Agreement.
E. The parties desire to amend and clarify certain provisions in the Employment Agreement
previously approved by the Employer on June 11, 2014.
For reasons set forth above and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties,
Employer and Employees agree as follows:
SECTION ONE
Employment
Employer employs, engages and hires Employee as the County Executive of Albemarle County, and
Employee accepts and agrees to this employment, engagement and hiring. It is acknowledged that
pursuant to Section 15.2-510 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the County Executive is not
appointed for a definite tenure and may be removed at the pleasure of the Employer.
SECTION TWO
Governing Law
This Agreement and the employment of Employee shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Code of the County of Albemarle and policies adopted from
time to time by Employer (including the provisions of Albemarle County Personnel Manual), relating to
sick leave, retirement and life insurance contributions, holidays, other fringe benefits and other matters
not specifically addressed in this Agreement.
SECTION THREE
Duties
Employee is hereby delegated the following powers and duties:
A. The statutory powers and duties as set forth in Section 15.2-516 and powers and duties
set forth in any other sections of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
B. Powers and duties delegated or imposed (i) by the Albemarle County Code or (ii) a duly
adopted motion, resolution, or ordinance of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
C. Responsibility to develop and recommend personnel and other policies and revisions to
the Board of Supervisors for its approval.
SECTION FOUR
Terms of Employment
A. This Agreement shall be for a term beginning July 1, 2014 and ending on June 30, 2015.
Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the
Employer to terminate the services of the Employee at any time, subject to the provisions
set forth in Section 4E of this Agreement.
B. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of
Employee to resign at any time, provided Employee gives written notice to the Chairman
of the Board of Supervisors at least forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of the
resignation, unless the parties otherwise agree.
C. Employee shall remain in the exclusive employ of the Employer and devote all of the
Employee’s working time, attention, knowledge and skills solely to the interests of the
Employer, and Employer shall be entitled to all of the benefits arising from or incident to
all work, services and advice of Employee. The term “Employee’s time” shall not be
construed to include Employee’s annual time off.
D. Employee shall maintain a permanent place of residence within Albemarle County.
Permanent place of residence shall be defined to include t he purchase or lease of a
residential dwelling unit and the occupancy of that dwelling no less than 75% of the time
during an average work week while in the active employment of the County.
E. In the event any Board of Supervisors fails to extend this Agreement, terminates the
Employee, or the Employee resigns at the request of the Board at any time during his
employment by Employer, Employee’s rights to benefits and compensation shall be
governed under Section Nine or Section Twelve, below.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
SECTION FIVE
Compensation
A. Salary - Employer shall pay Employee, and Employee shall accept from Employer, an
annual salary of $179,819 effective July 1, 2014 payable in installments as provided for
County employees generally. Additionally, Employer agrees to review the performance
of Employee on or before June 30th of each year and, upon satisfactory performance
review, consider an increase in annual salary. Employee shall annually provide Employer
a survey of the market for his comparable position in similar localitie s to aid the
Employer’s review of whether the Employee should be considered for a market
adjustment of the Employee’s annual compensation.
B. Deferred Compensation - Employer agrees to contribute annually $23,000 to an eligible
deferred compensation program selected by the Employee.
C. Car Allowance – Employer agrees to provide the Employee an annual vehicle allowance
of $6,300.
SECTION SIX
Benefits
A. Employer agrees to provide the Employee with annual leave equivalent to that of an
employee with twenty four (24) years of consecutive employment with the County.
B. Employer agrees to provide such other benefits to the Employee that are provided to all
County employees per the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual.
SECTION SEVEN
Dues, Memberships, Education and Meetings
A. Employer agrees to budget and to pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of
Employee necessary for his continuation and full participation in national, regional, state
and local associations and organizations necessary and desirable for his continued
professional participation, growth, and advancement, and for the good of the Employer.
B. Employer hereby agrees to budget for and to pay the travel and subsistence expenses of
Employee for professional and official travel, meetings and occasio ns adequate to
continue the professional development of Employee and to adequately pursue necessary
official and other functions for Employer, including but not limited to the annual
conference of national, regional, state and local government groups and c ommittees
thereof which Employee serves as a member.
C. Employer agrees to budget and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of
Employee degree courses, institutes, and seminars that are necessary for his
professional development and for the good of the Employer.
D. Employer reserves the right to determine whether Employee is devoting the appropriate
amount of time to professional development and may review and direct the Employee to
balance the amount of time deemed necessary for his professional development against
the other needs of the Employer.
SECTION EIGHT
Performance Evaluations
A. Employer, acting through its Board of Supervisors, shall conduct an annual performance
review of Employee on or before June 30 of each year. Said review and evaluation shall
be in accordance with the specific criteria developed jointly by Employer and Employee.
Said criteria may be changed from time to time by Employer, in consultation with
Employee. Employer shall provide Employee with a written summary of the findin gs of
the Employer and provide an adequate opportunity to discuss said evaluation.
B. Employer shall annually establish goals and performance objectives which it determines
necessary for the proper operation of the County and the attainment of the Employer’s
policy objectives, which shall be reduced to writing.
SECTION NINE
Termination and Severance Pay
A. In the event Employee is terminated by the Board of Supervisors or resigns at the
request of the Board, or the Board fails to extend this Agreement, Employer agrees to
pay for the continuation of all compensation provided in Section Five and health
insurance benefits provided for in Section Six, paragraph B, for the current month and for
six additional months on a monthly basis beginning the next month after the date of
separation from employment. Employee shall also be compensated for all earned
vacation and other accrued benefits earned up to the date of termination, excluding any
accrued sick leave, as provided in the Personnel Policy & Procedures M anual.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
B. In the event the Employee is terminated for cause, then in that event, Employer shall
have no obligation to provide the payments designated in the above paragraph, with the
exception of the obligation to pay all compensation, earned vacation and oth er accrued
benefits earned up to the date of termination, excluding any accrued sick leave, as
provided in the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual.
C. In the event Employer at any time during Employee’s employment reduces the
compensation or other financial benefits of Employee in a greater percentage than an
applicable reduction for all other management level employees of Employer, or for a
reason not related to budget reductions caused by adverse fiscal circumstances of the
County, then, in that event Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be “terminated” at
the date of such reduction and shall be entitled to the payments in paragraph A, above.
D. In the event Employee resigns following a closed meeting of the Board of Supervisors at
which a majority of the members of the Board request his resignation in writing, then the
Employee shall be deemed at the date of such resignation to have resigned at the
request of the Board and shall be entitled to the payments in paragraph A, above.
E. In the event Employer fails to comply with any provision of this Agreement that benefits
the Employee, without the agreement of the Employee, and the matter is not resolved
within thirty (30) days after written notice requesting the Board to comply is received by
the Board and the County Attorney, and after a closed meeting discussion between the
Board and the Employee the matter remains unresolved, then Employee may, at his
option, be deemed to be “terminated” at the date of such failure to comply and shall be
entitled to the payments in paragraph A, above.
SECTION TEN
Liability Insurance
Employer shall provide full liability insurance, in an amount at least equal to that provided for the Board of
Supervisors, to cover Employee against any loss from tort, professional li ability claim, or demand, or
other legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in
the performance of Employee’s duties hereunder, unless the act or omission occurring in the
performance of Employee’s duties involved willful or wanton conduct.
SECTION ELEVEN
Bonding
Employer shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of the Employee under any law or
ordinance.
SECTION TWELVE
Disability
If Employee is permanently disabled or is otherwise unable to perform his duties because of sickness,
accident, injury, mental incapacity or health for a period of twelve (12) successive weeks, Employer shall
have the option to terminate this Agreement, subject to the severance pay requirements o f Section Nine,
paragraph A. In addition, for any termination made for the reasons set forth in this section, Employer
agrees to pay Employee for 25% of all unused accrued sick leave earned up to the date of termination.
SECTION THIRTEEN
Extension of Agreement
If Employee is not notified by Employer of termination or alteration of contractual terms before the
expiration date of this Agreement, it shall be extended on the same terms and conditions for an additional
year.
All amendments to this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
SECTION FOURTEEN
Modification
A modification or waiver of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition or provision of it, shall not be
valid unless in writing and executed by the parties.
SECTION FIFTEEN
Severability
All Agreements and covenants in this Agreement are severable, and in the event any of them shall be
held to be invalid by any competent court, this Agreement shall be interpreted as if the invalid
Agreements or covenants were not contained.
SECTION SIXTEEN
Entire Agreement
This written Agreement embodies the whole agreement between the parties. There are no inducements,
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
promises, terms, conditions, or obligations made or entered into by either Employer or Employee other
than those contained in this Agreement.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has caused this Agreement to be
signed and executed in its behalf by its Chairman and the Employee has signed and executed this
Agreement, both in duplicate, the da y and year first above written.
_______________
Non-Agenda. Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
Ms. McKeel moved to make the following appointments/reappointments:
appoint Mr. Richard Wagaman to the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee
(CTAC) with said term to expire April 3, 2017.
reappoint Mr. Frank Stoner and Mr. John Gobble to the Fiscal Impact Advisory
Committee with said terms to expire July 8, 2016.
appoint Mr. Dennis Dutterer to the Historic Preservation Committee with said term to
expire June 4, 2017.
appoint Ms. Anne Bedarf, Ms. Teri Kent and Ms. Margaret “Peggy” Gilges to the Long
Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee with said terms to expire
reappoint Mr. Albert LaFave to the Region Ten Community Services Board with said
term to expire June 30, 2017.
reappoint Ms. Amanda Moxham to the Workforce Investment Board with said term to
expire June 30, 2017.
reappoint Ms. Janet Turner-Giles to the Workforce Investment Board with said term to
expire June 30, 2015.
appoint Supervisor Ann Mallek to the Piedmont Workforce Network Council with said
term to expire December 31, 2014.
appoint Supervisor Jane Dittmar to the Piedmont Workforce Network Council (designee
in absence) with said term to expire December 31, 2014
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Work Session: CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment, to
begin with public comments and possible Board direction.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that the Planning Commission’s
recommended Comprehensive Plan has been provided in the draft dated January 23, 2014 and
previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive Plan may be found online here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Developm ent/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/Table_of_Contents_Final_1-23-14.pdf.
Recommendations regarding focused topics and information since the Commission’s actions
have also been identified for the Board’s consideration. This work session is the fifth in the series of
detailed Comprehensive Plan chapter reviews based on the Board’s agreed upon review schedule which
can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=17151
The Board’s direction to date has been recorded in Action Memos from Board meetings at which
the topic was discussed.
The strategic plan mission is to enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through
the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
At this work session, the Board will review Chapter 7: The Rural Area. This Chapter may be
found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/07_Chapter_Rural_Area_Final_%201-23-14.pdf
The Rural Area (RA) Chapter
describes expected features of the RA (pages 7.3 – 7.4)
explains the County’s need for a proactive role to help property owners keep their land intact as
an alternative to residential development (page 7.4)
lists criteria for allowing new uses in the RA (pages 7.4 – 7.5)
notes the importance for proceeding slowly when providing opportunities for new uses (page 7.9)
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
In addition, the chapter identifies the importance of and strategies for:
retaining continuous and unfragmented land (pages 7.11 – 7.21)
supporting a strong ag and forestal economy (pages 7.21 – 7.28)
recognizing and supporting crossroads communities (pages 7.29 – 7.31)
promoting a significant tourist economy (pages 7.31 – 7.34)
providing distinctive boundaries between the DA and RA (pages 7.34 – 7.35)
educating citizens on the cultural, economic, and ecological aspects of the RA (page 7.36)
retaining the rural character of Area B in the RA
The Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Implementation Priorities, Measures of Success, and list of
Reference Documents for the Rural Area are found in Attachment A. There are no appendices, but the
Reference Documents include maps of important agricultural and forestry soils.
A table comparing the existing and recommended Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the
Rural Area is provided as Attachment B.
Of all of the topics the Chapters the Planning Commission discussed, they spent the most time on
the Rural Area Chapter. Links to staff reports and relevant portions of the Commission’s minutes are
provided in Attachment C. Public comment to date has included support for and opposition to changes in
the Rural Area Chapter draft. Most of the comments relate to the Commission’s recommendations for
additional uses for properties zoned RA.
Seven topics have been identified for particular focus. One topic provided in the schedule for
review, “Implementation Tables” actually belongs in the Parks Chapter and will be discussed with that
Chapter. A seventh topic relates to a recommendation for events in the Rural Area from the Commission.
This topic was not identified earlier on the schedule for discussion but should be inc luded in the Board’s
review.
Because the proposed Comprehensive Plan recommends consideration of several new uses, the
Commission developed a set of criteria to be considered when allowing new uses. They asked that their
proposed, “Criteria for Review of New Uses” be placed towards the beginning of the document. The
recommended language is provided below:
Criteria for Review of New Uses
As new uses are proposed in the Rural Area, it is essential that they be able to meet the following
standards. They must:
require a Rural Area location in order to be successful, (e.g., a farm winery has to be located in
the Rural Area and would be unlikely to succeed in the Development Areas);
be compatible with and have a negligible impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources;
not conflict with nearby agricultural and forestal uses;
complement the character of the area in which they will be located;
result in little discernible difference in traffic patterns;
generate little or no new demand for Fire/Rescue and Police service;
be able to operate long-term without the need for public water and sewer;
be sustained with available groundwater; and
be consistent with other Rural Area policies.
The Board is asked to concur or modify these criteria, as appropriate.
The seven topics for review are explained below:
Changes in policy statements for residential development in RA (pages 7.11 – 7.13)
This topic is brought to the Board’s attention because of the Commission’s recommended changes to
language for residential development in the Rural Area.
Staff comment: Language in the current Comprehensive Plan strongly discourages residential
development in the Rural Area. The Planning Commission considered the outcome of past
implementation activities to achieve these objectives and the input from the public on the need to
preserve property rights. As a result, the Commission recommended a change in tone and slight
change in direction in the recommended Comprehensive Plan. Attachment D discusses the
issues and outcomes of the Commission’s deliberations.
Recommendations for crossroads community services (pages 7.29 – 7.30)
Staff has brought this topic to the Board’s atte ntion because of the Commission’s support for
increased attention to crossroads communities and the amount of study that took place on areas
of assembly.
Staff comment: Language in the current Comprehensive Plan recommends enhancing seven
crossroad communities’ ability to provide basic services for rural residents. These crossroad
communities are: Advance Mills, Batesville, Covesville, Free Union, Proffit, Greenwood, and
White Hall. Some members of the Commission felt it important to create small area plans for each
of these communities, but, the majority believed that this recommendation should wait for the next
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Comprehensive Plan update. Instead, emphasis was placed on the importance of meeting with
the communities to help identify geographic boundaries and desired community services.
The draft Plan retains the current Plan’s recommendations as well as adding a strategy to
consider changing the zoning ordinance to allow community centers and religious institutions in
these locations and at an appropriate scale by-right. (Recommendations for restaurants in
crossroads communities are discussed later in this report.) At present, community centers and
religious institutions are only allowed by special use permit. In 2009, the Board of Supervisors
asked staff to look into parameters for by-right approval of appropriately scaled religious
institutions in the RA. Staff used the Comprehensive Plan update process for the Planning
Commission’s policy direction regarding this initiative. The Commission determined that the only
place where by-right approval of churches might be appropriate was at crossroads communities.
Attachment E provides additional background and discusses the Commission’s deliberation and
recommendations.
Recommendations for lodging and restaurants (pages 7.31 and 7.33). These topics
generated the most discussion at Commission meetings and are brought to the Board because of
the Commission’s recommended change in policy.
Staff comment: In light of the strong emphasis on tourism in the Economic Vitality Action Plan,
the Planning Commission explored whether additional provision should be made for lodging and
restaurants in the Rural Area. The Commission was keen to find ways to preserve existing
historic resources and help prevent large farms and estates from being subdivided for residential
development. Although they tried to find appropriate parameters to recommend in the
Comprehensive Plan for such facilities, they were unable to agree on any thresholds. As a result,
they recommended that lodging, possibly by-right, be considered in the Rural Area zoning district,
provided that necessary parameters, such as minimum acreage, maximum number of rooms,
etc., could be identified. They also recommended consideration of zoning text amendments to
allow for restaurants, by-right, in crossroad communities only. Attachment F provides additional
background and discusses the Commission’s deliberation and recommendations.
Regular Commercial Events at Individual Residences in the Rural Area (pages 7.32 -7.33)
Staff has brought this topic to the Board’s attention because of the Commission’s
recommendation for a potential change in policy.
Staff comment: The preserved scenic beauty of the rural area has provided an economic boon for
farm wineries that host events. Farm wineries can host events for up to 200 persons per event as
often as they like. The Commission and staff called these, “regular events.” As part of its
consideration for increasing the availability of the Rural Area for tourism uses e vents, the
Commission discussed whether or not homes at large estates should also be available for regular
events. Attachment G provides additional information on the Commission’s deliberation and
recommendations.
Commercial Recreational facilities (pages 7.33 and 7.34)
This topic is brought to the Board because of the Commission’s recommended consideration for a
change in policy.
Staff comment: Commercial recreational activities desiring rural settings have changed in
character over the years. While golf courses and swim/tennis clubs are allowable by special use
permit in the RA zoning district commercial recreation such as zip lines and mountain biking may
be more in keeping with rural character than golf courses and swim/tennis clubs. The Planning
Commission discussed the relationship of commercial recreational activities to tourism and
concluded that the list of recreational uses allowed by special use permit should be updated.
Attachment H provides additional background and discusses the Commission’s deliberation and
recommendations.
Rural Interstate Interchanges (pages 7.35 – 7-36)
Members of the Board of Supervisors have asked that the full board discuss recommendations
for rural interstate interchanges because of their potential for economic development.
Staff comment: The Board of Supervisors has been discussing the benefits of interstate
interchanges for economic growth since 2008. They asked the Planning Commission to consider
changes to the County’s policies for rural interchanges when the Commission began its work in
2011. Attachment I provides background on this topic and discusses the Commission’s
deliberation and recommendations.
Area B Recommendations (pages 7.37 – 7.42)
Information on Area B land use is brought to the Board’s attention so they are aware of the Area
A and B boundaries and recommendations.
Staff comment: Area B land use recommendations are contained in several different documents.
As part of this Comprehensive Plan update, the Commission supported the recommendation of
the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) to include Area B information within the
respective Comprehensive Plans of the City and County. Area B includes both Rural Area and
Development Area land and specific recommendations for Area B land in the Rural Area are
included in this section of the Plan. No changes to current land use are recommended. One
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
area for which updating is needed, however, is the future use of the Milton Airport. Decisions by
the Board of Supervisors for an indoor firing range in conjunction with the City and the University
of Virginia were made after the Commission made its recommendations. These decisions should
be reflected in the next draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Draft include recommendations for future capital
improvements and operations.
