2001-02-07February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February
7, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman,
Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Ms. Diantha McKeel, member of the Albemarle County School Board, said the schools are now
issuing Senior Gold cards to qualifying residents of the County. This card provides free admission to school
athletic events, drama events and musical productions. It is the Schools way of thanking and showing
appreciation for their support. She then presented a Gold Card to Ms. Humphris.
Ms. Humphris thanked Ms. McKeel saying she had heard the public service announcement on the
radio. She said it is a great idea, and an excellent outreach program to the community. It will encourage all
to go see what the students are doing in the schools, and what the schools are doing for the young people.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation.
Ms. Thomas made presentations to the following people:
Ms. Roxanne White served on the JAUNT Board from January, 1991 to September, 2000. When
appointed to the Board she was placed on the Finance Committee and provided critical input to this
committee for nine years. During her tenure on the Finance Committee, the ridership on JAUNT doubled
and the complexities grew accordingly. Ms. White handled everything with intelligence and humor while
representing the Countys interests at all times.
=
Mr. Ed Strickler served on the Jefferson Area Board of Aging Advisory Council representing the
County. He identified and evaluated pertinent issues facing seniors, their family members and care givers.
He helped lead public hearings in order to gain input in order to forecast the communitys needs and to help
=
JABA set priorities. His work for the County and JABA is much appreciated.
Mr. Jack Marshall served as Chairman of both the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority from 1996 to 2000. In those four years, major projects, such as the future of
the Ivy Landfill, the settlement of the Landfill lawsuit, Sugar Hollow Dam rehabilitation, and future water
supply permit process, came across the board. His leadership helped guide those projects forward by
melding citizen input, legal requirements and operational necessity. At times, discussion with citizens on
these projects was quite volatile. Mr. Marshalls tact and diplomacy greatly aided a positive outcome. Mr.
=
Marshall gladly volunteered, and greatly enjoyed working with staff on several water-related projects for the
public and various interested organizations. His consultant experience and worldly background were an
asset to both authorities. His desire to have citizens play a greater role in the authority resulted in the
formation of the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee.
Ms. Bethany Puopolo served as a member of the Architectural Review Board from 1997 to 2000.
She served the Board and the citizens of the County by applying the guidelines of the ARB with wisdom,
honesty and integrity, by using sound reasoning and providing judicious advice on numerous design issues,
and by promoting the beauty of Albemarle Countys Entrance Corridors.
=
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Ms. Thomas said there are couple of items on the Consent
Agenda which interest a few members of the public who are present this morning. After the Board has
taken action, she will recognize a few people in the audience. (Note: Conversation concerning the various
items will be shown as part of that item.)
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.10
and to the accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 6.1. Proclamation recognizing March 21 through March 25, 2001, as Virginia Festival of the
Book.
(Mr. Dorrier said the Festival of the Book has become a well known and popular activity in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area. He proposes that the Board consider recognition of writing by an Albemarle
County student in the form of an award. With the Boards approval, he will look into carrying this idea
=
forward.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved and then read
into the record:
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS,Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and
storytelling within and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS,our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted
between 200 and 300 writers and thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA
FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS,the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books
and publishing; and
WHEREAS,businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have
contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE
BOOK; and
WHEREAS,the citizens of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world, have made the
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the
country;
NOW, THEREFORE,I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board
of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 21,
2001, through Sunday, March 25, 2001, as the seventh annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide
range of available events and activities.
(Ms. Nancy Damon, Program Director of the Book Festival, introduced Mr. Kevin McFadden, a
colleague. She said this is the first year that they have directed the Book Festival. They are grateful for
Albemarle Countys support. The County's Human Resources Department called recently and asked for
=
several thousand bookmarks for employees. The Countys schools have also put together a program, and
=
she distributed some literature from last years Festival.)
=
__________
Item 6.2. Proclamation recognizing February, 2001 as School Board Appreciation Month.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following proclamation was approved, and read into
the record:
School Board Appreciation Month
WHEREAS,as Virginians we have a responsibility to prepare our children for a
successful and fulfilling future, and to educate the children of our great
Commonwealth by increasing knowledge and understanding, and
developing positive character traits; and
WHEREAS,parents are responsible for the education of their children, and teachers,
principals and school board members are entrusted by parents to guide,
direct and impart knowledge to their children while at school; and
WHEREAS,School Board members, along with the growing and dynamic team of
teachers, set the standard of excellence in Virginia's education of its young
people; and
WHEREAS,local school boards have devoted themselves to providing a high quality of
education for all students in the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS,our great Commonwealth is proud of its educational system and is
appreciative of the efforts of local school board members to make the
Virginia public school system an excellent one to educate our children;
NOW, THEREFORE, I,Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Board of County Supervisors, do hereby recognize
February 2001,
as
School Board Appreciation Month
in the County of Albemarle and call this observance to the
attention of all citizens.
__________
Item 6.3. Appropriation: High Growth Coalition Lobbyist, $1000.00 (Form #20049).
It was noted in the staffs report that at its meeting on January 3, 2001, the Board approved funding
=
to the High Growth Coalition for lobbying services during the 2001 Session of the General Assembly. Staff
recommends approval of Appropriation Form #20049 in the amount of $1000.00 transferring funds from
the Board's Contingency Account for this expenditure.
By the recorded vote shown above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 2000-01
NUMBER: 20049
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CONTRIBUTION TO HIGH GROWTH COALITION
EXPENDITURE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
1 1000 11010 580100 DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS$1,000.00
1 1000 95000 999990 CONTINGENCY(1,000.00)
TOTAL$0.00
REVENUE CODEDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
$0.00
__________
Item 6.4. Resolution to accept roads in Wind River Subdivision into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by
=
the vote set out above.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Wind River Subdivision described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fully incorporated herein by reference,
are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets 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 roads in Wind
River Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January
16, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 33.1-229, Code of
'
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Wind River Road from the intersection of Route 614 (Station 0+00
centerline of Route 614) to the cul-de-sac (Station 15+97.77 end of
off-set cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 12/20/88 in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1027,
pages 508-510; and easement plats recorded 12/21/2000 in Deed Book
1978, pages 510-518, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
0.30 mile.
2)River Ridge Road from the intersection of Wind River Road (Station
0+00 centerline of Wind River Road) to the cul-de-sac (Station 7+47 end
of cul-de-sac), as shown on plat recorded 12/20/88 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1027,
pages 508-510; with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.14
mile.
Total Mileage - 0.44 mile.
__________
Item 6.5. Resolution to accept roads in Forest Lakes South Subdivision, Sections L and M, into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by
=
the vote set out above.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, Subdivision
described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets 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 roads in
Forest Lakes South, Sections L and M, as described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Ashwood Boulevard from the intersection of Kendalwood Lane (Station
0+00 at the intersection center) to roundabout (Station 21+00) as shown
on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 120-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.398 mile.
2)Stratford Glen Way from the cul-de-sac (Station 0-30, end of cul-de-sac,
0+00 center) to cul-de-sac (Station 9+76.64, end of cul-de-sac) as
shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a
40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.191 mile.
3)Chimney Road from the intersection of Ashwood Boulevard (Station
0+00 enter roundabout) to the intersection of Chimney Ridge and
Magnolia Bend (Station 4+68.36, intersection of center) as shown on plat
recorded 7/29/98 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 50-foot
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.089 mile.
4)Chimney Springs from the intersection of Chimney Road (Station 0+00,
center of intersection) to the cul-de-sac (Station 4+70.48, end of
cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages
37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.089 mile.
5)Chimney Ridge from the intersection of Chimney Road and Magnolia
Bend (Station 3+26.72, intersection center) to the cul-de-sac (Station
0-30, end of cul-de-sac, Station 0+00 is at center cul-de-sac) as shown
on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
right-of-way width, for a length of 0.068 mile.
6)Magnolia Bend from the intersection of Chimney Road and Chimney
Ridge (Station 3+26.72 center of intersection) to the cul-de-sac (Station
13+39.47, end of cul-de-sac) as shown on plat recorded 7/29/98 in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
1730, pages 37-53, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.192 mile.
Total Mileage - 1.03 mile.
__________
Item 6.6. Resolution to accept roads in Stonegate at Western Ridge Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the Countys Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by
=
the vote set out above.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the streets in Stonegate at Western Ridge Subdivision described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, fully incorporated herein
by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised the Board that the streets 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 roads in
Stonegate at Western Ridge Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) dated January 16, 2001, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts,
fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
1)Stonegate Lane from the intersection of Route 1250 (Station 10+25
right-of-way line of Route 1250) to the intersection of Stonegate Way
(Station 11+80.09 right-of-way line of Stonegate Way) as shown on plat
recorded 1/2/99 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1778, pages 625-633, with a 50-foot
variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.029 mile.
2)Stonegate Way from the intersection of Stonegate Lane (Station 10+25
at right-of-way of Stonegate Lane) to the cul-de-sac (Station 15+32.73
end of cul-de-sac), as shown on plat recorded 1/29/99 in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1778,
pages 622-633; and with easement plat recorded on 1/8/01 in Deed
Book 1982, pages 322; with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of
0.096 mile.
Total Mileage - 0.125 mile.
__________
Item 6.7. Authorize Chairman to execute "Mutual Aid Agreement" between Albemarle County and
Nelson County for fire and rescue services.
It was noted in the staffs report that Albemarle County has proposed entering into written mutual
=
aid agreements for fire and rescue services with each of its neighboring counties. These agreements would
assure the terms under which such aid is delivered and would maximize the statutory immunity provided by
Virginia Code 27-2, 27-4, and 27-23.6. A standard agreement has been prepared and forwarded to
''
each county for review and approval. Nelson County is the sixth county to approve the proposed
agreement. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Mutual Aid
Agreement on behalf of Albemarle County.
(Ms. Thomas said the people in Heards would like to be sure the Rockfish fire and rescue services
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
respond to their emergency needs. Mr. Tucker said staff will look at that again, but this agreement should
help with that situation.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to sign the following
Mutual Aid Agreement between Albemarle County and Nelson County:
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 18th day of December, 2000, by and between
Albemarle County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
referred to as "Albemarle", and Nelson County, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Nelson",
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Nelson to
enter into an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services;
and
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid
Agreement be established pursuant to 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of Virginia;
''
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual
benefits to be derived by Albemarle and Nelson from this Agreement, Albemarle and
Nelson hereby covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1.That Albemarle and Nelson will endeavor to provide fire suppression, fire
prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and other related
governmental services to the other county within the capabilities available at
the time the request for such support is made. Such response may be by
county-paid employees or by county volunteer company or department
firefighters and rescuers.
2.That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be
construed to compel either county to respond to a request for services in
the other county when volunteer companies or departments are, in their
discretion, unable to do so, or when the resources of the county to which
the request is being made are needed, or are being used, within the
boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the
assisting county to continue to provide services in the other county when its
personnel, apparatus or equipment are needed within the boundaries of its
own county.
3.That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire
services, rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other
related governmental services to adequately serve its respective county.
4.That neither county shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage to
property or personal injury or death of personnel resulting from the
performance of this Agreement.
