2015-09-02September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 2, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 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,
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. McKeel stated that she would like to add a discussion regarding a JAUNT commuter route.
Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. McKeel if she wants to add it as a separate item or put it under the “From
the Board” item. Ms. McKeel stated it can go under the Route 29 Solutions discussion, as it covers a
possible commuter route during construction.
Ms. Dittmar suggested adding it as Item 24B. Board members agreed.
Motion was then offered by Ms. McKeel to adopt the final agenda as modified. Ms. Mallek
seconded motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek reported that volunteers at the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad and Albemarle Fire
and Rescue staff are in the final stages of forming a water rescue team, and will be undergoing swift
water training on September 18, 19 and 20. She stated WARS is sending 10 members to training and
ACFR is sending 8, and has raised funds and purchased a rescue boat, as well as ordering specialized
safety equipment at a cost of about $1,500 per team member. Ms. Mallek noted these services are
already provided by Scottsville Rescue for the James, and by CARS for Rivanna, so this will add the
capability in the western part of the County. She also encourages members of the public to join the
agency.
Ms. Mallek stated Virginia Farm Services agency wants to remind people that the number one
industry in Virginia is farming, with 47,000 farms in the Commonwealth encompassing 8.1 million acres,
with the average farm size at 171 acres. She said the most valuable Ag products are chicken, beef and
dairy, with forestry also serving an important role. Ms. Mallek stated Virginia has been increasing its
exports, with the focus on source traceability and natural farming practices enhancing product appeal to
foreign markets.
Ms. Mallek stated she has received inquiries from constituents regarding drones and their
potential impacts on livestock, particularly the question of liability if animals are scared by the presence of
the devices. She said she hopes local and state governments will address this in the long term, and that
citizens will understand that drones are not toys.
Ms. Mallek reported there had been a meeting the previous evening at Blue Ridge Cyclery in
Hollymead, with representatives from the police department and Kurt Burkhardt from the CACVB, to
discuss bicycling and driving behavior and ways for both cyclists and drivers to understand their mutual
impacts and consequences. She stated the conversation is in preparation for the U.S. Cycling Team’s
training, which will be held in Albemarle County from September 9-19.
Ms. Mallek stated that Ridge Road is a wonderful access point to the country for running and
walking, but large numbers of running club members are parking on both sides of the road at the Garth
Road End, blocking traffic to the extent that rescue vehicles cannot get through and farmers are unable to
pass. She said she is trying to reach out to the coach of the UVA running team, but as of yet has not
received a response.
Ms. Mallek reported there has been a lot of gun firing at nighttime, which causes concern among
those in the rural area, and the Board may need to revisit this discussion in the future.
_____
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Dittmar reported that she and Ms. Palmer will discuss the broadband initiative under “From
the Board,” and she will be attending the Governor’s Council on Broadband meeting on September 3 and
presenting some ideas from Albemarle.
Ms. Dittmar stated that drivers and pedestrians need to exercise caution as students return to the
University area. She reported she had attended the Southwood back to school festival, and there were
hundreds of people in attendance, with Albemarle having several agencies represented. Ms. Dittmar
stated that she had recently attended the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) meeting, and w ill
discuss some of the items from that under “From the Board.”
_____
Ms. McKeel commented she has twice noticed a drone hovering in her subdivision.
Mr. Boyd stated it seem s to be a potential topic for a future Board meeting, with staff providing a
presentation on the legalities of the drones.
Ms. McKeel agreed, stating there is a lot of concern among pilots about the devices.
Ms. Mallek said there are regulations about this, but there still are thousands of drones in the air.
Mr. Foley said staff will bring back general information on the issue, and specifically what kinds of
rules pertain to the airport.
Mr. Boyd stated he would be interested in knowing what kind of enabling authority the County ha s
to control this.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Proclamations and Recognitions:
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar stated it is preferable for comments about specific agenda items to be given at the
time they are discussed. She also said they will take public comment on the potential growth area
boundary adjustment at the public hearing for that item on September 9, but if time allows at the end of
their work session today, speakers can provide comment.
Mr. Roger Voisinet of the Scottsville District addressed the Board and presented a PowerPoint on
electric vehicles, stating there are currently 30 manufacturers of the cars, with that number growing. He
stated electric cars cost more initially than internal combustion engines (ICE), but are very quiet, safe,
and have a carbon footprint of only 15-20% of ICEs. Mr. Voisinet noted most electric cars are charged at
home with solar power systems, and countries all over the world ha ve electric car purchase incentives.
He stated local business are preparing for an electric car future, with increased availability of charging
stations at places like Hyatt Place, the Omni, and Homewood Suites hotels. Mr. Voisinet stated the
President has set a goal of having one million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2016, but the U.S. is
only one-third of the way there, and global leaders have called for an action to reduce carbon emissions.
He said Virginia Code has adopted personal property tax break enabling legislation, Albemarle should
take the lead in this matter, and Governor McAuliffe has said the County should consider this.
_____
Mr. John Martin of Free Union addressed the Board and stated once they start to erode the hard
edges of the urban development area as a matter of routine, on a special case basis, this wonderful
County will be on the road to becoming quite ordinary.
_____
Ms. Jennie Moore of the White Hall District addressed the Board, stating she is the Chair of the
Crozet Community Advisory Committee, and presented a resolution they had passed regarding the
Crozet exit (Exit 107) off of I-64. She stated the CCAC is not taking a position on the Comp Plan
boundary line adjustment, but said in the plan revision just adopted, the interchange remains zoned as
rural and the CCAC does not want an adjustment to set a precedent for all other I-64 interchange areas in
the County. Ms. Moore emphasized the CCAC is opposed to any change in zoning in the Crozet
interchange.
_____
Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, addressed
the Board and expressed his appreciation to them and to staff for allowing him to work on local legislative
initiatives, and to participate in a Funding the Future committee meeting. He stated this is the time of
year he begins looking at the regional legislative program, with a top priority being the equalizing of
revenue authority of counties with that of cities. Mr. Blount said while they were able to educate elected
officials on this issue, they came away from the session unsuccessful in passing any legislation. He also
asked the Board to consider measures they do not want to have enacted, as well as those they do. Mr.
Blount stated he will have a draft program to them in early October, with a presentation in November
along with Board discussion and approval.
_____
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center addressed the Board, stating the
Planning Commission has put a great deal of thought into the proposed growth area expansion, as they
realize that it is a big deal for a locality that takes land use planning as seriously as Albemarle does. Mr.
Butler stated this is especially true when the driving force for the expansion is an out of town company
insisting on a rural area site, and the County has not traditionally favored expansion of the growth area to
suit the specific desires of a business prospect. He said the Commission also recognize s the area’s
steep topography, presence of Moore’s Creek, and presence of an interchange that needs major
improvement, makes this extremely challenging. Mr. Butler stated the Commission is reluctant to move
forward because answers to their questions either are not available or cannot be answered until a
rezoning comes in. He said with their recommendation of denial of the CPA, the Commission did offer
two wise suggestions, one of which is having the landowner become the applicant for the CPA and not
just a bystander, which will help provide answers as to what to expect from the development, rather than
having the County negotiate with an empty chair. Mr. Butler stated the Commission also suggested
considering the 82-acre parcel rather than the entire 220 acres, as that property is already zoned R-1 and
is already within the water/sewer jurisdictional area. He emphasized this large parcel will provide the
acreage the business prospect needs, while giving more time for strategic assessment of industrial land
opportunities to be completed and vetted with the public. Mr. Butler said this will also allow for the parcel
to be available for other target industries, should the business prospect not pan out , which seems entirely
probable.
_____
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that
reaching the conclusion that there is a need for more industrial land requires more analysis. He stated
staff has referred to eight counties and cited how much industrial and commercial land they ha ve
compared to Albemarle, and in comparing them he discovered that Albemarle has lower unemployment,
the highest weekly wages, the highest percentage of County residents working in the County, the second
shortest commute, and in 2014 the most new start-up firms. Mr. Werner stated staff claim s the County’s
wages lag behind the state average, and while that is true, the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that
Albemarle had the 7th highest state average in the fourth quarter of last year among the state’s 95
counties. He said staff used statistics from cities as well as counties in their comparison, and those are
very different entities. Mr. Werner said Albemarle’s median salary of $53,000 is also above the state
average of $37,000. He stated the commuter data being used is inconsistent with the most reliable
sources, and the summary of Albemarle’s industrial sites eliminates under-utilized sites, and there is no
mention of the 500,000+ square feet in vacant industrial buildings advertised on the County’s website.
Mr. Werner emphasizes that Patriot Aluminum, which has been used as the poster child for companies
leaving the County, did not leave because there were no large parcels, they went to Louisa to a 2.8 -acre
site in a business park owned by that county. He stated if the County want s to have this brewery and if it
requires a growth area expansion, then they should have that discussion, but they should not guise it
under the claim that having more land equates to more jobs, higher wages and increased revenue. Mr.
Werner said Albemarle’s enviable quality of life is due in large part to good land use planning, and they
must be very careful not to undermine it with spot land use changes.
_____
Mr. Neil Williamson with the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, stating the
development area restoration is a critical part of their discussion, and many of the details being requested
are appropriate under a rezoning request, but that cannot happen without a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Mr. Williamson stated the manner by which Albemarle has considered growth area
expansion makes some sense, and they m ay want to position it near transportation resources and where
people can get to jobs, and potential traffic generation cannot be considered under a Comp Plan
discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd stated that he wished to pull Item 8.12 for discussion, as he is concerned
about several issues pertaining to this item.
_____
Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer stated that they need to pull their assigned minutes.
_____
Referring to the appropriations, Ms. Palmer said she has received questions about the
environmental studies learning center greenhouse appropriation, and she has gotten clarification from
Ms. Lori Allshouse via email that some of that project’s funding has come from proffers, but that does not
cover phase two, and there is an additional phase not in the CIP.
_____
In reference to Item #8.11 and the HB2 process, Ms. Mallek stated that she has received
assurances from staff and from Mr. Joel DeNunzio at VDOT that the transportation item s will be ready for
application at the end of September. She noted they had recently discussed the HB2 process in depth,
including the prioritization of Exit 118 improvements.)
_____
Motion was offered by Ms. McKeel to approve Items #8.1 (as read) through #8.11, and to pull
Item #8.12 for discussion, on the consent agenda. Ms. Mallek seconded motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: December 10, 2014; January 7, February 4, February 11,
February 23, February 26, March 3 and March 10, 2015.
Ms. Mallek pulled her assigned minutes of December 10, 2014, pages 42 (begin with Item #42) –
end, and February 23, 2015, and carried them forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Palmer pulled her assigned minutes of March 10, 2015, and carried them forward to the next
meeting.
Ms. McKeel pulled her assigned minutes of January 7, 2015, pages 31 (begin with Item #18) –
end, and carried them forward to the next meeting.
Mr. Sheffield pulled his assigned minutes of February 4, 2015, pages 38 (begin with Item #14) –
end, and February 11, 2015, pages 1-23 (end at Item #12), and carried them forward to the next meeting
Ms. Dittmar had read the minutes of December 10, 2014, pages 1-29, and February 4, 2015,
pages 1-38 (end at Item #14), and found them to be in order.
Ms. Palmer had read the minutes of January 7, 2015, pages 1-31 (end at Item #18), and found
them to be in order.
Ms. McKeel had read the minutes of January 7, 2015, pages 31 (begin with Item #18) – end,
and February 11, 2015, pages 23 (begin with Item #12) – end, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of February 26, 2015 and March 3, 2015, and found them to be in
order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_______________
Item No.8.2. FY 2016 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board 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 16 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is
$655,387.70. 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 (#2016019) to appropriate $159,000.00 for the Route 29 Solutions
Business Assistance Program. Note: $50,000.00 of this amount will not increase the
County’s total budget;
• One (1) appropriation (#2016020) to re-appropriate $229,618.05 in federal revenue for
the continuation of a Community Development Block Grant;
• One (1) appropriation (#2016021) to appropriate $30,000.00 from the Grants Leveraging
fund to the Information Technology Department. This will not increase the total County
budget;
• One (1) appropriation (#2016022) to appropriate $82,693.00 in seized asset forfeiture
funding to the Police Department;
• One (1) appropriation (#2016023) to appropriate $295,860.00 for two CIP projects. Note:
$79,720.00 of this amount will not increase the County’s total budget;
• One (1) appropriation (#2016024) to appropriate $7,479.15 in donations to the
Department of Fire Rescue;
• One (1) appropriation (#2016025) to appropriate $10,457.50 in grant funds to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to approve
appropriations #2016019, #2016020, #2016021, #2016022, #2016023, #2016024, and #2016025 for
local government and school division projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2016019 $109,000.00
Source: General Fund fund balance $ 94,000.00
EDA Fund fund balance $ 15,000.00
Economic Opportunities Fund* $ 50,000.00
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Pursuant to the Board’s authorization on July 1, 2015, this request is to appropriate funding in support of
the Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program and consists of three parts:
Re-appropriation of the remaining FY 15 balance of $94,000.00 in the Office of Economic
Development to fund a collective marketing campaign as part of the Route 29 Solutions
Business Assistance Program.
Use of $15,000.00 in fund balance from the Economic Development Authority (EDA) fund
to provide technical assistance strategies, including workshops, training, and consulting
as part of the Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program.
Appropriation of $50,000.00 in funding from the Econom ic Opportunity Fund to the EDA
for a matching grant program as part of the Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance
Program. *This will not increase the total appropriated County budget. Please note, if the
Board fails to approve the matching grant program also included on the September 2nd
agenda, this appropriation will be reversed at that time.
Appropriation #2016020 $229,618.05
Source: Federal Revenue $ 229,618.05
This request is to re-appropriate $229,618.05 in funding from the Community Development Block Grant,
which will provide housing rehabilitations for low- and moderate income residents over the next year.
Appropriation #2016021 $0.00
This appropriation does not increase the total County budget.
Source: Grants Leveraging Fund $ 30,000.00
This request is to appropriate $30,000.00 in funding from the Grants leveraging fund to the Information
Technology Department for support of a Department of Housing and Community Development Planning
grant for Broadband projects.
Appropriation #2016022 $82,693.00
Source: State revenue $ 82,693.00
This request is to appropriate $82,693.00 in seized asset forfeiture funding from the Virginia Department
of Criminal Justice Services to the Police Department. This amount includes:
$66,693.00, in re-appropriated funds from FY15 to FY16 for a part-time Gang Reduction
Coordinator and selected prevention and intervention programs to assist the local Gang
Reduction through Active Community Engagement (GRACE) coalition; and
$16,000.00 associated with an additional asset forfeiture award to support a part-time
outreach specialist as a contracted service to work with at-risk youth.
Appropriation #2016023 $216,140.00
Source: Local Non-Tax $ 7,435.00
School CIP Fund fund Balance $ 208,705.00
School Operating Fund* $ $79,720.00
*The School Operating Fund component of this appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
This request is to appropriate $216,140.00 in funding to support two current projects:
This request is to appropriate $7,435.00 in revenue from the City of Charlottesville for its
portion of a joint study of the Levy Building to support the Court Facilities Addition/
Renovation project.
This request is to appropriate $208,705.00 in School CIP Fund fund ba lance and
$79,720.00 from the currently appropriated School Division Operations budget (approved
by the School Board August 27, 2015) to support construction of the Western Albemarle
High School Environmental Studies Academy for a total appropriation of $288,425.00 to
the project. The project is currently in the bid phase and is scheduled to be operational
the second half of the 2015/2016 school year. This brings the total appropriated budget
for this project to $931,942.
Great effort has been given to keep this top-ranking School project on schedule and in
budget from the time of its inclusion in the FY 16 CIP. Although a FY 16 planned project,
it was appropriated early in May 2015 to accommodate a goal to have it operational as
soon as possible in the 2015/2016 school year. The Environmental Studies Academy
opened with its first class in the fall of 2014. The plan is to phase in the academy with an
additional class of students each year until all four grade levels (9 -12) are represented.
This growth in students and the need to provide practical experience opportunities
compels the construction of this facility this school year. In early June, bids came back
approximately $400K over the estimated budget for construction. Staff issued a no award
and commenced a redesign and value engineering process to reduce cost while not
sacrificing the learning environment goals. The project was then re-bid and awards were
received August 13, 2015. Although the second round of bids were approximately
$100,000 less than the first bid, the bids are still over budget by approximately $288,000.
In order to meet the goal of opening the Academy by January 2016, staff recommends
approval of this appropriation request.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Appropriation #2016024 $7,479.15
Source: Donations $ 7,479.15
This request is to appropriate $7,479.15 from the Fire Rescue Donations Fund to the Department of Fire
Rescue. These donations support various efforts, such as the car safety seat program, public education
and one-time equipment or station furnishing purchases.
Appropriation #2016025 $10,457.50
Source: State Revenue $ 10,457.50
This request is to appropriate $10,457.50 in grant funds from the Library of Virginia to the Clerk of the
Circuit Court for an Item Conservation grant. These funds will be used to preserve historical record books
by reformatting original records to digital images.
_____
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to approve
appropriations #2016019, #2016020, #2016021, #2016022, #2016023, #2016024, and #2016025 for
local government and school division projects and programs:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
ADDITIONAL FY 16 APPROPRIATIONS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
1) That Appropriations #2016019, #2016020, #2016021, #2016022, #2016023, #2016024, and
#2016025 are approved; and
2) That the appropriations referenced in Paragraph #1, above, are subject to the provisions set
forth in the Annual Resolution of Appropriations of the County of Albemarle for the Fiscal Year
ending June 30, 2016.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2016019 4-1000-81050-481050-600120-1008 94000.00 SA2016019 Rt. 29 Business Assistance
2016019 3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 94000.00 SA2016019 Rt. 29 Business Assistance
2016019 4-6850-91095-491095-580000-1008 15000.00 SA2016019 Rt. 29 Business Assistance
2016019 3-6850-51000-351000-510100-9999 15000.00 SA2016019 Rt. 29 Business Assistance
2016019 4-1000-93010-493010-930222-9999 50000.00 SA2016019 Rt. 29 Business Assistance
2016019 4-1000-99900-499000-999987-9999 -50000.00 SA2016019 Rt. 29 Business Assistance
2016019 3-6850-51000-351000-512004-9999 50000.00 SA2016019 Rt. 29 Business Assistance
2016019 4-6850-91095-491095-301200-1008 50000.00 SA2016019 Rt. 29 Business Assistance
2016020 3-1224-33000-333000-330009-1008 229618.05 SA2016020 Federal Revenue
2016020 4-1224-81032-481030-300205-1008 38327.50 SA2016020 Administrative Services
2016020 4-1224-81032-481030-563100-1008 191290.55 SA2016020 AHIP
2016021 4-1000-99900-499000-999974-9999 -30000.00 SA2016021 IT DHCD Support Grants Leveraging fund
2016021 4-1000-12200-412200-392000-1001 30000.00 SA2016021 IT Contractual Services
2016022 3-1233-24000-324000-240403-1003 82693.00 SA2016022 State Forfeiture Revenue
2016022 4-1233-31013-431010-130000-1003 6194.00 SA2016022 Part-Time Wages
2016022 4-1233-31013-431010-210000-1003 474.00 SA2016022 FICA
2016022 4-1233-31013-431010-312210-1003 74824.00 SA2016022 Contract Services
2016022 4-1233-31013-431010-550100-1003 1201.00 SA2016022 Travel/Training
2016023 4-9010-21009-421005-312350-2180 7,435.00 SA2016023 Courts Facilities A/R-Levy Study
2016023 3-9010-19000-319000-190207-2180 7,435.00 SA2016023 Courts Facilities A/R-Levy Study
2016023 4-9000-69985-466730-800605-6302 288,425.00 SA2016023 WAHS ESA
2016023 3-9000-69000-351000-510100-6599 208,705.00 SA2016023 WAHS ESA
2016023 3-9000-69000-351000-512001-6599 79,720.00 SA2016023 WAHS ESA
2016024 3-8405-18000-318000-181114-9999 7,479.15 SA2016024 ACFR Donations
2016024 4-8405-93010-493010-930050-9999 7,479.15 SA2016024 Transfer to FR Services Fund #1805
2016024 3-1805-51000-351000-512008-9999 7,479.15 SA2016024 Trs. From Contribution Fund #8405
2016024 4-1805-32012-432010-800100-1003 1,329.15 SA2016024 CPR mannequins and monitors
2016024 4-1805-32015-432010-600000-1003 750.00 SA2016024 Ivy 9/11 memorial wall
2016024 4-1805-32013-432010-580330-1003 5,400.00 SA2016024 Purchase smoke alarms for Project Risk
2016025 3-1000-24000-324000-568911-9999 10,457.50 SA2016025 Library of Virginia
2016025 4-1000-21060-421060-332115-1002 10,457.50 SA2016025 Contract Services
TOTAL 1,585,173.70
_______________
Item No.8.3. FY 2015 Appropriations.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board 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 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
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
$719,492.93. 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 three (3) appropriat ions as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2015111) to appropriate $(22,521.07) to reconcile debt service
funds;
• One (1) appropriation (#2015112) to appropriate a total of $742,014.00 to the Albemarle
Charlottesville Regional Jail and Blue Ridge Juvenile Center; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2015113) to reconcile the 2015 CIP project management
services. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to approv e
appropriation #2015111, #2015112, and #2015113 as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2015111 $(22,521.07)
Source: Local Non-Tax $ 439.24
Federal $ (85.00)
General Fund Transfer to Debt Funds $ (22,875.31)
General Fund Transfer to CIP Funds $ 22,875.31
CIP Funds fund Balance $ (22,875.31)
This request is to reconcile the FY 15 Debt Service funds and to also reconcile the General Fund Transfer
revenues to Debt funds and CIP funds for a net decrease to the total County Budget of $22,521.07.
The General Government and School Division each has its own Debt Service Fund that provides funding
for fees, costs of issuances, and the principal and interest expenses associated with debt issuances for
capital projects. This appropriation reconciles the budget to the actual expenses per fund and the actual
receipt of revenues per fund in order to maintain a $0 fund balance. To reconcile the FY 15 Debt Service
Funds, this request is to:
Appropriate $439.24 in Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP) rent revenue to
reflect the actual revenue received; and equally reduce the General Fund Transfer
Revenue to Debt Service;
Decrease the appropriation of interest reimbursement revenue for Qualified School
Construction Bond (QSCB) revenue by $85.00 to reflect the actual revenue received; and
equally increase the General Fund Transfer Revenue to Debt Service; and
Decrease the appropriated expenditure budget and associated General Fund Transfer
Revenue by $22,521.07 to reflect actual expenditures incurred primarily for the costs
associated with professional service for fees.
The net change for the above items results in decreasing the General Fund Transfer to Debt by
$22,875.31. To complete the reconciliation of the General Fund Transfer Revenues, this request also
increases the General Fund Transfer revenue to the CIP Funds by $22,875.31 and equally decreases the
use of CIP Funds fund balance by $22,875.31.
Appropriation #2015112 $742,014.00
Source: General Fund Fund Balance $ 742,014.00
This request is to appropriate a total of $742,014.00 for the County’s share of the cost for the following
regional public safety agencies:
$641,325.00 to the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ). The increase is due
to the County’s increased share of ACRJ’s operating and debt service costs per the
regional funding formula. In FY15, the County’s share of the jail population relative to
other localities was much higher than the previous years share, which was the basis of
the initial County’s FY15 budgeted contribution. During the FY16 budget process, ACRJ
revised its regional funding formula to minimize large budget variances due to year to
year changes in the percentage of the jail population.
$100,689.00 to the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center (BRJDC). This increase is due
to the County’s increased share of BRJDC’s debt service pursuant to the regional funding
formula. It is important to note that the County’s budgeted contribution to BRJDC was
also based on an assumption that a credit to the County that would be applied in FY15,
but it will not be applied until FY16 after BRJDC’s FY15 audit has been completed.
The proposed use of General Fund Fund Balance for the above items will not reduce the county’s 10%
unassigned fund balance reserve. Instead, the funds necessary to support these items will come from an
additional reserve of fund balance set aside during the budget process for revenue shortfalls, assessment
challenges, or unanticipated one-time expenditures.
Appropriation #2015113 $ 0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Borrowed Proceeds $ (19,138.09)
School CIP Fund fund balance $ (60,000.00)
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Gen. Gov’t CIP Fund fund balance $ 61,907.97
Stormwater CIP Fund fund balance $ 17,230.12
This request is to reconcile the Office of Facilities Development’s (OFD) FY 15 appropriated sources of
revenues with the expenses incurred in FY 15. This appropriation will not increase the County budget.
The appropriated budget represents an initial estimate based on a projection of project management
support and activities. OFD provides project management support for School, Stormwater, and General
Government capital projects and for General Government projects that fall outside of the Capital budget
such as the Belvedere and Lewis and Clark projects or other administrative, non-designated CIP
activities. An internal service fund was established for OFD in FY 13 to collect fees for OFD’s staff work.
OFD charges an hourly-based project management (PM) fee for its services to individual projects. In
order to properly account for the FY 15 charges per activity and fund, this appropriation request is to:
A. reduce the appropriated use of School CIP Fund fund balance by $60,000.00 and reduce
the appropriated use of borrowed proceeds by $19,138.09 for a total reduction of
$79,138.09 in required School Project Management Services in FY 15;
B. re-allocate $87,868.16 for project management services within the General Government
CIP Fund and appropriate $61,907.97 in the use of General Government CIP Fund fund
balance monies for General Government CIP Project Management Services in FY 15;
and
C. re-allocate $3,435.52 for project management services within the Stormwater CIP fund
and appropriate $17,230.12 in the use of Stormwater CIP Fund fund balance monies for
Stormwater Project Management Services in FY 15.