The Board is asked to identify any substantive changes to the recommendations herein
presented and concur on those changes, focusing on content rather than wordsmithing. Staff will then
make any necessary changes and bring those back to the Board for its approval prior to its public
hearing.
_____
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, reported that Chapter 7, The Rural Area, is one of those
with the most significant changes and has a lot of substance, so it may take a while to get through it. She
explained that the process underway is to get public comment first, and then for the Board to provide
direction. Ms. Echols referenced topics on the screen which are before the Board, and public comment
would take place first.
The Chair opened the work session for public comments.
Mr. Bob Satterfield, President of the Board of Directors for the Virginia Center for the Creative
Arts (VCCA), addressed the Board. Mr. Satterfield said, in the 1970s, the VCCA operated in Albemarle
County but, for the last 35 years, has operated on property owned by Sweetbriar College in Amherst
County because of its remoteness and beautiful landscape which is inspirational and offers artists the
opportunity to create beautiful work but be very productive in how they function . He stated that they serve
25 artists at a time. He said over 400 artists per year spend between two and eight weeks writing books,
plays, movies and music. He said the center provides lodging, three meals a day, and a private studio, in
order to give artists ample opportunity to create. Mr. Satterfield said the center operates through a peer
review process, and receive about 1,000 applications per year, with artists from all over the United States
and more than 60 foreign countries. He stated that the VCCA has been exploring new long-range
location opportunities, including those in Albemarle, but currently there is no provision in the zoning
ordinance for their type of center so they have applied for a zoning text amendment. Mr. Satterfield said
the VCCA would fit nicely into the parameters of the Comp Plan: maintaining farm and forest property,
protecting viable habitat for wildlife, protecting historic structures through adaptive reuse, and adding to
the tourist economy.
Ms. Mallek asked if the term for this enterprise was “artists’ retreat.” Mr. Satterfield said it has
been called “artists’ retreat” and also “artists’ colony,” although the latter is a misnomer because they are
not living there, but are staying just two to eight weeks.
Mr. Boyd asked if the VCCA was requesting that this center be established in the rural area. Mr.
Satterfield said the two properties they were considering in Albemarle involve a very large farm, and
another property which comprises a 60+ acre private estate. He said they would need space to
accommodate 25 people at a time.
Mr. Boyd asked if these would be residences. Mr. Satterfield confirmed that they would be, along
with staff offices, and would be dormitory style; however, private baths would be desirable.
Ms. Marcia Joseph addressed the Board, stating that she lives in the Rivanna District and was
before them to address page 7.34 of the Comprehensive Plan, which includes a discussion of golf
courses. Ms. Joseph said the text says that a golf course “typically involves significant land clearing,
planting of non-native turf grass, large amounts of water and use of fertilizers.” She said her fear was that
by putting a list like this in the Comp Plan and an applicant comes in and says he can comply with it;
there are so many other issues beyond a golf course which may be misleading to an applicant. Ms.
Joseph suggested that the wording not be so specific because each site is different, each area of the
County is different, and will require different things from an applicant. She also said there is a lot of
encouragement to create conservation easements and to create more commercial activities in the rural
area, but there is no discussion of how these will impact existing conservation easements, or people’s
desire to create them if these other new commercial uses are available to them. Ms. Joseph said, since
the first Comp Plan, the County has tried to protect and preserve its rural areas because that is what
makes it Albemarle County, that is what makes people want to come here, and that is what tourism
depends on. She asked the Board to keep that in mind when it considers the proposed uses.
Ms. Geri McCormick-Ray of White Hall addressed the Board, stating that she agrees with the
general ideas and the wording in the planning document, but is a little concerned about the activity to be
accommodated with the wording allowing “increased activity,” as this will bring on noise and more
pollution, will require more roads and bring congestion, along with higher costs for residents and the
community. She said it is a slippery slope and, while it would be great to have rural areas valued as they
are, the County needs to be more innovative about how to value them as a demonstration on how people
live and not invite music, loud noises and increased activity which will undermine all that should be
protected in this area.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. John Lowry addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Samuel Miller District
and noting that keeping Albemarle looking rural has been a popular theme in the County’s
Comprehensive Plan, especially beginning in the 1980s and continuing into the 1990s. Mr. Lowry said
zoning law, introduced in the early 1980s, forever changed the development landscape in Albemarle. He
stated that he was fine with that and understands the rationale of “looking rural” while cha nneling growth
into a defined area, and his point today was to address what may be too much of a good thing. Mr. Lowry
said Albemarle County has 474,000 acres of land, with more than 2/3s of the land in land use which
reduces taxes to almost nothing on the theory that fire, police, schools and other services are not needed
for that land. He stated that, within the land use segment, are conservation easements and this segment
of the total acreage is rapidly growing with 60,000 acres in 2006, and now more t han 86,000 acres. Mr.
Lowry cited an example of what one landowner gets for perpetual easement: federal, state and local
taxes for a parcel of less than 100 acres put into easement in 2013 equates to $225,000 in state tax
credits, good for 10 years and federal tax credits worth $600,000 with a 15-year life. He said, while this
person was a relatively high earner, in retirement, he would not be paying taxes for 15 years, and his
estate will fall under the estate tax threshold so, for his conservation easement, he will get more than $1
million in his pocket. He stated that businesses should be a good partner, paying license tax and a share
of sales tax beyond real estate tax. Mr. Lowry said conservation easements are growing at a 4%
compounded rate, with population growing at a little over 1%, and asked the Board to consider having the
growth area expand a little on average too as it was 24,000 acres 16 years ago and is the same size now,
5% of the land. He emphasized the need to build a Comp Plan that balances interests of competing
segments generating income as well as expending it.
Mr. Morgan Butler addressed the Board, stating that he was speaking on behalf of the Southern
Environmental Law Center (SELC). He said there is a note in the Comprehensive Plan Rural Areas draft
which addresses the balance between potential additional uses and the qualities of the rural area and
says, “It is important that changes take place slowly, with enough time to evaluate potential impacts of
recent and proposed changes. Analysis of the impacts of recent zoning ordinance changes should be
conducted before adopting new zoning text amendments.” Mr. Butler said that is an important note of
caution, but he also pointed out that, on page 7.4, there are two paragraphs in the middle of the page that
strike a different tone: under the section “Land Use Plan for the rural areas,” it states “other changes are
still needed” and “recommendations are made for changes in the zoning ordinance,” and “until now, many
of these changes have been prohibited.” He stated that the language in that paragraph gives the
impression that this Comprehensive Plan is endorsing some of the different ideas that are suggested, but
the plan is clear in stating these are just recommendations for the Board to consider so he would propose
adding the words “may” and “possible” so those paragraphs remain consistent with the rest of the
chapter. He also said the language on page 7.14, Strategy 1D, says they should “consider modifying the
zoning regulations to help achieve rural area objectives without reducing residential development rights,”
and the SELC would ask the Board to be careful with the text there because there may be instances
where the Board wants to consider changes to the Zoning Ordinance which may indirectly reduce
development potential. Mr. Butler stated that the language there has the risk of cutting off those options,
and simply adding the word “directly” before “residential development rights” will give the Board the option
of protecting land in the debris hazard zones.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, stating that the Free Enterprise Forum applauds much
of what is in the revised Rural Area chapters, adding that the community has been engaged in this
process, including staff, for a long time. Mr. Williamson said the chapter considers allowing some
enterprises in the rural areas that will keep the land economically and environmentally sustainable, but
there are some real challenges to rural enterprises in the plan. He stated that they have had positive
discussions with several Supervisors related to the topic Ms. Joseph brought up, but they found the
language inserted on page 7.34 and included in Attachment H to be philosophically offensive and likely
illegal: “While golf courses should not be prohibited, they should only be allowed when a significant
unmet need can be established for more of this type of use.” Mr. Williamson emphasized that this is not
the role of government, and the concept that the County will only allow businesses to exist that serve a
government-identified unmet need is beyond the pale, even for Albemarle County. He said the Free
Enterprise Forum hopes Supervisors will direct staff to strike this paragraph from the doc ument. Mr.
Williamson said the Planning Commission had also proposed new criteria for potential new uses in the
rural area, and this criterion virtually guarantees that no new uses will be approved in the rural area. He
stated that these criteria are required to be compatible and have a neglig ible impact on natural, cultural
and historic resources, not conflict with nearby agricultural and forestal uses, compliment the character of
the area in which they are located, and result in little discernible difference in traffic patterns. Depending
upon the interpretation, he said the art center just described could possibly not fit the criteria. He added
that the criteria would prevent many of the identified rural enterprises in the plan from occurring, which is
in opposition to much of what the Board has directed in other areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Williamson said this reminds him of a former Supervisor who said, “We love all the wineries; we just do
not like their customers.” He stated that the rural area makes up 95% of the County, and rural enterprises
are bigger than just weddings and wineries, and the criteria – and to a lesser extent the chapter – need to
be revised to recognize the rural realities, and the need for additional economic opportunity in the rural
areas.
Mr. Peter Hallock of the Rivanna District addressed the Board and encouraged Supervisors to be
very careful in what it does in the rural areas, as it is very important to drawing people here. Mr. Hallock
said the University has the mountains on its brochure for the North Fork Research Park, and he
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
emphasized that there should be a limit on special use permits specifically as they pertain to noise and
crowd size because there has not been a clear way to enforce these.
Mr. Jim Balheim of the Rivanna District addressed the Board, stating that , while the Board is
required to review the Comprehensive Plan, it does not mean the Board needs to change it in many of the
ways which have been suggested. He said the list of proposed uses presented in February and March
would change the rural areas instead of protecting them . He said things like concerts, lodging, food,
warehouses, distilleries, events, restaurants, etc. have not been tr aditional rural activities. Mr. Balheim
said there has been a very successful record of conservation easements in the County, and most of them
were done with the intent of protecting the land and way of life that existed at the time they were done.
He stated that it is wrong for County government to do an about-face now and make an irreversible
commitment and, going forward, the County will end up with fewer easements if it tries to change the rural
areas into commercial areas. Mr. Balheim said, if people have more opportunities to profit from their land,
they are going to be much more reluctant to obtain easements that would protect their land – especially if
they know their neighbors might turn the property next door into a non-agricultural, commercial enterprise.
Mr. Balheim said he would like to see the Board expend its efforts in tightening up the rural areas rather
than trying to find ways to loosen things up.
Mr. Ben Brewster addressed the Board, stating that he would like to speak to the issue of the golf
courses, as there is some question as to whether these fit in with agricultural uses and he believed that is
what the Board should be looking at. Mr. Brewster said there is water usage, there are parking lots, there
is a clubhouse, all making it a single-purpose use which will be difficult to sell if it goes defunct and, in
rural areas, they may not do very well.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public comment section and Ms.
Echols resumed her presentation.
Ms. Echols stated that, regarding the last slide with the eight topics identified by staff, those items
are not necessarily things the Board is intending to change but staff wanted to highlight them because of
changes being proposed in the plan which are very different than what is in the existing plan. She asked
the Board to provide any additional items it felt were important to the discussion so staff could help
prepare for that. Ms. Echols reported that she would talk about the criteria for review of new uses and
said that, as the Planning Commission was going through the topics, they kept coming back to the idea of
performance standards, and they felt there needed to be standardization of review criteria. She
presented the goal statement to the Board and said staff would want to know whether there was
something about it that the Board would want to change, or if it states clearly the expectations for the rural
area.
Ms. Echols said the rural areas section had a lot of attention paid to it several years earlier, with a
lot of people from the community involved in the consideration of the chapter and a lot of discussion about
what the expectations are for features of the rural area. She stated that the first element is “continuous
and unfragmented tracks of land,” which is really important for biodiversity and a strong agricultural and
forestal economy. Ms. Echols said that particular aspect is changing, and they are seeing different kinds
of farms in the rural area as well as some emphasis on locally grown products. She said the second
element – “protected natural resources” has been discussed in the Natural Resources Chapter as well as
the Historical and Cultural Resources section. She stated that “significant tourist economy” is stated as
such in the current Comp Plan but, with this particular plan, the tourism aspects especially related to farm
wineries have caught a lot of people’s attention, but there is a desire to find ways to reduce the pressure
landowners may feel to subdivide their property for residential uses. Ms. Echols said “crossroads
communities” were an introduction to the rural areas section during the last review, as were “distinct
boundaries with development areas.”
Mr. Boyd asked when the Board would have an opportunity to take a philosophical look at what it
wants to do with expanding the growth area and reducing the rural area. Ms. Echols said that would take
place in the next chapter during discussion of the development area.
Ms. Palmer asked Ms. Echols if she wanted the Board to comment on the rural area elements
now. Ms. Echols stated that she did, if the Board had comments on them, and noted that t hese were all
from the existing Comp Plan.
Ms. Palmer asked if there would be some kind of reference back to natural resources on the
definition of un-fragmented tracks, and said that surface water should be mentioned as well as
groundwater. She also asked if there would be a definition of “significant tourist economy,” specifically
what the word “significant” means.
Ms. Echols said a lot of the recommendations for tourism relate to the rural area, and there may
be a place as the Board goes through it but, if not, it can be added to the list of items that should need
further discussion.
Ms. Mallek recommended changes to the language related to “un-fragmented tracks for
agricultural and forestry” section to help differentiate between production and sale, and the biodiversity
issue with un-fragmented tracks is something entirely different. She also suggested that the language be
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
limited to “additional uses that support agriculture and tourism,” and expressed concern that, in order to
solve budget crises, it indicates the County will do whatever comes along in the rural area. She then
clarified that the section she was referring to related to tax revenue.
Mr. Boyd said he was concerned that this Comp Plan would set the stage for the County to
establish just wealthy landowners, and it is really going to come down to how it is interpreted when there
is an application for a special use permit or zoning text amendment. He stated that he did not want to
establish a situation where only wealthy people who did not need income from their land could afford to
live on it, and he felt they should create an environment in which people can live off the earnings they
create from their land.
Ms. Mallek said she was not referring to ownership parcels, but use parcels and does not want to
neglect people who have smaller pieces of land.
Ms. Palmer stated that someone had mentioned to her that only approximately 650 landowners in
the County owned 100 acres or more and, at some point, the Board should be finding out how
fragmented the rural areas really are.
Ms. Echols asked Scott Clark, Rural Areas and Natural Resource Planner, to speak on the
expectations for that particular topic.
Mr. Scott Clark addressed the Board and said the County uses the term “fragmentation” in two
different contexts in the plan. He said ownership fragmentation refers to the pattern of parcels getting
broken down to the point where it is difficult for people who do want to produce crops to have enough
farmland. He said, several years ago for example, the Department of Forestry said that parcels of less
than 40 acres were “inefficient” to try to use for timbering o perations. Mr. Clark said the idea of avoiding
ownership fragmentation was not just to expect a smaller number of owners with bigger acreages, but
keeping together pieces that were large enough for effective agriculture and timbering operations. He
stated that the other use of the term fragmentation is more biological, and talks about the patch size s of
forests and what habitats are needed to maintain certain populations.
Ms. Mallek said the other element is connecting them from one to another so there are
travelways, and what is happening with 21-acre parcels is that people are using them as front yards
instead of contiguous parcels for farming as was intended in the 1980s when those were created.
Mr. Boyd said he just wants to make sure there is some viable way for people to maintain their
properties without having to sell them, enabling them to keep their property within their families.
Ms. Palmer stated that just before the “criteria for uses” section, she would suggest removing the
paragraph which refers to changes in the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Echols asked if she felt it was a policy issue. Ms. Palmer said, for her, it was and, as they go
through the review, it could be fleshed out.
Ms. Echols said the Planning Commission did not like the term “commercial uses in the rural
area” under the criteria for review of new uses, and the current Comp Plan calls them “alternative uses”
which are truly intended to provide a property owner with an alternative to subdividing land. She stated
that the first thing the Commission said is that it needs to have a rural area location in order to be
successful, meaning that, if it has a strong relationship to what goes on in the development area, it should
be in the development area such as large distilleries which require a lot of water usage and have many
more industrial characteristics than something like a farm winery. Ms. Echols said the main concern the
Commission had was it did not want the rural areas to be looked at as the places with the cheaper land,
so someone could just go out into the rural area and put a use there so it needs to have a strong
relationship to the rural area. She stated that the second criterion has to do with the compatibility issue,
and all special use permits are looked at this way, so this is not really new or different. Ms. Echols said
the considerations are the impact on the setting, on the resources within the setting, and the relationship
to any historic resources, agricultural/forestal districts, etc. She said the third criterion – “little difference in
traffic patterns” – was something the Commission grappled with because there are numerous agricultural
uses which utilize big trucks, and there is traffic in the rural areas which relates to the rural area by itself,
not necessarily tourism. Ms. Echols said the Commission wanted to make sure the amount of traffic on
rural roads was not starting to change the character of that road or that particular area, which is why it
used the term “little discernible difference.”
Ms. Echols stated that fire, rescue and police are services provided in the development areas,
and the rural area expectation is that they will not get the same level of service and, if there is a use that
is going to have that kind of demand, it may be more appropriately located in the development area. She
said, if one is going to be a big user of water, or have a big wastewater disposal need, that is a more
appropriate use in the development areas than in the rural area. Ms. Echo ls said there have been issues
with wells drying up in years past, and so the Commission used the term “sustained with available
groundwater” as a criterion to consider in thinking about lodging as a possible large consumer of water for
individual rooms, laundry, and other activities. She stated that the final criterion was “consistency with
other rural area policies” as a rationale for review of new uses.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Ms. Palmer said she would like the phrase “long-term” to be removed from the reference of “the
need of public water and sewer” because of the issues with wells on some developments, as there is no
anticipation of bringing those services out to the rural area. She st ated that the criteria are good, but they
are striking because, elsewhere in the plan, they talk about doing certain things, yet these parameters will
make it hard to get these things done.
Ms. Mallek stated that there are lots of things possible in the r ural area, because things based on
actual farm activity are not going to be causing this but, in her mind, these provisions address someone
who is importing their product into a farm location to set up a use that is really industrial, and then use
another set of trucks to take the product away and consume a lot of water in the meantime. She said, for
a big dairy, the milk truck comes every day; for a medium sized one, the milk truck comes every two days,
and those happen with 40-foot tanks for the three dairies still existing in the County. Ms. Mallek stated
that she anticipates concern when there are a lot of visitors to the rural area who are coming for a
particular event from the urban area, and are in a hurry to get there but run up on a hay machine. She
emphasized that the County would need to be ready for things to happen when it tries to expand these
uses.
Ms. Dittmar said she did not want the term “little or no” demand for fire, rescue and police service
in the rural area, because any activity in the rural area would necessitate some demand.