5.That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county
from all claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which
may arise out of the activities of the assisting county resulting from the
performance of this Agreement.
6.The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the
assisting county for apparatus, equipment or personnel occasioned by a
response for assistance, or for damage to such apparatus or equipment, or
injuries to personnel incurred when responding in the other county;
provided, however, the county requesting assistance under the terms of this
Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the other county the actual
cost of specialized extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation agents
used in rendering assistance pursuant to this Agreement.
7.That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall
make such request to the emergency communications center of the
assisting county, which will then contact the appropriate county officials to
determine its response.
8.That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the
personnel making such response shall not become employees of the
county requesting assistance for the purposes of the Virginia Workers
Compensation Act.
9.That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the
personnel manning such responding units shall remain under the command
of the senior responding officer, and shall work as a unified company and
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
shall not be split apart during the emergency operations unless ordered by
the senior responding officer.
10.That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance and the
senior responding officer determines that the emergency operations are
being conducted in an unsafe manner, the assisting county may limit its
assistance to a support service or withdraw the assistance to ensure the
safety of its personnel.
11.This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of
both counties.
12.This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either county giving
thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other county.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Albemarle's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and
Nelson's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors execute this Agreement, they being
authorized to do so.
__________
Item 6.8. Authorize County Executive to execute lease agreement with the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries, re: Howardsville James River Access in Albemarle County.
It was noted in the staffs report that since 1964, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
=
(DGIF) has maintained a river access at Howardsville. This access has been very popular with residents of
Albemarle and other counties. The property was purchased from Mr. Charles Baber who retained a 15-foot
wide strip of property so he would always be assured the right of access to the river. There is also a state
road right-of-way remaining from when there was a bridge over the river at Howardsville. Mr. Baber's
property lies between Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) land and DGIF land. Most of DGIF's
land and the concrete ramp were lost due to hurricanes in the early 1970's. In early 1980 DGIF replaced
the ramp but incorrectly sited it on Mr. Baber's 15-foot strip. Relations between Mr. Baber and DGIF have
deteriorated over the years. He has demanded that DGIF put a barrier between his land and their land.
This past May, DGIF advised the County of its intent to close the access due to the situation with Mr. Baber
unless the County was interested in taking over responsibility for the access. Mr. Baber has stated that he
will work with the County but not with DGIF. The access remained open this past summer and fall but the
state has now taken action to close it. The access will remain closed unless the County enters into a lease
agreement with DGIF.
The lease is for a five-year term with the rental fee of one dollar ($1.00). At the end of the five-year
term, the lease automatically renews unless otherwise terminated. In the lease, the County agrees to be
responsible for the daily operation and routine maintenance of the area as necessary for safe public use. In
addition, the County agrees to maintain insurance coverage and include DGIF as a named insured. The
lease has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. Historically, it has been the
County's position to maintain existing public access to rivers whenever possible. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the proposed lease agreement.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute
the following lease agreement:
This DEED OF LEASE, entered into this 1st day of January, 2001, by and
between the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, hereinafter
referred to as the Lessor, and the County of Albemarle, hereinafter referred to as the
Lessee,
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, 2.1-504.3A of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides
'
that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, real property owned by the
Commonwealth may be sold, leased or other interests therein conveyed to political
subdivisions, public authorities, or the federal government, for such consideration as is
deemed proper, upon the written approval of the Governor, who shall have first
considered the written recommendations of the Director of the Department of General
Services; and
WHEREAS, in a cooperative spirit, the aforementioned parties mutually agree to
cooperate in this lease in order for the Lessee to provide public boating access to the
boating public at the landing commonly referred to as "Howardsville". The
aforementioned parties recognize that there is a contentious history with adjacent
landowners concerning past operation of the boat landing; and
WHEREAS, the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof as EXHIBIT A
shows the 0.74 acres to be leased and the present physical location of a concrete ramp
partially on such parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Lessee and Lessor, in consideration of the mutual covenants,
promises and agreements herein contained, covenant and agree as follows:
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
That the said Lessor doth let and demise unto the said Lessee, the following
property (to include square footage of leased space and/or acreage), to-wit:
The remainder of 0.84 acre of land and improvements appurtenant
thereto located in the Scottsville Magisterial District, Albemarle County,
Virginia, being all of the remainder (surveyed as 0.74 acre remaining) of
the same land conveyed to the Lessor by deed dated May 21, 1964,
recorded in Deed Book 400, Page 225 in the Circuit Court records of
Albemarle County, Virginia. See EXHIBIT A.
The herein described property and premises are hereby leased to Lessee to be used and
occupied for the purpose of providing free and unfettered public boating access to the
boating public. Such public boating access shall meet, but not be limited to the following
criteria:
Open to the public for boating and fishing access,
Open to the public for parking vehicles and boat trailers,
No fees charged for the use of the public boating access or its ancillary facilities.
1.INITIAL TERM OF LEASE: This lease shall commence on the first day of January,
2001, and extend for a period of five (5) years, ending on the 31st day of December,
2005, yielding therefrom during the said term the rental of one dollar ($1.00), which
amount shall be due and payable through Lessor's Agent designated in paragraph 6.
2.RENEWAL OF LEASE: Unless otherwise terminated as herein provided, at the end
of the initial term, this lease shall automatically renew and continue in full force and
effect for 5-year terms ("renewal term") at the same rental as provided in paragraph
1, and subject to all terms, conditions, covenants, promises and agreements herein
contained. Such renewal term shall continue to renew automatically unless
terminated by Lessee in such manner and at such time as hereinafter provided for
termination of the initial term.
3.The Lessor covenants and agrees:
(a)To deliver quiet possession of said property to the Lessee on the effective date
of this Lease.
(b)To remove its existing signage and temporary improvements, and to cease its
current law enforcement activities.
4.The Lessee covenants and agrees:
(a)That he has inspected the property and premises and accepts them as is,
where is, as shown on the illustration attached hereto as Exhibit A.
(b)To pay the rent in the amount and manner herein provided without the
necessity of demand being made therefor by the Lessor.
(c)To equip and make such alterations and additions to the said premises and
equipment of the Lessee as may be necessary at all times to comply with the
provisions of Federal, State, and Local laws, ordinances, and regulations
pertaining to health, safety, fire, and public welfare.
(d)That he will not injure or disfigure said property nor any part thereof in any
way, nor allow the same to be done.
(e)To be responsible for the payment of any and all charges for repairs to the
said premises, imposed or otherwise, including but not limited to structural
repairs, during the original or any extended term of this lease agreement.
(f)That all personal property placed in or moved onto the leased property shall
be at the sole risk of the lessee or owner of such personal property, and lessor
shall have no liability for any reason for damage to same.
(g)That beginning on the Commencement Date and continuing during the Term
of this Lease and any renewals or extensions thereof, the Lessee, at the
Lessee's expense, shall keep in force, with an insurance company authorized
to transact business in Virginia, and in a form acceptable to the Lessor, an
insurance policy with personal property and broad form liability coverage. The
insurance policy shall include the Lessor as a named insured and have the
following minimum limits and coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for
personal injury to or death of any one person, or more than one person, as the
result of any one accident or disaster, and include coverage for property
damage and medical payments. On or before the Commencement Date, the
Lessee shall deliver to the Lessor a certificate of insurance showing the same
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
to be in force and effect, together with a copy of a paid receipt for the first
year's premium. The policy shall provide for notification to the Lessor in the
event of cancellation.
In the event that the Lessee fails to obtain and maintain the insurance required
by this section, the Lessor may, at its option, cause the required insurance to
be issued and maintained and the Lessee shall pay the premiums for such
insurance as additional Rent.
(h)That he will not allow said property to be used for any illegal or immoral
purpose, and that he will not do or suffer to be done any act which may be a
nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience or damage to Lessor, Lessor's tenant,
the occupants of adjoining property, or the neighborhood.
(i)At the termination of the Lease, to deliver peacefully the said property in as
good order and repair as the same was at the beginning of this Lease,
reasonable wear and tear excepted.
(j)That no alterations, additions or improvements to said property shall be made
without the written approval of the Lessor. Such alterations, additions or
improvements shall be in accordance with Lessor's specifications.
(k)That it will be responsible for daily operations, including law enforcement, and
will install appropriate signage and barriers.
(l)That it shall, at all times, maintain the property for the term of this lease;
including all routine maintenance, trash and garbage removal, removal of
debris, cutting weeds and brush, mowing the grass in order to provide public
access and any other routine maintenance of the parking area and other
areas as necessary for safe public use.
5.It is mutually covenanted and agreed by the Lessor and the Lessee:
(a)The Lessee shall not without the written consent of the Lessor use the said
property for any purposes other than above mentioned, nor assign this lease
nor sublet any part of the said property.
(b)This lease shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years; except, Lessor
may cancel this lease at any time upon six (6) months written notice to
Lessee, and Lessee shall vacate the property by the end of said six (6) month
period after notice is served.
(c)That any and all notices affecting this Lease may be served by the parties
hereto or their duly authorized agents as effectively as if the same were served
by any officer authorized by law to serve such notices.
(d)This written Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Lessor and
the Lessee.
6.For the purpose of accepting notice as may be herein provided, Lessor's agent shall
be Real Property Manager, at the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries,
whose address is 4010 W. Broad Street, P. O. Box 11104, Richmond, VA 23230.
Lessee's agent shall be Director of Parks and Recreation, whose address is County
of Albemarle, County Office Building, 401 McIntyre Road, Charlottesville, VA
22902-4596. Lessor directs that the payments of all rents to accrue hereunder shall
be made by the Lessee to such Agent; and any and all notices hereunder, when
served upon the said Agent, shall have the same force and effect as if served upon
the Lessor in person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures and seals.
__________
Item 6.9. Installation of "Child at Play" Sign on Riverrun Drive (Route 1175) in Riverrun Subdivision.
It was noted in the staffs report that the residents of Riverrun Subdivision have requested the
=
Virginia Department of Transportation to install a "Child at Play" sign on Riverrun Drive (Route 1175). Staff
recommends that the Board adopt a resolution supporting this request using its established guidelines for
the installation of "Child At Play" signs.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the residents of Riverrun Subdivision are concerned about traffic in
their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that play
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the residents believe that a "Child At Play" sign would help alleviate
some of their concerns;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby supports the community's requests for VDOT to install the "Child At
Play" sign(s) on Riverrun Drive (Route 1175) near the intersection of Wimbleton Way and
Clifden Greene.
__________
Item 6.10. FY 2001-02 Revenue Projection Update.
It was noted in staffs report that the Fiscal Year 2001-02 revenues projected in October, 2000 at
=
$129,069,604 have been revised to $128,903,379, a total decrease of $166,225. Local tax revenues
decrease by $492,591, the majority of which are personal property taxes, penalties and business licenses
offset by increased anticipated consumer utility tax collections. The decreases are due to poor economic
conditions experienced locally, as well as statewide and nationally. The consumer utility tax increase is due
to cold weather conditions.
Other Local Revenues were reduced by $191,500, reflecting downward revisions in permits and
fees, charges for services and decreased social services rent due to the relocation of offices.
