2015-05-06May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 6,
2015, at 1:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:03 p.m. by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would like to discuss various governance issues under “From the
Board,” later on the agenda.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the agenda as presented. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek reported that Tom Von Hemmert, Coordinator of the Thomas Jefferson Area Crisis
Intervention Team, has won the 2015 Clarence Earl Gideon Award, which will be presented at the
Charlottesville Circuit Court on May 12 at 4:00 p.m. She stated that the team has been very successful in
inmate diversion and assistance in helping people turn their lives around.
She stated that beginning May 7, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority w ill open valves so that
instream flow will go from one million to two million gallons per day, giving the Moorman’s River twice as
much water as it currently receives. She said that the impact of the extra volume will help the most when
the levels are very low, as anticipated over the summer, helping to prevent the ecosystem damage that
has been happening there for decades.
Ms. Mallek reported that the 35th Annual Crozet Arts & Crafts Festival, one of the top 100 such
festivals in the country, will be held during the upcoming weekend.
_____
Ms. Palmer noted that the reason for the release into the Moorman’s River is the passing of the
water supply plan a few years earlier, which for the first time in the County established instream flows on
the South Fork Rivanna and Moorman’s River. She stated that the reason for the release is that the
levels at the Ragged Mountain Dam have reached a point that requires the additional inflow.
She reported that the Board had established a solid waste committee approximately one year
earlier, and that committee has been working hard on a solid waste management plan for the County.
Ms. Palmer said that she has served as liaison, and on June 4 the group will hold an open house for the
public and any interested parties who wish to provide input. She stated that the committee will go through
some of their preliminary decisions and would like feedback from the community, and the venue will be
either the Northside Library or the County Office Building – 5th Street, to be announced at their next Board
meeting.
_____
Ms. Dittmar reported that several Supervisors had attended the pre-K summit at the Jefferson
School, sponsored by the United Way, Charlottesville Today, and other partners. She stated that
attendees learned a lot about the pre-K challenges and assets, and possible strategic directions. Ms.
Dittmar said that she had attended a Habitat for Humanity summit with a speaker from Dallas who is an
expert in a process called “appreciative inquiry,” which she feels is an interesting focus. She stated that
in her training in strategic planning, she has learned to use a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
threats (SWOT) analysis – and the appreciative inquiry looks at assets and goals, and vision working
toward a better community. Ms. Dittmar said that she had attended the Tom Tom Festival for one day,
and commented that the event continues to build and be an asset to the community.
Ms. Dittmar said that she and Ms. Palmer will report under “From the Board” on their meeting with
the Chamber of Commerce at the Board’s request regarding the Rio Road business support plan during
construction, and on a meeting with a small group focusing on broadband.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek commented that an additional aspect of Angela Blanchard’s appreciative inquiry
process is that it values the thoughts of the people who are being redeveloped, which no one has ever
done before.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Proclamations and Recognitions.
Item No. 6a. Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for
Excellence in Financial Reporting for FY14.
Ms. Dittmar recognized Ms. Renee Hoover, President-Elect of the Virginia Government Finance
Officers Association, and Director of Finance Betty Burrell, who will talk about an award the County is
receiving for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). She stated that financial statements
were audited by an outside public accounting firm, with Albemarle using Robinson, Farmer and Cox, and
said that she looked thoroughly at the County’s CAFR before she decided to run for office. Ms. Dittmar
noted that other general government agencies, such as the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts, and credit
rating agencies, also look at the CAFR as a test to a locality’s financial position. She said that the GFOA
(Government Finance Office Association) established this award to encourage and assist state and local
governments and to recognize individual governments that succeed in their goals of achieving financial
excellence.
Ms. Renee Hoover addressed the Board on behalf of the Virginia GFOA to present the award to
Albemarle County, and said that the Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the
area of government accounting and financial reporting, and represented a significant accomplishment by
government and its management. Ms. Hoover said that this is the 20th consecutive year that Albemarle
County has received the award, which demonstrates the continued priority they have placed on financial
management.
Ms. Betty Burrell addressed the Board, stating that she appreciates the time for public recognition
and is proud of the team that put together the 2014 CAFR, with a list on the back of the report of those
team members. Ms. Burrell introduced Vicky Pannell, Kelly Craddock, Donna Hixon, Ed Koonce, Tammy
Critzer, and Jonathan Kern. She also acknowledged financial auditors David Hughes and David Foley,
who help the County prepare their financials by the end of October, and a draft of the CAFR pre pared by
the end of November. Ms. Burrell introduced Lisa Breeden, the County’s new Chief of Financial
Management.
__________
Item No. 6b. Proclamation recognizing Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) on its 40th
anniversary.
Ms. McKeel read the following proclamation recognizing the Jefferson Area Board for Aging
(JABA) on their 40th anniversary:
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA)
40th Anniversary
Whereas, the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) has, for 40 years, served the people of the
County of Albemarle by being a tireless advocate for healthy aging in community; and
Whereas, JABA has provided services that include an extensive information and assistance and
options counseling network, socialization and nutrition at community centers, adult daycare
services, health insurance counseling, health services, home delivered meals,
ombudsmen, and volunteer recruitment and coordination; and
Whereas, JABA had the vision to develop accessible and affordable senior housing, including Park
View, Woods Edge, Ryan School Apartments and Timberlake Place; and
Whereas, JABA recognized the importance of intergenerational programming at their Adult Care
Centers co-located with preschools and joint programming at its comm unity senior centers;
and
Whereas, JABA has been recognized by numerous local, state and national organizations for their
innovative work and achievements on behalf of the elderly and people of all generations;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that I, Jane Dittmar, Chair on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors takes great pride and pleasure in recognizing and expressing profound
gratitude to JABA for their vision, leadership and exemplary record of service on the
occasion of their 40th anniversary, and extends to JABA sincere best wishes for continued
success.
Ms. McKeel then asked Ms. Marta Keane, Chief Executive Officer, JABA, to come forward and
receive the proclamation.
Ms. Marta Keane addressed the Board and thanked them for the County’s support of JABA over
the years, presenting a handout of JABA’s activities at their centers around the County.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the resolution recognizing JABA on their 40th anniversary. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Mallek said that many Virginia counties of similar size have a department that takes on the
services that JABA does, using taxpayer dollars, whereas JABA leverages the County’s investment
tenfold by securing other funding sources.
__________
Item No. 6c. Proclamation recognizing May 3 through May 9, 2015 as Municipal Clerks Week.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the following resolution in honor of Municipal Clerks Week, May 3-9,
2015 and recognized Clerk Ella Jordan and Senior Deputy Clerk Travis Morris:
Municipal Clerks Week
May 3-9, 2015
Whereas, the Municipal Clerk is a time honored and vital part of local government that exists
throughout the world and serves as an information center on functions of local government
and community; and
Whereas, the Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants and provides a professional link
between the citizens and local governing bodies and agencies of government at all levels;
and
Whereas, Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality,
rendering equal service to all; and
Whereas, Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Office
of Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops and
the annual meeting of their state, province, county and international professional
organizations; and
Whereas, it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Municipal Clerk;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do recognize
May 3 – 9, 2015 as Municipal Clerks Week
and further extend appreciation to Ella W. Jordan, CMC (Certified Municipal Clerk) Clerk,
and Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk, and to all Municipal Clerks for the vital services
they perform and their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Mallek thanked Ms. Jordan and Mr. Morris for a job well done.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Paula Brown-Steedly of the Rivanna District addressed the Board and thanked them for
voting to upgrade Route 784 – Doctors Crossing – to a rural rustic road for 2019. She said that residents
have waited for a long time to get the road improved, with the intent behind the request being public
health and safety for residents and school buses. Ms. Steedly stated that communications with Gerald
Gatobu of the County have been positive, and the site-specific problems on the road have been identified
where they exist, and correspondence between the County and VDOT in 2005 identified most of these
problems. She said that Watts Passage, the main road coming into Doctors Crossing, has a speed limit
of 25, and reduced speed along with the installation of safety signs is within the authority of the
Supervisors. Ms. Steedly stated that she is requesting that a reduced speed limit be initiated for the road,
which has 92 residents.
__________
Mr. Ronnie Hahn addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of White Mountain Road,
Route 736, and stated that the road is not a dead end as the staff report states – and it is not clear what
the number “300” for the year 2012 signified in terms of timeframe, i.e. whether that means daily, weekly
or monthly.
Ms. Mallek responded that she thinks the number refers to daily vehicle trips, but that number
seems high.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Hahn said there are 24 families on the road, and only three of them have issue with the road
improvements, and he hopes that the road will stay on the six-year plan this time and not be bumped off.
He noted that there has been some partial paving done in spots along the road, but VDOT has not gone
to the top of the hill so the patches are lifting up.
__________
Mr. Patrick Poehailos addressed the Board, stating that he is speaking on behalf of himself,
Ashlyn Norris, and Hunter Lee, who are students of Monticello High School and residents of the
Scottsville District. Mr. Poehailos said that they were asked as part of their senior government project to
research a public policy issue and attempt to influence it, with their chosen topic being construction at the
Ivy Transfer Station. He stated that the students met with Douglas Walker and looked through
information about the facility, and their research shows that construction of a convenience center can
impact as much as 40% of the population in the County in some way – whether it is directing trash flow
toward that site or increasing the cost of services. Mr. Poehailos said that the student group feels it is
important to inform the public, so that consent is well represented. He stated they also feel that the
County should construct a transfer station rather than creating just a co nvenience center, because it is
closer to the $1.2 million already budgeted toward the account, and because the abilities of the current
station due to dilapidated equipment and increased trash flow in the County. Mr. Poehailos said that if
the Ivy station is redone, they can renew the equipment and keep costs down, and asked the Board to
consider the best interests in the County.
Ms. Palmer said that she hopes Mr. Poehailos and his group can come to the solid waste
committee meeting on June 4, and said that she agrees with him that they need a transfer station in the
County that is efficient for the long term.
__________
Mr. Roger Voisinet of the Scottsville District addressed the Board, stating that he paid the County
$400 in personal property taxes for his electric vehicle and believed electric cars aligned themselves well
with the County’s mission statement, as they are quiet, clean and very safe. Mr. Voisinet stated that the
cars cost more initially, but their operating and maintenance costs are less. He said the problem is that
each year people will lose those savings due to the personal property tax, and his bill w ill increase by ten
times. Mr. Voisinet said the state has a separate tax for alternative energy vehicles and raise total tax
revenue by encouraging adoption of this technology. He stated there is an increase of electric vehicle car
chargers around the County, and it would be worth it for the County to look into the enabling legislation
provided by the state.
Ms. Dittmar said that after meeting with Mr. Voisinet personally, she brought this to the attention
of the County Attorney’s office, and they are researching it.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner addressed the Board, stating that he is speaking on behalf of the County’s
Historic Preservation Committee, which is charged with protecting historic and cultural resources –
including identifying and documenting sites and structures of importance to the community. Mr. Werner
stated that on behalf of the community, he offers two requests regarding the draft revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan: amendment of Strategy 1C under the Historic Preservation section, which
addresses the goal of surveying and documenting historic resources prior to demolition and recognizes
the difficulty in completing this task in light of limited staff and the absence of any County regulation of
historic resources. Mr. Werner said the committee requests that the Board consider amending this
strategy, given the lack of any requirement that documentation be done, nor a provision to allow legal
access to historic properties in order to do such documentation. He stated that the committee applauds
the attention given to the Woolen Mills Historic District in the Development Areas section of the plan, but
requests that the Board place further specific emphasis on the importance of historic preservation by
inclusion of language stating: “It is the County’s intent that the development of this area should respect its
historic designation, including the City of Charlottesville’s local designation, and should maintain its
identity as both a historic link between the City and the County, and as a cultur al and historic link between
the community and the Rivanna River. A primary consideration in the review of proposed development
will be a commitment to the preservation and adaptive reuse of the historic structures and site. This
includes attention to both the architectural and archeological integrity of the site, specifically the
documentation and protection of identified cultural and historic resources.” Mr. Werner thanked the Board
for all of their work on this matter, and on the Comp Plan in general.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she and Ms. Palmer have spoken with County Executive Tom Foley about
several specific Comp Plan issues, which the Board may wish to consider before the public hearing on
the plan.
Ms. Mallek noted that this is why the historic preservation item is on the agenda now.
__________
Mr. John Martin of Free Union addressed the Board, stating that each day the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority records the pool level of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir as it is filling, and it is presently
projected that by midnight the following day, the pool will reach 0.8 billion gallons of usable storage, which
is about 51.6% full – the threshold for increasing instream flow into the Moorman’s River from 1 mgd to 2
mgd, which is less than natural inflow. Mr. Martin said that the RWSA follows this very closely and will
come to Sugar Hollow to start the increased flow. He stated that at that time, it is anticipated that there
will be members of the Friends of the Moorman’s River at the top of the dam to applaud the effort. He
stated that he is cautious not to overstate the importance of this, as it is huge to the health of the
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
Moorman’s and the Rivanna, and huge in recognizing that these flow requirements are an integral part of
the future water supply plan – designed to meet the needs of citizens for the next 50 years, while
providing for gradually ramped up flows for the rivers.
Ms. Palmer said that she hopes Mr. Martin will soon come with the same enthusiasm to celebrate
the acquisition of easements for the pipeline from the South Fork to Ragged Mountain.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, stating that he has been reading the Comp Plan for the
14th time and is preparing written remarks about each chapter. Mr. Williamson said the Historic
Preservation chapter is interesting and is a great thing, but it is done by the private sector, and by placing
requirements on property owners whose property may or may not be “historic,” they are being restricted in
what they can or cannot do. He stated that most property owners are willing to have someone come
through to document possible historic structures prior to destruction, in all instances where it is safe to do
so. Mr. Williamson said he has not been made aware of other concerns along those lines, and asked
what gave the County the right to go onto someone’s land if they are not wanted, and whether there is a
compelling need to do so. He stated he feels this is a step toward diminishment of personal property
rights, and said that the Free Enterprise Forum will fight a potential historic preservation ordinance. Mr.
Williamson added that he hopes the Board will continue to encourage private entities to move forward
with historic preservation of their homes, which is where the government belongs.
There were no further public comments, and the Chair closed the matters from the public portion
of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda.
(Discussion: Ms. McKeel stated that she needed to pull the minutes of July 2, 2014 for
discussion.)
Ms. Mallek moved to approve Items 8.1 (as amended) through 8.6 on the Consent Agenda. Ms.
Palmer seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: July 2, July 9, September 3 and September 10, 2014.
Ms. Palmer had read the minutes of July 9 and September 10, 2014 and found them to be in
order.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of September 3, 2014 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
__________
Item No. 8.2. FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in
the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies
to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self -Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 15 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $1,239,579.41.
A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of seven (7) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2015092) to appropriate $407,900.00 for various transportation
capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015093) to appropriate $643,397.00 for the Western Albemarle
High School Environmental Studies Academy Phase I capital project;
One (1) appropriation (#2015094) to appropriate $10,000.00 from the Police Department
to the Fire Rescue Department and the ECC for the Diversity/Recruitment Video
Innovation Fund project. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015095) to appropriate $10,871.08 for various solid waste
projects and services;
One (1) appropriation (#2015096) to appropriate $100,000.00 for the building/facility
repairs of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company (ERVFC);
One (1) appropriation (#2015097) to appropriate $67,411.33 for the ACE Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2015098) to appropriate $10,000.00 for a grant to the Bright
Stars program.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
Staff recommends approval of Appropriations #2015092, #2015093, #2015094, #2015095,
#2015096, #2015097, and #2015098 for general government and school division programs and projects
as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2015092 $407,900.00
Source: Proffer Revenue $ 400,000.00
General Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 7,900.00
This request is to appropriate funding for the following General Government Capital projects:
As directed by the Board of Supervisors on July 9, 2014, this request is to appropriate $7,900 .00
in General Government CIP Fund fund balance to support a traffic engineering study for the
Earlysville Through Truck restriction.
This request is to appropriate $400,000.00 in proffer revenue to support the Hydraulic Road
and Barracks Road Sidewalk Improvements capital project. This proffer revenue includes the
Estes Park proffer totaling $235,332.30 and the Willow Glen proffer totaling $164,667.70. The
current project budget is $1,545,823.09 and is supported in part by $638,150.00 in State
revenue sharing funding and $295,700.00 in Stonefield proffer funding.
This request will increase the project budget for a total project budget of $1,945,823.09. The
budget increase is necessary due to unanticipated sewer relocations, increased right -of-way
appraisal costs, and unanticipated additional asphalt cost necessary to correct the excessive
cross slope of Barracks Road adjacent to the new sidewalk along the Huntwood Lane to
Barracks West portion of the project.
This sidewalk project is currently in the design phase. After this appropriation is approved, staff
will request Virginia Department of Transportation authorization to proceed with the right-of-way
acquisition phase of the project, which will involve approximately 25 properties. Construction is
expected to be completed by December 31, 2016.
Appropriation #2015093 $643,397.00
Source: Proffer Revenue $ 113,982.00
School Div. CIP Fund Balance $ 529,415.00
This request is to appropriate $40,923.00 in Grayrock West proffer funding, $25,940.00 in Old Trail
Village proffer funding, $9,073.00 in Wickham Pond proffer funding, $38,046.00 in Wickham Pond II
proffer funding, and $529,415.00 in School Division CIP Fund fund balance for a total appropriation of
$643,397.00 for the Western Albemarle High School Environmental Studies Center project. This project
includes a greenhouse, furnishings, equipment, and associated site work, and is planned to be
operational for the 2015/16 school year. The Center will include 1,045 square feet for classroom work
and storage, and the glass greenhouse will be 1,150 square feet.
This project is currently included in the County’s FY 16 approved budget. In order to allow adequate
time for installation so that the project will be operational by the fall of 2015, staff requests that the
funding be appropriated in FY 15, so that the greenhouse can be ordered as soon as possible. Based
on current information, the lead time for the greenhouse is approximately 12 weeks.
Appropriation #2015094 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: ACPD Innovation Fund Project $ 10,000.00
On January 7, 2015, the Board appropriated $15,000.00 from the Innovation Fund to the Police
Department for a diversity/recruitment video. The Police Department has since requested that a portion
of this award be moved to the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) and the Fire Rescue
Department because this is a collaborative project. This request is to transfer $5,000.00 from the Police
Department to the ECC and $5,000.00 from the Police Department to the Fire Rescue Department for
this project.
Appropriation #2015095 $10,871.08
A portion of this appropriation does not increase the total County Budget.*
Source: General Gov’t CIP Fund Balance $ 10,871.08
*Reserve for Contingencies $ 10,000.00
This request is to appropriate a total of $20,871.08 for the following solid waste projects and services:
This request is to appropriate $10,000.00 from currently appropriated reserve for contingencies to
the Public Works budget for a Solid Waste Facilitator to perform the scope of work approved by
the Board of Supervisors on February 4, 2015 and ancillary expenses directly associated with the
facilitation process. The facilitator will support the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory
Committee’s Strategic planning sessions in its development of preferred solutions and alternative
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
solution packages to address specific solid waste issues. *This one-time cost is funded by the
Reserve for Contingencies and therefore will not increase the total County budget.
This request is to appropriate $10,871.08 in General Government Capital Fund balance for
various Solid Waste studies and assessments approved by the Board of Supervisors over the
past six months, including Board approvals on October 8, 2014 and December 10, 2014. This
will bring the total FY 15 Budget for associated solid waste studies and assessments to
$50,856.08.
Appropriation #2015096 $100,000.00
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $ 100,000.00
This request is to appropriate $100,000.00 to complete needed building/facility repairs of the East
Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company (ERVFC) in accordance with County Policy SAP-DEP-018, Volunteer
Capital Funding for Facilities.
$100,000 was received from the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) as payment for
easements needed for ACSA’s proposed installation of a water storage tank and/or pump station
(Glenmore Water Tank project) on the County/ERVFC jointly owned fire station property.
Appropriation #2015097 $ 67,411.33
Source: State Revenue $ 67,411.33
This request is to appropriate a total of $67,411.33 in state revenues to support the Acquisition of
Conservation Easements (ACE) program. This request includes the following:
Appropriate $65,641.38 in state revenue for a total appropriation of $185,641.38 from the
Virginia Department of Agriculture Consumer Services (VDACS) of the Office of Farmland
Preservation to reimburse the County for fifty percent of the cost incurred for the purchase of an
agricultural conservation easement, the appraisal and the title insurance. The purchase,
through the County's ACE program, totals $371,282.76.
Appropriate $1,769.95 in state revenue from the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation
(VLCF) Transfer Fee Stewardship Fund. The County and the Public Recreational Facilities
Authority (PRFA) together received a total of $23,009.39. Of this amount, the County receives
one share and the Public Recreation Facilities Authority (PRFA) receives twelve shares.
Appropriation #2015098 $ 10,000.00
Source: Local Revenue $ 10,000.00
This request is to appropriate $10,000.00 for the Youth Service Award granted from the Charlottesville
Area Community Foundation to the Bright Stars program. The funds will pay for a parenting class
program for Bright Stars families.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved Appropriations #2015092, #2015093,
#2015094, #2015095, #2015096, #2015097, and #2015098 for general government and school
division programs and projects as set out below:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2015092 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 7900.00 SA2015092 Earlysville Traffic Study
2015092 4-9010-41000-481020-312350-1240 7900.00 SA2015092 Earlysville Traffic Study
2015092 3-9010-51000-351000-512083-9999 235332.30 SA2015092 Estes Proffer for Hydrualic-Barracks Rd Sidewalk
2015092 3-9010-51000-351000-512089-9999 164667.70 SA2015092 Willow Glen Proffer for Hydrualic-Barracks Rd
Sidewalk
2015092 4-9010-41350-441200-950509-9999 400000.00 SA2015092 Various Proffers for Hydrualic-Barracks Rd
Sidewalk
2015092 3-8578-18978-318000-189911-9999 62960.13 SA2015092 Estes Proffer for Hydrualic-Barracks Rd Sidewalk
2015092 3-8578-51000-351000-510100-9999 172372.17 SA2015092 Estes Proffer for Hydrualic-Barracks Rd Sidewalk
2015092 4-8578-93010-493010-930010-9999 235332.30 SA2015092 Estes Proffer for Hydrualic-Barracks Rd Sidewalk
2015092 3-8575-51000-351000-510100-9999 164667.70 SA2015092 Willow Glen Proffer for Hydrualic-Barracks Rd
Sidewalk
2015092 4-8575-93010-493010-930010-9999 164667.70 SA2015092 Willow Glen Proffer for Hydrualic-Barracks Rd
Sidewalk
2015093 4-9000-66985-466730-312350-6302 47710.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center
2015093 4-9000-66985-466730-312366-6302 18397.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center
2015093 4-9000-66985-466730-800605-6302 477100.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center
2015093 4-9000-66985-466730-800200-6302 28625.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center
2015093 4-9000-66985-466730-999999-6302 71565.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center
2015093 3-9000-69000-351000-510100-6599 18397.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Fund balance
2015093 3-9000-69000-341000-410530-6599 511018.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center borrowed proceeds
2015093 3-9000-69000-351000-512087-6599 40923.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Grayrock West
2015093 3-9000-69000-351000-512054-6599 25940.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Old Trail Village
2015093 3-9000-69000-351000-512056-6599 9073.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Wickham Pond
2015093 3-9000-69000-351000-512085-6599 38046.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Wickham Pond II
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
2015093 3-8577-18977-318000-189911-9999 40923.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Grayrock West
2015093 4-8577-93010-493010-930004-9999 40923.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Grayrock West
2015093 3-8537-51000-351000-510100-9999 25940.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Old Trail Village
2015093 4-8537-93010-493010-930004-9999 25940.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Old Trail Village
2015093 3-8540-18940-318000-189911-9999 9073.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Wickham Pond
2015093 4-8540-93010-493010-930004-9999 9073.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Wickham Pond
2015093 3-8549-18949-318000-189911-9999 38046.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Wickham Pond II
2015093 4-8549-93010-493010-930004-9999 38046.00 SA2015093 WAHS ES Center Tr Fr Proffer-Wickham Pond II
2015094 4-1000-31013-431010-360005-9980 -10000.00 Correct Innovation Fund Distribution
2015094 4-1000-32011-432010-360000-1003 5000.00 Correct Innovation Fund Distribution
2015094 4-1000-35600-435600-700001-1003 5000.00 Correct Innovation Fund Distribution
2015094 3-4100-16000-316000-160503-9999 5000.00 Correct Innovation Fund Distribution
2015094 4-4100-31040-435600-360000-1003 5000.00 Correct Innovation Fund Distribution
2015095 4-9010-42042-442040-700008-9999 10871.08 SA2015095 Convenience Center Studies
2015095 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 10871.08 SA2015095 Convenience Center Studies
2015095 4-1000-42050-442040-312700-1004 10000.00 SA2015095 Solid Waste Facilitator to LRSWSAC From
Reserv
2015095 4-1000-99900-499000-999990-9999 -10000.00 SA2015095 Reserv for Cont to Solid Waste Facilitator
2015096 3-9010-24000-324000-410210-3140 100000.00 SA2015096 ERVFC facility repair-Easement Sale
2015096 4-9010-32020-432020-561100-3140 100000.00 SA2015096 ERVFC facility repair-Easement Sale
2015097 3-9010-24000-324000-240766-1007 -118230.05 SA2015097 Net Appropriation PRFA-VDACS
2015097 3-9010-24000-324000-240767-1008 185641.38 SA2015097 VDACS award for Henley Forest
2015097 4-9010-81010-481020-580409-1240 67411.33 SA2015097 Net Appropriation PRFA and VDACS
2015098 3-1553-18120-318000-181287-1005 10000.00 SA2015098 CACF - Grant
2015098 4-1553-51154-453011-280200-1005 5500.00 SA2015098 HONORARIUM
2015098 4-1553-51154-453011-360000-1005 100.00 SA2015098 ADVERTISING
2015098 4-1553-51154-453011-571110-1005 1000.00 SA2015098 CHILD CARE
2015098 4-1553-51154-453011-600200-1005 2500.00 SA2015098 FOOD SUPPLIES
2015098 4-1553-51154-453011-601200-1005 500.00 SA2015098 BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS
2015098 4-1553-51154-453011-601305-1005 400.00 SA2015098 INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
TOTAL 3,517,122.82
__________
Item No. 8.3. Resolution to accept road(s) in Dunlora Gates Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution to accept roads in Dunlora Gates Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Dunlora Gates Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated May 6, 2015, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Dunlora Gates, as described on
the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 6, 2015, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.2-705, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Townbrook Court (State Route 1714) from Route 1713 (Townbrook Crossing) to 0.54
miles south of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 4204, page 370, for a length of 0.05 miles.