Mr. Boyd said that “lesser” would be a better word.
Ms. Echols suggested that “little” demand would work.
Ms. Mallek said this would provide for a five-room bed and breakfast as opposed to a 50-room
hotel, which would increase the risk for a fire/rescue situation.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Comp Plan was just identifying things to be considered in the rural areas,
and all of this would have to come in for a special use permit.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that there are many proposed changes for by-right uses, which would
mean the Board would never be able to evaluate them for those impacts.
Mr. Boyd noted that he did not mind going through the list of uses to talk about which were
appropriate, but mentioned that the County is losing some revenue to neighboring counties that provide
for uses like distilleries.
Ms. Echols said that was a health department and ABC thing, but staff has some
recommendations for the very small distilleries, not the large ones where there would be a lot of water
use. She stated that this was indicative of some of the Com mission’s concerns, as it could not determine
what was small, medium or large and finally ended up saying it would need to include some parameters
for the zoning text amendment.
Mr. Boyd said this is similar to what the Board dealt with regarding crossroads stores with
restaurants, but not allowing McDonald’s, and somehow that needs to be defined. He stated that he was
not sure if the Board was considering uses such as breweries in Nelson County that have restaurants,
because Albemarle is losing a lot of money that could be gained through its meals tax.
Ms. Mallek said the solution many wineries have come up with on their own is the food truck,
because there are still food taxes collected but the wineries themselves do not have to have an inspected
kitchen, etc. and some of the trucks have followings so people will go to the wineries to get their favorites.
Mr. Sheffield asked Ms. Echols to refresh his memory as to how new uses were considered now,
absent of this criteria, and whether it would be fixing a problem or adding another layer of criteria. Ms.
Echols said most of the requests the County receives for special use permits look at these items, and the
Commission wanted it front and center because it realized the direct impacts on traffic, water usage, etc.
She stated that it is not a new concept, but it is newly articulated very firmly in this particular plan.
Ms. Mallek said this is just out of respect for the emphasis citizens have had on these f eatures for
a very long time.
Mr. Sheffield said his only concern is that they evolve and change depending on the demand and
the environment the County is working within, as well as the economy and this seems to cement a lot of
the unwritten guiding principles considered in the past. He stated that this seems to lock the Board down
a bit, and he wants to make sure the Board will be able to deviate from the list as things change.
Ms. Palmer stated that this list becomes particularly important with the changes the Planning
Commission suggested and, if the Board were to scale back some of the changes as suggested, the
Board may want to look at the criteria again, however, given the degree of changes suggested in the rest
of the document, she would feel safer with the criteria. She added that it seems the Commission was
trying to strike a balance during its review.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. McKeel asked if the Commission might have wanted the Board to make some connections to
the road availability and, if one buys on a gravel road, the expectation is that it would not be paved
because the County hears a lot of those comments. Ms. Echols said there is a place for that
conversation in the transportation section, explaining that this was more about existing roads; how they
deal with those is in the County’s unpaved road policy.
Ms. Palmer said one of the things the Board could expect to see on its list of elements in the rural
areas could be rustic, safe and scenic roads.
Ms. McKeel said other expectations should be included in that as well.
Ms. Palmer stated that she would like Board members to take a step back and look at what it
wants the rural areas to look like.
Ms. McKeel said, in looking at the changes which were really dramatic, she realized Supervisors
would need to have more than one work session.
Ms. Dittmar agreed, stating that she did not understand how the County could require someone to
be successful, which is included as a bullet point.
Ms. Echols said what that means is it requires a rural area location in order to be successful. She
stated that the Board would probably want to come back to the conversations about criteria when it gets
to the uses, because that is where the Planning Commission intended the criteria to be applied.
Ms. McKeel commented that there is a disconnect between how it is stated and how it actually
plays out.
Ms. Palmer agreed, stating that the Board talks about what it needs for the rural economy but she
was not sure Supervisors had ever assessed what that really looks like.
Ms. Mallek said that information is in the agricultural census which is sent to the USDA every
February.
Ms. Palmer said there are a lot of businesses that do not necessarily need a rural landscape to
be successful.
Ms. Mallek said they should not be directed there then. She said the criteria for having a
business in the rural area should include the fact that it needs to be there and it should not be one that
can do just as well in the growth area.
Mr. Sheffield stated that this is why the Board appoints educated individuals to the Planning
Commission, so they can use their knowledge and experience, along with the information provided, to
assess whether a use is appropriate or not for the rural area. He said that is why he has a problem with
the criteria, because some of this should be relied on through those appointments.
Ms. Mallek disagreed, stating that it leads to making it up as they go along and she likes the
criteria for that reason. She said she would also like to add the phrase “impact current rural residents” in
the paragraph related to changing the land use pattern and inviting residential development, because
they need to take existing residents into account.
Ms. McKeel said she agreed with Ms. Palmer to take that paragraph out completely.
Ms. Echols said she had skipped over it with the idea of coming back to that discussion.
Ms. Dittmar agreed that Board members should just come back to it.
Ms. Echols reported that the first big change in this section of the plan is the way residential
development is described and addressed from the existing plan. She said implementation of the policies
to address rural density should be the highest priority with the County aggressively pursuing mechanisms
to reduce the amount of residential development potential in the rural area. She said there is a lot of
history on this topic because, over the last 10 years, a lot of work has been done to try to implement the
existing plan recommendations for residential development. Ms. Echols stated that the Plan ning
Commission heard from a number of people who were concerned about property rights in the rural area
and respecting those, and these particular admonitions were too strong; and did not agree that the plans
should be as discouraging of residential development. She said the Planning Commission’s
recommendation was to talk about the balance between what exists now and the desire to prevent
suburbanization, and recommended placing more emphasis on positive actions which would encourage
people to find alternatives to subdividing their land. Ms. Echols said that w as the Commission’s proposed
plan language and, because it is such a dramatic change, she needed to highlight it and get direction
from the Board.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Palmer said she applauds the Commission for pointing out the portion which focuses on
making the development area an attractive place to be, as that was a very helpful and important change.
She stated that most of the complaints she gets as a supervisor are related to traffic problems, and a lot
of them are in the rural areas. She said the Board needs to strike a balance between the property rights
of all people in the rural area, including those that do not plan to operate a business on their property.
Ms. Palmer said she preferred the plan the way it was, and is of the understanding that the reason the
County has the growth management plan is to keep taxes lower. She stated that the reason why
Loudoun County’s proffers and property taxes are so high is because they have allowed development all
through its rural areas which did have an impact on the cost of the taxes and the proffer system and
people do want low taxes.
Ms. Mallek said development rights are legislative, provided by the zoning enforced at the time,
which are decisions based on the governing body at the time so those things do change. She said she
agreed with the rights of neighbors for their own quality of life, which is often forgotten when people talk
about maximizing their own freedom to do something. She asked if there was an explanation in
Attachment D so Board members could understand the background philosophy of the strategies which
are included.
Ms. Echols said those are under the objectives, with the very first being, “Retain continuous and
unfragmented land for agricultural, forestry and natural resources.” She stated that each strategy intends
to create that, and the objective is not to discourage or prevent residential development but to try to keep
the land unfragmented and engaged in agricultural production, adding that the way to do that is to keep it
from being subdivided for residential development. Ms. Echols emphasized that all of the strategies
under that objective are trying to address how people keep their land whole, and that is an example of the
change in tone as recommended by the Commission.
Ms. Mallek stated that, during the 2005 rural area work sessions, there was huge debate that
ended quickly because of the unanimity of people not wanting to have multiple priorities in the rural area
and wanting agriculture, forestry and conservation to be the top priority. She said this proposed language
backs into it but does not really affirm it, and it would be nice to be more intentional about supporting
agricultural uses.
Ms. Echols said the second objective is, “Support a strong agricultural and forestal economy,” so
one way to resolve Ms. Mallek’s concerns is to put that one first and put the unfragmented land objective
second.
Ms. Mallek said she liked that proposal, as many farmers feel that agriculture is being put on par
with housing as a priority for the rural area.
Ms. McKeel noted that the document indicates 52% of new homes have been built in the rural
area.
Ms. Mallek said that has turned around over the last five years, so it is infilling in the right
direction.
Ms. Dittmar asked if other Board members were in agreement with this proposed language.
Mr. Sheffield said he agreed.
Mr. Boyd said he was somewhat ambivalent about it.
Ms. Dittmar and Ms. McKeel said they liked this balance, and Ms. Dittmar said she would hate to
see the Board jeopardizing the rights of rural landowners that already have development rights.
Mr. Boyd said the key to all of this wordsmithing is how staff will interpret it, and that is why it is
important to continue getting feedback on what they think it means.
Ms. Mallek added that the concern was how it would show up in a staff report about a particular
special use permit.
Mr. Boyd said that is what it is all about, i.e., how the staff report will explain someone’s intention
when applying for a special use permit.
Ms. Palmer stated that the problem she sees with the new language is how it might yield a
different outcome than what Supervisors are expecting, which would mean continued fragmentation of the
rural areas.
Ms. Mallek said that is why the criteria are so important.
Ms. Dittmar suggested another look at the criteria and the uses, and then go back to these
objectives to see how they are working.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Foley said, while there is a lot of wordsmithing going on, those words really are important,
and there is a fairly significant difference in terms of how staff would start out looking at a proposal based
on these two alternatives.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but it would be helpful for staff to indicate in their presentations how they have
interpreted the language.
Ms. Palmer said she appreciated that, but still goes back to what the document language and the
criteria say, which are contradictory.
Ms. Echols said, having heard the Board’s comments, when staff brings back the next draft they
can be more careful as to how they articulate things so the strong agricultural and forestal economy
comes first and is the most important thing; but, in order to support this as well as other goals in the rural
area, they need to have continuous, unfragmented land and the way to have that is to encourage people
who have the development rights to do something different.
Ms. Palmer said protection of the natural resources is an extremely important part of the rural
areas, along with the agricultural/forestal economy.
Mr. Mallek said the natural resources protection is eminently important to the agricultural
economy and, without clean water, there is no agriculture.
Ms. Palmer said that it needs to be mentioned as a “trio.”
Ms. Echols stated that they would address “rural crossroads,” which were highlighted in the
existing Comp Plan in relation to the rural area. She said the Planning Commission felt that the
crossroads should get the same kind of attention that the development areas get and perhaps also having
master plans for those different crossroads communities. She said other Commissioners felt they should
hold off on that, realizing that it would require a significant amount of staffing, and agreed to first work
closely with the residents to identify boundaries and see what things are needed in those communities.
Ms. Echols said the final consideration was to look at the crossroads as potential areas for assembly as a
by-right use instead of a special use. She said restaurants were looked at as being possibly appropriate
in crossroads communities and restaurants, as a topic, and would be considered later in the review. She
said “areas of assembly” started out with the recognition that almost all churches were approved by
special use permit and the Board, in 2009, felt that some criteria could be established so that churches
would not have to go through the SP process in the rural area. Ms. Echols stated that staff had
established some performance standards for churches in the rural area, but the Commission f elt that step
was too extreme and felt perhaps they would be comfortable with rural community centers such as the
Ruritan Meeting Hall, or the Elks Lodges as well as churches being approved for crossroads
communities. She said that was the main difference in that section with the exception of restaurants.
Ms. Palmer said if there is going to be any kind of by-right activity in crossroads areas, it would be
a good idea to put the boundaries of those communities on a map.
Mr. Sheffield said strategy 3A addressed that point.
Ms. Echols said it states, “Identify the geographic limits first,” and the plan was to develop an
actual map which would include meeting with residents.
Ms. Mallek said the Ruritan Hall has been in constant use for 100 years, and asked what special
use permit they would need that the County would not be doing anymore.
Ms. Echols said, if someone wanted to build a new one, it would currently qualify as a “club and
fraternal group,” and would require a special use permit in the rural area.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to have an SP process for new structures, but use of existing
buildings for a meeting hall should be by-right as long as it meets the criteria.
Ms. Mallek said country stores had a differentiation between existing structures which were going
to be renovated and new structures.
Ms. Echols stated that the Board and/or the Commission would most likely want to address that in
the zoning text amendment process and would include parameters around those by-right uses. She said
the Planning Commission had a difficult time coming to consensus on this and felt it needed to know
some more facts. She said, when the Commission got to a ZTA, they would use the term “consider” as a
non-commitment by the County for making a change, but a commitment to think about whether they
wanted to make a change.
Ms. Dittmar asked if churches and fraternal organizations had indicated having problems with
getting new locations. Ms. Echols said what staff has heard is that the special use permit process is
onerous and, in the past, when a church wanted to make an addition of a social hall or restrooms, they
would have to come through the SP process. She stated that there have been two levels of SP activity
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
which many congregations have felt were onerous; one was a brand new church, and one was making a
change to an existing church and there are a number of reasons why those things should be reviewed,
including new entrances.
Ms. Echols pointed out that the Board would be considering a church application later in its
regular meeting.
Ms. Mallek said that is a good example of why the County needs the special use permit process,
adding that citizens are very interested in reinvigorating crossroads communities so they are active for
more than just annual special occasions.
Ms. Echols asked if Board members wanted to make the clarification now about existing
structures or hold off until it gets to the zoning text amendment process. Ms. Mallek said she could wait
for the ZTA process, and asked if strategy 3B would have to conform to the criteria with very little water,
as some of those uses require lots of water.
Ms. Palmer said the Board could consider adopting more flexible regulations for reuse and
renovation of existing historic structures, rather than allowing by-right new structures. She said she would
rather have it in the Comp Plan instead of relying on the ZTA process.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board was comfortable making that dichotomy between new and existing
structures.
Mr. Boyd said he was fine with it.
Mr. Sheffield said he was OK with it, but it would add more work to staff’s process.
Ms. Palmer asked if the churches and places of assembly were only referring to the crossroads
communities.
Ms. Echols said that was the only place where the Commission felt it was appropriate to consider
it.
Ms. McKeel stated that the specific crossroads communities were listed in the document:
Advance Mills, Batesville, Covesville, Free Union, Proffit, Greenwood and Whitehall.
Ms. Echols clarified that the Board’s desire was to emphasize consideration of by-right uses in
those crossroads communities.
Mr. Boyd asked if Stony Point was not considered a crossroads community, as there is a Ruritan
Club there too. Ms. Echols said staff was relying on the crossroads communities study which was done a
few years earlier that identified historic crossroads communities and, in many ways, used to be
development areas with a lot of village residential zoning. She stated that these were village settlements
where there is a lot more going on.
Ms. McKeel asked if there were other communities which should also be recognized. Ms. Echols
said it could say, “or other crossroads communities that are identified.”
Board members agreed.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Ms. Echols for her work, and stated that the Board seemed to need another
work session on the Rural Area section of the plan.
Ms. Palmer said, since the Board would be discussing the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC),
and because the solid waste committee has been formed, she felt it would be helpful for the Board to do
the Comp Plan portion of the solid waste after rural areas but before moving on to the next chapter.
Ms. Dittmar suggested inserting the solid waste discussion in between the Rural Area and
Development Area discussions.
Ms. Echols said she was not sure what the Board wanted to discuss, and was not sure how this
fits into the committee’s work and the specificity of a particular area. She said there is a plan for the
Board to talk generally about that issue in the Community Facilities section, and did not know if
Supervisors wanted to address something related to solid waste which was not Comp Plan-related but
could discuss that separately from the plan discussions.
Ms. Palmer stated that the committee was going to make some recommendations on the Comp
Plan, and she felt it would be a good idea to have some consensus on what the Board wants to do and
also about approaches. She said it might allow the Board to get both things done more quickly. She said
the Board has asked the advisory committee to do work on long-term thinking, however, the committee
does not know where the Board is on it.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Echols clarified that, at its first meeting in August, the Board will try to finish up Rural Areas.
She said, at the second meeting in August, the Board would use at least half of that time for the solid
waste discussion in order to provide direction to the committee. She added that, if the Board is not able
to finish with Rural Areas by the end of the next meeting, Supervisors may want to discuss both Rural
Areas and solid waste in August.
_______________
NonAgenda. The Board recessed at 6:46 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Call to Order Regular Night Meeting.
Ms. Dittmar called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 8. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Mr. Palmer moved to adopt the final agenda as presented. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Mr. Sheffield reported that the US 29 Solutions Advisory Panel would meet the following day,
however, he was unable to attend and the panel does not permit alternates. He said Ms. Mallek had
planned to attend, so there would be a County official present. He reported that Mark Graham would also
attend.
Ms. McKeel said she also planned to attend.
_____
Ms. Palmer reported that she went on a ride-along with a County animal control officer, and was
struck by the volume of work that they have, the animal abuse cases they deal with, the dangerous
situations they enter into, and the social issues they encounter at some households. Ms. Palmer said it
was an interesting experience, and encouraged other Board members and the public to do a ride -along
with animal control or a police officer.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Nancy Carpenter of the Scottsville Magisterial District addressed the Board, stating that she
had attended the highway trust fund meeting with Senators Hurt and Kaine the previous evening and was
struck by the lack of funding for public transit which will impact local bus service. Ms. Carpenter
suggested the Board contact Mr. Jones at Charlottesville Area Transit with a letter expressing concern.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the Board had already sent a letter in that regard.
Ms. Carpenter said she was also concerned about the new shopping center construction in the 5th
Street area, and wanted to ensure that there were some strategies in place by the County to help the
businesses which will be impacted in that area. She also reported that, on July 14 from 1:00-2:00 p.m. at
the downtown Free Speech Wall, there would be a rally in support of the protest against the effort by
companies to transport natural resources through pipelines constructed through some of the most
beautiful country in Virginia to the Cove Point, Maryland deep water port and send those overseas.
__________
Ms. Cyndra Van Clief addressed the Board, stating that she is Albemarle County’s citizen
representative on the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority. She said she was appointed to
the jail board about a year ago to fulfill an unexpired term, and has attended every meeting as well as
Colonel Matthews’ retirement party, and served as a member of the hiring committee. Ms. Van Clief
stated that she has confidence in Martin Kumer’s abilities and his commitment to being the new jai l
superintendent. She said there are improved medical, dental, mental health, education and library
facilities at the jail, and there are relevant programs, i.e., GED and education, Alcoholics Anonymous and
Narcotics Anonymous, and a culinary arts program among others. Ms. Van Clief said these programs are
sound investments which can pay solid dividends in the community and, as a criminal defense attorney,
jail board member and taxpayer, she is pleased to see individuals take advantage of these programs.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
She stated that sometimes the jail is a place of despair, but sometimes it is a place of hope, introspection
and growth and sometimes a cinder block jail cell can become a sacred space.
__________
Ms. Dittmar commented that the Board is hearing really good things about the jail, and expressed
appreciation for her service.