State and Federal revenues increase by $494,066, reflecting significant increases for social
services (based on projected program costs), offset by reductions in 599 funds (based on the Governor's
budget) and recordation fees.
Based upon the normal allocation of local tax revenues, the School Division would receive
$295,555 less in local tax revenues for FY 02 and the General Government would receive $197,036 (40%)
>
less than the October allocation.
Reduced Allocation to the Schools
Total Reduced Local Tax Revenues for Operations($492,591)
Schools @ 60% ($295,555)
General Govt @ 40%($197,036)
Therefore, Revised Transfer to Schools:
Previous Transfer to Schools$60,961,081
Less: Reduced Transfer Revenue($295,555)
Revised Transfer to Schools$60,665,526
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2001-02 revised revenue projections and the reduced
allocation of local tax revenues to the School Division and General Government.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the FY 2001-02 revised revenue
projections and the reduced allocation of local tax revenues to the School Division and General
Government.
__________
Item 6.11. Tip Fee Waiver following Storm Damage, Proposal for.
It was noted in the staffs report that an intense storm last year caused many properties in the
=
County to accumulate a significant amount of vegetative debris, particularly downed trees and limbs. The
Public Works Division subsequently received numerous inquiries from residents regarding options for
disposal of the debris. Ms. Thomas requested staff to review the feasibility of waiving tip fees at the Ivy
Materials Utilization Center (IMUC) for disposal of storm debris after significant storms.
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management and the County's Emergency Services
Coordinator, Mr. Kaye Harden, indicated Federal and State disaster relief funds are available for repair of
public property such as roads, parks and water/sewer systems. Mr. Harden also indicated that Federal
disaster relief funds are available to private property owners in the form of zero or low interest loans if there
is both a Federal and State disaster declaration and the private property is uninsured. However, there are
no Federal, State or local funds available for storm debris cleanup of private property.
The Countys Public Works Division contacted the City of Charlottesville and Henrico, Arlington,
=
Chesterfield and James City counties to find out about the storm debris disposal programs sponsored by
those localities. As part of their ongoing waste disposal programs, Charlottesville, Henrico and Arlington
will collect storm debris at the curb from residents. The City of Charlottesville will collect storm debris at the
curb at no cost to residents, Henrico charges a $40 fee for each collection and Arlington residents pay
$54/quarter for collection of all wastes, including storm debris. Chesterfield and James City counties do not
collect storm debris at the curb from residents, but allow residents to drop off brush at a convenience
center for a fee ranging from $1.00 to $4.00, depending on the vehicle size.
In January, 1999, a severe ice storm struck James City County causing extensive property damage
throughout. Both the State and Federal Governments subsequently declared the County in a state of
emergency. This declaration enabled the County to seek reimbursement from the State, less a per capita
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
deductible paid by the County to the State, to initiate cleanup of storm debris on public property. James City
County paid public works departments from the Cities of Virginia Beach and Newport News to assist with
the collection of storm debris. Residents gathered storm debris and placed the material inside the State
roadside right-of-way for collection. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) does not typically
permit material placement in State rights-of-way; however, given the catastrophic nature of the storm and
dedication of VDOT equipment to maintenance of I-64, County officials proceeded with this program.
Chesterfield County recently developed an informal program designed to help residents remove
storm debris. Chesterfields General Services Department maintains a database of telephone calls received
=
from residents requesting County assistance following a major storm. Based on the level of requests in
particular areas, County officials may establish "debris zones". Debris zones are specific areas of the
county which are eligible for assistance for curbside collection of storm debris. County officials issue a
press release establishing the collection dates and provide information regarding load dimensions, etc. In
addition to this curbside collection program, the County will waive tip fees at its drop-off facilities for a limited
period. A shortcoming of the debris drop-off program is accurate identification of storm and non-storm
debris.
The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) charges $32/ton for disposal of vegetative wastes at
the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (IMUC). Operating as an independent cost center, the RSWA will not
waive disposal fees. A storm debris amnesty program sponsored by the County would require funding.
The RSWA reports that approximately 500 tons of debris was delivered to the IMUC after the April, 2000
storm with a total tip fee cost of $16,000. Most of the debris, mainly logs and stumps, was delivered to the
IMUC by tree maintenance contractors.
Staff recommends that a storm debris cleanup program similar to the program in Chesterfield
County be developed. Following a major/severe storm event as determined by the County Executive, the
County would offer assistance to residents by establishing temporary/short term "debris zones", including
an estimate of cleanup costs. Public Works will establish an "on-call" contract for rapid response to the
cleanup services required in established debris zones. Residents would be required to deliver debris to the
debris deposit locations established by Public Works. The contractor would be required to mulch, transport
and/or dispose of the debris from the specified location. The Board may also declare an "Amnesty Period"
and pay the RSWA tip fee for all vegetative debris delivered to the IMUC during the authorized period. In
addition to this program, Public Works will continue to provide services for all storm events: 1) Coordinate
with VDOT to remove debris from the roadside right-of-way; 2) Provide general information regarding hours
of operation and disposal costs at the IMUC; and 3) Provide information to citizens about local tree
contractors.
(Ms. Thomas said it appears that this proposal is responsive to what she had in mind. She does not
know how much this will cost or if the Board will want to continue the program after its initial test. Mr.
Tucker said it is hard to know what will happen. When involved in an emergency situation, there are often
things which cannot be anticipated. It was staffs thought to start the program as a pilot.
=
Ms. Humphris said it was not noted in the staffs report that it would be a pilot program, and she
=
would not want people to think this was a program that could be counted on. Since this program will be
patterned after Chesterfield Countys methodology, she noticed that they had two problems which could
=
prove to be significant. One was the identification of the storm and deciding if it were major, and second,
how to distinguish between storm debris and non-storm debris. Mr. Tucker said those items were
discussed thoroughly by staff, and that is the reason for recommending that this be a pilot program.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the staffs recommendation was well thought out. It really does not
=
commit the County to anything. Mr. Tucker said it is a contingency plan in the event there is a major storm.)
This report was received for information only.
__________
Item 6.12. Copy of public notice dated January 19, 2001, from the Department of Environmental
Quality (Valley Regional Office) stating that the State Water Control Board has under consideration the
Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0085979, Keswick STP, was received for information.
(Ms. Humphris asked the reason for the discharge flow being increased by 50 percent. Mr. Tucker
said he will ask Mr. David Hirschman to investigate and report back to the Board. Ms. Humphris said she
thought the Board should know something about this notice since the Keswick situation is active. She
thought that there was usually a date given when the Board might offer comments. Mr. Tucker said that
does not occur on the VPDES notice. If enough people make comments, they may hold a hearing.)
__________
Item 6.13. Copy of letter dated January 24, 2001, from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. Albert J. Lawson Estate, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS AND PARCELS - Tax Map 37, Parcel 11 (Property of Albert J. Lawson Estate), Section 10.3.1,
was received for information.
__________
Item 6.14. Copy of letter dated January 24, 2001, from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. Arthur H. and Ms. Joann F. Freeman, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS - Tax Map 69, Parcels 50, 50A and 50C (Property of Arthur H.
or Joann F. Freeman), Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
__________
Item 6.15. Copy of letter dated January 24, 2001, from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. James F. Powell, Jr., re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
AND PARCELS - Tax Map 87, Parcel 64 and Tax Map 99, Parcels 59 and 60A (Property of James F.
Powell, Jr.), Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
Item 6.16. Copy of letter dated January 24, 2001, from Mr. John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Mr. W. Brand McCaskill, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
AND PARCELS - Tax Map 72, Parcel 51 (Property of W. Brand McCaskill & Elizabeth T. & William Brand
McCaskill, Jr., or Cynthia Londeree McCaskill), Section 10.3.1, was received for information.
__________
Item 6.17. Citizen Participation in the FY 2001-02 Budget Process.
It was noted in the staffs report that since the budget in its ideal form should be a document that
=
lays out a shared vision of the community's needs and priorities, anything less than full participation by
informed citizens hurts the process significantly. For the last several years, staff has implemented various
strategies aimed at improving the county's communication with citizens about the budget with the goal of
increasing awareness of and participation in the budget process. This year staff is looking to continue those
efforts with several public outreach initiatives.
Several communication efforts are planned and/or underway. Staff welcomes any ideas or
suggestions from Board members about engaging the public in the budget process.
(Ms. Humphris asked if the suggestion for a joint meeting in partnership with the League of Women
Voters involves the Board members. Mr. Tucker said it does not. Staff and the League are making the
presentation, but not to the Board. Ms. Thomas said she would like to be sure all of the Board members
agree with this suggestion. She suggested discussing this further at the Boards next meeting. Mr. Tucker
=
said this will not be the actual budget. This is just a method to obtain input. Ms. Thomas said if that is the
case, Board members can make their comments to staff.)
This report was received for information only.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. School Board Presentation.
Dr. Charles Ward, Chairman of the School Board, was present. He said the Driver Education
Program is something the School Board has been very concerned about, particularly in the light of several
fatal accidents. The School Board has now taken a step to require that a log showing 35 hours of
parent/student, supervised driving be submitted at the time a temporary license is presented. This is in
addition to the minimum 15 hours of actual instruction time. He said that no county in Virginia has a
mandatory log, submission policy. He knows it will require additional time on the part of parents.
Dr. Ward said the Murray High School Charter School application will be on the School Boards
=
agenda tonight. They now have 80 children involved, but will have a capacity for 108. They also will
discuss having a full three-year contract as provided by state law. The Board must make this decision by
March 15. He feels it will go forward, and Albemarle will be one of few places in Virginia to have a charter
school.
Dr. Ward said the School Board has chosen as its new Clerk, Mrs. Jennifer Johnston, who was
formerly the Deputy Clerk for one year. They will now need to hire a deputy clerk.
Dr. Ward said the School Board is to vote tonight on the budget funding request. He believes they
will be recommending what the Superintendent has requested, a 7.6 percent increase over the FY 2000-01
budget. The majority of the increase results from recommendations of the Compensation Committee and
Palmer & Cay Consulting Group for a 4.2 percent increase in compensation. This would be a request
exceeding revenues by more than $2.0 million.
Dr. Ward said the School Board, at its last retreat, discussed joining the Chamber of Commerce.
There appear to be some obvious advantages, such as improving communications, and working
partnerships helping CATEC, the Charlottesville Albemarle Business Alliance, and the schools in general.
Dr. Ward said he is going to suggest that the actual budget process be reviewed before next years
=
budget work begins. He said that the School Board received a request for funds on January 17, 2001, and
now, just three weeks later, it has to come up with something, and it is a rush. The School Board needs a
little more time to attend meetings and get feedback. This year there has been fairly good weather, but in
some years, that is not the case. After the 2001-02 budget is completed, he will ask for some flexibility in
the budget process. At the same time, maybe a schedule could be made for the joint Supervisors/School
Board meetings, and have them tie in with revenue projections.
Dr. Ward said several of the School Board members will attend the Virginia School Boards
Association meeting tomorrow in Richmond to get a updated report on this legislative session. He and Mr.
Koleszar will meet with Senator Couric to thank her and Mr. Jim Camblos for their support in putting in a bill
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
concerning threatening school employees.