2) Townbrook Crossing (State Route 1713) extended from end of State maintenance 0.38
miles east, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 4204, page 370, for a length of 0.04 miles.
3) Townbrook Crossing (State Route 1713) extended from end of State maintenance 0.47
miles south, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 4204, page 370, for a length of 0.05 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.14
__________
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
Item No. 8.4. Resolution to accept road(s) in People Place Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution to accept roads in People Place Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in People Place Subdivision, as de scribed on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated May 6, 2015, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in People Place, as described on
the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 6, 2015, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.2-705, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the
recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Spotnap Road (State Route 1299) from Route 1298 (People Place) to 0.12 miles south,
as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 3835, pages 540-546, 299-304, 729 and 734; and Deed Book 4538, pages
307, 316 and 319, for a length of 0.01 miles.
2) People Place (State Route 1298) from Route 250 (Richmond Road) to 0.14 miles south,
as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 3835, pages 540-546, 299-304, 729 and 734; and Deed Book 4538, page 307,
for a length of 0.14 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.15
__________
Item No. 8.5. ZMA-2012-00002. Variation from Riverside Village Application Plan and Code of
Development.
The executive summary states that a zoning map amendment was approved for Riverside Village
(ZMA201200002) on November 13, 2013 that rezoned the property from R -1 to Neighborhood Model
District (NMD), and adopted an Application Plan and Code of Development (Attachment A). The
applicant is requesting a special exception to vary an Architectural Standard in the Application Plan and
Code of Development by removing the minimum roof pitch requirement for porches and dormers as set
forth on the revised Application Plan and Code of Development (Attachment B; see page 6).
County Code § 18-8.5.5.3 allows variation to approved Application Plans and Codes of
Development upon determination that the proposed variation: (1) is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or
intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any
other development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general
accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application. County Code § 18-33.5(a)(1) requires that
any request for a variation be considered and acted upon by the Board of Supervisors as a special
exception. The variation requested is for a minor change to Section VIII, Architectural Standards, in the
Code of Development to exempt porches and dormers from the minimum roof pitch requirement
(Attachment B). Staff opinion is that the requested variation meets the five criteria listed above.
There is no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution approving the special exception to vary the
Riverside Village Application Plan and Code of Development.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
special exception to vary the Riverside Village Application Plan and Code of Development :
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR ZMA 2012-00002, RIVERSIDE VILLAGE
WHEREAS, Riverside Village Properties Inc. (“Riverside Village”) is the owner of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 07800-00-00-05800 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Riverside Village filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SUB
2014-00138, Riverside Village, to vary the Application Plan and the Code of Development approved in
conjunction with ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, to exempt porches and dormers from the minimum
roof pitch requirement in Section VIII, Architectural Standards, on page 6 of the Applicant’s revised
Application Plan and Code of Development dated May 12, 2012 and last revised January 6, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the special exception request, staff’s supporting analysis included
in the executive summary, and all of the factors relevant to the special exceptions i n Albemarle County
Code §§ 18-8.5.5.3(c) and 18-33.8, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the
special exception to vary the Application Plan and the Code of Development approved in conjunction with
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, as described hereinabove.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
__________
Item No. 8.6. Northside Branch Library Lease.
The executive summary states that the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL) provides
library services for Albemarle, Greene, Louisa and Nelson counties, and the City of Charlottesville.
Pursuant to the Agreement for Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (“Library Agreement”), the Northside
branch library is provided to the JMRL pursuant to a lease funded as a Charlottesville-Albemarle cost.
With the input of JMRL administration, County staff has drafted a proposed lease for the new Northside
branch library, which is owned by the County, detailing each party’s areas of responsibility. The proposed
lease is attached as Attachment A.
Under the proposed lease, JMRL would continue to maintain the new Northside branch library as
it did the former Northside branch facility located at Albemarle Square. This arrangement would allow for
maintenance costs to be shared between the County and the City as a sha red operating cost of this joint
facility.
The initial term of the lease would run through June 30, 2020. After the initial five -year term, the
lease would automatically renew annually in one-year increments, coinciding with Albemarle County’s
fiscal year. The lease could be terminated by either party at any time after June 30, 2016 upon 180 days’
notice.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
The JMRL Board’s approval of the proposed lease is expected on April 27. The County
Attorney’s Office has reviewed and approved the proposed lease for proper form and content.
The budget impact has been fully addressed in the County’s FY15 and FY16 operating
budgets. JMRL is agreeing to pay the County fair market value rent for the library space. The rent
amount is a JMRL operating cost that is paid by the County and City pursuant to the Library
Agreement based upon the County’s and City’s share of the percentage of circulation at the Northside
branch library.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution approving the lease with JMRL for the new
Northside branch library and authorizing the County Executive to execute the lease.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
lease with JMRL for the new Northside branch library and authorized the County Executive to
execute the lease:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT
FOR THE NORTHSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY
AT 705 RIO ROAD WEST, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle (the “County”) owns Parcel 61-120K, located at 705 Rio
Road West, Charlottesville Virginia (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the County has constructed a facility on the Property to be partially leased to the
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL) for use as a library facility; and
WHEREAS, the Lease Agreement between the County and JMRL sets forth the terms of the
Lease of the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the Lease Agreement between the County and JMRL and authorizes the County Executive to
sign the Agreement once it is approved as to content and form by the County Attorney.
*****
LEASE AGREEMENT – NORTHSIDE BRANCH LIBRARY
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of April 27, 2015 by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter, the “County”) and the JEFFERSON-MADISON REGIONAL
LIBRARY (hereinafter, the “Library”).
ARTICLE I. PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Section 1.1. In consideration of and subject to the covenants herein set forth and pursuant to
Section 7 of the Agreement for Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, to which the County is a party, the
County hereby leases to the Library the premises described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof together with any and all improvements thereon (the "Premises”). The Premises shall be provided
for use by the Library and be funded as a Charlottesville-Albemarle cost.
ARTICLE II. TITLE: QUIET ENJOYMENT
Section 2.1. So long as the Library is not in default hereunder, the Library shall have peaceful and
quiet enjoyment, use and possession of the Premises without hindrance on the part of the County or anyone
claiming by, through, or under the County.
ARTICLE III. TERM
Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The term of this Lease shall commence upon the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Premises (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire
June 30, 2020, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. The foregoing
notwithstanding, after June 30, 2016, either party may terminate this Lease upon one-hundred eighty (180)
days advance written notice to the other party. All references to the “term” of this Lease shall, unless the
context indicates a different meaning, be deemed to be a reference to the term described herein.
Section 3.2. Renewal. Subsequent to the initial term, this Lease shall be renewed automatically
for subsequent one-year terms, to coincide with the County’s July 1-June 30 fiscal year, unless and until
terminated in accordance with Section 3.3 below.
Section 3.3. Termination. This Lease and the Library’s occupancy of the Premises may be
terminated by either party upon one-hundred eighty (180) days advance written notice to the other party.
In no event shall termination of this Lease alone be construed as a withdrawal from a regional library system
pursuant to Virginia Code § 42.1-42.
ARTICLE IV. RENT
Section 4.1. Monthly Rent. Commencing upon the Date of Commencement, during the initial term
of this Lease, the Library agrees to pay to the County monthly rent of $55,337.8 6, on the first day of each
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
month during the term hereof. Each month, the County shall send an invoice for rent to the address
indicated in Section 9.1 for Library Notices. However, the failure of the County to send an invoice or of the
Library to receive an invoice shall not relieve the Library of any liability for rent due.
After the initial term of this Lease, the rent for subsequent years of the Lease shall be indexed for
inflation and shall be calculated by first establishing a fraction, the numera tor of which shall be the level of
the CPI Index (as defined herein) as of the first day of that month which is two months before the month in
which the Date of Commencement occurs in the subsequent years, and the denominator of which shall be
the level of the CPI Index as of the first day of that month which is two months before the initial Date of
Commencement. The resulting fraction shall be multiplied by the rent agreed upon or established for the
first year of the term of the Lease to determine the annual rent due for the year. The rental figure shall be
revised each year based upon this formula. The CPI Index shall be the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index (all items, all urban consumers, 1982-1984 = 100). If the CPI Index shall be
discontinued, the County shall designate an appropriate substitute index or formula having the same
general acceptance as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and such substitute shall be used as if
originally designated herein. Notwithstanding the f oregoing, in no event shall the rent due for any lease
year decrease below the rent payable for the first year.
Section 4.2. Address for Rent Payment. All payments of rent due the County pursuant to
Section 4.1 shall be made to the County at the address specified in Section 9.1, or to such other party or
at such other address as hereinafter may be designated by the County by written notice delivered to the
Library at least ten (10) days prior to the next ensuing monthly rental payment date.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
ARTICLE V. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Section 5.1. The following items and services shall be provided and maintained at a level
reasonably necessary for the proper use and enjoyment of the Premises, pursuant to the table below. The
County shall provide all items and services identified below as “County” at no direct cost to the Library, at
a reasonable level of service determined by the County. The Library shall independently arrange and
provide for all items and services identified below as “Library.” Except as otherwise provided in the current
Agreement for Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, all Library-provided items and/or services shall be “local
costs” thereunder.
Service/Expense
County
Provided
Library
Provided
Telephone L
Custodial Services C
Furniture & Appliances L
Routine repairs to non-
mechanical systems (i.e. work
orders)
C
IT Services L
Solid Waste Services C
Electric, Water, Sewer, Gas C
Parking Lot Lights, Fixtures C
Parking Lot & Sidewalk
Repairs C
Preventive Maintenance to all
Mechanical Systems C
Cyclical Maintenance, (i.e.
exterior window cleaning,
annual carpet cleaning, wall
painting)
C
Snow & Ice control C
Landscaping C
Facility Assessment C
Capital Improvements C
Elevators C
Alarms C
Sprinkler Systems C
ARTICLE VI. USE OF PROPERTY
Section 6.1. Permitted Use. The Library shall have use of the Premises for a public library.
Section 6.2. Good Repair. The Library shall keep in good repair and shall take good care of the
Premises and fixtures therein located and, at the expiration or earlier termination or cancellation of this
Lease, shall surrender the Premises and fixtures in as good condition as at the time of delivery, subject to
reasonable wear and tear. In the event of the County’s withdrawal from the Agreement for Jefferson -
Madison Regional Library, disposition of personal property not affixed to the Premises shall be in
accordance with Section 10 of said Agreement. Any failure to keep the Premises in good repair shall be
considered a default of this Lease and shall be grounds for termination thereof.
Section 6.3. Parking. The Library shall be entitled to non-exclusive use of parking spaces in the
County parking lot adjacent to the Northside Branch and access between said parking lot and the leased
Premises.
Section 6.4. Elevator. The County shall retain access to the interior elevator, as necessary to
maintain an accessible route between the adjacent parking lot and the Lower Level of the building beneath
the leased Premises. Such elevator access shall not unreasonably interfere with the Library’s operations.
ARTICLE VII. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, AND FIXTURES
Section 7.1. The Library may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any interior non -
structural alterations, additions or improvements which do not damage or alter the Premises, provided that
the County's consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and provided that the Library shall obtain all
required governmental permits for such alterations, additions or improvements.
Section 7.2. The Library may, from time to time, make interior structural alterations, additions or
improvements, only with the County's prior written consent to plans and specifications therefor. Any such
interior structural alterations, additions or improvements shall become the County's property.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
ARTICLE VIII. INSURANCE
Section 8.1. The County shall, during the term of this Lease, maintain in force general public liability
insurance and property insurance on the Property in an amount equivalent to coverage for its other public
buildings and facilities or such greater amounts deemed necessary, and shall name the Library as an
additional named insured. The Library shall maintain in force an insurance policy providing contents
coverage for all Library materials, fixtures, and equipment in such amounts as shall be adequate to insure
replacement coverage for such items.
ARTICLE IX. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 9.1. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other instrument which may be, or are
required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by United States certified
mail, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed:
(a) if to the County, at
County of Albemarle
Attn: County Executive
County Executive’s Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as the County may designate by written notice;
(b) if to the Library, at
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
Attn: Regional Library Director
201 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as the Library shall designate by written notice.
Section 9.2. Annual Appropriations. The County’s obligations under this Lease are subject to
annual appropriations by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year
first above written.
JEFFERSON-MADISON REGIONAL LIBRARY
By:
Print Name: John Halliday
Title: Regional Library Director
This Lease is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive,
pursuant to a Resolution of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Print Name: Thomas C. Foley
Title: County Executive
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
All that certain space containing approximately 33,990 square feet, more or less, of finished space
shown as “Mezzanine Level – White Area, 2,030 Square Feet”, “Library Level, 29,460 Square Feet,” and
“Lower Level / Warehouse, Library White Area – 2,500 Square Feet,” together with approximately 2,752
square feet, more or less, of space shown as “Lower Level / Warehouse, Common Area – Orange, 2,752
Square Feet,” all of which are outlined and shown on that certain plan of HBM Architects titled “Albemarle
County Northside Library,” dated August 19, 2014. Said Premises are a portion of Albemarle County Parcel
06100-00-00-120K0, located at 705 Rio Road West, Charlottesville, Virginia.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
__________
Item No. 8.7. FY 2015 3nd Quarter Cash Proffer Report, was received for information.
The executive summary states that in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report
on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has been expanded to also include updates on
non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterl y proffer report on February 4, 2015, which
included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for October through
December, 2014. This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non -cash) for the third quarter of
Fiscal Year 2015 (January-March). The next quarterly report will be on the Board’s August 5, 2015
agenda.
Proffer Activity for Fiscal Year 2015 Third Quarter (January-March)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter t hat
provided new cash proffers.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $48,943,356.45. This reflects
estimated new proffered revenue (described above) in addition to 2014 annual
adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in
which annual adjustments were proffered.
C. 3rd Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $ 205,955.90 from existing
cash proffers during this quarter from the following developments:
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL INTENDED PURPOSE
Avinity $84,399.42 CIP-Neighborhoods 4&5
Estes Park $41,973.42 CIP
Grayrock West $20,987.20 CIP
Haden Place $3,200.00 CIP-Crozet
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
Leake (Glenmore K2) $19,895.86 CIP
Old Trail $22,000 Crozet Parks/Schools
Wickham Pond II $13,500.00 CIP-Crozet
TOTAL $205,955.90
Although not proffer funds, the County received $3,000 for affordable housing programs from a
special use permit condition.
D. 3rd Quarter Expenditures and Appropriations: At the Board’s January 7, 2015 meeting, a
total of $47,413.04 was appropriated from Avinity proffer funds to the Rio Road - Avon
Street - US Route 250 West project and a total of $52,586.96 was appropriated from
Crozet proffer funds to the Crozet Elementary School Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS)
Sidewalk and Crossing Improvements Project. A total of $154,488.20 was expended for
the Crozet Streetscapes Phase II project based on previous appropriations of proffer
funds. These expenditures and appropriations have resulted in updates reflected on
Attachments A and B.
Current Available Funds: As of March 31, 2015, the available proffered cash on-hand is
$4,694,177.73 (including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Som e of these funds were
proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP. Of the
available proffered cash on-hand, $2,269,667.96 (including interest earned) is currently appropriated
(Attachment A). The net cash balance is $2,424,509.77 and Attachment B provides information on how
the net cash balance may be used for future appropriations to CIP projects.
The Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor
proffer funds on an ongoing basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move
forward and to ensure that funding is appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
Cash proffers are a source of revenue to address impacts from development and they support the
funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue.
Using cash proffer funding for current or planned FY16–FY19 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by
freeing up funding for other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might
otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue.
This Executive Summary is for information only and no action is required by the Board.
__________
Item No. 8.8. FY 15 General Fund Q3 Report; Revised FY 15 Revenue Projections Report; and
Quarterly Economic Indicators Report., was received for information.
The executive summary states that the attached Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) (Attachment
A) provides information regarding the County’s FY 15 General Fund and School Fund performance as of
March 31, 2015. The General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (Attachments B and C) includes
projected General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 15. The Quarterly Economic Indicator Report
(Attachments D and E) provides an overview of recent general economic conditions in the County.
Quarterly Financial Report
The Quarterly Financial Report reflects year-to-date (YTD) data through March 31, 2015, the end
of the third quarter of FY 15. The data in the attached QFR is organized in a way that is consistent with
Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Most line item titles i n the
QFR match the line item titles in the CAFR. Highlights from the QFR include:
Revenues – YTD Actual. YTD total revenues in Q3 FY 15 are $128,103,257, compared to
$121,496,481 in Q3 FY 14. In percentage terms, FY 15 YTD actual revenues as a percentage of FY 15
Revised Budget revenues was 52.85%, compared to 52.06% in FY 14. This shows that the rate of
revenue collection was essentially consistent between the two years. Individual revenue streams
performed fairly consistently in Q3 FY 15 when compared to Q3 FY 14. No revenue streams experienced
significant year-to-year variance.
Expenditures – YTD Actual. YTD total expenditures in Q3 FY 15 are $184,695,025, compared to
$176,866,653 in Q3 FY 14. In percentage terms, FY 15 YTD actual expenditures as a percentage of
FY15 Revised Budget expenditures was 76.19%, compared to 75.79% in FY 14. This shows that overall
expenditures were roughly comparable between the two years. Individual expenditure streams performed
fairly consistently in Q3 FY 15 when compared to Q3 FY 14. Six expenditure streams, however, did
experience significant year-to-year variance. These expenditure streams include Public Safety: Volunteer
Fire; Public Safety: Regional Jail; Public Safety: Contributions to Public Safety; Education: Transfer to
Schools CIP; Education: Transfer to Schools Debt Service; and Transfers, Contingencies, and R efunds:
Refunds.
For additional information about these expenditure variances, please see the analysis page of the
QFR.
ACPS Quarterly Financial Report. The Albemarle County Public Schools Preliminary Quarterly
Financial Report as of March 31, 2015 is included as a table on the last page of the QFR.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
Administratively-Approved Budget Transfers. In addition to the attached financial reports, the
Board has directed staff to provide a quarterly update of any budget transfers administratively approved
by the County Executive. In the quarter ended March 31, 2015, the County Executive approved two
transfers administratively.
One was to transfer $25,700.00 from the Ivy Landfill Remediation project budget to the
Convenience Centers Study project for the evaluation of collection and transport alternatives and for a
detailed analysis of the Ivy MUC site pursuant to the Board of Supervisors’ direction on October 8, 20 14
and December 10, 2014. The second was to reconcile the Belvedere Bond Default Project budget that
has continued from FY 14 into FY 15 as part of the County’s multi-year CIP budgeting process. This
reduced the appropriated Belvedere Bond Default Project and supporting revenues by $97,898.98, which
accurately reflected the actual unencumbered amount at the end of FY 14.
General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report
The General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (GFRFPR) provides a streamline d
summary of forecasted revenues and expenditures. The GFRFPR indicates that by June 30, 2015,
revenues are forecasted to exceed appropriated revenues by $2.232 million. Note that this figure reflects,
in part, the real property tax rate of $0.819 that the Board of Supervisors approved on April 14, 2015.
This rate represents a two cent increase over the FY 14 rate. Expenditures are projected to be $1.542
million below appropriated expenditures. The difference between appropriated expenditures and
forecasted expenditures is due primarily to savings associated with salary lapse, utility costs, and
Department of Social Services direct assistance payments. Excess revenues and expenditures savings
are projected to result in a net of $3.774 million additional fund balance by the end of FY 15. Please note
that this projected $3.774 million in additional fund balance equals only 1.57% of the forecasted $240.870
million FY 15 expenditures and transfers; this small percentage “buffer” reflects a tight budgetary
environment.
Quarterly Economic Indicators Report
The Quarterly Economic Indicators Report (QEIR) offers a glimpse of the state of the County’s
economy. The QEIR contains data taken from the most recent quarter for which complete information is
available, and compares this data with data from the same quarter of previous fiscal years. General
economic activity, as measured by six select revenue streams, collectively grew between Q2 FY 14 and
Q2 FY 15 although, among the revenue streams, there were differences in the size and direction of rates
of change. The unemployment rate in Albemarle declined slightly between Q2 FY 14 and Q2 FY 15,
dropping from 4.07% to 3.83%. This year-over-year decline, however, was the smallest in the Q2 FY 12
to Q2 FY 15 period. Note that the County’s jobs base grew modestly (+0.58%) between Q4 FY 13 and Q4
FY 14, the most recent quarter for which complete information is available. The unemployment rate and
jobs data suggests that the County’s recent recovery has been relatively modest, but the County was less
impacted by the recession than were the state and nation.
Revenues and expenditure data contained in the QFR reflects the state of the County’s FY 15
budget-to-actual financial performance as of March 31, 2015. Year-end projections contained in the
GFRFPR are subject to change, based on the result of actual collections and expenditures through June
30, 2015. Data shown in the QEIR reflects economic variables that impact the County’s current and
future revenues and expenditures.
These reports are for information only. Staff welcomes the Board’s feedback regarding the
content and presentation of these reports.
__________
Item No. 8.9. County Grant Application/Award Report , was received for information.
The executive summary states that pursuant to the County’s Grant Policy and associated
procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants.
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of one grant award received and four
grant applications made during the time period of March 14, 2015 through April 17, 2015.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
This report is for information only.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
__________
Item No. 8.10. Office of Facilities Development (OFD) Capital Projects Status Report 1st Quarter
CY 2015, was received for information.
The Office of Facilities Development (OFD) is pleased to provide the first quarter Capital Projects
Status Report for calendar year 2015. This report provides summary level information on all projects
managed by OFD, both Capital Projects and Capital Maint enance Projects.
The OFD team has been busily supporting multiple County projects; the following provides a few
highlights on notable projects. Substantial Completion was achieved on the Northside Library and
Storage Facility project and a Library Building Dedication Cerem ony/Grand Opening was held in March
2015. A Notice to Proceed was issued to Plecker Construction Company for the Crozet Elementary
School Safe Routes to School (SRTS) project and construction is underway. A Notice of Intent to Award
was issued to Jamerson-Lewis Construction for the Regional Firearms Training Center project and the
construction contract is currently routing for signatures and approval. A Notice of Intent to Award was
issued to Artisan Construction for Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addit ion project. Several school
summer maintenance projects are currently being advertised for construction.
The following sections provide a summary on all projects and more detailed information of select
Capital Projects. Project budget trackers continue to be included for the select projects reported
individually in the quarterly report.
__________
Item No. 8.11. VDOT Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, May 2015, was
received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.12. Board-to-Board, May 2015, A monthly report from the Albemarle County
School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.13. Copy of letter dated April 16, 2015, from Mr. Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of
Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Schmidt Family Partnership, c/o Tim T. Schmidt, re: LOD2015-
00004 - OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax
Map 121, Parcel 82H) – Scottsville Miller Magisterial District.
__________
At this time, the Board went back to Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: July 2, 2014.
Ms. McKeel said that page 41 of the July 2, 2014 minutes indicated that a minimum two-cent tax
increase dedicated to the CIP will be necessary to fund the courts project, but since that time the
information has changed and it would be nice to correct that information in today’s meeting minutes.
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY – March 14, 2015 through April 17, 2015
Applications were made for the following grants:
Granting Entity Grant Type Amount
Requested
Match
Required
Match Source Department Purpose
Virginia
Commission for
the Arts
Local Challenge
Grant
State $5,000 $5,000 FY16 Budget,
Cultural
Agency
Contributions
OMB These grant funds will provide support to
the Piedmont Council for the Arts.
Virginia
Department of
Criminal Justice
Services
FY16 Pre-Trial
Services
State $225,000 $75,000 Central
Virginia
Regional Jail
The County as
Fiscal Agent on
behalf of the
Offender Aid &
Restoration
(OAR) Agency
These grant funds will provide screening,
interviews, and investigations at the
Central Virginia Regional Jail for the
jurisdictions served by the jail.
Virginia
Department of
Criminal Justice
Services
FY16
Comprehensive
Community
Corrections Act
(CCCA)
State $725,084 None None The County as
Fiscal Agent on
behalf of the
Offender Aid &
Restoration
(OAR) Agency
These grant funds will provide local
probation, supervision, risk assessment,
case planning, and many other services
to a nine-locality service area.
Virginia
Department of
Criminal Justice
Services
“Pre-Application”
for Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant
(JAG)
State $150,000 $15,000,
each year
increasing
Grants
Leveraging
fund
Police These grant funds will provide for a police
Sergeant position to form and lead the
new ACPD, Problem Oriented Policing
(POP) Team. If awarded, this is a four
year grant.
Awards were received for the following grants:
Granting Entity Grant Type Amount
Requested
Match
Required
Match Source Department Purpose
Charlottesville
Area Community
Foundation
Youth Service
Award
Local 10,000 0 N/A Department of
Social Services
(DSS)
This grant will be used to fund the Bright
Stars program to provide parenting
classes to Bright Stars families in
coordination with the University of
Virginia’s teaching students.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that the document was
intended to talk about the magnitude of the courts project at the time, which is a $40 million project, and if
the proceeds had been borrowed it would require $4-5 million per year in debt service, which is equivalent
to two or three cents on the rate. He stated that the information had been presented in July 2014 in that
context, but it is now known that the courts phasing will be different, as will the timing of when the debt is
incurred and the impact on the tax rate.
Ms. Mallek said that the facts are still the same, as they are still going to have to find the money.
Mr. Letteri said that the change is in the timing.
Ms. McKeel stated that there is a sense in that conversation that the two cents was being driven
by the courts project, but in their February 2015 discussions, that is not the sole driver.
Mr. Foley said that at the time the comments were made, the information was accurate – and only
after the update of the CIP through the Oversight Committee process did this shift and remove the
association of the first two cents. He added that all of this w ill be included in the minutes to help clarify
the comments made.
Ms. Mallek stated that the investment is basically moving from 2017 to 2019.
Mr. Boyd said that until the County becomes stagnant, there will always be changes.
Ms. Mallek noted that the minutes are a snapshot of that point in their discussions.
Ms. McKeel moved to approve the minutes of July 2, 2014. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Leasing of County Property in Crozet.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that spaces in two County-owned
buildings in Crozet are currently vacant, with no identified local government use in the immediate future.
The first building is the Crozet Library. The ground floor of the Library has two spaces for which
the Jefferson Madison Regional Library (JMRL) has no immediate use. On July 3, 2013, the Board
endorsed a proposal for a retail operation in the larger ground-floor space, and a tourism -oriented use in
the remaining space.
At its September 4, 2013 meeting, the Board approved the current lease with Crozet Running
LLC for the larger space. Though the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB)
was initially expected to occupy the smaller ground-floor space, it was later determined that the sm aller
ground-floor space would be too large for its operation.