__________
Ms. Carol Milks addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of Rivanna Village but was
speaking on behalf of a neighbor who is requesting public water once that development is built in his
backyard. Ms. Milks explained that the neighbor has been told, in the past, that he does not qualify but,
now that he lives in the area bordering Rivanna Village master development area, he is hoping he now
qualifies.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that Ms. Milks provide contact information to the Board Clerk and offered
to follow up on the matter.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda. Mr. Sheffield moved to approve Items 12.1 (as read)
through 12.3 on Consent Agenda. (Note: Discussion items are included with that agenda item.) Ms.
McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 12.1. Approval of Minutes: August 14, August 21, October 2, October 9, November 6
and December 12, 2013; and February 21, March 27 and April 10, 2014.
Ms. Mallek pulled the minutes of August 14, pages 14 – end, August 21, October 2, and October
9, 2013, and asked that those be forward to the next meeting.
Mr. Boyd stated that he had read the minutes of November 6, 2013, and found them to be in
order.
Ms. Dittmar pulled the minutes of December 12, 2013 and March 27, 2014, and asked that those
be carried forward to the next meeting.
Ms. McKeel stated that she had read the minutes of February 21, 2014, and found them to be in
order.
Ms. Palmer pulled the minutes of April 10, 2014, and asked that those be carried forward to the
next meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read and carried the
remaining minutes to the next meeting.
__________
Item No. 12.2. Earlysville Road (Rte 743) Through Truck Restriction. (Pulled for later discussion).
The executive summary forwarded to Board members state that a request has been organized by
Supervisor Mallek to restrict through truck traffic (truck, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combination,
except pickup and panel trucks) on Earlysville Road (Route 743) between Rio Road West/Hydraulic Road
(Route 631) and Dickerson Road (Route 606). Petitions signed by property owners in the subdivisions
along Earlysville Road were submitted with the request in accordance with the County’s Through Truck
Restriction Process adopted by the Board on December 6, 2000 (Exhibit A). The petitions identified the
terminus points of the restriction and the reasons for making the request. A map showing the proposed
restriction route is provided for reference (Exhibit C).
As outlined in the Process, staff conducted a preliminary assessment of the request based on the
criteria described in the “Guidelines for Considering Requests to Restrict Through Trucks on Primary and
Secondary Highways” adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on October 16, 2003 (Exhibit
B). The assessment focused specifically on the potential reasonableness of an alternate route; the
compatibility of the character and/or frequency of the truck traffic with the impacted area; and whether the
roadway is “residential” in nature, or is functio nally classified as either a “Local” or “Collector” roadway.
The results of the assessment are summarized below.
The alternate route for truck traffic would be US-29, Airport Road (Route 649), and Dickerson
Road (Route 606) (see Attachment C). US-29 is a multi-lane divided highway designed and constructed
to accommodate truck traffic. Airport Road was reconstructed using Airport Access Improvement funds to
create a 4-lane divided roadway and a round-about at Dickerson Road designed to accommodate truck
traffic. Realignment and improvements were also made to Dickerson Road (south of Airport Road) as
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
part of the Airport Authority’s Runway Safety Improvements Project and included a round-about at
Earlysville Road, also built to accommodate truck traffic.
Staff is aware of the past history of citizen concerns for the character, frequency and encounters
with truck traffic along Earlysville Road. VDOT traffic data is available, but the information is from 2012
and would need to be updated. Traffic counts (with vehicle classifications) and other data would need to
be collected and analyzed as part of a detailed assessment.
The VDOT Guidelines consider a roadway residential in nature if there are at least 12 dwellings
(within 150’ on both sides of the road centerline) per 1000 feet of the roadway. Based on the County
mapping data, the average along this roadway is only 2 dwellings per 1000 feet. Therefore, staff has
determined that this roadway is not residential in nature. However, the functional classification by VDOT
is that the road is a rural major “Collector”. This classification allows the road to be considered for
Through Truck restrictions.
The next step in the County Process would be to conduct a detailed assessment. If authorized,
this would entail collecting, analyzing and summarizing traffic and accident data, as well as conducting a
field inspection and documenting the geometric and engineering characteristics of the roadway and the
alternate route. Staff would also attempt to identify and request input from the businesses and industries
currently utilizing this roadway, along with any agencies and business/citizen groups that may have an
interest in this request.
Upon the completion of the detailed assessment, staff will schedule this on a Board agenda, at
which time it will present a report and recommendation to the Board and will request that the Board set
the proposed Through Truck restriction for a public hearing at a later date.
Based on the preliminary assessment, it is reasonably feasible for this request to qualify for a
Through Truck restriction.
If a detailed assessment is authorized, the County will be responsible to procure the services
of a traffic engineer to obtain the traffic count data needed to support this request. The cost would be
in the range of $5,000 to $8,000, depending on the number of counter locations and character of the
study area. This request may also impact staff time allocations to other projects and priorities,
depending on the time commitment needed for and the level of priority assigned to this request.
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with a detailed assessment and to
present an appropriation request to fund the traffic engineer study to the Board for approval at a future
Board meeting.
(Discussion: Ms. Palmer stated that she drives Earlysville Road every day, and asked if the
County was currently having a problem with large trucks or if anyone was concerned about the future, as
she does not see them on there.
Mr. Sheffield said there is an existing problem.
Ms. Mallek said the County has been trying to get large trucks banned for 15 years due to
problems on that road.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board directed staff to proceed with a detailed
assessment and to present an appropriation request to fund the traffic engineer study to the
Board for approval at a future Board meeting.
__________
Item No. 12.3. Board of Supervisor's Rules of Procedure - Amend Rules of Procedure for adding
Action Items to the Final Agenda.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members state that at its regular meeting held on
July 2, 2014, the Board gave notice of its intention to amend its Rules of Procedure. Secti on G of the
Rules provides that the Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next
regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given.
The Rules of Procedure currently provide that the final agenda for a Board meeting can be
amended to add an action item only if the Board member proposing to add the item has given notice of
the intent to do so in writing or by email to all Board members, the Clerk, and the County Executive by
5:00 p.m. two days before the meeting date. Without the required notice, the addition of an action item
requires the Board to suspend its rule for prior notice.
Rule D(2) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure requires that a Board member proposing to add an
action item to a final agenda must give notice of the intent to do so in writing or by email to all Board
members, the Clerk, and the County Executive by 5:00 p.m. two days before the meeting date. The
intent of the rule is to prevent Board members from being surprised by a matter being added to an
agenda for action without advance notice. A consequence of this rule, however, is that even matters on
which all Board members want to take action can only be added to a final agenda for action by
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
suspending the rule requiring advance notice. A suggested Rules amendment to address this
consequence would be to allow matters not otherwise timely noticed to be added to an agenda for action
if there is “unanimous consent of all Board members present”.
This suggested unanimous consent approach would let the Board members self-police matters
that are appropriate to be added to the agenda and any Board member who is not prepared to take action
or believes the public should be allowed notice before an action is taken can simply not consent. Matters
that are urgent or simply make sense to be added to a Final Agenda can be accommodated by the Board
without suspending the Board’s current rule requiring advance notice for adding any matter to the agenda
for action. The Chair, upon a request by a Board member to add an action item not noticed, would simply
ask, “Does any Board member object to adding this matter to the Final Agenda for action?” If there is no
objection, it would be added to the agenda as part of the adoption of the Final Agenda without any other
procedural requirements.
There is no anticipated budget impact from a change in the Board’s Rules of Procedures
outlined above, assuming that existing equipment could allow for the remote participant to be heard at
the meeting where Board members are assembled.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Rules of Procedure as set forth in
Attachment A to amend Section D.2 regarding adding matters for action to the Final Agenda.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following proposed Rules of
Procedure to amend Section D.2 regarding adding matters for action to the final agenda:
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
These rules of procedure are designed and adopted for the benefit and convenience of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors. Their purpose is to help the Board conduct its affairs in a timely and
efficient manner. They incorporate the general principles of parliamentary procedure found in Robert’s
Rules of Order’s Procedure in Small Boards and applicable Virginia laws. The rules of procedure do not
create substantive rights for third parties or participants in proceedings before the Board. Further, the
Board reserves the right to suspend or amend the rules of procedure whenever a majority of the Board
decides to do so. The failure of the Board to strictly comply with the rules of procedure shall not
invalidate any action of the Board.
A. Officers
1. Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if present, shall
preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected. In
addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the head official for all the
Board’s official functions and for ceremonial purposes. The Chairman shall have a vote
but no veto. (Virginia Code §§ 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423)
2. Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if
present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge
the duties of the Chairman during the Chairman’s absence or disability. (Virginia Code §
15.2-1422)
3. Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms;
but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. (Virginia Code
§ 15.2-1422)
4. Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are
absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman.
B. Clerk and Deputy Clerks
The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks who shall
serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set forth in Virginia
Code § 15. 2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted
from time to time. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
C. Meetings
1. Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected members of
the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in Ja nuary of each succeeding
year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall
establish the days, times, and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year.
(Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
2. Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days as has
been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subsequently establish different
days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in
accord with Virginia Code § 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day
falls on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next
regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and declares
that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members to
attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting
date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and to the press
as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be
conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required.
(Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to day or
from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular
meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
3. Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at such
times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjourned from time
to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1417)
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two or
more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of the Board
and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of such call
or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each
member of the Board, the County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall
be in writing and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business, or if
requested by a member of the Board, by electronic mail or facsimile. The notice shall
state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered.
No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all
members are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the
special meeting or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code
§ 15.2-1418) The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such
special meeting and the matters to be considered.
D. Order of Business
1. Agenda. The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in
consultation with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular
meeting of the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent
meditation.
a. At regular meetings of the Board, the order of business shall generally be as
follows:
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda.
9. General Business (To include Public Hearings, Presentations, Work
Sessions, Appointments, and other Action Items).
10. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
11. Adjourn.
A Closed Meeting shall be held whenever necessary. Generally, a Closed
Meeting will be scheduled at the midpoint of the agenda at day Board meetings
and at the end of the agenda prior to adjournment at evening Board meetings.
b. The above order of business may be modified by the Clerk of the Board to facilitate the
business of the Board.
2. Adoption of Final Agenda. The first order of business for a regular meeting of the Board shall
be to adopt a final agenda for that meeting. The Board may modify the order of business as part
of the adoption of the final agenda. In addition, any Boa rd member may propose to add
additional items to the agenda presented by the Clerk for action if notice of that item has been
given in writing or by email to all Board members, the Clerk, and the County Executive by 5:00
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
p.m. two days before the date of the meeting or upon the unanimous consent of all Board
members present. Any such item shall be added to the end of the agenda for discussion or
action unless a majority of the members of the Board agree to consider the item earlier on the
agenda. The final agenda shall be adopted by a majority vote of the members of the Board. No
matter for action not included on the final agenda shall be considered at that meeting.
3. Consent Agenda. The “Consent Agenda” shall be used for matters that do not require discus sion
or comment and are anticipated to the have the unanimous approval of the Board. There shall be
no discussion or comment on Consent Agenda matters. Any Board member may remove an item
from the Consent Agenda. Any item removed from the Consent shall be moved to a specific time
or to the end of the meeting agenda for further discussion or action. A matter requiring only brief
comment or discussion may be considered immediately after the approval of the Consent
Agenda.
4. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. “From the Board:
Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda” shall be the last order of business for
a regular meeting of the Board unless a majority of the members of the Board agree to consider
the item earlier on the agenda. It shall be limited to matters that are not substantial enough to be
considered as additional agenda items to be added to the final agenda. Such matters are not
matters to be acted upon by the Board at that meeting. Routine committee reports and
information updates by Board members shall be presented under this agenda item.
5. Public Comment. The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the
agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, individuals will be
allowed a three-minute time limit in which to speak during the time set aside on the agenda for
“From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda”.
6. Zoning Public Hearings. Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda
for public hearing on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written deferral
request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the week prior to the
scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted administratively by the
Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board package and the deferral will be
announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert the public of the def erral. Any request
received later than the Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a deferral for the
same application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by a
majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board determines that the reason for
the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public caused by the deferral. The staff will
make every effort to alert the public when a deferral is granted.
It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing for a zoning matter should not be advertised until
all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the County and are
available for public review. To achieve this preference, app licants should provide final plans, final
codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents deemed necessary by the Director
of Community Development, to the County no later than two business days prior to the County’s
deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise
applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each
applicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shall not be
advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertise d. If not advertised, a
new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials
being available for review throughout the advertisement period due to a late submittal of
documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are made to the submitted materials
after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board to either defer action
and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to deny the
application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not
forward the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine calendar days prior to the
date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes from being
made to proffers resulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the
public hearing.
E. Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Board. If
during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action can be taken
except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again established, the
meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1415)
A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular
or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from day
to day or from time to tim e, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
F. Voting Procedures
1. Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be made by
approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by
a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not
be further considered. The vote on the motion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall
record the name of each member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member
abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be
announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the
motion voted upon. A tie vote on a motion to approve shall be deemed a denial of the
matter being proposed for approval. (Article VII, § 7, Virginia Constitution)
2. Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all elected
members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or resolution
(1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing taxes; or
(3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1428)
3. Public Hearings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board requiring a
public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may, however, at its
discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or consideration of such
matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public
hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the applicant
shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present its application. Following the
applicant’s presentation, any member of the public shall be permitted no more than three
minutes to present public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any
public hearing. Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more
than five minutes for a rebuttal presentation.
4. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly seconded,
shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on the original motion
unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the
original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before
the Board for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original
motion is again before the Board for its consideration.
5. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member moving
the “previous question”. Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vo te on the
motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman
shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of
the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall tak e precedence over any
other matter.
6. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a motion
to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held on the same
day at which the matter was decided. The motio n to reconsider may be made by any
member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted.
The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for
discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon.
7. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map
amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions shall only
be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by a majority vote of
all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be made by any member
of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The
effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board.
Zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be
rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking
action on such matters as if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration.
G. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next regular
meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
H. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by a majority plus one vote of the Board members
present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Board.
Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. T he effect of the motion to
suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Board.
Provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in
violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any
other applicable law.
I. Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be governed by
Robert's Rules of Order Procedure in Small Boards.
* * * * *
(Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1-4-78; 1-3-79;
1-2-80; 1-7-81; 1-6-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87; 1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91;
1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97; 1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001; 1-9-2002; 1-
8-2003; 1-7-2004; 1-5-2005; 1-4-2006; 1-3-2007; 1-9-2008; 1-7-2009; 1-6-2010; 1-5-2011; 1-4-
2012; 1-09-2013; 1-8-2014; 7-9-2014).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Appeal of ARB Decision: ARB-2014-024. New Hope Church (Deferred
from June 11, 2014).
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that on June 11, 2014, the Board of
Supervisors considered an appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) April 7, 2014 issuance of a
certificate of appropriateness, with conditions, for site improvements related to the final site plan for New
Hope Church (Church). See Attachment C for the June 11, 2014 Executive Summary. During the Board
meeting, the appellant and some Board members voiced concern that tree removal extended beyo nd the
approved limits of disturbance, resulting in a stark appearance that was not anticipated for the Church
site. It was suggested that more trees be added to compensate for inappropriately removed trees, and the
applicant indicated a desire to add trees in the vicinity of the entrance drive to establish a more densely
vegetated buffer. By a vote of 5:1, the Board deferred action on the appeal to allow the applicant time to
revise and resubmit the landscape plan to address the Board’s concerns.
The legal scope of review for a certificate of appropriateness is limited to the specific issue of
whether the site improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The scope of review
is further limited in this case because only a small portion of the Church site – the portion where the
Church entrance is located – is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD).
A landscape plan, revised to address the issues raised at the June 11 Board meeting, was
received and reviewed by staff (Attachment A). The plan addresses the discrepancy between the
currently existing tree line and the approved limits of disturbance and responds to the concern that tree
removal extended beyond the approved limits of disturbance. The plan also shows additional planting to
be provided along the entrance drive to the Church.
Plant removal outside of the approved limits of disturbance
The Additional Proposed Plantings – Detail (See Attachment B) shows that the existing tree line,
depicted in red, and the approved limits of disturbance, depicted in purple, are close to one another. The
separation between the two lines ranges from an average of approximately 10 feet on the south side of
the entrance drive, to between 2 and 10 feet on the north side of the entrance dr ive. The Church has
confirmed that the only plants removed outside of the approved limits of disturbance were saplings and
undergrowth, rather than trees of any significant size.
Additional planting along the entrance drive
Trees and shrubs have been added to the revised landscape plan (Attachment A). Additional
plants on the south side of the entrance drive include 5 Eastern Red Cedar, 2 Sweetgum and 5 Wax
Myrtle. On the north side of the entrance drive, additional plants include 19 Eastern Red Cedar, 2 Willow
Oak, 1 Sweetgum, 1 Red Maple, and 8 Wax Myrtle. The Eastern Red Cedar and Wax Myrtle are
evergreen plants.
Of the plants added to the revised landscape plan on the south side of the entrance drive, one is
located outside of the ECOD. Of the plants added on the north side of the entrance drive, 17 are located
outside of the ECOD.
For easier planting of new trees in the area on the north side of the entrance drive, west of the
ECOD line, and to enhance the health of the new trees, the Church would like to remove the remaining
existing trees in that area. This area is cross-hatched on Attachment A, Sheet L1.1. A note has been
added to the revised landscape plan regarding the tree removal. This area is outside of the ECOD.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Consistency with the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines
The proposed revised landscape plan is consistent with the Entrance Corridor Design
Guidelines. The additional proposed plants are all native plants. The increased quantity of plants,
generally, and the increase in num ber of evergreen plants, will contribute to the transformation of
the graded slope into a more natural setting and will help to more fully integrate the entrance into
the surroundings. The entrance drive and the adjacent landscape will help establish visual order
and an appropriate appearance from the Entrance Corridor.
No changes to the Community Development Department’s appropriated budget are
anticipated as a result of this appeal.
Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2014-24 with the
following condition:
1. Landscaping shall be as illustrated on Sheets L1.1 Landscape Plan New Hope Church
and L2.1 Landscape Details New Hope Church, both prepared by Albiston Associates,
last revised 6-25-2014.