_____
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to approve
appropriations #2015111, #2015112, and #2015113:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
ADDITIONAL FY 15 APPROPRIATIONS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
1) That Appropriations #2015111, #2015112, and #2015113 are approved; and
2) That the appropriations referenced in Paragraph #1, above, are subject to the provisions set
forth in the Annual Resolution of Appropriations of the County of Albemarle for the Fiscal Year
ending June 30, 2015.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2015111 3-9900-15000-315000-150253-9999 439.24 SA2015111 Reconcile-Prep Rent
2015111 3-9900-33900-333900-330063-1006 -85.00 SA2015111 Reconcile-VPSA QSCB Interest
2015111 3-9900-51000-351000-512004-9999 -8211.83 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 4-9900-95000-495000-310000-9999 -7857.00 SA2015111 Reconcile-Prof. Serv
2015111 4-9900-95000-495000-910040-9999 -0.59 SA2015111 Reconcile
2015111 4-1000-93010-493010-930003-9999 -8211.83 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 3-9910-51000-351000-512004-9999 -14663.48 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 4-9910-95000-495000-910076-9999 1.00 SA2015111 Reconcile
2015111 4-9910-95000-495000-910077-9999 21.88 SA2015111 Reconcile
2015111 4-9910-95000-495000-920077-9999 -20.44 SA2015111 Reconcile
2015111 4-9910-95000-495000-920074-9999 0.26 SA2015111 Reconcile
2015111 4-9910-95000-495000-920076-9999 -0.22 SA2015111 Reconcile
2015111 4-9910-95000-495000-312810-9999 -14665.96 SA2015111 Reconcile-Prof. Serv
2015111 4-1000-93010-493010-930011-9999 -14663.48 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 4-1000-93010-493010-930004-9999 11437.66 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 4-1000-93010-493010-930010-9999 11437.65 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 3-9000-69000-351000-510100-6599 -11437.66 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 3-9000-69000-351000-512004-6599 11437.66 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 -11437.65 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015111 3-9010-51000-351000-512004-9999 11437.65 SA2015111 Reconcile-Gen. Fund Transfer
2015112 3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 742014.00 SA2015112 App Fund Balance - ACRJ & BRJDC
2015112 4-1000-33020-433020-700002-1003 641325.00 SA2015112 ACRJ
2015112 4-1000-39001-439000-563400-1003 100689.00 SA2015112 BRJDC
2015113 4-9000-69980-466730-312366-6599 -42000.00 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9000-69985-464600-312366-6599 -18000.00 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9000-69985-466730-312366-6252 -19138.09 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 3-9000-69000-351000-510100-6599 -60000.00 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 3-9000-69000-351000-512090-6599 -19138.09 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-93010-493010-930004-9999 -19138.09 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 3-9010-41400-341000-410530-9999 -19138.09 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 61907.97 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-12142-412140-312366-1150 1821.90 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-13020-413020-312366-1170 9097.33 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-21005-421005-312366-2180 5578.71 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-21009-421005-312366-2180 -29560.57 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-32021-432010-312366-3140 2712.15 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-32022-432020-312366-3140 2189.67 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-41020-441200-312366-9999 -54561.45 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
2015113 4-9010-41023-441200-312366-9999 1335.18 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-41350-441200-312366-9999 38974.80 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-43100-443200-312366-9999 -572.41 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-71020-471020-312366-7100 -2695.35 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-73025-473010-312366-7140 -478.37 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-73030-473010-312366-9999 48522.78 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-81050-481050-312366-1008 39005.31 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9010-94160-494070-312366-7140 538.29 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 3-9100-51000-351000-510100-9999 17230.12 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9100-41038-482040-312366-9999 4507.20 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9100-82066-482040-312366-9999 3975.06 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9100-82067-482040-312366-9999 -3435.52 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
2015113 4-9100-82068-482040-312366-9999 12183.38 SA2015113 Year-End Reconciliation
TOTAL 1,400,709.68
_______________
Item No.8.4. Ordinance to Correct the Address of the Branchlands Precinct Polling Place
Location and the Name of the Country Green Precinct Polling Place Location.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on May 9, 2001, after the 2001
redistricting of the County’s magisterial districts, the Board adopted Ordinance 01-2(1) to reflect the
district changes and to include the polling place locations of the precincts in each district. The Senior
Center, which is the polling place for the Branchlands precinct of the Rio Magisterial District, was
identified as being located at 674 Hillsdale Drive in County Code § 2-102. The correct address is now
officially 1180 Pepsi Place.
In addition, the Berean Baptist Church, which is identified as the polling place for the Country
Green precinct of the Samuel Miller Magisterial District in County Code § 2-104, has changed its name to
the South Ridge Christian Fellowship.
Staff has prepared the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) to:
- amend County Code § 2-102, Rio Magisterial District, to reflect the correct address of the
Senior Center at 1180 Pepsi Place; and
- amend County Code § 2-104, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, to reflect the new name
of the Berean Baptist Church as the South Ridge Christian Fellowship Church.
The adoption of the proposed ordinance will have no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing for the attached draft ordinance
(Attachment A) on October 7, 2015.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board scheduled a public hearing for October 7, 2015 to
consider the proposed draft ordinance.
_______________
Item No.8.5. HO 2015-131, Jessalyn Fink Special Exception (White Hall District).
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the applicant is requesting a Home
Occupation Class A (HOCA) modification under County Code §18-5.1(a) for the number of trips
generated by a proposed home music/piano teaching business to allow up to ten (10) additional round
trips per day (Monday-Thursday). Characteristics of the anticipated operation:
Hours of operation: Monday-Thursday, 3:00 PM - 7:45 PM.
Up to 10 students per day, and up to 40 per week (Monday-Thursday).
Most students will have weekly thirty (30) minute slots and one of them may have a forty five (45)
minute slot.
Parking is on site. Two parking spaces available at all times.
The property (TMP 057A0-01-00-13400) is in the Highlands Subdivision neighborhood and is
located on Highlands Drive, approximately .25 miles south of the intersection of Three Notched Road
(Route 240) and Highland Dive in Crozet (Attachment A). The .22 acre parcel is zoned R-4, Residential,
and the surrounding properties consist of single-family attached homes.
County Code § 18-5.2(e) states, “the traffic generated by a home occupation shall not exceed the
volume that would normally be expected by a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood.” Traffi c
generation for a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood is five (5) round trips (one vehicle entering and
exiting the site) per day, 35 total round trips per week. The longstanding interpretation of County Code §
18-5.2(e) by the Zoning Administrator is that the total normal traffic volume generation per dwelling unit
with a Home Occupation in a residential neighborhood is six (6) total round trips per day, 42 total round
trips per week. The applicant’s proposal would generate an additional ten (10) round trips per day,
Monday through Thursday, for a total of 40 additional round trips per week, almost double the traffic
volume that would normally be expected by a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood.
The section of Highlands Drive on which the home occupation is located is of adequate
geometrics and condition to accommodate the additional trips that would be generated by this proposal.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
The subject property has a driveway and parking area that is of adequate geometrics and condition to
accommodate client parking and/or pick-up and drop-off.
Two piano students live in the Highlands neighborhood and can choose to walk to their piano
lesson when weather conditions permit. Adequate site distance exists at the driveway entrance onto
Highlands Drive.
Based on the foregoing, staff opinion is that the special exception to allow an increase in traffic is
not a detriment to public safety or welfare and will not disturb the quality and character of the Highlands
residential neighborhood. The applicant also has contacted her neighbors and they are all aware of and
support her home music/piano teaching business. Staff has received an email from the Highlands at
Mechums River Home Owners Association President Ms. Pamela Bortz (Attachment C) stating that the
association has no concerns regarding Ms. Fink’s plans to expand her lesson schedule. Ms. Fink is in
compliance with the Highlands at Mechums River Home Owner’s Association's regulations and there
have been no concerns or complaints registered by her neighbors in the past.
There is no budget impact from this proposal.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving the
special exception to allow an increase in permitted traffic generation for HO 2015-131 subject to the
following conditions, which cover peak activity:
1. Piano Lessons shall only be held Monday through Thursday.
2. During weeks in which lessons are held (Monday through Thursday), no more than forty
(40) total vehicle round trips generated by this home occupation are permitted.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
special exception to allow an increase in permitted traffic generation for HO 2015-131 subject to
two conditions which cover peak activity:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR HO 2015-131, JESSALYN FINK
WHEREAS, Alexander J. Fink is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 057A0-01-00-13400
(the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Jessalyn Fink resides at the Property and owns a business; and
WHEREAS, Jessalyn Fink filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with HO 2015 -131,
Jessalyn Fink, to modify the number of vehicle trips permitted by County Code § 5.2(e) to be generated by
a proposed home occupation to add an additional ten (10 ) round trips per weekday- Monday through
Thursday.
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 in Albemarle County
Code §§ 18-5.1 and 18-33.9, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special
exception to modify the number of vehicle trips permitted in conjunction with HO 2015-131, Jessalyn Fink,
as described hereinabove, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
*******
HO 2015-131, Jessalyn Fink Special Exception Conditions
1. Piano Lessons shall only be held Monday through Thursday.
2. During weeks in which lessons are held (Monday through Thursday), no more than forty (40) total
vehicle round trips generated by this home occupation are permitted.
______________
Item No. 8.6. Ivy Fire Emergency Signal - Maintenance Agreement.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the Ivy Fire Rescue Station is located
at 640 Kirtley Lane and began operation in July 2013. Service is provided from a continuously staffed fire
engine and daytime staffed ambulance. Emergency vehicles currently exit Kirtley Lane onto Ivy Road (US
Route 250) with only a caution sign. During development of the fire station, an emergency traffic signal
was planned for this intersection to ensure the safety of emergency crews and drivers on Ivy Road.
At the County’s request and expense, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has
agreed to install the emergency traffic signal at the intersection of Kirtley Lane and US Route 250 to
facilitate emergency response times. VDOT will contract for the purchase and installation of the signal
and the County will pay VDOT. Because this signal is not a requirement of VDOT, the County must agree
to maintain the signal beyond the routine maintenance and operational control that would be retained by
VDOT.
Under the proposed signal maintenance agreement (Attachment A), the County would be
responsible for (a) replacing and/or repairing the traffic signal, pole and/or mast arm if subjected to any
catastrophic damage; (b) performing any lifecycle maintenance activities if inspection revea ls any need
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
for replacement; and (c) notifying VDOT if the Ivy Fire Rescue Station ceases operations. VDOT would be
responsible for (a) routine maintenance and operational control of the traffic signal, pole and mast arm;
and (b) deactivating and removing the signal upon notice from the County that the Ivy Fire Rescue Station
has ceased operations.
The estimated construction cost for the traffic signal installation is $95,000. Funds are currently
appropriated in the Ivy Fire Station CIP budget to cover the cost of the signal. If the signal is installed, the
County’s insurer would include the signal in the County’s insurance policy to cover any catastrophic
damage. Based on the estimated $95,000 cost of the signal, the cost of the coverage would be
approximately $75/year with a $1,000 deductible. Because signals usually have a 30-year lifespan,
barring incident, the County would likely not incur any expense related to lifecycle maintenance for 30
years unless a need is identified by VDOT during its routine inspection.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) approving a
maintenance agreement with VDOT for the Ivy Fire Station emergency signal and authorizing the County
Executive to sign the agreement once it is approved as to content and form by the County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving a
maintenance agreement with VDOT for the Ivy Fire Station emergency signal and authorized the
County Executive to sign the agreement once it is approved as to content and form by the County
Attorney:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE IVY FIRE RESCUE STATION EMERGENCY SIGNAL
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors finds it is in the best interest of the County to
enter into a maintenance agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VODT) for the maintenance
of an Ivy Fire Rescue Station emergency signal, which is needed to facilitate the Station’s emergency response
times and to ensure the safety of the emergency crews and drivers on Ivy Road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves a maintenance agreement between the County and VDOT for the maintenance of the Ivy Fire
Rescue Station emergency signal at the intersection of Ivy Road (US Route 250) and Kirtley Lane, and
authorizes the County Executive to execute on behalf of the County an agreement once it is approved as to
content and form by the County Attorney.
*****
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE IVY
FIRE EMERGENCY SIGNAL
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made and executed in triplicate this ____ day of
_______________, 2015, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter
referred to as the COUNTY, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation,
hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, §33.1-12 and §33.1-13 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provide that the
Commissioner may "do all acts necessary or convenient for constructing, improving, maintaining, and
preserving the efficient operation of the roads embraced in the systems of state highways …"; and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is undertaking project # 0000107920, which benefits the
COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has requested an emergency traffic signal to access Ivy Road from
Kirtley Lane to facilitate rapid emergency responses from its Fire Station located on Kirt ley Lane; and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT does not object to this request.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises contained herein, the parties agree
as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall:
a. Replace and/or repair the traffic signal, pole and/or mast arm if subjected to any
catastrophic damage requiring full replacement of mast arm/poles and/or
foundations;
b Perform any lifecycle maintenance activities if inspection reveals any need for
replacement; and
c. Notify the DEPARTMENT within 30 days of any cessation in the use of the
Albemarle County Fire and Rescue site for Fire and/or Emergency Service
operations.
2. The DEPARTMENT shall:
a. Retain routine maintenance and operational control of the traffic signal, pole and
mast arm.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
b. Deactivate and remove from operation the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue
signal upon notification from the COUNTY that the site will cease to be used for
Fire and/or Emergency Service operations.
3. The DEPARTMENT and the COUNTY agree that all currently establis hed policies and
procedures for the urban system extend to this Agreement.
4. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity of the
COUNTY or of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
THIS AGREEMENT has been prepared jointly by the parties and shall be construed simply and in
accordance with its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any party.
THIS AGREEMENT, when properly executed, shall be binding upon both parties, their
successors, and assigns.
THIS AGREEMENT may be modified in writing by mutual agreement of both parties.
THIS AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party upon 30 days advance written notice. If
this Agreement is terminated by the COUNTY, the DEPARTMENT will not replace the signal and the
COUNTY consents to the removal of the signal at the end of its lifecycle or upon any damage making it
inoperable. If this Agreement is terminated by the DEPARTMENT, the COUNTY may assume
maintenance responsibility for the signal or may remove it, at the COUNTY’s option.
_______________
Item No. 8.7. SDP201500024 Albrecht Place - Special Exception (Rio District).
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that a zoning map amendment was
approved for Albrecht Place (ZMA201100010) on September 12, 2012 that established an approved
Application Plan on 3.398 acres zoned Planned Development Shopping Center (“PDSC”) (no change in
zoning district) (Attachment A). A Final Site Plan (SDP 2015-00024 Albrecht Place) is currently under
review and the applicant is requesting a special exception to waive the prohibition of construction
activities within the buffer zone adjacent to residential districts (Attachment B).
County Code § 18-21.7(c) states, “no construction activity including grading or clearing of
vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall
be provided as required in section 32.7.9. The board of supervisors may waive by special exception the
prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer in a particular case
upon consideration of whether: (i) the developer or subdivider demonstrates that grading or clearing is
necessary or would result in an improved site design; (ii) minimum screening requirements w ill be
satisfied; and (iii) existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored”.
The waiver request is for approximately 80 square feet of buffer zone disturbance in the
southwest corner of the site to allow for the installation of a stormwater pipe. The developer has
investigated several alternate designs and believes that this is the best option in terms of minimizing
impacts to the buffer zone. This option is also less intrusive than what was shown on the approved
Application Plan (Attachment A). The plan proposes a fence along the buffer zone line, and supplemental
plantings will be installed to replace those that will be removed. Staff finds that the disturbance within the
buffer zone is necessary and that the proposed fence, the supplemental landscaping, and the remaining
existing vegetation will enable the applicant to meet the minimum screening requirements. Based on the
above factors, staff has no concerns that would cause them to object to the approval of the proposed
buffer zone disturbance request.
There is no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) approving the
special exception to waive the buffer zone requirements of County Code § 18-21.7(c).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
special exception to waive the buffer zone requirements of County Code § 18 -21.7(c):
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR SDP 2015-00024 ALBRECHT PLACE
WHEREAS, Anvince Land Trust (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 061M0-
00-12-001E0 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SDP 2015-00024,
Albrecht Place, to waive the buffer zone requirement of County Code § 18-21.7(c) to allow the disturbance
of 80 square feet of the buffer zone in the southwest corner of the Property to allow for the installation of a
stormwater pipe.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the application and its supporting analysis, and all of the factors
relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code §§ 18-21.7(c) and 18-33.9, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to waive the buffer zone
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
requirements of County Code § 18-21.7(c) to allow the disturbance of 80 square feet of the buffer zone in
the southwest corner of the Property as shown on the schematic drawing attached hereto.
_______________
Item No. 8.8. VDOT Compensation Agreement for Route 29 Taking.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the County owns a 0.76-acre
stormwater facility (Tax Map Parcel 04500-00-00-094B1) that fronts approximately 75 feet on Route 29
between Colonial Auto Center and Rio-29 Self Storage. On or about February 9, 2015, the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) alerted the County that VDOT would need to acquire certain
portions of this County property for the Route 29 improvement project. Specifically, VDOT indicated that it
would need 761 square feet closest to the existing highway as a permanent utility easement, and the
adjacent 1,034 square feet as a temporary construction easement. (See Map, Attachment A)
VDOT subsequently exercised its right to acquire these easements by eminent domain by filing a
Certificate of Take on March 19, 2015. By operation of law, that Certificate immediately transferred
ownership of these easements to VDOT, now VDOT Parcel 015. With the ownership of those easements
now vested in VDOT, the only remaining issue is the amount of just compensation due the County for the
easements.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
VDOT has valued the parcel at $11 per square foot, and has offered to pay 25% of that for the
permanent easement and 10% of that for the temporary easement. VDOT is offering the County a total of
$3,300 as compensation for both easements. (See Valuation, Attachment B)
With ownership of these two easements already having transferred to VDOT, the only remaining
issue is the amount of just compensation to the County. The County Assessor has reviewed VDOT’s
valuation of these two easements, and believes that VDOT’s offer of compensation reflects their fair
market value. The County Attorney’s Office has reviewed and approved the substance and form of the
attached settlement agreement (Attachment C) prepared by VDOT.
VDOT has also expressed an interest in at least four other County properties that it wishes to
partially acquire as part of the Route 29 improvement project. Staff anticipates bringing similar proposals
to the Board in the coming months as those other properties are acquired by VDOT.
The County would receive $3,300 in one-time revenue if the Board approves the County’s
acceptance of VDOT’s compensation offer for this property.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving the
proposed agreement in which the County accepts VDOT’s compensation of $3,300 for VDOT’s taking of
the two easements and authorizing the County Executive to sign such an agreement and any necessary
related documents once they have been approved as to substance and form by the County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
proposed agreement in which the County accepts VDOT’s compensation of $3,300 for VDOT’s
taking of the two easements and authorizing the County Executive to sign such an agreement and
any necessary related documents:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FOR THE TAKING OF TWO EASEMENTS
ON TAX MAP PARCEL 04500-00-00-094B1
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the best interest of the County to enter into an Agreement with
the Commonwealth of Virginia for the County to accept the Virginia Department of Transportation’s offer of
$3,300 for the taking of a permanent utility easement on 761 square feet and a temporary construction
easement on 1,034 square feet located on County-owned property identified as Tax Map Parcel 04500-00-
00-094B1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the Agreement between the County and the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding compensation
for these two easements and authorizes the County Executive to execute an Agreement and any
necessary related documents once they have been approved as to substance and form by the County
Attorney.
*****
RW -38
Revised 3/15
UPC 106136
PARCEL NO. 015
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 23rd day of April, 2015, between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, GRANTOR, and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, acting by and through
the Commissioner of Highways, GRANTEE,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, in connection with State Highway Route 29 Project 0029-002-901 in the County of
Albemarle Virginia (“Project”), the GRANTEE, in accordance with the provisions of Title 33.2, Chapter 10
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, has lodged with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, Certificate Number C-715021, in the amount of $3,300.00, for the benefit of the
GRANTOR; and
WHEREAS, the GRANTEE has appointed the law firm of St. John, Bowling, Lawrence &
Quagliana, LLP as its attorney to institute condemnation proceedings for the purpose of determining the
amount to be paid for the land, or interest therein, as described in the Certificate aforesaid, and damages
to the remaining lands, if any, of the GRANTOR; and WHEREAS, the GRANTEE has not yet filed a
Petition In Condemnation in the Circuit Court of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the parties have now agreed upon the following amount of just compensation for the
land or interests therein and damages to the remainder, if any, and for all other claims and demands by
the GRANTOR against the GRANTEE arising out of the filing of the Certificate, the Petition In
Condemnation, and the conveyance of the property.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitations above which are made a part of this
Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1.) All issues between the GRANTEE and the GRANTOR as described herein, including but
not limited to just compensation, public use, public necessity, lost profits and lost access, the
GRANTEE’S bona fide but ineffectual effort to purchase the property prior to the filing of the Certificate,
and all other statutory prerequisites to condemnation are hereby settled and forever resolved and the
pending condemnation proceeding will be dismissed in accordance with Section 33.2 -1027 of the Virginia
Code (1950), as amended. The recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated herein as if repeated in
full and are true in all respects.
2.) GRANTEE has offered and the GRANTOR has accepted consideration in the amount of
$3,300.00 as total just compensation for the acquisition of all of the property identified and described in
the Certificate, and satisfaction of all Claims (as defined below) including but not limited to Claims arising
out of the filing of the Certificate, the filing of the Petition In Condemnation, any physical invasion or
physical damage to the GRANTOR’S property outside of the fee or easement areas described in the
Certificate which the GRANTOR has actual knowledge of or should have knowledge of based upon a
reasonable inquiry, as of the date of this Agreement, and/or the conveyance of s aid property to
GRANTEE pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.2-1001, as well as all Claims for lost profits and/or lost
access, and all Claims under the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court related to the taking of said
property. Said amount is inclusive of the amount deposited under the Certificate. In addition, GRANTOR
accepts such just compensation in full, final and unconditional settlement and release of any and all
claims, demands, remedies, damages and liability in the manner and to the extent as set forth below.
3.) GRANTOR hereby waives and relinquishes all rights, claims, demands, remedies,
damages, costs, interest, expert fees, attorney fees, and liability, including claims against GRANTEE,
GRANTEE’S agents and contractors, and any utility compan y or agent or contractor of such utility
company involved in the construction work of the Project and any other parties acting under the color of
the Certificate, (collectively referred to as “Claims”), that GRANTOR may have arising out of or related to
the filing of the Certificate, the filing of the Petition In Condemnation, the acquisition of the property and
property rights described in the Certificate, any physical invasion or physical damage of the GRANTOR’S
property outside of the fee or easement areas described in the Certificate which the GRANTOR has
actual knowledge of or should have knowledge of based upon a reasonable inquiry, as of the date of this
Agreement, and/or the conveyance of said property to GRANTEE pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.2-
1001, et seq.as well as all Claims for lost profits and/or lost access and all Claims under the Rules of the
Virginia Supreme Court relating to the taking of said property.
4.) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, GRANTOR’S settlement in paragraph two
(2) and waiver in paragraph three (3) does not apply to any unlawful interference with access caused by
something other than the rights conveyed in the Certificate and/or Petition, any physical invasion of or
physical damage to the GRANTOR’S property outside of the fee or easement areas described in the
Certificate which the GRANTOR has no actual knowledge of nor should have no knowledge of based
upon a reasonable inquiry, as of the date of this Agreement. GRANTOR hereby represents and warrants
that, as of the date of this Agreement, he is unaware of (a) any unlawful interference with access caused
by something other than the rights conveyed in the Certificate and/or Petitioner, (b) any physical invasion
of any property outside the fee or easement area described in the Certificate and (c) any physical
damage caused by GRANTEE, its agents or contractors to GRANTOR’S remaining property. Nothing in
this paragraph shall be read to exclude any other lawful claims that the GRANTOR may otherwise
possess and which are not otherwise waived in this Agreement.
5.) As part of the consideration for this Agreement, GRANTOR warrants and represents that
since the recordation of the aforesaid Certificate and continuing to the date of this Agreement, there has
been no sale or contract for sale of the land or interest therein or any part thereof between the
GRANTOR and any third party.
6.) There have been no other promises, consideration or representations made which are
not set forth in this Agreement.
7.) The consideration hereinabove mentioned represents the value of all estates or interests
in such land and the damage to the remaining property, if any, and is in lieu of any and all Claims (subject
to the terms of Paragraph 4, above) for compensation and damages by reason of the location,
construction and maintenance of the highway including such drainage facilities within the fee and
easement acquisition areas as may be described in the Certificate.
8.) The GRANTOR agrees to accept its legally proportionate share (if there be such
apportionment) of such total consideration for the interests and rights in the land. If the settlement funds
described in paragraph 2 of this Agreement are subject to any liens pursuant to Section 33.2-1021 of the
Virginia Code (1950), as amended, the GRANTOR shall be responsible for securing and recording a
proper instrument in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court where the Certificate was recorded releasing
such liens prior to the funds being distributed. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, and in
addition to the compensation stated above, the GRANTEE will pay the cost, if any, of recording such
instrument.
9.) The parties hereto agree that the total consideration set forth above shall be reduced to
the extent of any payment made pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.2-1023 of the Code of Virginia
1950, as amended, if any.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: (SEAL)
________________________ [Name]
________________________ [Title]
COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS
BY: _______________________
James M. Bowling, IV,
its attorney duly authorized to act
Commonwealth of Virginia,
_______________
Item No. 8.9. ZMA200400024 Special Exception to Vary Old Trail Village Code of Development
(White Hall District).
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that a zoning map amendment was
approved for Old Trail Village on September 14, 2005, that rezoned the property from Rural Areas, R-1,
and R-6 to Neighborhood Model District, inclusive of an Application Plan and Code of Development. An
application for a site plan is now under review for this property (SDP 2015-00007). Twenty-two (22)
variations to the Application Plan and/or Code of Development have previously been granted. The
Applicant has requested a special exception to vary the Code of Development to permit changes to
stormwater treatment for Blocks 11, 12, 14 and 15. The Applicant has also requested four special
exceptions for Block 12: to reduce lot sizes, to increase building height, to reduce setbacks and to allow
architectural features such as overhangs/eaves to encroach up to one foot into the required setback. All
of these variations are necessary before the site plan can be approved by staff.
County Code § 18-8.5.5.3 allows special exceptions to vary approved Application Plans and
Codes of Development upon considering whether 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. Staff opinion is that the five requested variations meet the five criteria listed. A detailed
analysis is provided in the Staff Report (Attachment A).
There is no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment E) approving the
special exception to vary the Code of Development to permit changes to stormwater treatment for Blocks
11, 12, 14 and 15 and to permit the requested variations for Block 12, as described in the attached staff
report.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
special exception to vary the Code of Development to permit changes to stormwater treatment for
Blocks 11, 12, 14 and 15 and to permit the requested variations for Block 12, as described by staff :
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR ZMA 2004-00024, OLD TRAIL VILLAGE
WHEREAS, March Mountain Properties, LLC (“March Mountain”) is the owner of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 055E0-01-00-000A1 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, March Mountain filed an application to vary the Code of Development approved in
conjunction with ZMA 2004-00024, Old Trail Village (the “Code of Development”):
to permit an extended detention water quality pond to treat stormwater from Blocks 11, 12,
14 and 15;
to permit lot sizes below 4,000 square feet in Block 12;
to permit a building height above the maximum 2.5 stories in Block 12;
to reduce the setbacks in Block 12; and
to allow roof overhands and eaves to encroach the building setback in Block 12.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the application, and its supporting analysis included as Attachment
A thereto, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code §§ 18-
8.5.5.3(c) and 18-33.9, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special
exceptions to vary the Code of Development as set forth hereinabove, subject to the conditions attached
hereto.
*****
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
ZMA 2004-24, Old Trail Village Special Exception Conditions
1. The detention water quality pond may be located as shown on the exhibit created by Roudabush,
Gale and Associates, Inc., dated July 23, 2015, attached hereto.
2. No lot size for a single family attached unit in Block 12 shall be less than one thousand eight
hundred (1,800) square feet.
3. No building height in Block 12 shall be greater than 3.5 stories.
4. Lots 13-24 in Block 12 shall have five (5) foot front, zero (0) foot side, and five (5) foot rear
setbacks.
5. Lots 8-12 in Block 12 shall have five (5) foot front, side, and rear setbacks.
6. Roof overhangs and eaves in Block 12 shall not be permitted to project further than one (1) foot
into the building setback.
_______________
Item No. 8.10. Extension of Deferral of ZMA201200007 & SP201300027 5th Street Commercial
(Scottsville District).
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the applicant submitted a rezoning
application on October 15, 2012 (ZMA 2012-00007) to amend the Proffers and Application Plan and a
special use permit application on December 9, 2013 to allow a drive-through (SP 2013-00027). The
applicant subsequently deferred these applications twice, exhausting the allowable number of deferrals
permitted by County Code § 18-33.4(r)(2) (See Attachment A) without Board approval. The first deferral
requested by the applicant was granted on February 20, 2014. An extension of the deferral was granted
by the Planning Director, as permitted by County Code § 18-33.4(r)(2), on February 12, 2015 for a six (6)
month period, ending on August 31, 2015, to allow the applicant more time to resolve several outstanding
issues. These applications have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Since the extension of the indefinite deferral was granted by the Planning Director in February,
the applicant has been working with staff to address several outstanding issues. The applicant has been
making progress in resolving these issues, but remains in discussions with VDOT regarding the traffic
impact analysis for the proposal. Those discussions with VDOT will not be completed by the August 31,
2015 deadline, and the applicant is requesting an additional extension of the deferral to December 31,
2015. As noted above, the applicant has exhausted the deferrals permitted in County Code § 18 -
33.4(r)(2), and additional extensions must be granted by the Board. Staff opinion is that the extension is
justified in order to allow the applicant time to address issues identified during the review process,
including the completion of the traffic study work.
