2015-09-09September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Count y, Virginia, was held on
September 9, 2015, at 3:00 p.m., in Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from September 2, 2015. The regular night meeting was held at
6:00 p.m., in the Lane Auditorium, County Office Building.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:03 p.m. by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with School Board.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Kate Acuff, Mr. Jason Buyaki, Mr. Ned Gallaway
(arrived at 3:29 p.m.), Mr. Stephen Koleszar and Mr. John Stokes.
ABSENT: Ms. Pamela Moynihan and Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly.
SCHOOL STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent; Dr. Matt Haas, Assistant
Superintendent for Organizational and Human Resource Leadership; Mr. Dean Tistadt, Chief Operating
Officer; Mr. John Blair, Senior Assistant County Attorney; and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, Clerk of the School
Board.
_____
Item No. 2a. Funding the Future – Planning and Policy Discussion.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that staff will begin with an
overview of five-year financial planning, which is earlier than the typical November start. He stated
through the Board’s action the County has organized a Citizens’ Advisory Committee, and as part of that
effort staff has updated the five-year plan model and its drivers and assumptions. Mr. Letteri said staff
feels this will be helpful in advance of the October meeting, which will focus on compensation and
benefits, and there is more to be done regarding updated revenue and expenditures. He stated the
second part of the discussion will involve revenue-sharing, including the history of why the formula exists,
how it has been working, and possible future options. Mr. Letteri said the final part of their discussion will
be an update on the local government and schools efficiency committee, which is looking at opportunities
between them to achieve greater efficiency.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of Office of Management and Budget, stated that five-year planning
is a major part of their budgeting that inform s their annual budget process. Ms. Allshouse said this
planning has taken a turn over the last few years by involving the schools in the model, which connects
the school fund, general fund, and the CIP. She stated the five-year planning is a critical part of the
County’s AAA bond rating, and these assumptions, such as the schools’ enrollment numbers, will change
somewhat. Ms. Allshouse said last year they had worked with two scenarios, one as a balanced five-year
plan and one with a gap showing the Board’s needs and aspirations, and this year the scenario is still
showing a gap. She stated last year FY17 showed a gap of about $13 million in the model, and that is
down to $8.8 million so there had been slight improvement in the earlier years. Ms. Allshouse said both
general government and the school division have gaps, and in FY17 there is a $2.4 million general
government gap, with the schools at $6.4 million.
Mr. Koleszar asked if this reflects gaps in the CIP between requests or just gaps in the operating
funds. Ms. Allshouse responded this includes the regular transfers to the CIP and debt, which are about
$20 million per year by formula, but does not include the shortfalls in the CIP. She noted it also br ings
into the model some of the operating costs associated with capital.
Ms. Allshouse reported the three main sources of revenue are federal, state and local, and what
they typically discuss are local revenues, and presented a diagram of revenues from 2007 to 2016. She
stated real estate tax revenue is a significant component, with sales tax, BPOL and fees as well as
property taxes comprising additional revenues. Ms. Allshouse presented information on the percentage
of revenue growth built into the five-year plan, and said revenues are increasing, but not at the pace
needed to keep up with expenditures. She said fiscal years 17 and 19 have a tax rate increase dedicated
to the CIP based on the model approved as a plan. Other general property and other local revenues
have about a 2% growth rate, with state revenues for the general fund basically unchanged for the five -
year plan. Ms. Allshouse said there are slight changes in the state revenue for schools, primarily
because of changes in the composite index, and a 2.5% increase in federal revenues each year.
Ms. McKeel asked if the real estate tax projections are what is modeled in the gap. Ms.
Allshouse confirmed they are, just for those dedicated to capital, so it does not help on the operating side.
Mr. Foley noted the gap would be greater if the tax increases were not included.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Palmer asked where the fluctuation is in school state revenues. Mr. Jackson Zimmerman,
Director of Fiscal Services, explained there are several biennial recalculations for standards of quality, so
every two years there is a small difference.
Mr. Dean Tistadt said this is not precise when making predications.
Mr. Steve Koleszar stated they are not guessing changes in the composite index. Mr.
Zimmerman confirmed they are not, adding there have been some significant fluctuations in that number
and many variables comprising it. He stated the composite index takes statewide numbers in terms of
taxable property and school-aged population’s sales tax, with a relative ability for each locality to pay. He
said sometimes one or two people in the community can skew the composite index greatly.
Ms. Allshouse reported real estate revenues are estimated to increase at a moderate pace, with
the estimate to include a tax rate in two years for the capital program.
Mr. Letteri said the increase is not reflective of anticipated asset value increases, but the tax rate
increases.
Ms. Mallek asked if it is anticipated for real estate reassessments to continue increasing at a pace
of 2%, as they had lost about 10% during the recession. Ms. Allshouse responded that the increase
could be between 2% and 2.5% or more, and they would be adjusting some of those projections by the
end of the calendar year. She stated reassessments plus new subdivisions and growth, as well as, tax
rates are all factored in. Ms. Allshouse presented information on tax revenue changes over time, stating
it is projected to go up an average of 2.5% over the next five years. She said sales tax is expected to
increase slightly, and BPOL tax is essentially flat with a slight increase of 2% per year built into the
current model.
Mr. Boyd commented the reason they did not have bigger dips during recession years is because
of the efficiencies County government has implemented, including the work of auditors to find tax
revenues that have previously been erroneously assigned to the City.
Ms. Allshouse reported that state revenues show flat projections, and as a percentage of the
budget, they continued to comprise a decreasing portion. She presented information from Fiscal
Analytics showing inflation-adjusted K-12 funding per pupil in the state and noted this shows about a 20%
reduction from FY09-FY12 in state funding for schools. Ms. Allshouse said federal revenues are usually
dedicated revenues for specific purposes and are often pass-through monies received as reimbursable
items. She stated these comprise approximately 2% or $3 million per year of the school fund, and 3% or
$5 million per year of the general fund. Ms. Allshouse presented a summary of revenues, noting the
major drivers are property taxes and local revenues, with a projected 2.9% increase in FY17, a 3.9% in
FY19, and remaining at 3% across the span of the five-year plan. She added that in dollars, FY17 will
have a $7.2 million increase in general revenues. (Note: Mr. Gallaway arrived at 3:29 p.m.)
Ms. Allshouse reported the major expenditure drivers are mandates and obligations, salaries and
benefits, and funding required to address population growth and school enrollment. She stated that
based on the existing contract, the County is required to share revenue with the City, and from FY13 to
FY16 that number decreased because of the recession and associated revenue drop, but in the new
model it is starting to increase again, and in FY17 it will be $16.5 million; in FY19 it will be $17 million.
Ms. Allshouse presented information on salary and benefits, including healthcare increases, and
staff has built assumptions into the model, with FY17 being unusual because of one-time monies used to
fund salary increases for part of the current fiscal year and the need to make that funding for a full year in
future budgets. She stated this brought in an assumption of a 2% raise with .7 for performance, which is
built throughout the model as a full year. Ms. Allshouse said the current fiscal year includes a 9.6%
increase in healthcare, with the model including 10% increases in the first three years and 7% in the out
years. She stated that in FY17, FY19 and FY21, the schools are anticipating Virginia Retirement System
(VRS) changes, and that is included in the costs. Ms. Allshouse said salary and benefit costs for FY17
reflects a $9 million increase.
Ms. Acuff asked if the 9.6% and 10% increases in healthcare are high, because they seem to be.
Mr. Letteri responded there are a lot of challenges in the healthcare program, driven by the new
healthcare laws and market forces, with higher claims as well. He said the County is looking at a number
of plan design changes and changes in rates, and these assumptions are based on moderate changes to
the plan. Mr. Letteri stated in October, staff will present a variety of suggestions to modify the plan and
possibly bring down the premiums, and this is reflective of what is seen around the country, with
healthcare costs rising quickly.
Ms. Allshouse reported the third expenditure driver is funding required to address growth in
population and school enrollment, with the number of new positions associated with enrollment projected
at 17 positions in FY 17, 16 positions in FY18, 12 positions in FY19, 13 positions in FY20, and 13
positions in FY21. She said staff projects with local government, just based on maintaining the same
ratios per population, the need for about eight positions per year.
Mr. Ned Gallaway asked if that is keeping police at the same levels. Ms. Allshouse responded
this was done at a very high-level view based solely on population projections, and is not the same in-
depth analysis used last year to focus on police, social services, fire and rescue, etc.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Boyd commented this does not include moving towards geo-policing. Ms. Allshouse
responded it does not, and said that in comparison to other jurisdictions Albemarle has a fairly low ratio of
positions per 1,000 population. She said in the years before the recession, they were at a much higher
level.
Mr. Letteri said that 6.6 employees per 1,000 population is lower than the target, and said the
County is actually lower than the target level it had set for police officers per population.
Mr. Jason Buyaki asked if this is broken out by type of positions. Ms. Allshouse said they have
not done that yet, but can build in different assumptions for the model to be presented in November.
Mr. Foley commented they are just tracking based on population growth, and that will generate
the need for eight positions per year in the model.
Ms. Allshouse presented actual enrollment numbers for the 2010-11 school year in comparison to
projections, and said this information will also be updated for November.
Ms. Allshouse stated if there are no school or local government increases in salary for FY17 and
no additional positions, the gap will be $1.1 million.
Mr. Letteri stated this is not presented as a suggestion for the boards to follow, but is just to
demonstrate that those two drivers alone comprise the vast majority of the gap.
Ms. Mallek asked if the estimated increase in revenues of about $6 or $7 million is reflected when
calculating the gap of $8 million. Ms. Allshouse responded it is already factored in.
Mr. Buyaki asked for clarification of the figures provided as additional funding for the school
division. Ms. Allshouse responded the numbers represent the total of all monies if there are no increases
for salary for either schools or local government.
Mr. Letteri stated he will review the background and reasons for the funding formula and how it is
calculated, as well as its relative magnitude. He said staff will walk through the information first and then
allow time for questions. Mr. Letteri said staff is not particularly successful in finding documents
pertaining to the history of the 60/40 split, but they know it has been a policy of the County for more than
30 years. He stated the objective of the formula is to provide consistent, predictable means of building
the budget, and it is important to recognize that it is only a guideline, and was never intended to be
absolute, nor could it be as school budgeting was needs-based. Mr. Letteri stated they are referring to an
allocation of natural growth in revenues less certain adjustments, and for FY16 that amount was $6.6
million, or about 2% of overall revenue. He explained the policy stipulates that schools and local
government share 60% of either the increase or decrease in available shared local revenues, and that is
adjusted by changes in capital and debt, with those increases coming off of the top. Mr. Letteri said there
are adjustments including revenue-sharing with the City, tax relief for the elderly and disabled, and tax
refunds. He stated the policy also reads that the formula is intended to be guidance and is flexible. Mr.
Letteri presented information showing $250 million in revenue, with 2.2% being the portion subject to the
60/40 split.
Mr. Tistadt stated last year, the increase associated with the formula was about $4 million or
2.4% of the school fund, so it is not a major component of the total picture.
Ms. Allshouse noted the base transfer amount, which was built in and automatic, represent s
65.7% that always transfers over to the schools.
Mr. Letteri explained the formula work s by taking all of the various revenue components and
totaling them, taking off the top the transfer to debt and capital, which applies to school and local
government. He pointed out that currently the vast majority of debt, about 75%, applies to school
projects. Mr. Letteri said other deductions include revenue-sharing with the City, tax relief for the elderly,
tax refunds, shared contingency reserves such as the required 10% reserve, and dedicated
telecommunications funding for ECC-911.
Ms. Allshouse said these are local revenues, so state and federal revenues are not included in
the formula as they are usually dedicated for specific items.
Mr. Letteri reiterated the formula is intended to provide helpful guidance in the budget, and over
time there have been changes in it such as dedicating pennies on the tax rate or portions of pennies for
specific initiatives, such as redirecting funding from the ACE program back to operations.
Mr. Koleszar stated that new revenue follows the dedicated penny, not the formula. Ms.
Allshouse responded that in the past they have done it both ways, with the dedicated penny equaling $1.5
million into the base, or taking the growth from the formula.
Mr. Letteri said the formula provides more of a guideline than not doing anything, and offered
some sense of predictability for a reasonable allocation as well as anomalies and special circumstances,
with flexibility to make changes. He stated the 60/40 approximates the relative size of local government
and school budgets. Mr. Letteri said the challenge with the split is that they do not always know what the
state is going to provide, and it does not account for populations or student enrollment, and other
jurisdictions have created an algorithm to reflect that.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Tistadt stated the formula currently does a very good job of including local government
variables, but not on the school side to reflect things such as changes in demographics or enrollment or
changes in state revenue. He said there is an opportunity to modify that, but it really comes down to what
purpose that will achieve because it is intended to be a starting point for planning purposes, and the
boards have flexibility to make changes. Mr. Tistadt said if they try to change the formula too much, it will
eliminate a lot of that flexibility. He stated one example is commonality for compensation and health
insurance and taking those costs off the top, but that will leave little or no money for the split and will
remove one tool for the School Board to change its compensation as a mean s to balance their budget.
He said if they agree the formula is a planning tool and starting point, he does not see the need to spend
time in revising it, and there will never be a number so definitive that it will preclude the need for further
dialogue.
Mr. Letteri added that over the last few years, they have worked together more on budgeting and
have gained more understanding of their respective challenges, which supports staff’s feeling to leave the
formula as it is.
Ms. Dittmar commented that in going to statewide meetings it is apparent to her there are a lot of
other places where things are not going well, and stated that Albemarle will continue to work on improving
the school and local government relationship. She asked for Board comments.
Ms. Palmer stated she still has concerns about some of the predictability issues the schools
continue to deal with, and would like to discuss how Roanoke is able to address the issue of school
enrollment growth. Ms. Allshouse responded that staff will get a copy of the Roanoke model and send it
to the Board, and said that during the 2007 and 2009 resource review studies, Mr. Boucher and his
associates had recommended that Albemarle consider changing the formula.
Ms. Palmer said this would not necessarily mean changing the formula, but she wants to have a
dialogue about finding ways to give the schools more flexibility.
Mr. Tistadt stated that two years ago, the schools had a higher than expected bill for CSA that
required the School Board to take almost $1/2 million out of its school balance late in the year to cover
unexpected cost increases. He said more students enrolled later in the year, especially those with
demographic challenges, which meant more obligations that would come out of the school fund balance.
He said having the Board and School Board discuss whether the current 2% limit on fund balance is the
right amount, or having reserves set aside for specific purposes, might provide a solution that does not
involve changing the funding formula itself.
Ms. Palmer asked if there is rationale for setting a fund balance that is higher.
Ms. Mallek stated the amount is currently capped at $3 million.
Mr. Letteri responded when they went through the exercise of evaluating the change in policy,
they went back and looked at history and use of that fund to try to come up with a number that made
sense for current and future fund balance. He said th at use of fund balance set them up for future
liabilities, so they have discussed it and have tried to limit the use of fund balance for recurring costs.
Ms. McKeel asked what the school division’s fund balance was last year. Mr. Tistadt responded it
was under 1%, about $1.5 million.
Ms. McKeel said they should have more dialogue about the 2% cap, as businesses keep several
months in reserve for their operations, and occasionally there are times when schools use one-time
monies for needs. She stated when the fund balance formula was changed and capped at 2%, the
school division had a group of outside analysts looking at the budget , and they were concerned that the
2% was too low. Ms. McKeel said she would like for Mr. Letteri and Mr. Tistadt to evaluate the 2% level
to see if it needs to be higher, such as 2.5% or 2.75%.
Mr. Boyd stated this had already been done when they first came up with the cap, and had not
been done in a vacuum.
Ms. Mallek said the analysis was also done two years ago with a grou p that involved a lot of
discussion and a review of the history of the previous five years, which had included times where the fund
balance was $5-8 million, whereas the use was only about $1 million. She stated that it seem s
reasonable to have 2% or $3 million in the fund balance, and return the remainder for the CIP so that
projects can get built. Ms. Mallek said they missed several years of the lowest building costs because
they did not have the cash to get started, and there had been requests to dip into the Board’s 10%
contingency to cover the CSA funding.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there might be a trigger that allows them to look at other monies when they
reach that point.
Ms. Mallek said it is the accepted policy and the schools have made official req uests.
Mr. Letteri emphasized there has been 10% of total budgets set aside for both schools and local
governments as critical reserves.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Boyd pointed out that the 10% is intended to handle cash flow problems, which the County
covers for the school system, and said in business there are reserves set aside as a “fund balance”
identified to handle cash flow problems. He stated the County has adopted this so that at times when
there is no money coming in, the schools does not have to give up any of their budget.