_____
Ms. Dittmar reminded fellow Supervisors that they had deferred this item to allow time for more
work on this.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski , Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that the Board would
be considering the appeal of the Architectural Review Board’s April 7 action on the final site plan for New
Hope Church, which was deferred at the June 11 Board meeting in order to allow the applicant time to
submit a revised landscape plan. She said the plan was intended to address concerns raised about tree
removal which may have occurred beyond the approved limits of disturbance. Ms. Maliszewski stated
that the applicant has submitted the revised landscape plan, which has been provided to the Board and is
shown on the screen. She said the scope of review is limited to the small portion of the church site that is
within the Entrance Corridor overlay district, and is the portion of the site where the church entrance is
located. Ms. Maliszewski presented detail of the area in question on the revised landscape plan, and
noted the limits of the district and the purview of this appeal. She pointed out the limits of disturbance
and the re-surveyed tree line, which has been surveyed since the June Board meeting and the location of
existing tree trunks as of June 18. Ms. Maliszewski said the difference between the re-surveyed tree line
and the earlier limits of disturbance line is relatively small, ranging from two feet to 10 feet along the
entrance drive and this confirms that any plants removed from beyond the limits of distu rbance would
have been saplings or undergrowth, not trees of significant size. She stated that , despite the relatively
small difference between the tree line and the limits of disturbance line, a significant amount of
landscaping has been added to the plan, and plants added since the Board’s last review are shown in
green on the plan. She noted that the additional trees and shrubs would fill in the tree line along the
entrance drive and would help integrate the entrance more fully into the surroundings, a dding that the
planting is expected to have an appropriate appearance from the Entrance Corridor. Ms. Maliszewski
said staff’s recommendation is for the Board to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the New Hope
Church final site plan, with the condition that landscaping be as shown on this plan.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board needed further clarification.
Ms. Palmer said she was grappling with changing the slope from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1, and stated that it
is not consistent with the special use permit granted by the Board from the outset.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board and explained that
staff had looked at the question during the review of the initial site plan and that was considered;
however, there was not a specific requirement for a 3 to 1 slope there. He said the Zoning Administrator
did make the determination that the initial site plan was in general accord with the approved special use
permit, and that is the standard which was required. In consideration of the entrance, he said the county
engineer looked at the question of disturbance of critical slopes, and this speaks to the need to look at
requirements that would reduce the impact on the critical slopes. He stated that, as a part of that, the
county engineer set a requirement for a 2 to 1 side slope rather than a 3 to 1 in order to minimize
disturbance in that area, and that was reviewed as part of the initial site plan and looked at by the Zoning
Administrator for consistency.
Ms. Palmer asked if the special use permit was originally approved by the Board of Supervisors
with a 3 to 1 slope. Mr. Graham said he could not answer that without the SP before him to review but, in
looking at the initial site plan, it was discussed and considered whether it was in general accord and a
determination was made that it was.
Ms. Palmer asked for clarification that, if a special use permit is approved with a 3 to 1 slope, then
there is no requirement in future decisions to keep that. Mr. Graham said this is the question of “general
accord” which is: is the intent of the plan maintained? He stated that it does allow for minor deviations
as long as the intent is maintained, which is what is meant by general accord.
Ms. Palmer asked if the change of slope is a minor change. Mr. Graham stated that, in this case,
it would have been considered a minor change because the plan was found in general accord.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Davis said Mr. Graham is correct. He said, when a special use permit is reviewed by the
Board, there is typically a plan that accompanies it and a condition of the special use permit typically says
that the “use must be developed in general accord with the site plan.” He said, if a specific condition
addressed the slope and said, “no slope shall be greater than 3 to 1,” then it would be required to come
back to the Board if the applicant was proposing a slope of 2 to 1. Mr. Davis said, if it is only shown on
the site plan, the Zoning Administrator would have to determine whether the change took the site plan out
of general accord with what the Board saw as part of its review process for the special permit review
process. He stated that, in this instance, the Zoning Administrator looked at the plan accompanying the
special use permit, verified that there was no special condition applicable to the slope requirement, and
made a determination that the change in slope left the site plan in general accord with what had been
submitted and approved by the Board.
Ms. Palmer said the Board has been told that the BZA never saw the minutes or the plan as
approved by the Board of Supervisors with the 3 to 1 slope.
Mr. Davis explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals never considered the me rits of this
application because it was determined that the BZA did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. He said
what was appealed to the BZA was the site plan approval. Mr. Davis said, under Virginia law, County
ordinance, and State Supreme Court decisions, there is no right to a third-party appeal of a site plan
approval so a neighboring property does not have the right to appeal whether a final site plan or a
preliminary site plan was properly approved by the County. He stated that the BZA simply made a
determination that it had no ability to hear the complaint because it had no jurisdiction to do so under
Virginia law, as to a third party. He added that what the BZA saw or did not see was not relevant
because it could not have decided the merits of the case regardless.
Ms. Mallek said it seems like the Board is hearing both sides of the argument here, and the
reasons for the neighborhood angst is they see one thing written in the code, but it has created confusion
because the procedures do not match. She said the 3 to 1 and 2 to 1 slopes are all in the purview of the
ARB, and what is appropriate here is that, when it was approved originally, even though the plans were
conceptual in an initial phase, there was a curve in the driveway and a verbal representation that the land
owned by VDOT on the corner was going to cover the driveway because of the curve of the road. Ms.
Mallek said the driveway is using half of that VDOT property, and this is one of the shifts from when the
Board saw it previously. She added that the term “general accord” has gotten the County into trouble
because the Board and citizens do not know about those changes.
Ms. Dittmar suggested the Board talk about that particular aspect under Matters from the Board,
and asked Mr. Davis to clarify the deferral parameters.
Mr. Davis explained that the matter comes to the Board as an appeal of an ARB decision and,
under the County’s ordinance, the Board hears it in the same manner that the ARB heard it which is to
determine whether the proposed development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines of the
Entrance Corridor. He pointed out that it is not a determination as to where the driveway should be
located, as that is a site plan issue which has already been determined. He said the Board may reverse
in whole or in part, or modify the approval of the ARB; but what is before the Board is a very limited
portion of the site which only includes the driveway. He said the ARB had looked at it and found it to
meet the design guidelines with proper landscaping. Mr. Davis stated that the Board is required to give
due consideration to the findings, and staff’s recommendation is that this has satisfied the ARB design
guidelines with the modified plan as presented since the last hearing on this m atter. He emphasized that
the Board’s decision is very limited: whether this small portion of the site satisfies the design guidelines.
He said the site plan issue is a separate matter which is not before the Board, and staff’s
recommendation is to approve it as proposed.
Ms. Palmer asked how the Board could modify the opinion of the ARB. Mr. Davis explained that
the Board has the legal authority to either approve, affirm, or approve with conditions so, if the ARB had
put conditions on it, for example, the Board could modify approval with diff erent conditions as long as
those conditions were reasonable and related to the scope and purpose of the ARB review.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are conditions which exist related to the replacement of trees that die in
the Entrance Corridor, because one of the consequences of changing the slope is that major trees requir e
soil to hold their roots and, with a very steep slope, it is unlikely the water will be sufficient to keep the
greenery alive. Mr. Davis said ARB approval is part of the site plan approval for this project, and there is
a very specific requirement in the zoning ordinance that any landscaping required by the site plan must
be maintained in a healthy condition. He said, if it fails for any reason, it must be replaced and, if that is
not done, the applicant will be cited for a zoning violation which will be enforced by zoning staff. He noted
that, if for some reason they cannot get the landscaping to live there, the applicant would have to come in
and ask for a site plan amendment, which would go back to the ARB and back to the site plan process.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board wanted to hear again from the applicant and the appellant. Mr.
Davis suggested having the appellant first, then the applicant.
Mr. Chuck Boldt addressed the Board, stating that he resides at 5260 Piney Moun tain Road. Mr.
Boldt said the choices made by the church and the County have had consequences which have led them
there tonight, and one of those choices was allowing staff to disturb critical slopes. He stated that, in
order to grant an approval, the Board must consider what the ARB thought would happen after the initial
approval along with whatever else it feels is appropriate in making the decision. Mr. Boldt said four
questions were posed from Mr. Foley’s executive summary on the matter from the previous May: do any
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
deficiencies exist with the proposed entrance; are the design guidelines met with the detail required ; does
the proposed entrance promote visual order within the Entrance Corridor, and does it reintegrate the site
into the surrounding rural environment; and is the proposed landscaping appropriate and does it
contribute to an organized development appropriate for the Entrance Corridor in a rural area. Regarding
what deficiencies exist, Mr. Boldt said the slope in the initial site plan and ARB approval was 3 to 1, and
the Board approved a site plan from the ARB with a 3 to 1 slope; 2 to 1 is something staff did, and the
critical slopes at the entrance were not shown to the ARB in their initial decision – those appeared later –
and because those appeared later, it is his contention that the applicant should have come back. Mr.
Boldt stated that he provided the Board with an explanation as to why Section 18.4.2 Critical Slopes has
not been complied with, and his attorney agrees that his analysis is accurate. Regarding the design
guidelines being met with the detail required, he said those have been met with regard to plant type, but
adequacy and extent is different. Mr. Boldt said he has sent the Board a number of things that would
make the plan acceptable if implemented, and he is distressed to hear he has no standing on a site plan
approval which affects him. He stated that the only standing he has before the Board is a certificate of
appropriateness, and the minute the Board acts, he has no standing to appeal anything done
administratively. Mr. Boldt stated that a k ey element of what he wants the Board to do is have the final
site plan approved by the Board.
Ms. Palmer asked if the original approval of the SUP specifically mentioned the 3 to 1 slopes. Mr.
Boldt said the SUP did not mention the 3 to 1, but it also did not include critical slopes at the entrance,
and staff said there were no critical slopes beyond the 1,300 square feet that the Board approved. He
stated that the ARB saw the 3 to 1 slope, but it did not consider alternatives because critical slopes were
not shown on the plan that was reviewed; those showed up later. Mr. Boldt said the workaround from
staff was to make an administrative decision of what he considers a Board decision, and what his
attorney considers a Board decision as well.
Mr. Ed Blackwell addressed the Board, stating that he was the engineer for the church and
stating that they would like approval of the landscape plan. Mr. Blackwell said they have gone over and
above the normal landscaping requirements for an entrance. He said the fence is put up very close to the
disturbance limit so they cleared where they were supposed to and went back and put in additional trees,
as well as landscaping for the entrance. He stated that they have been to the ARB twice – once with a 3
to 1 slope and once with a 2 to 1 slope – and, during the initial site plan approval, there was a suggestion
to go to a 2 to 1 slope to lessen the disturbance, which they agreed to do. Mr. Blackwell said the ARB
concurred with that opinion and, in his mind, there has not been an issue up to now. He stated that they
would like to go forth with the plan as presented, and feel that the trees and shrubs as proposed would
grow in well.
The Chair then closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Boyd said this is the third or fourth time that he has heard this proposal, and what they have
here is a dispute between neighbors. He stated that, in these situations, he tends to rely on a staff of
experts and, every time, they have come back and recommended that the Board deny the appeal. Mr.
Boyd said there has been a lot of discussion about this particular issue over months and months, and he
was in favor of denying the ARB appeal.
Ms. McKeel stated that she tended to agree at this point, but wanted to hear f rom Ms. Mallek as
well, because she has been very involved with this situation.
Ms. Mallek said seeing it with one’s own eyes makes it completely different than seeing it on
paper, and this is a good example as to why the process was changed since this project was approved,
and also to require neighborhood meetings with special use permit applications. She said the Planning
Commission had suggested that doing so was very important because it is such a rural area, and having
meetings with neighbors to understand their concerns would have resolved all of this beforehand. Ms.
Mallek said perhaps this is not a “big project,” but it is incredibly important to those who live there
because, instead of being out in the middle of nowhere, there would be hundreds of cars going in and out.
She stated that the neighbors have tried repeatedly to address concerns, without any success, and that is
why these numerous attempts have been made to have a voice. Ms. Mallek said the ARB was
concerned that the plans they were seeing were not the same as those the Board approved, and that
consistency is important to her, as she would like to know when the Board votes on an SUP that the plans
represent something. She stated that, if the Board cannot count on the information it is given, it creates a
trust issue, and there have been many changes since then that are not relevant to the ARB issue but are
relevant to the final site plan issue which will need to be addressed.
Ms. Palmer said the appellant would like to ensure that the final site plan happens correctly, and
asked if the Board could do an approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Davis said he would not recommend it, because it goes well beyond the scope of the ARB
certificate of appropriateness process. He said whether or not that is a condition that is reasonable to
determine whether the landscaping plan has been shown as approved would be beyond reasonableness
in his opinion.
Ms. Palmer asked what the recourse for the neighbors would be if it does not happen the way it is
shown on the plan. Mr. Davis said, if the landscaping is not put in place when the plan is developed, it
would be a site plan violation, and the Zoning Department – upon complaint or otherwise – would require
landscaping to be installed as required in the plan. He noted that, if the final site plan were brought back
to the Board, all it would see relevant to this application would be the exact same plan again.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Ms. Mallek said she was talking about the site plan for the entire church area, which would show
the plantings on the other borders are missing. Mr. Davis said that was beyond the scope of the ARB
certificate of appropriateness.
Ms. Dittmar said that was for later, and there would be an approval process for that. Mr. Davis
confirmed that was correct.
Ms. Mallek said it would not be before the Board.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she had done a site visit, and met with the appellant as well as
representatives from the church. She said she could understand why people were concerned about this,
and the critical slope issue Ms. Mallek is mentioning is relevant to this discussion. Ms. Dittmar pointed
out that there were a number of churches further down that same road, and those churches had chosen
to do driveways that came immediately in so the buffer area was the front area which they controlled.
She said she does not know a lot about landscaping, but the pine trees are very spindly, and asked if this
would grow up and hide all of that.
Ms. Maliszewski said she did not know if it would “hide” all of it, but a more accurate description
would be that it would fill it in.
Ms. Mallek asked what possible suggestions there might be since so much of the buff er is on
property owned by VDOT and in effect, by approving this, the Board is allowing someone to use a buffer
which they do not own or control. She said, to her recollection, this is the first time this has happened in
her tenure on the Board. She said perhaps there are things the applicant would volunteer to do to assure
this was going to go forward properly, because that is all within 500 feet of the highway and is part of the
ARB distance.
Mr. Davis stated that the VDOT property is not part of the site plan, so there is no reliance or
control over the VDOT property. He said the site plan only addresses the property which is owned by the
applicant and is under their control.
Ms. Mallek said the real shock is that three-quarters of the entrance is on VDOT property. Mr.
Davis stated that the portion of the property that the applicant has under their control would be covered by
the site plan, but anything beyond that would not.
Ms. Dittmar said she had spoken with the pastor of the church and the appellant about the
importance of getting together and talking these things through, and much of this could have been
avoided with planning and with the neighbors kept in mind. She stated that she has encouraged them to
get together before they begin looking at designs for the buildings.
Mr. Boyd said there was a similar situation with a church in his district several years ago and,
while he would agree that neighbors should talk, sometimes you cannot settle these disputes.
Ms. Mallek asked what future buffer requirements were applicable when the gas line was installed
in order to maintain the integrity of the plan. Mr. Davis said the requirement would be to maintain the
landscape plan so, if there is temporary construction of the gas line, they may disturb that landscaping but
it would have to be replanted and reestablished pursuant to the plan.
Ms. Mallek said it would not have a five-year limit, but would be into perpetuity.
Mr. Graham said it would be applicable as long as the property was developed under this site
plan. He said staff has seen this a number of times where electrical or water lines had to be dug up, and
the requirement is to reestablish the landscaping per the approved plan.
Mr. Davis stated that the staff-recommended motion is to approve the certificate of
appropriateness ARB 2014-024 with the one condition as recommended.
Ms. Palmer moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness ARB 2014-024 subject to the
one recommended condition. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion failed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
Mr. Davis said, if you move the motion, it is out of order for you to vote against it. Ms. Palmer
retracted her motion.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Davis for an interpretation of what would happen with a 3:3 tie. Mr. Davis
said the motion to approve is denied.
Mr. Boyd asked what the next course of action would be. Mr. Davis said the matter before the
Board is an appeal from the ARB, and it is before the Board to make a decision. If the certificate of
appropriateness is denied, he said the applicant could appeal the matter to the Circuit Court or submit an
alternative plan for ARB review.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Mallek stated that she would hope the church would work with the neighbors and develop a
new plan which they would take to the ARB.
Mr. Mike Henderson, Pastor of New Hope Church, addressed the Board, stating that there are
over 300 shrubs and trees on the entrance alone which is more than are in place in front of Kohl’s, Target
and Harris Teeter on Route 29. Mr. Henderson stated that they have exceeded the requirements and,
according to federal law, no jurisdiction can require them to exceed that. He said he has already spoken
to federal and local counsel, and there was a law passed in 2000 because it was felt churches were being
taken advantage of and were being burdened with too many restrictions and requirements. He stated
that the church has volunteered from the outset to do excessive landscaping, and it does not seem to
make a difference. Mr. Henderson said he did not know how they could get any more shrubs and trees
into the entrance. He stated that the church is having a difficult time understanding why they cannot get
approval.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Sheffield and Ms. Palmer to share what would satisfy their concerns, and
emphasized that what the Board is voting on is whether the view from the Entrance Corridor was
compromised by what the applicant has done with the landscaping.
Mr. Sheffield said there is not enough vegetation that can be installed to satisfy the ARB
requirement, and it is the nature of where the entrance is aligned with the corridor. He stated that, while
they are not talking about a site plan issue, it is tied to the ARB issue. He said his decision has to be
based on the vegetation, and the entrance location is forcing the shrubs and trees to be put in a certain
place.
Ms. Palmer said she was not asking for more trees; she had a problem with the ARB and the site
and the plan, and where the driveway is and she did not know how to resolve this other than sending it
back to the ARB. She stated that she was concerned about the cost to both the appellant and the
applicant, and would like them to get together and work it out.
Ms. Dittmar said she has the sense that the Board is concerned about the visibility issue from
Route 29 in addition to its dismay over larger issues having to do with process, and it is unfortunate that
the Board is not narrowing its focus to the task. She stated that, if this is the way to get at those larger
issues for a greater good, she would like to know what the options are for both the applicant and the
appellant.
Mr. Davis stated that, if this decision stands before the Board as denied, the applicant has the
choice to appeal the decision to the Circuit Court or submit a revised plan to the ARB for further
consideration.
Ms. Maliszewski said, if this does go back to the ARB, she would like some direction as to what
the Board expects the ARB is to be looking for in a revised plan.
Mr. Davis said, because of the irregularity in the motion, he would suggest the Board re-vote the
item.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB 2014-024 New Hope
Church with the one condition as recommended by staff. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was
called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
Ms. Dittmar commented that the Board now has its clarity.
Mr. Davis said the Board actually does not, because a motion to approve which fails is not
definitive.
Mr. Boyd said this is why he asked what the motion should be, because he would have made a
different motion.
Mr. Davis said there was the assumption that there would be approval.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board could add a condition that the final site plan come back to the
Board, even though it is irregular. Mr. Davis said that was possible, however, there would need to be a
second condition which states: “Final approval of the site plan shall be subject to Board of Supervisor
approval.”