If the extension is not granted by the Board, the applications will be deemed withdrawn under
County Code § 18-33.4(r)(2) and the applicant will have to file new applications in order to proceed.
There is no budget impact related to this report.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the extension of the deferral of ZMA201200007 and
SP201300027, 5th Street Commercial and Drive-Thru, to December 31, 2015.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the extension of the deferral of ZMA-
2012-00007 and SP-2013-00027, 5th Street Commercial and Drive-Thru, to December 31, 2015.
_______________
Item No. 8.11. House Bill 2 Application.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that Virginia House Bill 2, signed by
Governor Terry McAuliffe on April 6, 2014 and effective as of July 1, 2014, requires the development of a
prioritization process and directs the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to develop and use a
scoring process for project selection by July 2016. The prioritization process will evaluate projects in the
following factor areas: congestion mitigation, economic development, accessibility, safety, environmental
quality and land use coordination. The HB2 implementation process will start in August 2015, with
projects initially selected by the CTB for inclusion in the draft Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) by
April 2016.
Candidate projects will be solicited from eligible entities in August of each year, with project
applications due September 30th. From there, the Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment (OIPI),
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT)
will screen, review, and evaluate the projects per the HB2 process from October through early January.
By mid-January, the list of projects and scores will be released to the public and the CTB, allowing the
CTB to consider the evaluated project lists for inclusion in the SYIP. In April, the draft SYIP will be
released by the CTB, followed by public hearings to gather input. In June, the revised final SYIP will be
released and considered for adoption by the CTB. The following July, the next year’s process begins
again.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
The Board of Supervisor approved the County Transportation Priority list in April, 2015
(Attachment A).
The Commonwealth Transportation Board is now soliciting candidate projects from local
communities for consideration in the new HB2 prioritization process with project applications due
September 30th. A total of up to five (5) projects in the County are being recommended for funding.
Under the new HB2 process, applications for funding of projects in the MPO area can be submitted by
either the MPO or the locality, but not by both entities. The County and MPO’s highest priority project is
the I-64 and Rt. 29 Interchange (Exit 118). This project will be submitted by the MPO as its highest priority
project. Staff is recommending that the County also request funding for the following four (4) projects.
PRIORITY #1: I-64 and Rt. 250 Interchange (Exit 124) - Increase capacity and rebuild the
interchange to be safer for higher volumes of traffic. Improve Safety / Operations and
increase Capacity - This project will meet congestion mitigation, economic development,
accessibility, and safety factors on corridors of statewide significance.
PRIORITY #2: Proffit Road Improvements from Leake Ln. /Worth Crossing to Baker Butler
Elementary School. Improve alignment, install Curb and Gutter, bike lanes and sidewalks.
The project is in the Places 29 Master Plan.
PRIORITY #3: Sunset Road and County Green Road Improvements (secondary) From Fifth
Street to City Limits/Moore’s Creek, and from Old Lynchburg Rd to Sunset Rd. Improve
alignment, install Curb and Gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The project is in the
Southern-Western Neighborhood Master Plan.
PRIORITY #4: Rt. 250 West Intersection Improvements at Rt. 151. Safety/operation/capacity
improvements (traffic light, roundabout, lengthen turn lanes, and/or other). The project is
in the Long Range Transportation Plan, Rural Long Range Transportation Plan and the
Crozet Master Plan.
The two I-64 interchanges are the two highest ranked primary road projects on the County’s
Transportation Priority list and MPO Long Range Plan, while Proffit Road and Sunset Road are the two
highest secondary road projects on the County’s priority list (Attachment A). The intersection of Rt. 250
and Rt. 151 is listed as the 4th highest priority primary road project (Rt. 250 intersection improvements)
and is being requested for funding because of its identification in the VTrans Plan Safety Needs
Assessment (high number of accidents) and because of the extent of project scoping (and cost estimates)
already undertaken for the project. Staff is currently working with VDOT to establish or complete cost
estimates for the four projects. Accurate cost estimates are very important to the new HB2 project review
and prioritization process. To date there has been limited or recent scoping/design work of the Proffit
Road or Sunset Road projects. Please note that if VDOT staff cannot provide accurate and reliable cost
estimates prior to the application deadline (September 30th), these projects will not be submitted this
year. If not submitted this year, VDOT and County staff would complete scoping/cost estimates over the
intervening period for potential submittal next year).
This is a State-funded program, so there are no direct impacts to the County’s budget unless the
County decides to fund a project for which some or all of the cost is being covered with Revenue Sharing
funds that require a dollar for dollar County match.
Staff recommends that the Board approve submittal of HB2 applications for the following four (4)
projects:
1. I-64 and Rt. 250 Interchange Improvements (Exit 124),
2. Proffit Road Improvements from Leake Ln. /Worth Crossing to Baker Butler Elementary
School (provided accurate cost estimates can be completed by the application deadline)
3. Sunset Road and County Green Road Improvements (secondary) From Fifth Street to
City Limits/Moore’s Creek, and from Old Lynchburg Rd to Sunset Rd.
4. Rt. 250 and Rt. 151 intersection, Proffit Road Improvements from Leake Ln. /Worth
Crossing to Baker Butler Elementary School (provided accurate cost estimates can be
completed by the application deadline)
Further, staff recommends that the Board supports The MPO’s submittal of HB2 application for
the I-64 and Rt. 29 Interchange Improvements (Exit 118).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the submittal of HB2 applications for the
following four (4) projects and supported the MPO’s submittal of HB2 application for the I-64 and
Route 29 Interchange Improvements (Exit 118):
1. I-64 and Route 250 Interchange Improvements (Exit 124),
2. Proffit Road Improvements from Leake Lane/Worth Crossing to Baker Butler
Elementary School (provided accurate cost estimates can be completed by the
application deadline)
3. Sunset Road and County Green Road Improvements (secondary) From Fifth Street
to City Limits/Moore’s Creek, and from Old Lynchburg Road to Sunset Road
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
4. Route 250 and Route151 intersection, Proffit Road Improvements from Leake
Lane/Worth Crossing to Baker Butler Elementary School (provided accurate cost
estimates can be completed by the application deadline).
_______________
Item No. 8.12. Study for Pedestrian Crossings on Route 29N and Route 250 Pantops.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the County has seen increasing
residential and commercial development along the Route 29 North Corridor (in the Development Area),
and Route 250 east corridor in Pantops, which has increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic in those
areas. Residents and businesses along both corridors have petitioned for pedestrian crossings that would
provide a more pedestrian friendly environment for residents and tourists to access destination locations.
The Places29 Master Plan shows proposed pedestrian crossings at various locations along the Route 29
north corridor, and the Pantops Master Plan calls for pedestrian crossings along the Route 250 east
corridor. A consultant has been retained who can study potential pedestrian crossings on Route 29 North
(Hydraulic Road to Rio Road) and Route 250 east in the Pantops area. The consultant (Kimley Horn)
would perform specific tasks and provide deliverables at the end of the contract period that would include:
a feasibility study of potential at-grade and above grade pedestrian crossing locations, projected future
pedestrian volumes that would potentially be using the proposed crossings, rough estimated costs for
each scenario, and sketches of crossings.
The purpose of this initiative is to:
1. Determine where pedestrian crossing(s) along the Route 250 East (Pantops) and Route
29 North corridors are needed; and
2. Determine the type of pedestrian improvements needed to facilitate pedestrian crossings
at the identified locations.
The attached scope of work for both corridors outlines and summarizes the anticipated locations
to be studied and tasks required to meet the above purposes (Attachments A and B). The Study would
conclude with a technical report that would include: a summary of the data collection, existing conditions
and recommendations, projected pedestrian volumes, at-grade alternatives, above grade alternatives,
recommended types of pedestrian movements, sketches of crossings, and planning level cost estimates.
Kimley-Horn can provide the services described for the estimated costs shown in Attachments A and B.
Key assumptions influencing the fees include the number of study intersections, number of peak periods
for which data is collected, and developing planning level cost estimates for proposed recommendations.
The study would be funded from the Pantops Master Plan Implementation fund (4-9010-
81110-481020-950560-1240), which has a balance of $108,731.45.
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with the pedestrian crossing studies
detailed in Attachments A and B using monies from the Pantops Master Plan Implementation fund (4 -
9010-81110-481020-950560-1240) to pay consultant fees.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd stated his concerns are that Timberwood Boulevard has not been
included in the study, and whether they should involve the community advisory groups in the discussion.
Mr. David Benish, Acting Director of Community Development, responded they will definitely include the
CACs in those projects, and Pantops and Places 29 groups will both be involved. He stated that in
looking at the study, they focused on the areas where the most development and intensive activity is
taking place, which is from Rio Road southward, and funding only covers the work currently in the
request. He said if they also want to include Timberwood, it may require additional funding.
Mr. Boyd stated he has been hearing from constituents for a long time about the difficulty in
crossing from Forest Lakes over to the restaurants and shops at Hollymead. Mr. Benish confirmed staff
has heard the same, and have been aware of public interest in the crossing to be able to get to the west
side.
Ms. Mallek noted a lot of study work has already been done, and the original plan during the
widening was for a bridge that will take vehicles as well as pedestrians across, so she hopes they w ill
require the consultant to look at that study. She added that with 5,000 on one side and 2,000 on the
other, Timberwood will definitely rank highly in terms of density.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that a group of architectural students at UVA have done a study of
crosswalks. Mr. Benish stated the MPO had done a study of pedestrian walkways and crosswalks in the
early 2000s, and staff had provided that briefly to the consultant.
Ms. Mallek added the study of the pedestrian crosswalk at Fashion Square also needs to be
included.
Mr. Benish stated the Pantops Master Plan implementation money is $108,000, and the
maximum cost shown for the consultant’s study is $105,000, so staff may have to come back and look for
additional funding.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a competitive RFP process for this. Mr. Benish said he will discuss it
with Mr. Gerald Gatobu and Mr. Trevor Henry of staff, but the first step will be to ask the consultant what
he can do in terms of fitting it into available funding.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Boyd stated Route 250 and Route 29 North both severed the Neighborhood Model aspect,
and the Board should consider setting aside some money in next year’s budget to pull down matching
money from VDOT.
Mr. Benish stated the upcoming CIP assumes a certain amount of cost in the future to implement
this project, but until they get the study done it is hard to know what the cos ts will be. He added that
grade-separated interchanges can be very expensive, and this item on the agenda is to get the Board’s
input on the process.
Mr. Davis said the recommendation is to authorize staff to proceed with the project.
Ms. Mallek stated she would like to have another month to find out the details.
Mr. Boyd agreed, stating he would like to make sure there is no misunderstanding of the approval
process.)
_______________
Item No. 8.13. FY 2015 4th Quarter Cash Proffer Report, was received for information.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that in 2007, the Board directed staff to
provide a quarterly report on the status of cash proffers.
Since that time, the report has been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers. The
Board received the last quarterly proffer report on May 6, 2015 which included information on cash proffer
revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for January through March, 2015. This report includes
all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2015 (April-June). The
next quarterly report will be on the Board’s November 4, 2015 agenda.
Proffer Activity for Fiscal Year 2015 Fourth Quarter (April-June)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter that
provided new cash proffers.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $48,943,356.45. This reflects 2014
annual adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from
proffers in which annual adjustments were proffered.
C. 4th Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $346,942.75 from existing
cash proffers during this quarter from developments listed in Attachment A. Although not
proffer funds, the County received $9,000 for affordable housing programs from a special
use permit condition. (See Attachment A for more details.)
D. Expenditures and Appropriations: A total of $500,000 in proffer funds from Albemarle
Place/Stonefield was expended on the Northside Library project. The total expenditures
for that proffer fund has been updated in Attachment B. A total of $513,982 in proffer
funds was appropriated during the 4th quarter and is reflected in Attachments A and B.
Current Available Funds: As of June 30, 2015, the available proffered cash on-hand is
$4,541,149.48 (including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were
proffered for specific projects, while others may be used for general projects within the CIP. Of the
available proffered cash on hand, $2,283,649.96 (including interest earned) is currently appropriated
(Attachment B). The net cash balance is $2,257,499.52 and Attachment C 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.
FY 2015 Survey of Cash Proffers for Commission on Local Government: State law requires
that localities accepting cash proffers report to the Commission on Local Government annually. The
County’s report for FY2015 is attached (Attachment D). During FY 2015, the County collected a total of
$1,081,730.58. The amount expended in FY2015 was $1,029,488.16
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 FY17-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. 8.14. County Grant Application/Award Report, was received for information.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board 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 during the
time period of June 18, 2015 through August 14, 2015.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
In some instances, funding agencies request “proposals” from applicants, and then based on the
proposals received, determine which organizations are eligible to formally submit applications. During the
period of this report, the County submitted three Virginia Department of Emergency Management grant
proposals, two of which are for the Police Department and one in the Fire Rescue Department.
Information regarding these grant applications will be added to the grant report if and when the County is
requested by these funding agencies to submit formal applications.
This report also includes a new component for the Board’s information; a comprehensive look at
potential Five Year Financial Plan implications if projects and/or programs that are supported by grants
are continued with local funding after the grants end. As grant funding ends, recommendations will be
included in the County Executive’s proposed annual budgets for the Board’s consideration as to whether
local funding should be used to continue those projects and programs. No County funds will be used to
fund the continuation of those projects and programs without Board approval.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
_______________
Item No. 8.15. Update on Broadband Vision and Planning, was received for information.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on February 4, 2015, the Board took
the following action:
1) Adopted a Resolution to commit $30,000 in funding to complete a Community
Connectivity Plan if the County is awarded the $30,000 Community Connectivity Planning
Grant through the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD); and
2) Approved an appropriation in the amount of $3,900 to contract with the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (TJPDC) to assist in the writing of the Grant Application.
Staff and the TJPDC submitted the $30,000 Community Connectivity Planning Grant application
on March 16, 2015, then were invited by the DHCD to submit an application for a second grant entitled
the Virginia Telecommunications Planning Initiative (VATPI).
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide a progress update.
TJPDC and County staff submitted a VATPI grant application on August 7, 2015, and have not
yet received the DHCD’s award determination on either grant application. The recipients of the VATPI
grant will receive $75,000 to be used toward the completion of a comprehensive telecommunication plan
for their community.
Upon notification of an award, staff will release an RFP or will procure telecommunication
planning services through another locality’s contract. The DHCD is expected to notify grant applicants of
grant awards for both grants by September 30.
Staff plans to include broadband priorities in the RFP. The telecommunications plan can be
focused on one or more priority areas. Staff will return to the Board at a future meeting with an analysis
that will allow the Board to determine the County’s broadband priorities.
To date, the Board has appropriated $3,900 to contract with the TJPDC to write the CDBG grant
application and has committed an additional $30,000 to complete a Community Connectivit y Plan if a
grant is awarded to the County. For VATPI application support services, $3,900 of the committed $30,000
will be paid to the TJPDC.
This Executive Summary is for information only. No action is required by the Board at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Rt. 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program .
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that on June 3, 2015, the Board approved
the final three elements of the County’s Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program, which included
a matching grant program. The matching grant program is intended to support business-specific
construction-based advertising for Tier 2 businesses (those located in the construction zone of the Route
29/Rio Road intersection project) by providing funding to match funds committed by businesses for
qualifying advertising/marketing efforts. Board members requested the opportunity to review the criteria
for the matching grant program prior to the program’s implementation to ensure that the grants program
meets the Board’s intentions and goals.
In developing draft criteria for the matching grant program, staff consulted with members of the
Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance subcommittee, as well as individual business owners and other
jurisdictions who have used a similar program. Staff also reviewed matching grant programs of a variety
of entities, including the Virginia Tourism Corporation, the United States Department of Agriculture, and
the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau, to get a sense of what criteria have been
used by others who implemented regional marketing matching grant programs. The following priorities
were identified by staff based on feed-back from the Board as fundamental to the development of draft
criteria for the County’s grant program:
Focus on small businesses that do not have access to significant marketing/advertising
resources
Provide small grant awards that will provide meaningful support but will make funds
available to as many businesses as possible
Maintain consistency with reinforcing the overarching messages of the County’s
collective marketing campaign
Provide support to businesses that demonstrate a willingness to engage proactively
Require that performance measures in the form of visibility data be provided
The draft criteria are outlined in Attachment A for the Board’s review and comment. While staff
recognizes that there may need to be some slight adjustments to the criteria as the program is
implemented based on changing conditions, no substantive changes will be made to the criteria without
prior consultation with the Board.
There is no budget impact associated with endorsing the grant criteria. The Board approved the
use of $50,000 for the matching grant program at its July 1, 2015 meeting. This funding would be
provided to the EDA, which would fund the program.
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the draft criteria for the County’s matching grant
program.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating on June 3 they had
approved the final three elements of the County’s total business assistance program, one of which was a
matching grant program intended to support business-specific construction-based advertising for Tier II
businesses, defined as those in the construction footprint of the Route 29/Rio Road intersection as
proscribed by VDOT. She stated the Board had approved the program but requested that staff come
back with criteria, to ensure that the program is meeting what the Board intended.
Ms. Catlin presented a draft of an “Open for Business” handbook, which staff ha s worked on with
its partners. She reported the Secretary of Transportation had announced in Charlottesville that VDOT
would be awarding $200,000 for marketing efforts during the project, to be administered by the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission. Ms. Catlin said it is felt that the funding will best be used by
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
being added to the $100,000 set aside by the Board for a collective marketing campaign, and they ha ve
developed a good partnership for using consultants SIR, the firm already working with VDOT on the
project. She added any administrative costs will be absorbed by VDOT, so the entire pool of funding will
be used for media buys and advertising. Ms. Catlin reported that staff is working with an expanded
business assistance subcommittee, and Susan Stimart has done significant outreach, with 12 businesses
representing each of the four project quadrants agreeing to work with them on the development and
implementation of the marketing campaign.
Ms. Catlin stated staff is also devoting significant time to neighborhood outreach, and a fact sheet
has been disseminated to 8,800 addresses in the Places 29 Master Plan area. She said an open house
for neighborhoods will be held at the Northside Library on September 15 from 5:30-7:30 p.m., the first of
several such events to be held over the next several months. Ms. Catlin stated that representatives from
VDOT, Community Development, fire and rescue, police, schools, and other entities will be present. She
stated beginning September 9, medians along Route 29 North will be closed, and VDOT is taking an
aggressive, multi-media approach to make sure this is being publicized. Ms. Catlin said VDOT is doing
maps specific for each quadrant, with news releases issued and a lot of direct outreach for
neighborhoods and businesses in the new pattern of activity.
Mr. Boyd asked when those will be delivered to businesses, because they need to get them to
their customers ahead of time. Ms. Catlin responded she thinks that it is happening that week.
Ms. Mallek asked if this is going to be in the newspaper, as that seem s to be an easy vehicle for
wide dissemination. Ms. Catlin reported in developing the matching grant program criteria, staff has
spoken to individual business owners in other jurisdictions who have used a similar program, and talked
with entities such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Virginia Tourism Corporation, and the
Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau. She said in putting the program together, they
focused on making sure this is geared towards small businesses that do not have significant marketing
resources. Ms. Catlin stated they want to ensure the award amount is spread across numerous
businesses but also large enough to be meaningful for each, and have arrived at a figure of $2,000. She
said other criteria are reinforcement of the collective marketing campaign message, the willingness on the
part of businesses to engage and help themselves, and inclusion of performance measures. Ms. Catlin
stated the $2,000 is a cash match only, and will be dispersed through the Economic Development
Authority as the funding mechanism, with projects needing to be completed by December 2016. She s aid
businesses will need to be existing businesses as of January 1, 2016 located in the Tier II project area,
and will need to have 100 or less employees.
Ms. Catlin stated they have also discussed the possibility of including a revenue amount, because
there may be a business generating a lot of revenue from a few employees that w ill not necessarily fall
under their target objective for assistance. She said the business must also have attended a marketing
workshop or completed a mentoring or consulting session. Ms. Catlin noted the businesses’ messaging
must align with the collective marketing campaign and use the logo or tagline developed, and said the
criteria also addresses eligible and ineligible programs. She stated awardees must provide a report on
performance measurements including distribution channels, circulation, placement dates, and other
specifics that offer a sense of the reach. Ms. Catlin noted the dates provided in the staff report as
benchmarks may shift slightly, and while there might be some minor adjustments there will not be any
changes in substance without coming back to the Board.
Ms. Mallek asked if this will be an ongoing rollout, since the first batch of applications is due
November 15. Ms. Catlin responded it is initially assumed that businesses will not start this until after the
holidays in 2015, but staff is reconsidering that given the timeframe and will need to synch those dates
up.
Ms. Mallek said the revenue parameter is an important consideration, because it ensures that
money is focused where it needs to be. She stated when they had initially discussed this, they had talked
about long-term marketing that is community-based and will reach people from outside the area. Ms.
Mallek said she is concerned they are being funneled to SIR, as that is the group for which VDOT is
agreeing to fund overhead, and she is worried they might be missing an opportunity to work with a firm
that knows the County and the project objectives better.
Ms. Catlin responded that SIR has already been extremely engaged with the community and has
done focus groups as well as running advertising for the VDOT construction information portion of the
project. She said they have already been involved with local advertising and media buys that c an be
piggybacked onto, and the firm is up to speed on the project. Ms. Catlin emphasized the firm is a full-
service advertising agency, and they have started to identify the need to build this area as a place and a
district.
Ms. Mallek stated what she has seen thus far is adequate for the transportation side of things, but
it is nowhere near at the level of the “Stay Charlottesville” type campaign, which she is looking for as a
long-term approach.
Mr. Sheffield asked if staff will be coming back with the indicators of long-term success, and
numbers associated with this criteria to evaluate impacts and retention. Mr. Foley responded that
Finance has been doing work on this already in order to establish a baseline.
Ms. Catlin stated Ms. Faith McClintic has been working with Finance on this.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Ms. Dittmar said Finance cannot establish things like occupancy rates.
Ms. McKeel noted the Board has been given the impression that the baseline has already been
established.
Mr. Foley stated with the baseline, the data exists for every month.
Mr. Sheffield commented that things like vacancy rates are not documented, and taking a
snapshot of conditions now versus what they are ongoing will be helpful.
Mr. Foley said staff will follow up on this, as some of the baseline information already exists.
Ms. Mallek stated it may be necessary to gather that information quickly by contracting it out to a
firm. Ms. Catlin said she will need to check with the Economic Development office to see how they are
approaching it.
Ms. Susan Stimart, Economic Development Facilitator, addressed the Board, stating the Finance
Department has been collecting geographic definitions for doing the metric analysis over time, and for
occupancy rates they have a subscription to a commercial database that can provide that data.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the key indicators are that can be used to establish a baseline. Ms.
Stimart responded that they have locked in BPOL, real estate assessments, and sales tax, and the
occupancy will be coming from the separate data source.
Mr. Foley said staff will follow up to provide the Board with more specifics.
Mr. Sheffield then offered motion to endorse the draft criteria for the County’s matching grant
program. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Foley stated staff has demonstrated repeatedly its ability to step up to the task with this
difficult challenge, and read an email to Joel DeNunzio from a citizen who had received the materials on
the Route 29 Solutions project that expressed how impressed he has been with the caliber of the
package and the regard for the public that it demonstrates.
Business Assistance Program Matching Grant Criteria
Funding
Funded through the EDA.
No grant award will exceed $2,000.
Funding from this program cannot be used for administrative costs, capital and operating
costs, salaries, advertising or marketing for church or faith-based organizations, or for
political or lobbying activities, or for travel or entertainment costs.
Match is a cash match only. No in-kind goods or services will be allowed.
Any changes from the approved application must be submitted in writ ing.
All advertising or marketing projects must be completed by December 2016.
Eligible Businesses
Existing businesses as of January 1, 2016, located in the “Tier 2” project area
Business meets the definition of a “small business” which for the purposes of this
program is defined as 100 employees or less
Businesses must not have delinquent tax status
Business applicant must have attended at least one marketing workshop or completed a
consulting or mentoring session under Albemarle County’s Business Assistance
Program.
Project Criteria
The messaging of the proposed project must be in line with what is developed through
the Collective Marketing Campaign (“Open For Business!”) and must contain the logo
and/or tagline developed through the Collective Marketing Campaign.
Additional consideration will be given to applications in which two or more businesses
partner on a project
All projects must run between March 2016 and December 2016.
Examples of eligible projects
o Commercials on local media, including radio and television
o Advertisements in local print and online periodicals
o Sponsored content on social media (Facebook, Twitter)
o Website enhancements1
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
o Printed marketing materials, including direct mailings and brochures. If creating a
brochure, must include a plan to disseminate it.
Examples of ineligible projects
o Signage
o Administrative/overhead costs
o Promotional items, including t-shirts, pens, and similar items.
Documentation
Award recipients must submit a copy (digital or print) of the project
Where two or more businesses collaborate, a letter of support from each applicant
business.
All award recipients must provide report on performance measures using the form
provided by Albemarle County by January 15, 2017. Measures include:
o Distribution channel(s)
o Circulation of the project (based on periodical circulation, web analytics, etc.)
o Placement date(s)
1 Funds may not be used for website maintenance or hosting fees.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Budget Process Improvements and FY 17 Operating and Capital Budget
Calendar.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that the process of developing the County’s
Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 17 (FY17) and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY17-21 is
underway.
In an effort to continuously improve the County’s budget development processes, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) interviewed Board members after the FY 16 budget process to receive
feedback and suggestions on ways to improve the process in the future. In addition to meeting with Board
members, OMB interviewed budget development staff who work at our benchmark jurisdictions and held
meetings with School Division staff and others to identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of many of the County’s internal budget development processes. In addition, the five year financial
planning process has been accelerated this year and an updated Five-Year Financial Plan has already
been prepared for the period of FY 17 to FY 21 to ensure that the Citizen Resource Advisory Committee
had up-to-date information as the Committee began its work this summer.
This Executive Summary includes three attachments for the Board’s review and consideration.
Attachment A provides a summary of staff’s recommended budget development process improvements
identified for the upcoming cycle; Attachment B includes the proposed FY 17 budget development
calendar; and Attachment C includes additional details regarding staff’s proposed changes to the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) budget process.
Attachment A includes specific recommended adjustments to the County’s five year financial
planning process, the cultural agency contribution process, and a summary of improvements to the
capital improvement planning process for the Board’s review and consideration.
Attachment B provides a preliminary budget calendar for the FY 17 budget process. The budget
development calendar establishes specific dates for Board meetings and public hearings on the tax rate,
the budget, and the CIP. Staff will provide the public with as much notice as possible for planned
community engagement opportunities, public hearings and work sessions associated with the
development of the upcoming budgets.
There are several dates that are driven by Virginia Code requirements which are reflected in the
attached calendar:
Localities with a first-half tax year collection in June must adopt the tax rate on or before
April 15.
There must be at least seven days between the public advertisement of the budget pu blic
hearing and the actual hearing date.
There must be at least seven days between the public hearing and the adoption of the
budget.
Localities must provide at least 30 days notice of the tax rate public hearing if the
reassessment would result in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property
tax levied compared to the prior year’s tax levies. Prior to 2009, the requirement was
seven days notice.
In addition to these Virginia Code requirements, the School Board and School Division staff has
requested that a public hearing be scheduled so that it does not coincide with Spring Break.
The preliminary budget calendar for the FY 17 budget process meets the Virginia Code
requirements and the School Board’s request. Additionally, this calendar assumes that the reassessment
would result in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levied in Calendar Year
(CY) 16 compared to CY 15, and schedules for the necessary 30 days notice.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
If the Board desires to hold the tax rate and budget hearings on the same day and to increase
flexibility regarding the timing of work sessions, the Board has the option to set the tax rate cap for
advertisement in early February. This would require, however, that the Board set an advertised tax rate
cap based on the Board’s guidance during the Five Year Financial planning process and in advance of
having received the County Executive’s Recommended Budget and the School Board’s Funding Request.