Ms. McKeel stated they look at their formulas periodically, and she would like for Mr. Letteri and
Mr. Tistadt to look at the 2% to see if it is still acceptable or needs adjustment.
Ms. Palmer reiterated that she would like to have staff look at what Roanoke has done to address
unexpected school enrollment increases, because it seem s that Albemarle frequently finds itself in
stressful situations over small amounts of money.
Mr. Gallaway said it is important to note that prior to the fund balance cap, the 2% was based on
the financial advice staff had received, and the intent was that it remain untouched, so when the school
division used it to close gaps, the School Board worked hard to assign it only to one -time needs and tried
to preserve the integrity of the 2% to allow for contingencies that c ome up during the year. He stated the
School Board is advocating for something higher than 2% to allow them to protect the floor and provide
1/2% or 1% for emergency expenditures, and it will be worthwhile to provide an analysis of how fund
balance has been used for one-time purposes.
Mr. Foley stated staff has already done all of that analysis, including historical perspectives, so
they can bring that back for the Board. He said that money is often used for school busses, which is a
good use of one-time funds.
Mr. Gallaway said the difference now is that the schools have real examples rather than “what
ifs.”
Ms. Dittmar commented they can certainly refresh the information and bring it back.
Mr. Buyaki stated he would advocate leaving the formula as it is, because flexibility allow s both
schools and local government to better meet their needs.
Mr. Koleszar said at the time the schools submitted their funding request to the County Ex ecutive,
they would have a better idea of what state revenue might be and at that point enrollment and population
growth projections should be considered, perhaps changing the formula. He stated this whole discussion
is a bit like “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic,” as there are tremendous needs and unless they
can find a way to find adequate revenue it will not matter what the split is.
Mr. Boyd stated there is a reason that school boards do not have taxing authority, to provide
checks and balances, and what Mr. Koleszar is suggesting is to give the schools more money for
discretionary spending without approval from the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Dittmar said they are really just looking at every possible funding strategy as well as
economic development growth, rather than leaning on real estate taxes, and at least the citizen
committee will provide some recommendations in the fall.
Mr. Koleszar stated if the composite index were to go up and there was a dramatic reduction from
the state, the need for local funding would increase, whereas the reverse of that will decrease
dependency on local funding. He said the issue is that the information and the influential factors were not
available when the schools put their budget together, although that becomes clearer as the budget
process proceeds.
Ms. Palmer said she does not feel they are talking about discretionary spending, but are trying to
deal with the real pressures facing them.
Mr. Buyaki said at the end of the day it is still discretionary to the School Board, because they
have the ability to fund whatever categories they choose with that funding.
Mr. Boyd stated they deal with the issue of mandates and enrollment requirements during the
budgeting process, and it can be done without additional discretionary spending.
Mr. Koleszar said he sees the issue as being more of a problem when it gets to the County
Executive in terms of assessing the needs of the schools.
Ms. Dittmar said she would like to have them proceed with the presentation, and then allow time
for further discussion.
Mr. Letteri stated he will provide an update from the school and general government efficiency
committee, which involves staff from both entities, and stated they have come together to celebrate what
they do well together and look at what else they might do. He said he will update them on things that are
under consideration, with both short-term and long-term items. Mr. Letteri stated they are looking at
budgetary management issues, including the ways they track and monitor grant activity, which is currently
a hybrid approach that will likely benefit from better utilization of software. He said they are also looking
at how they appropriate for the schools and how that is tracked, and this has policy implications so it will
need to come back to the boards. Mr. Letteri stated there are a lot of opportunities with building and
grounds maintenance in terms of crews working on parks as well as schools, and maintenance
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
operations for both schools and local government have some duplication that can possibly be resolved.
He said that language assistance is required in certain County departments as well as schools, and it
may be possible to address that need overall. Mr. Letteri said there is a focus on consolidating leadership
training, which for local government has involved work with the Innovative Leadership Institute and high-
performance organizations, and the hope is to extend the benefits of those training program s to the
schools.
Mr. Letteri stated that consolidating healthcare for local government and schools provides major
opportunities for them, perhaps involving an internal clinic or pharmacy, and they are looking at a variety
of plan changes including consumer-driven healthcare. He said some of this will be presented in
October, with some aspects able to be implemented right away and others taking time. Mr. Letteri stated
there are lots of opportunities in purchasing and procurement, with increases in economies of scale for
better pricing and bidding, and said in some cases there are 35 vendors providing the same product for
the County. He said the new warehouse operation will also offer opportunities for shared storage and
mass purchasing. Mr. Letteri stated that as Ms. McKeel had suggested, consolidation of grants
administration can help achieve greater efficiency. He said records management is also a major effort
underway with the County, with a pilot program starting in Community Development and a records
management policy that has application throughout the system for both local government and schools.
He stated they are also looking at ways to reduce the amount of paper usage, and there are various sub-
teams looking into and championing specific aspects of efficiency. Mr. Letteri noted there w ill be a formal
efficiency report coming back to the Boards in November.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there are any “sacred cows” they did not discuss as part of the efficiency
process. Mr. Letteri responded there are not, and said they opened up the discussion to include early
brainstorming of all ideas that were subsequently narrowed down.
Ms. Mallek said she wants to be sure that someone is following up on the NACo and VACo
purchasing options offered to the County every year, as a lot of other jurisdictions are using these.
Ms. Allshouse noted their upcoming joint meetings include an October 14 joint meeting on
compensation and benefits, and on November 11 they will cover the five-year financial plan update, a
preliminary CIP overview, efficiency team recommendations, and the Citizens’ Resource Advisory
Committee recommendations.
Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek said a 3:00 p.m. start time is not going to give them much time to
cover all of those topics, and perhaps they should start at 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Gallaway said he will check with the School Board and see if they can move it to earlier.
Ms. Dittmar asked both Boards’ Clerks communicate regarding an acceptable meeting start time.
Mr. Letteri said staff can provide as much information as possible ahead of time so they do not
have to spend a lot of time on details.
Ms. Dittmar stated she can see a lot of time spent on the Citizens’ Resource Advisory Committee.
Ms. Acuff asked if that committee will be providing a written report. Mr. Foley responded they are
scheduled to present to the Board of Supervisors the week before, and then it will be shared with the
School Board.
Ms. Dittmar suggested they can report to both boards at once so they can discuss it when they
meet, rather than using that time for the actual presentation.
Mr. Gallaway asked when it is being reported to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Foley responded
they have set a deadline of having it provided to the Board at their first November meeting, so it c an just
be provided and received as a report, then prepared for presentation at a joint meeting.
Mr. Gallaway said November 11 is before the School Board’s meeting.
Ms. Dittmar stated it will be worked out.
Mr. Gallaway commented they have worked hard to get the budget book from the schools to be
more transparent, but they also need to include what is taken off the top and how the formula plays out.
Ms. Allshouse responded it is included on page 181.
Mr. Letteri said perhaps that page can be enhanced to provide more clarity.
Mr. Gallaway said it is one thing to see the formula, but another to see how the dollars play out.
Ms. Dittmar said she would like to see more information as to the criteria used to establish
whether the penny is set or if it grows as revenue grows.
Ms. Mallek said her understanding is that whatever is dedicated becomes part of the base in the
following year.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Allshouse said when it is dedicated to schools, it becomes part of their base, and when the
County dedicates the fire fund, it is understood that the growth will go with that.
Mr. Foley confirmed Ms. Mallek’s point that the penny does go to the base, and the growth in that
penny is part of what is shared 60/40, and the only time they have ever done anything different is the
dedication to the fire fund. He emphasized there is always a sharing of the growth with the schools, but
staff will find a way to better convey it.
Mr. Boyd said there was 4/10 of a cent allocated to the schools a few years back.
Ms. Mallek said there was 2/10 for the schools just last year.
Mr. Foley stated this increased the schools’ budget base, and the growth the following year was
shared 60/40.
Mr. Koleszar said this should also show that there is a penny taken off the top for fire and 7/10 of
that is dedicated, which was not shown on the slide.
Ms. McKeel stated if they agree that the 60/40 split on new revenues is the starting point, then
they need to make sure when, in their budget cycle, they are clear with the community that it is a starting
point and will have variables such as enrollment numbers. She said it is important that both boards use
the same language with the community, and sometimes there is confusion that the entire budget is split
that way.
Mr. Boyd said there is a graph within their budget books that explains exactly how it is broken
down, including the CIP, and as long as that is included it should be clear to the public.
Mr. Koleszar commented it is closer to 50/50.
Ms. Mallek said it is actually 60/40, but the other way around because local government provides
many services for schools, such as finance, that are not taken into account, so if they are going to focus
on this split then they should provide full disclosure as to actual costs that local gove rnment takes care of
but gets no credit for. She mentioned part of the fund balance change is an extra $1.2 million that goes to
the CIP instead of the school department, which, in effect, amounts to $4.2 million for school busses.
Ms. Palmer said it is not so much about who gets what, but trying to cover the most critical things
for the year.
Ms. Acuff asked if there will be numbers associated with the work of the efficiency committee, as
there is capital investment needed for things like converting records from paper.
Mr. Letteri responded that when possible, they will include numbers for return on investment
numbers and potential savings.
Ms. McKeel said they need to find a way to communicate their efficiencies on both the school and
local government websites, because currently there is nothing on them.
_____
Agenda Item No. 3. Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
(Note: The School Board adjourned its meeting at 4:44 p.m.)
_______________
NonAgenda. Closed Meeting.
At 4:44 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees and commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Call back to Order. At 6:00 p.m., the Chair called the Board back to order.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Sheffield 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. McKeel
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 6. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar introduced County staff.
Mr. Sheffield asked if they are doing the boards and commissions after the public hearings. Ms.
Palmer said that is fine.
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the agenda as presented. Ms. Palmer 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. 8. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek announced the Rivanna River Renaissance will be held on Friday, October 2, and
stems from the work of the Rivanna River Basin Commission in conjunction with nonprofits associated
with the river, as well as sponsorship from Albemarle, Charlottesville, Greene and Fluvanna and the
Department of Conservation and Recreation. She stated the public can find out more on the RRBC and
TJPDC websites.
_____
Ms. Dittmar announced the Town of Scottsville will hold its annual community day on September
12 and invited the public to attend.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Proclamations and Recognitions:
Item 9a. 2014 James River Grand Basin Clean Water Farm Award to Ronnie & Brenda Morris.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation in recognition of Ronald and Brenda Morris for
Outstanding Conservation Farmer, a recognition at both the state and local levels.
RESOLUTION
In Recognition of Outstanding Conservation Farmer
In recognition of Ronald Morris for his outstanding farm conservation management practices which
includes implementation of a farm conservation plan,
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District serves this community through
programs and activities that enhance water quality of our surface and ground waters; while
conserving and protecting our natural resources; and
WHEREAS, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, farmers who
demonstrate outstanding management practices which conserve our precious natural
resources are selected and recognized through the Clean Water/Bay Friendly Farm Award
Program; and
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson SWCD has selected Ronald Morris as the Clean Water Farm Award
Program recipient of Albemarle for 2014 and the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation has selected Ronald Morris as the James Grand Basin recipient for the State
of Virginia.
WHEREAS, Ronald Morris, demonstrates a commitment to the conservation of the natural resources
on his farm through:
rotationally grazing 115 acres of pasture as 13 paddocks with 40 cow/calf pairs;
managing 75 acres of woodland for wildlife;
protecting 2.4 miles of streams with 14 acres of riparian buffers;
installing 7 automatic water troughs; and
100% stream exclusion on two family farm properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that Ronald Morris
is hereby commended for his commitment to protecting and enhancing waters that flow
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
beyond farm boundaries and for the conservation ethic he demonstrates through his farm
management practices.
_____
Mr. Steven Meeks of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Board
addressed the Board and emphasized the importance of these awards, stating that Mr. and Mrs. Morris
are exemplary examples of the farmers worked with over the years and noting that the conservation
efforts are all voluntary.
Mr. Ronald Morris addressed the Board and thanked Emily Nelson and Brian Walton of the Soil
and Water Conservation District, and Aaron White, whose knowledge of fencing and water supply made
this a more user-friendly system. He thanked his family for their support and work.
Ms. Mallek then moved to adopt the resolution as read. Ms. Palmer 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. 10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Consent Agenda.
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek mentioned that she had two brief announcements that she had
forgotten, and would do those when it was appropriate.
Regarding Item No. 11.2, Mr. Sheffield asked the Zoning Administrator, Ms. Amelia McCulley,
about the timeline as to when temporary signs would come before the Board. Ms. McCulley said that
they would like to do it as quickly as possible, so that would potentially be a public hearing with the
Commission in October, back to the Board in November.
Mr. Sheffield asked if there is anything that can be done to cut some time out of that, and whether
it is based on regularly scheduled meetings. Ms. McCulley responded that she is basing it on the
requirement for public notice, but in terms of businesses wanting to get signs up before something was
adopted, staff wants to be extremely flexible.
Mr. Sheffield said the timeline seem s to be dictated by public notice procedures that must be
followed, but the County is trying to move this along as quickly as possible.
Ms. Mallek stated that people who are interested should reach out to the Zoning Department and
get going soon.
Mr. Sheffield said they can then submit applications once the ordinance is approved.
Ms. McCulley stated they can go ahead and submit them now, because there are things that can
be done now under the current temporary sign regulations.
_____
Ms. Palmer and Ms. Mallek stated that they needed to pull their assigned minutes.
Mr. Boyd then moved to approve Items 11.1 (as read) through 11.4 on the consent agenda. Ms.
Palmer 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.
_____
(NonAgenda. Ms. Mallek announced that on September 26, the 10th National Prescription and
Drug Enforcement Administration Handback Day will be held, where people can turn in their unused and
unneeded prescription medication, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the police department and at Martha
Jefferson Hospital.
Ms. Mallek announced the U.S. Cycling Team will arrive to begin their training, and will remain
until September 19, at which time they will go to Richmond for the International Global Cycling
Competition. She said on September 14 there will be a meet and greet at the Paramount Theater,
followed by the showing of “Ride the Divide,” a film about cycling endurance. She said on September 17
at the Ntelos Wireless Pavilion, Cycle Fest will take place from 3:00 to 6:30 p.m.)
_____
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Item No. 11.1. Approval of Minutes: December 14, 2014; February 4, February 11, February 23
and March 10, 2015.
Ms. Mallek had not read the minutes of December 10, 2014, pages 42 (begin with Item #42) –
end, and February 23, 2015, and asked that they be pulled and carried forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Palmer had not read the minutes of March 10, 2015, and asked that they be carried
forward to the next meeting.
Mr. Sheffield had read the minutes of February 4, 2015, pages 38 (begin with Item #14) – end,
and February 11, 2015, pages 1-23 (end at Item #12), and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_____
Item No. 11.2. Resolution of Intent for Phase 2 of Route 29 Business Signage.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that as part of its broader Route 29
Solutions Business Assistance Program effort, the County is considering changes to its sign regulations
for businesses affected by Route 29 Solutions construction. The Board adopted ZTA 2015-4 on May 6,
2015 to implement the Phase 1 changes (See Attachment A). That Zoning Text Amendment extended the
60 day temporary sign period for businesses losing their permanent signs as a result of utility w ork
associated with the construction of the Rio-29 grade-separated interchange.
For Phases 2 and 3, the County was asked to consider changes to temporary and permanent
sign regulations for the over 200 businesses located within the project limits of cons truction. From June to
August 2015, County staff reached out to businesses in the affected corridor to solicit feedback on the
impacts of construction on their business signage and to discuss their signage needs prior to, during, and
after construction. A summary of those findings can be found in Attachment B.
Staff understands that VDOT is also relaxing restrictions and fees for their tourist oriented
directional signage (“TODS”) program during construction, but the program is not being expanded to
include additional types of businesses. This should allow approximately 30 businesses to qualify for the
signage that motorists recognize for direction to businesses. The remaining businesses that do not fit
within the TODS criteria can find value in a relaxation of the sign standards.
Of those businesses who participated in the County’s outreach efforts, a majority supported
extending the 60 day temporary sign allowance to enhance visibility and allow for additional marketing
opportunities prior to and during construction. Many also supported a reduction or elimination of the
$25.00 temporary sign fees during this time. When asked about the potential for a proliferation of
temporary signs if regulations were relaxed for all businesses in the area, several busin esses supported
the idea of incentives to encourage multiple businesses on one property to aggregate their temporary
signage. Few businesses expressed concerns about the impact of the project on their permanent signage
once construction is complete.