Ms. Mallek said that would be the entire site plan for the property, which would settle everything
and get all the other issues on the table because all of the other elements in this plan go across the
ARB’s area of purview.
Mr. Davis stated that he wanted to correct his earlier statement, and indicated that there is a
denial when there was a motion to approve which was denied so the matter is denied.
Ms. Mallek asked if the answer would still be no for getting the final site plan for the entire project
to come back before the Board to ensure all of the elements of concern were addressed. Mr. Davis said
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
his advice would be that the entire site plan could be before the Board, but the matter for the Board’s
consideration would be the ARB’s scope of that site plan.
Ms. Mallek said, if things proceed more collaboratively and questions are answered, she would
be glad to work on it some more.
Ms. Dittmar summarized that the Board sent back something that the ARB said was OK with
them even before the Board asked for this enhanced landscaping plan. She said, now, the Board is
sending back the plan the ARB had already approved with an enhanced landscaping plan that the Board
also denied. She asked what Board members wanted to say to the ARB as the applicant re-approaches
them.
Mr. Graham explained that this will be guidance to the ARB on how it should treat all future
applications, with the application of the entrance design guidelines. He stated that this is not a unique
circumstance but the County must be consistent, so whatever guidance is given will be done with all
future applications.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was an ordinance or policy to allow an applicant to use part of a
neighbor’s property for their entrance or buffer without it being presented to the Board and discussed as
part of the special use permit. Mr. Davis said, unless there was a specific condition dictating where the
entrance had to be located, it would have to be located in a place which was in general accord with the
site plan submitted with the special use permit. He stated that staff has already determined – and it is a
final decision – that the location of the driveway is in general accord with the approved special u se permit.
Mr. Davis said, at this point, the driveway is located where they ha ve a legal right to locate it and, while
they could choose to relocate it, they are not required to do so.
Ms. Mallek asked if that was the case even if it was not on their property. Mr. Davis said, as long
as it meets the zoning ordinance requirements, it can be where it is located, and he is assuming that has
been determined.
Mr. Graham said the driveway design been approved for that location by both staff and VDOT as
part of the initial site plan, and that location was found to be acceptable.
Ms. Mallek expressed surprise that this was done without any easements or approva l coming to
the Board.
Mr. Foley said it seems the discussion for this, as Mr. Graham has suggested, could set some
precedent for some new policy and some new guidelines for review and, for that reason, it may be best to
spend a little more time on this to ensure the Board does not make a decision it does not fully understand.
He stated that he would like to get together with staff and take what they have heard and figure out how
to bring it back so the Board can be well-informed about some direction which the Board gives that could
set precedent for reviews coming before the ARB.
Ms. Dittmar said she was hoping this particular application would go back to the ARB, with the
appellant and applicant having some guidance, and she was not sure what the timeline would be for the
staff review.
Mr. Foley said that is a challenge for them but, otherwise, the Board would need to decide
tonight, so staff would need to bring this back to the Board at its next meeting.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the Board wanted to vote to reconsider this and postpone the decision
based on the precedent it was setting. Mr. Davis stated that if the Board did not want to make a final
decision tonight, he would suggest there be a motion to reconsider and bring it back before the Board.
Mr. Sheffield said he was not aware of the precedent and would like to get advice from both
Planning and the County Attorney’s office.
Mr. Sheffield moved to reconsider the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB 2014-
024. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Davis said the matter was before the Board again, and the motion would be to defer it to
August 6, 2014.
Ms. Mallek moved to defer consideration of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB 2014-024
until August 6, 2014. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion and added clarification that the motion to defer
is for two pieces of information: the legal implications of setting the precedent as well as the ARB
precedent. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
_______________
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: SP-2013-000019. Tandem Friends School (Sign #84).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
Proposal to allow for an increase in enrollment and staff capacity from 260 to 300 people and the
replacement of a gymnasium on 24.508 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: R-1 Residential – (1 unit/acre) under Section 18.13.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for private schools.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Institutional – schools, universities and colleges and ancillary
facilities and public facilities and utilities; Urban Area 4.
LOCATION: 279, 285, 295 and 305 Tandem Lane.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09100-00-00-002A0.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 2014.)
Senior Planner, Scott Clark addressed the Board, stating that this is a request for a special use
permit amendment, with the original request being for an increase in enrollment and staff capacity at the
existing Tandem School from 260 to 300 people and to replace the existing gymnasium with a larger
gymnasium. He stated that the parcel is located on Mill Creek Drive directly across from Monticello High
School, and presented a map of the property as it is now and the existing gym building which would be
replaced under this proposal.
Mr. Clark presented the conceptual plan for the amendment, noting that the change to the site
would be for the existing 8,000 square foot building be replaced with an 18,000 square foot field house
and gym. He presented detail for the landscape design for the parking lot to be located next to the
building. Mr. Clark said, in addition to building the new gym in the same location, the applicant requests
an increase in student and staff enrollment from 260 to 300. Regarding public health, safety and welfare,
and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, staff analysis did not show any significant impact on
health and safety from the addition of the building, and VDOT did not feel the increase in staffing and
enrollment would create any significant impact on Mill Creek Drive. Mr. Clark said the use as designated
in the Comprehensive Plan would remain the same – institutional – as it would remain a school. He
stated that staff did not carry out any road design analysis because the only change was the replacement
of the gym in the rear of the site. He reported that, at its June 3 meeting, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the amendment with the conditions as presented. He said staff is
recommending, under condition 3, that just enrollment be expanded to 250, rather than addressing
students and staff, in order to maintain consistency with other SPs for private schools.
The Chair opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Paul Erb, Assistant Head of School at Tandem School, addressed the Board and said that
they would appreciate the Board’s approval.
Ms. Mallek asked if he was OK with the change in the condition addressing enrollment numbers.
Mr. Erb said he was, as it was just correcting an erroneous number.
Ms. McKeel asked him about a comment he had made previously regarding the school
anticipating “the 5320 Consortium” getting together to talk about mutual interests. Mr. Erb said that was a
question about whether they were in the Monticello viewscape, and the 5320 is a Consortium of
interested parties for Route 53 and Route 20, who get together casually for lunch occasionally to make
sure everything is going OK. He added that the school is not in the Monticello viewscape.
The Chair invited other public comment.
There being none, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Dittmar moved to approve SP 2013-0019 Tandem Friends School Field House subject to the
conditions recommended by staff. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. The development of the use shall be in general accord with the concept plan entitled, "Tandem
Friends School Campus Plan Study Site Plan,” prepared by VMDO Architects, and dated April 3,
2014 by staff, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the specified plan, development and use shall reflect the following major
elements as shown on the plan:
• building orientation
• building size
• location of the buildings
• limits of disturbance
• parking-lot layout and landscaping
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing may only be authorized by a new
special use permit; and
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
3. Total school enrollment shall be limited to two hundred and fifty (250).
_______________
Non-Agenda. At 8:26 p.m., the Board recessed the meeting, and then reconvened at 8:33 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: ZMA-2013-00012. Rivanna Village.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 079000000025A0; 080000000046A0; 08000000004600;
080000000046C0; 080000000046D0; 080000000046E0; 08000000005000;
08000000005100; 080000000052A0; 080000000055A0; 093A1000000300; and
093A1000000400.
LOCATION: 3677, 3701 and 3721 Richmond Road; 3760 and 3738 Cumbria Lane. Intersection of
Route 250 East (Richmond Road) and Glenmore Way.
Proposal to rezone TMP 80-51 and 80-52A from Rural Areas zoning district which allows
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to Neighborhood Model
District (NMD) which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with commercial service and
industrial uses. Also, request to amend proffers, Code of Development and the application plan
from approved ZMA2001-008 zoned NMD which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) mixed with
commercial service and industrial uses. 400 maximum residential units proposed including
apartments, townhouses, attached and detached single family at a density of 4.2 units/acre. A
maximum of 60,000 square feet of non residential uses is also proposed which would include
commercial, office and retail uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
PROFFERS: YES. C
OMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Town/Village Center- Small commercial, office, retail, service uses;
park and recreation amenities; residential at no greater than 6 units/acre. Public Open Space-
Parks, greenways, trails, and other public open spaces.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 2014.)
The executive summary forwarded to Board members state that on May 6, 2014, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the application for the rezoning amendment and modifications for
the Rivanna Village property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this ZMA and
modifications with the expectation that the following be provided/addressed prior to the Board of
Supervisors meeting:
1. Revision to Proffer #3 (See attached action letter- Attachment D) to address concerns
from the community regarding the location of the construction entrance.
2. Technical corrections to the proffers, application plan, and code of development as
recommended by Staff.
During the Planning Commission meeting the community raised concerns about the location
of the construction entrance onto Glenmore Way. They requested that the entrance be placed off of
Route 250, however, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) stated that the safest location
is off of Glenmore Way and they would not permit an entrance off of Route 250 (See Attachment E).
The Planning Commission voted 7:0 to recommend approval with the condition that Proffer #3 be
modified to include language that would require the applicant to make improvements on Route 250
that would allow a construction entrance, if VDOT would approve the entrance at this location.
On May 27th, upon request of a Board of Supervisor Member and Planning Commissioner for
the District with which Rivanna Village is located, the applicant, Community Development Staff,
County Attorney Staff, Fire and Rescue Staff, representatives of VDOT, the Board Member and
Planning Commissioner met to discuss the construction entrance and other issues raised at the
Planning Commission meeting at the VDOT residency. During this meeting VDOT reiterated its
position concerning the construction entrance, and stated that studies were done to confirm that the
safest location for the construction entrance would be off of Glenmore Way. VDOT reaffirmed that an
entrance permit for a construction entrance off of Route 250 would not be granted. Based on the
VDOT position regarding the construction entrance the applicant offered to mitigate the impacts of the
construction entrance for the community by offering to proffer additional measures and w orked with
County Staff to submit a proffer (Proffer #10) that requires the applicant to develop a detailed
Construction Management Plan (See Attachment A). The applicant did not revise the language of
Proffer #3, due to the information provided by VDOT that an entrance permit or signal will not be
granted for a construction entrance.
In addition to the concerns with the location of the construction entrance, the community also
raised concerns with the proposed entrance of Steamer Drive onto Glenmore Way. The community
indicated that they would like to see this road revised to a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission
discussed this issue at length, and ultimately decided to recommend approval of the plan with the
connection because of concerns that the Fire Station would need the additional entrance to keep a
through movement during an emergency call.
During the May 27th meeting, Fire and Rescue stated that the entrance is not needed, and
that making Steamer Drive a cul-de-sac would not impact the response during an emergency call.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
In response to the communities concerns regarding Steamer Drive with the information
provided by Fire and Rescue, the applicant has revised the application plan to allow, if the Board is
acceptable, Steamer Drive to be a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac will impact the 70 foot buffer provided
along Glenmore Way. (See Attachment C) The buffer has been offered by the applicant to help
mitigate the impacts of the development to the surrounding community and is not a required buffer.
Staff believes the expectations of the Planning Commission in making their recommendation
have been addressed and recommends that the Board approve ZMA2013-012 Rivanna Village with a
revised date of June 9, 2014 (Attachment C), Code of Development dated June 9, 2014 (Attachment B),
and the signed proffers dated June 13, 2014 (Attachment A).
Staff also recommends approval of the modifications that were previously granted, and
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, as outlined in the action letter dated June 2,
2014 (Attachment D) and further discussed in the Planning Commission staff report.
_____
Ms. Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that this is a request to
amend ZMA 2001-008, which is currently zoned Neighborhood Model District, in order to reduce the
environmental impacts on the property. She said the applicant is also requesting to rezone two additional
parcels – TMP 8051 and 8052A from Rural Areas (RA) to Neighborhood Model and, in total, the
properties consist of 94.76 acres. She said this amendment would reduce the maximum number of
residential units from 521 to 400, and 120,000 square feet of non-residential to 60,000 maximum. Ms.
Yaniglos said the applicant is also requesting approval of the modifications previously approved with ZMA
2001-008. She presented an overview map of the parcels requested for amendment and/or rezoning,
and noted the two parcels requesting rezoning from RA to NMD. She said these parcels were included
as part of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan, shown as “Village Center,” but were not part of the original
rezoning because the applicant did not own the parcels at the time. She said the parcels were shown on
the application plan, however, they were just grayed out, and the additional 1.7 acres are designated for
Village Center. She stated that the reduction in the maximum number of units overall reduces the
impacts and the full build-out of the existing zoning plan.
Ms. Yaniglos presented the application plan, and the proposed plan versus the approved 2001-
008 plan, noting the differences in the residential and commercial proposed. She stated that the open
space and park acreage proposed has 31.68 acres: 18 of public park and approximately 13 of open
space and trails, adding that the earlier plan had just the 18-acre park. She added that this proposal
reduces the environmental impacts to the stream buffers and wetlands by locating them mainly in open
space. Ms. Yaniglos reported that what occurred after the Planning Commission was that proffer 10 was
added to help address the community’s concern with the location of the construction entrance off o f
Glenmore Way by providing a construction traffic management plan, and the application plan was
amended to allow for Steamer Drive to be a cul-de-sac instead of a through-street, which would impact
the proposed buffer along Glenmore Way. She said Fire and Rescue has stated that Steamer Drive
could end in a cul-de-sac and would not impact response during an emergency call. She stated that the
Planning Commission recommended the street remain a through-street due to concerns about fire and
rescue, so this has cleared that issue up.
Ms. Yaniglos presented facts favorable to the application: the proposal is in conformity with the
recommendations in the Village of Rivanna Master Plan; it is in conformity with the Neighborhood Model;
proffers offered are in conformity with what was previously approved and have the additional proffer to
address concerns about the construction entrance; the density has been reduced, which was an issue for
the surrounding community during the original rezoning; a fully developed public park is offered to the
County; and the proposed development has been redesigned from the prior approval to mitigate impacts
on streams and wetlands. Based on these factors, she said staff recommends approval.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, reported that she had been working on the project since
2001 so, if anyone is in need of the chronology, she has that available. She explained that the Village of
Rivanna as a development area was approved in 1989, and there was a proviso in the Comprehensive
Plan amendment which indicated that there would be no comm ercial uses. In 1996, she said they
updated the plan but carried through all the 1989 language regarding the Village of Rivanna. In 2001,
she said Frank Kessler proposed a Comp Plan amendment, which was made at a time when the
Neighborhood Model was just being adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and there was interest in more
mixed-use developments and a mixed-use community. She stated that the application made for the CPA
was for a mixed-use center that was significantly larger than what became of it in the mas ter plan. Ms.
Echols said there was no land use category at the time, so there were questions about the mixed-use
center, and the category chosen was “Community Service,” but there were restrictions on that designation
because the mixed-use area did not fit neatly into a Community Service or Neighborhood Service
category and those two categories are what would have been in the 1996 plan, but different than where
the master plans are headed today. She stated that there was a lot of discussion over how this should be
categorized but, instead of just blanketing the designation for “Village Center,” the Comp Plan
amendment was adopted with the map color but also a lot of text and images which described what the
expectation was going to be. She said the expectation was for 240,000 square feet and no more than six
dwelling units per acre. She explained that a Community Service designation would normally be 6-34
units per acre, but this was kind of a hybrid and was worked into what was approved for the Comp Plan
Amendment and the specific approval of the text that was included.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Ms. Echols stated that this CPA was to be the first in a series of several things that happened,
with the next being a rezoning – ZMA 2001-0008 – but it did not get approved until 2007 and took quite a
while to get through the process. She said, when the rezoning got approved as “Rivanna Village at
Glenmore,” it was approved for no more than 240,000 square feet of non-residential, and no more than
six dwelling units per acre, and was generally in accord with the approved Comprehensive Plan. She
stated that there were a lot of concerns from the community at the time of the rezoning, with many people
who were not present when the CPA took place, and they took their concerns to the Planning
Commission and said that a master plan was needed. Ms. Echols said a master plan was done for the
Village of Rivanna at the time, and there were still concerns about the Community Service designation
which got changed in the master plan to a Village Center designation, with the description being it would
be based on the rezoning that had been done except it would be no more than 125,000 square feet of
non-residential, and also relied on the ZMA which had no more than six dwelling units per acre gross
density. She said there were several other properties in the rezoning which did not have the Community
Service designation, but they were designated for Neighborhood Density Residential, and the Planning
Commission and Board at the time said that was acceptable because the uses proposed on those
properties were residential at no more than three to six units per acre. She stated that, although there
were additional properties added, there was no change in use; the change was in design. Ms. Echols
presented text from the master plan which described the characteristics of the “Village Center,” and noted
the progression from 1989 up to the 2010 adopted master plan, and is what this particular rezoning
proposal has been evaluated against.
Ms. Yaniglos stated that the legal ad and advertisement did not include the fire station parcel, but
there are no substantive issues in moving forward with the application before the Board, as shown on the
ZMA.
Mr. Davis explained that the proffers do not include the fire station parcel, and the underlying
zoning is consistent with the master plan, so a review has determined that it is not essential to be
included as part of this ZMA.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, stated that staff would further deliberate as to whether to
bring that property in and get it included in the zoning at a later date, but there is not a substantive issue
with the project as reviewed today.
Mr. Boyd said he recalled a big discrepancy at the last rezoning over the inclusion of a ball field
and whether it would be a regional park or a community park . He said it looks like there would be a
finished park as part of this process, but he was not sure what type of park it would be. Ms. Yaniglos said
it would be a community park, and would be dedicated to the County.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she has owned property in the Village of Rivanna area since it opened,
having moved there in 1998. She said, at the Planning Commission meeting, there were some concerns
raised which she would share with the Board after the public hearing. Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Davis what
the Board is legally focused on in this particular consideration.
Mr. Davis said the property is currently zoned Neighborhood Model District, as it was rezoned in
2007 and, under that plan, they have established property rights to develop that plan unless the zoning
has changed. He said this application is a request by the applicant to voluntarily reduce the density –
both the residential density and the non-residential density of the property – and, if the Board denies the
rezoning request, the property remains Neighborhood Model District with the higher density for both
residential and non-residential. He stated that the choice for the Board is to leave it zoned as it is, with
the right to develop it as it is, or to approve the requested rezoning, which would reduce the densities.
Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. Yaniglos to re-post the slide showing the difference between the 2007
rezoning and the current proposal.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long, an attorney with Williams & Mullen, addressed the Board and stated that she
was representing Rivanna Village, LLC. She introduced Andrew Boninti, principle of the firm, and said
the entire project team was present at the meeting to answer questions and address any issues that may
be brought forth. Ms. Long said she appreciated the work done by Ms. Dittmar, Mr. Davis, and County
staff on the application. She explained that this is a rezoning, an amendment to the existing zoning, and
their main goals are to reduce the density, reduce the amount of non-residential space, and to improve
the protection for environmental resources by preserving nearly all of the streams in the project. Ms.