If the Board chose this approach, County staff would actively communicate to the public early in the
process that the advertised tax rate is the maximum rate that could be set and must accommodate future
budget adjustments, and that the Board may ultimately set a tax rate lower than the advertised tax rate.
Attachment C provides additional details regarding staff’s proposed changes to the CIP budget
development process.
Staff recommends that the Board review and concur with the recommended budget development
process improvements identified in Attachments A and C and adopt the preliminary budget calendar set
forth in Attachment B.
If the Board chooses to set the advertised tax rate cap at an earlier time in the cycle, staff will
update the budget development calendar and provide it to the Board for the Board’s adoption in October.
_____
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating they will discuss the budget development calendar and process improvements, which staff is
recommending to be implemented this year. Ms. Allshouse said the tax rate must be adopted by April 15,
and there is a requirement for a 30-day notice for the tax rate public hearing if reassessments result in an
increase of 1% or more, and there are seven-day notice requirements for budget public hearing
advertisements and adoption of the budgets. She stated they are also mindful of the Board’s schedule
with an effort to avoid fast turnaround times, as well as working around the school schedule. Ms.
Allshouse noted the budget and tax rate public hearings will be held on separate days, due to scheduling
and legal requirements, and neither will conflict with the school spring break. She stated they will be
starting the five-year financial plan earlier this year, and there will be two joint work sessions with the five-
year plan. Ms. Allshouse said public engagement opportunities w ill occur throughout the plan, with a
special emphasis on staff being available from November 16-20 as a suggested window for town hall
meetings. She stated the CIP has a streamlined process this year that results in one less work session.
Ms. Allshouse said the Board set the tax rate and adopts the budget on April 12, 2016 in the current
version of their schedule. She stated the Board has the option to set a tax rate cap earlier, in February,
which will allow for some flexibility in their schedule, and it will need to be based on their five-year
financial plan discussions.
Ms. Allshouse stated budget process improvements have impacted their schedule, with the five-
year financial planning process already underway with increased involvement from the School Board.
She said their work session schedule will include one in September, one in November, and two in
December. She said staff will not ask for formal adoption of the five-year plan, given the gap from the
previous year and the work of the efficiency team and citizens committee, with that information brought to
the Board in November.
Ms. Allshouse stated staff had talked about streamlining the CIP process and ha ve contacted
other jurisdictions about how they handle the CIP, as well as discussing it with Board members
individually and working with the school staff and others. She said one primary consideration has been a
return to a biennial budget cycle, with a full-blown CIP one year and the second year reserved for
emergency amendments. Ms. Allshouse stated staff is suggesting going back to this model, which is
what they had in place before the recession, and this year will be a full CIP to get things started. She said
staff will suggest having a work session before the Oversight Committee start s their work, but as they
finish they will provide a report to the Board and the School Board.
Ms. Allshouse stated in considering ways to improve the process for cult ural agencies, staff is
suggesting having them submit a letter of support rather than a full application. She said since the
executive summary was put together, staff has learned the City is switching over to an online process and
is recommending keeping in line with that, as many agencies applied for both City and County funding.
Ms. Allshouse noted they still will not have the festival and cultural applications go through the ABRT
process, and staff will also be working on streamlining that process.
Ms. Mallek responded this does not make sense because those cultural agencies are not data-
driven social services agencies.
Ms. Allshouse agreed, stating that in benchmarking with other jurisdictions, staff learned that
James City County and Hanover only require a letter of support rather than an application. She said staff
does not want to do anything that will burden applicants, and she is open to suggestions from the Board.
Ms. Mallek said applicants will not be burdened by a letter, and they would likely be grateful for
that approach rather than an online application that someone else is in charge of, and maybe the City will
realize that a letter will suffice.
Ms. Palmer asked if staff has inquired as to whether the City will accept a letter also from the
agencies that do not fit the mold. Ms. Allshouse responded staff had not worked with the City early
enough in this year’s process, and explained they ran everything through the ABRT process with a
separate committee for cultural agencies. She noted staff may work with them next year on moving
forward with a letter instead.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Ms. Palmer suggested the agencies could be given an option of either submitting a letter along
with their application. Ms. Allshouse said this can be considered.
Mr. Sheffield suggested this be an agenda item for their City/County discussion.
Ms. Dittmar commented it seems this needs some more work, and said they can address this as
an issue with the City.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to know the difference between the two, and has the impression
they are following the same approach.
Ms. Allshouse explained there is a joint process that has always been done with the City, and an
online application might be easier as an applicant can click on both City and County with one application.
Ms. Mallek said she is just opposed to the use of one uniform instrument that requires data
measurement and evaluation, which cultural organizations might not have, and there are big gaps in
understanding the benefits of those agencies.
Ms. McKeel noted there had been an applicant who was penalized because the City had not
been utilizing their services as much, so they are not recommended for County funding either.
Ms. Allshouse said cultural agencies and festivals have been brought in-house.
Ms. Mallek stated it is a lot to expect operational staff to know all of that, and she has
recommended that an arts person be brought in as part of the evaluation process.
Board members agreed to have staff come back with some options for the budget meeting
calendar.
Mr. Sheffield noted there will be two new Board members in January, which may change things.
Ms. Mallek asked if there might be some discussions slated for December that can be put off until
January, because of the two new Board members who wil l be serving. Ms. Allshouse said the challenge
is that January is the time they are putting together the annual budget document, so from a staffing
perspective they will lose the advantage of having the information in December to bring into January.
Ms. Mallek stated it will be the two weeks between the December 9 meeting and the first of the
year, so if they have something early in January it will not put them too far behind.
Mr. Boyd stated it will be a potential problem every two years, and he will not want to compress it
too much because the School Board will be at a real disadvantage if everything is put off until the first of
the year.
Mr. Foley said the purpose of the five-year plan is to identify the primary issues and get general
direction from the Board based on that.
Ms. Dittmar stated the big issue is whether the Board wants to set the tax rate earlier.
Ms. Palmer said she did not like it last year and would not want to do it going forward, as she
would like to have the public weigh in.
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating she does not feel she will have enough information at that time to
make a reasonable decision.
Mr. Foley said staff has that recommendation also, for the reasons stated.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board is ready to move forward, other than the ABRT question.
Ms. Mallek said they seemed to have consensus on having an option with ABRT if possible.
Ms. Palmer stated the only other item is the calendar and meeting schedule.
Mr. Foley noted there is also direction needed on the CIP question, which staff is recommending
to go to a two-year process.
Ms. Palmer said she is not sure what that would take away from new Board members,
understanding how far behind they are with the CIP.
Mr. Foley stated this year will be a full review, and if they start the cycle this way it will always be
a full review when newly elected members come on. He said the Board will get a full report of the
Oversight Committee’s work and will not get into adjusting or making decisions, which will happen as a
full review during the CIP work session. Mr. Foley explained the Board will have a joint meeting in
November, and the Technical Review Committee will have already gone over what has been submitted,
so the question will be whether they will want to have another joint meeting or just see what has been
changed.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to concur with the proposed changes to the CIP process
as presented by staff. Ms. Dittmar seconded the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
FY17 BUDGET CALENDAR
September 2015
Wednesday 9 BOS/School Board Joint Work Session – Funding Formula, Five Year Plan Initial
Assumptions and Major Drivers
October 2015
Wednesday 14 BOS/School Board Joint Work Session – Compensation and Benefits
November 2015
Wednesday 4 Citizens Resource Advisory Committee Presentation
Legislative Program
Wednesday 11 BOS/School Board Work Session
– Five Year Financial Plan Assumptions and Major Drivers - updates
– Preliminary CIP Overview
– Efficiency Team Recommendations
– Citizens Resource Advisory Committee Recommendation
Mon.- Fri. 16 -20 Special Focus: Public engagement opportunities during this week on Five Year
Financial Plan and guidance for FY 17 budget development*
December 2015
Wednesday 2 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan
Wednesday 9 BOS Departmental Budgets Presentations (Two Departments TBD)
Wednesday 9 BOS W ork Session – Five-Year Financial Plan/Guidance for Annual Budget
February 2016
Friday 19 (Noon) County Executive’s Presentation to Board - Recommended Budget
Tuesday 23 Public Hearing on County Executive’s Recommended Budget
Thursday 25 BOS Budget W ork Session #1
Monday 29 BOS Budget Work Session #2
March 2016
Wednesday 2 Regular BOS meeting
Thursday 3 BOS Budget Work Session #3
Tuesday 8 BOS Budget Work Session #4 – Finalize Tax Rate for Advertisement/Approval of
Board’s Proposed Budget
Wednesday 9 Regular BOS meeting
Wednesday 30 Public Hearing on Board’s Proposed Budget
April 2016
Mon.-Fri. 4-8 Spring Break
Wednesday 6 Regular BOS meeting
Tuesday 12 Public Hearing on the CY 16 tax rate (BOS sets tax rate and adopts budget after
public hearing**)
Wednesday 13 Holiday
* Public Engagement Opportunities will occur throughout Budget Development Process
**To meet legal requirements, BOS must set the CY 16 tax rate by April 15
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Opposition to Longer Double-Trailer Trucks Being Authorized in U.S.
Transportation Bill.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is any opposition to the Board sending a letter to the Congressmen
asking the County not be forced to accept extra-long trailers on their roads.
Ms. Palmer asked if there are concerns about wear and tear, or just safety. Ms. Mallek
responded the truckers will say they pay for wear and tear with gas tax, and another item that should be
considered should be that rural roads are not designed for 90,000-pound vehicles that are so wide their
wheels are off the pavement.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation: 2015 Citizen Survey Results.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that since 2002, the County has
contracted with survey consultants to conduct a reliable and valid County-wide citizen survey
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
biennially. The survey results have been used by staff, elected officials and other stakeholders for
community planning and resource allocation, program improvement and policy making.
The timing of this survey provides results that will inform both the County’s strategic and ongoing
planning processes.
At its February 4, 2015 meeting, the Board directed staff to conduct the County’s 2015 survey
using the survey tool offered by the National Citizen Survey (NCS), which is conducted collaboratively
between the National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management
Association (ICMA). The NCS was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident
opinions regarding the community and the services provided by local government. After the survey
template selection, staff worked individually with Board members to add several customized questions to
the survey template.
Participating households were selected at random and multiple mailings went out to those
households to give them several opportunities to participate. Results were statistically weighted to reflect
the proper demographic composition of the community. There were 375 completed surveys, which is a
representative sample. The results of this survey are statistically valid within a margin of error of plus or
minus 5% points.
There are six NCS reports that examine the survey data:
Attachment A, the Community Livability Report, summarizes all results and key findings.
Attachment B, the Dashboard Findings, provides data in a summary chart format that
shows how Albemarle County results compare with national benchmarks as well as over
time.
Attachment C, the Demographic Crosstabs, analyzes the data by age, sex, and
race/ethnicity.
Attachment D, the Geographic Crosstabs, analyzes the data by geographic area. (Note:
“Urban ring” = Neighborhoods 1-7, Pantops, Places 29; “Other developed areas” =
Village of Rivanna, Crozet; “Rural areas” = Rural Areas (including Scottsville))
Attachment E, Technical Appendices, provides raw data.
Attachment F, Trends over Time, shows Albemarle County response trends between
2011, 2013, and 2015.
Two important acknowledgements about this data:
1. The survey measures what citizens think about the community. Beyond the local
government, other sectors that influence community quality include businesses, non -
profit agencies, service organizations, and other community groups (like neighborhood
associations). Therefore, some of these questions are not necessarily a reflection on
County services.
2. Much of this data is most meaningful when compared to the national benchmark. Even
then, as NCS points out, less desirable ratings for some indicators should not
automatically be seen as negative for a community, but instead a reflection of the
community’s resources and priorities. Communities may have intentionally directed their
resources to areas with a higher priority. In addition, not all indicators that show a lower
level of achievement require a call to action, just as not all indicators that are strong
should become a gateway to complacency. Without this framework in which to consider
the data, it might be easy to misinterpret some of the data.
Looking at the 2015 survey results, citizens continue to rate overall quality of life in the County
very high. Of the survey respondents, 93% rated the quality of life in the County as excellent or good, and
95% rated the County as an excellent or good place to live.
Other notable survey findings according to NCS include:
County residents identified Safety as one of the most important focus areas for the
community. Safety services such as fire, fire prevention, ambulance/EMS and police
services were all rated highly by more than 80% of residents. Almost all residents said
they felt safe in their neighborhood and had an overall feeling of safety in the County.
Mobility is a potential area for improvement. Some aspects of Mobility tended to be
lower than for the other facets of community. Ease of walking, travel by bicycle, travel by
public transportation and public parking all received ratings that were lower than the
national benchmarks.
Education and Enrichment is important to County residents. Almost all residents
thought it was essential or very important for Albemarle County Public Schools to focus
on student to teacher/educator ratio and student performance over the next two years.
More residents in the County than in other communities rated education and enrichment
opportunities positively and approximately 80% of respondents rated cultural/arts/music
activities and adult education higher than the national benchmark. Child care/preschool
ratings saw an increase from 2013 to 2015 and more residents participated in religious or
spiritual activities than in 2013.
Recreation and Wellness is a priority for County residents. Almost all residents rated
health and wellness in the County as excellent or good. More residents in the County
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
positively rated preventative health services and health care than residents in other
communities across the nation; these ratings increased from 2013 to 2015.
As appropriate, staff is prepared to go into a more detailed analysis of survey data relating to
urban issues at the Sept 25 retreat.
There is no budget impact related to this executive summary. The survey results will inform both
the County’s strategic planning and ongoing budget processes.
Staff recommends that Board members review the attached survey findings and provide any
feedback or comment as desired.
__________
Ms. Louise Wyatt, Organizational Development Manager, addressed the Board, stating the
County has been doing these surveys every two years since 2002, which ha ve been used for planning,
policy-making and resource allocation. She stated at its February 4 meeting, the Board had directed staff
to use the National Citizens Survey tool for the most recent survey, adding a few custom questions. Ms.
Wyatt explained this is a statistically valid survey, and NCS had done random sampling based on GDS
files provided, with a total of 375 completed surveys, which is a representative sample based on their
survey expertise. She said they statistically weigh results to reflect the proper demographic composition
of the community, with a plus/minus margin of error of 5%. Ms. Wyatt noted she is not a survey expert,
but answers to some specifics can be found in the technical appendices report in the executive summary.
She stated there are six reports available included as attachments, with the summary repo rt being the
focus of her discussion. She also referenced demographic and geographic cross -tabs, which includes
place of residence and length of time living in the County. Ms. Wyatt said this is the third year the County
has used this survey, with 2011 and 2013 results available for comparison.
Ms. Wyatt noted the survey measures what citizens feel about the community, and government is
just one part of that, so the County does not have control over some of the indicators. She stated another
important matter to keep in mind is how it compares to national benchmarks, and there is always room for
improvement, so it is important to think strategically about how to focus resources and which indicators
are most important to the community.
Ms. Wyatt reported that 93% of residents rated the quality of life in Albemarle as excellent or
good, which is comparable to the national benchmark and has remained consistent over the three years
they have done the survey. She stated Albemarle is similar to the benchmarks in all eight of NCS’s
categories, with the most important focus areas identified as safety and economy.
Ms. Mallek asked if the national benchmark communities are like Albemarle. Ms. Wyatt
responded the national benchmarks are from about 500 communities that have taken the survey, but
there is also data from peer benchmarks that are like Albemarle in the technical appendices. She stated
NCS has grouped the indicators into three pillars: community characteristics, governance, and
participation. She noted with community characteristics, Albemarle rank s higher than the national
benchmark in the areas of overall image, place to raise children, and place to retire; with overall
appearance and neighborhood ranking as similar to benchmarks. Ms. Mallek stated with the governance
category, about 81% or residents gave excellent to good ratings to the overall quality of County services,
which is similar to the national benchmarks. She stated the benchmarks in the governance category has
remained consistent over time and are in line with the national levels, so that may be a conversation for
them to have in the future.
Ms. Dittmar stated her observation has been that citizens often group all levels of government
together, and asked how they can be sure the 375 citizens in the survey are reacting to local government
only. Ms. Wyatt responded that in the survey itself, there was a series of questions that rated Albemarle
County, the state government and the federal government, but there may be services for which citizens
do not know which arm of government is responsible.
Ms. Dittmar said she would like to put this on a list for future discussion.
Ms. Mallek stated these surveys are very different from the ones they had done in the past that
were developed locally, so ratings can be based on incorrect knowledge, but the local surveys also took
longer to administer.
Ms. Wyatt stated that under the category of participation, 65% of survey respondents ranked
“sense of community” as good or excellent, which is similar to the national benchmark. She said in
looking at trends over time, the trend of contacting County employees ha s decreased over time, which
could be related to use of the internet rather than contacting staff for answers. She stated the survey had
asked which services residents feel are important to offer, and which services they are willing to pay more
taxes for in order to receive.
Ms. Wyatt said in their community livability report, NCS had offered some conclusions in that
County residents care about safety, with public safety services ranked at 80%, with almost all residents
stating they feel safe in their neighborhoods. She stated mobility is a potential area for improvement,
specifically ease of walking, travel by bicycle, travel by public transit and public parking, which all received
ratings lower than the national benchmarks. Ms. Wyatt noted education, enrichment, recreation and
wellness are rated very highly by respondents.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Ms. Wyatt stated the next steps are to establish a staff team to further explore the data and
determine which areas are most important and aligned with the Board’s strategic goals and interests, do
benchmarking with other localities, and to make recommendations going forward.
Mr. Boyd stated he would like to get a paper copy of the survey and study it in more detail.
Ms. Dittmar said she finds it striking that one of the lowest ratings pertains to people’s sense of
cost of living, as they feel it is an expensive place to live.
Ms. Mallek stated Charlottesville’s MSA is second only to Northern Virginia, so it is no surprise to
her that people feel the cost of living is high.
Mr. Boyd agreed, noting that many who work in the County do not live here.
Ms. McKeel said a lot of salaries are depressed because the University is the largest employer
but is a state institution.
Mr. Foley stated the combination of the income issue and the cost of housing are factors in that
cost of living dynamic.
Ms. McKeel thanked the Board for taking a look at the older neighborhoods in the urban ring, as
the newer neighborhoods are more expensive.
Ms. Dittmar commented she wished in some ways they could afford the locally-crafted survey, but
this still provides good information.
Mr. Foley responded this is high-level macro information, and staff can also contact benchmark
localities who are doing this type of survey to see how Albemarle really compares.
_____________
Recess. At 3:27 p.m., the Board recessed, and then reconvened at 3:42 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Video Streaming of Board of Supervisors Meetings.
(Due to time constraints, this item was moved to later in the meeting.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Work Session: CPA-2015-00001. Boundary Adjustment to the Southern
Urban Neighborhood (Route 29/I-64 Interchange) (Samuel Miller Magisterial District).
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that consistent with a Board of Supervisors
Resolution of Intent approved on June 10, 2015 (Attachment A), the Planning Commission has completed
its consideration of the above noted Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), holding a work session on
July 21, 2015 (see staff report - Attachment B) and public hearing on August 18, 2015 (see staff report -
Attachment C). The specific staff recommended amendment considered by the Planning Commission at
its public hearing can be found in Attachment C. For its August 18th public hearing, staff also provided to
the Planning Commission additional information made available after the August 18 staff report was
completed and distributed (see Attachments D and E). In addition to the Planning Commission work
session and public hearing, community meetings on this CPA were held on July 7, July 30 and August 12,
2015 (see Community Meeting notes – Attachment F). Due to time constraints, minutes of the Planning
Commission’s work session and public hearing are not yet available; however, the action memos for both
meetings are provided (see Attachments G and H). At the conclusion of its August 18th public hearing,
the Planning Commission unanimously recommended disapproval of CPA201500001 Boundary
Adjustment for the Southern Urban Neighborhood.
This work session was scheduled by the Board of Supervisors to review and discuss the above
noted information and material for this CPA. Staff will also present a synopsis of this information at the
Board work session.
No action is necessary at this work session. The Board has a public hearing scheduled for this
CPA on September 9, 2015. The information contained herein is prov ided for the Board’s review and
discussion in advance of that public hearing.
_____
Ms. Faith McClintic, Director of Economic Development, addressed the Board, stating in June
they had introduced a resolution of intent asking the Planning Commission and s taff to study the area at
Route 29 South and I-64 for a possible boundary area adjustment. She said this was, in some respects,
a reaction to the Board’s desire to be responsive to a prospective business with whom the Economic
Development Office has been working with for a number of months. Ms. McClintic stated they were also
asked to look at facilitating enhanced employment opportunities in Albemarle County, and this provide s
an opportunity to address the known lack of land and buildings for business pur poses while exploring site
options along primary transportation routes. She noted all of these things played into the Board’s
strategic goal with respect to economic development, and growing the revenue base to support broader
community goals. Ms. McClintic said the community’s long-term viability is dependent on a number of
factors, some of which can be influenced by the County, and they are critical to attracting and retaining
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
businesses in the community. She noted in order to be successful, there are needs for products,
available sites and buildings, land zoned and ready for development, appropriate infrastructure,
accessibility to suppliers and workforce, a streamlined and timely permitting process, a competitive tax
structure, a trained workforce, and minimization of investor risks. Ms. McClintic stated the general goal
for commercial and industrial tax base is 70% residential to 30% commercial/industrial as a gold
standard; most communities hover at around 25% on the commercial/industrial side, but Albemarle is
currently at 17%. She said residential growth contributes to the local economy, but also cost the County
money in providing government services such as education, so having businesses operating here w ill
help bridge the shortfall of roughly $3,200 per household.
Ms. McClintic said they had looked at a lot of data over the last few months, and the ACRA
organization that measures cost of living shows Charlottesville is above average by about 3%, with
Northern Virginia at the highest level. She stated a lot of components are factored into the cost of living
index, and housing costs are generally a big contributor, with the Charlottesville area at about 103%. Ms.
McClintic said the median home value specific to Albemarle County is $319,000, with median gross rent
at $1,100, but median household income is just $67,000.
Ms. McClintic presented information on the distribution of employment centers, with
approximately 16,376 jobs in the government sector, 11,000 of those specific to state governm ent, with
both the University and the University hospital included in those figures. She stated retail ha s 5,400
employees, with 3,495 in food service, the lowest-paying industry sectors. Ms. McClintic said there are
not many wage-leader jobs in the area, such as scientific/technical services and manufacturing, and
healthcare and social assistance comprised just 11% of total employment. She stated regarding future
land use dedicated for industrial or non-residential and agricultural purposes, Albemarle is at the bottom
with just over 604 acres available for industrial purposes. Ms. McClintic said she has worked with
planning staff to try to establish how much industrially-designated property has been redirected for other
uses, and that totals 421 acres over the past 18 years. She stated based on data received from
Community Development staff, the size of the parcels is very small, with just one parcel over 25 acres is
designated, but not zoned for, industrial uses. Ms. McClintic said that in looking at light industrial uses,
above five acres, there are exactly nine properties on the list, with the majority of them being small. She
noted the Wilson-Jones/ACME property in the Crozet area is 35 acres with 28 buildable, but is in
remediation due to contamination and thus cannot be recommended for industrial use. Ms. McClintic said
regarding redevelopment options, there are two sites that have LI zoning, the Badger building in Seminole
north, a 38,000 square foot building which sits on a 16-acre parcel. She noted the property abuts a
parcel with parks and green space designation, precluding future expansion. She stated the International
Sports building at 60,000 square feet is also for sale, but also has significant green space buffer. Ms.
McClintic said most of the nine available industrial parcels are along the Route 29 corridor, and the
majority are small, with only the Yancey Mills property in Crozet and Hunters Way property in Shadwell
located near interstate interchanges.
Ms. McClintic stated in looking at the properties on 29 North, there are other challenges noted.
She said the Northside Drive property has multiple landowners and is zoned heavy industrial, light
industrial, and R-1, so there would need to be some rezoning. She said there is also a significant water
protection overlay, with a stream running through the property, and topographic challenges in comparison
to the properties fronting Route 29. Ms. McClintic reported there is also a property on Coffey Drive off of
Airport Road, which is very small, and there is a seven-acre property nearby that is also zoned LI. She
noted even if the ACME property in Crozet were available, it contains a fairly significant water protection
overlay that limits buildable area; additionally, the railroad tracks are an obstacle, and there is no road
access.
Ms. McClintic said she has spoken with numerous companies, as had Susan Stimart, and 19
businesses representing 750 jobs have expressed concern that they have nowhere to grow and expand
in the area. She stated the limited availability of industrial land also makes land prices higher and thus
puts Albemarle County at a competitive disadvantage with neighboring counties. Ms. McClintic said the
growth area boundary expansion provides an opportunity to “move the dial” on employment opportunities
and career-ladder jobs that will help increase median household income. She stated the expansion
provides a unique opportunity, with its location at both I-64 and Route 29, and is a great location with
respect to downtown and other local assets. She said the parcel has good utility infrastructure in place as
well as a jurisdictional area boundary for water and sewer, with a nearby park that w ill help create a
sense of place for companies establishing new locations. Ms. McClintic stated there have been many
discussions along the way with landowners, with “sweet spot” properties identified, and they have
indicated they would prefer for all of their parcels to be included in the boundary adjustment, although
they would be willing to have some in R-1 zoning. She said what concerns them the most is proposed
green area designations, which are reserved for parks and greenspace, and they had expressed concern
about those designations prior to formal evaluation of soils and critical slopes.
Ms. Palmer stated she had asked Ms. Elaine Echols in the context of 5th Street Station about the
“PD-SC” district under the Comp Plan, which permits by right “laboratories, research, development,
experimental testing, manufacturing process, assembly, fabrication, recycling, storage warehouse,
distribution, transportation.” She said this sounds like Light Industrial to her, and asked if there is still
some space if a company wants to locate here.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Chief of Planning, asked Mr. Mark Graham to comment.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, stated the property currently has site
plans for all of it that would be of a commercial/retail use, and there are deliberate provisions that allow
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
those uses to change as opportunities arise. He clarified that “PD-SC” is Planned Development-
Shopping Center.
Ms. Palmer asked if there are other PD-SC areas they may be wanting to look at as possible
Light Industrial. Ms. Echols clarified there is one area in the Southern Neighborhood designation that is
shown as “Community Mixed Use” – the Southpoint property – which is located south of the interstate and
has an optional industrial use in the land use plan but is not zoned that way, and the property owners
have shown no interest in having it for industrial development.
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated all of the commercially
zoned properties, unless they were proffered to restrict uses, have the potential for industrial use based
on the zoning ordinance changes that occurred two years ago. He said this existed for some properties
zoned commercial, and some were already developed, with some having restrictions through the zoning
such as proffers that would limit uses. Mr. Cilimberg stated this is what was intended when the Planning
Commission and staff had recommended having the Board include analysis of larger land use
possibilities, which will be part of Ms. McClintic’s work.
Ms. Palmer asked if a company comes to town and staff is looking at sites for them, would they
look at any of those spots or just those that are clearly industrial. Ms. McClintic responded it would
depend on the type of use, but there are caps of 4,000 square feet in the special districts.
Mr. Cilimberg explained there are opportunities for more square footage, and the 4,000 is a
limitation in some of the commercial districts with special exception beyond that, but it can be larger with a
special exception, not a rezoning.
Ms. McClintic said her office will work with Ms. Echols and planning staff to see which spaces
have that flexibility, and they would certainly want to avoid a lengthy process for the applicant. She stated
they will look at anything that has a possibility for business uses.