The second building with vacant space is the old Crozet Depot. For almost 30 years, the facility
had been used as the Crozet Branch of the JMRL. Since the opening of the new Crozet Library i n 2013,
the 2,655 square-foot building has been vacant.
In December 2014, General Services solicited proposals for leasing the old Crozet Depot and the
remaining space at the new Crozet Library. The solicitation resulted in four proposals for the old Crozet
Depot and one proposal for the Crozet Library space.
The most viable proposal for the old Crozet Depot was submitted by Crozet Artisan Depot LLC.
This proposal also best met the evaluation criteria for the space developed in consultation with the C rozet
Community Advisory Council. However, this proposal required only 1,100 square feet of the 2,655
square-foot Depot. After discussion, County staff, the Crozet Artisan Depot LLC, and the CACVB agreed
that the County’s leasing of a portion of the remaining square footage to the CACVB would be
advantageous to all parties. This two-tenant approach would best support the historic character of the Old
Depot while providing an energetic tourism destination. The proposal would lease 1,100 square feet to
the Crozet Artisan Depot LLC and 456.3 square feet to the CACVB at fair market value. The remaining
square footage located in the rear room of the Depot would remain available as meeting space under the
County’s Community Use of County Facilities policy.
The proposal for the Crozet Library space was submitted by Staengl Engineering LLC. The
proposal would lease the 1,038 square feet at fair market value, consistent with the rate charged to
Crozet Running LLC, the current tenant of the Library.
The attached proposed leases for Crozet Artisan Depot LLC (Attachment A), the CACVB
(Attachment B), and Staengl Engineering LLC (Attachment C) all include the following provisions:
● An initial five year term beginning July 1, 2015, which may be renewed for an additional
period as may be mutually agreed:
● A termination clause for either party to terminate the lease upon 90 days written notice
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
● A rent escalator for subsequent years based on an inflation index
● A utility provision under which the County would provide water, sewer, electricity, and
heating and cooling included as part of the Tenant’s rent
The proposed Staengl Engineering LLC lease would also allow the tenant a half -month of rent-
free access prior to occupancy to make certain improvements to ready the space for business. This
provision is consistent with past County practice.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to the conveyance
of any interest in County-owned real property. A public hearing is not required for the conveyance of
County-owned real property to another government entity, such as the CACVB.
The leases are expected to generate a total of $45,042.87 in revenue in their first year.
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) schedule public hearings on June 3, 2015 for the proposed
leases with Staengl Engineering LLC and Crozet Artisan Depot LLC; and 2) direct staff to bring a
Resolution approving the lease with the CACVB bac k to the Board for adoption on June 3, 2015.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that staff will discuss
with the Board lease possibilities in Crozet. She said the new Crozet Library was constructed for a long -
term capacity, knowing there would be some extra space in the facility until the library expanded. Ms.
Catlin said the County issued an RFP for both first-floor spaces and received one response from the
Crozet Running Shop, which now leases space and has been a wonderful tenant. She stated that the
other space did not get any response, and staff has had conversations about what an effective and
compatible use would be. Ms. Catlin said that what emerged as the most appealing was some sort of
visitors’ center and tourism site for that space. She stated that the idea was presented to the CACVB
Board, but they expressed concern about the size of that space and their ability to manage it. Ms. Catlin
said they then started looking at the possibility of moving the visitors’ center into the lobby of the library,
using the other space for something else. She stated at that point, they agreed to step back and look
holistically at the area, as the old train depot is also sitting empty in addition to the library space, and
issued RFPs for both of those spaces. Ms. Catlin explained that for the first -floor space in the library,
Stengel Engineering – a green engineering firm – responded to the RFP, which staff agrees is a good
solution to the library space.
She said that the County has received several responses to the train depot space, and staff is
recommending to the Board the applicant who they feel best meets the overall goals of the County, the
character of the building, and the interest expressed by the community so far. Ms. Catlin stated that the
Crozet Artisans came forth with a proposal for the building, but it does not include the entire space, so
they suggested partnering with a tourism entity for the remaining area. She said that through discussions
with the CACVB, the artisans, and other parties involved, staff feel they are presenting a proposal that
satisfies the needs of both groups as well as the larger needs of the County. Ms. Catlin said that the
bureau has embraced this proposal and is very excited about being in the train depot, and noted that
CACVB Executive Director Kurt Burkhardt and the bureau’s marketing consultant – Susan Payne of
Payne, Ross and Associates – are both present at the meeting to answer questions. She stated that
there will be an open house for the Board on May 29 at 8:30 a.m., and an invitation will be sent to them
shortly.
Mr. George Shadman, Director of General Services, addressed the Board, stating that Ms. Catlin
has provided good background information on how the County got to this point with the Crozet properties.
Mr. Shadman said that staff is asking for the Board to approve the leases for the Crozet Artisan Depot,
CACVB, and Stengel Engineering – all of which contain the basic language for an initial five-year term
beginning July 1, 2015 and renewable upon mutual agreement. He noted that either party can terminate
the lease with 60 days’ notice, a rent escalator for subsequent years based on inflation, and a utility
provision under which the County will provide water, sewer, electric, heating and cooling as part of the
tenants’ rent. Mr. Shadman stated that the proposed Stengel Engineering lease ha s a half-month of rent-
free access prior to occupancy to allow them to make certain improvements that will allow them to be
open for business, a practice that is consistent with what the County has done in the past. Mr. Shadman
stated that Virginia Code requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to the conveyance of any
interest in a County-owned property, but this is not required for use by other government entities such as
the visitors’ center. He said the budget impact is an expectation to generate a total of $45,042.87 of
revenue in the first year. Staff’s recommendation is to schedule a public hearing for June 3, 2015 for the
proposed leases with Stengel Engineering and the Crozet Ar tisans, and to bring a resolution approving
the lease with CACVB back to the Board for adoption on June 3.
Ms. Mallek asked if the two-week window prior to moving in was given to the CACVB and Crozet
Artisans, as it had been for Stengel. Mr. Shadman responded that it was not requested by those parties
but could be offered to them.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are any remodeling expenses to divide the depot. Mr. Shadman
responded there are not.
Mr. Boyd asked for confirmation that any changes in the building structure will be covered by the
building tenants. Mr. Shadman said that is the case, and any alterations to the depot will need to be
approved in advance by the County, given the historical significance of the building.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Boyd stated he wants to make sure the County is not investing any money in that aspect, and
said that one of his constituents had expressed concern about the financial stability of the Crozet
Artisans. He asked if the artisans have been vetted to make sure they are capable of meeting the rental
payments. Mr. Shadman responded that staff has held discussions with them and liked what they heard.
Ms. Mallek said they are moving into a bigger space from their very successful smaller space.
Ms. Catlin stated the artisans have been paying rent in downtown Crozet for some time, and the lease
protects the County in the event something would happen.
Mr. Boyd noted that he does not know anything about them, but the issue was brought to his
attention.
Ms. Palmer commented that she has seen visitors centers combined with arts & crafts in other
states, and feels that the two uses are highly compatible.
Mr. Shadman said that both parties are anxious to work with one another.
Ms. Mallek moved to direct staff to set the public hearing and bring the resolutions back to the
Board on June 3, 2015. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Dittmar thanked staff for their work, recognizing Kurt Burkhardt and Payne Ross, and said
that she hopes that Skyline Drive visitors will come down into the County.
Ms. Mallek stated that this is the reason they need an official Visitors’ Center, as it will allow them
to get a sign out on I-64, and commended staff for their progress with the effort.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Adoption of the FY 16 Operating and Capital Budget.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on February 19, 2015, the County
Executive presented his Recommended FY 16 Operating and Capital Budget to the Board of Supervisors.
On February 23, 2015, the Board held a Public Hearing on the Recommended Budget and then held
several public work sessions and Town Hall meetings. The Board authorized the advertising of a
$0.824/$100 real estate tax rate for the 2015 Tax Year.
On April 1, 2015, a Public Hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ Proposed Budget and
on April 8, 2015, a Public Hearing was held on the Calendar Year 2015 Tax Rates. On April 14, 2015, the
Board approved the final changes to the FY 16 Budget and adopted a tax rate of $0.819/$100 real estate
tax rate for the 2015 Tax Year.
The Board’s approved FY 16 Operating and Capital Budget totals $374,357,538. This is an
increase of $3,671,124 over the County Executive’s Recommended Budget of $370,686,414 and reflects
changes made during the Board’s work sessions. The Budget is based on the approved $0.819/$100 real
estate tax rate for the 2015 Tax Year. The revenue and expenditure changes made to the County
Executive’s Recommended Budget during the work sessions are summarized below:
Revenue Adjustments:
Fund Item Amount
General Fund Real Estate Tax (increase rate from $0.809 to
$0.819)
$1,617,325
Local Adjustments (22,697)
State Adjustments 372,632
State/ Federal Revenue associated with additional
DSS positions
45,656
Use of General Fund fund balance 211,237
School Fund State Adjustments 430,985
Use of General Fund – School Reserve Fund fund
balance
690,000
CIP/Debt Funds VPSA Bond Rebate 97,887
Borrowed Funds 365,752
Use of CIP Fund fund balance (212,897)
Bright Stars Fund Additional State Revenue associated with
additional Bright Stars classroom
75,244
Total Revenue Adjustments $3,671,124
Expenditure Adjustments:
Fund Item Amount
General Fund Two Traffic Safety Officers $313,556
Revised Regional Jail Projection (246,481)
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
One Foster Care Position 78,716
One Family Preservation Position 78,716
Bright Stars Classroom – Family Support portion 40,246
Legal Aid Justice Center 11,525
JAUNT 11,541
Regional Library: Scottsville 8,592
Municipal Band 3,000
Natural Resources position 54,929
Office of Economic Development Adjustment 25,345
Virginia Cooperative Extension – adjustment for
City Share and 4-H Program
13,678
Begin General Government Salary Increases in
October
290,463
Reallocation of Childcare Scholarship
Contingency to United Way
0
Reserve for Contingencies (103,925)
School Fund Begin School Division Salary Increase in October 690,000
Other Adjustments 680,985
CIP/Debt Funds Defer COB Window Replacement Project (330,848)
Undesignated CIP Reserve 1,342,325
School Modernization 1,000,000
School Bus Replacement (300,000)
Trailer Relocation to accommodate Bright Stars
Classroom
25,000
Updated Borrowing Rate for Spring 2015
Issuance
(118,410)
Bright Stars Fund Additional Bright Stars Classroom 147,442
EDA Fund Decrease expenses (14,365)
Fire Rescue Services Fund Decrease Fire Rescue Services Fund reserve (86,851)
Special Revenue Funds Begin Salary Increase in October 55,945
Total Expenditure Adjustments $3,671,124
Staff recommends adoption of the attached FY 16 Budget Resolution approving the FY 16
Operating and Capital Budget as recommended by the County Executive and amended by the Board of
Supervisors.
_____
(Note: Mr. Sheffield read the following Transactional Disclosure Statement: “I am employed as
Executive Director of JAUNT, a regional public transportation provider owned by the City of Charlottesville
and the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, Buckingham, and Amherst located at 104
Keystone Place, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, and have a personal interest in JAUNT because I receive
an annual salary from JAUNT that exceeds $5,000.” He stated that since JAUNT is not being specifically
called out for discussion, he could participate fairly in the consideration of the matter.)
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that this is a housekeeping item for the FY16 budget, which had been approved on April 14, with a
tax rate of 81.9 cents adopted at that time. She stated that the approved budget is $374 million and
reflects the County Executive’s recommended budget plus the amendments made during the Board’s
work session. Ms. Allshouse noted there have been some state and federal revenue adjustments, and
some adjustments in their use of fund balances. She said that some of their expenditure adjustments
include beginning salary increases in October instead of January, additional police and social services
positions, a natural resources position, addition of a Bright Stars classroom, agency funding adjustments,
and CIP adjustments including setting up an undesignated reserve of $1.3 million. Ms. Allshouse said the
recommendation at this time is for the Board to adopt the budget resolution attached to their executive
summary, which approves the FY16 operating and capital budget, as recommended by the County
Executive.
Ms. Dittmar stated there is some confusion in the general public about the County’s fund balance,
and asked Ms. Allshouse to explain the fund balance.
Ms. Allshouse asked if Ms. Dittmar is referring to the General Fund or CIP fund balance. Ms.
Dittmar responded that she is referencing the General Fund fund balance.
Ms. Allshouse explained the General Fund fund balance is appropriated into the FY16 budget as
directed by the Board, but there is also a reserve recommended by the County Executive and staff for
contingencies and unexpected expenses that might occur during the year – and if it is not used, it is
moved over to capital. She said there is also a fund balance that occurs every year, and at the end of the
fiscal year there is additional fund balance. Ms. Allshouse said after they go through the audit, they go
through a process with those funds before they are released.
Ms. Dittmar said that in comparing it to a regular household budget, money is set aside to cover a
minimum of three months in the event of unexpected expenses, and noted that credit agencies also like
to see those reserves.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
Ms. Allshouse agreed, and said there is also 10% fund balance, per the Board’s policy, which is
10% of the General Fund and the school fund – minus the transfer between them – and that is very
important in the event of a serious emergency. She stated that in addition to the fund balance held for
things that occur along the year, there is this 10% “strong” fund balance held throughout the year.
Ms. Mallek noted each time there is the need to allocate funds for additional expenses throughout
the year, those items come before the Board for full discussion and vote; the money is not automatically
spent.
Ms. Allshouse confirmed that is the process, and said that the Board approves all funds
expended by the County.
Mr. Boyd stated that based on what is in the Consent Agenda today, the County is predicting a
$3.77 million surplus this year, and there is some discussion of earmarking those dollars after the audit
for the ACE program. He asked if that is still a condition of this particular budget. Ms. Allshouse
responded that it is.
Mr. Boyd said that they are already dipping into some of those reserves with at least $250,000 for
ACE, and he is not going to vote for the budget because he feels it is an unfair burden to place on the
community to raise the tax rate this much. He added there are also some things in the budget that he
likes.
Ms. Dittmar noted this action is related to putting something out there that shows how the money
is spent.
Mr. Foley added for clarification that by policy and practice, at the end of the fiscal year, the fund
balance moves to the CIP after meeting the 10% fund balance requirement, so the use of ACE money will
obligate year-end monies to go in the CIP. He emphasized that it will not touch the 10% fund balance,
only additional year-end monies that will go in the CIP.
Ms. Mallek noted that the ACE program resides in the CIP anyway.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the FY 16 Budget Resolution approving the FY16 Operating and
Capital Budget as recommended by the County Executive and amended by the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
(Note: The resolution as adopted is set out in full below.)
FY 2016
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2015 is made up of the County
Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of Supervisors.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2015 is summarized as follows:
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
General Government - General Fund
Administration 12,677,023
Judicial 4,831,206
Public Safety 38,102,222
General Services 4,926,599
Health & Welfare (including PVCC)20,109,830
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 7,449,994
Community Development 7,305,236
Nondepartmental 153,794,053
Total General Fund 249,196,163
Less Transfers to Other Funds (152,751,077)
Net General Government - General Fund 96,445,086
School Division - School Fund
School Fund 166,677,977
Less Transfer to Other Funds (3,769,753)
Net School Division - School Fund 162,908,224
School Division - Special Revenue Funds
School Special Revenue Funds 16,192,692
Less Transfer to Other Funds (400,000)
Net School Division - Special Revenue Funds 15,792,692
General Government - Other Funds
Computer Maintenance and Replacement Fund 280,763
Commonwealth's Attorney Commission Fund 60,000
Victim Witness Grant Fund 124,558
Crime Analysis Grant Fund 68,074
Regional Firearms Training Center - Operations Fund 118,432
Fire Rescue Services Fund 14,583,537
Criminal Justice Grant Fund 731,081
Water Resources Fund 1,584,494
Facilities Development Fund 1,032,549
Courthouse Maintenance Fund 35,700
Old Crozet School Fund 83,763
Vehicle Replacement Fund 1,120,254
Bright Stars Fund 1,384,612
Comprehensive Services Act Fund 10,141,584
General Government - Other Funds (Cont.)
Martha Jefferson Health Grant Fund 5,000
Darden Towe Park Fund 273,153
Tourism Fund 1,828,780
Proffers Funds 750,035
Metro Planning Grant Fund 11,801
Economic Development Authority Fund 80,000
Housing Assistance Fund 3,440,000
Total General Government - Other Funds 37,738,170
Less Transfer to Other Funds (4,505,827)
Net General Government - Other Funds 33,232,343
Capital Projects Funds
General Government CIP Fund 30,061,168
Firearms Range CIP Fund 57,916
Fire Rescue Services CIP Fund 6,804,450
Water Resources CIP Fund 230,662
School Projects CIP Fund 10,900,354
Total Capital Projects Funds 48,054,550
Less Transfer to Other Funds (821,408)
Net Capital Projects Funds 47,233,142
Debt Service Funds
General Government Debt Service Fund 5,740,730
School Division Debt Service Fund 13,005,321
Total Debt Service Funds 18,746,051
TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET 374,357,538
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2015 as described in 1) and 2)
above is approved.
Ms. Allshouse mentioned that on May 13, the Board will have a CIP work session, and on June 3
they will have a resolution to fund specific appropriations and will hold the fire/rescue services fund work
session.
Mr. Foley stated that based on final actions the School Board took to advance the teachers’
salaries to July that will be a slight adjustment that will come from the schools’ designated fund balance.
He said that in addition to the approach from the schools for commonality, they decided to move some of
their fund balance over to teachers’ pay beginning in July.
Ms. Mallek said that this is out of the schools’ 2% fund balance that they have retained. Mr. Foley
confirmed that it is, and said that it is done by the Board by policy.
Ms. Dittmar noted that it does not change the overall budget.
_______________
Agenda Item No.11. Work Session: ZTA-2014-3. Neighborhood Model Setbacks and Yards.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the current Zoning Ordinance was
adopted in 1980 and included minimum required front, side and rear yards for conventional zoning
districts. The provisions adopted at that time reflected a more suburban form of development. The 2001
Neighborhood Model amendments to the Comprehensive Plan established new principles of denser,
mixed use, pedestrian oriented development and anticipated reduced yard requirements to better enable
this urban form in the Plan’s Development Areas. Prior Resolutions of Intent (ZTAs 2004 -00002 and
2005-00001) were adopted to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate Neighborhood
Model yard standards in conventional zoning districts. Although several work sessions have been held by
the Planning Commission since and staff held two roundtable discussions with stakeholders in 2011, the
yard requirements have not yet been amended. In the meantime, multiple projects have been rezoned to
Neighborhood Model District (NMD), a planned development district added to the zoning ordinance in
2003, with the allowance for reduced setbacks and yards consistent with the Neighborhood Model
principles. Also, staff reports for new Zoning Map Amendments routinely include a “Neighborhood Model
Analysis” to evaluate a proposal’s adherence to the NMD principles.
After conducting a public hearing on a proposed zoning text amendment to amend the yard
requirements on November 11, 2014 (see Attachment A, Staff Report), the Planning Commission deferred
action and asked the staff to hold another roundtable with the development community to hear their
comments and ideas pertaining to maximum setbacks, the proposed gara ge off-set, and special
exceptions to modify applicable setback standards. The roundtable provided valuable information, which
resulted in the revised ordinance that was considered by the Planning Commission at a second public
hearing on March 17, 2015 (see Attachment B, Staff Report). The Commission recommended the
proposed ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for approval with some modifications.
The proposed amendments to the setback and yard regulations are intended to implement the
Neighborhood Model principles and enable conventional residential, commercial and industrial districts to
achieve a form of development comparable to that which has been possible for approximately 10 years in
planned development districts, in particular the Neighborhood Model District. To that end, the Planning
Commission voted on March 17, 2015 to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance (see
Attachment C) with the following modifications:
1. Address grandfathering of proffered conventional re-zonings.
--This has been accomplished in the attached ordinance by adding a note at the end of the
tables in Sections 4.19 and 4.20.
2. Write in the provisions for reduction of minimum setbacks by special exception.
--This has been included in the attached ordinance by adding a note after the tables in
Sections 4.19 and 4.20.
3. Clarify the definition of infill so the reference is to the lot as it exists at the time of proposed
development.
--The proposed ordinance now includes this clarification in the definition of “infill”.
4. Change references to “residential structure” to “dwelling unit” as that is a defined term in
the zoning ordinance.
--The proposed ordinance now uses “dwelling unit” consistently.
5. Address the numbering of Sections 4.11.5 and 4.11.6 as necessary.
--This has been corrected in the proposed ordinance by renumbering these sections as
4.19 and 4.20.
6. Include a note in the tables that clarifies references to yards and setbacks in the definition
section (Section 3.1).
--Rather than address this with a note, this draft revises the definition of “setback” to make
this clarification.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
After review of this proposed zoning text amendment further implementing the Neighborhood
Model through changes to setback and yard regulations in the development areas, staff recommends that
the Board schedule this amendment for public hearing.
_____
Ms. Dittmar said that Ms. Mallek has pointed out that public comment can be taken at work
sessions, so the Board will allow that after their discussion.
Mr. Ron Higgins, Deputy Zoning Administrator, addressed the Board, stating that the 1980 Zoning
Ordinance has setbacks that are largely suburban in nature, and in 2001 the County adopted a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment that took the Neighborhood Model form of development and started to
embrace those principles. Mr. Higgins said the Development Areas Initiatives Study (DISC) won awards
for the County at the time it was developed by staff, and brought the realization that the Neighborhood
Model would work in Albemarle’s development areas. He stated that the County adopted the
Neighborhood Model zoning district and has rezonings for those projects throughout the development
area to this day. Mr. Higgins stated they have held many work sessions and roundtables as well as
resolutions of intent for setbacks related to the Neighborhood Model in the past 10 years, but have not
adopted all of the setbacks because they were too aggressive. He said they have also had multiple
projects rezoned to the Neighborhood Model during that time. Mr. Higgins presented slides showing
hypothetical examples of this form of development if it were implemented in the County, including the
Sam’s Club parking lot and Berkmar Drive Extended, and demonstrated how changing th e setbacks can
allow for infill development in that area.
Mr. Higgins stated that staff had stated over the years a desire to make it easier to do the
Neighborhood Model form of development in the development areas, and said they are proposing steps
toward that at this meeting. He explained that the proposal related to infill is to protect existing
neighborhoods while allowing them to evolve, using things like “side separations” instead of minimum
setbacks, and a break in building facades over 40 feet – or about three stories – in height so the street is
not overwhelmed by a building. He added this will also mean that the entire building will not be pushed
back 60 feet from the street as the current ordinance provides. Mr. Higgins said they tried to have
garages on all of the residential streets, and the offset for those has been an issue – with existing
garages having to meet front setback requirements if they are attached to the house. He stated that in
neighborhoods it may not be possible to relegate the parking and put it beside or behind the building, but
it can be subordinated enough to maintain the Neighborhood Model principle of drawing the eye to the
street and fostering interaction.
Mr. Higgins stated that infill is defined in the ordinance as 500 feet in each direction with 40% of
the properties developed, and under this proposal has eliminated the maximum for infill – which the
Commission feels is important. He said that under the proposed ZTA, the location in existing infill will only
be determined by the closest house within 500 feet to establish a minimum, with the County determining
that by using GIS. Mr. Higgins commented he has done that for years and it has worked very well. He
presented examples of commercial districts and stated that there are currently no side or rear setbacks,
and are based on whatever the building code requires. The front setback is required as a minimum of 30
feet, and under this proposal staff is recommending that it be reduced to 10 f eet, which will coincide with
the current parking setback. He noted there is currently a front maximum setback but that is not
proposed everywhere under the new proposal, as that raised concern among the development
community and the Route 29 Community Advisory Council.
Mr. Higgins stated that in the example provided, commercial is adjacent to residential, low
density, rural – and the more aggressive proposals in earlier attempts are not accepted, especially in
tandem with the side and rear setbacks being recommended simultaneously. He said the ordinance has
50-foot and 100-foot setbacks in commercial and industrial districts, and staff is proposing to keep the
large setbacks when adjacent to residential and rural, allow the minimum setback to prevail, and
encourage corridors where a maximum will be applied in an effort to move steadily toward the
Neighborhood Model. Mr. Higgins noted that staff is not proposing a maximum on principal arterials. He
stated that with Route 29 and Route 250, the prevailing pattern is such that it probably will not have an
effect, so staff decided to move the Neighborhood Model out of the corridors to make it easier for people
there to continue to develop.
Mr. Higgins reported that with industrial properties, staff evaluated existing industrial districts –
which are few, and are not in the Neighborhood Model context. He said most of these ha ve multiple
buildings at various distances from the street, but the recommendation is to keep the setback minimums
as it will help them redevelop and infill development on their own sites. Mr. Higgins said the same is true
for side and rear setbacks adjacent to residential, with no changes or increases recommend ed, and 50-
foot setbacks recommended for LI, 100-foot for HI. He stated that he and Mr. Cilimberg have done an
extensive inventory of these properties around the County, and assessed that there w ill not be a lot of
problematic situations, and the adjacencies will not be affected. Mr. Higgins presented information on
property setbacks – which is the distance from the property line – and explained that currently there is a
setback on the front side and rear, with two feet in setback required for every foot above 35 feet. He
stated this provision renders a lot of underdeveloped properties almost undevelopable beyond their
current uses, as you can end up with a 110-foot setback requirement. Mr. Higgins said the proposal
recommends eliminating the additional setback requirement for front, side and rear, bu t is keeping a
“step-back,” which is really an adjustment to the façade of a building, with structures above 40 feet
needing to step back 15 feet.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Higgins presented an example of a multi-family high-density residential development that can
go above 65 feet, next to a low-density residential development, which can be a rather imposing addition.
He said that in this instance, the additional setback will be kept – but at a level of one setback foot for
every foot above 35 feet. Mr. Higgins stated that all of the minimums and maximums can be varied with
special exception, and the development has provided a lot of great ideas that helps staff generate a list of
automatic administrative changes to setback. He stated if there are things that are physically easily
measurable – such as critical slopes and utilities – additional front setback will be given, and the process
will be by-right with a few discretionary special exceptions built in.
Mr. Higgins said that the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation is for the Board to
adopt the ordinance as presented, with six caveats as listed in the staff report. He stated that the
Planning Commission has recommended approval of the ordinance with those corrections, as
implemented by staff, and staff will recommend that the Board advertise it for public hearing.
Ms. Mallek stated that the images shown for residential and garages shows individual buildings,
and asked how it is different when there are townhouses when the location of the garage is integral to a
building’s inside architecture.