Taking into consideration the extensive support for extending the 60 day temporary sign period
for businesses identified as being within Tier 2, staff recommends that the County move forward with
amending its temporary sign regulations to allow one additional t emporary sign per property that is
permitted to be displayed prior to the start of construction through the completion of construction. Staff
believes that allowing an additional sign per property rather than per establishment will encourage
businesses on the same property to work together to find creative solutions for sharing signage and will
limit the potential for a proliferation of temporary signs in an already visually congested construction zone.
The County could consider allowing an increase in sign area of up to 50% (to up to 48 square feet) for
those signs serving four or more businesses to encourage bundling multiple businesses on one sign and
allowing these bundled signs to be more visible. Staff also recommends maintaining the current provision
for temporary signs per establishment (up to 60 days) for special sales events and the like.
Given the input received to-date and what appears to be limited impacts on permanent signage
once construction is complete, staff does not recommend amending the permanent sign regulations at
this time. Should the need for changes to the permanent sign regulations be identified, staff recommends
that they be considered in conjunction with broader changes to the sign ordinance under the pending text
amendment to address the United States Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert relating to
content neutrality (ZTA 2015-10).
There is a potential for an increase in staff time to review temporary sign applications associated
with this Zoning Text Amendment. If the County reduces or eliminates the $25.00 fee associated with
these reviews in order to be supportive of businesses during this project, those staff costs would not be
recovered, however, the workload will be limited by the project limits and duration.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment C) relating
to the provision of additional temporary signage.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent relating
to the provision of additional temporary signage:
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation construction project commonly known as
“Route 29 Solutions,” which is along Route 29 North and the adjoining areas between the southern terminus
of Berkmar Drive and Myers Drive (the “Project” and the “Project Area”); and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors amended County Code
§ 18-4.15 to extend the duration for which temporary signs may be erected to allow those businesses whose
permanent signs are removed in conjunction with the Project to erect temporary signs until new permanent
signs are erected or the Project is completed, whichever occurs first; and
WHEREAS, the County has solicited and received additional feedback from business owners within
the Project area and they expressed concern about the visibility of their businesses and marketing their
businesses during the Project and possible solutions to address those concerns, including allowing
additional temporary signage during the Project;
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to amend the County’s sign regulations to allow one additional
temporary sign, with a maximum sign area of up to forty-eight (48) square feet and, in order to avoid a
proliferation of temporary signs and to encourage multiple businesses to share the same sign, to allow the
one such additional temporary sign on a per site, rather than per establishment, basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending County Code § 18-4.15, Signs, and any other sections of the
Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
_____
Item No. 11.3. SDP200800155 Thomas Jefferson Foundation-Special Exception. (Scottsville
Magisterial District.)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that critical slopes are slopes of 25
percent or greater. The parcel that is the subject of this application is located within the County’s Rural
Area and is outside of the Steep Slopes Overlay District (County Code § 18 -30.7). Thus, the slopes on
this parcel are regulated as critical slopes under County Code § 18-4.2. County Code § 18-4.2.3 prohibits
a structure, improvement, or other land disturbing activity to establish a structure or improvement from
being located on critical slopes unless a special exception is approved by the Board.
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation is requesting a special exception to allow the disturbance of
critical slopes to allow for water and waste water improvements. The upgrades will include new
underground storage tanks, two new pump stations, and a low pressure wastewater system. As part of
these upgrades, the application plan depicts four separate areas of disturbance to critical slopes, which
are described in the Applicant’s Waiver Request (Attachment A) and depicted on the attached Plans
(Attachment B). A portion of disturbance that will go under Route 64 will connect a force main to a public
utility and is exempt under County Code § 18-4 -2.6(c).
County Code § 18-4.2.5 authorizes the Board to approve a special exception to waive the
requirements of County Code § 18-4.2.3 to permit the disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant has
submitted a justification for the special exception, and because the subject property is in the Rural Areas,
this request has been reviewed for both the Planning and Engineering considerations pursuant to County
Code §§ 18-4.2.5(a)(2) and (3). See Attachments C & D for Planning and Engineering staff’s analysis of
the relevant factors for the critical slopes waiver request. Based upon this analysis, staff opinion is that
this request favorably satisfies all of the factors in County Code §18-4.2.5 with a condition limiting the
disturbed area to that shown on Attachment B.
No budget impact will result from approving this special exception.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment E) to approve the
special exception to disturb critical slopes subject to the condition attached thereto.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to approve the
special exception to disturb critical slopes subject to the condition recommended by staff :
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR SDP 2008-00155 THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION
WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel
Numbers 07700-00-00-03100, 07800-00-00-02200, 07800-00-00-02300, 07800-00-00-02500, and 09200-
00-00-00100 (the “Property”); and
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
WHEREAS, the Owner filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SDP 2008-00155,
Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., to allow the disturbance of critical slopes, as the Property is depicted
on the pending plans under review by the County’s Department of Community Development.
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 Attachments
C and D thereto, the Applicant’s critical slopes waiver request dated July 6, 2015 and plan entitled “Thomas
Jefferson Foundation Water and Wastewater Improvements Part II Critical Slopes Application Plan”
prepared by WW Associates and dated July 6, 2015, and all of the factors relevant t o the special exception
in Albemarle County Code §§ 18-4.2.5 and 18-33.9, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the special exception to authorize the disturbance of critical slopes for Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Inc.’s installation of water and waste water
*****
SDP 2008-00155, Thomas Jefferson Foundation Special Exception Condition
1. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes shall not exceed twelve thousand, two hundred,
twenty-six (12,226) square feet as shown on the plan entitled “Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Water and Wastewater Improvements Part II Critical Slopes Application Plan” prepared by WW
Associates and dated July 6, 2015.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
_____
Item No. 11.4. Resolution to accept Boulders Road, Phase 1 & 2, into the State Secondary
System of Highways. (Rivanna Magisterial District)
At the request of the County Engineer, and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 9th day
of September 2015, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Boulders Road, Phases 1&2, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated September 9, 2015, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transporta tion has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Boulders Road, Phases 1&2, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 9, 2015, to the secondary system of
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
state highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
ments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Boulders Road (State Route 16003) from Seminole Trail (Route 29) east, as shown on
plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
3805, pages 154-161; Deed Book 3819, pages 74-82; and Deed Book 1509, pages 50-53,
for a length of 0.53 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.53
_____
Item No. 11.5. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Grant, Moore’s Creek Trail and
Trailhead Park.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission (TJPDC) is working with the County and City to submit a Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP) Grant application for funding to support the construction of multi-use trails and a trailhead
park along Moore’s Creek. TAP Grants require a minimum 20 percent local match. Cash proffers received
from the Fifth Street Station development, contributed for the purpose of greenway development, can be
used to cover the required match. The grant application is due to VDOT by November 2, 2015.
Development of the Moore’s Creek Greenway trail is identified as one of the priority pedestrian, bikeway
and trail improvements in the County’s Priority List of Transportation Improvements, which was approved
by the Board in April 2015.
If the County is awarded this grant, the funds would be used to: 1) construct a multi-use trail
along Moore’s Creek from the Fifth Street Station commercial site to Fifth Street and to make connections
to other existing nearby bike and pedestrian facilities in the County and City; 2) design and install
pedestrian/bike crossing(s) on Fifth Street to connect to existing Rivanna Trails Foundation trails on the
west side of Fifth Street; and 3) determine the location and design of trails along Moore’s Creek from Fifth
Street west to Old Lynchburg Road/Azalea Park.
These improvements would be developed in coordination with the greenway/trail facilities
approved as part of the Fifth Street Station rezoning and would result in enhanced facilities in this area,
above what could be constructed with the proffered funds alone. Proffer funds would be used for the
construction of a bridge and trailhead park. In addition to the above three items, awarded grant funds
would also be used for professional services for the design of the bridge and park, the design and
construction of additional connecting trails, and the design of additional bicycle and pedestrian
improvements to serve as the basis for future grant proposals to extend the network in the City and
County.
The TJPDC would function as the grant and construction manager for the project. The total cost
for the project is still under development at this time, but the requested amount of grant funds is estimated
at $350,000.
There is no direct budget impact. Proffer funds can be used for the required 20 percent match. If
awarded, the grant would leverage additional funds to advance trail construction in this area. Some grant
funds will be used to cover the TJPDC’s administrative and grant management costs. Department of
Parks and Recreation staff time will need to be dedicated to the project.
This is for information only, and no action is required at this time. A Board Resolution of support
will be needed for inclusion with the grant application. Staff will provide a Resolution to the Board for its
consideration once the scope and cost of the project and the grant application are finalized.
_____
Item No. 11.6. Board-to-Board, August 2015, A Monthly Report from the Albemarle County
School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors , was received for information.
_____
Item No. 11.7. 2015 Second Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the
Department of Community Development, was received for information.
The report states that during the second quarter of 2015, 143 certificates of occupancy were
issued for 143 dwelling units. There were two permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $5,000. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an
apartment to a condominium.
_____
Item No. 11.8. 2015 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of
Community Development, was received for information.
The report states that during the second quarter of 2015, 129 building permits were issued for
130 dwelling units. There was one permit issued for a mobile home in an existing park at an exchange
rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a
condominium.
_____
Item No. 11.9. Copy of Letter dated September 2, 2015, to Mr. Scott Dahlquist, from Mr. Francis
H. MacCall, Principal Planner, re: LOD-2015-00013 - OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF
RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Parcel ID 07300-00-00-039C7 (property of Paul & Barbara
Jasiurkowski) Samuel Miller Magisterial District, was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. PROJECT: SP-2015-00020. CVS at Rio and 29N.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 0610000000123F0, 0610000000123G0.
LOCATION: 1700 and 1701 Seminole Trail.
PROPOSAL: Drive-through window for proposed CVS pharmacy.
PETITION: Drive-through window under Section 24.2.2 of zoning ordinance. No dwellings
proposed.
ZONING: HC Highway Commercial, commercial and service; residential by special use permit (15
units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial – commercial, professional office;
research and development, design, testing of prototypes; manufacturing, assembly, packaging, in
the Places29 Development Area.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31, 2015.)
The executive summary as presented by staff states that at its meeting on August 4, 2015, the
Planning Commission voted 6:0 to recommend approval of SP201500020 with the conditions
recommended by staff and also recommended that the applicant proceed without waiting for the second
letter of support.
Within the staff report staff recommended that this item not be scheduled for the Board of
Supervisors until the applicant provides letters of support from adjacent property owners or holds a
community meeting. During the review of this request it was determined that in lieu of a community
meeting the applicant could provide letters of support from adjacent property owners who s hare
entrances with the proposed CVS site.
The intent of the letters of support was to provide proof that adjacent property owners were aware
of the project and to provide an outlet for them to express any concerns they had to staff. The Planning
Commission felt that the property owners have been adequately notified of the project and were given
opportunity to express concerns through the public hearing process. For this reason, the Planning
Commission determined that the application could move forward to the Board of Supervisors without the
additional letter of support.
The County Attorney has prepared the attached Resolution (Attachment A) reflecting the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. Please note that some non-substantive modifications have
been made to the language and form of the conditions contained in the Resolution . The Planning
Commission’s action letter, staff report and minutes from the July 14 meeting are also attached.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to approve
SP201500020 with the conditions attached thereto.
_____
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating the purpose of the public
hearing is a request to construct a drive-through window for a proposed CVS pharmacy, which is a
permitted by-right use, but a special use permit is required for a drive-through window. Ms. Falkenstein
stated the property is located in the northwest quadrant of the Rio/29 intersection, and is two parcels
comprising 1.6 acres. She said that onsite there is a small shopping center and an existing bank that has
a drive-through window, and the property is zoned Highway Commercial in addition to being on the Rio
Road and Route 29 entrance corridors. Ms. Falkenstein said the proposal is for a 12,000 square foot
pharmacy, with the existing buildings to be demolished and the lots combined into one. She stated the
proposed drive-through use is on the northwest corner of the building, and the applicant is proposing
space for five cars to be stacked behind the car at the drive-through window as well as space for cars to
pass it. Ms. Falkenstein presented the rendering provided by the applicant to the ARB for their review of
the proposal, and she noted the proposed drive-through will be located on the back of the building and
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
will have limited visibility. She stated the ARB has no objection to the proposed drive-through and with
the stacking space provided, staff does not feel there will be conflicts with the drive-through cars and
those in the lot or offsite.
Ms. Falkenstein stated that typically, the County d oes not review drive-throughs for Neighborhood
Model principles, but said this may be something they want to start considering in terms of the
appropriateness of their placement. She said the Planning Commission reviewed the application in a
public hearing on August 4 and recommended approval with four conditions. She stated the applicant is
not able to get a letter of support from a neighbor, but the Planning Commission feels it is acceptable not
to have this as the public had many opportunities to object to the proposal but did not .
Mr. Boyd said he is curious as to why this is before the Board since there is already a bank with a
drive-through on the property, and wonders if there is a way to get around it since it takes up a lot of staff
and Board time. Ms. Falkenstein said the previous drive-through was specific to that plan and location,
so this application must go through the process as stipulated by the current ordinance.
Ms. Mallek said she has that on her list for discussion later. Mr. David Benish, Director of
Planning, stated it is based on building location and the parking for that building, but they c an consider
changing it. He noted that staff is in the process of reviewing special use permits and possibly
standardizing conditions, so perhaps they c an look at those changes and go from there.
Mr. Sheffield asked if this will also pertain to redevelopment policies and changes. Mr. Foley
responded they will have some conversation about this at the Board’s strategic planning retreat, as they
will be talking specifically about redevelopment.
Ms. Dittmar asked if staff can ensure that drive-throughs that already exist will be looked at for
drive-throughs being requested. Mr. Benish responded that staff will wrap that into a larger discussion.
Mr. Boyd said if it is structurally sound, it seems it can just be done by administrative approval.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Ashley Davies of the Williams Mullen law firm addressed the Board on behalf of the Rebkee
Company and CVS, stating this project is at the center of the grade-separated intersection and it is great
that CVS is investing in that important area. Ms. Davies said the applicant has worked closely with VDOT
on the project, and a lot of the frontage has to be used for various utility easements, with topographical
challenges as well as the issue of fronting two entrance corridors.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board adopt the proposed resolution approving SP2015-00020 with
the attached conditions. Ms. Palmer 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 2015-20 CVS AT RIO AND 29N
WHEREAS, Rio XRoad LLC is the record owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 06100 -00-00-
123F0 and Seminole Trail LLC is the record owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 06100-00-00-123G0
(collectively the “Owner”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner submitted an initial site plan (SDP 2015-00016) for the construction of a
CVS Pharmacy with a drive-through window; and
WHEREAS, the initial site plan for the proposed CVS Pharmacy, which is a by-right use in the HC
zoning district, was approved in June, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the proposed drive-through window requires a special use permit, and the application
is identified as Special Use Permit 2015-00020 CVS at Rio and 29N (“SP 2015-20”); and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission recommended approval of SP 2015-20 with the conditions recommended by County staff; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2015-20.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2015-20 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 2015-20, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
SP-2015-20 CVS at Rio and 29N - Conditions
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans prepared by
Kimley-Horn, Sheet CS-101 (1 of 3 in special use permit plan set) dated June 17, 2015 (hereafter
“Layout Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the specified plans, development and use shall reflect the following major
elements as shown on the plans:
a. Relationship of drive-through lanes to the building and the parking lot
b. Building location, orientation and mass
c. 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. The applicant shall install and maintain traffic control devices including, but not limited to, signage
and pavement markings at the entrance and exit points of the drive-through lanes, subject to
county engineer approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns.
3. The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Architectural Review Board.
4. The use shall commence on or before September 9, 2018 or the permit shall expire and be of no
effect.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. PROJECT: SP-2010-00017. All God's Children Child Development
Center (Sign #41). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
122000000002A0. LOCATION: 900 Glendower Road. PROPOSAL: Preschool for up to 50
children in existing building. PETITION: Day care, child care or nursery facility under section
10.2.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance (reference 5.1.06). ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Area – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources; residential (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31, 2015.)
The executive summary as presented by staff states that at its August 4, 2015 meeting, the
Planning Commission considered this request for a special use permit for a day care. During that public
hearing, changes to the proposed conditions of approval were introduced by staff and by the Planning
Commission. All of the recommended changes are technical in nature and did not substantially change or
modify the applicant’s proposal.
The following changes to the proposed conditions were recommended by the Planning
Commission on August 4th:
1. The wording of condition 2 was changed to be consistent with other recent approvals.
2. Irrelevant wording was deleted from condition 5.
3. Condition 6 was added to be consistent with current practice. This condition establishes
the time period during which the special use permit approval is valid.