Ms. Dittmar stated her impression is that there are not “ready” sites, whereas other communities
do, so in the broader scheme of things they will want to have the spots ready for applicants, not
instructions to follow a process for change to get them ready later.
Ms. McClintic said most applicants are going to need it yesterday, and “ready” means the zoning
is in place, the utilities are already there, or they are designed so they can be constructed.
Ms. Echols stated in the planning part of this, staff did an evaluation with the Planning
Commission on all kinds of requests, which is different in that it has been many years since the Board
asked for a study of a particular area for a use. She said the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in this
case is in response to an economic development need, but also stems from the Comp Plan itself,
because of the goals in the Economic Development chapter of the plan relates to improving opportunities
for target industries, etc. Ms. Echols said often changes for land use are at an applicant’s request, but
this is different because it is something the Board asked staff to work on and take to the Planning
Commission. She stated it is also not a project-specific request, because prospects come and go, and
staff wants it to be clear that the land will be available for any prospect that meets criteria, especially
those in the target industry categories with specific needs for locations. Ms. Echols said the staff report,
text and map reflect input from Economic Development, Planning, and Parks and Rec staffs, and there is
language in the Comp Plan as to how to best achieve goals. She stated there ha ve been a lot of
questions regarding the potential business and their site layout, but staff does not know these things. Ms.
Echols said a zoning map amendment can be initiated by a property owner, the Board, or for a special
district, and a lot of the comments received have pertained to a conventional district, LI, but there has not
been a decision made yet on how a CPA would be implemented.
Ms. Echols stated the Board had adopted a resolution of intent on June 10 and had asked for
specific items related to minimum requirements for targets, establishment of what is developable and not
developable on land in the quadrant on I-64/29 South, adequacy of infrastructure, and improvements to
water, sewer and roads necessary for development. She said the Board had asked staff for a
recommendation on whether the development area should be expanded, and if so, where the boundaries
should be; where preservation areas should be established and avoided; what the impacts on
transportation and utility provision would be, and what improvements would be needed to support those
uses. Ms. Echols stated staff began its review in a work session on July 21, and the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on August 18; there have also been three community meetings at
which the proposal has been discussed, as well as significant community input.
Ms. Echols reported the area for consideration is outside of development area boundaries and is
heavily vegetated with a lot of rocky terrain. She presented photos taken from the parcel, and from Gold
Eagle Drive as well as Shepherd’s Hill Road. She said staff has suggested the nine parcels within the
boundaries as shown be considered for land use changes. Ms. Echols stated the areas shown on the
slides, as designated with specific colors, are slopes in excess of 25%, areas for mountain protection, and
stream protection, with close proximity to the Moore’s Creek area, but no floodplain on the property. She
said the heavily wooded areas with steep slopes provide habitat for the new parkland area in the Ragged
Mountain area for species needing protection.
Ms. Echols stated there have been transportation concerns with regard to t his proposed change,
particularly the impact on Route 29 South if this parcel is developed industrially. She said the interchange
already needs improvements, so there are heightened concerns as to safety for the site’s users and the
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
general public. Ms. Echols said interchange improvements are the highest priority for the MPO but are
not fully funded, and when staff looked at this proposal with VDOT they sent information on their best
guess as to how many employees there might be under full development of the site, based on
developable acreage. She said VDOT has indicated that a traffic impact analysis is not yet needed, but
any impacts with over 5,000 vehicle trips per day would need that analysis. Ms. Echols noted how much
impact occurs will depend on the users, as a user without a lot of traffic would have less of an impact, and
how quickly the site develops will also have an impact. She stated the traffic impact analysis with a future
ZMA will be the time at which an assessment is done, and staff has provided VDOT with the parameters
of about 85 acres of developable land, with as many as 1,100 employees on multiple shifts , and VDOT
looks at two other scenarios of additional development, environmental features notwithstanding. Ms.
Echols said VDOT’s trip generation manual talks about industrial development on 80 acres, and shows
that full development might generate as much as 5,200 vehicle trips per day, with fewer trips depending
on the types of employment. She stated when a rezoning is proposed, VDOT will require a traffic impact
analysis at some level so they can understand what access management is being proposed. Ms. Echols
emphasized VDOT does not want multiple access points on Route 29 and is concerned about queuing of
vehicles between the site and the interchange, and what the traffic movements will be for tractor-trailers.
She said they are trying to avoid the need for a signal at this location and wants to ensure the County is
making plans for traffic access management, with a traffic impact analysis provided by the County as the
initiator of the rezoning, or the applicant if they initiate the rezoning.
Ms. Echols stated with regard to utility concerns, there have been questions about capacity of
water supply and sewage treatment, and the Service Authority confirmed that both are acceptable,
although there might need to be acceleration of the interceptor upgrade. She said they ha ve also
indicated the extensions need to be paid for by whomever needs the service, but does not anticipate any
issues.
Ms. Echols presented a map showing the proposed land use map change, noting the current
boundary and a regional mixed use area, and said there is already text relating to this area in the
Southern Neighborhoods Master Plan. She said staff is suggesting that the green areas on the map be
designated for preservation and environmental protection, and noted staff has received a lot of questions
as to what that means. Ms. Echols pointed out the areas with slopes in excess of 25% and the mountain
protection area, stating there is no floodplain on the property but there is a 100-foot stream buffer area in
the floodplain protection area. She said there had been a question as to whether slopes noted on the
map are natural or manmade, and staff’s assessment is that they are natural slopes although more work
will need to be done to determine these are not related to road-building. Ms. Echols pointed out other
slopes related to a drainage way or creek bed, which are the ones most in question, and said when a
property comes into the development areas the steep slope regulations are applied, and that is when it is
determined which slopes should be designated. She stated in terms of impacts to the Entrance Corridor,
staff is recommending a forested buffer along I-64 and Route 29 South, as well as along the rural area
boundary.
Ms. Echols stated the recommended text provided for the Planning Commission talks about
designating the area for target industries that needs a location like this, and the specific types of
industries are those shown on the screen: research and development (R&D) with associated light
industry, specialty food production, adult beverages, small distribution facilities, and business and
financial processing operations. She said staff is suggesting habitat protection be noted as a purpose for
the parks and green systems designation, but there could be some passive recreation such as trails put in
the area, and trails that do not have a strong impact would be acceptable. Ms. Echols stated there would
be an important part of that with regards to site design, such as having buildings designed to fit with
terrain rather than extensive grading, pedestrian and bicycle interconnections, road connections to the
regional mixed use center, protection of nearby properties from any noise and odors, and interchange
improvements. She said it is also important to have those improvements done concurrent with or in
advance of the development, and the Planning Commission feels those are important if they are going to
provide a favorable recommendation.
Ms. Echols stated that favorable factors include the lack of availability of other parcels near the
urban interchanges in the development areas for the target uses, especially with regard to size; suitability
of site for some operations; reasonable access to utilities; potential for permanent conservation of the
parkland area; designation that could possibly accelerate funding of interchange improvements; and job
opportunities. She said there will be some forest resource removal with the development of the site. Ms.
Echols stated the Economic Development Office has not completed their parcel inventory, and staff has
just provided a first level of review. She said they w ill need to look at specific parcels and what they can
or cannot do for proposed targets. Ms. Echols stated there is no current plan of development, and
impacts will need to be assessed at rezoning, with the potential for a new zoning district to ensure that
expectations are met.
Ms. Echols reported while staff has recommended approval, the Planning Commission indicated
they cannot recommend approval at this time. She said the Commission cited reasons as: the proximity
to the interchange does not make it ideal for this type of development; more work needed to be done with
the inventory assessment; there were no services onsite at this time, and the costs of water and sewer
are likely to be expensive; uncertainty about the impact on Moore’s Creek and the lack of assurance for
habitat protection; traffic problems that lack solutions; the expedited process and their belief that it is not
in keeping with good planning practices; the need for the Economic Development Office to complete their
review of inventory and time to present it; and any incentives the County might be providing for an
industry here.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Echols stated staff needs to know what else the Board wants from staff or other professionals
representing pertinent agencies to be able to consider the CPA on September 9.
Ms. Palmer asked what could be built on the property already in the development area to the
north. Ms. Echols responded it would be the regional mixed use area, some of which is zoned Highway
Commercial (HC). She pointed out on a map the extension of zoning to R -1 property, and regional
mixed-use designation anticipated a mixture of residential and commercial uses.
Ms. Palmer asked if there could be light industrial in the commercial area. Ms. Echols responded
currently the Comp Plan says the area can be used industrially, and the zoning on the HC land will allow
for the three industrial uses mentioned earlier at 4,000 square feet of additional area by special exception.
Ms. Palmer stated she had read in the newspaper recently that the Chamber of Commerce had
announced that the private sector has increased 12% in job growth, and asked Ms. McClintic to comment
on this statistic. Ms. McClintic responded that numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the
Virginia Employment Commission lagged behind by about six months, and the degree and location of
new jobs, whether they are Albemarle or Charlottesville, is not specific. She stated she was pleased to
see an uptick, and this seems to be concurrent with what is being experienced in other areas.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board and stated
that over a 10-year period, the region, including Albemarle, Charlottesville, Greene, Orange, Fluvanna,
Louisa and Nelson have added 12,000 jobs, with a growth rate of about 1.8% per year. Mr. Hulbert said
Albemarle and Charlottesville are the primary employment centers of that region, and manufacturing has
become the fifth largest sector, with the largest being trade/retail/wholesale, and the second being
business and professional services. He noted the Orange Dot report revealed about 5,000 families lack
self-sufficiency, primarily because they lack education, and while the job news overall is good, it could be
better.
Mr. Boyd asked if the scenarios staff has presented are intended to be different options. Ms.
Echols clarified the whole area is about 223 acres, but the 80-85 acres as noted on the map is the only
portion that staff is recommending to be available for development. She said it does not have a zoning
classification yet, but the land use classification would be industrial, which would allow for any of the
industrial uses.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board could make a decision just on that smaller parcel, rather than the
entire 223 acres that includes the green area. He stat ed it seems most of the objections the Planning
Commission put forward are things that could be resolved at the zoning phase, and this is a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Boyd said people are getting ahead of themselves in requesting
information that normally would not come out until the County goes through the rezoning process, and
those questions do not need to be answered today as part of the CPA.
Ms. Palmer stated a lot of people recognize that if an area is brought into the development area,
then the next step will be a rezoning. She said if you bring RA-zoned into the development area, it is
bound to be something different. Ms. Palmer said if an applicant comes forward with a Comp Plan
Amendment with the zoning, the County would be in a better negotiating spot.
Ms. Mallek commented the cost of a combined application would be overwhelming, and it seem s
unreasonable at this Comp Plan stage to expect the detailed information typically brought forth with a
rezoning request.
Ms. Palmer said people want assurance that if you put something in the Comp Plan that is in the
development area, the particulars during rezoning will actually happen as they are presented.
Ms. Dittmar stated she cannot blame anyone for being confused about this, because if you have
not had planning classes and are not a planner, you tend to smoosh it all together. She emphasized that
all they are looking at is land use, how they want land to be used, and then they move onto the detail.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board has the assurance that the next steps will be done properly.
Ms. Palmer said there are a lot of people out there who are not confused at all about what is
going on, and they know the next step is the zoning amendment.
Ms. Mallek commented there is no guarantee it will go forward.
Ms. Dittmar stated the next step is almost always the zoning, and her point is the two steps need
to be separated out. She said the Board is holding a public hearing the following week that has nothing to
do with zoning.
Ms. Palmer said she realizes that, and so does a lot of other people, and they realize that if the
County puts the land in the development area, the next step is rezoning.
Mr. Sheffield stated an example of this now is the Brookhill development, as the Comp Plan
clearly states it should be a mixed-use, planned unit development approach, and they will be coming to
the Board for a rezoning. He said there will very likely be a wave of opposition, particularly in the Forest
Lakes area, for that kind of project, so it is not a guarantee, and that applicant knows a rezoning is not
guaranteed.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Ms. Palmer asked if it is going to stay in the rural area, and a lot of people recognize the next step
is a zoning change.
Mr. Foley stated it is unfortunate timing to mix both of these things, and everyone knows it is
driven by a company that showed some interest in this, but the County has no idea at this point whether
they are coming or not. He emphasized the important point is that certain types of uses are being
allowed that might be breweries or something else, so the Board needs to consider this in light of the
uses that the planning staff has recommended. Mr. Foley said any next step depends on what type of
use will go there, and this is a broader consideration that typically discourages specific companies at the
time because of the level of involvement needed. He stated somebody else might come in, so the Board
should consider the broader uses, with planning staff recommending those that are consistent with target
industries and not recommending some others.
Ms. Echols reviewed some different options for a boundary area adjustment, presenting a rough
area drawing that shows the possibility of taking in about 90 acres and leaving the remainder in rural area
rather than parkland; taking in approximately developable 40 acres currently zoned R-1, which is in the
jurisdictional area; or splitting out a parcel of the R-1 zoned property for another designation. She stated
there are different ways to achieve their objectives, and the important consideration is whether they are
getting enough land that is usable for an applicant, to be able to provide jobs and accommodate future
expansions.
Ms. Palmer asked if the owner of the property now is concerned about losing land use. Ms.
McClintic responded his concern is the presence of preserved slopes, and without soils testing and/or
GIS analysis, they meet the definition of “critical slopes.” She said with the designation as parks and
green space, if one were to come in with a master plan that includes any encroachment into the green
area, this could be problematic.
Ms. Palmer said if the County was to bring in the R-1 and there are a lot of steep slopes on that,
and they are not bringing in the steep slopes area, it would still be zoned R-1 even though half of it is not
in the development area. She asked for confirmation that if there are properties in the steep slopes but
are also areas to build on, a property owner could still build a house. Ms. Echols responded they would
have to have access and building sites.
Ms. Palmer asked if they had looked at whether the areas connected to this parcel could be
potential building sites. Ms. McClintic responded that some of the areas are still being considered by this
particular company and they have had discussions with those landowners, and those properties would
have to be rezoned and have similar topographic and environmental constraints.
Ms. Palmer asked where the critical slopes are as designated on the map. Ms. Echols responded
they are noted in green, and confirmed they are not as problematic as the parcel in question. She stated
the environmental map will show critical slopes all the way down the map, because staff expects the
entrance will need to be moved if the property develops, and there is only one place where an entrance
can go.
Ms. Mallek asked if the reason they are not shown on a map now is because critical slopes would
be required to be exempted for the entrance. Ms. Echols stated they would not be required to exempt
them, but if that is the only place to put an entrance there are certain criteria that would need to be met in
order to disturb critical slopes. She added this intended to make it clear that there was an expectation
that there would probably have to be some disturbance in order to get an access way.
Ms. Mallek said there may be a potential access point further south that would avoid tearing up
the other preserved slope, which would get everyone out at one point. Ms. Echols stated the expectation
would be to try to use the existing roadway, which is very narrow and very steep. She emphasized that
Gold Eagle Drive is too close to the interchange, and getting the entrance to the property down as far as
possible would be advantageous. Ms. Echols noted it might be possible to have a right-in/right-out turn,
with the road connecting as part of an interconnected road system, but avoiding the critical slopes. She
emphasized she is getting ahead of herself, but they do know the road needs to be interconnected
because there would be housing and shops there, and VDOT wants the County to practice good access
management.
Ms. Mallek asked if she is referring to another town center to be located there. Ms. Echols
responded the land use plan calls for regional mixed-use designation, which expects housing and retail
shops that could be a regional destination.
Ms. Mallek commented it currently has no access at all. Ms. Echols pointed out an access point,
but said VDOT has indicated it is too close to the interchange for them to further develop it, so an
applicant would have to figure that out.
Mr. Boyd asked VDOT to comment on whether HB2 might rank this highly, given that Mr.
DeNunzio had previously indicated that it might. Mr. Joel DeNunzio, VDOT Resident Administrator,
addressed the Board and stated that Interchange 118 has a lot going for it, with I-64 and Route 29 both
being corridors of statewide significance, identified safety and capacity issues, and its location in the
urban development area. He said there is an understanding there may be an application at the end of
September for one of the three options studied in 2013. Mr. DeNunzio stated the idea with HB2 is
transparency, and there are two pools of funding, Culpeper District and statewide funding, and while he is
very certain the project will meet screening criteria, the funding will depend on how it scores. He
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
emphasized it is an expensive project at $123-$170 million, with the Culpeper District having about $30
million out of $600 million statewide, so it is hard to say whether the funding will be there in the very near
future.
Mr. Boyd asked if that would be reduced if it qualified as the same type of interchange as was
done at Zion’s Crossroads. Mr. DeNunzio said the diversion diamond concept (DDI) is one of the
concepts presented for this intersection, but the one at I-64 and Route 29 differs in that it does not include
traffic signals so the crossing movement of north and southbound lanes happens at grade separation. He
stated this is the cheapest concept studied, and he likes it because it keeps the footprint of the
intersection very small and allows for utilization of existing ramps, with minimal right of way impacts. Mr.
DeNunzio said the problem now is the loops and merging issues, and this would also eliminate having
trucks cross traffic to turn left.
Ms. Palmer asked if this scores well and gets funded, how the timing would change. Mr.
DeNunzio responded it all depends on the funding, because if resources are designated then things move
more quickly. He stated the concepts are already there.
Ms. Palmer said the General Assembly would have to put more money in the fund. Mr. DeNunzio
stated there is enough in there now, $1.2 billion, but there is a lot of competition for that money. He said
an advantage of HB2 is that projects in the six-year plan that addresses the biggest problems will be
funded faster, adding it is possible they could award the funding for design now and construction later.
Ms. Palmer asked for clarification of the funding levels, as a letter she is referencing states $500
million over six years. Mr. DeNunzio responded the VDOT annual construction budget is $1.2 billion.
Mr. DeNunzio stated initially it was $500 million in both programs statewide, and of the
districtwide programs, Culpeper was going to get about 6.2% of that, or $31.1 million over the six-year
planning cycle.
Ms. Dittmar mentioned that Mr. DeNunzio had said the I-64/Route 29 project would qualify for
both funds. Mr. DeNunzio said he would recommend they apply for all funds available.
Ms. Dittmar stated in order to focus on the CPA, they need to clear up some misconceptions, and
she needs for staff to review the answers to some of these questions. She said one of the issues ha s
been related to the balance of 95% rural/5% development area and the County’s adherence to that, which
would not be compromised by this action. Ms. Dittmar asked staff to provide a summarization of light
industrial availability, and the lack of sufficient LI to be able to generate econ omic development funding.
She stated staff also needs to clarify the difference between Comp Plan Amendment and rezoning
processes, as well as the timing of this opportunity with the Board’s Comp Plan update.
Ms. Dittmar noted the Board had decided to close out the CPA process and then consider the
application, and she would like to know what has been expedited, as that terminology has received
significant focus.
Ms. McKeel emphasized the information needs to be clear, concise and factual.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to know staff’s opinion as to whether the County would be better
off negotiating with an applicant, rather than with itself.
Mr. Cilimberg explained the County had not encouraged joint Comprehensive Plan rezonings in
the past, although there have been CPAs that were spurred by development proposals. He said they
have tried to step back from that and look first at the bigger picture, and the first thing they want to ensure
is that they are doing the right kind of change for the area, as it is uncertain as to whether an initial
proposal will be what ends up happening on a site. Mr. Cilimberg stated staff has tried hard to focus the
resolution of intent so that it speaks to those things that need emphasis and established expectations, so
they can talk with any applicant about what is necessary. He said there have been other CPAs that had
specific concepts floating around them, such as Old Trail, and the Towers Land Trust, which ended up as
North Pointe. Mr. Cilimberg added they had focused in the Comp Plan stage about what was right in
terms of setting the stage for guidance on any future rezoning.
Ms. Palmer asked if there is a way to strengthen the CPA text. Mr. Cilimberg responded after
going through a year and a half of a Comp Plan review, there are certainly words that can be changed,
and the Board can address that in any action.
Ms. Dittmar asked how they will determine what might go forward in terms of boundaries. Mr.
Cilimberg responded they have already advertised the larger parcel as a maximum that will go into a
Comp Plan change, but the Board can act to approve anything less that is covered by the advertisement,
although it may require a deferral.
Ms. Mallek said it will be helpful for her to have more detail brought forth in the options, so they
will already be predesigned, rather than having to go back after the public hearing. Mr. Foley noted there
is a property owner present, so staff can engage with them to help define parameters for the options.
Ms. Echols stated they need to be careful about what they are being asked to do by the following
week, because this will require some map work that she cannot do and will need assistance on, and she
is not sure how quickly it can be done in advance of their public hearing.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Foley clarified they need to proceed with what has been advertised, but they do want to keep
it moving, so they can go ahead with the public hearing and then refine what the Board would ultimately
act on.
Mr. Boyd mentioned the Board will take public comment at 6:00 when they return for their evening
meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Meeting.
At 4:55 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsectio n (1) to consider appointments to Boards, Committees,
and Commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments; 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; and under Subsection (7) to
consult with and be briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal
advice relating to easements acquired for the restoration and maintenance of pipes necessary for a road
in Carrsbrook; and under Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice relating to the negotiation of an agreement for cour t
facilities. Ms. Mallek seconded motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No.16. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 6:09 p.m., Mr. Sheffied 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 carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No 17. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies and Appointments.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Palmer to make the following appointments:
.
appoint Ms. Lin Burton, Ms. Nancy Hunt, Mr. David Wayland and Ms. Michelle Busby to
the Places 29 Rio Community Advisory Committee with said terms to expire September
30, 2017; and
appoint Mr. Peter Borches, Ms. Virginia Roy, Ms. Katie Collins and Ms. Audrey Kocher
to the Places 29 Rio Community Advisory Committee with said terms to expire
September 30, 2018
Ms. Mallek seconded motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Video Streaming of Board of Supervisors Meetings.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that earlier this year the Board approved
video streaming of regular Board meetings as part of implementing Granicus, the County’s new agenda
management platform. The first phase of Granicus involving the new online platform for agendas was
successfully implemented in June, and since that time staff has been taking the necessary steps to
prepare for video streaming. Staff anticipates that video streaming will begin with the Board’s first regular
meeting in October, and is providing this update in advance of that meeting.
The Board approved video streaming to increase the transparency of and access to the
Board’s actions and deliberations. In developing the budget and parameters for the initial phase of video
streaming, the Board established and approved the following parameters:
- Only regularly scheduled meetings of the Board of Supervisors that take place in Lane
Auditorium would be included;
- In addition to live streaming, video on demand must be available within 36 hours of each
meeting; and
- The video produced must be reliable, consistent and of broadcast quality video.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Audio for the video stream will be provided by the existing microphone system, so it will remain
very important for all speakers to speak clearly into their microphones to ensure the highest possible
quality. Details regarding camera placement and operations/impacts associated with video streaming will
be discussed at the October Board meeting.
There is no budget impact related to this executive summary update.
No action is required by the Board regarding this item.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin addressed the Board, stating that earlier in the year they had approved the use of
video streaming as part of bringing Granicus, an agenda-management system, online. She said since
June staff had been working to bring that system online, and there are three cameras currently in place,
with live video streaming going forward in October as a “soft launch.” Ms. Catlin stated there w ill be four
or five staff members who will be trained to use the cameras, plus one temp who will essentially serve as
director, running the cameras and deciding which camera to go to as the meeting progresse s. She said
in the initial phase of video streaming, the funding request only involved regularly scheduled meetings of
the Board in the auditorium, and if they decide it is very useful they can expand that. Ms. Catlin stated
the goal is to have video on demand on the website within 36 hours after the meeting is done, and the
video will be segmented as the audio is now so that viewers can watch just one particular agenda item of
the meeting. She said the goal for the video is that it be reliable, consistent, and of broadcast quality, with
the audio provided by the existing microphone system, although that might be re -evaluated in the future.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Lonnie Murray addressed the Board, stating much more can be done in the County to
promote industry, and they have missed some good opportunities, but as they c onsider approving the
growth area expansion they should keep in mind the reason for having growth areas was to protect rural
areas and natural resources. He stated they should look at whether expansion of the boundary will
reduce the number of by-right development rights, which will be a reason to proceed with it. Mr. Murray
said the Board will also be considering the Franklin Street steep slopes item, and when that comes before
environmentalists they were promised that preserve means preserve. He encourages the Board to
contemplate the impacts their decisions will have in the near term, as well as any potential precedent.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2015-00007. All Saints Chapel – Special
Use (Sign #97).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04800-00-00-001600 and portion of 04800-00-00-019E0.
LOCATION: 3929 Stony Point Road.
PROPOSAL: Expansion of an existing Church to construct a 795 SF building addition (social
hall), associated parking, and entrance upgrades. ZONING: VR Village Residential - 0.7
unit/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
SCENIC BYWAYS: Yes.
SOUTHWEST MOUNTAINS RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT: Yes.
PROFFERS: No.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas 2 – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
PETITION: Church uses in the VR zoning district require a Special Use Permit per Section
12.2.2(15). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 17 and August 24, 2015.)
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that on August 4, 2015, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the application for the special use permit for All Saints Chapel. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this SP with modified conditions.
The staff report for the August 4, 2015 Commission public hearing (Attachment C) provides a
complete analysis of the application. Prior to the meeting the applicant requested the Commission
reconsider three of the staff-recommended conditions of approval (#6, #7, and #10). The Commission
discussed these conditions at length and, as part of its recommendation of approval of the SP, directed
staff to revise the conditions pursuant to its discussion. A draft of those revised conditions are attached to
the Resolution (Attachment A) for the Board’s consideration.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to approve
SP2015-7 All Saints Chapel, with the conditions attached thereto.
__________
Ms. Dittmar stated this special use permit will consider the expansion of an existing church in the
Rivanna District.
Mr. Chris Perez, Senior Planner, addressed the Board and stated the Planning Commission had
considered the item on August 4 and unanimously recommended approval with modified conditions as
reflected in the staff report and the action item. Mr. Perez said the proposal is for property located on two
properties, 48.16 and 48.19E, and he presented the proposed concept plan and initial site plan. He
stated that favorable factors for consideration are that this is an existing nonconforming use that will be
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
brought into conformity with the zoning ordinance, there are no significant impacts with the proposed
addition, and the ARB has recommended approval with the proposed conditions. He noted there are no
unfavorable factors. Mr. Perez stated the conditions as presented were modified, and at the Planning
Commission the applicant and Commission wanted changes to conditions 6, 7 and 10, which staff went
back and modified with the County Attorney’s office. He said that condition #6 was modified to provide
more flexibility for the drainfields; condition #7 was modified to increase the type of tree up to six inch
caliper that could be replaced by native saplings; and condition #10 allows the applicant to determine cost
feasibility of saving one of the historic posts as discussed through the ARB. Mr. Perez said the applicant
had requested further modification of condition #6, which will eliminate the need for condition #7, and staff
has endorsed that change. He stated staff recommends approval of the SP with conditions, based on the
analysis provided in the staff report.
Ms. Dittmar asked if staff feels the changes are acceptable. Mr. Perez responded they are okay
with the changes with some possible language alterations, and the point of condition #6 is to swap the
primary with the reserve as shown on the concept plan in order to preserve trees along the Entrance
Corridor, and with the applicant going back and getting soil work, that will eliminate the ARB’s concerns of
EC trees being lost. He clarified this will also solve any issues relating to the stones onsite, which could
possibly be cemetery stones.
Mr. David Benish stated staff’s condition would also have solved that issue, but the applicant is
more comfortable with what he has proposed.
Mr. Davis asked if there is language for condition #6. Mr. Perez responded it is in the email that
was sent to the Board and is in his staff report.
Mr. Benish stated the applicant may review that while staff is finding it, and condition #6 will
reference the picture as showing the location of the septic fields. He said he is not sure how this will
impact the language of the resolution.