Mr. Higgins responded that it does not work in townhouses very well, and the difficulty of making
that a consistent offset is not effective, nor is it cost effective – and staff wishes to make an exception for
townhouses when this is brought back to the Board for public hearing.
Ms. Mallek said she understands the desire to have variety so there will not be a monolithic
structure, and there must be ways to vary the aspects of it.
Mr. Higgins said it exists now with the offset of the unit itself, which provides some fenestration,
and townhouses vary as far as each unit. He stated that typically there is a garage door on the lower
level with a basement, with steps or an entrance coming out. Mr. Higgins added that staff feels this
particular provision does not lend itself well to townhouses.
Ms. Dittmar said she had spoken with Mr. Higgins about this, and asked him what he might want
to bring back to the Board. Mr. Higgins responded that if it were up to him, only the townhouses would be
exempt. He stated that he will support what staff has recommended – and the Planning Commission
embraced unanimously – that the garage not dominate, which is not an architectural or design issue, but
a principle of Neighborhood Model development. Mr. Higgins added that you do not want parking to
dominate the street front, and it should be subordinated so that porches, doors and windows are
engaging the street. He said staff will recommend that something be kept there, but perhaps just not
jutting out from the structure, achieved by measures such as pushing the garage back three feet. Mr.
Higgins stated that if the garage is at the front wall but not closer, porches and steps can become the
engaging, prominent feature of a home. He stated that it is up to the Board, and he is echoing what the
Planning Commission has supported.
Mr. Boyd asked why staff thinks they, as a Board of Supervisors, should dictate what the market
will be. He stated he had grown up in these types of neighborhoods in the Washington, D.C. area and he
is not sure why the County wants to change the community into that – a D.C. or New York type borough
where people want to live, eat, work and play in the same neighborhood. Mr. Boyd said he is trying to
figure out where the Neighborhood Model has emerged, as he had been part of the DISC process when it
was first initiated. He stated he had read a letter from a constituent just before the meeting that asked
why the Board is eager to change the nature of the community, and also holds him accountable for it,
citing the developments in the Pantops area such as Riverside and Cascadia as examples of this. Mr.
Boyd said the constituent is asking why the Board is changing the nature of the community.
Mr. Higgins responded those are great questions that always arise when they are playing with
concepts like the Neighborhood Model, but the old planner in him would say they are not dictating it –
they are allowing it. He said the reason he sa ys that is because they have learned over the last 10 years
through the evolution of this process that certain principles are too much, with the idea being to allow it.
Mr. Higgins stated that the wonderful neighborhood environments in the D.C. area, which is where his
children live, are what people are trying to get back to – but many of the County’s ordinances were written
on the suburban models of the 50s and 60s, and hence will not allow for neighborhood-style
developments.
Mr. Boyd mentioned a constituent from his district who is trying to build in Mr. Sheffield’s district,
but cannot build what he wants to build because of the ordinances and setback requirements.
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, clarified that what that person wants to build is what
this ordinance change is trying to provide.
Mr. Higgins agreed that it is exactly what he wants to build.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this constituent is stuck with the suburban form setbacks of today’s
ordinances, and what he is looking for is what this ordinance proposes to change.
Mr. Higgins said that is his point.
Mr. Boyd stated that it might solve that particular situation, but he wonder s about the unintended
consequences the ordinance change might bring by being so specific. Mr. Cilimberg responded what
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
staff has tried to represent is what had been decided in documents that the Board has reviewed over the
years and passed as policies, so this is part of the effort to implement those things. He stated there were
some specific recommendations when the Neighborhood Model was passed in terms of zoning ordinance
changes, which these current changes are trying to reflect – but to be enabling, not to dictate.
Mr. Sheffield asked how the County is handling the setback for garages currently. Mr. Higgins
explained that currently a garage within three feet of a house is considered part of the house, so it ha s the
same front, rear and side setbacks as a home. He said that under conventional zoning, if it is detached
more than three feet it has to meet the same front setback, but can be six feet from the rear or side. He
emphasized that they are treated differently when they are detached, and that will be the case here also.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that under the current ordinance provisions, there is also the possibility that
the garage – even attached – can be closer to the street than the façade of the house, but the proposals
here will change that. He said that in the Neighborhood Model districts that ha ve been zoned individually,
such as Belvedere, there are certain requirements for garages versus houses that are set out as part of
the zoning action rather than in this ordinance, and that will not change.
Mr. Higgins said the County had made some amendments about five years earlier, because for
about 25 years the ordinance allowed someone to build a house on a lot and build an accessory structure
more than three feet, but no closer than six feet to any line. There were several situations where a house
was built in the center of a property, with the garage in the front yard 10 feet from the front. Mr. Higgins
stated that it is odd, and people did not think it made sense, so the County kept the six -foot setback but
made the front yard garage not be closer than the setback. He said this is a recent change to respond to
an odd situation that does not work very well in most neighborhoods.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that some of what Mr. Boyd heard from his constituent may have been
related to the level of density that has developed at Pantops, which dates back to what was rezoned in
the early 1990s for the Luxor development. He said all of that zoning is conventional and uses the
current ordinance provisions, so these new provisions w ill provide the opportunity for something different
than what is seen out there.
Mr. Boyd stated his concern is the density being put in that area. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
these proposals are not changing density at all.
Mr. Boyd said he knows that, but this is changing the way houses can be configured on a
particular lot – which can vary from lot to lot because of factors such as critical slopes.
Mr. Higgins stated it will not be any closer than a house to a street in an existing neighborhood
currently.
Mr. Sheffield said he does not see that as a problem now, and his concern is the general footprint
of these buildings, and it seems that they are getting down to specific aspects of buildings – which feels a
bit too far into the weeds for him.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if he is referring to the placement of a garage. Mr. Sheffield responded the
garage is the most prominent example at the moment, and there are other parts of a house that can be
regulated in terms of setbacks, such as sheds.
Mr. Higgins emphasized this ordinance does not pertain to accessory structures at all, because
they are allowed to be anywhere other than the front yard setback, closer than six feet.
Ms. Mallek stated Mr. Boyd is right that this is a density issue, which is what the residents of
Crozet had opposed in the early 2000s, with 6-36 units per acre right next to R-1 zoning being a difficult
change for them to accept. She said this has evolved back into a more manageable level in the second
issue of the master plan, to increase people’s comfort. Ms. Mallek stated this seem s to allow for many
more options ministerially, provided they met criteria, yet she does not want to saddle people with
unnecessary architectural changes. She said there are a lot of people who do seek community type
living, because during the recession nearly 50% of the building permits in the entire County were places
in Crozet. Ms. Mallek said that as long as they are not requiring it, but are offering it as an option for
developers, she can support it – and they still need to hear from constituents in the public hearing.
Ms. Dittmar said there has been great concern in the City over The Flats, particularly its close
proximity to the main street, and asked if these proposed provisions protect t he County from that situation
and massive amounts of building.
Mr. Higgins said the changes will bring buildings closer in the commercial area, but institute a 15-
foot step back, with the Board granting special exceptions for the distance to be any less t han that. He
stated the target number for breaking up a building façade is 40 feet, as that represents three stories, to
help minimize a “canyon” effect.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the 40-foot provision is borrowed from the Downtown Crozet district,
including the step back.
Ms. Mallek said the west side of Carter Street in Crozet is a different district than the downtown
zone, and people in small houses there are facing the possibility of four-story buildings next door, which
generates the step back requirement.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
The Chair invited public comment.
Mr. Chris Wynn of Southern Development, a new home builder, addressed the Board, stating
there are a lot of great things in the ordinance, but they are concerned about the garage provisions. Mr.
Wynn explained that the pictures look great when a garage is a small proportion of a house, but the lots
around the County, as density increases, are smaller, and there are a lot of elements to fit into a tight
space. He said that pushing it back limits full use of square footage, and in many cases means fighting
topography given the County’s mountainous terrain. Mr. Wynn stated that the aging in place model with
single levels and no steps has been increasingly popular, but as sites are pushed back, it forces the need
for steps in many cases. He said there are also economic impacts, with a lot of plans and model homes
where the garage is set forward, and a lot of subdivisions where 80% of the houses have that scheme.
Mr. Sheffield asked if Southern Development had built Dunlora Forest, and what the impact of
this ordinance would have been. Mr. Wynn responded they had built it, and under this proposed
ordinance, none of those plans would have been built, and stated that the homes in Dunlora Forest are
flush or within one foot in either direction. Mr. Wynn said that duplexes are also a concern, because
depending on how the street runs, when there are two attached units one would be jogged forward,
making the garage closer than the unit next door. He stated with that development the garage or the
house would have had to shrink, adding that Dunlora Forest was their fastest- selling development ever.
Mr. Wynn commented that the images are great, but not realistic of what is built around the County.
Ms. Mallek said another big selling feature is a private backyard, which people do not want to
have facing the street.
Mr. Sheffield stated the concerns seem to be more related to the proximity of buildings to one
another rather than street setbacks, and it seems there is more trial and error to be done over the next
several years as infill develops.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, commending staff for their work over the last 10 years
on the model. He stated that in many cases the setbacks in the proposal are good, and he appreciates
that staff have met with surveyors and made changes that are beneficial to the ordinance. He said he
also appreciates Ms. Mallek’s comments about the need to make this flexible for people. Mr. Williamson
commented that he takes exception to staff’s opinion on the garages and three-foot setback, and said that
the setbacks from garages will harm more than help. He noted there could be side-loading garages if
there is enough width for turning radius, and the idea of setting the garage forward makes sense on
certain lots, but letting the market decide what the market wants is what the Free Enterprise Forum
supports. Mr. Williamson added this should be “a” model – not “the” model.
There was no further public comment.
Mr. Higgins stated that staff hopes to set this for public hearing and would like the Board to
provide guidance on the garage issue and the adjacency issue.
Mr. Sheffield commented that his concerns going into this are related more to proximity of
buildings, but staff has handled those issues well and this is definitely a leap forward from where they had
been.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that if they do not want to consider the three-foot setback for the garage,
it can be removed from the ordinance before it is advertised and then remove it in the public hearing – but
it cannot be added back in later without re-advertisement. He also stated that the provision for 18 feet is
very important because it is to give a minimum area for a car to park in front of a garage and not be
obstructing a sidewalk, so he would ask that it not be removed. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Planning
Commission has asked staff to come back in one year and assess how the ordinance changes ha ve
worked and whether any tweaks are necessary. He mentioned that the Downtown Crozet District zoning
needed some tweaks after a year or so.
Ms. Mallek said they had to make changes to the code of development in Old Trail because they
could not make the driveways work, so it is important to keep the process for changing things as easy as
possible, not to shortcut public input but to allow for expediency. She stated that if the duplex issues
raised fall into the same category as townhouses perhaps that can be solved under those provisions. Mr.
Higgins responded that there is an entire category for single-family attached dwellings, and both duplexes
and townhouses will be covered under that, allowing them to eliminate the offset.
Ms. Dittmar said that their decisions are to set a public hearing and consider whether to include
garages in this provision, as there seems to be more work needed on that particular item.
Mr. Higgins and Mr. Foley confirmed that it is on the June 3 agenda for public hearing.
Ms. Dittmar asked the Board if they want to keep the garage provisions in the ordinance as it
goes to public hearing, which will require fast work and analysis from staff, or remove it.
Mr. Sheffield asked if they can just keep the approach for garages in the fronts of the house now,
because the proposed ordinance changes that.
Mr. Cilimberg said that excluding the three-foot garage requirement will remove it from the
provisions, and the garage would be subject to the same setback as the front of the house.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Mallek said it will also allow for a special exception, and stated that her concern is erasing a
problem for someone that creates one for someone else. She added she understands that form-based
code makes things faster, but she is trying to leave in provisions that will allow for exceptions based on
special circumstances.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that if they remove the three-foot provision, there is still the option of putting
the garage further back from the front of the house, but the County’s ability to require it to be three feet
back will not be there.
Ms. Dittmar noted they can always look at that specific item later, and add it in.
Mr. Sheffield said that in neighborhood developments like Belvedere, those setbacks c an be
specifically required, and that can be negotiated at the time a big development comes in.
Ms. Mallek said those big developments will have their own code of development, but it will be
good not to bog down all of the mid-size ones into a code of development where this provision is being
facilitated.
Ms. Palmer asked if this does not interfere with the 18-foot provision.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the provision will remain.
Mr. Higgins noted that they would want to keep that, and require that now with over lot grading in
planned development so there will be some distance for a car.
Ms. McKeel clarified that all they are talking about is a three-foot setback from the façade of the
house.
Ms. Dittmar said that Mr. Sheffield is suggesting they just remove garages from the new rewrite,
as that item can be addressed later.
Ms. McKeel commented there has been consensus on many of the other items, so it will be good
to move those forward at this time.
Mr. Higgins said if they remove the required offset of three feet, but people still need to have 18
feet in front of them, they may choose to bring the house forward and push the garage at the 18-foot line,
which might allow for some design flexibility and help solve the issue raised recently by a landowner.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that rear-loading garages served by an alley are not impacted at all by
this provision.
Mr. Sheffield moved to advertise ZTA-2014-003 for public hearing for June 3, 2015, with the
deletion of the three-foot regulation for garage setback. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Recess. The Board recessed their meeting at 3:02 p.m., and reconvened at 3:18 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No.12. Work Session: County’s Secondary Road Improvement Priorities/VDOT
Secondary Six-Year Plan (SSYP) and County Recommendations for Projects in Six Year Improvement
Program (SYIP).
The executive summary as presented by staff states that in an effort to assist the Board’s
consideration of the County’s overall transportation improvement needs, staff put together a
comprehensive County Transportation Priority list and presented it to the Board at its April 1 st meeting
(Attachment A). Staff recommended and the Board accepted the list for use as the basis for including
projects in various funding plans and programs including the SSYP and SYIP. Staff noted at the time
that a list of priorities for paving unpaved roads was not yet complete and would be provided for this work
session.
Annually, the Board reviews its priorities for inclusion in the VDOT SSYP for which the Board
subsequently holds a public hearing (this year planned for June). Additionally, the Comm onwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) annually conducts public hearings regarding the SYIP, which includes
highway, rail and public transportation initiatives. These public hearings are currently underway and the
CTB is also receiving written public comments until May 22nd, 2015 on projects and programs to be
included in the Fiscal Year 2016-2021 SYIP.
The attached staff report (Attachment B) provides information on the projects to be included in the
SSYP and SYIP, including a list of unpaved road priorities. Using these priorities and the County
Transportation Priority list provided to the Board on April 1, staff has developed recommendations for: 1)
secondary road priorities to be used by VDOT to update the SSYP and, 2) projects to be funded in the FY
2016-21 SYIP. This work session is focused on receiving Board input regarding these recommendations.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
Staff, based on these comments, will work in conjunction with VDOT to finalize the SSYP for a Board
public hearing. Based on Board comments, staff will al so provide input to VDOT and the CTB regarding
projects to be included in the SYIP.
The SSYP is for the expenditure of State/VDOT secondary road construction funds allocated to
the County. The SYIP is for the expenditure of other State/VDOT transportation funds. Neither program
requires the expenditure of County funds except to the extent that any project may also utilize revenue
sharing funds or otherwise necessitate County resources in support of the project.
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) appro ve the list of unpaved road priorities set forth in the
staff report; 2) approve the “Recommended Projects and Updates for the FY16 SSYP” set forth in the
staff report for inclusion in the County’s draft FY16 SSYP; 3) schedule a public hearing on the SSYP for
June 3, 2015; and 4) approve the three (3) projects set forth in the staff report to be forwarded to VDOT
and the CTB for inclusion in the SYIP for funding and construction.
_____
Mr. Gerald Gatobu, Transportation Planner, addressed the Board and stated that Joel DeNunzio
of VDOT will begin the work session discussion.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio, Resident Administrator, addressed the Board, stating that they meet twice per
year to review their work session and prioritization for the secondary six-year plan. He stated the funding
is presented in the staff report, with the allocations being all tele-fees and CTB formula, unpaved state,
which are similar to last year. Mr. DeNunzio said that tele-fee funds can be used for any secondary
project the Board wishes to prioritize, and unpaved funds – representing 5% of their allocation – has to be
used for unpaved roads. He stated that the goal of this meeting is to prioritize rural rustic roads, but Rio
Mills is a new unpaved road for allocation.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, stated that Attachment D provides an update of current
projects in the six-year plan.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that Route 708, Dry Bridge Road, has been completed, and once the bills
for it are all paid it will come off of the list. He stated that Route 637 is currently under construction and
will likely be completed next year, and Black Cat Road, Route 606, is under construction. Mr. DeNunzio
reported that Dickerson Road has been on their list for a long time as both an unpaved road project and a
bridge replacement. He said that most of the County’s tele-fees have been allocated to this project, and
the bridge currently is closed – with one section currently being rehabbed now and two sections to be
rehabbed over the next two years, to the point where the bridge will still be single -lane but will be at or
close to legal load. He said that because of that, they will not allocate bridge funding to that project
anymore, and the bridge will be suitable to carry emergency vehicles. Mr. DeNunzio said this will free up
tele-fee funds that will need to go elsewhere, and can be allocated to the rural rustic program at the
Board’s discretion, or into Rio Mills Road. He stated if they do not make a decision on whether to pursue
that road the tele-fee funds can be put there for the time being and reallocated later on.
Ms. Palmer asked what the tele-fee fund amount total is. Mr. Benish confirmed that it is $1.23
million.
Mr. DeNunzio said that the total spans all six years, giving them about $311,000 per year, for a
total of $1.8 million.
Mr. Boyd asked if that money can be banked, as they had for the John Warner Parkway. Mr.
DeNunzio said that will be getting into HB2 money, and any new projects that are not funded are subject
to HB2. He said that tele-fee and unpaved road funds are not subject to HB2 prioritization.
Ms. Mallek said that they can put the money into Rio Mills and decide later where it will be
allocated.
Mr. Boyd stated that back when there was more funding available they would bank the money for
bigger projects, and wondered if they might want to do that again because $300K will not get them much.
Mr. DeNunzio said that when they begin to work under HB2, if there is a high-scoring project, it will be
funded much more quickly. He stated that they can bank the funding for tele-fees, but it will take a long
time to build up enough to get a project done, whereas HB2 projects w ill be accelerated.
Mr. Boyd said it makes more sense to spend the money now, and shift it over to rural rustic roads
if it is not going to Rio Mills Road.
Ms. Mallek said they will need to do a better prioritization of those country roads, as they should
not be funding roads that have 25 cars per day. Mr. DeNunzio stated that they will still be required to
have a minimum of 50 vehicles per day on any unpaved road project, with rural rustics being 50-1500.
Mr. Benish noted that Mr. Gatobu has a concept plan as to how to use this money, which he will
present to them in this work session.
Mr. DeNunzio said that Midway Road was completed in 2014; Pocket Lane and Doctors Crossing
will be completed in 2015; Keswick Drive is on the list as a rural rustic road; and Rio Mills Road is the
unpaved road priority. He noted the other items in the six-year plan are countywide small projects such
as traffic signals, signs, and so forth.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Boyd asked how they will deal with pedestrian and bicycle crossings, as there is a need on
both Route 250 and 29 North. Mr. DeNunzio stated that Route 29 crossings has been difficult because of
the impact of traffic and the time it takes to cross the road, and because there are few areas with enough
room in the median for a refuge area in the median, they have to provide enough time for a person to
cross the entire road.
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek said that they are talking about grade-separated walkover crossings.
Mr. DeNunzio stated those types of projects will likely be revenue-sharing projects, and he is not
sure how they will score at this point, but they will not be subject to HB2.
Mr. Benish noted that those are primary road projects, so they will need to discuss those when
they make recommendations to VDOT and the CTB for primary roads.
Ms. Mallek said that it is a safety project for the people there.
Mr. DeNunzio said that Highway Safety Improvement Projects (HSIP) are not subject to
prioritization, and there are currently a few approved – a pedestrian crossing for Rio Road from Albemarle
Square to Fashion Square Mall at the signal, the western side of Rio Road, and a pedestrian crossing at
the new Chick-Fil-A across Route 250 to State Farm Boulevard. He noted those are at-grade projects,
and multi-million dollar bridge crossings will likely need to be revenue-sharing projects.
Ms. Palmer asked for clarification that Midway Road and Pocket Lane are rural rustic, but Rio
Mills is a paving. Mr. DeNunzio said that Rio Mills is an unpaved road project, but not rural rustic, and
due to the quarry traffic and the box culvert required at the bend of that road, it c annot just be surface
treated. He said the road has been on and off the list, back on and off, and now it is back on.
Ms. Mallek stated that they cleaned the money out of it years ago t o concentrate on Georgetown
Road and Jarman’s Gap, to consolidate the buckets of funding.
Mr. Benish suggested that Mr. Gatobu complete his presentation, and then they c an get further
into discussion.
Mr. Gatobu addressed the Board and stated that the purpose of the work session is to provide
comments on the County’s transportation priority list, focusing on secondary road improvements. He said
VDOT’s six-year construction program is looked at annually and they will be recommending and
approving projects for the updated FY16 six-year secondary plan. Mr. Gatobu explained that VDOT’s six-
year improvement program is for primary roads, with a separate six-year secondary plan, and the
delineation is roads numbered above 600 as secondary and those below 600 being primary. He stated
the Board annually reviews the County’s transportation priority list for secondary road improvements, and
this year accepted a comprehensive transportation list in April. Mr. Gatobu said the t ransportation priority
list will be used as a basis for projects included in VDOT’s six -year secondary plan, which the Board
approves after a public hearing.
Mr. Gatobu stated the projections from VDOT include secondary unpaved road s, CTB unpaved
and tele-fee funds. He said that CTB unpaved is general unpaved roads, and this year that amount is
approximately $2.49 million, down from $2.6 million last year. He stated that tele-fee funds have
increased from $1.7 million last year to $1.8 million this year. Mr. Gatobu said with the available funding
they have, they need to use those funds for what is currently on the list. He stated that staff is
recommending that Bunker Hill Road and Preddy Creek Road be brought up onto the six-year secondary
list as rural rustic roads. Mr. Gatobu said that bridge projects usually receive some federal funding, so
they do not consume all of the local and state funding. He stated that with the unpaved rural rustic roads,
Midway Road is done so Bunker Hill moves up, and t hen Preddy Creek.
Mr. Gatobu noted that the Dickerson Road allocated funds of $1.23 million c an be put elsewhere.
He said the two highest priority roads on the secondary list are Proffit Road, to improve alignment, install
curb and gutter, bike lanes and sidewalks; and Sunset Road, to improve alignment, install curb and
gutter, bike lanes and sidewalks. Mr. Gatobu stated that staff recommend s the County and VDOT staff
evaluate the scope and cost of the projects. Anything else the Board might want will need to be reviewed
for the potential of revenue-sharing monies. He added that staff also recommends the Rio Mills paving
project be re-evaluated in light of the future construction of Berkmar Drive Extended, and will expect to
bring recommendations of which roads to bring into the six-year secondary plan next year.
Mr. Benish stated that Rio Mills and Dickerson Road had long been seen as possible parallel
roads if they are paved, but with Route 29 Solutions changing the status of Berkmar as a parallel r oad,
the status of Rio and Dickerson should be reassessed.
Mr. Boyd said that it would be even further diminished if they were to extend Ashwood Boulevard
over to the new Berkmar extension, and can be a pedestrian and bicycle path.
Ms. Mallek stated it can at least start as a pedestrian and bike path, with cars to come later, and
$2 million would not even cover the right of way.
Mr. Boyd said that he keeps hearing about $83 million floating around in VDOT.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
Ms. Mallek stated that it is in their 20-year constrained plan, but is not sitting aside waiting for
them to spend it. She asked if the connection from Berkmar Drive to Airport Road is part of Route 29
Solutions, because she assumes that it has been.
Mr. Sheffield said that it is not part of those plans, and in addition has complicating factors of a
cell tower in the middle of the property, and a steep grade as the hill descend s.
Mr. Benish stated there is a corridor where it can go through, but there are difficulties with getting
it in, and the Route 29 Solutions project terminates at Town Center Drive, by the Kohl’s, where it ties into
existing road networks as part of that development. He confirmed that the northern point from
Timberwood Boulevard extended to Airport Road is not part of the Route 29 Solutions.
Ms. Mallek said that people will basically jog around through the condos there, and go out and
take a right, then a left on Innovation and go that way – which seems kind of strange to her.
Ms. McKeel commented that it is a shame it has worked out that way.
Mr. Sheffield said the road they will travel on will be considered another parallel main road, so
they will go to the roundabout and swing around. He stated that this is something they should always try
to keep in the forefront of making a final connection. Mr. Benish agreed, but said there are options to use
those roads.
Mr. Gatobu stated that four projects have been added to the County’s transportation priority list,
which is the “big list,” based on the Comprehensive Plan updates and funding for the Berkmar Road
Extension project. He said the projects include the Ashwood Boulevard extension; 5th Street Extended
curb and gutter, bike lanes and sidewalks; Avon Street Extended curb and gutter and bike lanes; and
Berkmar Drive Extended to Airport Road. Mr. Gatobu said those have been added to the secondary
roads project, and rural rustic eligible projects are moved from the paving-eligible list onto the
comprehensive rural rustic road list.
Mr. Boyd said it seem s to him that the Route 29 Solutions package will be greatly enhanced with
Ashwood Boulevard extending over to Berkmar Drive Extended, because it will provide a route east to
west without having to go down Route 29. He said that he thought it had been on the list at one point.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Forest Lakes people had been opposed to that connection.
Ms. McKeel said that she has received emails in opposition to it.
Mr. Boyd stated that he has not heard that they are upset about that, and those emails are
anecdotal data.
Ms. McKeel stated she does not disagree with that, but wanted to share what she has heard.
Ms. Mallek said that Bunker Hill has been off the list for about a decade, and asked when they
are going to talk about numbers of cars.
Mr. Benish explained it had gone off the list but now has been put back on, and the Board is
getting ready to look at the unpaved road list.
Mr. Gatobu stated there have been three public requests for road improvements: Clark Hill Road
northbound; Fox Mountain Road up to Montfair Winery; and Coles Mountain Road – which is already in
the rural rustic paving projects. He said these projects will be reviewed by VDOT and County staff for
possible inclusion in next year’s six-year plan. Mr. Gatobu said staff is requesting that the Board provide
comments on the County’s priority list on secondary road improvements, and provide comments for
VDOT’s six-year construction program.
Mr. Benish said they may want to revisit Attachment B in unpaved roads, since there are
questions about that.
Ms. Mallek asked if the new projects are Clark Hill and Fox Mountain Road. Mr. Gatobu
responded that the projects are Bunker Hill and Preddy Creek Road.