Dr. Ward said that the School Board is to meet with the Planning Commission on March 13. This
first meeting is basically one where the duties of the Commission will be explained to the School Board.
Also, there will be an explanation of the Countys Development Initiatives Study Committee (DISC) report.
=
He has asked both staffs to work together in developing recommendations for improving communications
and/or processes.
He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the idea of having an earlier forecast of the budget is a good one.
However, the main holdup seems to be in the State funding figures. Dr. Ward said the School Board would
like to have more time within the time allotted to work on the budget, but he does not believe it will hasten
the process or make it begin earlier.
Ms. Thomas said the Business Education Roundtable is being worked on. She believes it would
meet purposes such as joining the Chamber of Commerce. There is a system being set up to get input
from different employers so the Schools will know what is wanted of graduates. She would like to
congratulate everyone who has been working on that idea. Dr. Ward asked that the Supervisors share their
ideas on this subject with the School Board members.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Transportation Matters.
Mr. Jim Bryan, Resident Engineer, was present. He said he is happy to be in this area and is happy
to be back working in the public service environment. He thanked County staff for their courtesy,
professionalism, and patience. He looks forward to supporting the Board in its efforts. He mentioned the
beauty of Albemarle and Greene counties.
__________
Mr. Bryan mentioned that work should begin on the traffic signal at the intersection of Route 250
West and Route 667 (Old Ballard Road) on Monday. Ms. Thomas said she understood the Highway
Department had been asked to let the Route 250 West Citizens Advisory Committee meet and discuss this
signal before its actual installation. She asked if there had been a meeting.
Mr. David Benish said the Planning staff is in the process of drafting a summary of the information
from the Committee. It will come to the Board on February 14. Mr. Juan Wade did attend that meeting.
Ms. Thomas said the Committee was appointed to provide the Board with actual advice on this corridor.
Now, if the light is installed without the Board having that advice, that makes her uncomfortable. Mr. Bryan
said he will try to delay the work. It has already been delayed a month.
__________
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Benish needs some feedback concerning the Free State Road/Rio Road public
hearing which was held recently. Mr. Benish said the project is listed in the Secondary Road Plan and is to
provide a connector between these two roads in lieu of a railroad bridge replacement on Free State Road.
A public hearing was held in January on a general location for the project. Typically, staff provides
comments to VDOT on the project. A future public hearing will be held to show construction details. He
spoke with someone from VDOT today, and it is their intent to collect the public comments (which are due
today) and then work with staff to draft recommendations for the Board, if that is what the Board wants staff
to do.
Ms. Humphris asked about attendance at the meeting. Mr. Benish said it was fairly well attended.
Mr. Bryan said VDOT has received several written comments. Mr. Martin said the process recommended is
a good one because there are competing forces, so it would be helpful to get more comments.
Ms. Thomas said she appreciated VDOT letting County staff assist with rewriting the public hearing
notice, and they also offered to let that happen on the next public hearing. Mr. Bryan said they will do that
again in the future. Ms. Humphris said it was very effective, so she appreciates VDOT allowing that. Mr.
Bryan said the Board should not be bashful about making such suggestions in the future.
__________
Mr. Perkins said he and Mr. Bryan have been meeting and will meet again tomorrow on a
compromise for the Catterton Road project. Mr. Bryan said the project will either be built or it will not be
built. But, there may be other options, and there are some recommendations they will make based on their
viewpoint.
__________
Mr. Dorrier said he and Mr. Bryan recently rode around in the Scottsville District to look at various
roads and discuss issues. He appreciates Mr. Bryan doing this.
__________
Ms. Humphris said she would like to ask again about VDOT's Route 29 North parallel road design.
The Board will soon be adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to deal with that area, so she wonders
if VDOTs design work is being coordinated with County staff so the design will fit the Countys Land Use
==
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Plan. Mr. Bryan said he has received a letter asking that the work be coordinated with County staff, and
they intend to do that. Nothing has happened on that work yet. He has tried to coordinate a meeting both in
his office here, or in Richmond, and it is stalled. They are unable internally to come to an agreement as to
how to proceed.
Ms. Humphris asked the meaning of that statement. Mr. Bryan said there is a difference of opinion
internally. Mr. Humphris said there definitely was a difference in the message from VDOT since its meeting
with the Board on October 4th. Mr. Bryan said the project is still in the feasibility phase. It will be at least
three years before any construction can take place using the current schedule. The specifics of the design
are still being coped with internally, and there are concerns about the cost in terms of right-of-way.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that is a plus since it gives more time to sort out what the Board wants in
place. Ms. Humphris said the Board has been told this project has been on a fast track. She also learned
at a MPO meeting that the little initials vta by this project in the Six-Year Plan means the General
A@
Assembly has a special pocket they can put money into for the project at any time they want to. Just
because it seems that the project has been delayed may not turn out to be true. Mr. Bryan said he can
promise that VDOT will coordinate the design.
__________
Ms. Humphris mentioned a letter some Board members received from "EARL" about Earlysville
Road. She thinks it needs to be discussed.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board decided it was not realistic to request VDOT to look at a through
truck restriction on either Route 606 or Route 743. He knows the Board got a letter with todays paper work
=
concerning Routes 22/231 where organizations which use that road for trucks have voluntarily agreed to do
certain things. He thought that is where the discussion of Route 743 ended.
Ms. Thomas said the Board wrote to each of the companies using that road asking if they could find
an alternate route for their trucks, except for when they are actually making deliveries on the road. A
response has been received from Custom Express.
Mr. Bowerman said he wants to know what the Board can do to get them to respond. Ms.
Humphris said the Earlysville Area Residents League sent a letter saying they have asked County staff for
=
information, and had no response. She said there is a long record in the minutes, and many staff reports,
so the information is readily available.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board needs to respond to EARL, and try to get responses from the
A@
people using the road. Mr. Tucker said the Board had asked that staff request these people to voluntarily
comply with its request to use another road. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the Board needs a written
response from these people as to whether they are amenable to the suggestion or not.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said the Berkeley Homeowners Association has asked for a four-way stop at the
=
intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Dominion Drive, which are both 25 mile per hour streets. It seems
that people are basically ignoring the stop signs. They feel this is a dangerous situation. He believes it is a
neighborhood issue, and is something that should be accommodated.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Board members only know what they read in the newspapers about the
Meadow Creek Parkway design. There was a meeting of City representatives with a member of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board who seemed to be under the assumption that the County's portion of
the Parkway was already designed. That is alarming because the County is spending a lot of money to get
its portion of the road designed. She said it is an exciting design process. The consultants have added
some components that might not have been thought of originally. It must be determined how the northern
end of the road will be developed, whether the road will split in half the possible urban area, or skirt to one
side. That will make a tremendous difference as to how usable that area is, how it will develop with some
small grid of streets and become a nice community, or whether the road will run right through it. There is
also the decision of where the creek itself is crossed. The difference between a couple of places to cross
the creek ties in with park use of the land. One crossing would open it up as a connecting parkway with
Greenbrier Park which is just on the other side of the railroad track. They are also looking at how close the
road should go to the railroad track in order to create the most usable park space. She believes the whole
community will be very pleased at what the consultants are recommending. VDOT needs to recognize that
the County is going through with this process to come up with a design to make it a park and a parkway.
The consultants were impressed with the fact that there is CATEC and Charlottesville High School and the
road will run from one to the other, with Greenbrier Elementary School off to one side, with the proposed
Catholic School off to the other side, and there is a very degraded creek in the middle. There might be
some way to get educational value by having the kids work on improving the creek.
Ms. Humphris said she had been away and did not understand the article she read in the
newspaper. She asked if the consultants made a presentation to the Countys Planning Commission. Ms.
=
Thomas said they did and also to staff. You could not follow along with the newspaper article which used
the wrong letters in referring to the different options. Ms. Humphris said the article did not mention any
comments from the Commission members. Mr. Benish said it was an exchange of information and the
Commission did provide comments to the consultants.
_______________
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on an ordinance to authorize Albemarle County to participate in
the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program under a shared powers agreement pursuant to Section
15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia. (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on January 22 and
January 29, 2001.)
Mr. Tucker said since July 1, 1982, Albemarle County has participated in a regional local Alcohol
Safety Action Program (ASAP) with the counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson, and the City of
Charlottesville. This program is run under the direction of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Program Commis-
sion. The local programs are now undergoing a recertification process. As a result of that process, each
jurisdiction has been requested to reauthorize its participation and reestablish a local Policy Board. The
James River ASAP was created pursuant to a shared-services agreement authorized by Section 15.2-1300
of the Code of Virginia. This section requires that the shared-services agreement be approved by
ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said an ordinance was prepared consistent with the request of the Executive Director of
the James River ASAP, and today set as the date to hold a public hearing on same. At the conclusion of
the public hearing, he recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance authorizing Albemarle County's
participation in the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program.
Ms. Thomas immediately opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed.
(Note: At 10:12 a.m., Ms. Humphris left the room.)
Ms. Thomas said she wondered if this is a good use of money and is the program effective. Mr.
Tucker said Chief Miller serves on this Board and he feels it is a worthwhile program. They do outreach for
all localities.
Mr. Martin said it is hard to say with evidence that it is worthwhile or that it works. It is woven into the
fabric of the court system, so it would be hard to undo it.
Mr. Dorrier said he has represented clients who have said this is a strong organization. It is one of
the few organizations left in Charlottesville which deals with alcohol abuse. They do a good job at a
reasonable cost for clients who cannot afford long-term in-house treatment. He is in favor of the ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to adopt an Ordinance to Authorize Albemarle County's Participation in the
James River Alcohol Safety Action Program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Humphris.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 01-A(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ALBEMARLE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE
JAMES RIVER ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, pursuant to authority contained in 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as follows:
'
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia in the interest of highway safety has
provided by law, programs for probation, education, and rehabilitation of persons charged
with driving motor vehicles under the influence of alcoholic beverages and other
self-administered drugs, such programs being collectively known as Virginia Alcohol
Safety Action Program or VASAP; and
WHEREAS, 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, authorizes local
'
units of government to exercise their powers, privileges and authorities under a Joint
Exercise of Powers for the operation of a multi-jurisdictional venture; and
WHEREAS, 18.2-271.2 of the Code of Virginia requires the establishment of a
'
VASAP Commission and that Commission establish procedures for the operation of local
Alcohol Safety Action Programs; and
WHEREAS, since July 1, 1982, one of those programs known as James River
ASAP has been serving the City of Charlottesville, and the counties of Albemarle,
Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene, and Nelson, providing probationer monitoring, education and
treatment of persons charged with alcohol and drug offenses with all powers and duties
granted to it by the laws of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the VASAP Commission has issued directives that all local VASAP
programs would establish and implement an independent Policy Board representative of
all localities served by the Program to operate the Program.