The attached resolution and the referenced conditions reflect the conditions recommends by staff
and the Planning Commission.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to approve
SP2010- 00017 with the conditions attached thereto.
_____
Mr. Scott Clark, Senior Planner, addressed the Board and stated this is a special use permit
request for a daycare center located on Glendower Road near Scottsville, and the proposal was originally
for up to 50 children in an existing building. He pointed out the location, which is near the Keene Post
Office, and said that it is located in a very rural area with farms and wooded properties all around it. Mr.
Clark said this is an existing building with an entrance and parking area, and the daycare will use just the
first floor of the building as well as the parking area. He referenced the conceptual plan of the project and
stated that lighting will be added on the parking area, but there are no new structures proposed. Mr.
Clark stated the nearest dwellings are about 1,500 feet away in various directions, with most of the
nearby properties either wooded or in open or agricultural use. He said the proposed level of use ha s
dropped from 50 to 34 children, which will generate 136 or fewer drop-off or pick-up trips per day, and the
average daily trip count on this part of Glendower Road is 50. Mr. Clark said VDOT has no objection to
the use, although there may be some clearing necessary for site distance. He stated the project is
adjacent to the Carter’s Bridge agricultural and forestal district, and the Ag/Forestal District Committee
voted 7-1 to recommend the proposal be approved at a smaller maximum attendance than 50 to lessen
potential traffic impacts to the district. Mr. Clark said the applicant reduced their request to 34 for that
reason, and because they realize they need fewer than 50 children to make their plan work.
Mr. Clark stated on August 4, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the
special use permit with the six conditions as presented, and the conditions predicate that the existing
building will be used with no new construction; a maximum enrollment of 34; approval of the entrance
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
from VDOT; approval of water and septic from the Health Department; limit on lighting to 3,000 lumens, or
less or full cut-off; and one year from Board approval for the site work to begin.
Ms. Mallek said this is located on a gravel road that people demand be paved, and asked if there
will be concerns about paving the road, which will certainly be requested with the increased volume of
traffic. She expressed concern about the character of the area and the impact on farming, and paving the
road will make people go even faster. Mr. Benish responded that paving is entirely up to the Board’s
decisions, and only unusual circumstances, such as high erosion or excessive maintenance, will lead
VDOT to pave it.
Ms. Mallek asked what is meant by VDOT when they stipulate the cutting of trees. Mr. Clark said
VDOT has said that some clearing may be necessary for reasons of site distance, so that clearing w ill be
near the entrance.
Ms. Mallek asked why the lighting condition says “3,000 lumens or full cut-off.” Mr. Benish
responded the ordinance states that full cut-off is for illumination of more than 3,000 lumens, and anything
less than that is not subject to the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked if they can have up-lights if they are low to the ground. Mr. Benish said the
brightness standard is contained in the ordinance.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Robbins addressed the Board, stating he is a board member on the All God’s Children
project and thanked the staff for their work. Mr. Robbins stated the Department of Social Services has
done a citizens survey and a survey of childcare centers in the County and determined that there is a lack
of high-quality childcare centers in the southern part of the County. He stated that DSS assembled a
group of citizens, who got together and did a feasibility study with Virginia Tech, and that determined
there is a need and a set of paying customers in that part of the County. Mr. Robbins said they also did a
site search and found that St. Anne’s Church is a perfect location. He stated the group has formed a
501(c)3 and have done fundraising including securing a grant from Bama Works.
Ms. Mallek asked if they are planning to make any changes to the parking lot. Mr. Robbins
responded they will probably just re-top it with stone, and the County will require some handicapped
spaces, and the applicants want to minimize any additional runoff.
Mr. Boyd asked for supporters of the application to stand, as Mr. Robbins had mentioned that
other project board members were in attendance.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Palmer stated she and Ms. Dittmar had attended the church’s open house for the childcare
center and it is a lovely place, and she is happy to approve it.
Ms. Dittmar said she is proud of the hard work and dedication of a lot of people, which has
brought the application to this point.
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the resolution approving SP2010-00017 with the conditions as
presented. 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 2010-17 ALL GOD’S CHILDREN CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
WHEREAS, Christ Church is the record owner (the “Owner”) of Tax Map and Parcel Number
12200-00-00-002A0; and
WHEREAS, the Owner submitted an application for a Special Use Permit, and the application is
identified as Special Use Permit 2010-00017 All God’s Children Child Development Center (“SP 2010-17”);
and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission recommended approval of SP 2010-17 with modified conditions; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2010-17.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff report
prepared for SP 2010-17 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 -10.2.2.7 and 18-33.8, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2010 -17, subject to the conditions attached
hereto.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
SP-2010-17 All God’s Children Child Development Center - Conditions
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “All God’s
Children Child Development Center,” revised 7/23/15, (hereafter, the “Conceptual Plan”) as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord
with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• Use of the existing building; no new structures shall be used for the day-care use
Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment shall be thirty-four (34) children.
3. The permittee shall obtain written approval of the entrance design from the Virginia Department of
Transportation prior to the County issuing a zoning clearance and the permittee commencing the
use.
4. The permittee shall obtain written approval of the water supply and the onsite sewage system
from the Virginia Department of Health prior to the County issuing a zoning c learance and the
permittee commencing the use.
5. All outdoor lighting at the site shall either emit three thousand (3,000) lumens or less or be a full
cutoff luminaire.
6. The use shall commence on or before September 9, 2018 or the permit shall expire and be of no
effect.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. CPA-2015-00001. Boundary Adjustment to the Southern Urban
Neighborhood (Route 29/I-64 Interchange).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller. To consider recommending adoption of an
amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan that would adjust the Development
Areas’ and Rural Area’s boundaries by adding to the Development Areas and removing from the
Rural Area those lands located near the Interstate 64/Route 29 South interchange, approximately
223 acres in area, composed of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 07500-00-00-03300, 07500-00-00-
03400, 07500-00-00-03800, 07500-00-00-04500, 07500-00-00-045A0, 07500-00-00-045B0,
07500-00-00-045C0, and portions of 07500-00-00-04800 and 07500-00-00-05300 (the
remainders of such parcels are currently within the Development Areas) (collectively, the “lands”)
and designating those lands as Industrial (approximately 85 acres) and Parks and Green
Systems (approximately 138 acres). The portions of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 07500-00-00-
04800 and 07500-00-00-05300 currently in the Development Areas are designated Regional
Mixed Use and that designation will not be changed by this amendment.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31, 2015.)
The executive summary as presented by staff states that on September 2, 2015, the Board of
Supervisors held its scheduled work session to discuss the information provided for the above-noted CPA
Boundary Adjustment to the Southern Urban Neighborhood. At that meeting, the Board requested
additional information in advance of the public hearing scheduled for September 9, 2015 if it could be
provided.
Information requested included a fact sheet on certain aspects of the CPA and its process, more
specific and detailed maps showing alternative areas that could be included in a CPA that were shown at
the September 2 meeting, and a copy of the PowerPoint presentation made at the September 2 meeting.
Staff noted that the fact sheet would be provided in advance of the public hearing as soon as staff could
complete it, but that maps beyond those which staff included in the PowerPoint presentation would not be
available before the public hearing. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is provided as Attachment G.
The County Attorney has prepared a Resolution to be adopted if the Board approves the CPA
(Attachment C), as well as a Resolution to be adopted if the Board disapproves the CPA (Attachment F).
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board take action regarding CPA201500001
Boundary Line Adjustment to the Southern Urban Neighborhood or give staff direction to prepare for the
Board alternatives for the Board to consider.
_____
Ms. Faith McClintic, Director of Economic Development, addressed the Board and stated there
has been a lot of discussion on this item over the last few months, so she would recap a few of the more
significant findings. Ms. McClintic stated the reason this study was initiated was bec ause of a quality
business that economic development staff had been working with before her arrival, and that certainly
provided an opportunity to begin a dialogue on facilitating enhanced employment offerings and to address
the lack of land and buildings for business opportunities. She said there is a shortage in what the
average household pays in taxes versus the cost of providing the required government services
generated by that home. Ms. McClintic said they have also discussed median household income, the
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
cost of living index and how it is driven by housing costs, and how the cost of living and wage index does
not align, with Albemarle’s wages being below the state average. She stated they ha ve also discussed
the breakdown of how employment sectors are comprised, with the bulk of in government positons and
the other large component being retail, accommodations and food service. She said healthcare and
social assistance comprise 11% of employment; professional, scientific and technical services compri se
just 7% of the employment base; and 4% of positions are in manufacturing. Ms. McClintic stated they
have also talked about wage levels, and outside of the $1,900 per week associated with federal
government jobs, finance and insurance is next, and average weekly wages for accommodation and food
services are $378 per week, with retail trade at $565 per week.
Ms. McClintic stated they have also discussed the fact that land use designations for industrial
and commercial purposes are minimal when compared to other peer communities, including those which
have strong programs for preserving natural and historic assets. She said there are approximately 256
acres that are designated for industrial uses but not yet zoned that way, which led to challenges with
inventory when prospects sought locations here. Ms. McClintic stated they have not yet discussed how
some of that data gathered by planning staff has been broken down to establish minimal criteria for sites
that are ready to go, which reduces that number even further. She said based on that criteria, there are
just nine parcels currently in the County’s inventory that are zoned, designated for industrial uses, and
developable when considering site restraints, with those totaling 75 acres.
Ms. McClintic reported that Westcreek Business Park in Goochland County has 3,500 acres,
including signature tenants, with that County also having been careful with their growth policies. She
noted Goochland also has infrastructure at I-64 and I-288, with water, sewer and gas, and zoning to
accommodate a variety of uses. Ms. McClintic stated that Orange County has 155 acres in the Thomas
Lee Park and has a variety of users to date, with a primary Virginia roadway, Route 15, and water, sewer,
gas and rail in place, and that property zoned industrial. She said Louisa County has been very
aggressive, utilizing its economic development authority to position some business parks. She said
Spring Creek has 155 acres in mixed-use development and already has some well-known tenants from
the region, with infrastructure at I-64 and Route 29, and water, sewer and fiber in place, and it is zoned
for business, office and residential uses. Ms. McClintic stated Ferncliff is a smaller business park at 104
acres and is the new home of Patriot Aluminum, formerly located in Albemarle, and that property is
already zoned for industrial and commercial uses, with infrastructure and zoning already in place. She
noted Louisa also has an 800-acre rail site. She said Augusta County also has a number of business
parks up and running, with tenants, critical infrastructure, and zoning in place , and just three parks in
Augusta County totals 1,400 acres with properties zoned for industrial uses with infrastructure in place.
Ms. McClintic said the Cit y of Staunton has 210 acres in Green Hills Technology Center, which is a
venture between their Economic Development Authority, the private sector, and the City of Staunton, with
the infrastructure in place and a great road network.
Ms. McClintic stated the real reason behind why economic development is so essential is the very
significant gap in providing basic government services and the school system, and this opportunity w ill
help provide quality jobs for residents of Albemarle County.
Ms. Palmer said they had talked last week about the recent change allowing industrial properties
on Highway Commercial sites, and asked for confirmation that Ms. McClintic’s overall review of sites she
plans to include the possibility of industrial on those properties. Ms. McClintic responded this is correct,
and said in the information provided by Elaine Echols, there are Comp Plan designations that allow for
some commercial uses, and that has been factored in to some degree as to what the overall analysis will
show. She said some on the list are PD-SC and PD-IP designations, and staff will drill down further into
that in the full analysis.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Director of Planning, addressed the Board and noted on a map the area being
considered for inclusion in the development areas, and stated they have in their packets the text that will
go along with the land use plan. She stated the highlights are that it is for particular industries that need a
location near an interchange near UVA and downtown Charlottes ville, and for specific types of industries
that are part of the County’s targets. Ms. Echols stated that habitat protection is proposed for the area
shown in parks and green systems, and that area might also be used for passive recreation . Because the
properties are fairly hilly, one of the recommendations in the text is that creativity be used in site design
when buildings are planned for the site. She said other recommendations include the need for
interconnections for the regional mixed center, which is to the east of what is being considered; the
importance of protecting nearby residential properties and other nearby properties from noise and odors;
improvements to the interchange and provisions to keep the situation from getting worse; and that the
improvements be provided concurrent with development.
Ms. Echols stated staff has recommended approval with those particular aspects after talking with
the Planning Commission at their work session, but the Commission recommended disapproval, stating
the interchange location does not make this an ideal place. She said one of the most important points to
the Commission was the comprehensive industrial inventory has not yet been done, and when staff did
the Comp Plan work they did an inventory of lands, but it was quantitative, not qualitative. Ms. Echols
said Ms. McClintic’s assessment will do that to see what is realistic with what is zoned and what is
designated. She stated the Planning Commission has indicated the importance of this step to them, a nd
it is one of the top three recommendations to the Board for the work program . The Commission has said
even though water and sewer are available to the site, they are not there yet and the costs have not yet
been determined, but it will likely be expensive. Ms. Echols said the Commission also is concerned about
the environmental impacts, especially to Moore’s Creek, and feel that habitat protection will be difficult to
maintain in this significant mature hardwood forest, by having a new designation and development. She
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
said the Commission also feels that traffic is a problem and the solutions are not in place, and is
concerned that the process has a “compressed timeframe.” Ms. Echols stated the Commission also
stated they had just finished a multi-year project with the Board on the Comp Plan, and it is not time to
consider this addition. She said they also want to give the Economic Development Office time to do their
work, and have asked for an accounting of any costs to the County with regards to incentives.
Ms. Echols asked if the Board has any questions for staff prior to opening the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd said he has been asked by a constituent if this will preclude any zoning requirements or
proffers for the property, since the CPA was generated by the Board.
Mr. Davis responded the CPA was initiated by the Board as a resolution of intent asking that it be
reviewed by the Planning Commission for their recommendation, but that ha s no bearing on a
forthcoming rezoning application to be made b y a property owner. He said a rezoning can be subject to
proffers offered by the property owner, but if the rezoning is initiated by the Board, there will not be a
mechanism for proffers.
Mr. Boyd said this is in line with what he had thought. He asked if there is a requirement for
designation of open space at this stage, or if that can be done later since they are not sure about critical
slopes and other barriers. Ms. Echols responded the land use plan designates those areas to be
preserved because of the land’s particular characteristics, but the Board can choose to not designate any
of that area in the parks and green systems designation, but that will not be consistent with other master
plans. She said another important piece of this is the zoning, and once they get into the zoning aspects
that becomes regulatory. She stated before having a recommendation for a critical slopes or steep
slopes overlay, they will want to look more closely at the site. Ms. Echols confirmed the Board needs to
designate some kind of use on the property, and overlaying the entire thing for industrial development w ill
not be recommended by staff, but the restrictive activity comes at the zoning phase.
Ms. Mallek asked if it might be possible to indicate the areas that are most likely critical slopes,
but will require more verification before being codified as such. Ms. Echols responded the Board is
essentially saying that b y recognizing those as important environmental features, but is not saying these
should never be touched. She stated when the Board gets ready to look at zoning regulations in terms of
steep slopes, this will provide some guidance, but this will not be the ultimate direction provided. Ms.
Echols said that with Woolen Mills, the area surrounding the buildings is shown in green on the Southern
Neighborhoods Master Plan, and the applicant has expressed concern that if the floodplain boundary
moves they will not be able to develop those buildings. She stated staff assured the applicant this is not
the case, and if the boundary moves, that green designation will not be applicable in that particular area.
Ms. Echols said the steep slopes will be considered in the same way, with a closer look at the areas when
it comes time to look at the steep slopes overlay if the property are brought into the development area.
Ms. Mallek said someone had commented that by bringing this into the growth area now, the
potential steep slopes would lose that possibility and become manage d slopes. Ms. Echols responded
the determination of what becomes managed and what becomes preserved happens when they prepare
the steep slopes overlay, and this does not set anything in stone, it only provides guidance. She said if
the slopes are not 25% or do not meet other criteria, they may not necessarily be designated as
preserved slopes, but staff has not done a deep enough analysis to determine which ones would and
which ones would not.
Mr. Foley said this is a completely separate action by the Board as to what will be designated
preserved and what will be managed.
Mr. Echols added staff will put together an overlay for public comment and input, and for the
Commission’s review and recommendation, then to the Board for recommendation and public hea ring,
and the Board would have to adopt the overlay as part of the Zoning Ordinance. She confirmed this will
include more analysis for the Board as to conditions in the field.