Mr. Davis said the resolution will need to include the conditions.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Marcia Joseph addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant, All Saints Chapel, and
presented photos of the site. She stated the applicant is proposing to amend condition #6, responding to
the ARB, the Planning Commission and the unidentified stones on the site, and noted the applicant would
like for the County to consider waiving the fees for the final site plan review. Ms. Joseph stated they
would like for the Board to consider the scale and intensity of use of the existing building and the
proposed addition, noting the existing structure is 600 square feet and the proposed addition is 700
square feet. She said VDOT accepted the 50 vehicle trips per week and is allowing a low-volume
entrance, with service at the church two mornings per month at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday. Ms. Joseph stated
the site constraints provide for a specific location for the entrance, and the septic field needs to be located
in one spot because of soil suitability, with as much tree preservation as possible. She mentioned the
facility was built in 1929 and currently has no water, so this application will install a bathroom.
Ms. Joseph asked the Board to consider looking at the church in the same way the County looks
at country stores, which are exempt from onsite parking and landscape requirements. She stated on the
current concept plan, the applicant has removed the location of the drainfield sites so if the condition were
changed it could be enforced. She stated condition #6 has been amended to reflect the drainfield
locations in the southern portion of the parcel, which was done for a number of reasons including
minimizing visibility and the soil quality. Ms. Joseph stated there are smaller trees existing including small
oaks and sassafras, and presented a view of the church in the wintertime. She said the applicant ha s
tried to keep the stone “pier” while keeping the entrance 10 feet wide, and stated the design planner had
said it was good to support the continued use of the historic church and recognize the site constraints.
Ms. Joseph requested the Board consider the same review standards used for country stores,
and asked them to consider the minimal impact of this small addition. She said the congregation has
already paid $2,400 for the special use permit fees, and the final site plan fee will be $1,500, which the
applicant would like them to waive.
Mr. Boyd asked how many parishioners attend the church. Ms. Joseph responded at Easter and
Christmas, about 25 parishioners show up for services.
Mr. Adam Sutfin addressed the Board, stating that he is the project architect and the
requirements are very simple: a bathroom, water for flowers, a sacristy, and a place for coffee. He s tated
the addition slightly surpasses the existing chapel footprint, and the new structure will be set behind and
slightly to the left of the chapel. Mr. Suftin stated in looking at the elevations, the church is still prominent,
and only part of the addition can be seen from the front. He said the scale is deliberately kept smaller to
defer to the original structure.
Mr. Corky Shackelford addressed the Board and said he has been a church member since 1930.
Mr. Shackelford stated another lifelong member, Tommy Crenshaw, had left his entire estate to the
chapel in his will but died the morning before he was going to meet with his attorney. He said the church
got a good portion of the estate due to the family’s generosity, and enough to build the addition , but
changes to the design have made that uncertain, which is why Ms. Joseph has requested the final site
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
plan fee be waived. Mr. Shackelford stated the church adjoins his property and means a lot to the
congregation and the community.
Ms. Mary Aston Shackelford addressed the Board and stated she has been a member of the
church for about 60 years, and the congregation started thinking about the addition over a year ago. Ms.
Shackelford said the person who cared for Tommy Crenshaw has since died, but had confirmed his intent
for the plan. She asked those in favor of the application to stand.
Mr. Fred Missel addressed the Board and stated he is vice-chair of the ARB and is pleased that
the applicant was able to relocate the drainfield to the rear of the s ite so as not to impact the Entrance
Corridor.
There being no further comments, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board has the authority to waive the site plan fee. Mr. Davis responded
there is no authority to waive the fee, and no authority to make a donation to a church.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Davis has reviewed the revised condition #6. Mr. Davis stated the
condition is acceptable, and will just need to be slightly altered to note the Exhibit A date of September 2,
2015 illustrating the drainfield location is in the southern portion of the site. He said this will effectively
eliminate condition #7 and cause renumbering of the conditions.
Ms. Mallek stated at the Historic Preservation Committee meeting, there was great concern about
the destruction of the gate and the entrance way, and she appreciate s the idea put forth that there should
be the same respect for country parishes as there are for country stores. She said she understands the
challenge of having 10 families keeping a 300 year old building from falling down, while keeping up the
grounds. Ms. Mallek stated if there is anything they can push back to VDOT in terms of entrance
requirements that would be helpful, as it seem s out of balance to her.
Mr. Boyd agrees with her points, and said the church would have to remove the fence, which
does not make any sense from an historic standpoint.
Mr. Davis said he does not know if VDOT will be amenable to that, but if they want to leave that
possibility open they can amend the condition #4 to say “if required by VDOT.”
Mr. Benish stated it will be required by VDOT.
Ms. Mallek asked for an explanation of cost feasibility, because Mr. Perez’s staff report indicate s
there is a caveat in the event removal of the gate post is cost prohibitive. Mr. Perez explained there is
really no access or entrance to the site at this point, which is why VDOT is requiring an upgraded
entrance.
Ms. Mallek stated driveways are only required to be 10 feet wide, including provisions for
emergency vehicles, so there certainly seems to be enough width without removing the fence. Mr.
Benish said the language added to the condition will give them the maximum latitude, but a commercial
entrance would require a width and radius that will require the gate to come down.
Ms. Mallek stated this same discussion occurs with VDOT over the Pro Re Nata brewery in her
district, and they eventually backed off on the entrance requirement, which would have cost the business
about $500,000.
Mr. Boyd agreed to call a meeting with VDOT to discuss the church entrance requirements.
Ms. Mallek commented it bothers her greatly that some of these historic properties are being
paved over for some seemingly good theoretical reason.
Ms. McKeel said it seem s there would be something pertaining specifically to historic properties.
Mr. Boyd stated even if it is not possible with this application, he would like to look into whether
those requirements can be altered, and if the fees can be waived.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there is enabling legislation for that. Mr. Davis responded fees must be
based on a rational basis that reflects the cost of processing the fees, and the fee system adopted is
based on a study that classifies certain categories of applications so there will be equally assessed fees.
He added that once you start carving out exceptions to fees, it is a slippery slope.
Mr. Boyd said an application such as this for an historic church certainly c annot take as much
staff time as a major project. Mr. Davis stated one of the items on staff’s work plan is looking at the need
for a special use permit for small historic churches.
Ms. Mallek said having it treated like a country store is completely appropriate.
Mr. Benish stated this is something they can weigh in on as part of the long list of zoning text
amendments they need to get to.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Mr. Boyd said if the ZTA is patterned after country stores, he does not understand why it would
be particularly difficult. Mr. Benish stated churches come in all sizes, and the idea has b een to make the
smaller churches and accessory improvements that do not add to traffic and noise review differently from
larger churches. He added public input is also important.
Ms. Mallek said she understands what he is saying, especially with regard to newly constructed
churches, but the smaller historic churches should be addressed separately.
Mr. Boyd then offered motion to adopt the proposed resolution to approve SP-2015-00007, All
Saints Chapel, subject to the recommended conditions as modified, with the new condition #6, the
elimination of condition #7, and condition #4 as revised to add after the word “entrance” if required by
VDOT. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2015-07 ALL SAINTS CHAPEL
WHEREAS, the Trustees of St. Johns Mission Church is the owner of All Saints Episcopal Church
and of Tax Map and Parcel Number 04800-00-00-01600 and Dovedale LLC is the owner of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 04800-00-00-019E0, collectively the “Owners” and the “Property”; and
WHEREAS, the Owners filed an application for a special use permit to expand the existing chur ch
by constructing a 795 square foot building addition (social hall), associated parking, and entrance upgrades
on the Property, and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2015-00007 All Saints Chapel (“SP
2015-07”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed use is allowed on the Property by special use permit under Albemarle
County Code § 18-12.2.2(15); and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission recommended approval of SP 2015-07 with modified conditions; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2015-07.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Transmittal Report prepared for SP 2015-07 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 2015-07, subject to the conditions attached
hereto.
*****
SP-2015-00007 All Saints Chapel Conditions
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “All Saints Chapel
SP201500007” prepared by Joseph Associates LLC and dated June 1, 2015 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the
Conceptual Plan:
building orientation
building mass, shape, and height
location of buildings and structures
location of parking areas
relation of buildings and parking to the street
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Side and rear setbacks shall be commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7(b) of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, and shall be m aintained adjacent to residential uses or
residentially zoned properties. Front yard setbacks associated with parking shall be commercial
setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7(a) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit.
4. The applicant shall obtain VDOT approval of a commercial entrance, if required by VDOT, prior to
approval of the final site plan.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
5. The applicant shall obtain Virginia Department of Health approval of well and/or onsite sewage
system prior to approval of the final site plan.
6. The drainfields shall be placed in the areas shown on Exhibit A dated September 2, 1015
illustrating the drainfield locations in the southern portion of the parcel.
7. Materials and colors of the addition shall be compatible with the materials and colors of the
historic chapel.
8. Except for repair and maintenance of the fence where there is no substantial change in design,
and except for renovation of the fence to accommodate a new gate to provide access from the
parking area to the existing front entrance of the chapel where the gate design is compatible in
form and materials with the existing fence design, the fence and its stone end piers shall be
retained without change, provided that the easternmost stone pier forming the existing gate edge
need not be retained if the applicant determines that the cost of retention is cost prohibitive as
provided in Condition 9.
9. If the applicant determines that relocating the easternmost stone pier to the east side of the new
entrance drive is cost prohibitive, prior to its removal the applicant shall document the stone pier
in photographs and a to-scale, annotated line drawing. Copies of the documentation shall be
provided to the County’s Design Planner for the County’s files and for forwarding to the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources.
10. Prior to final site plan approval, the entrance to the site shall either be located entir ely on the
Church Property (TMP 04800-00-00-01600) by adjusting the property line between TMP 04800-
00-00-01600 and TMP 04800-00-00-019E0, or the applicant shall obtain an easement from the
owner of TMP 04800-00-00-019E0 to allow the portion of the entrance to be located on that
parcel.
11. The construction of any structure required for the use must commence within five (5) years from
the approval of the Special Use Permit.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2015-00019. UVA Indoor Golf Practice
Facility (Sign #104).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07500-00-00-06300; 06000-00-00-028B0; 06000-00-00-028C0.
LOCATION: 470 Birdwood Drive, Charlottesville, VA.
PROPOSAL: Amend SP96-53 to allow construction of 10,000 square foot indoor golf practice
facility for University of Virginia golf teams.
PETITION: Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities under Section 13.2.2 of Zoning
Ordinance. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: R-1 Residential - 1 unit/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Institutional – schools, universities and colleges and ancillary
facilities and public facilities and utilities.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 17 and August 24, 2015.)
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that
At their meeting on July 14, 2015, the Planning Commission voted 6:0 to recommend approval of
SP201500019 with the conditions recommended by staff.
Though the Planning Commission recommended ap proval with the conditions as recommended
by staff, they did ask the applicant two follow-up questions about the proposal. They asked the applicant
what, if any, level of archeological study has been or will be done on the site. They also asked the
applicant to consider limiting the hours that the parking lot would be lit or to consider other measures to
limit the impacts of the parking lot lighting. The applicant told the Commission they would look into their
questions.
Since the meeting, the applicant has informed staff that they will be following the Department of
Historic Resources (DHR) recommendations regarding the archeology on site. During their review of the
proposal, DHR stated that the site of the proposed facility lacked archaeological significance and
recommended the applicant proceed with caution as they develop this site. No archeological studies are
proposed for the site.
In regards to lighting, the applicant told staff that they feel Albemarle County has one of the best
Dark Skies Ordinances in the state and that they will depend on those guidelines to determine the
appropriate amount of lighting for the parking area.
The Planning Commission’s action letter, staff report and minutes from the July 14 meeting are
attached.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to approve SP201500019 with
the conditions attached thereto.
__________
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein. Senior Planner, addressed the Board and stated the purpose of the
public hearing is to request amendment of an existing special use permit to allow the construction of an
indoor golf practice facility, and SPs are required for swim, golf, tennis or other athletic facilities. She
stated the property is located on Route 250 West between the neighborhoods of Bellair and Ednam, and
was three parcels recently combined into one. Ms. Falkenstein said the property is 554 acres total, and
the uses are the Birdwood Golf Course and Birdwood mansion, an historic property, and the new facility
to be located south of the mansion. She stated the proposal is to amend an existing SP for the golf
course to allow the construction of a 10,000 square foot indoor golf practice facility, and it w ill include
eight hitting bays opening to the existing driving range. Ms. Falkenstein said the users will include the
UVA men’s and women’s golf teams as well as private lessons for club members.
Ms. Falkenstein stated the site will be accessed via Golf Course Drive, and the applicant will be
constructing a new road off of that drive. She noted one residence at 470 Birdwood Drive will be
demolished, and it is a non-contributing structure to the historic district that was built much later. She said
there are two entrances to the property and four outbuildings used as rental properties. She presented
photos of the site, including Golf Course Drive, which meet commercial entrance standards. She
presented a concept plan of the site and stated that Birdwood Drive w ill continue to provide access to the
existing structures, but they will restrict access with a gate between Birdwood Drive and the new parking
area. Ms. Falkenstein said the facility will not be visible from Ivy Road and is not anticipated to be visible
from the Birdwood mansion, with limited visibility from adjacent neighborhoods. She noted an existing
historic slave house will remain.
She stated favorable factors are the facility’s limited visibility, the lack of impact on Birdwood’s
status on the National Register of Historic Places, and the fact that no additional traffic is expected to be
generated since the UVA golf teams already use the facility. Ms. Falkenstein stated the Planning
Commission held their public hearing on July 14 and recommended approval with four conditions, with
conditions #3 and #4 carried over from the previous SP. She said the Department of Historic Resources
is not recommending archeological studies, so the applicant is not planning to proceed with one, and the
applicant will follow lighting ordinance requirements.
Mr. Boyd asked how large the facility will be. Ms. Falkenstein responded that it will be 10,000
square feet, and will appear as one story from the front, with a lower basement/walkout that will be used
for hitting out into the driving range.
Ms. Palmer asked if the outdoor lighting is just over the parking lot. Ms. Falkenstein responded
there will be no lighting on the driving range itself, but that will be further reviewed at the site plan phase.
Ms. Palmer asked if the parking lot lighting has conditions associated with it, and whether the
lighting will go off at night. Ms. Falkenstein said there are no conditions recommended pertinent to that,
but the Planning Commission had asked that as well, and the applicant ha s stated they will meet the
County’s dark skies ordinance, which will limit lighting at the property line and any spillover, and the
lighting will be full cut-off.
Ms. Mallek stated there is no reason to have the lighting on after people ha ve left the facility and
the gate is closed. Ms. Falkenstein responded the applicant’s justification is that the teams will be using
the facility after hours for meetings and wants lights in the parking lot.
Ms. Mallek said she also wants to know how they establish lack of visibility, as there are a lot of
houses to the south and west of the site. Ms. Falkenstein responded they have based it on the existing
house, as this will be about the same height, and there are also topographic features and vegetation that
will help to shield it.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Fred Missel, Director of Design and Development for the UVA Foundation, addressed the
Board and introduced Project Manager, Chris Scholey. Mr. Missel stated the reason the Foundation did
not apply for this at the time they took over management of the golf course was because they did not own
the historic mansion, which belonged to the University. He said it was transferred to the Foundation last
July so there could be one contiguous piece of property, and that has prompted the special use permit
request.
Ms. Palmer asked for clarification of the lighting visibility concerns. Mr. Missel responded the
Foundation’s primary concern is the safety of students and other users of the property, and while he does
not feel he can answer the question fully, they have adjacent rental units and will be very sensitive to light
spillover. He stated the Foundation has discussed the lighting issue with the UVA Athletics Department,
and it will be possible to request the lights be turned off at midnight or whenever they close.
Mr. Davis stated the County’s lighting ordinance is pretty effective and reduces spillover lighting
almost entirely, but turning them off would also be advantageous although would not be recommended as
a condition.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Ms. Palmer said she and others would appreciate the possibility of having it cut off at midnight.
Mr. Missel said they will look into it, as there are also energy savings considerations.
Mr. Missel stated the Foundation has done balloon tests to check for visibility, and it is not visible
to the south due to the distance to the next neighborhoods, and from Bellair a significant amount of tree
cover will maintain a visual buffer between the seventh hole and the facility.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Palmer then moved to adopt the proposed resolution to approve SP-2015-00019 with the
recommended conditions. Ms. Mallek seconded motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2015-19 UVA INDOOR GOLF PRACTICE FACILITY
WHEREAS, the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation is the record owner of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 07500-00-00-06300 and the University of Virginia Foundation is the record owner of Tax
Map and Parcel Numbers 06000-00-00-028B0 and 06000-00-00-028C0 (collectively the “Owner”); and
WHEREAS, a special use permit to allow the existing golf course in R-1 zoning and to allow the
enclosure of a golf cart storage area on the property (SP 1996-53) was approved in 1997 with a condition
that required an amendment to the special use permit to allow new construction or any expansion outside
of the current boundaries of the existing golf course; an d
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted an application to construct an indoor golf practice facility
consisting of eight indoor hitting bays, which will open to the existing driving range, as well as locker rooms,
coaches’ offices and a meeting space, and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2015-00019
UVA Indoor Golf Practice Facility (“SP 2015-19”); and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission recommended approval of SP 2015-19 with the conditions recommended by County staff; and
WHEREAS, on September 2, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2015-19.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2015-19 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 2015-19, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
*****
SP-2015-0019 UVA Indoor Golf Practice Facility Conditions
1. Development shall be in general accord with the plan titled “UVA Golf Indoor Practice Facility,
Site Plan Diagram” prepared by Dewberry dated April 30, 2015 (hereafter “Layout Plan”) as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord
with the Layout Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown
on the Plan:
– Building location, orientation and mass
– Access to the site via new road labeled “Access Drive”
Minor modifications to the Plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements listed above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Ingress and egress along Birdwood Drive shall be restricted, to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator, to only those residences served by Birdwood Drive and shall not be used as an
access to the indoor golf practice facility.
3. Any new construction at the existing golf course facility and site other than the site improvements
shown on the Layout Plan, except for minor changes (such as additional practice tees,
modifications of greens and other changes that do not require a site plan), shall require an
amended special use permit.
4. The Owner shall continue to implement an Integrated Pest Management/Nutrient Management
Plan to reduce adverse water quality impacts.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: PROJECT: ZMA201500003/Riverside Village
Neighborhood Model District.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800-00-00-05800.
LOCATION: Located on the west side of Stony Pointe Road/Route 20 and the east side of Free
Bridge Lane/Route 1421, approximately 350 feet south of the inters ection of Route 20/Elks Drive.
PROPOSAL: Request to amend proffers and code of development to allow affordable units in
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Block 5 and allow accessory apartments as affordable housing.
PETITION: Request to amend proffers, and amend code of development on property zoned
NMD Neighborhood Model District which allows residential uses at a density of 3 – 34 units/acre,
mixed with commercial uses, service and industrial uses. No increase of dwellings proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
FLOOD HAZARD OVERYLAY: Yes.
SCENIC BYWAYS OVERLAY: Yes.
STEEP SLOPES MANAGED: Yes.
STEEP SLOPES PRESERVED: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace – undeveloped areas; Neighborhood Density
Residential – residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools
and other small-scale non-residential uses; and River Corridor – parks, golf courses, greenways,
natural features and supporting commercial and recreational uses in Neighborhood 3 – Pantops
Comp Plan Area.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 17 and August 24, 2015.)
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that on July 14, 2015, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the application and recommended approval with amended Proffers
and Code of Development, dated May 21, 2012, revised June 18, 2015 as recommended by staff.
The staff report for the July 14, 2015 Commission public hearing (Attachment D) provides a
complete analysis of the application. The Commission recommended approval of the rezoning
ZMA201500003, Riverside Village Neighborhood Model District, with the revised Proffers and Code of
Development, dated May 21, 2012, revised June 18, 2015 and described in the July 14, 2015 staff report.
The revised Proffers are attached (Attachment B).
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) approving ZMA
201500003.
__________
Ms. Claudette Grant. Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that Riverside Village is
located on the west side of Route 20 (Stony Point Road), and pointing out on a map the location of the
Elks Lodge and the intersection of Route 250 and Route 20. She stated the property pertaining to this
ZMA is zoned Neighborhood Model district, which allows residential uses at a density of 3-34 units per
acre, and allows a mix of commercial service and industrial uses. Ms. Grant said the Pantops Master
Plan designates the property as Neighborhood Density – Residential, which allows residential density of
3-6 units per acre, as well as supporting uses such as reli gious institutions, schools, and other small-
scale non-residential uses. She stated it also allows green space, which is undeveloped areas, with the
river corridor allowing parks, golf courses, greenways, natural features, and supporting commercial and
recreational uses.
Ms. Grant said the applicant has requested amending the proffers in the code of development
from ZMA 2012-00002 to allow affordable units in Block 5 so that he can maximize the location options
for affordable housing units within the development, and to allow accessory apartments as an affordable
housing type. She stated the total number of residential units and density remain s the same as the
original approval, and she presented a rendering of the application and block plan, noting the l ocation of
Block 5. Ms. Grant said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 14, 2015 and
recommended approval of the request inclusive of the amended proffers and code of development, and
there was additional information in the staff report. She stated that staff recommends adoption of the
ordinance to approve ZMA 2015-00003 including the revised proffers dated August 20, 2015, and the
code of development attached to the staff report.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Justin Shimp addressed the Board, stating the applicant is trying to broaden opportunities
with affordable housing, and there will now be six rental units and more targeted for sale units in one
block.
Mr. Boyd asked if the first unit going up is a duplex, as he thought there was going to be more
single-family dwellings. Mr. Shimp responded the majority are single-family homes, which currently has
footers in the ground and will begin construction within the next two weeks.
Mr. Kirk Bowers of the Rivanna District, addressed the Board, stating the comments about this
project have not been good, and a lot of people in the area do not like it, feeling it is intrusive to their
scenery and quiet. Mr. Bowers said the road construction in front of the site is probably the roughest he
has seen, with roller coaster bumps, and people are getting tired of development in the Pantops area,
particularly Route 20.
Ms. Dittmar asked for feedback on the road conditions. Mr. Benish stated he will check with
VDOT about the road conditions, but it may be a sub-base that is still rough.
Mr. Shimp stated there are a lot of people who drive past that site, and part of the applicant’s
proffer was to do additional road work so they have put in two lanes, which create s a longer period of
construction. He said there have been some asphalt bumps, but they will need to fix them anyway prior
to VDOT releasing the bond.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Ms. Dittmar said Mr. Bowers seems to be referring to Route 20 itself, not the entrance to the site.
Mr. Boyd said he drives the road at least twice per day and has not noticed a problem.
Mr. Shimp stated that rough conditions are part of the process of laying new asphalt.
Ms. Dittmar then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd offered motion to adopt the proposed ordinance to approve ZMA-2015-00003 as
proffered dated August 20, 2015. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recording vote.
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 15-A(4)
ZMA 2015-00003 RIVERSIDE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL DISTRICT
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER 07800-00-00-05800
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 07800-00-
00-05800 (the “Property”), is identified as ZMA 2015-00003, Riverside Village Neighborhood Model District
(“ZMA 2015-00003”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Neighborhood Model District – NMD, subject to the Proffers, a
Code of Development, and an Application Plan, all of which were adopted on November 13, 2013 in
conjunction with ZMA 2012-00002; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2015-00003 proposes to amend the Proffers and the Code of Development
applicable to the Property in order to add Block 5 as a location for affordable housing and to allow accessory
apartments as affordable rental housing; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2015-00003.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the staff report prepared for ZMA 2015-00003 and its attachments, 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 2015-00003 with the Proffers dated August 20, 2015, and the Code of Development, which
is contained on sheets 5 and 6 of the document entitled “Rezoning Application Plan Amendment for
Riverside Village Tax Map 78, Parcel 58 Rivanna District, Albemarle County, Virginia ZMA 201500003”
prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated May 21, 2012, with sheets 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 last re vised on
May 18, 2015 and sheets 1 and 5 last revised on June 18, 2015, and the zoning map for Tax Map and
Parcel Number 07800-00-00-05800 is amended accordingly.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: PROJECT: ZMA-2015-00005. Out of Bounds (Sign
#44).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000000006500.
LOCATION: Located on Barracks Road (Route 654) across from its intersection with Georgetown
Road (Route 656). 225 Out of Bounds Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901.
PROPOSAL: To amend the proffers, application plan, and code of development for approved
ZMA201200003 Out of Bounds. No change to maximum allowed density is proposed.
PETITION: Request to amend proffers, application plan, and Code of Development for
ZMA201200003 on property zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD) which allows residential
mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units/acre.
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Entrance Corridor (EC); Airport Impact Area (AIA).
PROFFERS: YES.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential- residential (3-6 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small -scale non-residential uses
in Neighborhood 7.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 17 and August 24, 2015.)
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that at their meeting on July 14, 2015, the
Planning Commission voted 6:0 to recommend approval of ZMA201500005.
The County Attorney has prepared the attached Ordinance (Attachment D) reflecting the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission’s Action letter, Staff Report and
minutes from the July 14th meeting are also attached.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment D) approving
ZMA201500005 and the attached Resolution (Attachment E) approving the special exception.
_____
Ms. Meghan Yaniglos, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that Out of Bounds is
proposing alteration of the proffers, application plan and code of development. She stated the site is
currently under construction, and presented a map noting the location of the site in proximity to
Georgetown and Barracks Road. Ms. Yaniglos said the applicant is proposing a change to the affordable
housing proffer to allow for sale or for rent affordable townhouse units in lieu of the for rent multi-family
units, which are to be two stacked units within one structure. She stated the applicant now prefers to
construct single townhouse units, each on their o wn lot, and no additional units are proposed. Ms.
Yaniglos noted that minor revisions to the application plan and code of development are requested, and
these changes are necessary for the requested affordable housing change. She presented slides
showing the approved current application plan showing the stacked unit type, and the amended
application plan with the townhouse units on each lot. She noted the applicant is requesting a special
exception for the sidewalk and planting strip located along Georgetown Court, and during site
construction it was found the anticipated grading is inaccurate and a 36-inch retaining wall is needed.
Ms. Yaniglos stated the planting strip and street trees w ill still be provided with an easement on the back
side of the sidewalk, and she noted the location of the strip between the road and sidewalk.
Ms. Yaniglos said favorable factors include the rezoning amendment will not change the site
layout or the intent of the original rezoning, and there are no unfavorable factors identified. She stated
the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the amendment and the landscape modification
request.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Vito Cetta, addressed the Board and stated he had a lot of involvement with the
neighbors, including Ms. McKeel. Mr. Cetta stated there are a variety of housing types in the area,
ranging from homes in the $900K range to townhomes in the mid-$200s. He said the buildings all look
similar, and there do not seem to be any friction between the residents there. Mr. Cetta stated people are
proud of their homes, and can walk to Barracks Road.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. McKeel said it has been interesting for her to see the development go into the neighborhood
behind hers, and the residents there appreciate the second entrance to Barracks Road that was created.
Motion was then offered by Ms. McKeel, seconded by Ms. Mallek to adopt the following
ordinance to approve ZMA-2015-00005. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 15-A(5)
ZMA 2015-00005 OUT OF BOUNDS
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER 06000-00-00-06500
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 06000-00-
00-06500 (the “Property”), is identified as ZMA 2015-00005, Out of Bounds (“ZMA 2015-00005”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Neighborhood Model District – NMD, subject to the Proffers, a
Code of Development, and an Application Plan, all of which were adopted on December 11, 2013 in
conjunction with ZMA 2012-00003; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2015-00005 proposes to amend the Proffers, the Application Plan, and the Code
of Development applicable to the Property in order to allow for the sale or rental of affordable townhouse
units instead of the rental of multi-family units in Block 3; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2015-00005.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the staff report prepared for ZMA 2015-00005 and its attachments, 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 2015-00005 with the Proffers dated August 19, 2015, and the Application Plan entitled
“Rezoning Application Plan Amendment for Out of Bounds TMP 06000 -00-00-06500 Jack Jouett District,
Albemarle County, Virginia” prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated April 1, 2013, with sheets 2, 3, 5, 6
and 8 last revised on April 20, 2015 and sheets 1, 4 and 7 last revised on June 30, 2015, and the zoning
map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 06000-00-00-06500 is amended accordingly.