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the County of Albemarle does
hereby join the City of Charlottesville, and the Counties of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and
Nelson to establish said Policy Board as administrative and fiscal agent subject to the
following provisions:
Section 1. The Board shall consist of not more than fifteen (15) members. One
person shall be appointed by the governing body of each participating locality and will
serve for a term of three (3) years. The Board shall also include one General District
Court Judge serving the area of the program, one attorney at law practicing in that area,
one law enforcement official from that area, one driver education specialist, and one
person skilled in the treatment of alcoholism/drug addiction. The remaining members
shall be elected by majority vote of the incumbent members for terms of three (3) years.
In addition to the members so selected, the Executive Director of the Program shall also
be a member ex-officio without voting power.
Section 2. The Officers of the Board shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice-
Chairman, a Secretary-Treasurer, and such subordinate officer's as may from time to
time be elected or appointed by the Board. The Secretary shall be the Executive Director
of the Program. Each of said officers shall serve without compensation. The offices of
Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be held by members from different participating
localities. Each officer shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Board to serve for a
term of one (1) year unless sooner removed by the Board, or until his successor be
elected and qualify.
Section 3. The Board shall be responsible for the operation of the Program
within the participating localities, and shall hire and supervise an Executive Director who
shall be responsible for implementing operational policies for the Program, hiring and
supervising the staff of the Program, and controlling all revenue and expenditures of the
Program.
Section 4. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held quarterly and are open
to the public. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman at his or her discretion or
by any four (4) board members upon five days notice to all members in writing or by
telephone of the time, place, and purpose of the special meeting. A simple majority of
members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for transaction of any and all business.
Section 5. The Executive Director shall prepare and submit an operating budget
for approval by the Policy Board each fiscal year. The budget shall include projected
revenue from client fees and other available funds as deemed appropriate by the Board
and operating expenses. The participating localities will at no time incur any costs for the
operation of the program. The Commission on VASAP shall be responsible for funding
any deficit occurring in the operation of the Program.
Section 6. The Commission on VASAP shall be responsible for conducting
financial audits on the Program at such times as determined by the Commission.
Section 7. The Executive Director shall prepare and submit an annual report for
approval by the Policy Board within ninety (90) days of the close of the fiscal year. The
annual report shall be presented to the governing body of each participating locality after
approval by the Policy Board.
Section 8. The Program shall be operated by the Board in compliance with the
Commission on VASAP Policies and Procedures.
Section 9. Title to all property acquired by James River ASAP shall be vested
with the Alcohol Safety Action Program so long as two (2) or more localities continue to
participate in its operation. In the event that all localities withdraw and the Commission
on VASAP withdraws its endorsement, the property owned by the Program shall be
disposed of in accordance with the then applicable provisions of the Code of Virginia.
Section 10. This agreement shall remain in effect continuously from year to year
until termination. Participating localities may withdraw at any time by official action of the
governing body and after ninety (90) days written notice to the Policy Board. If a locality
withdraws, its representative shall no longer serve on the Board.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Social Services, Presentation.
Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services, introduced members of the Social Services Board,
Ms. Martha Horton, Mr. Harry Levins and Ms. Donna Marshall.
Mr. Harry Levins, said he represents the White Hall District on the Social Services Board. The
Albemarle County Department of Social Services Annual Report for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 is being
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
presented this morning. He said that what has impressed him the most this last year is the talent and
dedication of the departments management and staff. He thinks the County is well-served by Ms. Ralston
=
and her staff. He noted that Ms. Sonia Jammes prepared the report.
Ms. Ralston introduced Mr. Paul McWhinney the new assistant director who began work about two
months ago right in the middle of budget preparation and the departments move. She offered to go
=
through the report or let the Board members ask questions, whichever is preferred.
Mr. Martin said he likes this report and the way it is set up. It is very organized so one can go
through it quickly or go directly to any subject.
Ms. Ralston said there is some data which was not included. The department does not have
reliable data on all subjects, particularly child protection and day care. She said that in the category of
services, they have eight benefit programs, seven service programs and employment day care, and
collaborate with the schools on the Bright Stars Program, and collaborate with the schools and several
community agencies on the Family Support Program.
Ms. Ralston referred the members to the 1999 report concerning the Childrens Medical Security
=
Insurance Plan (CMSIP) which was implemented in December, 1998. She said the Governor has changed
that program, with the change occurring in the spring. The plan is to go to central processing, and for the
program to be privatized. There are several bills pending in the General Assembly at this time on the
program, so they have to await the outcome of this Session.
Ms. Thomas asked if this means that the program will no longer be under the departments
=
management. Ms. Ralston said yes. As of June, 1999 there were 42 children enrolled in that program.
A@
By June, 2000, there were 80 children involved. Many people who enroll for this program are actually
eligible for Medicaid. The department screens for both Medicaid and CMSIP, so the chart in the report does
not show an actual number of people who apply, as many are moved to the Medicaid program. Although
the number of approvals have been disappointing, there have been 113 applications so far this fiscal year.
(Note: Ms. Humphris returned to the meeting at 10:18 a.m.).
Ms. Thomas asked how many children would be eligible for this program. Eighty does not seem to
be a large enough number. Ms. Ralston said when the program first started, the State had a problem with
outreach and getting information out to parents. She said Virginia is the only state in the union which
requires support enforcement along with this program. In Albemarle that has severely curtailed the number
of families who want to participate. When they find out about automatic referral to the Support Enforcement
Office, many people withdraw their application.
Mr. Dorrier asked about Food Stamps. He noticed in the report that the number of people on food
stamps has declined. He wonders if this means people are moving to other localities, or if this means that
the general population is better off financially. Ms. Ralston said it is an indicator of the economy. She said
the number of people requesting Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) has declined since
welfare reform became effective. She said that in 1996, the Federal government implemented the
Personal Responsibility Act which made changes in food stamp eligibility, so there was a decline in eligibility
rates because of that law.
Ms. Ralston said that in 1997, the Multiple Response Pilot for child protective services was
implemented. Albemarle was one of five agencies in the state which did that. The pilot program is
complete. It was to have been implemented statewide this past July by action of the General Assembly last
year, but the State Department of Social Services has not done that yet. Albemarle thinks it is a good
program. It has been successful for the families involved.
Ms. Ralston noted that Foster Care continues to be an increasing burden for local governments.
There is good news in that there has been a decline in the case load this year. In Employment Services,
Albemarle ranks in the top 10 in the State in the measures applied by the state for this program. They are
pleased with that, but are not pleased with their retention rate with only 60 percent for three- and six-month
employment. She believes that is an indicator of the kind of jobs these people get, a lot being service jobs.
She said the average wage in Albemarle is still higher than the wage in sister communities, but for a family
of three, it is still below the poverty level (about $6.57 hour).
Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board is pleased to hear Ms. Ralston say the Bright Stars
Program is a good program. She asked about the Volunteers Dental Program for the kids who could not
get dental services on Medicaid. She asked if this program fits in any official way with other programs. Ms.
Ralston said Medicaid covers dental services for children as does CMSIP. Ms. Humphris said there are few
dentists who will accept Medicaid as a payment. Ms. Ralston said it is difficult to get children dental care in
the community. The Health Department, through the Child Health Partnership Program, has actually driven
children to Richmond to get dental care because they could not find assistance in this area. She said
Medicaid does not reimburse well for dental services. Ms. Humphris said she read that social services staff
had set up a volunteer program. She asked if there is any way to supplement the funds from Medicaid. Ms.
Ralston said it is against Medicaid rules to supplement Medicaid payments.
Ms. Thomas said she particularly likes the way this report was set up. It was very easy to read, and
certainly shows the number of programs in which the Department is involved. Ms. Ralston thanked the
Supervisors for appointing good members to the Social Services Board who are very dedicated.
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:30 a.m., and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. SDP-00-119. Home Depot at North Town Center Preliminary Site Plan
Appeal (deferred from January 3, 2001).
Ms. Thomas said the Board has just received, in writing, what was worked out with the Planning
Commission last night. And, the Commission received, just as their meeting was beginning, what the staff
had worked out on the conditions. She asked that staff remind everyone what the critical slopes waiver is
about. She said the applicant made a good statement about this at the January 3 Board meeting. She
thinks the Board has to decide if what is being proposed is better in some defined ways than preserving the
steep slopes. The steep slopes area consist of 15 percent of the property, and the property could be
developed pursuant to its commercial zoning without use of that portion of the property, and that is how it
will have to proceed if the Board does not grant the steep slopes waiver. The effect of that must be judged
on its impact on excessive stormwater runoff, siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water, loss of
aesthetic resources, and the Countys general purpose is to discourage development on critical slopes. All
=
of this is set out in the County Code, Section 18. Ms. Thomas said the waivers may be granted when the
conditions and the requirements unreasonably restrict the use of the property (She thinks all have agreed
that the property can be used even without the steep slopes waiver), or, would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent properties. She thinks this is what is in front of the Board today. She
welcomed any correction of this from the County Attorney. She is just setting the stage so all will know what
is being working on.
Mr. Davis said he believes Ms. Thomas has substantially stated the question correctly. The
standard in Section 4.2.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance sets out three criteria, which, if met by the applicant,
allow the Board to grant the critical slopes waiver. In this case, both Planning and Engineering Department
staff recommended approval of the preliminary site plan and a critical slopes waiver, with conditions. After
review by the Planning Commission, it voted to deny the critical slopes waiver and the preliminary site plan.
That decision was then appealed to this Board. Based on additional information provided to the
Commission, and based on public concerns, staff was asked to determine if there are reasonable
conditions which can be applied to address those concerns.
Conditions Recommended by the Planning Commission,
Including Revisions Suggested by Home Depot Accepted by the Planning Commission
Critical Slopes Waiver Conditions:
1.Remove the “slip ramp” from the site plan to provide space to accommodate a biofilter or series of
biofilters approved by the Engineering Department in the front (west) parking lot with a total bottom
area of no less than 3500 square feet for adequate water quality treatment. [CSW 1]
[
Note: At the request of the Engineering Department, the Planning Commission did not accept the
changes suggested by Home Depot. The Engineering Department stated that the slip ramp
prevented the applicant from assuring that there would be an adequate area to install the required
biofilters, and raised concerns regarding safe and convenient access, for both vehicles and
pedestrians. To address the safe and convenient access concerns as a site plan issue, this
condition is repeated in a different form in Site Plan Condition 23. This is the only condition in
which the Engineering Department asked the Planning Commission to not accept the changes
]
suggested by Home Depot.
2.Provide a dry detention basin on the Home Depot site, subject to the following:
a.The basin shall include a large biofilter along the bottom. [CSW 2]
b.The basin shall be designed to store runoff from the 1-year 24-hour storm event (or
equivalent), as well as runoff from the 2- and 10-year storm events. [Albemarle County
Code § 17-314(D)]. [CSW 4]
c.If adequate volume cannot be reasonably achieved in the basin, the adequate channel and
water detention requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance shall be addressed by an
underground detention pipe and/or a pervious pavement system (including stone reservoir
and underdrain system) for parking bays most remote from the building approved by the
Engineering Department. [CSW 3]
d.The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department that the
detention system or systems required by this condition will satisfy the
requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. [CSW 4]
e.The basin shall be landscaped, and the landscaping shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review Board if the basin is visible from the Entrance
Corridor.