Ms. Palmer said she is interested in establishing which projects are important for safety, which
are most critical, and which projects that have been on the list for many years are still viable. She stated
that she likes the idea of having a category for projects that might be on the list but will likely not be a
priority until well into the future, to give the public an idea of what the process is, rather than leaving the
items on the list to give the impression they are coming up for improvement.
Ms. Dittmar asked if this list is available on the website. Mr. Benish responded that it has been in
the past, and they will make it available in the future.
Ms. Dittmar said that it will be helpful to have links that tell the history of a specific road; for
example, the road mentioned earlier that has been on the list for 67 years.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
Ms. McKeel stated that she likes the explanatory information on the list provided, which says
“public request at current ranking due to traffic count,” and also include s the reason why a road is not
funded.
Mr. Benish said that the information also includes the date at which the request had been
received, and there was no official unpaved road list established until 1990. He stated that previously, all
unpaved roads were done as regular construction projects, and the rural rustic road concept was not
launched in the Count y until the early 2000s – and that is when staff created a separate list for those
eligible roads. Mr. Benish said that when they created the two separate lists, when VDOT changed the
interpretation of the criteria, things moved from one list to the other . He stated they are trying to avoid
going back and forth between lists, and in 2009 or 2010, the Board directed staff to prioritize projects only
in the given year that the application comes in. Mr. Benish said that staff prioritized any projects that
came in, but if the Board feels there needs to be others added to the list, they will be prioritized in the next
year – but they do not want projects to be leapfrogged. He stated that for the past five years, when an
item entered into the list, staff would prioritize them again. Mr. Benish explained that the intent by the
Board is to keep even small projects moving forward, but if the Board wants to change that approach, the
most direct way would be to not put the projects on the list. He said if they want more direction from staff,
they can provide it, but once an item is put on the list it will start to move up the list, and a new project will
not jump ahead of it unless there are unique circumstances – such as the paving of Gillums Ridge Road
because of its use as an alternate route while Dry Bridge Road is closed.
Ms. Palmer said the rural rustic roads that get a lot of traffic are falling apart, and asked if there
are defined criteria used to put roads at the top of the list. Mr. Benish explained they base it primarily on
whether a project is in the development or rural area, and said that there are very few projects left in the
development area – Reservoir Road, Rio Mills Road, and Dick Woods Road. He stated they then look at
traffic count and the functional classification of the roadway, as well as accident reports and information
from fire/rescue and schools. Mr. Benish said the County establishes whether or not there is community
interest in the project, and evaluates the traffic volume. He stated they also look at the geometrics of a
road – the curvature, road width and shoulders.
Mr. Boyd stated there are a lot of pieces that go into that decision process, and said that Doctors
Crossing was not flagged as having school concerns although the bus drivers will mention roads that are
deemed to be difficult or dangerous. He added that there is no real scoring system done, with different
aspects considered for each road.
Ms. Palmer said that with the CIP process there is justification provided for projects, and she feels
it would be helpful for the Board and the public to have that kind of information, as it makes projects look
less arbitrary. Mr. Foley responded that staff is working on that.
Ms. Mallek said the criteria rankings are relatively new, because in the past there could be one
individual generating complaints that ended up putting a road on a list, and when it came time for public
hearing the other neighbors came in and opposed it. She stated she has advocated for a long time to
have the petition done in the beginning – not at the end – and the responsibility should fall on the citizens,
not staff, to establish whether there is sufficient interest in a project. Ms. Mallek said that back when the
County had $5 million a year, a lot more was possible, but for $300,000 it will be difficult and slow to take
care of any of these projects. She mentioned that she is glad to see Clark Road on the list, because
school busses have to put on chains at the Doyle’s River Bridge, take them off at the top of the hill, and
then go down to Millington – and when they come back in the afternoon they have to do it all over again.
She said this is not because of snow, it is because of mud, and the road is too narrow for cars to pass.
Ms. Mallek said the road by Montfair Winery is also a concern, and because of the steepness of these
roads it is very challenging for VDOT to maintain, with those roads being more problematic than flat
roads. She added that when the roads are paved, drivers tend to speed up, which is what neighbors are
most concerned about.
Mr. Boyd stated that staff has done a good job of putting this list together given that there is not
an official ranking system in place. He said that Ms. Steedly c an document that Doctors Crossing has
been on the list for a long time, and noted that she has the entire 65 years of history for it.
Mr. Gatobu stated that he is working on mapping all of the rural rustic roads, and in the future he
will come forth with a map marked by district that shows all of those roads – including those that have
already been done, the completion dates, and those that are going to be added. He said staff hopes to
get this put up on GIS web, so that citizens can look from home as to where rural rustic roads are – both
active now, and those that will be funded later.
Ms. Dittmar said that bus service is more of an operating cost, and asked why it is on this list.
Mr. Sheffield explained that bus transit goes into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
fund, which requires that all transportation programs be listed regardless of type.
Ms. Dittmar asked when the new bus route for PVCC and Avon Street will start and how to
accelerate that project, and asked where constituents should be referred.
Mr. Sheffield responded there are several angles they can take, and if they are looking at having
the County put up money, then contacting Mr. Gatobu to speak with CAT will be the approach; if they are
looking for some special state funding, such as a grant for it, they will need to work with the TJPDC to
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
help leverage it through the MPO. He said that transit operating money is somewhat unique, as it can
come from a variety of sources.
Mr. Benish stated that is why it is important to establish a list of projects, because when it is time
for staff to make operational budget requests they will know the Board’s priorities. He said this list is used
to approve the secondary road plan and to make requests of VDOT for primary road improvements, as
well as informing staff as they work on the County’s CIP and operating budgets.
Ms. Dittmar said she has received comments from constituents regarding the many choke points
on Route 20 as cars try to pull out, and having bus service will help get some of those cars off the road
and reduce the need for widening it.
Mr. Sheffield stated that many years ago, CAT pushed a proposal for that service – but you
cannot just put a bus out there and hope people will ride it. He said that the route was being considered
as part of planning for the entire sidewalk network in the Mill Creek area, and running bus service in that
area will not be that challenging, as the loop going down Avon and coming back on Route 20 is
reasonable.
Ms. Mallek said that the sidewalk at Mill Creek is completed, and once the next piece is done to
connect the sidewalk gaps on Avon between Delaney and the school, there will be places for safe bus
stops. She noted that the busses are going to PVCC anyway at this point.
Ms. Palmer asked about the schedule for the reallocated projects mentioned for Sunset Avenue,
County Green, and Proffit Road.
Mr. Benish responded that staff is suggesting they look at the two top projects, given the
reallocation of the Dickerson Road tele-fee money, and establish which will be financially feasible –
factoring in the possible use of revenue-sharing money. He said from that information, they will be able to
assess what they can get done with the money they have and how long it will take to accrue the money to
do the projects.
Ms. Palmer said she assumes that the Sunset and County Green projects will include connection
to the City’s bicycle lane system, as that will help reduce car traffic. Mr. Benish responded that it is a
factor in making those roads top priorities.
Ms. Mallek said there is no sidewalk between Ridge Street/COB-5th and Region Ten, so these
people are currently walking in the road – which makes it a priority for her, along with the children walking
along Proffit Road to get to Baker-Butler Elementary.
Mr. Benish stated that the Dickerson Road funding is $1.3 million, with tele-fee monies totaling
$1.8 million over six years, which is a significant amount – but the cost of the projects being discussed is
very significant. He said that if there are other projects the Board deems to be appropriate, they should
let staff know, but otherwise the existing list will serve as that guidance.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Gatobu to email her information on the Fox Mountain and Clark Road
projects, as she was glad to see them on the list but is not sure of their costs. Mr. Gatobu agreed to
share the information with her, and offered to meet with her to discuss those projects.
Mr. Benish stated that staff does not need any action on the secondary plan and will move
forward to public hearing with the unpaved road list, which tries to mesh new projects into it and includes
recommendations for moving some projects down the list. He said they also need comments on the six -
year improvement plan, which includes primary roads, and said that VDOT is currently accepting input for
this plan. Mr. Benish stated that staff recommends continued support of the 29 Solutions package and
improvements to the I-64/Route 29 interchange.
Mr. Gatobu said the projects also include pedestrian cr ossings on Route 250 East between Free
Bridge and State Farm Boulevard, and on Route 29 at a strategic location between the City limits and
Timberwood Boulevard – either at grade or grade-separated.
Mr. Benish noted that the County is asking the state for consideration of those items.
_______________
Item No. 12a. Presentation from Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) on
House Bill 2 (HB2).
Mr. Will Cockrell addressed the Board and thanked them for the invitation to present. Mr.
Cockrell said that on March 18, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) released an 80-page
policy document on House Bill 2 that focused on the process, standards for transportation projects, and
the impact to localities. He stated that in March, the CTB provided an update on public feedback for HB2
and developed an application process for HB2 projects. Mr. Cockrell said that in April, the state Secretary
of Transportation staff began taking pilot projects and running them through the draft process to see how
they would score, and said they will provide the results at their May meeting in Northern Virginia. He said
that in June, the CTB will be meet in Richmond at which time they will review the final draft of HB2 and
approve the policy and framework for the coming year. Mr. Cockrell stated that HB2 process will not go
into effect until next fiscal year, and this year they will approach the six-year plan as they always have,
with the HB2 process running parallel as a “beta” version.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Cockrell said that he has more information now on the five factors of this prioritization system.
He said that safety is focused on fatalities and severe injuries, with 50% of the calculation on the rate and
50% on the total number of accidents, so if there is a roadway or corridor with a lot of accidents – but they
are not fatal or severe injury accidents – they will not score well under this methodology. Mr. Cockrell
said that congestion mitigation is split as 50% for the number of people moving through a corridor, and
the other 50% based on the delay moving through the corridor. He stated that accessibility has three
calculations: access to work destinations, access to non-work destinations such as schools and libraries,
and access to multi-modal options such as mass transit and bicycle/pedestrian.
Ms. Dittmar asked where general business will go under that scheme. Mr. Cockrell responded
that it will go under non-work destinations, and will overlap with work destinations in some instances. He
stated the third factor is environmental quality, with 50% based on air quality – specifically greenhouse
gasses, and 50% based on environmental justice issues – including access to jobs and other important
destinations for disadvantaged populations. Mr. Cockrell said that comments from VDOT and TJPDC
indicates these are important considerations, but they are not sure where they fit, so environmental
impact is deemed to relate primarily to air quality. He said the fourth factor is economic development,
with 70% of that consideration being support of local economic development plans and strategies. He
stated it will require a review of the Comp Plan and economic development policies. Mr. Cockrell
emphasized this factor is really based on freight – measuring how freight can enter an area to move
goods and services to and from economic development centers. He said the sixth factor is land use
considerations, with 50% of that looking at the Comp Plan and land use policies and whether a project is
consistent with those, and 50% considering whether vehicle miles traveled are reduced. Mr. Cockrell
stated that transportation and land use are two sides to the same coin, so it is hoped that good planning
will help reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in a community.
Mr. Cockrell said the draft frameworks are different options for the regions across the state, with
five or six factors weighted and scored a certain way depending on that region’s needs and
characteristics. He stated that Category A is Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads and Richmond, with a
focus on congestion. He said the category that includes Albemarle focuses on accessibility and also
includes economic development and the land use factor. He said land use is not a required factor for the
area, but the MPO policy board sees that as a possibility – and comparable localities such as Lynchburg,
Staunton and Danville have requested it as a factor. He said that what the state provides only differs by a
few percentage points from what the MPO has provided, and at the work session the state’s consultants
called out the TJPDC and complimented their detailed comments and methodology used.
Mr. Cockrell said that the TJPDC have requested Category C for the rural area of Albemarle and
the surrounding counties, with the MPO area including the City of Charlottesville and the urbanized part of
the County. He noted they do not think the same weighting and methodology should be applied to urban
and rural areas, given different types of roadways, and the Culpeper district is the only one with a single
category – with areas like Richmond having four different ones.
Ms. McKeel and Ms. Mallek wondered why this area is treated differently.
Mr. Cockrell responded that the philosophy of the staff at the Culpeper district is that state code
has mandated a certain methodology be set in place for the entire construction district, whereas Deputy
Secretary of Transportation Nick Donahue interpre ted it that each MPO or PDC could have their own
framework, and would be scored differently but put in the same pot districtwide. He noted that Secretary
Donahue’s interpretation is that each MPO or PDC should be able to influence what framework they
should have, based on their own needs.
Ms. Mallek asked what the next steps should be, because there is no way that Batesville and
Northern Virginia should be in the same category. Mr. Cockrell said that the TJPDC have agreed with
that assessment, but the CTB made no changes in terms of making the rural areas Category C, despite
the TJPDC’s comments that they should be.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was done at Culpeper, not at the CTB. Mr. Cockrell explained that the
TJPDC had provided its comments to the CTB staff, but also anticipated that Culpeper district staff had
supported the CTB’s position as well. He said it is unclear as to whether there just was not time to update
the map, but the TJPDC is going to push very hard to ensure that the rural areas go under Category C.
Ms. Mallek said that she thinks it is a good strategy to say, “We assume that you just have not
updated the map yet, because this is really important to us.” She c ommented that it is absurd to have the
rural areas in the Category C.
Mr. Cockrell stated that eligibility is also a factor, and with the six-year program not all projects
have to go through HB2 – only new capacity projects. He presented information on who has the authority
to nominate, and said that for “corridors of statewide significance,” the MPO or PDC or localities c an
nominate – with I-64 and US 29 being the two corridors in this region. He emphasized that it is a corridor
– not just those roads specifically – so Route 250 is part of the corridor, and Hydraulic Road, Rio Road
and Hillsdale will be considered part of the Route 29 corridor. Mr. Cockrell said that “regional network” is
yet to be defined, but it can include routes like 20 and 53, and the MPO, PDC or locality can nominate a
project. He stated that “local projects” are nominated by the locality, with the MPO and PDC having
nothing to do with it.
Mr. Cockrell stated that with the process for projects under HB2, which is mostly those in the six-
year improvement program, the process from January to June will remain the same – but the front end
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
from July to December will be different. He said the deadline for submitting candidate projects will be
October 1, which is earlier than the current process in terms of needing detail – and in July, discussions
will need to begin on which programs to push forth in the six-year plan. He stated there will also be
discussions with VDOT and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation earlier in the process, and
they will need to collect and process more data to submit with the application for consideration. Mr.
Cockrell said this will basically mean more work earlier in the process, and one of the problems with the
six-year program in the past was having projects drop out later in the process, already having some
funding spent on them. He presented a slide on how a project will move through the system, and said
that for projects under House Bill 2, it will be very important going forward in the next few years to have a
very clear and detailed scope of the project, reasonable costs done on the front end, and a very detailed
schedule for the project. Mr. Cockrell emphasized that projects need to be more thought out than in the
past.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Exit 118 rebuild, for example, will be put in this coming cycle.
Mr. Cockrell explained it will depend on how the project is defined, because safety projects do not
fit under HB2, whereas capacity-building projects do. He stated they will need to converse with VDOT as
to which path the project will take, because there are different pathways for projects to move through the
system and different projects associated with those. He said if they go through HB2 with Exit 118, it is
currently not in the six-year plan, so it will need to go through the process as a new project.
Mr. Cockrell stated that in considering the new process, one of the items contemplated is
integrating more of the HB2 standards into their plans. He said that with the MPO long-range plan, they
have performance measurement standards, and when the HB2 standards come out they should adopt
them and integrate them into their plans. Mr. Cockrell stated that through their planning processes, they
should also do a better job of which projects qualify and which do not for the HB2 process. He said it is
important to get things started in advance, because once money bec omes available, those who are most
prepared will likely get their projects through. Mr. Cockrell stated he also wants to ensure that they work
with County staff in terms of collecting data and processing this. He noted the MPO is currently updating
their rural long-range transportation plan and will try to build some of HB2 into that plan. He said the
VDOT consultant plan done in 2010 included a huge list of projects, which he will break down individually
and identify paths to implementation for each.
Ms. Mallek asked if Exit 118 is now in the MPO’s constrained plan, having moved from the vision
list, and said the businesses around it have suffered, and there are accidents there almost every day.
Mr. Sheffield said he had attended a driver’s education session with his daughter, and the
instructors asked parents to “please not try to teach their children to merge at Exit 118.”
Ms. Mallek commented that when people are coming north on Route 29 and need to get on I-64
West, they get tired of waiting and will cross quickly, making it a dangerous situation.
_______________
Agenda Item No.13. Route 29 Solutions Update.
Due to time constraints, this item was moved to the evening portion of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No.14. Closed Meeting.
At 4:30 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 (5) to discuss zoning and infrastructure issues
related to a prospective business, because there has been no previous announcement of the business’s
interest in locating in the County; and under Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel
and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice concerning agreements relating to the Ivy
landfill. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No.15. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 6:01 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 authorizing 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: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
_______________
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
Agenda Item No.13. Route 29 Solutions Update.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board, stating that the
Route 250/29 interchange Best Buy ramp project continues, with construction underway to put a
stormwater facility in place. He stated the crews are working on the merge process, as there are still
some concerns, although drivers have better learned the road, and VDOT is considering restricting
westbound bypass traffic to make the ramp more of a free flow – but will discuss it before taking any
action.
Ms. Palmer asked him to explain what he means by that restriction. Mr. Graham responded that
going on the 250 Bypass, there is no merge lane from 29 South, creating difficulty for cars trying to merge
into active traffic. He said VDOT has tried to use signs to encourage people to slow down and provide
more room, but they are going to monitor the situation and perhaps restrict a lane to help the traffic there.
He stated that with the Route 29 and Rio Road interchange project, VDOT has completed review of the
30% plans and is ahead of schedule on that, anticipating being about two months ahead of having 60%
plans. Mr. Graham said they will be doing some exploratory borings to assess what is underground, and
will be working at night. He stated that VDOT will be doing the same type of work on Route 29 from the
river to Hollymead, with a 30% set of plans they have just finished reviewing, soon moving onto a 60% set
of plans. Mr. Graham stated that for Berkmar, they d id not do a 30% set of plans, and is anticipating
having a 60% set of plans in early June – which will be helpful in providing details and understand that the
roadways are actually working. He said that VDOT is also in the positon to start working on a number of
utility locations along Route 29, having acquired utility easements, and then will move onto the next
phase of the project. Mr. Graham said the adaptive signal process is underway, and VDOT will be
working at Woodbrook and Polo Grounds Road to finish things up there.
Mr. Graham stated there has been a lot of discussion about permanent signage around the new
grade-separated interchange on Route 29, and there has been a lot of interest in place-naming for this
area. He said one of the things that VDOT has an interest in is whether the County wants to offer a name
for the area, and he suggested that perhaps the business community and advisory committees c an come
together to form recommendations for place-naming. Mr. Graham said there will be permanent overhead
signs for the area, and if they want anything other than just “Rio Road” on the signs, VDOT w ill need
answers by January 2016 in order to provide lead time to the sign manufacturers.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the advisory committees will be formed in time to work on the naming for the
area. Mr. Sheffield said the small area study will probably start before that happens. Mr. Graham stated
they anticipate starting that in the fall.
Mr. Sheffield said he has always been more inclined to defer to the business community, since
this is a commercial area.
Ms. Mallek said the name “Northside” seem s to work fine to her, which is a suggestion provided
by constituents.
Ms. Mallek asked if there has been a final determination about the bike lanes and sidewalks for
Route 29 north of the river, and whether they will be on one side or both sides. Mr. Graham stated the
plan is for a 10-foot multi-use path on the east side, where Forest Lakes and Hollyme ad are, and cross
over at the traffic signal at Hollymead Drive to go into Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. Sheffield said the only pushback he has heard from residents is that there is only an eight-
foot divide between the road and the multi-use path, and VDOT does not allow for trees but might allow
shrubbery to provide some sense of a barrier.
Mr. Graham confirmed that VDOT will not allow for any tree more than four inches in diameter,
but they may allow crepe myrtle, dogwoods, or other small trees. He note d he has always been troubled
by VDOT’s contention that having trees in those spaces w ill be a danger in the event a car would swerve
off the road because it would hit a tree – but without any barrier, it is a pedestrian or bike that would be
hit.
Ms. Mallek said that is why they did not want trees in the medians either. Mr. Graham said that it
all stems back to transportation engineers and the books they put together in terms of what they consider
to be appropriate.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is time for evolution.
Ms. McKeel stated those decisions are also related to lawsuits and how things have prevailed in
the courts.
Ms. Palmer noted that she would prefer native species, not crepe myrtle.
Mr. Graham said that is just an example, and they can use dogwoods or other trees with small
diameters.
_______________
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 44)
Agenda Item No.16. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Lonnie Murray addressed the Board, presenting an example of a property on Polo Grounds
Road that will be coming before them soon for a high-density development in the growth area. Mr.
Murray stated the property is worth $4 million, but because of the land use program the owner only pa ys
taxes on $241,600 of value. He said that because of revenue-sharing with the City, the County pays
$4,128 every year from this one property. Mr. Murray stated the County is losing about $38,000 per year
from this property because of the land use program, and the property has been in the program for more
than 20 years. He said this property is paying about 5% of the value of vacant rural property he owns in
the County that cannot be developed, and there are a lot of other properties just like this. Mr. Murray
added that he hopes they will encourage VDOT to use native plants in the Best Buy ramp project bio-
filter.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the From the Public item of the agenda.
_______________
Agenda Item No.17. PUBLIC HEARING: Stagnant Water Ordinance. Intent to adopt an
ordinance to amend Chapter 7, Health and Safety, of the Albemarle County Code by adding a new
Article V, Division 2. Stagnant Water. The proposed ordinance would establish provisions prohibiting any
stagnant water, one inch of depth or more, in any swimming pool, hot tub, or container, which is not fully
enclosed in a building, house or other structure and which is neither moving by artificial or natural means,
nor chemically treated nor filtered so as to prevent the growth of mosquito larvae. The proposed
ordinance would also establish provisions for the removal of such stagnant water and penalties for any
violations. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 20 and April 27, 2015)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that Virginia Code §15.2-901 enables
localities to remove nuisances. Nuisances are identified in Virginia Code § 15.2 -900 to include
“dangerous or unhealthy substances which have…been allowed to accumulate in or on any place…”
While the County currently receives few complaints regarding standing water on private property, staff
sometimes discovers stagnant or standing water when investigating other complaints. The Health
Department receives more complaints but has no relevant regulations. Having a County ordinance could
provide a means to compel the removal of stagnant water when not done voluntarily by the property
owner. After discussion at the April 1, 2015 work session, the Board asked staff to advertise this
ordinance for a public hearing.
During the April 1, 2015 Board work session, several questions were raised about what specific
types of vessels or containers would be subject to the regulations and what constitutes “stagnant water.”
In response to those questions, staff has revised the draft ordinance by adding d efinitions for “container”,
“hot tub”, “stagnant water” and “swimming pool” under County Code § 7-505 to clarify and narrow the
scope of the regulations. Staff proposes that rain barrels be explicitly exempt from the ordinance, as set
forth under the definition of “container.”
The proposed Ordinance would include stagnant water as a type of nuisance to be treated
similarly to uncontrolled vegetation under the existing ordinance. Specifically, the proposed Ordinance
would:
1) Make it unlawful for any property owner or occupant to allow any stagnant water to
remain or accumulate in any swimming pool, hot tub, or other container;
2) Provide that, after having given reasonable notice to the owner, the County could remove
any stagnant water and bill the owner for the cost of such removal, and that such cost
would be added to and collected in the same manner as the real estate tax on such
property, with a lien being recorded in the Circuit Court Clerk’s office if such amount
remained unpaid for sixty days; and
3) Provide that such violations be subject to a civil penalty in the amount of $50 for
violations arising from the same set of operative facts and $200 for violations not arising
from the same set of operative facts within twelve months of the first violati on, not to
exceed $3,000 in a twelve month period.
Code Compliance Officers in the Community Development Department (CDD) would enforce the
proposed ordinance in the same manner as the existing uncontrolled vegetation ordinance, which is in
response to citizen complaints. Complaints originating with the Health Department that are not resolved
voluntarily would be referred to the County.
Based on the low volume of complaints currently received by the Health Department, the
adoption of the proposed ordinance is not expected to have a sustained impact on the budget or staff
workloads. However, if there are a large number of complaints, there is currently limited staff capacity to
administer the additional enforcement responsibilities.
Also, for those violations that are not voluntarily resolved and that involve County staff having to
remove the stagnant water or contract with others to do so, there is currently no funding for such
abatement measures. The CDD may need to request funding in the FY 17 budget to contract out
abatement actions, such as pumping swimming pools. Staff will estimate the amount of funding needed
after the ordinance is in effect for one year, during FY16, and may request such funding in FY 17.
Staff recommends approval of the draft Nuisance Ordinance (Attachment A).
_____
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Ron Higgins, Deputy Zoning Administrator, addressed the Board, stating that this hearing is
for an ordinance amendment, which the Board has asked staff to investigate. He said the County
Attorney’s office has prepared a draft ordinance, and staff looked into what other localities have done as
far as a water provision in their nuisance ordinance. Mr. Higgins stated that localities ha ve enabling
legislation to address nuisances, such as uncontrolled vegetation, and if it reaches a certain point
landowners are required to clean it up; if the County cleans it up, the bill is sent to the owner to pay. He
said that staff often deals with junkyard complaints, and when they arrive to check those out there are
usually drums and other containers holding stagnant water. Mr. Higgins said the Health Department
defines “standing water” as water that has stood for more than one week, a standard that is based on the
typical life cycle of a mosquito. He stated that stagnant water is usually a health issue as a result of
mosquitos, and the department receives very few complaints – about five last year from the five counties
in their region. Mr. Higgins said occasionally there will be an issue like West Nile Virus that will cause a
surge in complaints, and other localities have found it helpful to have something on the books to address
it. He stated that without an ordinance, the County cannot compel a landowner to clean it up, and there is
no budget in place to address these situations. Mr. Higgins said that the Board ha d several questions in
previous discussions about the ordinance and specifically what kind of containers would be covered by it.
He stated that to simplify it, the intent of the ordinance will pertain specifically to all manmade containers,
but will not deal with swales and depressions in the ground – which are often covered under other
aspects of the ordinance.
Mr. Higgins said the County Attorney’s office added stagnant water to the l ist of things regulated
under the Chapter 7 nuisance ordinance, which will make it unlawful for someone to accumulate or allow
for stagnant water, will provide for the County removal of the stagnant water and billing of the owner, and
will allow for civil penalties. He stated the draft ordinance is before the Board, and containers are now
defined in the ordinance. Mr. Higgins said the Health Department has indicated that it is typically an
education process that is resolved through a brief conversation with the property owner, but there are
situations where something like an abandoned junkyard needs abatement.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there are questions or comments for Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is concerned about unintended consequences, such as pockets of water
on a pool cover before an owner opens their pool.