Long stated that, with the new proffer #10 regarding the construction traffic management plan, the
Glenmore community would strongly prefer that the construction entrance not be located off of Gl enmore
way. Ms. Long said they are aware that VDOT has looked at the issue very thoro ughly and, in an effort to
mitigate any impacts should the entrance be located there, they have added the new proffer to require
that, prior to any construction activity taking place , a construction traffic management plan be approved
by the County and VDOT and be implemented. She said those measures would include construction of a
paved entrance, having a flagman present, having a truck wash-down station, and provision of a shared
use path to ensure there is adequate pedestrian access and access for bicyclists and equestr ian riders.
Ms. Long said the applicant has worked very hard to address those concerns and fully understand that
the residents may not be comfortable with that approach. She added that the applicant has also included
a new change to their plan to convert the vehicular interconnection to a cul-de-sac at Steamer Drive and
Glenmore Way to reduce the number of interconnections there. She noted that the Fire and Rescue
Department, County Planning, and VDOT have all confirmed their support for that.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Mark Keller of Terra Concepts addressed the Board and presented a video animation of their
proposed new community. He stated that the application was aimed at reducing environmental impacts,
density, traffic and a host of other aspects associated with the previously approved rezoning action. Mr.
Keller said they strove to maintain the neighborhood model and Main Street feel, but let the land dictate
where to develop and what places to work around. He presented a map showing the location of the
property, noting the location of Charlottes ville and Glenmore, and pointing out the main street where the
core of the community resides. He noted the location of the fire station site and said a new water tower
would be built there soon. Mr. Keller said single-family homes are located on smaller ridges further into
the site and, while some areas of the property appear to be densely developed, this proposal represents
a 23% reduction in residential density, and a 52% reduction in non-residential square footage. He stated
that, with less density comes less traffic, and stated that their main street runs through the most densely
developed portion of the community terminating at a large centralized park. Mr. Keller said intermittent
stream beds, an old stone quarry, and other special or sensitive areas such as wetlands are to be
preserved in open space, most of which have been set aside as parkland to be dedicated to the County,
nearly 32 acres in all. He said the central park hosts a basketball court, tot lot, tennis courts, pavilions,
restrooms, a playfield, a dog park, water features, docks and a trail system.
Mr. Keller highlighted the special features of their proposal, pointing out the main entrance to
Rivanna Village and stating that the main entry is inside the community and not directly on Glenmore
Way. He said several cross streets are envisioned to be promenades, which means they are intended to
be both vehicular and pedestrian friendly, and to serve as neighborhood gathering spaces. Mr. Keller
said those could be blocked to traffic during events and have special paving, if the County permits them
to be private roads. He stated that the parking for these units is already p rovided to the rear of the
structures, and the Village Center is where most or all of the non-residential units would be incorporated,
and, ideally, they would be mixed-use structures which include boutique-scale retail, offices, and
residential units. Mr. Keller said the central park is directly across the street from the Village Center and,
from the pavilions, one can watch a tennis match, have a picnic, or see a soccer game. He stated that
rezoning to Neighborhood Model provides for some degree of flexibility and, at the same time, sets limits
on what can and cannot be done with a property. He said what he presented was the applicant’s current
vision for the property and, overall, the applicant feels the vision will result in Rivanna Village being a
pleasant place to live, work and play.
Mr. Dennis Odinov addressed the Board, stating that he is Chairman of the Village of Rivanna
Community Advisory Council and lives in the Scottsville District. Mr. Odinov said Mr. Boninti and his team
have been extremely cooperative in meeting with residents, discussing their concerns, and answering
questions and have even changed several aspects of the code of development in response to those. Mr.
Odinov said the council is generally in support of Rivanna Village but has some issues, which will be
presented later by other residents. He stated that the council has become very frustrated and
discouraged with the process, specifically the lack of transparency when changes are made to the ZMA
process which result in contradictions between the Comp Plan and master plan and what the final ZMA
says. Mr. Odinov said the Comp Plan says that villages and the Village of Rivanna shall have the
“expectation of neighborhood-scale services,” but the Comp Plan does not document the change and
what it is for. He stated that they waste a lot of time trying to find out whether violations have occurred,
and they should not have to go through the archives of the last 13 years to find the origin of these
variances. Mr. Odinov said the lack of clear documentation and public record often results in anger,
misunderstandings, and wasted time, and the history of the ZMA abounds with these frustrations.
Ms. Dottie Barton addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of th e Village of Rivanna
and a member of the advisory council, living in the Scottsville District. Ms. Barton said, at the Planning
Commission meeting, a map was presented showing Steamer Drive as a through-street, and the council
requests that it be a cul-de-sac, as the developer would like. She stated that, as a through street, it
connects to nothing except Glenmore Way, which is not part of Rivanna Village. She said, while part of
the neighborhood model is connectivity, this road as a through street would create a traffic nightmare and
a dangerous situation. Ms. Barton said people coming out of that exit from Rivanna Village would have to
make a right onto Glenmore Way and then shift over two lanes to make a left on Route 250 to head into
Charlottesville.
Ms. Betsy Gohdes-Baten addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of Glenmore and
serves on the Village of Rivanna Advisory Council. She said, when the 2007 ZMA for Rivanna Village
was approved, the neighborhood density designation specified for development areas in the County was
3-6 units per acre. At a work session prior to the public hearing, she said a Planning Commissioner
asked the applicant to change the per-acre residential density from 3-6 to 4-6 units, and the applicant
agreed but there was no documentation as to why this change was made. She stated that , at that point,
Rivanna Village became the only Neighborhood Model development with a nonconforming density
minimum, and there appears to be no rationale for this other than a desire to pack more dwellings into the
development area and this is another example of County government disregarding its own policies. She
asked that they restore density minimum to three units per acre, stating that it will not affect the density of
the present application but would place Rivanna Village in conformity with the Neighborhood Model. Ms.
Gohdes-Baten said the present applicant’s original plan called for 242 residential units, with almost 40%
of the available land devoted to parks and open space and, if that plan had been acceptable, she would
not be here. She stated that, since the four dwelling units per acre minimum was approved by the Board
in 2007, the ZMA application now calls for 400 units which is an overall residential density of 4.2 units per
acre on roughly 90 gross acres in Rivanna Village. She stated that the problem is, the entire 90 acres is
not suitable for development, and landscape features such as a quarry pond, wetlands, intermittent
streams and parklands reduce the actual acreage suitable for development to 51 acres. Ms. Gohdes-
Baten asked the Board to consider that the 2007 ZMA sets aside only 17 acres and, at that time, 70 acres
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
were planned for development with a maximum of 521 units which resulted in a net density of 7.36 units
per acre. She said the present ZMA application, with a maximum of 400 dwelling units on 51 developable
acres, yields a net density of 7.8 units per acre and, at maximum density, the new plan will appear denser
than the old plan even though there will be fewer units.
Mr. Neil Means addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Village of Rivanna and a
member of the advisor y council. Mr. Means said the staff report indicates that the proposal is “in
conformity with the recommendations” of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan, and the council believes
that statement to be inaccurate and misleading. He stated that the applicant is requesting rezoning of two
parcels – 8051 and 8052A from RA to NMD – and, in the master plan on page 31, it says, “Approval of
any development by rezoning will be predicated on the completion of a number of transportation
improvements to improve the volume to capacity ratio of US 250 between Louisa Road and
Charlottesville. Addressing traffic issues on US 250 is the highest priority for the Village of Rivanna. It is
essential that all of the US 250 improvements be constructed before new development occurs in the
village.” Mr. Means said, among other projects, the improvements include widening Route 250 to four
lanes between I-64 and either Milton Road or Glenmore Way, and that requirement in the master plan is
very important to village residents and the council. He stated that it is painfully obvious to residents that
Route 250 has been over-capacity for many years, and the current ZMA was adopted in 2007 before the
master plan; and shortly thereafter, during the master planning, a study of traffic data from 2005 was
released from the Thomas Jefferson District Planning Commission, VDOT and the County. Mr. Means
said the study documented that, in 2005, Route 250 was seriously over capacity. He said that is why the
master plan requires widening Route 250 before further rezonings in the Village of Rivanna. He said
8051 and 8052A are small parcels and they do not want to create a precedent for other developers. He
emphasized that, if the Board decides to disregard the master plan, the council would appreciate them
justifying its actions clearly and on the record. Mr. Means said the rezonings of those parcels should be
denied and, while staff says that “accommodation was made for inclusion of the parcels in the Village of
Rivanna Master Plan,” there is no mention of that in that master plan. He stated that he wonders if
someone at the County promised the previous owner that additional parcels not yet owned would be
rezoned by a future Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Richard Wagaman addressed the Board, stating that he lives in the V illage of Rivanna and is
part of the advisory council. Mr. Wagaman said he wants to address trust, expectations and common
sense and the first element of trust is having good plans which people understand, and referenced the
County’s Comp Plan dated January 23, 2014, the Village of Rivanna Master Plan dated May 12, 2010
and the current ZMA. Mr. Wagaman said, throughout the plans, neighborhood services were used and
the residents agreed and, tonight, they expect the Board to stand behind those plans. He stated that the
plan states the housing density should not exceed six units per acre, and residents agree and expect the
3-6 units per acre to be honored. Mr. Wagaman said the key to Rivanna Village’s success is traffic flow,
to and from the urban core, and residents agree. He stated that their last Supervisor and Al bemarle
staff’s expert said the level of service on that road was currently F during certain times of the day, and it is
getting worse – not better – day by day. Mr. Wagaman said nothing has been done since 1989 and,
while VDOT does not want Rivanna Village traffic to exit off of Route 250, the council does not agree. He
stated that construction traffic using the only road from the County’s easternmost emergency center is a
risk, and putting Village of Rivanna families and friends at an unnecessary risk and they expect the
County to help eliminate this risk.
Mr. Trevor Joscelyne addressed the Board, stating that he is President of the homeowners
association at Glenmore, the Glenmore Community Association, and is speaking to the Board on their
behalf. Mr. Joscelyne said he would address the subject of construction traffic, and stated that they
generally do not have many problems with the Village of Rivanna plan but do have issues with the
construction traffic. He stated that there are t wo entrances planned for the Village – one off of Glenmore
Way and one off of Route 250, and what they need is to ensure the second entrance from Route 250 be
available to use at the beginning of the project so construction traffic does not have to come down
Glenmore Way which is the only access for the whole of the Glenmore community, as well as the only
access for the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, the equestrian center, the Glenmore Country Club,
and residents of Ashwell Lane. Mr. Joscelyne said there are 4,000 to 4,500 vehicles per weekday hours
using Glenmore W ay, and recent traffic counts, with schools not in session with lower than average
numbers showed 4,100 average vehicle trips per day, or 300 per hour. He emphasized that it is a heavily
used road, and the y also have 12% of residents using Glenmore Way for walking, biking and horseback
riding. He stated that they have held three previous meetings where residents have expressed their
concerns very clearly. Mr. Joscelyne said 900 residents have signed a petition asking for a second
entrance for construction traffic, and said that everybody is on board with that except VDOT, which
apparently feels this is not the right thing to do. He encouraged the Board to pass a resolution urging
VDOT to open the second entrance on Route 250 so construction traffic can use it during the project.
Ms. Judy Summer addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of Glenmore in the
Scottsville District, and is confused about what is actually going to happen on the 94 acres. She said they
saw a video from the applicant that specifically showed buildings, including multi-story structures, yet the
block by block description says the principal use of Block A would be residential uses that will most likely
include single-family detached units; Block B would most likely include single-family attached villa style
units; Block C is envisioned primarily for residential uses, and will likely be rear -loaded and accessed by
alleys; Block D will likely be contained; Block E is envisioned to be developed with townhouse units; Block
F is envisioned to be developed with townhouse units; Block G and Block H are envisioned; Block I is
primarily residential uses and will likely include; Block J will be a community park, and also a number of
residential units that will most likely involve single-family attached units. She asked if this was the option
of the developer that, once they get started, whatever was said does not matter because of the use of
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
terms “likely” and “envision.” She said she would be more comfortable if they knew exactly what the
developer planned to do where.
There being no further public comment, the Chair asked if the applicant wanted to speak to any of
the issues raised.
Ms. Long stated that the Comprehensive Plan does speak to 3-6 dwelling units per acre for this
area, but speaks expressly to “gross density” as opposed to “net density,” which means that all land is
taken into consideration even that which may be environmentally sensitive and may or may not be
undevelopable. She said, by her map and based on the number of units proposed, the gross density has
a range of 2.8 dwelling units per acre to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. By contrast, she said what is
permitted now under the approved rezoning is a minimum of 348 dwelling units and a maximum of 521 –
which equates to a range of 3.68-5.51 so they contend that the density is clearly consistent with the
Comp Plan. Ms. Long stated that, regarding the two parcels currently zoned RA, which are proposed to
be rezoned to Neighborhood Model District to match the rest of the property, the parcels were not owned
by the original developers at the time because they wer e tied up in court in probate but they were clearly
shown and outlined on the application plan approved in 2007. She said, in the code of development, they
are noted as “under contract” to Glenmore Associates, and there is an explanation within that code which
explains the intention to include them along with a caveat that, upon ownership, the developer will have to
come back in and seek a rezoning of those parcels. Ms. Long referenced a page from the 2010 master
plan, noting that the parcels were shown as part of the Village Center, which matches the outline of
Rivanna Village so the master plan designates them as part of the center, which is Rivanna Village. She
said not only were they contemplated to be included, the master plan designates them as being part of
the plan. She added that the comment by the previous speaker as to what is “envisioned” for each block
is accurate, but what is also included in the code of development is a table of uses with the code
effectively acting as a zoning ordinance for any Neighborhood Model District zoning. Ms. Long said the
code of development will control what uses are allowed in each of the different blocks, and it controls how
many dwelling units and how much square footage is involved in each one. She stated that Blocks A and
B, which are the closest to Glenmore Way, are planned to include single-family detached units and
attached villas, respectively, but the code of development does permit a few other uses, and they could
change those around or have townhouses there. Ms. Long emphasized that the code of development is
flexible, but the Board has the ability to see the options, know what it is approving and be comfortable
with that amount of flexibility.
Ms. Dittmar closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Ms. Dittmar said she has been immersed in this project and had recently met with the citizens’
advisory committee for Rivanna Village, in a meeting that was attended by current and former Planning
Commissioners. Ms. Dittmar said the frustration expressed by the advisory committee chair is not finger-
pointing, and both the committee and Glenmore association have worked many hours on this project.
She stated that, since the Planning Commission’s approval, there was a second entrance and some
concern that the fire department might need it, so she was pleased that Chief Dan Eggleston waived their
need to have that access. Ms. Dittmar explained that, several years ago, Planning Commissioner, Bill
Edgerton, asked that this go from 3-6 to 4-6 dwelling units, and the reason was to seek higher density in
the development area in an effort to protect the rural area.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the precedent was here to develop the additional 1.7 acres before the
improvements were done on Route 250.
Ms. Echols stated that her recollection is that the original application showed that area as being
part of the rezoning but they did not own the property so the County indicated that they tak e the parcels
off of the plan because one cannot make a request to rezone property it does not own. She stated that
the streets, the access and odd shape of some of the parcels implied that access could be
accommodated through the Village of Rivanna and, with all of those contributing factors when the line
was drawn for the master plan in 2010, that area got included but was not officially under review as part
of the rezoning in 2007.
Ms. Palmer asked if that was the property in probate at the time, and Ms. Dittmar confirmed that it
was.
Ms. Dittmar said what Board members are being asked to do tonight is to add language to protect
the County from having this considered as precedential in terms of contradicting the master plan. She
stated that the big issue which remains is the construction entrance and said that, in January, VDOT
issued a formal letter stating that it would not permit the Route 250 entrance with some discussion of
doing two deceleration lanes, installation of a light, etc. Ms. Dittmar said she worked with Joel DeNunzio
on this, and the answer came back from VDOT repeatedly that they would not permit the road – only
Glenmore Way, which is the only entrance in and out of the community. She stated that, after the
Planning Commission meeting, the County invited the safety engineers and other representatives from
VDOT to explain why and VDOT indicated that they did not want to assume liability for that construction
entrance, however, if things changed, they would reevaluate it. Ms. Dittmar said there is an effort
underway to get others to look at it, and the Board has also looked at a resolution to ask VDOT to be
more open-minded about it. She asked for input from Planning staff on the concerns raised regarding
terminology such as “envision” and “possibly.”
Ms. Yaniglos explained that this section of the code of development was a general description of
what could occur in the blocks and, further in the code, it does go into detail which is what staff evaluates
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
during the site plan process regarding what uses are allowed per block. She referred Supervisors to
page 7 and 8 of the code of development, as it clearly specifies which uses are allowed per block or SP
uses and, if it is blank, those uses are not allowed in those blocks. Ms. Yaniglos stated that on, page 10,
it specifies the densities on each block – a minimum and maximum residential and non-residential density
– and there are also lot regulations on setbacks, minimum lot sizes, number of stories and maximum
height of buildings later in the document. She said planners evaluate proposals based on what is in the
code of development, specifically the tables with those parameters outlined.
Ms. Dittmar asked staff to review the specifics of proffer #10.
Ms. Yaniglos provided proffer #10 on screen, and explained that the intent is to install temporary
traffic control signage above and beyond what is typically required, provide the asphalt-paved entrance,
provide a wash-down area with the paved construction entrance, have a flagman present to aid large
truck access to and from the site, clean the intersection of Glenmore Way at the construction entrance
every evening if necessary, and provide the homeowners association with weekly updates of anticipated
construction activity for the week. She stated that the applicant would also submit the construction
management plan to Community Development, with the director, county engineer and VDOT all providing
input. She said the proffer also includes a statement about the entrance onto Route 250 if VDOT
reevaluates it and makes a decision that a construction entrance can occur at that location.
Ms. Palmer said VDOT must have some criteria for deciding that would be unsafe, and asked for
comments as to what that was.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio of VDOT addressed the Board, stating that VDOT would like to have the
safest access during construction for all residents and for all users of Route 250 and Glenmore Way. He
said VDOT is looking at the intersection of Glenmore Way and Route 250, the construction entrance, and
the future entrance down Route 250 east. He stated that VDOT looked at the corridor and considered the
type of traffic coming in and out of the entrance, and felt strongly that it is safest if cars come in at the
existing signalized intersection. Mr. DeNunzio noted that vehicles access about 750 feet off of Steamer
Drive to come in the construction entrance. He said VDOT is willing to look at this on a dynamic basis,
and could make alterations if the variables change; however, at this point and in looking at the two
proposed entrances, the safest location for the beginning of construction is access through the existing
signal.