[
Note: The Planning Commission accepted the changes to subsections (d) and (e) suggested by
]
Home Depot.
3.All biofilters required by Conditions 1 and 2 shall be designed to standards in the County’s Interim
Design Manual and Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook unless otherwise approved by the
Engineering Department, with final design to be approved by the Engineering Department. [CSW 2]
[]
Note: The Planning Commission accepted the change suggested by Home Depot.
4.The applicant shall dredge and repair the stream below the site and the first downstream pond,
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
subject to the following:
a.All dredging and repair work shall be shown on the applicant’s erosion and sediment
control plan.
b.The applicant shall submit a letter of permission to the Engineering Department before the
start of any dredging or repair work.
c.If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department that it does
not have permission to access the property necessary to perform Conditions 4(a) and (b)
prior to engaging in land disturbing activity on the site, it shall submit for review and
approval by the Engineering Department plans to address erosion and stormwater impacts
that would have been mitigated by Conditions 4(a) and (b).
d.The applicant shall not engage in any land disturbing activity on the site unless it first
demonstrates to the Engineering Department that it has obtained the permission required
by Condition 4(b), or has obtained approval of the plan submitted under Condition 4(c).
[CSW 9]
5.In addition to all other erosion and sediment control measures that may be required by the Water
Protection Ordinance, the applicant shall provide erosion and sediment control measures to
assure, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, that it is providing high levels of
effectiveness in controlling sediment during construction. These measures shall include, but not be
limited to:
a.A construction schedule that minimizes the duration of disturbance (., phasing of the
e.g
erosion and sediment control plan).
b.Using high efficiency sediment basins designed to include the use of flocculants.
c.Matting exposed slopes as determined appropriate by the Engineering Department.
d.The contractor shall have a certified Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector on
the site throughout the period during which the site is under construction. The Inspector
shall maintain a daily erosion and sediment control inspection log demonstrating that
erosion and sediment control measures are being closely monitored and deficiencies are
being quickly repaired. The Inspector shall assure that all control measures are being
maintained in optimal condition. The log shall be made available for inspection by the
Engineering Department at any time during regular business hours.
e.If determined to be necessary by the Engineering Department, the surety required by
Albemarle County Code § 17-207 shall include an amount determined by the Engineering
Department to be reasonably necessary to take corrective action to repair or restore
downstream properties damaged during construction by runoff or sediment. [CSW 10]
[
Note: The Planning Commission accepted the changes to subsection (d) suggested by Home Depot. The
Commission recommends that subsection (e) be added.. The Commission asks the Board to be aware of
Critical Slope Waiver Condition 11 in the Executive Summary, which is not included as a recommended
condition because it imposes no obligation on the applicant. That condition stated: “If during construction
damage is caused to downstream properties, the Engineering Department can require corrective action
under E&SC law. This is independent of the other E&SC conditions presented here.” Both the Engineering
Department and affected owners may require corrective action under Albemarle County Code §§ 17-214
and 17-215. The Commission recommends that, if there is evidence of damage to downstream properties
]
during construction, the Engineering Department shall require corrective action.
6.The parking areas shall be paved with pervious areas to the maximum extent practical as
determined by the Planning Department and the Engineering Department.
[
Note: The Planning Commission recommends that this condition be added in order to reduce increased
runoff that would otherwise occur because critical slopes will be covered by impervious surfaces, rather
than remain undisturbed without the waiver. The Planning Department will determine the appropriate
amount of pervious area to be paved by considering peak and off-peak parking volume and other factors.
]
The Engineering Department will determine the appropriate paving materials to satisfy this condition.
7.In order to reduce the impervious surface on the property, the building shall have a “green roof”
technology approved by the Engineering Department providing for the installation and maintenance
of a substantially landscaped rooftop. If the Engineering Department determines that a “green
roof” technology is not practical, then this condition shall have no force or effect.
[
Note: The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant fully explore using a “green roof”
technology as a strategy to reduce the volume and peak rate of runoff, and that the technology be installed
unless the Engineering Department determines that it would not be practical for the building proposed. If
the green roof technology is not practical for these purposes, it remains available as an option for the
]
applicant to satisfy Site Plan Condition 16 (see Condition 16(d)
8.In addition to the design requirements for the dry detention basin set forth in Condition 2(b):
a.The stormwater management plan shall include additional measures determined by the
Engineering Department to be necessary in order to capture, to the maximum extent
practical, the runoff from the site, both during and after construction.
b.The stormwater management plan shall include measures to prevent, to the fullest extent
possible, damaging conditions to downstream properties and receiving waterways from
occurring as a result of the development of the site, both during and after construction.
c.In order to allow the Engineering Department to develop appropriate measures to satisfy
Conditions 8(a) and (b), the applicant shall submit data demonstrating the peak flow of
runoff from the site and the peak flow of runoff coming onto the site. [Albemarle County
Code §§ 17-312, 17-314(D)]
[Note: The Planning Commission recommends that this condition be added to assure that both the volume
and the peak rate and velocity will be minimized as much as possible, both during and after construction.]
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Site Plan Conditions:
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until a tentative final
approval for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
1.Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project shown on
the final site plan. [SP 1]
2.Planning Department approval of the final landscape plan, consistent with final approval by the
Architectural Review Board. In addition to any other landscape plan requirements set forth in
Conditions 15 and 19 or otherwise required to satisfy Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9, the final
landscape plan shall show the following:
a.The installation of landscaping along the borders of the outparcel.
b.The installation of staggered rows of Red Oak trees between the Entrance Corridor and
the southern retaining wall.
c.The installation of oak trees along the entrance drive on the north side of the outparcel.
[SP 2]
[]
Note: The Planning Commission accepted the change suggested by Home Depot.
3.Planning Department approval of a plat combining all of the parcels included in the Home Depot
site. [SP 3]
4.Planning Department approval of an easement providing the Albemarle County Service Authority
with unobstructed access to the existing Woodbrook pump station. [SP 4]
5.Virginia Department of Transportation approval of all construction activity within the public right-of-
way. [SP 5]
6.Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the proposed relocation or disturbance of the
existing state-maintained permanent drainage easement and stormwater management facilities
located on-site. [SP 6]
7.The following items must be submitted with the final site plan for review and, in the case of required
plans, approval, by the Engineering Department. [SP 7]
a.An erosion and sediment control plan, narrative and computations. [Albemarle County
Code §§ 17-203, 18-32.7.4.3]
b.A completed application and fee for erosion control and stormwater management.
[Albemarle County Code §§ 17-203, 17-303]
c.A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include
water quality, and detention routings for the 1-year (24-hour), 2-year and 10-year storms.
[Albemarle County Code §§ 17-304, 17-314D]
d.Copies of all state and federal permits required for impacts to waters of the U.S.
completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [Albemarle
County Code § 17-323]
e.Drainage computations. [Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.4, Policy]
f.Retaining wall plans and computations certified by a professional engineer for walls over 5
feet in height. [Policy]
8.Engineering Department and Virginia Department of Transportation approval of the southernmost
entrance, including all signage, safety and traffic calming measures to be implemented. [SP 8]
9.Zoning Department approval of all outdoor lighting to confirm compliance with Albemarle County
Code § 18-4.17. [SP 9]
10.Fire Official approval of fire lane locations. [SP 10]
11.Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer construction drawings, and
provision of easements to adjacent properties for possible extensions. [SP 11]
12.Documentation of Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environment Quality
approval and permitting of any activity resulting in disturbance of the wetlands areas. [SP 12]
13.The applicant shall install and maintain a solid screening fence between the site and all abutting
residential properties as determined by the Planning Department, subject to the following:
a.The fence shall be constructed of wood.
b.The fence shall be 8 feet tall. [SP 20]
c.Except for those parts of the fence that are visible from the entrance corridor as
determined by the Architectural Review Board, the fence shall be constructed so that the
posts face internally toward the site. [SP 21]
d.No trees of 6 inches or greater in caliper shall be removed for the purpose of constructing
the fence. [SP 14]
e.The applicant shall provide documentation that the consent of each abutting property
owner has been obtained in any areas where the fence will be located on the abutting
property. [SP 13]
f.The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the fence in a safe and suitable
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
condition, including all parts of the fence installed on an abutting property. [SP 15]
14.The site plan must list the conditions of approval for all waivers and modifications approved by the
Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors. [SP 16]
New Site Plan Conditions:
15.The applicant shall maintain an undisturbed buffer between the site and all abutting residential
properties as determined by the Planning Department, subject to the following:
a.The buffer along the southern side of the property abutting the residential properties within
the Woodbrook subdivision shall be a width of 40 feet. [SP 17]
b.In all other areas for which a buffer is required by Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.8,
the buffer shall be a width of 20 feet.
c.The limits of the buffer, including those parts of the site to which a 20-foot buffer is
required, shall be clearly marked in the field for inspection and protected by construction
fencing. [SP 19]
d.Evergreen trees shall be installed and maintained by the applicant in areas within the
buffer where existing landscaping does not provide sufficient screening. These areas shall
be identified on the landscape plan to be submitted for final approval, and the Planning
Department shall specify the species, size, spacing and location of the evergreen trees to
be installed in its approval in order to achieve screening that is equivalent to a triple
staggered row 15 feet on center, 5 12 feet in height. [SP 18]
e.Upon request of any owner of abutting residential property within the Woodbrook
subdivision, the applicant shall provide white pine trees at least 5 between 5 and 12 feet in
height as specified by the owner, for planting by the owner on his or her property, as
determined by the Planning Department to be reasonably necessary.
f.The applicant shall provide a bond or other surety in an amount determined to be
necessary by the Engineering Department to assure that the existing and planted
landscaping in the buffer is maintained, and to replace any landscaping that dies during
construction or during the three-year period after a certificate of occupancy is issued. The
bond or other surety shall be in a form approved by the County Attorney. The release of
the bond or other surety shall not relieve the applicant of its obligation to maintain the
screening required by this Condition 16 after the bond or surety is released.
[
Note: The Planning Commission accepted the change to subsection (e) suggested by Home Depot. The
Commission also recommends that the height of the screening trees in the undisturbed buffer be at least 12
feet in height (subsection (d)), and that trees provided by the applicant to homeowners be between 5 and
12 feet in height to allow homeowners a range of sizes appropriate for their yard and screening needs. The
Commission also recommends that subsection (f) be added to require a bond or other surety to assure that
landscaping, particularly trees, in the buffer will be replaced. The Commission recommends that the period
the bond or other surety is in place extend three years after the completion of construction (measured from
the date the certificate of occupancy is issued) because it may take that long for any damage to root
]
systems occurring during construction to affect the landscaping.
16.The roof of the building shall be subject to the following:
a.The roof, including all screening walls and other structures, architectural features, and
mechanical equipment on the roof, shall be treated or painted in a uniform color approved
by the Planning Department. Only that part of a structure or architectural feature that is
part of the exterior building façade visible to any abutting residential property shall be
treated and painted in the uniform natural color. [SP 23]
b.All mechanical equipment on the rooftop shall be screened from abutting residential
properties that are at higher elevations than the roof of the building by screening walls
and/or landscaped planters approved by the Planning Department. [SP 24]
c.All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be grouped in clusters and/or located as far away
as possible from the abutting properties along the southern property lines, as approved by
the Planning Department. [SP 24]
d.As an alternative to complying with Conditions 16 (a), (b) and (c), and if Critical Slope
Waiver Condition 7 is not implemented, the applicant may install a “green roof” technology
approved by the Planning Department that would provide for the installation and
maintenance of a substantially landscaped rooftop providing screening to at least an
equivalent degree [SP 22]
.