Ms. Mallek stated the earlier light industrial study was quantitative in terms of assets, and asked if
staff would expect those numbers to increase with a qualitative review, because it seems that most likely
those will be ruled out rather than in. Ms. Echols replied she would think it is unlikely they would have
vacant developable land area, but part of the in-depth analysis will be looking at redevelopment
opportunities and how commercially zoned properties might be available for some of the types of areas
that target industries need.
Ms. Dittmar asked for staff to clarify exactl y what is entailed in this CPA. Ms. Echols responded
that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in this case would be a change to the master plan, which is part
of the Comp Plan, and it would provide land use designations as well as text that would be advisory in
nature. She said this way, if a rezoning were to come along, the Board would have the direction needed
from the CPA, and if there are any capital improvements or public projects to be done so guidance c an be
provided. Ms. Echols emphasized that a CPA is guidance, but is not regulatory.
Ms. Palmer said the Planning Commission had discussed that if something in the Comp Plan is
industrial, it is assumed that someone looking at a site would be able to get a zoning change done on that
property, and one of the concerns is that there are so many unknowns in this particular situation, it would
be difficult to assure that rezoning. She asked for clarification that there is an assumption that a property
can be rezoned to industrial if it is designated as such on the Comp Plan. Ms. Echols responded this is
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
the case, and part of the reason why this is on a plan is to inform the property owner and others that there
is an expectation of uses in a chart stipulating the possible uses.
Ms. Palmer stated the Planning Commission had expressed concern that this might be doable,
given the constraints on the site.
Ms. Dittmar commented they are not considering critical slope waivers or things that require traffic
studies, but if an applicant comes along they will have to go through the zoning process.
Ms. Echols agreed, and said there are different ways the property could be zoned, applicant-
initiated or initiated by the Board into a conventional district or a specialized district.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Martin of Free Union addressed the Board, stating this item is characterized as a
“border adjustment,” but it is really about designating additional land for industrial use in the County. He
said as a Comp Plan Amendment, two things have to be done comprehensively: deciding how much
additional industrial land is needed to have designated going into the future on the basis of studies of the
County and its needs, and that has not been done; and conducting a comprehensive study as to where
the additional industrial land should be located, in a general sense. Mr. Martin stated that
Comprehensive Planning under the law has not been done, but what has happened is a target industry
came to town, found some property that it liked, then met with County staff in secret and started
negotiating what to do, and this resulted in a Comp Plan Amendment. He said the danger here is that if
the Board approves this, it will compromise rural area residents because another target industry could
come in and identify land it likes, then go through the same process without any Comprehensive Planning
to get the property rezoned. Mr. Martin emphasized this will cause harm to the rural area and result in a
piecemeal reduction of it.
Ms. Susan Roberts of the League of Women Voters addressed the Board and stated the LWV
cannot support this proposal. Ms. Roberts stated the main areas of concern are that a well-established
development area boundary has great value, and a firm boundary lets landowners know what to expect
and how to plan for the land’s use. She said if landowners outside the boundary believe their land can be
easily open to extensive development, they will neither protect nor utilize its rural character; if landowners
within the boundaries feel the development will leapfrog over them, they will not invest or completely
develop what they have. Ms. Roberts said the LWV was surprised the staff report did not even mention
the importance of a firm boundary, and are concerned about the precedent set wh en applicants are
directed to the green fields outside the development area, and changes in the boundary should involve
public discussion of when and for whom the development area line should be breached. She stated the
LWV is not aware of any new policies adopted for pushing the boundary outward, even with a Comp Plan
adopted after many public discussions. Ms. Roberts said this proposal d oes not seem to protect rural
lands or natural resources, and before making such a large land use change, a thorough environmental
study should be done. She stated the County should not encourage development in an existing green
field at the headwaters of a stream that is already impaired, and critical slopes should be considered. Ms.
Roberts said designating the property industrial does not lessen the threat of intense commercial,
industrial or residential development. She said the government’s reputation is affected by the County
acting as applicant, and you cannot ask professional staff to represent the applicant and also analyze the
application.
Ms. Muriel Grim of the Rio District addressed the Board and stated this proposal d oes not make
sense. She stated the County has only a one in three, or four or five chance of getting a brewery that has
some desirable values, and the brewery would provide an unknown percentage of its new jobs to current
County residents. In exchange, she said, the County will jeopardize the legal authority of its Comp Plan;
set a precedent of changing the growth area boundary without explicit criteria for how to do that; pay for
major infrastructure improvement; turn an attractive gateway into an interchange with an industrial park;
and add air, water, noise and light pollution to the area. Ms. Grim emphasized rejecting this amendment
does not mean the area can never be open to development, and if the County proves to be in dire straits
it can use a process that actually exists to change the growth area boundary, and it can get a definitely
committed company to occupy the site. She said there is also the possibility that funds that would have
gone to infrastructure at the 29 South site could be used instead to improve potential industrial sites
already in the growth area. Ms. Grim stated keeping things as they are would allow the new Economic
Development Director time to create an economic development plan that will show a path to increasing
County revenues, while preserving the natural, cultural and historic assets that the County’s vision
statement honors. She said with a creative development plan, there may be no need to consider growth
area expansion. Ms. Grim urged the Board to make this a true hearing and to listen, unders tand,
consider and respond to objections, and to not rush the proposed amendment through.
Ms. Linda Goodling of Ivy addressed the Board and stated she used to live in one of the passive
solar homes at Shepherd’s Hill and is very familiar with the area. She stated the Planning Commission
wisely unanimously voted against this rush to expand the growth area, and emphasized the
Commissioners are professionally trained planners, with four out of seven having extensive backgrounds
in planning. Ms. Goodling urged the Board to take the Commission’s advice, and said there are too many
unknowns to make a good decision. She said she is not against the business, just the location and the
Board breaking all their rules for the possibility of beer. Ms. Goodling state d the report said this site is
favorable for their business, but it may not be the right spot for the community, which is special because
of careful planning. She said the Board took time with the 29 Bypass and water supply plan, yet rushed
to bring in a brewery. Ms. Goodling stated a strategic assessment needs to be done, as there are
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
environmental issues such as critical slopes and the proximity to Moore’s Creek, which is already
compromised. She said the traffic has been dangerous since the 1970s, and having beer trucks and beer
drinkers will clog the area, and just because a traffic mess is created does not mean that VDOT will come
in and fix it. Ms. Goodling stated this may not be the great financial deal they thought, and the County
has admitted it has not defined the complete inventory, and they are fooling themselves to think that
employees pushing beer will make $60,000. She said there is not an updated assessment of other sites,
and there may be plenty of possible industry in the growth area that would be willing to do something if
the County offered them a sweet deal. Ms. Goodling said green space will be lost forever, and when
something seem s too good to be true, it probably is not true. She urged the Board to listen to the
Commissioners.
Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board and stated the crux of this
discussion is about three things, jobs, revenue and growth control, and everything else is a designed
distraction. Mr. Williamson said there have been suggestions to limit the expansion to one or two parcels,
but the FEF believes the larger the expansion, the more flexibility the County will have if and when
rezonings come forward. He stated the larger the expansion, the more career ladder jobs for the County,
and economic diversity helps local economies weather market cycles. He stated the Board is aware of
the significant demands on the budget, and has even appointed a Citizens Resource Advisory Committee
to find new sources of revenue, and have just discussed “funding for the future” with the School Board.
Mr. Williamson said just one business can equate to two cents on the residential tax rate, which is
significant. He stated for years, Albemarle’s economic policy was that applicants were lucky if the Cou nty
was even considering them for location here, but in recent times there has been a warming of the positive
climate for businesses, and a vote for this CPA would say that “Albemarle is open for business,” with a
negative vote being equally loud.
Mr. David Van Roijen addressed the Board and said sometimes people have two minutes and
sometimes they have three minutes. Ms. Dittmar responded when there are a lot of speakers, the Board
reduces the typical three minute allotment to two minutes, and that is not known in advance because they
do not know who is signing up. She stated Ms. Mallek’s advice is good, suggesting that speakers go to
their main theme right away and then expand on their points.
Mr. Sheffield said providing the Board with written materials is also helpful.
Mr. Van Roijen stated he is from the Samuel Miller District and said the Board seems to think
there is some confusion on the part of the public and the Planning Commission, and the only question is
whether this land should ultimately be used for industrial purposes or not. He suggested the Board may
have created a problem by not dealing with the public in the usual honest and straightforward planning
process. Mr. Van Roijen stated the reality is they have a new Comprehensive Plan that reviewed all the
County area designations, including looking at this area as growth area. However, he said with the need
for additional tax revenues and a potential third tax increase, the Board decided to do a fast shuffle of the
deck, enticed by Ms. McClintic’s suggestion of $2.5 million in tax revenues from a brewing company. He
noted the Board may not have fully understood the matching funds as part of the deal from the state. Mr.
Van Roijen said the area consistently ranks in the top 10 places to live in the country, so it makes little
sense to use tax dollars to bribe a factory to locate here, and companies should have to bid to be here.
He stated he guessed that few of the Board members have walked the area in question, much less spent
time observing the interchange, and there are numerous problems in adding this to the growth area. Mr.
Van Roijen said the previous week’s overturned tractor-trailer incident with a multi-hour backup only
served to emphasize VDOT’s report that the conditions are intolerable and need upgrading. He
suggested the Board reject this resolution, or strike out the sentences that they have “carefully considered
discussion and the recommendation of the Planning Commiss ion and the comments from the public,” and
strike the resolution that this will “best promote health, safety and convenience, prosperity and the
general welfare of inhabitants.” He said otherwise, they will be guilty of malfeasance. Mr. Van Roijen
said if they need more growth areas, they should review the whole County and provide supporting
economic impact data that can be projected for selecting those locations before moving forward. He
stated as a member of the Fiscal Impact Committee, he believes they need to better understand the costs
of growth, and if revenues are needed, the Economic Development person should be working to help
businesses grow.
Mr. Tim Hulbert, Executive Director of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, stated
the Chamber firmly supports this parcel restoration in development area acreage and other future
adjustments that do not manifestly shift the urban/rural balance. He stated the Chamber is not in favor of
a manifest shift in the balance, and realize the Commission has recommended denial. Mr. Hulbert stated
the Commission deals with the details of land use, but as Supervisors they have a broader responsibility
to address and balance interests that are often competing: public safety, economic opportunity,
workforce, tax base growth, school and preschool enrichment, infrastructure, cultural and environmental
concerns, and so forth. He said the Supervisors are charged with doing this, and they ran for this office.
Mr. Hulbert stated the Orange Dot Report shows that 16% of families in Albemarle are not self-sufficient,
and said the status quo will be asking “why” they should approve this, and vision will be asking “why not.”
He urged the Board to approve the boundary adjustment and stated that 223 acres out of 440,000 total
acres in the County is not a manifest shift.
Mr. John Dozier addressed the Board and stated he is a resident of North Garden and does not
support this CPA, stating his reasons are the very similar as many of the Planning Commission’s. Mr.
Dozier stated one of those reasons is traffic, and VDOT’s report showed that over the last 4.5 years, there
have been 70 accidents within two miles of the interchange, including one nine days earlier when a
tractor-trailer overturned. He said there are also quality of life issues, with an industrial area being put in
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
next to a church that has been in the County almost 100 years, and a park that will be located right
behind the brewery. Mr. Dozier said he is all for jobs and economic development, but his real objection is
they have not gone through the proper assessment of their existing growth plan, and both Ms. Echols and
Ms. McClintic have stated that “we do not really know what we have in the County to use for industrial
areas.” He said this is the lazy way to go about it, just to find a green field area and slap this on, and he
urged them to do the hard work and determine what assets are in the County to attract businesses here.
Mr. Hunter Smith, President and Founder of Champion Brewing Company, addressed the Board
and voiced his support for the proposal. Mr. Smith stated that as the person who employs these
individuals and processes the seven-figure revenue his company made, he can attest to the real
contributions this brewery will be making to both the job and revenue components of the industry. He
said that despite the fact this brewery will be considered a competitor, the industry overall is collaborative
and benefits from critical mass, bringing more breweries to the area. Mr. Smith stated they have seen
breweries come looking for location here and keep going to places like Asheville, North Carolina. He said
Champion was lucky to find a place to locate, and the site they are leasing now is the last place they had
looked, and it is the last place they could find that would work. Mr. Smith stated they are looking for
places now but are not finding them.
Mr. Jason Buyaki addressed the Board, stating he supports the amendment and noted that a vital
economy is important for a vital community. Mr. Buyaki said they have seen the revenue cliff they face,
and if they can grow the economic base they can reduce the burden on the real estate tax.
Ms. Carolyn Betts of the White Hall District addressed the Board and fully supports the CPA. Ms.
Betts stated she is a commercial real estate agent in the area, and she can recall five companies she has
worked with that wanted to locate their businesses in Albemarle, but there was nothing for them here.
She said four of them ended up in surrounding counties, and one of them, that would have employed 600
people, is prospering and paying taxes in Roanoke. Ms. Betts commended the Board for hiring such a
high-quality and high-caliber Economic Development Director and hopes they will give her the tools to do
her job, reiterating she fully supports the CPA.
Ms. Helen Cauthen, President of the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development,
addressed the Board and stated that CVPED strongly supports the boundary adjustment. Ms. Cauthen
stated the County’s successful existing businesses want to remain and grow here, and deserve to do so.
She said staff had reported in June that the County had missed opportunities for 19 existing business
expansions, representing more than 700 jobs, and these businesses generate tax revenues that help
alleviate the need to raise taxes on the homeowners. Ms. Cauthen said when growing companies leave,
they take their jobs and tax revenues with them. She stated her office is located in the Workforce Center,
where people come to try to find livable wage jobs, and in FY15, more than 16,400 visits were made to
the Center, with 42% or about 7,000 made by County residents. Ms. Cauthen noted last year, almost 200
graduates of Albemarle County high schools, or 20%, stated they did not plan to go to college and would
be entering the workforce. She stated the Chamber jobs report produced with CVPED ha d noted that
there were 4,395 manufacturing jobs in the year 2000, and only 2,161 jobs in 2014, a 50% reduction , and
these jobs pay much better than retail positions. Ms. Cauthen said the Partnership has been working for
more than a year with the prospect interested in this site, and she can assure them the company is a
target industry and will be an outstanding fit for the County, with a focus on sustainability, and w ill offer
quality career-ladder jobs for the creative class. She asked those at the meeting who are in support of
the boundary adjustment to stand, and requested the Board support the CPA.
Ms. Jerry McCormick-Ray of the White Hall District addressed the Board and stated she opposes
the proposal and does not think it is good for the County, nor does it set a good precedent for their
planning process. Ms. McCormick-Ray stated they have not considered this for a long enough period of
time to figure out the problems and how much debt they will go into before recuperating any job creation
or tax incentives. She said there are many questions that need to be asked, including why this ex pansion
is necessary; why the business opportunity rank s so highly given the decision will subvert the planning
process; what the likely costs and impacts will be of this expansion on traffic, public services, and on the
lives of the rural community that live there; what plan is in place to mitigate impacts; and how much the
County will have to spend to facilitate this growth area and to pay for the water, sewer, traffic and security
to support it. Ms. McCormick -Ray stated they are creating more problems and issues they will have to
correct before deciding to go on with such an expansive decision in changing from a rural area into a
developed area.
Mr. Brian Roy of the Samuel Miller District and contract purchaser of the Woolen Mills site , a
mixed use site with a light industrial component, addressed the Board. He stated he is in favor of the
boundary adjustment and supports the Board’s efforts. Mr. Roy said since he was before the Board a
year earlier, he had the opportunity to speak with several owners of manufacturing businesses, which are
very productive and make a huge investment in their real estate and the County as a whole. He stated
this will be very productive to the County and he hopes it goes through, and he said he is also the father
of two boys in the County school system and sees the challenges of the budget shortfall. Mr. Roy said
having a balance between industrial and residential that can add to the tax base benefit s them all, and
this provides an opportunity to help strike that balance.
Ms. Barbara Payne of the White Hall District addressed the Board, stating she has familiarized
herself with the Planning Commission’s reasons for their unanimous lack of support for this amendment
to the Comp Plan, and she agrees with them and urges the Board to follow their recommendation. Ms.
Payne stated this does not mean she is opposed to development, and she urges the County to identify all
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
of the commercial land that can be placed into industrial land, so that people who c ome to visit know what
is truly available.
Ms. Mary Rice of the White Hall District addressed the Board and stated one of the things
mentioned by the Chair that they would not be discussing was rezoning , but that is exactly what they are
talking about. Ms. Rice stated she was surprised that Ms. McClintic presented slide after slide showing
data from neighboring counties and their industrial land when Albemarle d oes not even have that data, so
it seems odd that they would measure their inventory against a bar when they do not even know what that
is. She said her other concern is related to setting precedent, not just about the planning process, and as
a resident of Crozet and a participant in that community’s master planning process, it is very disturbing to
see the fact that the land is near an interchange to be used as a reason to expand the growth area.