_____
Ms. McKeel then offered motion to adopt the proposed resolution to approve the special
exception request. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR ZMA 2015-00005, OUT OF BOUNDS
WHEREAS, Barracks Heights, LLC (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number
06000-00-00-06500; and
WHEREAS, the Owner filed a request for a special exception to vary the Code of Development
approved in conjunction with ZMA 2015-05, Out of Bounds, to permit the elimination of planting strips for a
200 foot portion along the existing single family residential lot and Georgetown Court; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2015-00005 was previously approved this same day.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff report
prepared in conjunction with the special exception request, staff’s supporting analysis included in th e staff
report, and the attachments thereto, and all of the factors relevant to the special exceptions in Albemarle
County Code § 18-33.9, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception
to vary the Code of Development approved in conjunction with ZMA 2015-00005, Out of Bounds, to permit
the elimination of planting strips for a 200 foot portion along the existing single family residential lot and
Georgetown Court, subject to the condition attached hereto.
*****
ZMA 2015-05, Out of Bounds Special Exception Condition
1. A six (6) foot landscape easement shall be established on the back of the sidewalk.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Public Hearing: PROJECT: ZMA-2015-00002. Franklin Street Steep
Slopes (Sign #29).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 077000000040B0.
LOCATION: Property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Franklin Street and
Broadway Street.
PROPOSAL: Request to change the zoning designation of 37, 918 square feet from p reserved
slopes to managed slopes which would allow the slopes to be disturbed.
PETITION: Rezone 0.87 acres from Steep Slopes Overlay District (preserved) which allows uses
under Section 30.7.4(b) to Steep Slopes Overlay District (managed) which allows uses under
Section 30.7.4(a). No dwellings proposed.
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Steep Slopes (SS); Flood Hazard (FH).
PROFFERS: No.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 4.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 17 and August 24, 2015.)
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that at their meeting on July 14, 2015, the
Planning Commission voted 5:1 to recommend disapproval of ZMA201500002. The disapproval was
based on several factors, including:
1. The slopes are a contiguous area of more than 10,000 square feet.
2. The slopes are identified as a resource in the Comprehensive Plan and are designated
for preservation.
3. Slopes in Area “A” have characteristics of both managed slopes and preserved slopes,
but on the whole, contain more characteristics of preserved slopes.
This application is the first rezoning request related to steep slopes since the Board established
the Steep Slopes Overlay District on March 5, 2014. The subject property is adjacent to the City-County
boundary at the intersection of Franklin Street and Broadway Street. At their meeting on May 19, 2015,
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
the Planning Commission accepted a deferral request from the applicant to allow time for a discussion
with the City’s Planning Commission at the City-County Joint Work session on June 23, 2015.
Prior to the County’s Planning Commission meeting on July 14, 2015, the applicant notified staff
that they were modifying their application plan to match the recommendation provided in the staff report,
where the slopes in Area “A” are recommended to be designated as managed slopes and the slopes
within Area “B” and Area “C” are recommended to remain as preserved slopes. The updated Application
Plan is shown in Attachment F. The Planning Commission’s staff report from the May 19th meeting is an
attachment to the July 14th executive summary in Attachment D. The action letter and minutes from the
July 14th meeting are also attached (Attachment E).
The County Attorney has prepared the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) to be adopted if the
Board approves the zoning map amendment, as well as the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to be
adopted if the Board disapproves the zoning map amendment.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) to approve
ZMA201500002.
_____
Mr. J.T. Newberry, Planner, addressed the Board, stating this is the first rezoning application
received related to steep slopes, so he will provide a brief overview of the ordinance. Mr. Newberry
stated this was adopted by the Board in early 2014 and changed the previous consideration of “critical
slopes” by dividing them into two categories: preserved slopes and managed slopes. He said that
disturbance of preserved slopes is permitted only under limited circumstances by right or by SP, and
under managed slopes disturbance is permitted but is subject to specific design standards to mitigate
impacts. Mr. Newberry stated the parcel affects is 12 acres, but they will focus primarily on the frontage
along Franklin Street, which forms the City/County boundary. He said across the street is Carlton Mobile
Home Court and the old H.T. Ferron concrete plant, soon to be residential pursuant to the City’s approval
of an apartment development. Mr. Newberry noted to the northeast of the site is the Broadway industrial
area, with light industrial uses, and behind the parcel to the east is the Moore’s Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Mr. Newberry stated before looking at the application plan he wants to show the County’s slopes
map, and said based on aerial topography the County adopted preserved and managed slopes in the
area. Mr. Newberry said staff categorized the area of slopes discussed as preserved because it appear s
as a comprehensive area greater than 10,000 square feet and greater than 25% grade, and therefore it
will be correctly characterized as preserved slopes. He stated the applicant ha s used field run
topography, which is more accurate than what the County has used, and pointed out the location of the
area proposed to be changed from preserved to managed slopes. Mr. Newberry said the field run
topography shows areas that are less than 25% slope, which totals about 5,000 square feet or almost
21% of the area being requested.
Using the applicant’s more accurate topography and some additional research, Mr. Newberry
said, staff is providing the following analysis: Area A contains characteristics of both managed and
preserved slopes, but in looking closely there are more characteristics of managed slopes. He said Area
A is not associated with or abutting a water feature and likely contains some manufactured slopes, and
those areas are integral to the parcel not just on the edges , which may be associated with utility lines and
the Franklin Street construction. He noted Area A is part of a hillside system, it just happens to be
manufactured, and presented images of slopes that were created with the construction of Broadway
Street, which was granted a critical slopes waiver in 2013 for Yves Delorme. Mr. Newberry said even if
they took out the 5,000 square feet of preserved slopes, they will still be left with a contiguous area of
greater than 10,000 square feet, and there are the issues of it being identified as a resource in the Comp
Plan and designated for preservation.
He stated the designation has changed from industrial service to parks and green systems in the
Comp Plan, and the specific language of the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan talk s
about steep slopes being preserved, but also specifically used the word “adjacent” to Moore’s Creek. Mr.
Newberry said in looking at the area map, those characteristics c an be applicable to B and C in the staff
report, and their systems continue down to Moore’s Creek and can be adjacent, but that is not as
applicable to Area A. He stated upon review, staff felt that on the whole there are more characteristics of
managed slopes than preserved slopes in Area A. Mr. Newberry said the Planning Commission has
recommended denial with a vote of 5-1, but with these considerations staff is recommending approval
because they feel the design standards within managed slopes are appropriate to mitigate the impacts
and will recommend approval of changing the designation from preserved to managed slopes.
Ms. Palmer asked what the applicant’s technology was in looking at the topography versus what
the County has used. Mr. Newberry responded the applicant can likely provide more detail on their
application of field run topography for this site, but the County has relied on aerial photographs to adopt
its topographic maps included in GIS.
Ms. Julia Skare of Draper Aden Associates stated her office had done the topographic field
survey on the site, and explained that this involved surveying in a grid format whereby an elevation was
taken every 25 or 50 feet. Ms. Skare stated this data was taken and input into a computer to form a
topographic line, which helps determine the elevation of the actual area and is much more accurate
especially on a treed site, within a foot or two.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Ms. Palmer asked if that is what made them conclude these should be managed slopes. Mr.
Newberry said a few of the characteristics of managed slopes speaks to how much the site was disturbed
prior, and the language of the overlay district allows landowners to provide more information for the
County to reconsider whether it has applied the correct designation.
Ms. Palmer stated the question is how many are out there and whether this designation will hold
up under the idea of doing managed versus preserved slopes. Mr. Benish said the ordinance allows for
the process so the maps can be corrected based on the more detailed analysis of the site.
Mr. Davis added the ordinance anticipated this would happen, and one of the criteria for applying
for an overlay district amendment was to provide the field topography information, because staff realized
that aerial photography was not exact but was the best that could be done for purposes of establishing
the district.
Mr. Benish stated there are measures that said it could fit under one or the other, and the
information will always be out there and the ordinance allows for the process to take place any number of
times. He said any decision look s at the information available to the Board.
Mr. Davis said it is a legislative decision for the Board to decide based on the characteristics in
the ordinance which best fit this specific steep slope area.
Mr. Newberry stated the question of precedent has been raised repeatedly, and the only
precedent being set is how the process works, not any particular outcome, and this is the first application
they have received. He said they have held two community meetings, a joint work session with City and
County, two meetings with the Planning Commission, and all of that time provided staff with a good
opportunity to do additional resource and what lens through which they will be looking at applications. Mr.
Newberry emphasized their approval of a given site is no indication that future applications will be
recommended.
Ms. Palmer said she now understands the mapping of slopes is not as accurate, and those
developing it will probably do a more accurate evaluation, but she wonders what the purpose is for
designating the slopes managed or preserved.
Mr. Benish stated when it becomes a smaller or constrained site, these decisions become more
important, and a lot of the information the County has is fairly accurate even though it is done based on
aerials. He said in the scheme of a larger project, it is probably not as important to have every square
foot subject to analysis. Mr. Benish added this is a new ordinance, and they are going to see how it
works.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mark Mascot addressed the Board, stating that Mr. Newberry has done good work on behalf
of the County. He stated he is a real estate broker with a client that is a large Virginia bank which now
owns the parcel due to a bank merger, and the bank has enlisted his services to sell the site, which is a
challenging property. Mr. Mascot referenced the GIS map provided, stating the property is 11.77 acres,
with 6.4 acres in the 100-year floodplain, and the 4.9 acres on the north side is developable, currently
zoned light industrial. He stated he has met with Economic Development Facilitator Susan Stimart about
potential development, and there are a number of challenges, particularly the floodplain and the bisection
by Moore’s Creek. Mr. Mascot stated there are also site access issues, and access to Moore’s Creek is
not possible because of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority property, which both the RWSA and
VDOT have said they will not approve. He said the access on the corner of Broadway is a steep slope,
so Franklin Street is the most likely access point but also has steep slopes. Mr. Mascot stated the
applicant agrees with staff that the slopes are managed slopes, and future development will require a site
plan and stormwater management that will ultimately dictate how the site is developed. He said he has
spoken with a number of industries, including breweries and food service businesses that are looking for
good space, and the zoning here is already LI.
Mr. John Cruickshank addressed the Board, stating that he is representing the Piedmont Group
of the Sierra Club, which is urging the Board to deny the request to rezone the steep slopes along
Franklin Street from preserved to managed, and feels it is a precedent. Mr. Cruickshank said they have
analyzed the application and have concluded that a reclassification of these slopes will degrade the water
quality of Moore’s Creek and the Rivanna River, bodies of water that are already impaired, and every
effort must be made to eliminate sediment from flowing into them. He stated the County Planning
Commission has rejected this request after careful study and consultation with the C harlottesville
Planning Commission, and reclassification of slopes c an set a dangerous precedent. Mr. Cruickshank
said he is concerned that developers can come in with their own studies and say the slope is not critical
and thus does not need to be preserved, so at a minimum that evaluation should be done by a neutral
third party.
Mr. Morgan Butler addressed the Board, stating the Southern Environmental Law Center urges
them to keep the preserved designation of the slopes at issue, as there is plenty of justification under the
ordinance to do so. Mr. Butler stated the County code includes a characteristic in the language that
stated, slopes may be designated preserved if they are “part of a system of slopes associated with or
abutting a water feature,” and in looking at this parcel, the slopes are part of a larger system of slopes
that borders on, extends within, and drains into the Moore’s Creek floodplain and the creek itself. He
stated that given the badly impaired condition of the creek, they need to be minimizing the amount of
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
grading and earth disturbance along the floodplain, rather than finding ways to remove the protections put
in place. Mr. Butler said there is another characteristic in the code worth emphasizing, because it comes
into play after these slopes are already designated: under the ordinance if a slope is identified as a
resource designated for preservation in the Comp Plan, that factor favors a preserved slopes designation.
He stated the Board has adopted an updated Comp Plan, which includes the slopes on this parcel in the
parks and green systems designation, with one of the purposes of that designation intended for
environmentally sensitive areas for preservation. Mr. Butler said the SELC is not opposed to the parcel
being developed, but feels that a special use permit request for access across the slopes is a more
reasonable request than completely removing the preserved slopes designation and its inherent
protections.
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board and stated that in
2007 they had reviewed recommendations from the Development Review Task Force, which had
included comments on this issue. Mr. Werner said in January 2009, the Board amended the zoning
regulations to allow disturbance of steep slopes, but only under certain circumstances, and in April 2009
they directed staff to further amend the steep slopes regulations , which led to a series of stakeholder
roundtables, worksessions, the establishment of two types of slopes, and the detailed mapping of the
slopes’ existence in the growth area. Mr. Werner stated in March 2014, the Board adopted the proposed
amendments and codified the two types of slopes, with preserved slopes to be protected, and managed
slopes allowed to be built upon. He said it took less than a year to receive a request to remove the
protections from an area designated for preservation, and it is important for regulations to mean
something. Mr. Werner stated the Board has stressed to the community in the context of growt h area
expansion that steep slopes designations will keep land from being flattened. He said that an appropriate
analogy would be a bucket, which can hold water until holes are drilled into it.
Mr. Kirk Bowers addressed the Board, stating he is an employee of the Sierra Club and manager
of the pipeline issues statewide, which are accelerated by erosion. Mr. Bowers said as an engineer, it is
always his practice to avoid steep slopes, as this avoids a lot of problems. He stated perhaps they need
to remove the “managed” part of the regulations, as this seems to give developers an in-between option,
and just keep the preserved slopes. Mr. Bowers added there have been too many exceptions given by
previous Boards, which have a cumulative effect, and continuing to allow variances and waivers will add
to river pollution.
Mr. Bill Emory addressed the Board and stated that an engineer had performed a ground survey
of the slopes in Area A and found that 85% of the slopes meet the grade parameters for preserved
slopes. Mr. Emory said to best conform with the purpose and intent delineated in the code for the steep
slopes overlay district, the ground survey confirm s that the Area A slope, given its size, should be
preserved to the maximum intent practicable. He stated the preserved slope bordering Franklin Street
has a contiguous area of more than 28,000 square feet, is part of a hillside system and a system of
slopes associated with the floodplain, and is identified as a resource in the Comp Plan designated for
protection. Mr. Emory said the goal of the steep slope preservation can be most closely attained by
entering the parcel at a point with less grade, and should the owner wish to bisect the preserved slope in
Area A, he can acquire an entrance by special use permit that will be designed to do as little damage as
possible to the hillside paralleling Franklin Street. He stated this area is noted in the current master plan
as being of particular value, with the slopes contributing to its value, and the property is an important
resource. Mr. Emory said reasonable use of the property c an be used with the current zoning in place,
and the steep slopes overlay district ordinance provide s a means to enhance the quality of development
on this parcel at the intersection of the County and the City. He stated this thoughtful growth will fit well
with Piedmont Virginia and the Rivanna River, and he requested the Board vote to disapprove the ZMA
and allow the applicant to pursue access by means of special use permit or develop an entry plan that
does not involve preserved slopes. Mr. Emory added he does not believe this slope is part of a
manufactured hillside system, but is part of the first foothill west of Monticello that has been sculpted over
the years.
Mr. John Frazee addressed the Board and stated he is a resident of East Market Street in the
City and is Chair of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, and the neighborhood contains a small
portion of County land in the Scottsville District. Mr. Frazee stated he is completely supportive of
development in this area if it is done in a way that enhances the natural course for this area, in support of
the natural resources of the river. He said that through a special use permit and site plan they w ill have a
much better idea of the impact this will have on the neighbors opposite this site and the Woolen Mills and
Belmont/Carlton area residents, and he is pleased to have discussed this with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Frazee stated he is very much in favor of having this grow in a positive way, but taking the steep
slopes designation off of this is probably not the best support for the development of the area as a whole.
He urges the Board to consider that and look long-term at the area and its many opportunities.
Mr. Mascot stated the slopes along Franklin Street they are asking to be rezoned are not
associated with a water feature, so that concern will be handled through stormwater management in the
site plan phase. He said the client is also in favor of economic development and has invested in
topographic information to determine the specific issues that will help facilitate the thoughtful development
of the site.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Sheffield asked Mr. Benish to address the special use permit aspect of this.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Benish explained another option in terms of development potential on this site is a special use
permit for access to this site, if it has to be through critical slopes.
Mr. Sheffield commented the applicant will need to have a better understanding about what they
want to build. Mr. Benish confirmed that would be the case with a special use permit process, as the
intent will be to minimize the impact of critical slopes and thus more detail w ill be needed. He stated the
process being undertaken now pertains only to how the designations of preserved and managed are
determined, not how the site will be developed, and the SP process will look at more facts related to the
entrance.
Mr. Davis said with a special use permit, the applicant will have to show that there is no other
reasonable entrance other than one that encroaches on the critical slopes.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is not specifically for the entrance then. Mr. Benish explained there is not a
particular proposal for this site, although the applicant did provide a concept and a development
envelope, but there is not a specific entrance identified.
Ms. Mallek stated there is access a bit further south that does not cross the critical slopes at all,
and she disagrees strongly that stormwater falling on this precipice will not run downhill, as the water will
run down with high velocity into the wetland, and will impact the creek.
Mr. Newberry said staff has talked to several people about access opportunities for the site, and
the City controls Franklin Street. He said VDOT has looked at this and said that opportunities currently
outside preserved slopes are not appropriate for an entrance because of the proximity resulting from the
two entrances being that close to each other. Mr. Newberry stated the City has said if the site would
develop and an entrance is requested off of Franklin Street, the applicant will have to demonstrate that
access was denied through Moore’s Creek Lane and Broadway. He said staff has contemplated whether
there may be access through the Yves Delmore site, and access points on Moore’s Creek Lane will also
involve preserved slopes, so if a Franklin Street entrance were ever approved, it would have to be on the
preserved slopes shown.
Ms. Dittmar said that City planning staff cannot dictate what will be decided by Council, especially
since there is not a plan yet for the site, and it may be advantageous for them to work together on a larger
plan that will involve a broader historic area.
Ms. Mallek stated the “just in case” is not enough to make her want to approve a change on this.
Mr. Newberry stated staff has met with Water Resources Manager Greg Harper about the water quality
impacts of the site developing in the future, and his analysis is that there will be no way to know whether
there will be positive or negative impacts. Mr. Newberry said Mr. Harper has indicated that a lot of sites
developing now are resulting in a net positive, and he is unwilling to confirm the assertion that site
development will degrade the water quality.
Ms. Palmer said it is identified in the Comp Plan now, and both City and County Planning
Commissions have denied it, and there is a special use permit option available as well.
Ms. Dittmar stated it is to the applicant’s credit that they work hard to see how this might work as
a managed slope, and it is difficult to take the step to make the change from preserved to managed, and
there must be a very compelling fact in order to do so. She sai d this neighborhood has great pride and
includes both City and County residents, and her motion will be to deny the resolution, although she is
pleased there is a special use permit option. Ms. Dittmar stated that a company interested in the site may
need to work with the land as presented or wait for a small area plan that incorporates the larger slope
system.
Ms. Dittmar then offered motion to adopt the proposed resolution disapproving ZMA-2015-00002.
Ms. Palmer seconded motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION DISAPPROVING
ZMA 2015-00002 FRANKLIN STREET
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 07700-00-
00-040B0 (the “Property”), is identified as ZMA 2015-00002, Franklin Street (“ZMA 2015-00002”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Light Industry and Steep Slopes Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2015-00002 proposed to amend the Steep Slopes Overlay District zoning map
to rezone 31,894 square feet of steep slopes on the Property to change the designation of those slopes
from preserved slopes to managed slopes in order to allow their disturbance for any use permit ted in the
Steep Slopes Overlay District zoning district pursuant to County Code § 18 -30.7.6, subject to the design
standards in County Code § 18-30.7.5; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended disapproval of ZMA 2015-00002.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff report
prepared for ZMA 2015-00002 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing,
the written comments received from members of the public, the factors articulated by the Planning
Commission in its recommendation for disapproval, and the material and relevant factors in County Code
§ 18-33.6 and Virginia Code § 15.2-2284, the Board hereby disapproves ZMA 2015-00002.
_______________
Agenda Item No 24. Presentation: Route 29 Solutions Project Delivery Advisory Panel (PDAP)
Monthly Update.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board, stating there are
two crossovers on Route 29 at the Rio area that are closing the following Wednesday, and two temporary
crossovers will be opened, one at Myers Drive and one at Berkmar. He said once this happens, the pace
of construction for the project will accelerate, including lane closures while the structures are put in place
to build the walls for grade separation. Mr. Graham stated VDOT is committed to try to get this done on
the Albemarle Square and Fashion Square frontage before Thanksgiving, when the holiday season start s,
so it will be quite a busy work pace for the next few months.
Mr. Sheffield stated VDOT has told him the farmland on Rio Road where dirt is being taken is not
being done under their purview, but Fielder’s Choice is selling that dirt to the landowner. Mr. Graham
confirmed that is correct, and explained that contractually, VDOT declares any material not being used as
“excess,” and it then becomes the property of the contractor. He stated the property owner has a grading
plan to allow that to be a waste area, and it is permitted and regulated by the County.
Ms. Mallek asked where the area in question is. Mr. Sheffield stated it is on the right-hand side
when traveling south and turning at the CATEC intersection, across from Dunlora Forest. He said the
issue has been that they are doing work past 10:00 p.m. and the contractors have claim ed they are
exempt because they are doing work as part of the VDOT project.
Mr. Graham said staff had worked with the property owner and contractor on this about two
weeks ago.
Mr. Sheffield stated they are still doing it.
Mr. Graham said staff will need to get back out to the site, and while there is nothing in the
erosion and sediment control permit that prevents working at night, construction noise is only exempted
until 10:00 p.m. He stated they will need to get with the police on enforcement, if there are still issues.
Mr. Davis stated this situation had bounced around a bit, and it is possible that the noise
ordinance needs to be amended to correct this. He said when the noise ordinance was adopted, they
anticipated that public projects would require exemption because of their nature, and this is the type of
use expected for exemption. Mr. Davis said VDOT has thrown a wrinkle into that because of the way
they are managing the project, and staff is struggling with this a bit because their initial advice to police
was that this is an exempt project, and Mr. Graham has been working with the contractor to mitigate noise
impacts and address the most significant ones, but perhaps more work needs to be done.
Mr. Sheffield said the problem he is encountering is noise related particularly to slamming
tailgates, and this will need to be addressed because it has happened off of Woodburn and Lochlyn Hills,
and the contractors will dump the dirt wherever they can.
Mr. Davis stated staff is concerned about the impact of what this will be next year when the
grading for the grade-separated interchange starts, because it is uncertain where that dirt will be dumped,
and their understanding with the waste to which Mr. Sheffield is referring is that it will be finished within
the next week. He said this is something they need to address going forward because of the potential for
the situation to repeat and intensify the following summer as the project accelerates, and staff will do
some work on this and bring it back to the Board. Mr. Davis noted it may have an associated cost and an
impact on public projects.
Mr. Graham said VDOT is working with businesses on the tour story and signage program, which
fits in with the County’s business assistance program, and is waiving their fees for the signs as well as
relaxing some of their qualification criteria. He stated VDOT has worked with the business community on
place naming for the area, working with a consultant to put information together, and it will likely be
available at the PDAP meeting the following day. Mr. Graham stated VDOT will give the County until the
end of the calendar year to advise whether any information should be incorporated into the VDO T signs
for the project area.
Mr. Graham reported the Route 250/29 interchange is moving along quickly, with work being
done on the retaining walls. He said the median barriers are in place for the Route 29 North widening,
and VDOT will start doing some of the clearing inside for the lane widenings, with lanes on one side
added first and then a median to shift all the traffic over to one side. Mr. Graham stated the 60% plans
have been done for Berkmar Road and VDOT is working toward the final. He said the County has been
pushing for a boat or canoe launch for under Berkmar Bridge, and the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries have been working with Parks and Rec and VDOT to figure out how to make it happen. Mr.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Graham said it is looking promising, as the gravel can be left in place for the launch. He stated there is a
revised traffic warrant signal for Greenbrier and Hillsdale, and the data look s positive at this point.
Ms. Mallek asked what staff has received from VDOT regarding storm water control for the
Berkmar project at the top of the hill that will protect the vernal pool at the bottom.
Mr. Graham responded it is part of the 60% plans but is not fully developed, and staff has also
raised concerns, particularly in light of the presence of salam anders. He stated everyone is on the same
page with it due to concerns about the pool and the presence of a particular threatened species of bat,
but overall they have completed their environmental work.
Ms. McKeel commented the advertisements VDOT has released regarding the changes to the
roadways are very good, and are appearing on radio and TV.
Mr. Graham stated VDOT’s outreach with the business community and general communication
has been very good, and everyone is aware the roadwork is happening.
Ms. Mallek commented this should be the new standard to strive for, and when people put their
minds to it a lot can get done.
Ms. McKeel stated she recalled that Mr. Phillip Shucet had talked about having a camera in place
during work of the Rio interchange to follow the construction as it goes along.
Mr. Graham said staff is working on that because they want to have a real time as well as a time
lapse camera.
Mr. Boyd noted that Martha Jefferson Hospital had done that with their construction and could be
consulted as far as how that was done.
_____
(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 annually. He said he would not participate in this
matter.” He then left the meeting at 8:30.
Ms. McKeel said the Board has the opportunity to discuss possible commuter routes during the
construction period of the Route 29 projects, to include JAUNT busses, and they are discussing a route
from Hollymead Town Center to UVA to the City. She added she understands the County has the ability
to match this with some proffer money.
Mr. Boyd stated his understanding is since that section of Hollymead Town Center has not been
developed yet, the proffer is not in place. Mr. Graham responded the proffer is upon the demand of the
County, and is not restricted as to how much development has to occur. He said there are some other
points about the proffer to keep in mind: it allows for a $50,000 contribution per year for up to 10 years,
but the contribution can only be demanded by the County once the transit line is in place. Mr. Graham
stated once the County pulls the trigger on the 10 years, they will need to continue it for 10 years
consecutively, not just during construction, or the money will be off the table.
Mr. Boyd said he recalled the proffer being made by the Octagon Company, which had bought a
segment of the project, and S.L. Williamson agreed to the original prof fer, but that section of Hollymead
was defaulted on and retracted. He stated his understanding is that it would not have been instigated
until that section of the development moved forward.
Mr. Graham stated the property was in Area A, and the proffer has been amended by the current
owner since it was taken back. He stated the property was subject to an amendment to the zoning and
the proffer has actually been increased as part of the rezoning, which sp eaks to on demand by the
County but not a certain level of development.
Mr. Boyd said he did not realize the proffer had been increased.
Ms. Mallek responded it was because extra sections had been added, and it was originally for a
bus line. She stated she would be thrilled to have a bus that goes through Hollymead Town Center and
out to the airport, and even a bus coming down a country road would be better than all of the cars.
Ms. McKeel commented a small bus would be nimble.
Ms. Mallek said it would need to be a real transit bus, because to qualify for the proffer they will
need to have a CAT bus.
Mr. Graham stated it is important to clarify these points, adding the proffer will only cover about
one-half to one third of the cost, so the County will need a sizable contribution to make a CAT route work .
He noted the Board had set higher priorities when working on their transportation priority list, and staff
plans to bring something back to them in October.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Boyd said his question for Ms. Karen Davis is how much can be done in the $50,000 range.