Mr. Higgins said that if a tarpaulin is put on a pool improperly and is not tightened, then
accumulating water will be subject to the ordinance. He added there are very few complaints about this
type of thing during the year.
Mr. Davis stated there are other localities that have implemented this type of ordinance, and in
most instances the situations can be resolved through education.
Ms. Mallek said the education will not get very far without the ordinance to back it up. She stated
that she has received questions and comments about animal troughs and bird baths, but she responded
that the water for those things should not be standing for seven days anyway.
Mr. Sheffield commented that this ordinance pertains to the development area, so pastures and
agricultural uses are exempt. Mr. Davis clarified that the ordinance only exempts the grass portions, so
this is countywide.
Ms. Mallek noted that it is important for this to be countywide, because neighborhoods in the rural
areas need it as much as those in the urban areas.
Ms. McKeel stated that the ordinance is complaint-driven, and the Health Department has asked
the Board to pass this as a way to help make the community safer by battling the mosquito problem found
in neighborhoods in the summertime.
Mr. Sheffield asked why the same kind of exemptions on the vegetation side are being applied,
with Scottsville having its own ability to have its own stagnation ordinance, and said there will be a host of
stagnant water issues in the rural areas.
Ms. Mallek said if this exempts the rural area, that parameter should come out. Mr. Davis
clarified that it will apply in Scottsville unless they adopt a contrary ordinance.
Ms. Dittmar said that she did not bring this up to the Scottsville Town Council when she was last
there because she was not sure what would come back – especially the definition of “container.”
Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of this ordinance is to deal with potential health hazards in
the County, and there are thousands of structures in the rural area that look like the developments in the
development area.
Ms. Mallek asked how she is supposed to read Section 7.503 Exemptions C. Mr. Davis
responded that it only pertains to the division related to grass, not the one dealing with stagnant water.
Ms. Dittmar asked where the exemptions are for Division II. Mr. Davis and Mr. Sheffield
responded that there are none.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 46)
Ms. Dittmar said that they had talked about swimming pools, and Ms. McKeel had mentioned one
specific incident of this. She stated that it concerns her to have such a broad definition of “container,” and
said that anything with an inch of water in it will potentially be in violation of the ordinance. Ms. Dittmar
said that perhaps there are certain containers they need to list, instead of every container that might
collect water.
Ms. Mallek said that for reasonableness, the ordinance as proposed, is acceptable, and noted
that Mr. Davis had mentioned that this ordinance is weaker than what other localities have. She stated
that she does not want to go any weaker than what is proposed here, because otherwise there will be
debate over the containers, such as pail versus cup.
Ms. Dittmar stated there have only been five complaints in the region over the last year though.
Ms. Mallek said there have actually been more complaints than that – and hundreds of people
have called the Health Department and asked what can be done, only to be told there is nothing that can
be done. She stated that she has received 20 calls in her district alone.
Ms. Dittmar asked what people have seen to generate those complaints.
Ms. Mallek said that these are typically situations that occur in neighborhoods where the houses
are close together, where kiddie pools or plastic sandboxes will sit for months and breed mosquitos. She
stated that people will then hire exterminators to come in and fog the neighborhood to get rid of the
mosquitos, and those chemicals will make a lot of people sick. Ms. Mallek said the most sensible thing to
do will be to eliminate the source – the standing water.
Ms. Palmer stated that this is complaint driven and she has received several now, and sometimes
the problems will start from people who have lots of trash lying around in their yards that is filling up with
water. She said that there are equipment and buckets gathering water, and most complaints in the rural
area are related to neighbors who want those types of yards cleaned up.
Ms. Dittmar said that when they had discussed this previously, they focused on big items like
swimming pools and hot tubs.
Ms. McKeel stated this is complaint driven, and there are homes both in the rural area and
development area that have had their yards determined to be junkyards by County staff – and told to
clean up. She said that “junkyard” is an official designation, and they have to use common sense in
approaching this, as staff will not be combing through the County looking for cups of water. Ms. McKeel
added this is a health concern for everyone.
Ms. Dittmar said the complaint numbers are cited as five, but Ms. Mallek has said hundreds.
Ms. Mallek responded that those are official complaints versus inquiries.
Ms. Dittmar said that they can start out with a good ordinance that is more limited, and if
necessary they can expand it.
Mr. Boyd asked if it will be possible to put a sunset clause on this ordinance and re-evaluate it in
a year or two when they can get some feedback.
Mr. Davis stated that they have done that kind of re-evaluation with a lot of ordinances, to see if
they are working.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with the people who are in favor of this, but would like to look at the
history.
Ms. McKeel suggested they do more than one year, because it is likely that they will get more
complaints early on.
Mr. Boyd agreed that it can be a longer period than one year.
Mr. Sheffield asked how often they have to take care of vegetation and actually enforce it to the
point the County is going in to do the work. Mr. Higgins responded that it only happens two or three times
per year, but they did have one extraordinary case that cost five or six thousand dollars, which was
charged to the owner. He said that the County does not receive a lot of complaints, and they usually start
with a call or a warning – but it is often the abandoned properties that require more attention.
Ms. Mallek said that in dealing with a bank holding abandoned property with swimming pool or
overgrown grass issues, the ordinance is needed to enforce the cleanup – and without it, they do not pay
any attention.
Mr. Sheffield stated that it has to be visible from a right of way in order to generate a complaint.
Mr. Higgins confirmed that the grass needs to be more than 12 inches, and staff have been tracking
violations, but he does not think they receive more than five or so complaints per year.
Mr. Davis noted that it only applies to vacant property because that was the only enabling
legislation available at the time the County enacted the ordinance, but since that time the legislation has
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 47)
expanded, so they can revisit it to include occupied or vacant properties. He said that staff has not
brought back a recommendation to expand it because they ha ve not seen the need for it, from a
complaint basis.
Mr. Sheffield asked how the County will have the right to access a property after receiving a
complaint, if a trough or bucket of water is not visible from any other point of view.
Mr. Davis stated that if it is complaint driven, it means that someone has witnessed it. He said
the County can knock on the door and ask to look at it, and if the owner denies access then the County
can pursue an administrative search warrant to enter the property and view what is alleged to be an
ordinance violation. He stated it is rare that the County would take that step, and it would need to be a
significant health issue before proceeding.
Mr. Sheffield said if it is that significant, they should be able to see it from an adjacent property or
right of way.
Ms. McKeel stated that the one active vegetation complaint in her district staff handled beautifully,
and the owner has come in and mowed it to the satisfaction of neighbors.
The Chair opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Ms. Ann Shipe of the Jack Jouett addressed the Board and stated that she lives next door to a
vacant property with a standing swimming pool, noting that the pool ha s standing green water and no
cover, with the fences open. She stated the grass on the property is well over 12 inches, and the
mosquitos there make it impossible for her to use her own backyard. Ms. Shipe said that the offending
property owner lives in the City of Charlottesville, and he only came to the property once last year to
mow. She stated that she is strongly in favor of the ordinance.
Mr. Bob Garland of the Jack Jouett addressed the Board, stating that he is in favor of the
ordinance, which addresses potential health hazards, but is also part of a wider plan to make the urban
ring of Albemarle County a more pleasant place to live. Mr. Garland said that he has also spoken on the
junk car ordinance, and the Board will likely need to address these kinds of issues in the future,
particularly in the urban ring.
Mr. Gary Grant of Earlysville addressed the Board, stating that he is all for health and safety and
he does not want standing water. His emails to Board members were intended to solicit clarifications
from them on technical wording in the proposed ordinance – including definitions, and corrections for
vessels related to livestock watering. Mr. Grant said that he is concerned about government overreach
and individual cases where the standing water is not visible. He stated that he has emailed Ms. Dittmar
and Mr. Sheffield, as well as staff, with some questions, but he has not received a reply. Mr. Grant asked
them to answer those questions before going forward.
Ms. Dittmar responded that they are still in the fact-finding phase, which is why she has not
answered Mr. Grant’s questions, and commented that he knows as much as she does.
There being no further comments, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Sheffield said that he is in favor of this, but would like to see some exemptions because it
seems ambiguous, and he has concerns about its application in the rural areas. He stated his other
concern is the amount of public awareness for the ordinance, as it seem s to have moved more quickly
than others they have processed.
Ms. Mallek said she has been bringing this up for several years.
Mr. Sheffield said he has a bucket outside of his house sitting out in the rain that has been sitting
there for a week, so there would be nothing to stop his neighbor from calling about it. He said he would
like to see the Board consider something more finite as it relates to “containers.”
Mr. Boyd asked if there can be a stipulation put in regarding the distance from the nearest
residence, such as 200 or 300 yards.
Mr. Sheffield stated his concern relates to those things that are not visible from an adjacent
property or the right of way, and he would hate to see an ordinance like this abused because someone
does not get along with their neighbor.
Ms. Mallek said she doubts people will call unless they can see the container.
Mr. Sheffield said he believes there are people who will use the ordinance to try to get their
neighbor in trouble.
Ms. Palmer said those frivolous complaints will come under the category of staff using their
common sense.
Ms. McKeel said there are several properties that have pools that are not visible from the street,
but she knows they are there.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 48)
Ms. Dittmar stated it is the language in the ordinance regarding “containers” that bothers her, and
it seems they are trying to regulate so much here – and she has not received any calls about this. She
stated that the wording “including but not limited to” is problematic to her, as she would prefer “such as.”
Ms. Palmer suggested changing it to “such as,” instead of “not limited to,” and trying it out for a
year.
Ms. Dittmar said that gets her closer to being able to support it.
Ms. McKeel said they can try it out for two summer seasons to see how it goes, because it is
critical for several of them to get this ordinance in place, and while some of them may not have
experienced these problems, some of them have.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she understands they have experienced problems with pools, hot tubs
and tires, but her concern is the broadness of the language and the possible misuse of the ordinance.
She asked staff if they are required to check out all complaints, or if they use discretion in the call and
refuse in some cases.
Mr. Higgins clarified that staff will check out all complaints, and if they cannot see the violation
they can knock on the door. He said if no one answer s, they will leave a card – and sometimes they will
get a call from the owner, sometimes not. Mr. Higgins said if the complaints persist, they c an do a
“request to enter.” He stated the quickest turnaround is when they visit and find no evidence of a
violation.
Mr. Boyd said he shares some of Mr. Sheffield’s concerns about what qualifies as standing water,
and stated he has a birdbath that is a fountain that has running water, but the pump broke so there is
standing water in it. He said his wife raised concern about breeding mosquitos, so he emptied it, but he
would hate for his neighbor to have complained about him violating some kind of ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Boyd to consider what the worst case scenario would be – as the most that
would happen would be a call from Mr. Higgins asking him to dump his birdbath.
Ms. Palmer noted that in most cases, a neighbor will just ask you directly to dump it out.
Ms. Mallek said in the cases where a constituent has reached out to her, they have already
reached out directly to the neighbor but have been met with refusal.
Ms. Dittmar asked if they would be willing to make a slight change and put in a provision for
review.
Mr. Sheffield said he still feels there should be something put in for exemptions.
Ms. Mallek asked what he wants to exempt, and whether he means specific containers.
Mr. Sheffield responded that he wants to exempt certain areas of the County, such as Scottsville
and some rural area uses. He expressed concern that there are lots of specifics related to vegetation, but
none for stagnant water, and yet tall grass is less of a concern.
Mr. Davis explained that the reason for some of the vegetation exemptions is because the County
is not in the business of mowing grass on vacant land in parks and pastures, etc. H e stated that staff’s
research says that mosquito range is one to three miles from the source of their eggs, so limiting it in one
spot will not address the health concerns in surrounding areas – and it is more complicated in looking at
stagnant water versus grass because of the impacts they are trying to address. Mr. Davis said they can
limit it to specific vessels such as buckets, pails and tires.
Ms. Dittmar said they can just say “such as,” rather than giving a specific list.
Mr. Sheffield said that his point is if you cannot tell there is stagnant water, a complaint cannot be
generated – and he wonders why they cannot just proscribe that it be visible from an adjacent property or
right of way.
Mr. Boyd suggested that they call the question.
Ms. Dittmar said that “such as” provides staff with the flexibility to enact the ordinance based on
its intention.
Mr. Davis stated it will be all containers “such as,” which has exactly the same meaning as
“including but not limited to,” and he does not think the language makes a difference.
Ms. Dittmar said that “such as” will allow staff to interpret the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Higgins emphasized that staff will look at the standing water, not the vessel that is containing
it.
Ms. Mallek noted that she does not want it to expire unless they intentionally expire it.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 49)
Ms. Mallek then moved to adopt the proposed nuisance ordinance as presented. Ms. McKeel
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: Ms. Dittmar and Mr. Sheffield
Mr. Boyd commented that the positives outweigh the negatives of the ordinance, which is why he
voted for it.
Ms. Palmer asked if they will review this again in two years.
Ms. Dittmar said that is not part of the motion.
Ms. Mallek said they can just revisit it if it becomes problematic.
Mr. Boyd said that staff would be able to track the activity with it, and bring it up if necessary.
Mr. Higgins noted that the Health Department receives these calls, and since they have never
called the County to assist in enforcing it is an indication that it will not be particularly onerous, and that
the Health Department is able to handle it through education.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 15-7(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 7,
Health and Safety, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
ARTICLE V. UNCONTROLLED VEGETATION
Sec. 7-501 Definitions
Sec. 7-503 Exemptions
By Adding:
DIVISION 1. UNCONTROLLED VEGETATION
DIVISION 2. STAGNANT WATER
Sec. 7-505 Definitions
Sec. 7-506 Removal of stagnant water
By Amending and Renumbering:
Sec. 7-505 Lien against property to Sec. 7-507 Lien against property
Sec. 7-506 Civil penalty to Sec. 7-508 Civil penalty
By Renumbering:
Sec. 7-507 Criminal penalty to Sec. 7-509 Criminal penalty
CHAPTER 7
HEALTH AND SAFETY
ARTICLE V. NUISANCES
DIVISION 1. UNCONTROLLED VEGETATION
Sec. 7-501. Definitions.
For the purposes of this division, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them by this section:
(1) Developed. The term “developed” means any real property where improvements have been
made to change it from its natural state.
(2) Improvements. The term “improvements” means permanent changes or additions to real
property that enhance its value or utility or adapt it for new or further purposes.
(3) Natural landscaping. The term “natural landscaping” means a managed area specifically set
aside by a land owner for conservation purposes, using native plants, which aims to blend residential or
commercial property into the natural surroundings. Natural landscaping shall:
(i) not encroach within a minimum of five (5) feet from any developed areas, roads, or
buildings;
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 50)
(ii) include a plan to identify and manage native plant material as well as a plan to
manage and eliminate noxious weeds; and
(iii) include and maintain at least eighty percent (80%) native plants (by area coverage).
(4) Owner. The term "owner," applied to a building or land, shall include any part owner, joint
owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or a
part of such building or land.
(5) Undeveloped. The term “undeveloped” means any real property that remains unimproved.
(6) Vacant. The term “vacant” means any real property, with or without improvements, that is not
occupied.
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-502. Grass, weeds, brush and other uncontrolled vegetation.
A. Except as provided in section 7-503, no owner of any vacant developed or undeveloped
property, including property upon which buildings or other improvements are located, shall permit to
remain thereon, any grass, weeds, brush or other uncontrolled vegetation in excess of twelve (12) inches
in height where such vegetation is located:
(i) on any vacant developed property, or
(ii) on that portion of any undeveloped property that is within seventy-five (75) feet of
any public right-of-way or developed property under separate ownership.
B. Upon remedying any such unlawful condition, the owner shall dispose of such vegetation
in a lawful manner that eliminates any potential fire hazard.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(A)(3).
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-503. Exemptions.
Notwithstanding section 7-502, this division shall not have any force and effect within
a) the corporate limits of the Town of Scottsville;
b) the Monticello Historic District;
c) the Rural Areas District;
d) areas used for pastures, under cultivation, forested, or subject to utility transmission
easements;
e) areas where the vegetative growth is regulated under state or federal laws or programs;
f) any stream buffer required by County ordinance or protected under permanent
conservation easement;
g) areas under an approved plan of natural landscaping;
h) property designated through an approved zoning or subdivision plat as open space,
green space, conservation or preservation area and that is intended to remain in its natural state;
i) public park lands; or
j) stormwater management facilities such as detention ponds.
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-504. Enforcement.
A. Whenever the County Executive or his designee has determined by reports, inspections
or otherwise, that any such unlawful condition exists, he shall notify the owner of the land upon which the
violation exists to cut or cause to be cut the grass, weeds, brush or other uncontrolled v egetation within
such reasonable time as is specified in the notice. Such notice shall be in writing, shall be delivered by
hand or mailed to the last known address of the owner and shall be complied with by the owner.
B. If such grass, weeds, brush or other uncontrolled vegetation is not cut within the required
time, the County Executive or his designee may cause them to be cut and the costs and expenses
thereof, including an administrative handling charge of one hundred dollars ($100.00), shall be bill ed to
the property owner, and if not paid, shall be added to and collected in the same manner as the real estate
tax on such property. The County Executive or his designee shall certify the costs and expenses to the
Director of Finance of the county, who shall collect such amount; and if such amount shall remain unpaid
for a period of sixty (60) days, then the Director of Finance shall certify such charges as being unpaid to
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, who shall maintain a record book of such delinquent costs and
expenses in the records of the clerk's office.
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 51)
DIVISION 2. STAGNANT WATER
Sec. 7-505. Definitions.
For the purposes of this division, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them by this section:
(1) Container. The term “container” means any man-made vessel which has the capability of
retaining more than one inch of water, including, but not limited to, buckets, pails, tires, gutters, tarpaulins,
and portable and/or storable swimming pools. As used in this division, the term “container” shall not
include rain barrels or any depression, whether natural or man-made, in the surface of the ground.
(2) Hot Tub. The term “hot tub” means any man made container designed to hold water in which
one or more persons bathe or soak, and shall include spas and whirlpools.
(3) Stagnant Water. The term “stagnant water” means any accumulation of water, one inch of
depth or more, in any swimming pool, hot tub, or container, which is not fully enclosed in a building,
house or other structure and which is neither moving by artificial or natural me ans, nor chemically treated
nor filtered so as to prevent the growth of mosquito larvae.
(4) Swimming Pool. The term “swimming pool” means any container or tank, whether
constructed in ground or placed above ground, designed for one or more persons to swim.
Sec. 7-506. Removal of stagnant water.
Stagnant water in swimming pools, hot tubs, and other containers on private property are a public
nuisance that endangers the health or safety of other residents of the County. It shall be unlawful for any
owner or occupant of any lot in the county to allow any stagnant water to remain or accumulate in any
swimming pool, hot tub, or any other container thereon. After having given reasonable notice to the
owner or occupant of such lot to remove such stagnant water, the County Executive or his designee may
remove such stagnant water. The cost of such removal shall be billed to the property owner, and if not
paid, shall be added to and collected in the same manner as the real estate tax on such property. The
County Executive or his designee shall certify the costs and expenses to the Director of Finance of the
county, who shall collect such amount; and if such amount shall remain unpaid for a period of sixty (60)
days, then the Director of Finance shall certify such charges as being unpaid to the clerk of the circuit
court of the county, who shall maintain a record book of such delinquent costs and expenses in the
records of the clerk's office.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(A).
DIVISION 3. PENALTIES
Sec. 7-5057. Lien Against Property.
Every charge authorized by this article with which the owner of any such property shall have been
assessed and which remains unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property ranking on a parity with
liens for unpaid local taxes and enforceable in the same manner as provided in Articles 3 (§ 58.1 -3940 et
seq.) and 4 (§ 58.1-3965 et seq.) of Chapter 39 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. The County may
waive such liens in order to facilitate the sale of the propert y. Such liens may be waived only as to a
purchaser who is unrelated by blood or marriage to the owner and who has no business association with
the owner. All such liens shall remain a personal obligation of the owner of the property at the time the
liens were imposed.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(B).
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-5068. Civil Penalty.
Violations of this article shall be subject to a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50) for the first violation,
or violations arising from the same set of operative facts. The civil penalty for subsequent violations not
arising from the same set of operative facts within twelve (12) months of the first violation shall be two
hundred dollars ($200). Each business day during which the same violati on is found to have existed shall
constitute a separate offense. In no event shall a series of specified violations arising from the same set
of operative facts result in civil penalties that exceed a total of three thousand dollars ($3,000) in a twelve
(12) month period.
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(C).
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
Sec. 7-5079. Criminal Penalty.
In the event three civil penalties have previously been imposed on the same defendant for the
same or similar violation, not arising from the same set of operative facts, within a twenty-four (24) month
period, such violations shall be a Class 3 misdemeanor. Classifying such subsequent violations as
criminal offenses shall preclude the imposition of civil penalties for the same violatio n.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 52)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-901(D).
(Ord. 09-7(2), 9-2-09)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2015-00004. Phase I Route 29 Solutions
Business Package (Temporary Signs). Intent to adopt an ordinance amending Secs. 4.15.2, Definitions,
4.15.4A, Signs authorized by temporary sign permit, 4.15.7, prohibited signs and sign characteristics, and
30.6.5, Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness, of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 4.15.2 by amending the
definition of temporary sign; amend Sec. 4.15.4A to allow a second class of temporary sign permit where
the temporary sign replaces a permanent sign required to be removed by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) in conjunction with certain described construction projects, and the temporary sign
permit would be valid until project construction is completed or a permanent sign is installed; amen d Sec.
4.15.7 to correct the cross-reference to Sec. 4.15.4A, and amend Sec. 30.6.5 to add an exemption from
the requirement for a new certificate of appropriateness (CA) where the same or a new permanent sign is
erected that complies with CA, where the prior sign was required to be removed by VDOT in the
circumstances described above. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 20 and April 27, 2015)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that as part of its broader Route 29
Solutions Business Assistance Program effort, the County is considering phased changes to its sign
regulations for businesses affected by Route 29 Solutions construction. Phase 1 of these changes
addresses temporary signs for businesses whose permanent signs will be remove d as a result of
construction and utility work associated with the Rio-29 interchange project. Phase 1 was prioritized and
expedited because utility work is scheduled to begin in May 2015. Phases 2 and 3 will address temporary
and permanent signage for all other businesses in the affected corridor and will involve more extensive
outreach to the business community. Work on Phases 2 and 3 is expected to begin in late spring / early
summer.
At its meeting on March 4, the Board adopted a Resolution of Intent to implement the Phase 1
signage regulation changes (Attachment B). On April 7, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of proposed ordinance language addressing Phase 1 (Attachment C). STRATEGIC PLAN:
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital
investments, and tax revenues that support community goals
The key provisions of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) include:
• Clarification of the temporary sign definition
• Provision for a temporary sign replacing a permanent sign removed as a result of a
qualifying VDOT construction project to remain: 1) for the duration of construction; or 2)
until a permanent sign to replace the removed permanent sign is erected at the
establishment or on the lot, whichever occurs first
• Clarification that the current allowance for six temporary signs per establishment per year
is in addition to a temporary sign replacing a permanent sign removed as a result of a
qualifying VDOT construction project
• Exemption from the ARB review process if the permanent sign that was removed
previously had a certificate of appropriateness and the sign, when re-erected, is in
compliance with that certificate of appropriateness
At the conclusion of its April 7 public hearing, the Commission recommended expanding the
provision for re-erecting permanent signs with prior ARB approval to include new signs that can comply
with a previously approved certificate of appropriateness. The original draft ordinance limited this ARB
exemption to erecting the “same sign.” Staff has revised the draft ordinance to allow a new sign that is
consistent with the specifications and ARB approval of the removed permanent sign to be erected without
further ARB approval. Following input from VDOT staff, additional changes to the draft ordinance were
made to ensure consistency between the ordinance language and VDOT terminology referring to the
“project limits of construction” and the use of the C-5 form as evidence of construction completion.
There is no anticipated budget impact associated with the proposed ordinance changes.
Staff recommends that following the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached Zoning
Ordinance Amendment (Attachment A).
_____
Ms. Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating this is the first phase of a
zoning text amendment intended to address signage for business es that will be impacted by the
construction of the Rio/Route 29 grade-separated interchange. Ms. Burbage said that Phase I is very
targeted in scope and addresses temporary signs for those businesses whose signs are slated for
removal as a result of utility work associated with the project. She stated that VDOT ha s begun the
process of acquiring those utility easements, and their latest information indicates that eight signs
affecting ten businesses need to be removed, which is slightly fewer than the number staff provided to the
Board in March. Ms. Burbage said VDOT has sent letters to the property owners indicating they ha ve the
option to remove the signs at their own expense by a June 1 or July 17 deadline. She stated this phase
was prioritized by the Board due to the time-sensitive nature of the utility work, which is expected to begin
by June, and Phases II and III to follow will more broadly address temporary and permanent signage for
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 53)
the other 200 business that fall within the project limits of construction. She noted the sign work is being
done in the context of a broader county-initiated business assistance program addressing technical
assistance, marketing, communication, signage, and regulatory strategies – and the program details will
be finalized with the Board in June.
Ms. Burbage reported that on March 4, the Board endorsed consideration of amending the sign
regulations in three phases, and adopted a resolution of intent for Phase I. She said the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on April 7 and recommended approval, with minor changes as
reflected in the draft ordinance now before the Board. Ms. Burbage state d they are in the early planning
stages of conducting outreach to the 29 and Rio business community over the summer to inform Phases
II and III. She said VDOT plans to complete its signage plan by July, and staff will use that as part of its
outreach, with a plan to return to the Board in September with a recommendation for action on Phases II
and III – with a goal to have those phases complete prior to the closure of the intersection in May 2016.
Ms. Burbage presented a chart showing a comparison of the proposed Phase I changes and
current temporary sign regulations, with the new provisions pertaining only in instances of a permanent
sign being removed as a result of a VDOT construction project. She said the new provisions allow for a
temporary replacement sign for a sign removed as a result of a VDOT construction project, in addition to
the current allowance of six signs per year per establishment. Ms. Burbage stated that a temporary
replacement sign can remain up for the duration of construction, or until the permanent sign is replaced –
whichever comes first. She noted it will only apply to the temporary replacement sign, not to the six other
signs per year. Ms. Burbage said that ARB review does not apply to temporary signs, and that will not
change under this provision, but for the permanent signs being replaced, if they can maintain compliance
with their certificate of appropriateness, they will be exempt from the ARB process. She noted that even
if it is not practical to put the sign back in the same location, they can put it up in its new location without
having to go back through ARB process, as long as it look s the same and complies with the certificate of
appropriateness.