Ms. Laura Sprung of the White Hall District addressed the Board and stated the Planning
Commission had unanimously disapproved of this amendment, and she pleads with the Board to listen to
the Commission and turn this proposal down.
Ms. Kristin Suokko addressed the Board and stated she is the Executive Director of the Local
Food Hub, which also serves as the fiscal agent in a planning process supported by the County and the
City for a flash freezing facility for the region. Ms. Suokko said she is not before them to take a position
on this amendment, and her organization has no stake in this site. She stated what she hopes to do is to
add to the conversation regarding the lack of light industrial space and the high cost of locating
agribusiness in the County. She stated the Local Food Hub is a non-profit aggregator and distributor of
produce and value-added products from small Virginia farms, and last year they purchased close t o $1
million from those farms as well as providing services to partner farms. Ms. Suokko said their
infrastructure needs are fairly modest, with a refrigerated warehouse space and a need for truck
accessibility. She stated the food hub currently operates out of an old IGA building in Ivy, with heavy
subsidy from their landlord, and hopefully they will outgrow the space someday and find new space in the
County. Ms. Suokko said in July, a team completed a feasibility study for a facility that would make lo cal
produce available year-round and create light manufacturing jobs, and they will need 30,000 square feet
of industrial space, utility and road infrastructure, and proximity to workers. She stated the team looked at
20-25 properties in the City and County, and only one came close to fitting the criteria and being
affordable, and they believe that a robust local food system needs farms and local businesses to support
them.
Mr. Rich Barnett addressed the Board and stated he teaches history at UVA and has lived here
since 1974. Mr. Barnett stated he had run through the property and saw there are many hardwood trees,
some 350 years old, 220 feet tall, with very few conifers or softwood trees. He said he then envisioned
the site after what they are proposing, and it will create a zone like 5th Street Extended opposite Food
Lion, a big pile of green trees full of accelerants burning for 10 days to get rid of them. Mr. Barnett said
he makes his own beer, and the brewing process generates a strong smell, and with a large brewery
there will be noise and pollution 24/7. He noted during his visit to the site, three beer trucks passed him.
Mr. Barnett said the whole idea of this creating jobs is entirely false, and said this project is a job killer,
noting that Lowe’s killed all but one mom and pop hardware store in Charlottesville; Smithfield Stadium
Cinema killed all other movie houses, including Vinegar Hill; Barnes & Noble bookstore killed all but one
mom and pop bookstore in Charlottesville. He emphasized the proposed brewery is a job killer, and
urged them to make no mistake about it. Mr. Barnett said Ms. McClintic is doing a great job and what she
was hired to do, but asked this adjustment be not here, and not now.
Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP)
addressed the Board and stated the growth area expansion was proposed by County economic
development staff as an attractive potential home for an out-of-state company indicating an interest in
expanding here. Mr. Olivier said the public is being told the taxes from a business on this site will help
close the growing gap between revenues and expenses; however, the fiscal benefits of this proposed use
have not been established, and there are other associated problems. He referenced an analysis that
indicates that under plausible assumptions, if half the jobs of a new company are filled by people who do
not currently live here, the net fiscal effect of a new company is slightly negative, and subsidies can only
worsen the imbalance. He stated VDOT has said the considered industrial use of the proposed
expansion will exacerbate traffic problems, and a new Chamber of Commerce report shows that job
growth is strong. Mr. Olivier urged them not to sacrifice the Comp Plan and rural areas at the altar of
economic development, and to have the economic development program stay focused on helping local
companies provide better jobs to current residents, and if new buildings are needed, to promote
redevelopment of lands already in development areas. He stated the text on the Albemarle County
website claims that “Albemarle is going green, and we want you to come along,” and ASAP says, “Let’s
stay green, and not sacrifice 200+ acres of rural area to a growth area expansion of dubious value.”
Ms. Wren Olivier of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board, stating she is opposed to this
proposal with the most important reason being preventing further desecration of rural areas, and said if
they put as much effort into preserving them as they do toward development, they would all live in a much
better place.
Ms. Christine Davis of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board and presented a petition
from voters from Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett, and sa id that increasing tax revenues is a worthy goal,
but revenues do not equal net profits. Ms. Davis said the County is in a similar position to that of the
financial firms for which she has worked: both had limited resources to invest, and both had rules as to
how they evaluated projects and allocated resources. She urged the Board to follow their rules and
conduct the usual level of due diligence that a change to the already approved Comprehensive Plan
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
requires, and said one does not have to work in finance to know that insufficiently evaluated proposals
lose their investors’ money and create unintended problems. Ms. Davis asked the Board to table the
change until they conduct two studies, and she read the language of the voters’ petition, “Study before
changing the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan.” She read the petition, which calls for a neighborhood
master plan and establishment of a citizens’ advisory council as they had done for Crozet, as well as
comprehensive land use plan that tallies all County lands currently available for industrial purposes and
determines how much land the market needs. Ms. Davis noted that adding land before knowing is not
good business practice.
Mr. Henry Weinschenk addressed the Board, stating there is an acute shortage of land for
industrial use, and none of the opponents to the Comp Plan Amendment ha ve suggested an alternate
area for industrial expansion. Mr. Weinschenk said since retiring from his business, he has become an
advisor to a small, very light manufacturing company that wants to grow, and if they are successful in
growing, they are moving out of the area.
Ms. Judy Robinson addressed the Board, stating it ha s been brought to the attention of Sherwood
Farms residents and others in the area that before raising questions, the land use change has to be
agreed upon, but she does not know how they can approve of the change in land use until they fully
understand the impact of the change. Ms. Robinson stated the light industrial site w ill be directly opposite
the entrance to Sherwood Farms and their homes, and the thought of 500 extra vehicles going in and out ,
let alone 5,000 as was mentioned in the paper, is mind boggling. She said on her way home the day
before, there were at least five or six tractor-trailers waiting to cross Route 29 South, and because the line
was so long they were blocking one lane of 29, which is not unusual. Ms. Robinson stated there is no
way the busy intersection can cope with such a huge overload, and surely infrastructure changes should
be made now just to address present conditions. She said the whole area w ill have to change if more
development is made at this junction, and said she is also concerned that the entrance corridors coming
into the City of Charlottesville, particularly Route 29 and Route 250 at Pantops, are not an attractive
entrance to the City. Ms. Robinson expressed concern that this type of development will happen on
Route 29 South, possibly all the way to Lynchburg. She asked those who are opposed to the boundary
adjustment to stand.
Mr. David Mitchell of the Jack Jouett District addressed the Board and stated he work s for Great
Eastern Management, and said his company manages properties in the growth area, and there is not
enough light industrial land in Albemarle County. Mr. Mitchell stated his wife owns Bounce-N-Play and
had visited a one-acre parcel in Albemarle County and requested that their business be located on
Commonwealth Drive, but they were told this would not happen because there is not enough industrial
land to allow them to get a special use permit for just a commercial use on that acre. He said tax
revenues are important, and this can possibly help alleviate the burden on the real estate tax rate and
reduce the Board’s fight each year to establish to add pennies to the tax rate. Mr. Mitchell added this is
not really an expansion of the growth area, it is compensation for the 1,200 acres that was lost when
Biscuit Run became a park.
Mr. Jeff Werner addressed the Board, stating he is representing the Piedmont Environmental
Council and clarifying that Biscuit Run does not have a single square foot of industrial land in it. He
stated the PEC urged the Board not to approve this expansion until a thorough analysis ha s been done,
as called for in their Comp Plan. Mr. Werner said people trust their voices will be heard, but after being
told they are confused and are getting ahead of themselves, it is difficult to maintain that trust. He stated
the Board has a responsibility to do Comprehensive Planning, and in June they wrapped up an almost
five-year review of the plan, and they did not endorse this expansion. Mr. Werner said what the Board is
considering is piecemeal planning that they initiated three months ago with the hope they could get an out
of town brewery to locate here, but the business has made no commitment to this community, and the
County is the applicant so far. He stated this will come down to financial incentives, and Asheville landed
New Belgium Brewing with $12 million; Richmond had spent $38 million to get Stone Brewing there. Mr.
Werner said there is no guarantee the brewery will come here, and the decision will run with the land, and
there is no way to limit the site only to companies the Board likes, and that has a commitment to
environmental stewardship. He stated staff claim s it needs the expansion as there are only 75 acres of
industrial land available, a total that is inexplicably down from the several hundred acres presented in
August. Mr. Werner said staff’s analysis continues to omit the underutilized parcels in the County, the
uses allowed on commercial land, and the 500,000 square feet of vacant industrial building space in the
County. He stated VDOT has also expressed significant concerns about this, and he presented materials
on the New Belgium Brewery in Asheville, noting it does not lay lightly on the land.
Mr. Harvey Wilcox of Ivy addressed the Board and stated he is alarmed at the procedure the
Board is following, wherein they have reached the conclusion that more light industrial land is needed and
asked the staff to come up with a way to justify it. He said this is totally backwards, and he expected
better from this Board. Mr. Wilcox stated the series of interchanges throughout the County is green for a
good reason, and the Board had just completed a long overhaul of the Comp Plan. He said this is a
genie they will never get back in the bottle, as rezoning will surely follow, and interchange alterations will
eventually change the character of the County. Mr. Wilcox stated this is a much bigger decision than one
brewery’s application, and there are a lot of questions to be answered, what good is industrial zoning and
how much does it really add to the tax revenue base, and how many employees of this company w ill
actually live in the County. He said he would hate to have this Board be remembered as the one that
turned this County’s interchanges into ones that resemble the Ohio Turnpike.
Mr. John Cruickshank of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club addressed the Board and ur ged
them not to approve an expansion of the growth area at the I-64/Route 29 intersection. He stated the
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Piedmont Group recognizes the importance of increasing the industrial tax base, but there are too many
unanswered questions that require careful consideration: why it is necessary to expand the growth area
when there are hundreds of acres in the growth area available for light industrial use, and whether
numerous vacant buildings in the County are being considered for redevelopment; what the impact of
development at this intersection will be on the flow of traffic on Route 29 South, and whether it will be
necessary to install another traffic site; what impact the company wanting to build on this site will have on
the ecosystem and how much water it will take from reservoirs; what new infrastructure, such as water
and sewer, electric lines, and roads will be needed to accommodate this business; and what steps will be
taken to mitigate damage to the natural environment and protect the attractiveness of the southern
entrance to Charlottesville. Mr. Cruickshank said the people of Albemarle County have the right to know
the answers to these questions before the Board decides to expand the growth area, and asked them to
reject this proposal.
Ms. Janet Eden of the Scottsville District addressed the Board and said several years earlier the
Supervisors tried to put a dump in her backyard, but the people spoke up and it did not happen, and that
is going to have to happen again. Ms. Eden said if this is a local brewery looking for a bigger place to be
in the County, they should be helped to find a place, but not this site. She stated that using the
interchange is taking your life into your hands, and when she called VDOT about the road condition, they
laughed. Ms. Eden said they cannot even get organized enough to repave the bridges going across
because there is so much traffic. She stated she does not think this is going to happen, and all the Board
is going to do is create a big fight and waste everyone’s time.
Ms. Celia Belton of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board and urged them to be very
cautious in considering this proposal, which is fraught with unintended consequences and will set a
dangerous precedent, and approving this action will leave them vulnerable for development of other
interchanges. Ms. Belton said that little by little, the very fabric that makes the locality so splendid is
being torn asunder, and certainly a more suitable location could be found for this industrial complex, and
they can avoid setting a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Donald Day of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board and stated he oppose s the
Comp Plan change, in part because the action is motivated by a specific brewer’s interest rather than a
disciplined study of what is best for Albemarle. He stated this unusual approach absolutely conflates the
boundary line adjustment with the zoning, and asked why they would change the Comp Plan’s designated
use for an area if the potential use is not appropriate. Mr. Day said the Board has the letter from VDOT,
and commented it will be decades before the funding is available to fix the intersection. He asked if it
would not be more prudent to have a balance sheet that could convince them that the cost for the impacts
is less than the revenue generated. Mr. Day stated the County should be welcoming businesses that c an
take advantage of the University and the graduates who want to stay here. He said that encouraging
development is not just what can be provided to businesses in terms of amenities and subsidies, but
should include questions as to how their presence will help the area become a better community, and
how they will nurture creativity and resourcefulness. Mr. Day stated the Planning Commission is
comprised of professional planners and he hopes their input will not be tossed aside, adding that a no
vote is not a vote against growth or jobs, it is an affirmation for Comprehensive Planning. He added if
they contact him, he could find $1.5 million in revenue from a business in the County with $280 million in
revenue.
Ms. Norma Diehl of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board, stating she opposes the
change and considers the proposed action a direct assault on the integrity of the Comp Plan, which has
guided County growth and development since 1971. Ms. Diehl said residents ha ve the right to the same
studies and timely review that occurs with every other district for Comp Plan amendments. She said the
Planning Commission got it right, and was done a disservice by the casual dismissal of their unanimous
denial, which is based on a woeful lack of important information, missing studies, and incomplete or
misleading data. Ms. Diehl stated there is not a grain of infrastructure available to support an 80+ acre
industrial park on this mountainside, and no adequate interstate interchange in the foreseeable future.
She said thus far, normal planning process has been ignored at the request of a single business interest
and an LLC, but residents need clarity and a real study process prior to any Board action. Ms. Diehl
asked the Board to defer the amendment for a proper and complete review worthy of Albemarle County,
adding that they can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig, and this amendment is a pig.
Mr. Glen Brome of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board and stated that Ms. McClintic
has a difficult job. He stated he opposes changing the Comp Plan and has five reasons why. Mr. Brome
stated one is pride in Albemarle, and development should be for a really good reason, not to benefit a few
or one; Albemarle is unique and should not be seen in competition with other counties in terms of
attracting businesses. He stated it severely weakens the Comp Plan when someone waves money and
they look at modifying it, and once they open this up to development, it makes it easier for others to
come. Mr. Brome said another reason is not to slay the goose that laid the golden egg, as people come
here to see the beauty, and they leave money without leaving negative impacts on the environment. He
stated impact fees typically do not offset the needs generated by development, such as widening of 29
and additional police, which are already short. Mr. Brome stated if it is true that additional development
generate increased revenue for the tax base, then people in Northern Virginia should be paying no taxes ,
and a recent Washington Post article indicates that while taxes are up, services are down. Mr. Brome
added he would not want to be in that environment ever again.
Mr. Percy Montague addressed the Board, stating he is a lifelong resident of Albemarle County
and expressed his support for the boundary adjustment. Mr. Montague stated he supports the notion that
there is not enough light industrial land in the County, and it has been suggested that Highway
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
Commercial can be substituted. He explained that Highway Commercial land requires access, visibility,
traffic count, and is sold by the square foot to be used by restaurants, banks and gas stations. He said
light industrial property is in much larger parcels of five, ten or more acres and is sold by the acre, and the
cost of purchasing multiple HC sites to comprise this kind of area for manufacturing is not realistic. Mr.
Montague stated the growth area boundary was created about 20 years ago and was a rather arbitrary
line drawn around the community, and he owned a piece of property with a line drawn right down the
middle of it, with part in the growth area and part out of it. He said the entire parcel is in the jurisdictional
area for water and sewer, and is zoned R-1, so it is a pretty arbitrary designation. Mr. Montague said
when the idea of the growth area was sold five years ago, the idea was that it would be reviewed every
five years and modified as needed.
Mr. Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center addressed the Board, stating
growth area expansions are a big deal in Albemarle. He said this is not to say they are never appropriate,
but they should be a last resort and should have com pelling justifications. Mr. Butler said one of the main
justifications with this expansion is concern that vacant areas designated for industrial use in the Comp
Plan are not suitable for industry. He stated this concern needs to be clarified, and the Comp Plan the
Board just adopted presents a set of strategies designed to get to the root of the issue and address it.