Ms. Karen Davis of JAUNT addressed the Board, stating the organization has federal dollars
available to them this year and next if they ha ve a local match, and already have commuters going up to
Hollymead and NGIC so they have been contemplating the route anyway. She stated with the
combination of the proffer money, the federal dollars and fare revenue, they c an conceivably cover about
$115,000 for two busses in the morning and two runs in the afternoon. Ms. Davis said they already ha ve
busses on order and can redesign the wraps to feature a commuter route, with more discussions needed
for a 10-year plan. She added she lives in Forest Lakes and sees people daily walking to Target to go to
work, so there is a need for this, and over time if demand grows the costs will also grow.
Mr. Boyd stated they used to run a bus up to this area called “Big Blue,” but there was not enough
ridership so the route failed and CAT withdrew it.
Ms. Davis responded it takes time to establish a commuter route, and there are two regular
commuter routes from Buckingham and Nelson and one from Fluvanna, with 28-passenger buses from
Buckingham that are often full and have waiting lists. She stated they will need to look at the target
audience to figure out when people will get to work, and the more stops the slower the route and the more
frustration for riders. Ms. Davis said they would want to stop at the Hollymead Town Center and perhaps
others, and would like to be part of the conversation.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to direct staff to work with JAUNT to bring back information for
the Board at the first meeting in October.
Mr. Foley stated staff has already met with JAUNT and started the analysis, so it will not be a
problem to meet that timeframe.
_______________
NonAgenda. The Board recessed their meeting at 8:42 p.m., and reconvened at 8:48 p.m. Mr.
Sheffield returned when the Board reconvened.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Presentation: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Quarterly
Update.
The following memorandum was received from Mr. Gary O’Connell, Executive Director:
“We at the ACSA again appreciate the regular opportunity to update the Board of Supervisors on
our projects and issues. We look forward to presenting our quarterly report and being available
for questions at your September 2nd meeting:
1. Budget and Rates – The Board at their June 18th meeting approved the FY 2016
Budget of $29.05 million. The increase in the budget is largely due to the water and
wastewater treatment charges from our wholesaler RWSA (a 7% increase). The average
residential customer, at 3,300 gallons usage, saw a $1.41 increase in their monthly bill.
The ACSA average residential bill continues to be below the statewide average. Also, the
ACSA residential bill is 22% less than a comparable City of Charlottesville customer bill.
2. Rate Survey – The water association (AWWA – American Water Works Association)
annually conducts a survey of rates. Residential water bills (from the AWWA survey) rose
9.5% from 2012 to 2014, more than twice the Consumer Price Index increase. For the
same three year period, the ACSA’s increase in an average residential customer’s bill
was 2.38% (assuming the customer used 3,300 gallons).
3. Annual Water Conservation Report – (1) under the low flow Toilet Rebate Program,
272 toilets were replaced, (2) 33 rain barrels installed, (3) four car washes in the
Certification Program, (4) public awareness events and advertising and, (5) active Leak
Detection Program.
4. Major Agreements – We thank the Board of Supervisors for your support of two recent
agreements: (1) Deed of Transfer for Crozet and Scottsville; completion of the 1973 Four
Party Agreement Deed Transfers; (2) New Debt Formula Amendment to the Four Party
Agreement that uses fixed debt service payments for RWSA, replacing a prior formula
based on flows that was widely variable month to month and difficult to budget.
5. Financial Accomplishments – The ACSA for the 33rd year received the GFOA
(Government Finance Officers Association) C ertificate of Excellence in financial
reporting, quite a kudo for our agency. Also, we are in the midst of implementing a new
financial system (Microsoft Dynamics AX) to replace a 25 year old system.
6. ACSA Capital Projects Update:
Key West Water Main Replacement – A waterline project to replace an existing
line that is old and deteriorating. In addition to a new waterline, additional fire
hydrants will be added to increase the level of fire protection in Key West. This
contractor started the installation of a new 12 inch water main in early April;
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
about 30% of the project is complete, with 30 water services connected to the
new water main that is in service.
Westmoreland Water Main Replacement – This project is to replace a 50 year
old waterline that has recently experienced multiple leaks. The Westmoreland
subdivision is located between the Carrsbrook and Northfields subdivisions that
are also scheduled for future waterline upgrades. Project surveying has been
completed. We are at work on the 50% design documents. We recently hosted a
community meeting with the affected customers to get their input on the
proposed project.
Ashcroft Water Improvements – A new tank has been installed and pressure
reducing stations have been upgraded. A replacement pump station has been
completed and is now in operation. The project is complete.
Michie Tavern Water Main Replacement – A new waterline is being designed
that would connect near PVCC on Route 20. The current line is over 70 years old
and badly deteriorating. The project is at 90% final design, with necessary
easements being obtained. Looking to a late September bid.
Ivy Water Main Extension – This is a new water main extension to serve
residences and businesses in the Village of Ivy, adjacent to Route 250 West that
have had their wells contaminated by leaking underground fuel tanks. This is a
DEQ funded project.
Crozet Water Main Replacement Phase 2 – A phased waterline replacement
program has been completed in Crozet. Work recently has been completed on
High and Myrtle Streets, and we have completed the work on Hilltop Street. This
project is complete.
Berkeley Water Main Replacement – This is another one of our waterline
replacement projects for an older line, nearly 60 years old. A recent community
meeting was held to review the project with our customers in the Berkeley
subdivision. We have completed 100% of the design. We are also coordinating
with Charlottesville Gas, as the neighborhood is very interested in new gas
service.
Glenmore Water Tank Project – This project is designed to add an emergency
backup to the Village of Rivanna area, as there is a single 4½ mile waterline to
the east to serve this area. The easements needed for the project have been
completed. The final site plan has been approved, and the County as co-owner
has executed the Deed of Easement. We have completed the 90% design
documents. The timing of the bid is dependent on the rough grading schedule for
the Rivanna Village development, so as to coordinate the two projects and not
have conflicts.
Water Tank Maintenance – Annual Comprehensive Program for the
maintenance and rehabilitation of the eight (8) ACSA water tanks. Services
include cleaning, inspection, coating evaluation and repairs.
Ivy Road-Flordon Water Connection – This project, located near Ivy Nursery at
Route 250, is an interconnect project to connect to the West Leigh area for water
system and fire protection redundancy in emergencies. A contractor has started
work on the project and is 35% complete. VDOT has awarded their bridge
relocation project, which constructs a portion of this new water main connection;
this work has started.
Ednam Water Pump Station Upgrade – This project will provide an alternate
source of water to West Leigh by upgrading the existing pump station and
increasing pumping capacity. We are in the final design phase with final site plan
and approvals underway.
Orchard Acres Waterline Extension – One of our Crozet area waterline
replacement projects to upgrade and replace aging waterlines. This project is at
the 50% stage in the design documents. A community meeting was held for this
project in May.
Sewer System Rehabilitations – Work is near completion in the Ednam Sewer
System. We are working with Farmington on sewer upgrades to their private
system that connects into the Ednam System. The study phase of the PVCC
Sewer Drainage Basin has been completed and the rehabilitation work should
begin in September.
Greenbrier Drive Sewer Replacement – As the City’s Hillsdale Drive Extension
Project is being designed, we are coordinating to replace a 700 foot section of
sewer. This is a future CIP project, so doing the work now in conjunction with the
City project will be a significant cost savings.
Oak Hill Sewer (Phase 2) – The ACSA staff continues to appreciate the work of
the Albemarle Housing Office to assist in seeking CDBG grant funding for this
new sewer line project to serve 20 additional properties that have failing septic
systems. We have completed easements. The grant application goes to the
Governor’s office next for approval.
West Leigh Waterline Replacement – Work has been completed to replace an
existing waterline on Devonshire Road, Wendover Drive, Suffolk Road and
Cornwall Road.
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation – We continue our ongoing program to rehab the
sewer system, lines and manholes. Relining projects include the Woodbrook
area, Camelot, Ednam, PVCC and the Woolen Mills area.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Route 29 Solutions (VDOT Project) – Utilities – As the Board is well aware,
road work for this project is under a design-build contract for construction. The
project consists of the three parts: (1) Rio Road/Route 29 Grade Change
Intersection, (2) 29 North Widening, and (3) Berkmar Drive Extended. All these
projects have major impacts on both ACSA and RWSA utilities. This includes
utility line relocations in a number of areas. Construction on Rio and Route 29
has begun.
Crozet Water Main Replacement Phase 3 (New Proposed FY 2016 CIP
Project) – This project continues our work to replace aging, undersized, and
deteriorating water mains in the Crozet Water System. The proposed work will be
on Jamestown Road, and a section of Park Road to Dunvegan Lane. The work
proposed for next year is the design of the new water mains to provide a more
reliable water distribution system.
Key West – Dunlora Water Connection (New Proposed FY 2016 CIP Project)
– To continue the ACSA goal of building redundancy into the water system, this
project provides another major water main connection across the Rivanna River.
By creating a loop with the Dunlora subdivision and the Key West subdivision,
this new waterline will help fortify the water system on the east side of the Urban
Ring. It also improves water quality in Key West. The design is complete, and the
work will be coordinated with the ongoing Key West Water Main Replacement
Project.
Camelot Drainage Basin Sewer Study (New Proposed FY 2016 CIP Project)
– This project continues the ACSA work to identify sewer system areas in need
of rehabilitation to reduce infiltration and inflow (I/I). The study areas include the
older portions of Camelot and Briarwood, as well as the Rivanna Station area.
The study will be completed in FY 2016 and rehabilitation work will carry over
into FY 2017.
Oak Forest Pump Station Abandonm ent (New Proposed FY 2016 CIP
Project) – This wastewater pump station was constructed 35 years ago and is
deteriorating, and the original pumps are in need of replacement. With the
development of the Stonefield area (and the associated sewer lines), we have
identified a sewer main extension project that could eliminate this aging pump
station and avoid an expensive upgrade.
Peter Jefferson Place Pump Station Improvements (New Proposed FY 2016
CIP Project) – This pump station constructed 17 years ago was designed to
serve a large drainage basin with the potential for dense development. To date
the potential development within the drainage basin has been slow, and as a
result the pumps are over-sized for the amount of flow received at the station.
Due to the lower flows the pumps are not operating efficiently and this is
increasing the wear and tear on the equipment. A study to evaluate options to
improve the efficiency of the pumps without replacing them will be undertaken to
determine the best approach.
Airport Sewer Collector Upgrade Evaluation (New Proposed FY 2016 CIP
Project) – The original sewer collector serving the airport and the area west of
Route 29, which now includes the Hollymead Town Center and Willow Glen, was
originally sized to serve the light industrial zoning designated for that area at the
time of construction. As a result, the increased density specified in the County
Comprehensive Plan for the same drainage basin, at buildout, will exceed the
capacity of the existing sewer main. This project will review the current zoning,
the County’s Places 29 Master Plan and the existing conditions of the sewer
system to develop a plan for upgrading the capacity of the Airport Sewer
Collector.
Thank you for your continued support, and for giving us a regular opportunity to update
the Board on the ACSA activities as we work to provide high quality water and service to our
18,500 Albemarle County customers.”
_____
Mr. Gary O’Connell, ACSA Executive Director, addressed the Board and stated the ACSA and
RWSA focuses on putting good practices into place, such as the use of granular-activated carbon, to
improve water quality in the community. Mr. O’Connell stated over the past quarter, the ACSA’s budget
and rates were approved, with 22% cheaper on the average residential customer bill than the City, and
are also lower than the statewide average as well as a national survey. He said the Authority put forth a
lot of water conservation incentives such as toilet and rain barrel rebates, and partnered with the City on
conservation and public information. He stated the ACSA has an active leak detection effort and
discourages outdoor watering during dry times. Mr. O’Connell stated the Authority is partnering with the
RWSA to do a water audit to look at water us e from the point it leaves the treatment plant to when it gets
to the consumer, to determine how much water is used in the City versus the County, to help zero in on
specific areas that might need attention. He thanked the Board for their support of trans fer of the
facilities, and said the Rivanna boards had approved the four-party agreement and the fixed-debt formula.
Mr. O’Connell stated the ACSA has received a certificate of excellence in financial reporting, and the
agency is in its 33rd year.
Ms. Palmer commented that she was surprised to see there is a leaky underground storage tank
in Ivy, and mentioned the ACSA had to rescue 11 homes in the Red Hill area due to contamination. She
said there are others around, and her concern is how much of the area the DEQ has notified, and it is
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
important when these things take place that everyone in the area is notified so they can get their wells
checked. Ms. Palmer noted the Ivy site is also near the creek.
Ms. Mallek said she is surprised this was not public knowledge, at least in the newspaper.
Mr. Graham stated the County keeps a GIS map online of all the underground leaking storage
tanks in the County, including marking a 1,000-foot radius around it as an affected area. He noted as part
of the Red Hill incident, the County has changed its groundwater ordinance so people in the area or
drilling a well for a new house are required to get a test for Benzene and other gasoline compounds.
Ms. Palmer asked if the incident in Ivy is an old well, because her im pression was that it is a new
well.
Mr. Graham stated he does not know about this particular well, but the County’s database is
updated every 30 days and if he pulls it up he is confident this well will be on there.
Ms. Palmer commented she has asked for a DEQ response and said a plume did not necessarily
stay in a circle around the contamination area. Mr. O’Connell stated he only knows the DEQ approached
the ACSA about providing public water for five properties around the site, but he is not aware of the
history.
Mr. Boyd stated part of the reason they are putting a pipe in his neighborhood is that about eight
or nine years ago there was a contamination incident that made his water undrinkable for about a year ,
which is how long it took the lines to be brought out there.
Ms. Mallek stated that Governor Allen had canceled all of the records containing the history of
these leaking tanks, which removed the ability of localities to get federal funding for reparations.
Ms. Mallek stated she is happy to hear about the ACSA’s conservation efforts, as she noticed the
South Fork of the Rivanna has dropped two feet since Friday. She said she has gotten calls from
residents about a truck stopped on Hydraulic Road filling up at the irrigation hydrants, and want s to know
what that process entails. Mr. O’Connell explained for water haulers in the County, there is a program
through which the ACSA rents out a hydrant meter and has six yellow meters for authorized users. He
said they have issued about 200 hydrant meters, and those are the only locations authorized. Mr.
O’Connell said the ACSA had put a note in the newsletter that went out to customers the previous month
to ask them to contact the Authority if they s ee anyone drawing water from a hydrant, either yellow or red,
in the system.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there has been much problem with that. Mr. O’Connell responded that either
people do not know or are sneaking in and stealing it.
Ms. Mallek said about six weeks earlier, an ACSA supervisor caught someone. Mr. O’Connell
stated the contractor in that instance was doing it late at night because the project was on Route 29 and
was starting late at night, and said the City has a similar program. He said if they see anyone drawing
from a fire hydrant other than the fire department, to call the ACSA, regardless of who it is.
Ms. McKeel said she had also called about one.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. Presentation: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Quarterly
Update.
The following memorandum was received from Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director:
“I am preparing this as a report in advance of a scheduled briefing with the Board of Supervisors
on September 2, 2015, and I am also distributing it to City Council as a written update. I am
happy to address questions or other topics, either at scheduled briefings, or by e-mail or
telephone:
1. Amendment No. 1 to the Service Agreement: All four parties have now approved the
Amendment No. 1 to the Service (“Four Party”) Agreement, and subject to the approva l of
RWSA’s Bond Trustee, the amendment will take effect. The Amendment allows RWSA
to modify wholesale water and wastewater charges to the ACSA and City for the urban
area such that the fixed annual costs for debt service will now be a monthly charge and
no longer converted to a rate based upon actual water consumption or wastewater flow.
The ACSA, City, and RWSA all agree this is a “win-win” for all agencies, and it does not
affect the rates either ACSA or the City charge to homeowners or businesses. T he
changes in wholesale rates and charges will be advertised to the public in early
September and a public hearing will be held on September 22; the effective date may be
as soon as October 1. The changes are revenue “neutral”, meaning they are based on
RWSA collecting the same estimated revenue as with the wholesale rates last adopted in
May 2015. Congratulations to all agencies for the cooperation that made this happen.
2. Schenks Branch Interceptor Replacement: The City’s Schenks Greenway public park is
presently closed for RWSA to construct a new 30-inch interceptor between Harris Street
and the McIntire Recycling Center. A fence has been installed to shield the construction
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
zone from surrounding development and construction is being limited to business hours.
RWSA has been sharing information with the associations in the North Downtown area,
and we invite any questions or comments from the public. A local contractor, Digs, Inc.,
is performing the construction. This construction is a part of the infr astructure RWSA
needs to support the City’s proposed upgrade to its 14th/15th Street Collector.
3. Water Treatment Plant Activated Carbon Filtration Improvements: Construction is
underway to incorporate advanced carbon filtration technology at RWSA’s water
treatment plants, supporting an interest developed from within the community. This
project will advance water provided to our citizens by ACSA and the City, which is
already high quality, to a superior level. Completion is anticipated in late 20 17. We have
recently met with the homeowners association officers in subdivisions near the Crozet
Water Plant toward providing education and outreach about the project and what to
anticipate during and after construction.
4. New Rivanna Pump Station: Excavation of the new tunnel between the existing Woolen
Mills site and the new site on RWSA’s Moores Creek property is approximately 50%
complete. The tunnel will be completed in about 60-90 days. Foundation for the new
pump station is also underway with completion scheduled for mid-2017.
5. Wastewater Plant Odor Control: Preliminary design and value engineering has been
completed and final design is now underway. RWSA is hoping to bid this project before
the end of 2015 and will also be planning outreach activities in the coming months for
public education about the project.
6. Ivy Materials Utilization Center: We understand that Albemarle County continues to
consider its future interest in providing publicly supported solid waste programs for its
citizens, and a part of that is the extent to which it desires to contract with RSWA to
design, build, and/or operate its programs. The County is also considering specific
actions at the Ivy transfer station to address deficiencies defined by DEQ. These latter
actions must be concluded to allow a narrative plan to be completed by DEQ’s December
31 deadline. Without that narrative plan, DEQ may order the existing transfer st ation
closed by March 31, 2016.”
__________
Mr. Tom Frederick, RWSA Executive Director, addressed the Board and added his thanks to
them for their support of the four-party service agreement. Mr. Frederick stated the RWSA still has to get
approval from their bond trustee, which should be easy but will take time. He said because of the way
Virginia law is written on rate setting, in order to implement the rates in the new agreement, the RWSA
has to hold a public hearing to authorize the rates, and that will take place with their regular Board
meeting on September 22.
Mr. Frederick reported the RWSA is doing quite a bit of capital improvement work, and
replacement of a portion of the Shenk’s Branch interceptor is taking place in the City’s Shenk’s Greenway
Park, where a fence has been put up to shield the homes from the project. He sta ted a local company,
Diggs Incorporated, has won the bid for that project. Mr. Frederick said the carbon filtration
improvements projects are well underway in construction, and the South Fork Rivanna Water Treatment
Plant is in progress with other plants to follow. He stated as the project comes closer to completion, how
they brand the work should be a collective effort as they will be producing outstanding drinking water for
the community. Mr. Frederick noted the Crozet plant is near some residential subdivisions, and Rivanna
has been talking with homeowners association leaders and has offered a public outreach meeting for
residents of those associations.
Mr. Frederick stated the tunnel for the new Rivanna Pump Station is now half finished, and within
the next few months will be extended all the way to Woolen Mills, although the contractor overall is behind
schedule. He said one of the biggest accomplishments the Board and community ha s is approval of the
odor control project, which is important for residents of Belmont and Woolen Mills, and it is hoped the
project will out to bid before the end of the calendar year.
Mr. Frederick said there is a lot to do in a short period of time before the end of the calendar year
that relates to solid waste, and he encourages the Board to contact him for any information or education
related to the decisions they need to make, as communications and information-sharing are critical at this
point.
Mr. Frederick reported the weather has been unusual for Sugar Hollow Reservoir, and the last 60
days have been extremely dry, with the Sugar Hollow watershed dry for longer than that. He stated in
transferring water to Ragged Mountain, the RWSA has been monitoring Sugar Hollow and saw some
things that were puzzling, so the Authority sought the advice of the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries. Mr. Frederick said the RWSA then made the decision to shut the transfer to Ragged Mountain,
but since making that decision Sugar Hollow continues to fall by about two million gallons per day, which
coincides with the amount being released per day into the Moorman’s River under the DEQ permit. He
stated Rivanna sent some people up to look at the North Fork to the Moorman’s above the reservoir and
it looks like a dry creek bed. Mr. Frederick said he had just looked at the long-range forecast on Accu-
Weather, and they show almost three weeks without measurable rainfall. He said if that does happen, it
is expected for the Sugar Hollow Reservoir level to reach the bottom level intake, which means all
releases to the river will cease and there will be no transfers. Mr. Frederick stated that is a concern
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
particularly for aquatic life in the reservoir unless the weather gets cooler and wetter. He said the RWSA
will do everything possible, and will issue alerts if necessary.
Ms. Palmer said that further up on the North Fork above the Moorman’s, the water is running.
She stated the first half mile has been a dry creek bed, and for years she has been told the river went
underground for quite a distance, and asked Mr. Frederick if that is true. Mr. Frederick responded he has
not heard that.
Mr. O’Connell explained the section right above the reservoir can look totally dry, but if you go up
the stream there is an active flow, and if you go into the reservoir where it is currently low you can see
where the water is coming out of the ground and spurts of water coming back up in the lake, so there is
some kind of underground system.
Ms. Palmer stated during the 2001/2002 drought, you could go down in the mud and see the
water bubbling up.
Ms. Mallek mentioned a lot of the changes were reported by neighbors after the earthquake of
2000, when there was a fairly substantial earthquake that was centered almost in Sugar Hollow. She
stated the theory was that it had sprung a leak, which meant they were not capturing all of the water,
even during high water times, and the high water mark was four or five feet lower than it had been as
evidenced by all of the exposed roots.
Mr. Frederick stated whatever the reasons, they are not drawing from the reservoir but are still
releasing to the stream and still losing two million gallons per day. He stated they are releasing about 1.5
million gallons per day as calculated natural inflow. Mr. Frederick said h e had asked the RWSA Water
Resources Manager to walk the Moorman’s River below the dam, about 1/3 to ½ a mile to see if there are
any visible signs that there is water appearing in the creek, and to see if there is any seepage under the
dam.
Ms. Mallek stated the rains in the mountains are unusual, and the Lake Albemarle Road area is
getting rain, whereas other areas are not. Mr. Frederick said there are interesting micro-climates
associated with mountain ranges.
Ms. Mallek stated she is appreciative of Andrea Terry’s help with exclusion of cars and blocking
off of gateways at Sugar Hollow, and she hopes they will soon work on design of a parking lot closer to
the gatekeeper’s house. She emphasized it is important to note the reservoir is a water resource, not a
playground.
Ms. Dittmar asked if she should worry about this, and if there is anything they can do as Board
members. Mr. Frederick responded from the standpoint of implementing the plan of releasing water to
the stream, there is concern about whether they may need to make some changes, based on existing
patterns.
Ms. Palmer commented that building the pipeline will take care of the entire thing.
Ms. Mallek asked if they are beginning to accrue funding for the pipeline, built into the four -party
agreement. Mr. Frederick responded the capital improvement program will start having that funding in
2017, and that is a study to define the corridor and can affect people’s property in some cases. He stated
they also have an ongoing reservoir management study, which is currently in the data collection phase,
and hopefully by spring they will have some recommendations in terms of economic, practical measures
that can be taken to improve the health of reservoirs. Mr. Frederick said it is hoped this will provide detail
as to the best way to build the pipeline project.
Ms. Mallek said hopefully there will also be some suggestions for land use strategies. Mr.
Frederick said they are trying to focus on things that are practical and achievable, and there is 269 square
miles of coverage so they need to focus on what can be done in the short term.
Ms. Mallek stated that buffering alone with forested buffers will be helpful. She asked if Mr.
Frederick can provide any information on the longer hours for septic collection. Mr. Frederick responded
the RWSA Board had discussed it the previous week, and they are still collecting data, with staff meeting
the following week and a recommendation planned for the Board meeting on September 22.
Ms. Mallek said it is a real concern to figure out a better way to do this, as septage haulers are
not going to keep a full truck in their garage overnight.
Ms. Mallek commented the South Fork is falling fast, as consumption increases when students go
back to school. Mr. Frederick responded what they are seeing at South Fork is normal, as it happens
about 7 out of every 10 years.
Ms. Palmer asked about the need for the bond trustees’ approval of the amendment to the four -
party agreement, stating they should be thrilled at this change. Mr. Frederick responded it often takes
time to work with financial institutions, but they will most likely be very pleased.
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Mr. Foley recognized Mr. Frederick and his staff for their hard work on solid waste issues, and
noted there is more in the coming few weeks.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar stated the Broadband Management Committee had met the previous Monday. She
reported that regarding the Connect America Funds they had petitioned Century Link for in Virginia to
help deploy more internet access ability, Century Link has agreed to accept the funding, which amounts
to about $5 million for Albemarle. Ms. Dittmar said the committee will be meeting with Century Link on
October 8 and can bring information back to the Board for their second meeting in October. She stated
the County is eligible for one of two grants, and has applied for the one pertaining to mapping, and either
way will need to do mapping because that qualifies them for everything else.
Ms. Palmer stated they really do not know what this means for Albemarle County, so they need to
be careful not to get people’s hopes up.
Ms. Mallek asked when they met with Century Link, they affirm ed how important it is to have
hardwired broadband instead of running to wireless, because without that people ha ve nothing when the
power goes out. She said even just offering encouragement to the company will be valuable.
Ms. Dittmar distributed a handout from the VACO session, which she and Mr. Foley had
attended. She stated she had met with Colonel Sellers about crime statistics and hope s other Board
members had reached out to him as well.
_____
Ms. Mallek reported there is a lack of cohesion among the state agency departments that have
been part of the one-stop agreement, as they are not working together, and she feels the County may
need to reach out to the Governor about this issue. She said that the community college system ha s
gotten control of the workforce center money, so they will be gearing that for courses they offer, but that
will not include certificate programs, because the state only g ives credit for associate degree programs.
Ms. Mallek stated that despite lots of outreach from the workforce council to the VCCS chancellor, the
system seem s completely disinterested in the issue, and is putting some pretty significant restrictions on
things like transportation and childcare, yet still demanding the workforce center have no carryover from
year to year. She said it has been very frustrating, and she will keep the Board posted.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 28. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley stated for the next three months, there will be afternoon worksessions at 3:00 p.m. on
the dates of the night meetings, primarily in review of the five-year plan with the School Board, as well as
with the City Council this month. He said the tentative major agenda items include reports from three
major citizen committees: the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, Water Resources Funding Committee,
and Citizens Resource Advisory Committee. Mr. Foley noted this will be happening during a transition
time on the Board with fall elections. He stated the Shenk’s Branch easement, court project and Ivy
transfer station will all require an agreement and negotiation, and both the Community Development and
Economic Development work programs will also be coming forward. Mr. Foley said all of this will be
feeding into the five-year plan, which will be discussed in December. He mentioned that S&P, Fitch and
Moody’s rating agencies had all visited the County the previous week, and the agencies ha d expressed
that the County is a good risk, so hopefully this will allow Albemarle to retain its AAA rating as it goes out
for $40 million in bond issuance. Mr. Foley acknowledged Betty Burrell, Bill Letteri and Susan Stimart for
their work, and around Labor Day the County should hear how this turns out.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 29. Adjourn to September 9, 2015, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.
At 9:32 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Ms.
Mallek, seconded by Ms. Palmer to adjourn the meeting to September 9, 2015, 3:00 p.m., for joint
meeting with School Board.
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 11/11/2015
Initials: EWJ
September 2, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)