Ms. Palmer asked if that might change as construction ensues and if it could be made into a full
commercial access.
Mr. DeNunzio explained that, at first, a lot of earth-moving equipment is brought in, is mobilized to
the site, and stays on the site so there are not a lot of those vehicles coming in and out. He said they
would start building the roads, and some of the reasons for accessing there versus down to the east is
that most of the materials are coming from the Charlottesville area. He said when those vehicles are
coming out Route 250 going through the existing intersection and coming down a hill and accessing
through there, VDOT feels it is much safer for the vehicles to access off of Steamer Drive. Mr. DeNunzio
said, once the roads get developed, they will have the commercial entrance onto Rt. 250 and that will be
open to all traffic at that time, including construction traffic. He stated that if safety issues develop after
this starts, VDOT will reconsider, but they do not want to put themselves in a situation with proffers that
puts anybody in a bad situation should there not be these issues. Mr. DeNunzio stated that his concern is
if they have proffers that require moving a construction entrance from Glenmore Way to Rt. 250 – just
with a commercial entrance opening, closing all construction traffic to Glenmore Way – that might put
VDOT in a bad situation if the safety issues mentioned never occur. He said VDOT could actually be
introducing issues that have not been a problem so far, by requiring it to move to Route 250.
Ms. Mallek said, if there were a commercial entrance further east and a truck was exiting from
there and heading west toward Charlottesville, it would be an uphill pull.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that a few hundred feet down the road, it starts going up at a 4-5% grade,
and that is one of the concerns with having traffic head back toward Charlottesville , adding that any time
a new intersection is introduced onto a road, there will be an increase in crashes. He confirmed that the
speed limit on Steamer Drive is 25 mph and that drive is about 700 feet up so, if someone is coming up
the hill on Route 250 either way and coming in the entrance there, it would be difficult for a construction
vehicle to actually get very much speed in that distance before turning into the construction entrance.
Ms. Dittmar said one of the parts of the construction management proffer is inclusion of a
protected path for joggers and walkers, which currently exists as you enter Glenmore but, once leaving
there, one would have to go out onto the road so this new path would help resolve that.
Ms. Long said the path has not been designed yet, but the proffers are written in a way so that
issue is addressed as part of the review of the construction plan, noting that there is a path shown on the
application plan located within the 70-foot buffer. She stated that the path has always been in the plans
and would have been required anyway but, as part of the discussions on construction traffic, they
designed the proffer to say there is an adequate shared-use path somewhere in that area and, if not, they
will build it somewhere else, perhaps even wider than originally planned. Ms. Long said they tried not to
lock that in because they did not want to make the decision without input from people.
Ms. Dittmar asked when the weekly updates with the Glenmore Community Association would
begin. Ms. Long said the construction traffic management plan proffer requires weekly updates, so it
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
could start as soon as any construction activity begins. She stated that Mr. Boninti and his team have
worked hard to maintain open lines of communication with the Glenmore residents, community advisory
committee, and lots of individuals, and that would continue. She added that they would work hard to go
above and beyond plan requirements to make sure everyone has sufficient information.
Ms. Palmer said one speaker had asked about the cul-de-sac and Steamer Drive, and if that had
been worked out already. Ms. Long said it had been worked out, and pointed to its location on the plan
as shown – a vehicular interconnection – which says “potential future cul-de-sac.” She stated that, if the
Board agrees, they will convert it to a cul-de-sac. She said the applicant originally wanted to change the
plan to show that, but the Planning Commission had wanted to leave it as a through-road due to fire
concerns and give the Board an opportunity to consider that issue independently. Ms. Long added that
the owners are very willing to make that change.
Mr. Sheffield said he looks at this from a transportation perspective, and does not ever see this
warranting two traffic signals. He stated that he was not convinced that the current lane configuration
would be able to handle the turning movement onto Route 250, and he had concerns about the proffers in
the sense that they may not be able to handle the amount of traffic taking a left when a signal is installed.
Mr. Sheffield said this is not something to be considered here, but Glenmore Way is going to
become a major intersection on Route 250 and it needs to be something that the County addresses for
the future as part of larger transportation dynamics in the area.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio, Resident Highway Engineer, said there was a traffic study revised for this
development, and VDOT reviewed it with the average queue on Glenmore Way in the development being
95 feet, or about five cars. He said the study did not show the need for dual left turns or any
improvements to the intersection. He stated that the biggest problem is that there are no dual receiving
lanes on Route 250 for those left turn lanes but, if there were, what they have coming out from Glenmore
Way is one right turn lane, one left turn lane. He added that, since it is a three-way intersection, there is
no reason they could not share the rightmost right turn lane and make it a left and right turn so one would
have the dual lefts when needed, and then it is just a matter of putting the signal post out.
Ms. Mallek stated that it is a substantial improvement based upon the 2007 plan for the trails and
the wetlands to keep those streams exposed rather than being in pipes, which will help with stormwater
and a whole lot of other enjoyment issues.
Ms. Palmer said she was fine with the proposal, but was not sure if the Board needed to change
the cul-de-sac issue.
Mr. Davis stated that there is a motion as prepared by staff which would include that as part of the
motion along with the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board, stating that staff has
prepared three resolutions for the Board’s consideration: the ZMA resolution, which will memorialize the
Board’s action if its decision is to approve the ZMA and also addresses the special exceptions originally
approved with ZMA 2001-008. He said the third key issue this resolution covers is stating the Board’s
consideration of the precedent which might be set by rezoning the 1.76 acre parcels from RA to
Neighborhood Model District (NMD), and states why this particular situation is unique, so the Board’s
action would not set a precedent. He said the second resolution goes back to the 1990 Glenmore ZMA,
which was followed by another ZMA, and those earlier zoning map amendments had proffered 27 acres
for a school site or public facilities. He said, when ZMA 2001-008 was considered, with the proffer for the
park, the applicant requested and the Board approved a resolution which memorializes the fact that the
due park proposed satisfied the “public facilities” component of the original ZMA. He said this ZMA does
the same thing – it proffers the park space, it clarifies the acreage which will be devoted to the park, it
includes some other specifics – and staff is recommending approval of this resolution, which also deems
that the proffered park for this ZMA satisfies the earlier Glenmore proffer for the school site. Mr.
Kamptner said the third resolution is a request to VDOT to continue considering the eastern entra nce as
circumstances may change as the site develops, so the entrance permit may be considered and
approved as soon as determined to be appropriate. He stated that it also supports the Glenmore
Community Association’s efforts in pursuing approval for the entrance permit with VDOT. As requested
by Ms. Dittmar, Mr. Kamptner read the resolution regarding the 1.7 acres not being precedential.
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the resolution approving ZMA-2013-0012 and the special exceptions
related thereto with the addition that Steamer Drive end as a cul-de-sac. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the application of Rivanna Village, LLC, to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and
Parcel Numbers 07900-00-00-025A0, 08000-00-00-04600, 08000-00-00-046A0, 08000-00-00-046C0,
08000-00-00-046D0, 08000-00-00-046E0, 08000-00-00-05000, 08000-00-00-05100, 08000-00-00-
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
052A0, 08000-00-00-055A0, 093A1-00-00-00300 and 093A1-00-00-00400 (the “Property”) is identified as
ZMA 2013-00012, Rivanna Village (“ZMA 2013-00012”) for a community known as “Rivanna Village”; and
WHEREAS, 93.0 acres of the Property are zoned Neighborhood Model District, subject to the
code of development, application plan and proffers approved and accepted in conjunction with ZMA
2001-00008 on June 13, 2007, and ZMA 2013-00012 proposes to amend the code of development,
application plan and the proffers applicable to the Property; and
WHEREAS, 1.76 acres of the Property, comprised of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 08000-00-
00-05100, 08000-00-00-052A0, are designated Town/Village Center in the Village of Rivanna Master
Plan and are zoned Rural Areas, and ZMA 2013-00012 proposes to amend the zoning map and change
the zoning of those parcels from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Model District, to be added as part of
Rivanna Village, and to be subject to the amended code of development, application plan and pr offers
applicable to Rivanna Village; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2013-00012 would reduce the maximum number of residential units allowed on
the Property from 521 to 400 and the maximum square footage of non-residential structures from 120,000
square feet to 60,000 square feet, and would make other amendments to the code of development, the
application plan, and the proffers that were approved in conjunction with ZMA 2001-00008; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing for ZMA 2013-00012 on July 9, 2014 after notice
was provided as required by Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285, and Albemarle County Code
§ 18-33; and
WHEREAS, the Board also considered at the public hearing for ZMA 2013-00012 the owner’s
request for special exceptions that would modify zoning regulations pertaining to yards, parking and
loading, signs, recreation, outdoor lighting, and swim, golf and tennis clubs as set forth in Attachment D to
the Executive Summary, which had previously been approved in conjunction with ZMA 2001 -00008.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that upon consideration of the material and relevant
factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284, including the consideration of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan,
the executive summary and reports prepared by the County’s planning staff, and the comments and
information received from the public, and for the purposes of public necessity, convenience, ge neral
welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby amends the
zoning map and approves ZMA 2013-00012 with the code of development dated June 9, 2014, the
application plan dated June 9, 2014, and the proffers dated June 13, 2014; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in rezoning Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 08000-00-00-05100
and 08000-00-00-052A0 from Rural Areas to Neighborhood Model District, the Board is mindful that the
Village of Rivanna Master Plan states that “approval of future development should be monitored in
conjunction with improvements to US 250 and available sewer capacity so that approval of new units or
uses does not exceed capacity of the sewage treatment plant or the road system” (page 4) and “in
addition to sewer limitations, approval of any development by rezoning will be predicated on the
completion of a number of transportation improvements” (page 32); however, although these
improvements have not been made, rezoning these parcels as part of ZMA 2013 -00012 would not
establish a precedent because these parcels were anticipated for future inclusion within Rivanna Village
when ZMA 2001-00008 was approved, as reflected in their inclusion on the application plan for that
rezoning and being designated for “Potent ial Future Development,” the parcels are adjacent to the other
portions of Rivanna Village, and ZMA 2013-00012 reduces the maximum number of dwelling units and
commercial intensity allowed and, therefore, the impacts from Rivanna Village are less than the potential
full buildout under ZMA 2001-00008; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the special exceptions for the modifications set forth in
Attachment D to the Executive Summary for ZMA 2013 -00012 are approved, based upon the Board’s
consideration of the relevant factors set forth in Albemarle County Code § 18-33.9 and the specific
sections being modified, and the executive summary and reports prepared by the County’s planning staff,
including those prepared for these modifications, in conjunction with ZMA 200 1-00008.
_____
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the resolution finding that the land and improvements proffered in
Proffer 6 of ZMA 2013-00012 provide the public facilities envisioned by Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 and
that Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 is satisfied to at least an equivalent degree. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 (Glenmore), originally accepted as a proffer for the
rezoning of Glenmore ZMA 1990-019, stated that the owner, Glenmore Associates, would donate
approximately 27 acres of land to the County or its designee for a public school or other public use
facilities as the County may select, together with an appropriate right of way; and
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
WHEREAS, Proffer 6 of ZMA 2001-00008 (Rivanna Village at Glenmore) stated that the owner,
Glenmore Associates, would, at its expense and at the request of the County, engineer, construct, and
dedicate in fee simple to the County a park comprising approximately 18 acres, which would be platted
with the first plat for Rivanna Village at Glenmore, and all of the park improvements described in the code
of development would be built or bonded prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 174th
residential unit within Rivanna Village; and
WHEREAS, the County desired the park proffered in Proffer 6 of ZMA 2001-00008 to serve the
residents of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the land referred to in Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 was part of the land rezoned under
ZMA 2001-00008 and, as a result of such rezoning, the land offered by Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999 -016 was
no longer available for public facilities uses; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with its approval of ZMA 2001-00008, the Board adopted a resolution
finding that the land and improvements proffered in Proffer 6 of ZMA 2001-00008 would provide the
public facilities envisioned by Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 and that such land and improvements were
deemed to satisfy Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 to at least an equivalent degree and that neither Glenmore
Associates nor its successors nor assigns would have any further obligation with respect to Proffer 2 of
ZMA 1999-016; and
WHEREAS, Proffer 6 of ZMA 2013-00012 (Rivanna Village) restates Proffer 6 of ZMA 2001-
00008 but amends certain terms including that the park will comprise 18.4 acres and will be located in
Block J, and that all of the park improvements described in the code of development will be built or
bonded prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 137th residential unit within Rivanna
Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors finds
that the land and improvements proffered in Proffer 6 of ZMA 2013-00012 provide the public facilities
envisioned by Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 and that such land and improvements are deemed to satisfy
Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016 to at least an equivalent degree; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that neither Glenmore Associates, Rivanna Village LLC, nor their
successors nor assigns, shall have any further obligation with respect to Proffer 2 of ZMA 1999-016.
_____
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the resolution requesting that VDOT continue to evaluate whether an
entrance permit at Route 250 and Butterfield Lane should be issued during the development of Rivanna
Village to allow construction traffic to use that entrance. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was
called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the application plan approved in conjunction with ZMA 2013-00012 for Rivanna
Village shows an eastern entrance designated as Butterfield Lane from Route 250 into Rivanna Village;
and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) previously determined that it
would not issue an entrance permit at Butterfield Lane to serve construction traffic during the
development of Rivanna Village (the “decision”) and, as a result, construction traffic will use Glenmore
Way, subject to a construction traffic management plan proffered by the owner of Rivanna Village, subject
to approval by the County’s Department of Community Development; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Glenmore are concerned about the construction traffic using
Glenmore Way during the construction of Rivanna Village and these concerns are primarily focused on
safety and congestion on Glenmore Way; and
WHEREAS, the Glenmore Community Association and Glenmore residents have stated that they
will continue to request that VDOT reconsider its decision, and the Board supports these efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
requests that VDOT continue to evaluate whether an entrance permit at Butterfield Lane should be issued
during the development of Rivanna Village to allow construction traffic to use such an entrance and that it
reconsider its decision based on changing conditions, traffic data, or other justifications that may arise
during the development of Rivanna Village.
_____
Ms. Dittmar thanked all involved parties.
_______________
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointment of three additional representatives to the Long Term Solid
Waste Solutions Advisory Committee.
Note: All appointments were made following the Closed Meeting at the beginning of the Board
meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Sheffield said he shared his frustration with fellow Board members and Mr. Foley over the
scheduling of early meetings. He stated that, in looking at past trends, the Board in 2013 had only five
meetings before 5:00 p.m. and, in 2012, there were seven meetings before 5:00 p.m.; this Board has had
17 meetings before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Sheffield said he works a full-time job from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and
has had to make up all time taken off so it is becoming difficult for him with that many meetings. He also
stated that, if the Board has enough time in advance to schedule a meeting, he can make arrangements,
but he needs to be able to plan for those a little better.
Ms. Palmer said the Comp Plan work sessions could be moved to another evening meeting.
Mr. Sheffield stated that leaving 15 minutes early to get to a Comp Plan meeting is not a problem.
Mr. Foley said it is the Comp Plan meetings which have created the difficulty and, in the future,
the Board may decide to hold regular work sessions, but now, that slot is filled every single meeting.
Ms. McKeel said the issue is the total number of meetings, not just Comp Plan meetings.
Mr. Foley said he understood how difficult it was to manage meetings when Board members work
full time jobs, and he has been frustrated with trying to manage this calendar with all of the projects . He
added that a lot of things the Board has asked to talk about that they do not have time to do. He stated
that he has been talking with staff about what they do not have to bring to the Board, and they are
working together as partners to figure out how to deal with this. He stated that these are not things staff
has created to bring to them, and everyone needs to figure out a solution.
Mr. Sheffield said he just needs to make sure that meetings are scheduled far enough in advance
so Supervisors can plan for them.
Mr. Foley said upcoming items that must be discussed include the economic development office
and the firearms training facilit y. He said he can report to the Board at its night meetings what the next
month will look like.
Mr. Sheffield said the Board also had the joint City/County meeting in the middle of the day this
month.
Ms. Palmer said she felt the meeting held the previous night with the Planning Commission was
unnecessary, because it was her understanding that it was sent to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
and did not really get much done.
Mr. Sheffield said sometimes it is good just to sit down and discuss things.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board had put the second Wednesday of each month on its calendars but, if
that is not going to work, that should be taken off.
Mr. Sheffield said he had thought Supervisors were going to meet at 4:00, but it turned out to be
3:00.
Mr. Foley suggested adding a third night meeting from 5:00 to 7:00.
Ms. Mallek said the Board used to have three meetings per month, in the evenings, and things
had been quiet for a while but they are heating up again and she hoped Board members would consider
the third Wednesday for another meeting.
Mr. Sheffield said former Supervisor Rooker had given him some advice after the election that
said, “You will not have a night where you do not have something to do.”
Ms. Palmer asked about the need for the firearms training facility meeting.
Mr. Foley said the Board will review the schematic, adding that Board members had indicated a
desire to do. He said there is an issue on cost which the Board will have to say yes or no to, and there
were also concerns about sound mitigation which are to be revealed in the final studies.
July 09, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
Ms. Dittmar said Board members will have finalized its community meetings at that point.
Mr. Foley said staff was rethinking whether or not the Board needs to take action on certain
things, but are hearing from some Board members that there is a desire to review certain items, and do
not on others. He said the Board could meet on Tuesday evenings from 5:00-7:00 before the Wednesday
evening meeting.
The Board agreed to hold a meeting on Monday, August 11, from 6:00-8:00 p.m. instead of 3:00-
5:00 p.m. on August 13 with a start time on August 11 of 5:00 p.m. for the Comp Plan discussion, and
going forward with this schedule for the remainder of the year.
Ms. Mallek said she would rather work longer on that Monday if there is more to do, since she
has quite a drive to get there.
Board members agreed to start at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Foley said the Board should be able to finish in two hours, unless there are other items added
to the agenda.
Ms. Dittmar said Board members were zeroing in on August 28 for a joint meeting with the School
Board, but it would require meeting at 3:00 p.m. She said the Board would need to go back to the
drawing board if it wanted to adhere to the 5:00 p.m. start time.
Ms. Mallek asked how long that meeting would need to be.
Mr. Foley said there was a desire to meet for three hours.
Mr. Davis reported that the County had reached agreement on the Arrowhead property, had
signed documents, and it should be recorded first thing tomorrow.
Regarding the vote confusion earlier in the meeting, Mr. Davis reported that, under the Board’s
rules of procedure, if there is a motion to approve that fails, then that is a denial of a land use application;
however, a motion to deny which fails is not an approval. He said, in order to bring finality to a land use
matter, someone would need to make a motion to approve that would then fail on a 3-3 vote in order for it
to be a denial.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn.
At 10:24 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by
Board
Date: 05/06/2015
Initials: EWJ