Mr. Butler said they include doing a strategic assessment of the areas currently designated for business
and industry, and investing in wa ys to make those locations more suitable. He stated the SELC is
concerned this proposal has leapfrogged in front of those other strategies, turning inside out the strategy
that growth area expansion should be a last resort. Mr. Butler said there is a specific business prospect
driving the rush here, and while the SELC appreciates the County changing course back in June to go
through the normal CPA steps, they are very uncomfortable that the County, rather than the business
prospect or landowner, is the one spearheading the CPA. He stated this has resulted in an awkward
situation in which the County is playing the role of applicant and reviewer, and the public is reacting with
understandable angst. Mr. Butler said in light of these concerns, the SELC urge s the Board to take a step
back and complete the steps called for in the Comp Plan before further considering the expansion of the
growth area to increase the supply of industrial land. He asked if the County is determined to try to
accommodate the brewery in this area, they should at least proceed in a way that limits the long-term
precedential damage that could be done here. Mr. Butler asked that any proposal be limited to the R -1
parcel, and that either the landowner or the agent step forward as applic ant, rather than having the
County continue to stumble through the process.
Mr. Radford Davis of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board, stating he wants to
reference several things the Supervisors have said publicly over the last few weeks. Mr. Davis said Ms.
Dittmar was quoted in Charlottesville Tomorrow as stating that people are “confused” by the process, and
that without planning classes they tend to “smoosh it all together.” Mr. Davis said that m ore people are
planners than she thinks, and he makes his living by planning the growth of complex systems with a lot of
variables, and he would be fired if he smooshed it all together. He emphasized that people are not
confused by planning, but by the lack of it. Mr. Davis stated that no specific criteria has been defined to
determine the suitability of this parcel for industrial use, which the Board has said is the one question
being discussed. He said no alternate parcels have been compared, nor have any alternate uses been
proposed for this parcel, and if there is no way to measure success, there is no way to succeed. Mr.
Davis said this might be why the Planning Commissioners , who surely had planning classes, have
recommended denial of the proposal they submitted to themselves. He stated several Supervisors have
suggested that development of the area would induce VDOT to improve the road problems sooner, but
VDOT already knows the road is over capacity. Mr. Davis said they know this because of accidents
there, and there was one last week in the same spot one had happened a year earlier in which two
people were killed and two were injured. He stated VDOT has proposed upgrading this interchange
starting in 2024, and VDOT representative Chuck Proctor has told the Planning Commission that the
cheapest of the proposed improvements would consume 1/5 of the HB2 funds and would compete
against projects in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, which have a lot more congestion. Mr. Davis
emphasized the Board is gambling with lives and with highway funds, and the people who drive through
the intersection lose either way. He asked if the Board consider s those lives to be acceptable losses
along with transparency and due process, and asked if the ends of econo mic development justify the
means of using road accidents to push VDOT to act sooner.
Mr. Frank Stoner addressed the Board, stating his property is across the street at Sherwood
Farms, and he is also a real estate professional who has lived and worked in the community for 32 years,
helping some businesses wanting to relocate in the County. Mr. Stoner stated he ha s many reasons for
supporting this proposal, including the fact that prior land use changes in the last Comp Plan versions did
not have the benefit of an economic development professional, and the Board should give her a chance
to do her job. He said that voting no to this proposal will send a clear message that Albemarle is still
closed for business, and will increase the likelihood that, at least, a portion of this property will develop as
it is currently zoned, R-1 residential, resulting in significant environmental degradation. He stated this will
also mean no money for cash proffers, surplus revenue, or addressing of traffic issues. Mr. Ston er said
the traffic issues exist today, and he is far more confident that these issues will be addressed to their
satisfaction through a rezoning and development review, rather than by right. He stated light industrial
can be developed in ways that are environmentally compatible and in keeping with the rural character of
Route 29 South, and still provide needed highway access.
Ms. Abigail Turner of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board and stated her opposition to
the CPA, and said they need a more thorough analysis particularly regarding the cost of water and sewer
for an industry like a brewery. Ms. Turner said this is a speculative opportunity for a brewery that may or
may not locate here, and the new Chesapeake Bay requirements alone require a more thorough analysis
in terms of costs for water and sewer improvements.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
Ms. Susan Bender of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board, stating she oppose s the
boundary adjustment as it was not arrived at with the same sort of study given to the Comp Plan. Ms.
Bender said the Plan is just three months old, and it seems that now suddenly there is this terrible need
for industrial land. She stated part of the common heritage of humanity is being able to see the stars, and
to share that with future generations. Ms. Bender said when her family arrived in 1976, she could show
her children a red star on Christmas Eve, but by the time they left in 1996 after Pant ops had been
developed, and there was only gray overhead. She stated the County’s lighting ordinance is not enough,
and the glare from the City of Charlottesville only compounds this problem. Ms. Bender added she is
very afraid that adding light industrial development will cause the night sky to disappear even more.
Mr. Jerry Miller addressed the Board and stated he owns a small business on Market Street and
two properties in the Samuel Miller District, and is in favor of the proposal because of new job creation,
the tax revenue boost, the beer tourism dollars that attract residents from D.C. and other areas. Mr. Miller
stated he and 10 friends had recently done a beer crawl around Charlottesville and had a fabulous time,
and the group was spending money on food, beverages, and merchandise. He said in addition to the
direct revenue from those sales, there is also money spent on things such as gas for distribution vehicles
and media outlets covering the breweries.
Ms. Sally Thomas of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board, stating there was a study
done by the Darden Business School on GE that showed that 65% of new hires came from outside, so
you cannot expand your way out of fiscal problems when new families are brought in for new businesses.
Ms. Thomas said there are 900 new jobs in the community at above-average wage levels, including those
with COSTCO and Wegman’s, and not a penny of tax dollars went to attracting them, with those
businesses offering just the kinds of jobs that are wanted here and that people presently in the community
can fill. She stated one of the charges for the Economic Development Office will be to determine why it is
so difficult to change land into industrial use.
Ms. Audrey Jesson of the Samuel Miller District addressed the Board, stating she had heard Mr.
Boyd speaking on WINA’s Rob Schilling show about the John Warner Parkway’s ineffectiveness and the
difficulties with the Rio Road improvements. Ms. Jesson said in asking how they got to that point, what
they are deciding tonight is exactly how they got there, and they have the opportunity to not make another
decision like those, that they will be living with for a long time. She stated Mr. Boyd had also mentioned
that the jobs coming here are “blue collar,” and she wonders if those will really be able to afford the typical
Albemarle County home. Ms. Jesson urged them not to make a change at the interchange.
Mr. Neil Hulverson Taylor, vicar of Good Shepherd/Hickory Hill at 960 Monacan Trail Road is
before them to address the urgency of this CPA, and said they should take a longer view. He stated the
church has been there since 1905, with a cemetery onsite that has graves from people who lived in the
19th Century. Mr. Taylor emphasized the Comp Plan is a wise plan, and includes considerations of
concerns for not just the present, but also the past. He stated that perhaps the church plays a role in
making that important, but they need to take a longer view as to what kind of character they want for the
rural area.
Mr. John Hermsmyer of the Scottsville District addressed the Board and stated he ha s lived there
since 1989. He said that in preparing for this meeting, he wondered what the rural areas and all their
inhabitants, human and otherwise, would say if they could speak for themselves. Mr. Hermsmyer stated
that earlier in the meeting, the Board was honoring caretakers of the land, but now is also considering
wiping out those contributions by this action, and at some point they need to call a truce and work toward
environmental improvement, rather than eroding it. He said growth is not inevitable, it is a choice, and
rural areas being destroyed are associated with destruction of the quality of life. Mr. Hermsmyer said the
Planning Commission is taking a broader view in their considerations, not just economic ones, and that
should be listened to. He added he is confident the Board will be looking at redevelopment.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
(NonAgenda. At 8:42 p.m., the Board recessed meeting, and then reconvened at 8:59 p.m.)
Mr. Sheffield stated he wants to acknowledge the comments made thanking Ms. McClintic for her
work, as she has taken quite a bit of heat with this proposed CPA.
Ms. Palmer said she appreciates the comments made about needing more industrial property,
from the business community and others, and feels this is something the County needs to look at. She
stated she is concerned about this particular CPA in this particular area, and said the Planning
Commission has some very good points. Ms. Palmer said this particular place ha s problems that need to
be looked at further before they go through the CPA, and stated that sometimes they do Comp Plan
Amendments, but most of the time they are done within the context of the Comp Plan review. She stated
if there is a property that a business is interested in, it is more appropriate to be doing the CPA along with
the rezoning and having an applicant, so they can deal with the mitigating factors in that particular area.
Ms. Palmer said she is not in favor of going forward with this CPA the way it is stated at this point, adding
that the Planning Commission had some very good points to make.
Mr. Boyd stated he realizes that four of the Supervisors have not been on the Board for a very
long time, but he and Ms. Mallek have, and in January 2010, they made economic development a top
priority. Mr. Boyd said this is not a rush process, and they have held numerous roundtable discussions,
work sessions, meetings with the Planning Commission, and input from industry experts, real estate
brokers, and so forth. He stated they brought in experts in helping companies relocate, and have heard
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
stories of companies going to other communities because Albemarle is perceived to be “an unfriendly
community” towards business. Mr. Boyd said one of the first things they had to do was convince people ,
including those in the Governor’s office, that Albemarle is open for business. He stated they have been
working to change that image, and agreed to hire an Economic Development Director, and he is glad they
had done that. Mr. Boyd said there are thousands of people in the community who are looking for work,
and Albemarle is unwilling to provide the necessary space for industrial jobs. He stated this vote is for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which is just the first part of this process, and they will still have to go
through a rezoning process and traffic studies, and a site plan process that will address site-specific
issues. Mr. Boyd stated he is in favor of the proposal, and the Board has a much bigger job than just
trying to satisfy a group of people who came out in opposition to it. He added he is concerned that a vote
against this will be a vote against some of the middle class people of the community.
Ms. Palmer said this is not about jobs and protecting middle class people, it is about a specific
area, and when they talk about this interchange being unique because it is near UVA, it is also unique
because it is the worst designed interchange on I-64. She said there are problems with this area, and to
say you can designate something industrial in the Comp Plan means it can be rezoned for industrial, and
for that they need the further study. Ms. Palmer emphasized this is not a vote for or against middle class
people, it is a very specific situation.
Mr. Boyd said he does not agree with her.
Ms. McKeel asked staff to address the claims that have been m ade about the Board setting a
precedent with this decision. Mr. Davis said that every decision the Board makes sets a precedent, and
when they designated something in the Comp Plan, they were providing guidance for what would be
approved in a rezoning. He stated that it will be a precedent for other applications, it will probably
encourage other applications to be made, but in land use planning, just because something is a
precedent does not mean the Board has to approve additional applications. Mr. Davis said every land
use decision can be distinguished on its facts, and if there are distinguishing facts, it does not bind the
Board to approve future applications because they approved one that was before it. He stated the burden
will be on this Board and on staff to identify those distinguishing characteristics.
Ms. Echols said one of the important features about the Comp Plan text is it provides the
particulars about how the zoning should take place. She said this is why it is more than just the map, and
why the wording references features that will be important if they are to bring this into the development
areas. Ms. Echols added the text is the direction, and is as important, if not more, than the colors put on
the map.
Ms. Palmer read from the land use book: “Relying on the Comprehensive Plan facilitates
reasonable and well-informed decisions, and decisions that conform to the Comprehensive Plan are more
likely to be found reasonable, and they reduce the potential for claim discrimination in the decision-
making process for individual landowners.” She stated the issue she has heard people bring up is that
when Comprehensive Planning is applied consistently, they would be in a better situation if there were
claims against a decision that was made.
Mr. Davis said that is correct, and explained the courts look to whether decisions are arbitrary and
capricious, and if the Board is making decisions that are consistent with the Comp Plan, there is generally
enough evidence of a rational basis for their decisions that they will be “fairly debatable,” which is the
standard localities are held to in land use decisions, and those decisions are defendable. He stated that
consistency with the Comp Plan in making zoning decisions is a very important consideration.
Ms. Palmer asked if the next step in thinking is that if they are changing the Comp Plan in a less
than ideal way, they will be less likely to be able to defend claims against it. She explained they ha ve just
finished a Comp Plan review, the Planning Commission has indicated this would not be the right time,
and now the Board is considering making this change just a few weeks after that process.
Ms. Dittmar stated that tonight they are to look at whether they like this to be the kind of land use
for this place, and the timing of it is stimulated with interest from an outside company, but they cannot
make decisions based on the attractiveness of the company because it ha s not made a commitment here
and does not own the land. She said the Board is charged with determining whether they want this land
to have light industrial designation, and she would like to know what is possible on the parcels now, and
whether they want to make a higher and better use of them.
Ms. Echols presented a map of the area under consideration, and said the parcel, which is not in
the development area, is zoned R-1 residential, and is in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer. She
stated the other parcels are zoned RA and are not in the jurisdictional area for water and sewer. Ms.
Echols pointed out a group of properties zoned R-1, and a group zoned HC, and said there is an unusual
parcel in between the designated development area and the true rural areas.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the current by-right use would be on that. Ms. Echols responded the
current by-right use is residential at one dwelling unit per acre, which would mean 52-56 units on that
parcel, but more site design will be needed because of critical slopes, road layout, and whether there are
building sites. She said 50 lots or so would likely be able to go on the site.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the RA space under consideration further away is one dwelling per 20 acres.
Ms. Echols responded there are about 12 units available with existing development rights, so that would
mean roughly 60-70 dwellings from a residential standpoint on all of those parcels together, the R-1
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
parcels, and those in the RA. She said the parcels with R-1 zoning are not assessed for residential
potential, because the land use plan calls for more of a mixed-use area, so even though they are zoned
R-1, people can ask for rezoning in conformance with the Comp Plan.
Ms. Dittmar stated the best use expected for that land now is houses, so they can define a
“higher and better use” as a campus setting and LI, for example.
Mr. Boyd stated he wants to clarify that this is not just about jobs, but about narrowing the
revenue and expenditure gap, and there are a lot of taxes that a large industrial site would generate.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there is a better way to understand what a potential return on investment for
LI might be with a decent employer there. Mr. Foley responded that specific information on investments
the company projects to make cannot be shared publicly, but they can generalize that tax revenue from
this type of company, based on having to match the state’s incentives, the County would expect to pay
back anything put into that within three years. He said it is expected that this property will generate more
than $4 million in property tax over the first five years, and after the second phase of buildout, it w ill
generate about $1 million per year.
Mr. Sheffield asked if that excludes sales tax. Mr. Foley responded that it excludes sales tax,
potential meals tax, and other economic benefits such as payroll taxes that w ill go back into the
community. He emphasized this is a land use decision, not a rezoning, but that is the kind of revenue
expected from a target industry.
Mr. Sheffield stated that sales tax revenue is about where it was prior to the recession.
Mr. Boyd said a boost to the economy will raise all the boats, and economic vitality will generate
tax revenues for the County and will keep the Board from having to raise taxes over the next two or three
years.
Ms. McKeel stated she is not wed to this particular project, but she would like to figure out a more
balanced way to provide core services for residents. She said with the meeting they had with the School
Board, they saw the five-year financial gap of about $30 million, and that assumes property assessment
increases, which is very concerning. Ms. McKeel stated there are a lot of people who are concerned
about environmental protection, and she is too, and she does not feel that economic development and
environmental protection needs to be mutually exclusive. She said they c an preserve the rural areas
through land use and at the same time promote economic development in the right place, in the right way.
Ms. McKeel stated she does not know that this particular project is going to come, but she is becoming
more convinced that the County needs to have more area for the right kind of target industries, and for
local businesses to expand. She stated more houses bring more deficits, which adds to their funding
gap, and the average household pays about $3,500 for services that cost the County about $6,700. Ms.
McKeel said she would like to see less housing that negatively impacts their fiscally constrained
operational budget, and to use economic development for established target industries. She asked Ms.
Echols to confirm that there is a total of 82 acres zoned for R-1 residential on this site.
Ms. Echols explained there is about 82 acres zoned R-1 and in the jurisdictional area, with about
half of it buildable.
Ms. McKeel asked her to clarify what the term “jurisdictional area” means. Ms. Echols explained
that jurisdictional areas have been established for many years as being the places where public water
and sewer service can be extended. She said if a property is in the development areas, it is automatically
expected to be in the jurisdictional area, but there are properties outside of the development areas that
have that designation. Ms. Echols said there may be stipulations such as water only, sewer only, or
water to existing structures only, but the jurisdictional area boundary is one of the primary tools in the
toolkit to help keep development within the development area boundaries. She noted if the Board makes
the decision to extend water and sewer service to someone outside of the jurisdictional area, it is not
taken lightly, and in this case, the Board would not have to make that decision because it is already
designated for water and sewer service.
Ms. McKeel said this is an important point to her.
Mr. Sheffield asked if there are any other parcels in the rural area that are designated for water
and sewer. Ms. Echols responded this is the only one.