[
Note: The Planning Commission revised the changes to subsections (b) and (c), and rejected the change
to subsection (d), suggested by Home Depot. Subsection (d) will apply if Critical Slope Waiver Condition 7
]
is determined to be impractical.
17.The applicant shall submit the findings of a qualified sound engineer regarding the generation of
sound from the proposed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. If these findings
demonstrate that the sound levels will exceed the maximum sound levels authorized for the
proposed use under Albemarle County Code § 18-4.18, the applicant shall submit for review and
approval by the Engineering Department proposed noise attenuation measures to reduce the
sound levels to an authorized level. [SP 25]
[]
Note: The Planning Commission accepted the change suggested by Home Depot.
18.A public bus stop shall be located adjacent to the public right-of-way or, if that location is not
approved by the Engineering Department, the Charlottesville Transit Service, and the Virginia
Department of Transportation, then internal to the site, subject to the approval of the Engineering
Department and the Charlottesville Transit Service. [SP 26]
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
[
Note: The Planning Commission accepted the change suggested by Home Depot, but added that if the
location adjacent to the public right-of-way is not approved, then a bus stop is to be provided internal to the
.]
site
19.The retaining wall facing any abutting property or visible from the Entrance Corridor shall be
subject to the following:
a.The retaining wall along the south sides of the property shall be terraced and landscaped
using earth-filled gabions on the front, using a minimum of 10 steps, each of which shall
not exceed 2 feet in height for each 1 foot of depth.
b.The top of the rear retaining wall facing abutting residential properties shall be landscaped
with evergreen planting materials or vines having the ability to grow downward.
c.In its approval of the final landscape plan, the Planning Department shall specify the
species, size, spacing and location of the planting materials or vines to be installed to
satisfy Conditions 19(a) and (b) in order to mitigate the visual impacts of the retaining wall.
[SP 27]
20.The following grading matters shall be clarified or addressed in the final site plan to the satisfaction
of the Engineering Department [Albemarle County Code § 18-32.6.6d]:
a.The proposed 463-foot contour appears to be missing in the outparcel grading. Revise the
grading for this area.
b.The software generating the proposed topography still is not contouring around the
proposed retaining walls and along the U.S. 29 frontage. Proposed contours should “skip”
at retaining walls, not run along them. The tight contouring in these areas obscures the
retaining walls, which are a significant feature of the development of this site. Revise the
grading plan to correctly show the proposed contours in these areas.
c.The parking lot grades along the northwest corner of the site (near the existing 54-inch
storm sewer outfall) appear to exceed 5%. Revise the grading plan in this area. [CSW 8]
21.The final site plan shall incorporate pedestrian walkways as follows:
a.Pedestrian walkways incorporating architectural treatments approved by the Planning
Department shall be provided to the main entrance of the building from the northwest
corner of the site, the southwest corner of the site, and from the center of the west side of
the site.
b.A pedestrian walkway and stairs shall be provided from the southwest corner of the site to
the property line of the property to the south to provide pedestrian access between that
property and the site.
22.The following matters shall be clarified or addressed in the final site plan:
a.The final site plan shall identify to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department the outfall
for the silting basin, and shall indicate the proposed grading and conceptual structures
associated with the outfall. [Albemarle County Code §§ 18-32.5.6d, 18-32.5.6k] [CSW 5]
b.The applicant shall satisfy Virginia Department of Transportation requirements for frontage
improvements contained in a letter dated October 24, 2000, from the Virginia Department
of Transportation to Jeff Thomas of the Engineering Department, a copy which is attached
hereto. [CSW 6]
c.The final site plan shall identify the pavement design to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department. If designs for both “heavy” traffic and “light” traffic volumes will be included,
the differences in such designs shall be explained to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department. [CSW 7]
23.Remove the slip ramp from the site plan.
[
Note: This condition is recommended by staff to reflect that the removal of the slip ramp is suggested by
the Engineering Department for not only water-related purposes (Critical Slope Waiver Condition 1), but
]
also for reasons associated with providing safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian access.
24.The final site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
[Note: The Commission recommends that this condition be added.]
Mr. Davis referred to the staffs report for todays meeting. He said that pursuant to the Boards
===
directions the conditions were reviewed at last nights meeting of the Commission which provided additional
=
input on the conditions, and also made some changes after consultation with the applicant. He said the
document before the Board today shows the conditions reviewed by the Commission, and the revisions
suggested by Home Depot which were acceptable to the Commission. He said he would highlight some of
the conditions listed on a hand-out this morning which address major concerns identified by staff and the
Commission.
Condition No. 1 requires the removal of the slip ramp from the site plan to provide space to
A@
accommodate a bio-filter .... He said the applicant had shown a slip ramp onto Route 29 as part of their
preliminary site plan. After review by the Engineering and Planning Departments, the slip ramp is not
recommended. Planning believes this will improve internal circulation and make ingress and egress to the
site safer. This also reduces the amount of imperious surface from a stormwater standpoint. The
Commission recommends that the slip ramp be eliminated. Mr. Davis said Home Depot would rather have
a slip ramp, and they voiced opposition to this change. Staff believes the condition has merit and should be
imposed if this waiver is granted.
Condition No. 2 provides for a dry detention basin that includes a large bio-filter .... He said this
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
condition basically sets out what would be provided in the dry basin which is an additional erosion control
measure which would offset some of the impacts of disturbing the critical slopes.
Condition No. 3 concerns stormwater detention. Mr. Davis said this condition concerns the basins
which would be installed as part of the mitigation measures.
Condition No. 4 is one of the more significant additions to the proposed conditions. This will require
that the applicant dredge and repair the stream below the site and also the first downstream pond. He
believes this is acceptable to the applicant at this time. This would be a significant improvement to the
existing condition of the drainage in the area. It will provide significant mitigation to the site if the site is
developed as proposed.
Condition No. 5 deals with mitigation of erosion during construction. These are enhanced erosion
control measures which are more stringent than the measures required when critical slopes are not
involved. He said the Commission added a condition stating a bond could be required at the time of erosion
control permitting if the danger of downstream damage is identified at that time. The ordinance requires
corrective action if there is downstream damage during construction. There is a legal process for requiring
that the repairs be made, but this condition adds the ability to require a bond if that is felt to be necessary
during the construction phase.
Condition No. 6 is an added condition which deals with grading pervious parking areas to the
maximum extent possible. This would be determined by a review by the Planning and Engineering
Departments of the parking areas as to whether certain areas could be pervious rather than impervious.
This would deal with the amount of stormwater runoff from this site.
Condition No. 7 would require the applicant to investigate the use of a green roof. This would
A@
require that the rooftop be a pervious area where there could be plantings in a soil composite to act as a
mitigating measure to reduce the amount of runoff from the rooftop. If there is a question as to whether or
not this is a practical solution given the type of building, and if it requires additional investigation, this
condition is framed so the Countys Engineering Department would make the determination based on
=
information provided by the applicant. If the green roof technology is practical, it could also serve as an
alternative to some of the measures proposed under site plan conditions, such as screening and
A@
lessening the visual impact of the roof.
Condition No. 8 was added at the suggestion of the Planning Commission to specify the design
requirements for the dry detention basin set forth in Condition 2b. It sets the standards as being the highest
measures which can be required.
Mr. Davis said those are basically the conditions to address the Critical Slopes Waiver. The waiver
would have to be approved by this Board in order for the site plan to be considered. Without that waiver, the
preliminary site plan cannot meet zoning requirements.
Mr. Davis said the Site Plan Conditions set forth are basically the same for Conditions No. 1
through 14. However, there have been several new conditions proposed to address different impacts
identified on the site. A significant condition is an increased buffer along the residential property within the
Woodbrook Subdivision. That buffer has been increased from 20 feet to 40 feet. Also, there is greater
specificity of the buffer material that can be planted. There must be a landscape plan provided. Also, at
the offer of the applicant, they agreed to provide plantings that would be available to the adjacent property
owners to further enhance the buffer on adjacent properties. At the Planning Commissions suggestion, a
=
Condition f was added requiring the applicant to bond the landscaping for a three-year period. That is to
A@
insure that if any trees die after the construction process is completed, there would be sufficient funds to
immediately pay for replacement of those trees.
Mr. Davis said Condition No. 16 is another attempt to address the visual and noise aspects of the
site plan. The applicant would be required to provide either screening walls or architectural features to
provide a visual barrier so the rooftop would not be visible from adjacent property. The conditions go into
detail about how that would be done. Basically, it would require the roof to be screened and to be painted a
single color to reduce its visual impact. There could be plantings in planters that would all be subject to
approval by the Planning Commission. In addition, the rooftop mechanical equipment would be clustered
and located in a way so it would not be visible. That would be subject to Planning Department approval.
Mr. Davis said Condition No. d would provide an alternative to these conditions if a green roof is
A@
practical. The conditions found under 16 a, b and c could be substituted by the green roof if it provides
A@A@A@
the visual buffer anticipated by those conditions.
There was concern about the sound from the air-conditioning system, so Condition No. 17
addresses that. Mr. Davis said staff has a report from a qualified sound engineer hired by the applicant.
That report is being reviewed. This condition would require that whatever sound is generated by the
heating, ventilating equipment will have to be below County Noise Ordinance requirements.
Condition No. 18 dealt with the concern that there be a bus stop at the site. The condition was
modified by the Planning Commission so it can either be adjacent to the public right-of-way on Route 29 or
on-site. This condition deals with both traffic safety, safe and convenient access and pedestrian safety and
is viewed by the Planning Department as being a necessary condition. It is hoped that a site acceptable to
everyone can be found. He believes Home Depot desires that the bus stop be on Route 29 and not internal
to their site.
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Condition No. 19 deals with the retaining walls whose visibility was of concern to adjacent
properties and from the Entrance Corridor. It basically sets out how these walls would be constructed, and
screened by planting materials. Staff feels the condition addresses those issues at this time.
Condition No. 21 deals with pedestrian concerns raised by the Board and the Planning
Commission. It requires that there be some additional pedestrian walkways which have architectural
treatments and other means to improve their function. It also provides some pedestrian ways for additional
access points to the site.
Condition No. 22 addresses some of the same issues which the Engineering Department
addressed in their comments about the Critical Slopes Waiver. It requires that all of those things be shown
on the site plan.
Condition No. 23 was added as a site plan condition. It is the same condition found in Condition
No. 1 of the Critical Slopes Waiver. This condition points out that the slip ramp is not only a critical slopes
A@
issue, but also a site plan issue.
Condition No. 24 states the final site plan must be approved by the Planning Commission. The
Zoning Ordinance provides that during preliminary site plan review, the Commission may request that it
review and approve the final site plan.