Ms. Mallek asked for confirmation that VDOT will still check off for site distance and such. Ms.
Burbage said that they will.
Ms. Burbage stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment addressing Phase I only.
Mr. Sheffield asked why they cannot allow for multiple temporary signs during the construction
period. Ms. Burbage said the establishments currently can have six per year, and can have them all at
the same time.
Mr. Sheffield asked if those businesses understand that they have that opportunity. Ms. Burbage
said this will be a big part of staff’s outreach this summer – what options businesses have now and what
new provisions are available to them.
Ms. Mallek noted the reason there are six signs allowed is for special events throughout the year,
not six signs at once across a front yard.
Mr. Stewart Wright, Senior Permit Planner said it is up to the business how they want to use
those six temporary signs, but they are only allowed to have them a total of 60 days per year. He said if a
business wants to have a sale, they will still be eligible to get the temporary sign to advertise the sale, and
the new provision is for a longer-term temporary sign during construction.
Mr. Sheffield mentioned that VDOT will offer the 10 signs back to the businesses to put back up
after construction.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
No public comment was offered, and the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the ordinance as presented in Attachment A. Ms. Dittmar
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Boyd.
ORDINANCE NO. 15-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 54)
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
. . .
(51) Temporary sign. The term “temporary sign” means a sign that is displayed at an establishment or
on a lot for only a limited period of time authorized in section 4.15.4A. (Amended 3-16-05)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.03; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(1), 1-13-10; Ord.
10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12; Ord. 14-18(3),
6-4-14)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
A permit shall be required for each temporary sign (hereinafter, a “temporary sign permit”), prior to its
erection, alteration, replacement or relocation, as provided herein:
a. Application. An application for a tem porary sign permit shall be submitted to the department of
community development, together with payment of the fee required for the application pursuant to
section 35.1, and comply with the application requirements of subsection 4.15.4(a).
b. Application review and permit issuance. A temporary sign permit application shall be reviewed
and acted upon by the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Action on application. Within seven (7) days after receipt of a complete application, the
zoning administrator shall either: (i) approve the application; (ii) deny the application; or
(iii) refer the application to the applicant for more information as may be required by
section 4.15.4(a)(3). An application shall be denied only if the proposed tempor ary sign
is a prohibited sign or does not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15.
If the application is denied, the reasons shall be specified in writing.
2. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described
herein within seven (7) days after receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary
sign, the permit shall be deemed approved as received.
c. Administration. The following regulations shall apply to the administration of temporary sign
permits:
1. Number of permits. No more than six (6) temporary sign permits shall be issued by the
zoning administrator to the same establishment, or lot not containing an establishment, in
any calendar year, provided that a temporary sign ere cted to replace a permanent sign
as provided in subsection (c)(2)(b) shall not count toward this limit.
2. Period of validity. Each temporary sign permit shall be valid for the following periods:
(a) Generally. Except as provided in subsection (c)(2)(b), for a period not to exceed
fifteen (15) consecutive days after the erection of the sign, provided that a
temporary sign permit issued while a permanent sign is being made may be valid
for longer than fifteen (15) days until the permanent sign is erected.
(b) Within limits of VDOT construction project during construction; where existing
permanent sign removed. For the period between the date the sign is erected,
which shall be on or after the date the Virginia Department of Transportation
(“VDOT”) issues a notice to proceed for a VDOT construction project, until the
date of project construction completion as evidenced by the date that VDOT
issues a form C-5 or makes an equivalent written determination, or until a
permanent sign to replace the removed permanent sign is installed at the
establishment or on the lot, whichever occurs first, provided that: (1) the
temporary sign is erected to replace a permanent sign on a lot abutting a primary
arterial or other public street within the project limits of the construction project
that includes the primary arterial; and (2) the permanent sign was required by
VDOT to be removed in conjunction with the construction project,
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 55)
3. Aggregate duration for temporary signs in calendar year. Temporary signs shall not be
erected at an establishment for more than sixty (60) days, in the aggregate, in a calendar
year, provided that this limit shall not apply to a temporary sign erected to replace a
permanent sign as provided in subsection (c)(2)(b).
4. Portable signs; stabilization. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized
so as not to pose a danger to public safety. Prior to the sign being erected, the zoning
administrator shall approve the method of stabilization.
d. Exemptions. A temporary sign permit is not required for a sign exempt from the sign permit
requirement under section 4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24.
(Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12)
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 4.15, the following signs and sign characteristics are
prohibited in all zoning districts:
. . .
c. Certain sign types. Signs that are:
1. Animated signs, including signs using rare gas illumination, that give the appearance of
animation. (Amended 3-16-05)
2. Advertising vehicles, where (i) the vehicle is parked so as to be visible from a public right -
of-way in a parking space or parking area not authorized by section 4.15.6(21); (ii) the
vehicle is an inoperable vehicle; or (iii) the vehicle is incapable of moving on its own or is
not self-propelled. (Amended 3-16-05)
3. Banners, except as an authorized temporary sign under section 4.15.4 A. (Amended 3-
16-05)
4. Billboards.
5. Flashing signs.
6. Moving signs, including signs using rare gas illumination, that give the appearance of
movement, but not including flags that meet the requirements of sections 4.15.6(18) or
4.15.6(19). (Amended 3-16-05)
7. Roof signs.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.06; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 13-18(6), 11-13-13,
effective 1-1-14)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
a. Primary and accessory dwelling units if no site plan is required by this chapter.
b. Structures for agricultural or forestal uses if no site plan is required by this chapter.
c. Temporary construction headquarters (section 5.1.18(a)), temporary construction yards (section
5.1.18(b)), and temporary mobile homes (section 5.7).
d. Agricultural product signs, political signs, public signs, sandwich board signs, temporary signs,
window signs and signs exempt from the sign permit requirement under section 4.15.6.
e. The repair and maintenance of structures and site improvements where there is no substantial
change in design or materials.
f. The repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures or site improvements as authorized by
section 6.3(B).
g. Additions or modifications to structures or site improvements where there is no substantial
change in design or materials.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 56)
h. Additions or modifications to structures to the extent necessary to comply with the minimum
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, or any other similar
federal or state law providing for the reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities.
i. Additions or modifications to nonconforming structures as authorized by sections 6.3(A)(3) and
6.3(A)(5).
j. Interior alterations to structures where there is no change in the exterior appe arance of the
structures.
k. Issuance of permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) if a building permit
has also been issued and the work authorized by the permit classified in those sections does not
change the external appearance of the structure.
l. If a sign for which a certificate of appropriateness was previously issued was thereafter required
by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) to be removed in conjunction with a VDOT
construction project, the erection of the same sign, or a new sign composed of new materials;
provided that the same sign or the new sign: (1) complies with the previously issued certificate of
appropriateness, including all of its conditions; and (2) any condition pertaining to the specifi c
location of the sign need not be complied with if locating the sign in the previously approved
location is not reasonably practicable but it will be located where it otherwise complies with the
condition to the extent practicable, as determined by the zoning administrator.
(§ 30.6.6, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.1, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.2, 10-3-90, 6-14-00; § 30.6.6.3, 5-18-94; § 30.6.5; Ord.
10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12)
_______________
(Note: The Board heard Agenda Items No. 19, 20, 21 and 22 concurrently)
Agenda Item No.19. PUBLIC HEARING: CPA-2014-00002 Colonial Auto Center Expansion.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500000017300.
LOCATION: East side of Berkmar Drive (Rt 1403), 400 feet northeast of intersection with Rio
Road (Rt 631).
PROPOSAL: Request to allow expansion of Colonial Auto Center onto adjacent property.
PETITION: Amend Comprehensive Plan land use designation on 3.53 acres from Urban Density
Residential which allows residential uses at 6-12 units/acre and supporting uses such as religious
institutions, schools, commercial and office to Office/Research & Development/Flex/Light
Industrial which allows commercial, professional office; research and development, design,
testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging.
ZONING: R-6, Residential up to 6 units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
AIRPORT IMPACT OVERLAY: Yes.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 20 and April 27, 2015)
_____
Agenda Item No. 20. PUBLIC HEARING: ZMA-2014-00008. CMA Properties, Inc.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500000017300.
LOCATION: East side of Berkmar Drive (Rt 1403), 400 feet northeast of intersection with Rio
Road (Rt 631). PROPOSAL: Request to permit the expansion of Colonial Auto Center operations,
parking and inventory onto adjacent parcel.
PETITION: Rezone 3.53 acres from R-6 Residential zoning district which allows residential uses
at a density of 6 units per acre to HC Highway Commercial zoning district which allows
commercial and service; residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre. No
dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
AIRPORT IMPACT OVERLAY: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential which allows residential uses at 6.01-34
units /acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial in Places29.
Concurrent with CPA application CPA201400002.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 20 and April 27, 2015)
_____
Agenda Item No. 21. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2015-000005. CMA Properties - Outdoor
Storage & Display.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500000017300.
LOCATION: East side of Berkmar Drive (Rt 1403), 400 feet northeast of intersection with Rio
Road (Rt 631).
PROPOSAL: To allow outdoor storage and display of inventory vehicles on east side of property
within Rio Road Entrance Corridor.
PETITION: Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a permitted use
within the Entrance Corridor Overlay under Section 30.6.3 of zoning ordinance. No dwelling units
proposed.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 57)
ZONING: R-6 Residential zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of 6 units per
acre. Concurrent with ZMA application ZMA201400008.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
AIRPORT IMPACT OVERLAY: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential which allows residential uses at 6.01-34
units /acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial in Places29.
Concurrent with CPA application CPA201400002.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 20 and April 27, 2015)
____
Agenda Item No. 22. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2015-000006. CMA Properties – Stand Alone
Parking.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500000017300.
LOCATION: East side of Berkmar Drive (Rt 1403), 400 feet northeast of intersection with Rio
Road (Rt 631).
PROPOSAL: To allow stand alone parking to support adjacent Colonial Auto Center property.
PETITION: Stand alone parking and parking structures under Section 24.2.2 of zoning ordinance.
No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: R-6 Residential zoning district which allows residential uses at a density of 6 units per
acre. Concurrent with ZMA application ZMA201400008.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
AIRPORT IMPACT OVERLAY: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential which allows residential uses at 6.01-34
units /acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial in Places29.
Concurrent with CPA application CPA201400002.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 20 and April 27, 2015)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on March 17, 2015, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the CMA rezoning application and two special use permits; one to
allow outdoor storage and display in the Entrance Corridor and one to allow stand alone parking. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the ZMA with the recommendation that the following
items be addressed prior to the Board meeting:
1. The building envelope on the concept plan should be extended to the edge of the right of
way. The applicant should commit to locating buildings for commercial uses other than
automobile sales/service to address the street with relegated parking.
2. The sidewalks and street trees should be constructed when sidewalks are installed on
adjacent property.
3. Screening shall be provided during Phase I in the form of a berm as shown on the
Conceptual Plan Grading Exhibit.
4. The proffer to keep Myers Drive free from impediments shall refer to the alignment of
Myers Drive as that shown on the Concept Plan.
5. Technical fixes should be made to proffers as recommended by staff.
The Planning Commission also recommended approval SP201500005 CMA Properties Outdoor
Storage & Display with conditions and approval of SP201500006 CMA Properties Stand Alone Parking
with no conditions.
Development Areas – Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses
into development areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and
private investment while protecting the quality of neighborhoods.
The applicant has provided the following in response to the Commission’s expectations
(Attachments A & B):
1. The applicant has added a note to the concept plan stating that if the future building use
is not automotive related then the building envelope will conform to current regulations at
time of the development. Once adopted, the new setback and yard regulations will apply
to any future non-automotive building on the site.
2. The applicant has amended the proffers to state that sidewalks and street trees will be
constructed when sidewalks are installed on adjacent properties or during Phase 2,
whichever comes first.
3. The applicant has submitted a Conceptual Grading Exhibit showing screening in the form
of a berm.
4. The area between Myers Drive and Berkmar Drive is shown as free from buildings on the
Concept Plan.
5. The applicant has addressed all technical comments to the satisfaction of the Deputy
County Attorney.
The County Attorney has also provided some technical fixes to the recommended conditions for
SP201500005 CMA Properties Outdoor Storage and Display (Attachment C).
There is no direct budget impact.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 58)
Staff believes that with the revisions above, the Planning Commission’s expectations have been
addressed. Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment D) approving
ZMA2014-08 CMA Properties.
Staff also recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution approving the
SP201500005 CMA Properties Outdoor Storage and Display (Attachment E) and the Resolution
approving SP201500006 CMA Properties Stand Alone Parking (Attachment F). See Planning
Commission Action Letter (Attachment G) and Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment H) for
more information.
_____
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating there are four items before
the Board related to the Colonial Auto Center expansion – a Comp Plan amendment, a zoning map
amendment, and two special use permits. She stated the Board reviewed the Comp Plan Amendment in
January to change the land use of the property and expressed support but did not hold a public hearing,
deciding to fold it into the Comp Plan update or when the ZMA came before them. Ms. Falkenstein noted
the Planning Commission had reviewed the Comp Plan amendment and recommended approval in
December, and also recommended approval of the ZMA and two SPs in March. She stated the subj ect
parcel is Tax Map 45-173 and fronts on Berkmar Drive, and is the former site of the Greenfield Mobile
Home Park, which is now closed – leaving the site vacant. Ms. Falkenstein said it is directly behind and
to the west of the current Colonial Auto Center property.
Ms. Falkenstein stated the Comp Plan Amendment that the Board had reviewed in January, the
applicant was asking to change the land use on the property from Urban Density-Residential to Office-
R&D/Flex/Light Industrial. She said there was also some recommended language along with the Comp
Plan land use change in this quadrant, to take into consideration the future expansion of roadways such
as Berkmar Drive, as well as the potential future extension of Myers Drive, and not impede on that
potential extension. Ms. Falkenstein said the applicant is requesting a ZMA to change the property from
R-6 Residential to HC Highway Commercial, which will be consistent with the current Colonial Auto
Center zoning. She stated the specific use of the property is to develop it in two phases: constructing a
back door entrance to Colonial Auto Center off of Berkmar Drive, and to expand the existing parking area;
the second phase would be to construct the building and some additional parking, as well as sidewalk s
and street trees along Berkmar Drive.
Ms. Falkenstein reported that one special use permit is related to the Entrance Corridor and the
applicant’s request to put some vehicle inventory and display in an area that necessitates an SP, and
noted the limits of the corridor. She said that second SP is for parking as a standalone use in the HC
zoning district. Ms. Falkenstein stated the Board had discussed the potential of an extension to Myers
Drive, which currently ends at the back of Rio Hill Shopping Center. She said the Board and Planning
Commission did not want to impede a possible future connection there, and as requested the applicant
had kept the area free of structures. Ms. Falkenstein noted they are anticipating the small area plan in
order to study the possible connection further. She stated the applicant ha s proposed to have sidewalks
and street trees with the second phase of the project, but at the request of the Commission ha ve agreed
to construct them if sidewalks and street trees are constructed on adjacent properties prior to phase two
of their development. Ms. Falkenstein added the applicant is dedicating right of way for the future
expansion of Myers Drive.
Ms. Palmer asked her to clarify her last statement. Ms. Falkenstein responded that there is a 20-
foot strip the applicant has dedicated for right of way, given that the Comp Plan calls for Myers Drive to be
expanded, and the dedication is enough land for another lane of traffic, street trees and sidewalks along
Berkmar Drive in the future.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern about the postponement of the landscaping being proposed, to not
happen until the building came along, which could be years. Ms. Falkenstein stated the applicant has
proposed a grass berm to screen the standalone parking in phase one, with some of the parcel
undisturbed, and the site has some mature trees that will provide additional screening.
Ms. Falkenstein said that some revisions have been made based on the Planning Commission’s
recommendations, and in the concept plan the building is set back with two rows of parking between the
building and the street. Ms. Falkenstein stated the Commission and staff fe el that will be acceptable if it
is being used for auto sales or service, but the applicant does not want to commit to that even though he
anticipates using it for those purposes. She said staff and the Commission asked that the building be
moved closer to the street, with relegated parking, if it is to be used for other purposes permitted in
Highway Commercial – and the applicant noted in the concept plan that it will meet setback regulations.
Mr. Sheffield asked if it will be mandatory that the building be moved closer. Ms. Falkenstein
responded that it will be, provided the new setback ordinance passes.
Ms. McKeel asked if it is unusual to have an application come forward without more specifics, as
it does not seem to be what they would normally approve. Ms. Falkenstein replied that she is correct, and
said that typically applicants have more specific plans for a property – but in this case the property owner
knows he wants to construct the back door entrance and the additional parking in the near term, as he w ill
be losing some parking with the new Rio/29 intersection.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, clarified there are rezonings approved that have buildings
designated for a general type of use, without the County knowing exactly what it will be, so there are
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 59)
times when there is flexibility. He stated that this is making an exception for a specific type of use – an
auto dealership with its unique need to have inventory in the front.
Ms. Palmer said that in urban areas, many car dealerships have their windo ws right up against
the road with its car displays in the forefront – just like the other buildings – and asked if this is the kind of
building that will have an exception to the County’s setback ordinance. Ms. Falkenstein responded that
there is no specific language in the ordinance to exempt auto dealerships from the setbacks.
Ms. McKeel commented that they do not have a clue at this point as to what the applicant will be
building.
Mr. Benish said that they will know a general type of use, and this particular building can have
that type of space for an auto use.
Ms. Falkenstein stated that the Commission’s second recommendation is the proffer of sidewalks
and street trees, either with phase two of his plan or subsequent to adjacent properties addi ng those
amenities. She said the screening with the berm is also recommended, along with keeping the area of
Myers Drive and Berkmar Drive be free of buildings in the event of future road expansion. Ms.
Falkenstein noted there are also some technical revisions to the proffers, and the conditions for the
outdoor storage and display special use permit.
Ms. Falkenstein stated that staff’s recommendation is for approval of all four applications, with the
proffers and concept plan included in the staff report along with the conditions for the SP; the standalone
parking has no conditions.
Mr. Sheffield asked where the alignment of Myers Drive will most likely be. Ms. Falkenstein
responded that they are not sure at this point, but currently it straddles the applicant’s property and Rio
Hill Shopping Center property, so if it continues on that path it will go along the northern property line.
She said the alignment, if recommended, will be worked out with the small area plan.
Mr. Sheffield asked what staff’s thoughts are on putting off the sidewalks and trees. Ms.
Falkenstein responded that staff had initially asked for it in the first phase, but since there are currently no
sidewalks currently on Berkmar, it will be a road to nowhere. She said that staff feels that if adjacent
properties develop with sidewalks, it will be a nice connection in that area – especially with the nearby
elementary school. Ms. Falkenstein stated that the property to the north of the Colonial has been
rezoned, and the plan for that does show sidewalks.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern about not having the street trees as screening put in until much
later.
Ms. Palmer asked what the landscape “envelopes” are. Ms. Falkenstein stated that it is the area
in which something will be constructed.
Ms. Palmer asked why there is not an envelope for the berm. Ms. Falkenstein said that perhaps
it is the applicant’s comfort level to show some things more specifically, and others more vaguely. She
stated that the grading lines are showing the proposed elevations, which will effectively be a berm, as part
of phase one.
Mr. Sheffield asked if there is a sunset provision on the sidewalks and trees. Ms. Falkenstein
replied that there is not.
Ms. Palmer commented that they will not know if they want Myers Drive until they do the small
area plan, and asked if the County will have to pay for the right of way if they do not have it proffered.
Mr. Sheffield stated that in their previous discussions, they were tying it to completion of the plan
– or two years – and he left that conversation wondering how long they would drag out the obligation to
the applicant for Myers Drive before releasing him of it.
Ms. Palmer asked if the County is paying them for it. Mr. Sheffield responded that it was not
stipulated.
Ms. Falkenstein clarified that there is not a proffer related to that, but the concept plan shows the
area free of buildings – so no additional proffer is needed.
Mr. Benish said that Myers Drive exists, and the question is where interconnectivity is wanted for
the block system within the small area plan area. He said the drive exists at the end of the site, so what
is being reserved is – if there is a decision for an interconnection that uses Myers Drive, they will have left
a place for the roadway to be extended. Mr. Benish noted that the plan may choose a completely
different location, but that is not known yet.
Mr. Boyd said that it is a private road, and part of it is off of Carter Myers’ property so he has no
control over that.
Mr. Sheffield stated the County will have to negotiate buying the right of way – but beyond that
VDOT would have to accept it, and would have to test the underlayment and vet it to see if it m eets their
standards.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Benish said the point with this application is just to make sure they do not foreclose on an
option for the future, but there is no certainty this will be part of the road network.
Mr. Sheffield stated they should consider the entire impact of accepting or putting the alignment
in.
Mr. Boyd said that regarding the “envelope” principle, the County used to have very strict codes
of development, but applications had to come back and make adjustments for topography and other
factors when actual engineering went on, so the County loosened up so t hat there was some flexibility in
building locations. He emphasized there is a reason for leaving some options for the developer.
Ms. McKeel stated that this is the first project that will lead the development for Berkmar Drive,
and what they do here will set the tone for what will come after it. She stated this is a relatively large
piece of property – 3.5 acres – and there will be a parking lot there as a major part of the site, with a
school and a library nearby. Ms. McKeel said that just approving this, the property will double in value
and will be a very important money-generator, so she does not think it is unreasonable to ask the owners
to put in some infrastructure along the way. She expressed concern about approving something that they
do not know the development pattern, and she is not sure she is comfortable approving it at this point.
Ms. Mallek asked what other HC by-right uses could come into this space if the car dealership
goes away in the future. Ms. Falkenstein responded that it will mostly be offices, retail and commercial.
Mr. Benish stated that HC is the largest range of uses, so it allows department stores and grocery
stores – but the application plan limits the development to the general amount of building space and area
shown.
The Chair then opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the applicant.
Mr. Pete Borches of CMA Properties addressed the Board on behalf of Colonial Properties, and
said that he appreciates the efforts of staff, especially Ms. Falkenstein. Mr. Borches said that Colonial
Auto Center has been in this location since 1986, has six franchises, employs 100 people, and a huge
service center that services ambulances and police cars for the County. He stated they are before the
Board because of the culmination of several applications and discussions that started in January 2014,
when it became apparent there would be some major construction in front of their facility. Mr. Borches
said that in reaction to what is coming, Colonial began to evaluate how they could get a “back door” for
the construction period, which will likely be about two years. He stated that their initial point is phase one,
and they are asked repeatedly by staff about the ultimate use of the property, so they added a building
envelope to the plan to show where they might put something in the future. Mr. Borches said they do not
have a crystal ball, but it will most likely be automotive related, since that is all they do as a company. He
stated they worked with staff on landscaping and came up with the berm idea from the Planning
Commission, but they do not want to pay for a lot of screening in phase one that will be ripped out in
phase two construction, and then re-establish it. Mr. Borches stated they have a site plan application in
with the County and are ready to proceed with phase one, adding they are trying to get ahead of the
Route 29 construction.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board on behalf of CMA properties, stating there is not a lack of
commitment to provide the landscaping and street trees, there is just concern about possibly having to rip
that out and reinstall it when phase two development progresses. Ms. Long said the berm will leave the
natural trees in place, and will have the dual benefit of screening the vehicles onsite and retaining some
of the natural landscape. She stated the proffers state clearly that if one of the adjacent properties
constructed a sidewalk, upon demand of the County, they will construct the sidewalk and street trees.
Ms. Long said if that does not happen, the sidewalk and street trees will have to be put in place as well.
She stated that she understands the point about the uncertainty of future plans for the site, but this all
started with phase one and the applicant’s request for additional parking – some of which will be lost
during Route 29 construction – and to help create an alternative back -door entrance. Ms. Long said it
turned into a CPA, a ZMA, and two SPs, but staff was not comfortable recommending a rezoning without
some plan for how the land will develop in the future. She stated this situation is very similar to a Planned
District Development, with an application plan that would govern future development. Ms. Long said that
Stonefield, Rivanna Village, and Northpointe were all Planned District Developments, with a level of
flexibility via a list of approved uses, with actual uses specified in an application plan.
Ms. Long stated that once they get through the first phase of development, there will be a lot of
incentive to develop the second phase in accordance with a plan, as the value of the property and
associated taxes will increase. She noted that they worked hard to incorporate all of the Planning
Commission’s recommendations, and if the building is used for something other than automobile-related,
it will have to come almost flush with Berkmar Drive in order to meet the new setback requirements. Ms.
Long stated they also want to put in flexibility to accommodate the future widening of Berkmar , including
sidewalks and street trees.
Ms. Palmer asked how many parking spaces are expected to be lost with the construction. Ms.
Long responded that it is hard to clarify, but there is an easement area being obtained in front of the
property on Route 29, so some of those spaces will be lost – and there is an expectation there will be
some congestion in front of the property, given their location in proximity to the Rio Road interchange.
She stated the applicant had hoped to use Berkmar Drive as a back entrance during the construction
process.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center, stated he will consolidate his
comments on all four applications. Mr. Butler said the SELC appreciates the value of helping a local
business expand in place, and automobile storage space is obviously a key part of this applicant’s
business – but large-surface parking lots are not the most optimal use of development area land, so they
need to minimize the negative impacts. He stated that one way to do th at is through screening, and
leading up to the Planning Commission meeting, staff warned that a 10-foot strip for landscaping along
Berkmar will not provide adequate screening for phase one of this development, and recommend that it
be expanded to 20 feet. Mr. Butler said the applicant responded by offering to build a berm on the edge
of the parking to help block it from view and preserve the existing trees located between Berkmar and the
proposed berm. He stated if the Board is comfortable with this screening approach, the SELC would
suggest that it be captured in more enforceable commitments than what they have before them now.
Mr. Butler said that proffer one refers to the major elements of the applicant’s conceptual layout
plans that must be reflected in the development that actually built here – and the berm is one of those, but
right now it is not. He said that currently the closest thing the proffer refers to is “screening envelopes,”
but there is no identifiable envelope shown for the berm on the layout plans . The SELC recommends that
one be added – even a line drawn on the grading exhibit some type of identifying border around the
general area the applicant is proposing for the berm; or adding an explicit reference to the berm in the
proffer. Mr. Butler said the grading plan clearly shows an undisturbed buffer area in this location, but it is
not referred to as a “screening envelope,” so it is not covered by proffer one either. He stated that with all
the new surface parking in this proposal, the Planning Commission has recommended pervious
pavement, but nothing enforceable made it into the proffers – only vague statements that some areas of
the parking may be pervious. He said he appreciates the applicant’s concern that heavy delivery vehicles
will make it difficult to use pervious pavement over the majority of the site, but it seem s that a proffer can
be crafted to require a minimum percentage of the pervious pavement to be pervious – which will ensure
that some of the parking spaces onsite will be pervious.