Mr. Boyd said if they limit the amount of available property, it will constrain an applicant’s location
to place a facility, and he is concerned about the impact to the church, so if they approve a smaller site, it
will limit that ability.
Ms. Palmer stated she agrees with many of the points being made, but the Planning Commission
said if the County was going to designate something industrial, it needs to be able to be rezoned
industrial. She said there are still many unanswered questions, which is why these changes typically
have an applicant bringing the CPA forward with the rezoning. Ms. Palmer asked if the property were put
in the development area, if it could still be developed R -1 if the property owner chose to do that. Mr.
Davis responded the Comp Plan does not change any development potential allowed by right or the
zoning classification that it has, so it is zoned R-1 regardless of any Comp Plan changes, and if the
developer wants to develop it as such and meets the site plan or subdivision requirements for it, it can be
done by right.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Ms. Palmer asked how this will be impacted if a property is zoned R-1 but the Comp Plan has it
as industrial designation. Mr. Davis responded if it is the part currently in the rural area, it will be difficult
for staff to make the determination that a rezoning to a more intensive use would be consistent with the
Comp Plan, because the designation is rural area and will not support that type of rezoning. He said if
the land is designated to be development area, an application by an R-1 property owner to a more
intensive use classification can be supported by the planning staff to be consistent with the Comp Plan, if
it meets the criteria of the area and how it is designated. Mr. Davis stated if it is designated industrial use
and someone wants to rezone it from R-1 to HC, if the zoning application is structured so it supports
industrial uses within an HC district, that might be able to be supported to be consistent with the Comp
Plan, and that will require a rezoning.
Mr. Sheffield noted there is a lot of land in the development area that is not zoned to match what
is in the Comp Plan, and that was done to basically get proffers from developers so the rezoning c an be
done. He stated the Board will go through this time and time again, and properties will come forward
such as Brookhill requesting rezoning, adding the shape of Berkmar as it is extended will not likely be the
shape the County wants.
Mr. Boyd stated that Brookhill is very unpopular, and people from Forest Lakes, Montgomery
Ridge, and Polo Grounds Road are against it.
Mr. Sheffield stated that people’s expectations with the Comp Plan are very different than they
are with rezonings.
Ms. Palmer said if they really want the parcel in question to become industrial and want to be
sure it will become that, there are several ways to ensure that, such as having an applicant comes
forward with a rezoning in tandem with a CPA. She asked what other measures c an be taken to drive the
process to what they want.
Ms. Dittmar said at that point, the market will drive the process, and asked if they really want all
those houses there. She asked if it would be more lucrative for a person to sell a piece at the intersection
of two major highways as homes, or as a light industrial parcel. Ms. McClintic responded that in most
communities, you do not typically see a lot of residential development around an interstate interchange,
as they are usually set further back from highways. She said in working with developers, they have told
her they can recover their investment and minimize their carrying cost by developing the residential
portion first, which is why communities through the zoning process would define benchmarks for
commercial or industrial components before allowing the residential to be built.
Ms. Dittmar asked if she is saying that people are going to build houses one way or another. Ms.
McClintic responded the best way for public bodies to dictate what can or cannot happen to a property is
to either own the property themselves, or to proactively rezone it for the uses they want and proffer out
those they do not want.
Ms. Mallek said the vulnerability issue is a concern for her in terms of what happens between the
first decision and the second. She said with the mixed use designation, she would anticipate town centers
with a mix of housing and retail, and the County already has four or five that were approved but are
struggling to meet their rentals. Ms. Mallek asked how people would get out onto either I-64 or 29 South,
as she does not see any access.
Ms. Echols stated the existing network would use Gold Eagle Drive, and that road is what serves
the existing distribution facility and any of the properties in the northern area of the property. She pointed
out the regional mixed-use area and Gold Eagle Drive, and said staff had expected the addition of
another road to serve the area, and Shepherd’s Hill Road is expected to create a network with Gold Eagle
Drive. Ms. Echols stated someone had been interested in developing this particular area at an earlier
time, but VDOT said it is too close to the interchange and the applicant needs to get further down Route
29. She said this is one of the reasons why, when staff took this to the Planning Commission in 2013,
they felt that better access would allow for more area to be developed industrially in this sector, with the
parcels working together.
Ms. Mallek stated this is a specific location, but is not a specific user, because they do not have
any control over that. She said for many years she has been watching and listening from the job seeker’s
point of view at the One Stop Center and the Piedmont Workforce Network, and from the small business
point of view where people are looking to expand, and she sees a strong need to change some of this
availability. Ms. Mallek stated she is concerned about precedent, and Exit 107 on I-64 is one of the areas
most exposed by the potential vulnerability this action w ill create. She said there are residents who are
wholly focused on the success of downtown Crozet and the various opportunities for development and
redevelopment there, and does not support the distractions of a commercial nature on the interstate. Ms.
Mallek said there is a heavy industry there now that works in renewable resources, and is focused on
rural area uses, while being a good citizen for neighbors. She stated from the White Hall District’s point
of view, it is important to focus on something that is unique and has distinguishing facts, and the R-1
parcel is more contributory to a limited view than the whole parcel. Ms. Mallek said she understands the
concern about the 200+ acres, especially after she learned it w ill not be as easy as expected to get broad
expanses of steep slopes into conservation easements, which is the type of win for the environment she
was always hoping for. She stated this is also about people, in addition to protection of environmental
resources, and the world has changed a lot since 1950 when she was born. Ms. Mallek said she wants to
honor the fact that there are people here now who need better opportunities, and hopefully the County
can help facilitate expanded opportunities for people to get jobs. She stated it is not possible today
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
without a multi-generational effort for a young person to buy a house, and if they move forward with this
amendment, she wants to acknowledge there is a bigger picture than perhaps the Board has given credit
for.
Ms. Dittmar stated when traveling in the southern part of her district or in Scottsville, the
conversation is all about jobs, but in the northern part of her district, the conversation is about not wanting
property taxes to go up. She said it has been interesting to have those conversations with people, and
she understands it might be more prudent to stay within the jurisdictional area, as this will help clean that
up, with Whittington being the last area they addressed in this regard. Ms. Dittmar stated there is a direct
correlation between creating new jobs and more benefit to people that live in the area, and more benefit
to people that want services from government. She said there may be reasons such as wanting certain
stores to locate here, but that is not really why economic development is done. Ms. Dittmar said they
need to prioritize looking at the shortage of light industrial land, and this has been evident since the
1980s. She stated they can have experts study this, but in the end the report will still say they have a
critical shortage of light industrial land. Ms. Dittmar said businesses that ha ve moved into neighboring
counties are benefiting those localities, and while it is not a competition with those areas, Albemarle is
sending them across the border. She added they do not want to issue a message that the County is
open for business, but then send them away.
Ms. Palmer stated she has heard many, many times that this is “market driven,” and Ms.
McClintic has said that developers are better off starting with residential, so she wants to know what the
Board can do to ensure it will not just be houses, or houses plus a Cracker Barrel. She asked if a small
area plan or something that can designate it will be helpful in establishing their desired use. Ms.
McClintic responded the Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document and sets the stage, but if they do
not, at least, define it with the map and the text, they will not be able to provide certainty to companies
that they will be able to do what they need to do on that land, which comes at the time of zoning. She
said if the Board does not define that and gives them the opportunity through the Comp Plan adjustment,
they will not have that opportunity and will risk having the R-1 develop as residential, and possibly the RA
develop by right as residential. Ms. McClintic stated at this point, taking those designations off the table is
a very good first step to avoiding having that happen in the future.
Ms. Palmer said the Planning Commission does not even know if it can be rezoned commercially
because of the difficulty with the site, and that is what they keep going back to.
Ms. Mallek asked why that is the case.
Ms. Palmer responded the traffic is the main issue, and they do not know if the traffic can be
handled without significant improvements to the area until they do a traffic study and until VDOT does all
the things they are supposed to do. She said everyone keeps saying “that is next,” but it is a really
important next.
Mr. Foley stated they will not know the traffic impacts until they know what is being proposed.
Ms. McKeel said they will not get there until they make the first step, so Ms. Palmer is kind of
chasing this in a circle.
Ms. Palmer stated she is not, but she is going back to the Planning Commission’s point that it will
be best to have a rezoning request come forth at the same time as the CPA, or to have an applicant do
that, and that was a constant theme with the Commissioners, including in individual conversations.
Ms. Echols said they have to set the stage for what they want in the future, and the Board can
also talk about the timing of the improvements, and the zoning can be limited by what improvements are
available. She stated they know the interchange needs improvements and it will be expensive, but they
do not know when that will take place or how it will be paid for. Ms. Echols said they can set the stage for
what a future land use would be and the timing expected, and then they w ill have to do their follow
through at the zoning stage. She said if they do not set the stage for the future, they will not get the future
they want.
Mr. Boyd stated he appreciates the work of the Planning Commission, but they are not an elected
body and it would not be unprecedented for the Board to go in a different direction. He said as someone
had pointed out, the Board members are elected to their positions, and this is where they need to stand
up and take a vote.
Ms. Palmer asked if they want to talk about the Comp Plan text as well as wanting to go forward
with the R-1. Ms. Echols stated if the Board wants to do something differently than their starting point as
a potential change to the land use plan and the text, and if they want to do something less than this, they
need to be able to better define what is going on this parcel. She said it may be that much of what the
Planning Commission said is still important to the Board, but they need to provide that direction to staff.
Ms. McKeel said she does not want to make a bad decision because it is late at night, and asked
staff to bring something back to the Board.
Ms. Palmer stated if they are going to go ahead with this, she wants to be able to talk about the
text that is going to be in the CPA, such as stipulating the site is not suitable for large-scale, standalone,
big boxes, and she wants to tighten that language up as much as possible.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Ms. McKeel said she does not think they can adequately do all of that at this meeting.
Ms. Mallek stated the bullet points on the list are the starting place with other things needed to be
added to them, and it will just take some time to organize those as this is an important decision.
Ms. Echols said the next step will be establishing whether the Board knows what it wants for this
area, and if not they need time to review what they want for the area, and staff can give it their best shot
as a starting point, but the y will need some kind of direction.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is agreement on the Board that they will limit change on the R-1 parcel,
and clarified that she means the 82-acre parcel to the south of the development area.
Ms. McKeel responded she is most interested in that one as well.
Mr. Boyd said he feels that will be limiting the site plan work that can be done and the
appropriateness of the site, and restricting the amount of land available might even impact neighboring
homes and churches.
Ms. McClintic said the Board has come far in this process and it is a painful decision for all
involved, so it is important they follow through with this and maximize the opportunity with the available
land, so the process will be purposeful in the end. She stated she also fears if they defer this, they will be
in a place they do not want to be, and will not have followed through with delivery time to the brewery in
terms of factoring the CPA into their decision making.
Mr. Foley stated the Board needs to be thoughtful about their decisions going forward, and Ms.
Mallek is right in stating they need to define how much land is included in this. He said Mr. Boyd wants
consideration of the entire area, and there is a lay of the land in terms of available sites, and the parcel
adjacent to the one they have agreed should be under consideration makes a big difference in terms of
land available and creates a site big enough for this company or another company.
Ms. McKeel commented the adjacent parcel makes the site whole. Mr. Foley agreed, and stated
they need to get this defined as either the one parcel, or the two parcels that create more opportunity for
development. He said if their action tonight is to develop conditions for approval, the Board has given a
very good indication with the right conditions, that is where they are headed, and that is a positive
message to the prospect that can be delivered in October.
Ms. McKeel said it is an important decision and they want to do it right, but she is also sensitive to
the timeframe, so she would not mind having a special meeting.
Ms. Dittmar stated the more they can work through this so they get light industrial use, the better.
Mr. Boyd asked if they are talking about doing a CPA with conditions.
Ms. Mallek stated they are referring to the text of the CPA.
Ms. Dittmar said she wants to be careful that they are in dialogue with the landowner if they are
putting restrictions on it.
Mr. Foley stated there is a crossover with these two parcels if the second parcel is included, and
that provides enough land so they can meet up with the crossover. He suggested if the Board wants just
one parcel they should provide that direction, but if they want to consider the other parcel, it would be
helpful to have that direction also. Mr. Foley noted that staff will consider adding the other parcel
because of this prospect or another future prospect because of the lay of the land and the way the site
can develop.
Ms. Palmer stated that Ms. McClintic had mentioned at a previous meeting that the brewery had
been looking at a parcel that is straddling the R-1 parcel and a development area portion.
Ms. Mallek asked if it is straddling the 82 acres and the RA parcel.
Ms. Palmer said it is straddling the 82 acres and the parcel noted in red.
Ms. McClintic clarified the candidate is looking at both of those scenarios, and is looking at
another opportunity that includes both parcels currently on the Board’s screen.
Ms. McKeel reiterated her interest in having a special meeting to decide this.
Mr. Sheffield suggested they meet an hour earlier at their meeting on September 10, but Ms.
Dittmar indicated she cannot get there earlier.
Mr. Davis stated if the Board is considering changing the expansion area boundaries, Planning
will need to prepare a map, and the text will have to conform to whatever has changed, so it will require
some advanced work by staff before the Board can vote on this.
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Boyd asked if it will require another public hearing. Mr. Davis responded that if they are going
to contract the area advertised, it will not require another public hearing, but the work to prepare the map
and the text will need to get done.
Ms. Echols stated she would need to think about how much time is needed.
Mr. Foley said staff will assess this and plan for a special meeting, and it sounds as though the
Board wants to consider the two parcels as an option, and the one parcel as another option. He asked if
there is anything with Ms. Echols text that they want to change, and said it is clear the Board is working
towards conditions for an approval as it relates to the company thinking there is something positive going
forward.
The Board then reviewed the proposed conditions, and agreed they are comfortable with what
was presented.
Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. McClintic if she can tighten this up to be closer to the use they want. Ms.
McClintic said she and Ms. Echols had extensive discussion about the industries shown on the screen, so
she will not deviate too far from that.
Ms. Palmer said she has some other suggestions she will share with staff. Mr. Foley stated staff
will make sure the entire Board is copied on that so they will all have full information for the special
meeting.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to see combined uses if possible, whereby a commercially zoned
section would allow for something like a restaurant, and perhaps companies c an work together to focus
on the northeastern part instead of the other 40-acre parcel.
Ms. Palmer stated this brewery has a restaurant and drinking establishment, but she is not sure if
they have planned to have that in this location.
Mr. Foley said staff will provide what it can, with an understanding they may not be able to have
all of that kind of information.
Ms. Echols clarified the Board has asked staff to bring back the two different options, and then
the Board will provide comments on the existing text; and staff will provide them with information for them
to make a decision at the next meeting.
Mr. Davis asked if the Board intends to take action to defer this matter, as that would be the
typical protocol.
Ms. McKeel then moved to defer CPA-2015-0001 to a special meeting, to be determined at a
later date. 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 and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Boards and Commissions: Appointments.
Ms. Palmer offered motion to make the following appointments/reappointments:
appoint the following individuals to the 5th & Avon Community Advisory Committee, with
said terms to expire September 30, 2017: Rex Linville; Roger Schickedantz; Thomas
Kochka; Pam Riley; Virginia Ann Neumark; Daniel Heuchert; (Emilie) Adele Wood; and
Steve Whitaker.
appoint the following individuals to the 5th & Avon Community Advisory Committee, with
said terms to expire September 30, 2018: Stuart Lowson; Brian Roy; Christopher
LeBlanc; Jonathon Earl; Stephanie Blanch; Amy Brereton; and David Thomas.
reappoint Stephen T. McLean, A. Bruce Dotson and Sherry Buttrick to the Acquisition of
Conservation Easements Committee, with said terms to expire August 1, 2018.
appoint Andrea Saathoff to the CACVB Management Board, with said term to expire
August 1, 2017.
appoint Crystal Ptacek to the Historic Preservation Committee, with said term to expire
June 4, 2018
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.
______________
September 9, 2015 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
Agenda Item No. 16. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. Mallek stated she had been notified by Grants Coordinator , Kristy Shifflett, that the
Department of Housing and Community Development had not awarded the planning grant to Crozet, but
has encouraged them to keep trying.
She said she had also noted the drive-through windows issue as raised by Mr. Boyd is on her list
for discussion. Mr. Foley said the Community Development Work Plan is scheduled for the Board’s
October agenda, and that will be an opportunity to discuss that item and others.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn to September 10, 2015, 3:00 p.m., CitySpace.
At 10:22 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Ms.
Mallek, to adjourn the meeting to September 10, 2015, CitySpace, 3:00 p.m., for a joint meeting with
Charlottesville City Council. Ms. McKeel 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.
________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 12/02/2015
Initials: EWJ