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that a
rezoning request is among a locality’s best opportunity to gain conditions and improvements to benefit the
community. He stated that with this application, they have seen a Comp Plan Amendment and rezoning
request fast-tracked together under the argument that VDOT will be taking from them a large portion of
their land for improvements to Route 29. Mr. Werner said that in reality, VDOT will be taking 3,100
square feet along the sidewalk segment – and it does not even touch Colonial’s parking lot. He stated
that with the approval of this request, they need to get assurances for future connectivity, and now is the
time to get an affirmative commitment from the applicant to work with the County to get a road built. Mr.
Werner asked if the County might be forced to condemn the land for right of way, and suggested that they
get a commitment now. He emphasized the urgency of this application seem s to be somewhat
overstated, and encouraged the Board to ensure that the community’s interests are being taken care of.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board and presented a slide showing the phase one concept
plan, noting the grading easement on one page, and said the proffers specifically define these pages as
“the concept plan.” Ms. Long said this sheet is equally binding as the other sheet, and pointed out the
location of the berm – which does not specifically say “envelope” but is clearly identified in terms of
location. She noted the topography and elevation are clearly labeled on the exhibit, as is the “proposed
undisturbed buffer area for phase one.” Ms. Long said that it is actually more binding not to say
“envelope,” a word that actually gives more flexibility. She presented photos of the site that were taken a
few days before the Planning Commission in March, from the far side of Berkmar Drive looking into the
site, and noted the location of the existing trees that will be preserved as well as the Carter Myers service
building. Ms. Long said that you can see the roof of a large building, and said the berm will screen that
building as well as the vehicles. She stated the proffers speak specifically to the screening, with
language stating: “While the property is used for standalone parking, screening for any standalone
parking shown on the layout plan shall be established, enhanced and/or maintained as necessary to
reasonably and adequately screen the standalone parking shown on the layout plan from Berkmar Drive.”
Ms. Long said the Planning Commission wanted to make it clear that if the berm is not enough to screen
the standalone parking, the applicant will have to do more. She stated the applicant feels that
preservation of the mature trees and existing vegetation will be effective enough for screening, but the
Commission asked for additional assurance.
Ms. Long presented photos of the site that indicates there is no existing sidewalk, and said that if
the adjacent parcels constructed a sidewalk, the applicant will immediately commence construction of the
sidewalk on his property – but he does not want to build a sidewalk to nowhere. She said once the
property is fully developed with an additional use beyond parking, the sidewalk, street trees, and other
landscaping will become a requirement of the site plan approval, and everything has to be built at that
time.
Ms. Mallek asked at what phase the landscaping on the southern end of t he lot will happen,
because for people driving from Rio, that will be an important screening element. Ms. Long responded
that it will be under the purview of the Architectural Review Board and noted on a map provided where
the phase one elements are located, and because the landscaping is within phase one, it will be
constructed then. She noted it will help screen the storm water facilities and will screen the parking from
the Entrance Corridor.
Ms. Palmer asked if it is a storm water pond or detention basin. Mr. Scott Collins of Collins
Engineering addressed the Board, stating that the storm water management facility is a bio filter area and
will have additional plantings and trees inside the facility, to comply with new stormwater m anagement
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 62)
regulations. He said that the facility is sized to accommodate both phase one and two of the
development.
Ms. Mallek asked if the runoff that runs toward Route 29 will have to be captured with another
facility. Mr. Collins responded that it will all be collected onsite and taken to the stormwater facility built
under phase one, but in phase two there will need to be other features – such as parking islands and
pervious pavers – that will help them reach the required removal level for that density. He said that while
it handles phase one and the detention aspects of phase two, there will be additional elements in phase
two that will treat it upland, then into the main facility, then into the stream and into the County’s facility.
Ms. McKeel said that when they began talking about this facility initially, they d id not know how
much land would be taken up for parking and how much right of way would be needed from VDOT –
which is less than anticipated, and those factors seem to reduce the urgency of the project. She stated
that she would like for the Board to take some more time to evaluate this and get more detail, especially
with the proffers, as it will be beneficial to establish what this will look like. Ms. McKeel added that she
would like to see something more concrete than what is now before them.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the storm water facility can handle additional capacity, from other nearby
properties such as the hotel and the corner redevelopment. Mr. Collins responded that it is only sized for
the CMA property, and since there is a drainage way divide between this property and the other sites, it
will not work for those facilities. He stated that not all parking is being taken from the original plan, but
there is a lot taken for the stormwater basin. Mr. Collins said the urgency is related to access, as some
parts of Route 29 and Rio Road will be closed, so this gives them a way to get in and out of the site.
Ms. McKeel said her concerns are that she is not seeing specifics as to what the applicant
intends to do with the site.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the applicant will be able to put signage up in phase one. Ms. Falkenstein
said that they will, and depending on where it is located it will be subject to the ARB process and other
County regulations.
Ms. Palmer asked if it will be possible to let them put the road in now and come back to the other
items later.
Ms. McKeel commented that there is a lot before the Board to approve at one time, and asked
what the staging can possibly be.
Ms. Palmer mentioned the small area plan is also a factor. Mr. Benish said he is not certain when
that plan will be started or completed, but it is conceivable that the proffers can be modified to address
just phase one of the proposal, if the applicant is amenable to that. He stated if the Board is asking for
more information, staff will need some guidance from them as to what they are looking for.
Mr. Sheffield said before doing that, it might be wise to take a straw poll to see who is in favor of
the application, as he is ready to move forward with it.
Ms. Dittmar stated there are differing opinions from two attorneys as to whether the proffers are
written tightly enough, and her preference is for very specific language. She asked Mr. Davis if he is
comfortable with how the proffers are written.
Mr. Davis said there are two parts to the proffers that have been discussed – one is whether or
not the landscape and screening elements shown on the plan are within envelopes, and while they are
not labeled as such they appear to be “envelopes” by his interpretation and that of Mr. Kamptner. He
stated if they are envelopes as interpreted by the Zoning Administrator, then proffer one w ill require them
to be shown as a major element on any plan, in order for them to be in substantial accord – which will
essentially lock those features down. Mr. Davis said that proffer two allows the detail of the layout plan to
be exceeded, if it is determined that additional screening is necessary. He stated that between those two
issues, it is adequately addressed in the proffer to require the landscaping and screening that was
intended to be implemented by staff.
Ms. Mallek asked if it is in the proffers that the existing trees will remain, or if that needs to have a
condition. Mr. Benish responded that the trees are clearly identified in the application plan – the grading
plan shown on the screen – and staff feels comfortable that it is well defined for phase one, and that the
trees will remain. Regarding phase two and grading of the site, he said, staff assumes they will be
graded for the building envelope, and the screening along the frontage addresse s the landscaping.
Mr. Ron Higgins addressed the Board, stating that he is the Zoning Division reviewer on this
project – and all of the things that are before them have come out with staff’s input, so they are very
comfortable with the kinds of proffers and conditions put on in order to control the phases. He said the
applicant will have to adhere to the new setback requirements for their new building and pull them
forward.
Ms. Palmer said that an auto showroom is an exception. Mr. Higgins stated that in order for an
auto building to have outdoor display, they will need a special use permit, and certain uses require an
exception to the maximum setback – which will have to come before the Board for approval.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 63)
Ms. Palmer commented that the proffers only address the phasing, and said she is still unclear as
to – if the County wants Carter Myers Drive as a connection – who they will pay for the easement. Mr.
Higgins responded the payment is not really a zoning question.
Mr. Sheffield noted the road connections will need to be decided within two years, and he recalled
that it is being built into the Comp Plan. Ms. Falkenstein said the applicant is initially going to proffer to
keep the area free for two years, and the concept plan does not show any buildings in that area. She
said the applicant can come in for a rezoning in the future, but it will need to go through the process.
Mr. Sheffield clarified that the County will have to purchase the land to extend Myers Drive, and
potentially rebuild the existing portion to meet VDOT standards.
Ms. Palmer said that is why she keeps asking if that should be proffered.
Mr. Benish said the Comp Plan is not specific enough to show whether or not there will be a
connection in this area, and the small area plan will be looking at transportation connectivity, and ultimate
Berkmar Drive frontage improvements. He stated that staff feels it is important not to foreclose on that
possibility, should the small area planning process identify a road in this area should the County want to
build it. Mr. Benish said that Myers Drive is a private road, and VDOT has said that it will be very difficult
to bring it into the state system. He stated the entrance that provides access to the Rio Mills Shopping
Center is so close to Route 29, it will likely have to be closed or moved.
Mr. Sheffield said they will have to add a turn lane, which is expensive.
Mr. Benish said that requiring a proffer for a road that may not get built and is not in the Comp
Plan is not the most appropriate approach, but if there is a possibility to use a portion of it, the County
wants to make sure they have a window for the roadway to go in. He emphasized that currently, the
County does not know what road they will be building or what width it will be, or whether Myers Drive will
ever be a public road.
Ms. Mallek said that over the last 10 years, the County has had proffers to make future
connections without certainty as to where a road will go – such as Bent Creek Parkway at 5th Street
Station. She stated that to know they will be spending $10 million if they do not do something today is
concerning to her.
Mr. Sheffield stated there is not much they will change today in terms of approval, other than
requiring the applicant to give the County the land – which he does not think is even possible and cannot
be given outside of their boundaries.
Ms. Mallek said that “substantial accord” is used, which makes her happy, because they had
issues in the past with “general accord.”
Mr. Davis said that the strategy staff has consistently used is “general accord,” and then identify
the elements that makes an application fall into general accord – which captures what is important but
offers enough flexibility so the applicant does not have to go back through a rezoning process. He stated
that the major elements have to be in accord with the plan, in order for the application to be in general
accord.
Ms. Mallek stated that they do not have specifics as to the building envelope, and technically c an
be twice as large as expected. Mr. Davis responded that the size of it will be limited only by zoning
requirements, but the building envelope will need to be in general accord.
Ms. Palmer said she would like them to follow Morgan Butler’s suggestion for pervious pavement,
because they are only getting a sidewalk, the phasing, and the temporary screening.
Ms. McKeel asked if they had required pervious pavement as part of proffers in the past.
Ms. Mallek said it is certainly an element of stormwater management.
Ms. McKeel said she feels it is a great idea.
Mr. Mark Graham addressed the Board and said they have done it before, but it has not worked
very well because the County has very difficult soils, and requires a sub-drain. He stated there have
been applicants who have done very innovative things with special types of concrete, but it is difficult
because they do not have well-draining soils. Mr. Graham said if they spend the money on it, they can
make it work.
Mr. Boyd said he had a constituent call on him to explain pervious concrete, and it does not
always work with the type of soil found here. Mr. Graham explained there can be maintenance problems
with it, and if the property owner keeps up with the maintenance, it is effective – but without that, it can
end up not working at all.
Ms. Mallek said that at some point at the site level, the engineers w ill be going over plans as to
how they will capture the runoff from this 3.5 acres, so that it goes into the ground instead of all running
down onto Route 29.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr. Graham stated that what is being presented is a concept for storm water management, which
will be required as part of any development, but regardless the applicant will have to meet the water
quality and water quantity standards within the ordinance – and if they do not, they will have to come up
with another plan.
Ms. Mallek asked if the building on Berkmar will require more landscaping up against the building,
or if this is their only chance to make those requirements.
Ms. Michelle Roberge addressed the Board, stating that she is the Civil Engineer in Community
Development who reviewed this project. Ms. Roberge explained that the site is very small, so staff wants
to make sure the storm water management facility can handle the quality aspect of the future build-out.
She said that she is not certain about detention, but had a lot of conversations with the Project Engineer
about the condition of the County facility downstream, to ensure they can handle the quantity of water
onsite. She stated the new state regulations do not allow for more than 12 inches of ponding with a bio
filter, with a requirement that it must drain within two days. Ms. Roberge said there are other ways to
make pervious pavement work and achieve better infiltration rates, but they can be costly.
Mr. Boyd said the Commission and staff have recommended approval of the application, and
legal feels comfortable with the proffers, so he is ready to move forward with it.
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the resolution to approve CPA-2014-00002, as presented. Mr.
Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Mallek asked if she can get an answer on her landscaping question prior to the next vote.
Ms. Falkenstein explained there are landscaping requirements with the site plan ordinance, and
landscape screening requirements for the parking, as well as street tree requirements per the site plan.
She said the applicant will also need to have a minimum amount of landscaping within the parking area,
but do not have to screen the building itself.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CPA 2014-00002
WHEREAS, CMA Properties, Inc. is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 04500-00-00-
17300 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the land use designation of the Property in the Comprehensive Plan is Urban
Density Residential, which allows residential uses at 6 to 12 units per acre and supporting uses; and
WHEREAS, CPA 2014-00002 proposes to amend the land use designation of the Property to
Office/Research & Development/Flex/Light Industrial, which allows commercial, professional office,
research and development, design, testing of prototypes, manufacturing, assembly, and packaging; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of CPA 2014-00002.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for CPA 2014-00002 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public
hearing, and for the purposes articulated in Virginia Code § 15.2-2223(A), the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves CPA 2014-00002, and the land use designation of the Property and the
applicable map in the Comprehensive Plan are amended accordingly.
_____
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt ZMA-2014-00008 for CMA properties. Mr. Boyd seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Ms. McKeel.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 15-A(2)
ZMA 2014-00008 CMA PROPERTIES
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER 04500-00-00-17300
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 04500-00-
00-17300 (the “Property”) is identified as ZMA 2014-00008, CMA Properties (“ZMA 2014-00008”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned R-6 Residential; and
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 65)
WHEREAS, ZMA 2014-00008 proposes to rezone the Property to HC Highway Commerc ial with
proffers; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2014-00008, provided that technical revisions were made to the proffers,
and such revisions have since been made.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the staff report prepared for ZMA 2014-00008 and its attachments, including the proffers
revised after the Planning Commission public hearing, the information presented at the public hearing, the
material and relevant factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284, and for the purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Board hereby approves ZMA 2014 -00008
with the proffers dated April 20, 2015, and the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 04500-00-00-
17300 is amended accordingly.
_____
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the resolution approving SP-2015-00005 for CMA properties
outdoor storage and display. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by
the following recorded vote:
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification as to what this special permit covers. Ms. Falkenstein explained
this is for outdoor display of cars within the Entrance Corridor, which is 500 feet from Rio Road and is the
southern portion of the property, within either phase.
Mr. Davis noted there are five conditions attached to the resolution, which are applicable to this
special use permit.
Ms. Palmer asked if the parking will require a special use permit to come back in when they build
the building.
Ms. Mallek said that this is it.
Mr. Sheffield said they will only come in if they have changed the building envelope.
Mr. Higgins said they will not have to come back for the special use permit, but they will have to
come back for a special exception to have the building exceed the maximum setback proposed in the
new ordinance. He explained the new requirement will have a maximum setback of 30 feet off of
Berkmar, and the applicant is showing a building 60 feet back.
Mr. Higgins made the correction that if the Board approves the rezoning as is, it will grandfather
the location.
Mr. Benish said this action addresses the setback for the auto dealership, and the building will
likely not go through an SP process, because it is outside the Entrance Corridor.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Ms. Palmer and Ms. McKeel.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2015-05 CMA PROPERTIES OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY
WHEREAS, CMA Properties, Inc. (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number
04500-00-00-17300 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and County Code § 18 -
30.6.3(a)(2)(b) requires a special use permit for “outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or
associated with a permitted use”; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with ZMA 2014-00008, which would rezone the Property from R-6
Residential to HC Highway Commercial, the Owner filed an application for a special use permit to
establish outdoor storage and display on the Property, and the application is identified as Special Use
Permit 2015-00005 CMA Properties Outdoor Storage and Display (“SP 2015-05”); and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2015-05 with the conditions recommended by staff;
and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2015-05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2015-05 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing,
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 66)
and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18 -33.8, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2015-05, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
*****
SP-2015-00005 CMA Properties Outdoor Storage and Display
1. Vehicles being stored or displayed shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated as “inventory” on the plan entitled “CMA
Properties Highway Commercial Concept Plan” by Collins Engineering with revision date of 4-15-
2015 (the “Concept Plan”). Inventory storage within the EC Overlay District shall be only in
designated striped parking spaces, as identified on the Concept Plan.
3. The maximum light levels for any part of the site within the EC Overlay District used for outdoor
storage and display shall not exceed 30 footcandles.
4. The ARB may require landscaping that is in excess of its design guidelines, Albemarle County
Code § 18-32.7.9, or both, in order to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed use on the
Entrance Corridor.
5. The trees shown on the Concept Plan along the southern perimeter of the site shall be installed
either prior to or in conjunction with the final site plan on which the stormwater management
facility shown on the Concept Plan is required to be constructed.
_____
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the resolution approving SP-2015-00006 for CMA properties stand
alone parking. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Ms. McKeel.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2015-06 CMA PROPERTIES STAND ALONE PARKING
WHEREAS, CMA Properties, Inc. (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number
04500-00-00-17300 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner filed an application for a special use permit to establish stand alone
parking on the Property, and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2015-00006 CMA
Properties Stand Alone Parking (“SP 2015-06”) in conjunction with ZMA 2014-00008 which would rezone
the Property from R-6 Residential to HC Highway Commercial; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2015-06 without any conditions; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2015-06.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2015-06 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing,
and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18-33.8, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2015-06.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. PUBLIC HEARING: City of Charlottesville Request for a Gas Line
Easement on Parcel 91-2E and the adjacent Founders Place public right-of-way. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 27, 2015)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the City of Charlottesville has
requested that the County grant a 15-foot wide easement within County-owned Parcel 91-2E and the
adjacent Founders Place, a public right-of-way also owned by the County, in the location shown on the
attached plat (Attachment A), just west of the Monticello Fire Station on Mill Creek Drive. The proposed
deed of Easement (Attachment B) would allow the City to install a natural gas line to serve the proposed
Albemarle Health & Rehab facility. The proposed easement is located within the County-owned right-of-
way. Founders Place is not currently in the secondary system of state highways.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of
any interest in County-owned real property.
Staff has reviewed the proposed deed of easement (Attachment A), prepared in conjunction with
the City Attorney. The City has submitted a plat (Attachment B) depicting the exact location and
dimensions of the easement.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 67)
The proposed deed is based on the deed form used for easements within County-owned rights-
of-way that are not in the secondary system of state highways, and includes provisions that will assure
that the granting of the easement will not prevent either (a) Founders Place from being accepted into the
state maintained secondary system or (b) Parcel 91-2E from being used for future public facilities.
There is no budget impact.
Staff recommends that, after holding the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached Resolution
(Attachment C) to approve the proposed easement and to authorize the County Executive to sign the
deed of easement on behalf of the County after the deed has been approved in substance and form by
the County Attorney.
_____
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Transportation Engineer, Office of Facilities Development, addressed the Board,
stating that on Mill Creek Drive at the Monticello Fire Station location, the access road serving the station
will be extended as part of the Albemarle Health and Rehabilitation – and the City of Charlottesville’s Gas
Division has requested an easement from the County so they can install and maintain a gas line. Mr.
Kelsey said that VDOT’s general practices are to locate a gas line behind a curb, or behind the sidewalk if
there is one, with the easement placed over that location so it overlaps the right of way. He stated that
the plat attached showed the location of the requested easement.
The Chair opened the public hearing. There being no comment, the Chair closed the hearing.
Mr. Davis noted that the easement has been agreed to by the County Attorney and City Attorney,
and the resolution in Attachment C will authorize the County Executive to execute the documents
necessary to grant the easement.
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the resolution to approve the proposed easement and to authorize
the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County after the deed has been
approved in substance and form by the County Attorney. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION APPROVING DEED OF EASEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle owns Parcel 09100-00-00-002E0 and the Founders Place
public right-of-way adjacent thereto; and
WHEREAS, an easement is necessary for the City of Charlottesville to extend natural gas service
along Founders Place.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the granting of a gas line easement to the City of Charlottesville, and authorizes the County
Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, a Deed of Easement wit h the City of
Charlottesville for an easement on Parcel 09100-00-00-002E0 and the adjacent Founders Place right-of-
way in order to provide natural gas service.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Item No. 24a. Proposed Comp Plan revisions from Historic Preservation Committee.
Ms. Mallek stated the Board has recommendations from the Historic Preservation Committee
before them, as an opportunity for them to provide input prior to their consideration of the draft advertised
for the Comp Plan public hearing. She said that supports these suggestions, and while there is no
prohibition for demolition, it would be nice to have a record of this history for the benefit of the community.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Woolen Mills paragraph captures very well the discussion of the CMA, as so
many are supportive of the Comp Plan amendment because it is a way to address historic resources.
____
Item No. 24b. Update on Business Leadership Meeting.
Ms. Dittmar said that per the Board’s request, the County had invited Chamber of Commerce and
North Charlottesville Business Council leadership to meet with her, Ms. Palmer, Ms. Catlin and Mr. Foley.
She stated that Chad Zakabe, Adrian Felts and Tim Hulbert of the Chamber were in attendance, along
with L.F. Wood from the NCBC. Ms. Dittmar said that the Chamber will hold a joint meeting with the
NCBC, and Ms. Catlin will be present there. She stated they have indicated that they will use their
communications networks and promote an event to be held at a location near the Rio/29 intersection.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 68)
Ms. Palmer said that Ms. Catlin is able to provide information on the funding available for
advertising for those businesses.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, stated they had discussed figures for the marketing
part of the effort, which will come before the Board in June along with an implementation matrix for the
plan. She said that the Chamber had sent a letter to the County in which they made five or six
commitments for the effort, which staff will present in June. Ms. Catlin said the Chamber was invited to
be on the implementation team, and they agreed to participate.
_____
Ms. Dittmar said that she and Ms. Palmer worked with Mr. Bill Letteri and Mr. Mike Culp every
month to discuss the broadband effort, and on May 19 there will be a community meeting held at
Monticello High School, the purpose of which is to fulfill a grant application – with funding up to $75,000 –
to do more planning for broadband.
Ms. Palmer noted there are two actual grants, with one being a planning initiative grant, and the
other being a Community Development Block Grant – which they are not optimistic about getting for the
broadband effort, given the competitive nature of the grant.
Ms. Dittmar stated that Nelson County has moved one step closer to their broadband goal, and
Louisa is moving ahead with use of CIP funds for broadband infrastructure.
Ms. Mallek noted that Louisa has created a broadband authority.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Supervisors are invited to come to UVA on May 19 and cheer for
employees.
Ms. Dittmar reported the second class for Supervisor certification for governance had been held
the previous week, and Galax had attended with numerous representatives. Ms. Dittmar said that Galax
had wired their entire area, which had been done by the same person who had wired all of Blacksburg –
the first wired community on the planet. She said they also talked about their technical education, and
Pittsylvania had identified adult education as absolutely critical, with certain types of training identified,
which she would like to see as part of Albemarle’s lifelong learning objectives.
Ms. Mallek asked how they will figure out what the next step will be for adult education, as people
cannot currently get financial assistance through CATEC – because things seem not to be going
anywhere.
Ms. McKeel said CATEC is moving forward with their strategic planning, and has a new
leadership group, including a director who is in charge of the educational studies portion of their work,
and he answers to a person who has economic development and technical and educational experience.
She emphasized that it will be good to have information made available to the Board as to what the new
model looks like.
Ms. Dittmar said that Galax’s efforts were languishing until their Board of Supervisors reached out
and made it clear as to what they wanted, so it might be prudent for this Board to reach out to PVCC with
their priorities.
Ms. McKeel suggested asking CATEC to come to the Board and review their new leadership
structure and discuss the adult program.
Ms. McKeel said the new economic development person started May 6, with the other new
person starting either June 1 or July 1.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern that everything is still staying under CATEC’s umbrella.
Ms. McKeel said that having them come in will be a place to start.
Mr. Foley said that staff will work on putting something together.
Mr. Foley stated that he and Dr. Pam Moran are meeting the following week with United Way and
some City representatives to talk about preschool initiatives.
_____
Ms. Mallek said she hopes they will discuss in the future at what point land use stops, and said
the current rule is that when a rezoning is approved, the land use should stop. She said that if they have
the enabling authority, it will be better to stop the land use at a time an application is submitted.
Mr. Davis said there are very specific state regulations governing at what point a property came
out of land use.
Mr. Foley said they will be talking about this in depth at their June work session.
Ms. McKeel stated she would like for the Board to discuss older neighborhoods in the urban ring,
and how they can support the infrastructure in the neighborhoods where there are now abandoned
properties. She noted she is talking about having some kind of blight ordinance.
May 6, 2015 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 69)
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a blight ordinance currently in place. Mr. Davis responded that the
County has an ordinance for unsafe structures, but not a blight ordinance, and he will need to research
the enabling legislation available to enact one.
Ms. McKeel said that as they are urbanizing, there are older neighborhoods that are struggling –
and it will be detrimental to them to have abandoned homes with broken windows and such.
Ms. Palmer said there are many shacks in the rural areas, and they will need to be careful that
they are not requiring people to take down everything.
Ms. McKeel clarified that she is referring to structures in the urban ring, like the abandoned ho use
on Barracks Road, and emphasized that they want people to live in these older neighborhoods.
Ms. Dittmar said that the City has more authority to deal with these situations, so perhaps staff
can present on what is available to the County in that regard.
Mr. Foley said there is a legal aspect to this, as well as a Comp Plan angle – and next week there
will be a strategic planning objective before them based on this item. He said that staff will research
blight ordinances to see what might be available , and will also solicit input from the Board during the
strategic planning discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley stated that staff had sent out an email soliciting input from the Board on the capital
improvement plan work session, which will be held the following week, and noted that Mr. Letteri had sent
them a proposed agenda. He asked the Board to let staff know in the next day or so if there are any
items to be added.
Ms. Dittmar asked if local government did anything similar to the school’s long range capital
needs plan. Mr. Foley responded that they did a comprehensive facilities assessment, which worked into
what General Services put forth in the CIP.
Ms. Mallek said that it falls into the second five years of the capital program.
Mr. Foley mentioned that they will hold a work session in June on the fire rescue fund, and a work
session related to land use – which includes a discussion on how they assess properties.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 26. Adjourn to May 13, 2015, 3:00 p.m.
At 9:21 p.m., Ms. Mallek moved to adjourn the Board meeting to May 13, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Mr.
Sheffield seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, and Ms. McKeel.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 10/14/2015
Initials: EWJ