Mr. Davis said that is a quick overview of the conditions recommended by the Engineering
Department and the Planning Commission. There is also a document attached to the Boards paperwork
=
this morning, showing the conditions as requested by Home Depot.
Ms. Thomas said if there were no objections from Board members, the applicant would be allowed
to speak, then two representatives of the neighboring properties, and then the Board members can ask
questions.
Mr. Dorrier said one of the conditions requires the applicant to dredge and repair the stream below
the site and the first downstream pond. Mr. Davis said it is the first pond that the stormwater would access.
It is on the McQueeney property. Mr. Dorrier said he understood that Mr. McQueeney is against Home
Depot doing that. Mr. Davis said based on the applicants statement, they are not opposed to the condition,
=
and they feel something can be worked out.
Ms. Valerie Long was present to represent Home Depot along with several other representatives of
Home Depot. Mr. Ed Ogletree, Real Estate Development Manager, Mr. Randy Royal, Project Manager,
two of the architects and Ms. Gloria Frye. She said the Board, at its January 3 meeting, gave them five
issues to look at. Those issues are: enlarging and enhancing the buffer, enhanced pedestrian access,
public transportation access, dredging of an off-site pond, and use of the out-parcel. They were asked to
work with County staff and come up with some conditions Home Depot could agree to in order to allow this
process to move forward. Their Project Engineer was able to slightly reconfigure the parking spaces in
order to double the buffer area along the Woodbrook side of the project. They are also agreeable to
donating white pines to these neighbors so the neighbors can have additional screening on their own
property. Home Depot also agreed with staff to mark the limits of the buffer in the field so the inspectors
can easily identify where there is any damage to trees in the buffer, or there are gaps in the buffer. Home
Depot has agreed to fill in those gaps or damage with evergreen trees.
Ms. Long said they were requested to enhance pedestrian access. They have added two additional
points of access for pedestrians on the north and south sides of the property. They also added stairs on the
southwestern corner of the property to provide access to the property to the south. There was also a
comment about public transportation access. Home Depot is agreeable to providing a bus stop in the
northwestern corner of the property. Originally, it was proposed to be adjacent to the right-of-way. It is not
clear as to whether VDOT is opposed to having the bus stop in that location, but they are willing to work with
VDOT on this question.
Ms. Long said there was a request for dredging of an off-site pond downstream. They have
negotiated with the property owners, but have not been able to obtain their consent. Home Depot is
agreeable to the way staff drafted the condition because it gives them the flexibility to do the pond if they get
access. In the meantime, they have worked with the staff and have agreed to other state-of-the-art
measures such as bio-filters to enhance the stormwater management plan, and the use of flocculants to
enhance the sediment control plan. The Countys Engineering Department has said they are confident
=
these measures will be effective. Home Depot is agreeable to the condition requesting these measures.
The same thing applies to the out-parcel. The plan does not allow Home Depot to use the out-parcel as
part of the development, but they have provided landscaping along the boundaries of that parcel. A
sidewalk has been added, and the bus stop will be very beneficial to out-parcel development.
Ms. Long said Home Depot worked hard to address the five specific issues brought up at the last
meeting. They worked with County staff putting more time and money into this process. A few days ago,
staff gave them a very long list of conditions which were revised a little last night. Some of those conditions
addressed the five issues, and some go far beyond those five issues. Some are not even directly related,
but regardless, if they could be reasonably accommodated, Home Depot has agreed to the conditions.
Some had technical changes, and there were only two that Home Depot could not agree with. One is with
regard to the slip ramp removal, and the other is with regard to the bus stop. They have no problem with
A@
the reason given by the Engineering Department to remove the slip ramp. They have said this is to provide
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
more room for more bio-filters. Home Depots engineer is confident he can find space all over the property
=
to provide enough bio-filters to meet the needs for water quality without removing the slip ramp. They
propose a slight modification of that condition. They do not believe this revision to that condition would
restrict the size or the location of the bio-filters, but it gives the Engineering Department the ability to decide
how many bio-filters are sufficient for water quality treatment. It still holds Home Depot to the same
requirement and still maintains the slip ramp which is vital to traffic flow on the property.
Ms. Long said the other condition has to do with the bus stop internal to the property. They are
willing to provide a bus stop, but they need it in a location which is workable for this business. They need to
provide for safety for all of Home Depots customers.
=
Ms. Long said with these two minor exceptions, and with some technical changes, all of the other
conditions they worked on with the Planning Commission last night, they are prepared to accept with some
modifications which she will explain in detail. They do have some comments about new conditions which
were added. They have a concern about the condition regarding the green roof system, pervious parking
pavers, and the size of some of the plants, particularly with regard to twelve-foot trees. They have been
told that size tree would likely cause damage to some of the trees in the existing buffer area. They were
agreeable to the staffs original recommendation for five-foot tall trees. It would not require the use of
=
heavy equipment to get this size tree planted, but the twelve-foot tree would. She said the Site Review
Committee, along with County Engineering staff, thoroughly reviewed the original plan and concluded that it
met the criteria for both the critical slopes waiver and for a preliminary site plan. Since then, through
comments by the Board, the Planning Commission, and staff, Home Depot has agreed to many additional
state-of-the-art measures, such as the stormwater detention plan which has a one-year, two-year and ten-
year storm instead of a typical plan which requires only a plan for a ten-year storm. Also, use of flocculants
to address siltation issues, bio-filters to enhance stormwater detention, dredging of the downstream pond.
Staff had already agreed that Home Depot met the criteria, now Home Depot is agreeing to additional
measures. They feel the project will satisfy the purposes of Section 4.2, at least to an equivalent degree, as
stated in the Zoning Ordinance, and the critical slopes waiver should be granted. They also think the Board
should approve the site plan because they have enhanced and extended the buffer area, they have
enhanced public access, have enhanced pedestrian access, and have addressed the aesthetic concerns of
the Architectural Review Board. She said that throughout this process they have listened to the concerns
voiced, have followed them, worked with staff who have been accommodating and understanding of the
constraints under which Home Depot is working. They are asking that Home Depot be held to the same
standards, public and private, to which all other projects are held. She asked that the conditions they have
revised be the conditions of the site plan and the critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Lee Freudberg, representing Woodbrook Subdivision, addressed the Board. He would like to
mention some issues which pose a potential endangerment to health, safety and welfare to the residents of
his neighborhood and beyond. He said Home Depot is engaged in the business of stocking for sale a
number of items which includes fertilizers and pesticides, basically materials considered to be hazardous.
He believes Home Depot, which claims to be the largest business of its kind in the world, has the resources
to provide for the highest level of prevention and protection. He said all should look at the magnitude of
efforts being taken to try and accommodate the concerns of the residents who basically surround this
particular site. As to the issue of the critical slopes, he understands there are concerns because waivers
have been granted in the past, and Home Depot has now taken the position that they should be granted the
same waivers. He said not every development in the County is a generic development which can plant
itself on a highway commercial by-right site. These critical slopes are about 15 to 16 percent of the site. He
requests that the Board deny the waivers. Allowing Home Depot in the middle of the neighborhood is going
to put in hazardous materials and practices which change the nature of these neighborhoods. He
presumes there would be truck deliveries at night. These trucks use diesel fuel so the motors are left
running while making deliveries. These trucks have alarms which sound when the truck is backed up so
that would disturb properties near the neighborhood border. There are the general ambient noises from the
rooftops, noises which are not currently there. He understands there has been a general issue as to
whether there is a perennial stream on the property. He also understands the Countys Ordinances refer to
=
the U.S.G.S. maps to determine whether or not there is a perennial stream on the property. Residents who
have lived in those neighborhoods for decades have observed those streams. They have been able to
construct dams on their property because the streams are there at any time of the year. If a mistake was
made on a map, that does not mean the stream is not there. In summary, he believes there would be
hazardous materials near the neighborhood. There could be spills and they could be released into those
waterways poisoning same. They could also get into the wells used by some of the neighbors. He has a
report showing that there have been spills and fires at other Home Depot facilities. He hopes this facility is
not brought into their neighborhood.
Mr. Frank Rice was present to represent the Carrsbrook neighborhood. He referred to the
statement he made at last months meeting. He said the majority of that statement is contained in the
=
Boards minutes, and the complete statement was given to the Board in written form. In particular, he
=
emphasized that the Board look at the various factors dealing with the critical slopes waiver. The factors he
spelled out should convince the Board that it would be wrong in this case to grant the waiver for
construction of the building planned for the site. They recognize that the owner has the right to develop the
property, but they do not feel this massive site plan is the proper one for this particular location. The quality
of life of the residents of Woodbrook and Carrsbrook would be significantly degraded by this facility. One of
the primary considerations in the Comprehensive Plan criteria is to consider the welfare and well-being of
the residents of the County in any decision it makes. He appealed to the Board to look closely at the factors
weighing on the granting of the critical slopes waiver. These factors will suggest that it is improper and
wrong to grant a waiver in this case. Also, the Board should consider the needs of the people, welfare of
the people, the psychological, as well as the physical well-being of the people. After doing this, the Board
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
will recognize that the welfare of the people require it to say no and sustain the decision of Planning
A@
Commission to reject this particular site plan. He offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas asked if Board members had questions at this point.
Mr. Dorrier asked that someone explain the "green roof" technology. Mr. Bowerman said it is grass,
or something that would absorb water. It is something that was considered for Monticello High School. It is
a way to minimize heat gain, heat loss, and suck up runoff, but in most cases it is vegetative material. Mr.
Dorrier asked if there is any other facility in Albemarle County using this technique. Mr. Bowerman said
no.
A@
Ms. Thomas said it also was considered for the Kroger Store to be built on Pantops. There was a
workshop held on that concept at the time. She said most buildings have to have much bigger supports
because the roof is heavier than that of any ordinary retail building roof. She thinks that is something which
will cause it to be deemed impractical.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Countys Engineering Department makes the final decision as to whether it
=
is a practical idea.
Ms. Thomas said there was a mention of hazardous and flammable materials. She heard that the
Countys Fire Inspector was assured that flammable materials would be under a separate roof, or housed
=
in a separate way. She does not see that in anything concerning this preliminary site plan. Mr. Bill Oswell,
Architect for Home Depot, said Home Depot does sell a lot of materials that are hazardous in nature. They
take great precautions to be sure there are no accidents. Home Depot has a team of fire protection
engineers who work with the local fire department and categorize the types of materials (whether they are
plastics or caustics) and limit the quantities allowed under the roof to the limits of the National Fire
Protection Association. They keep the local fire departments apprised of the location of those materials
within the store. They put in additional sprinkler protection above that required by codes. In locations where
highly flammable materials are stored, they increase the fire protection to a level far above what is required
by the fire department. The storage of herbicides and fertilizers is well below any amounts which would
require special protection, such as containment. He said that Home Depot has proven in developing 1000
stores that those standards have proven to be satisfactory.
Ms. Thomas asked if a separate building is needed. Mr. Oswell said it is not required because they
do not have an amount of material on site which would require that measure.
Ms. Thomas said there was talk last night at the Planning Commission meeting about the water
wells downstream. She said even though this area is close to public water, downstream there are a
number of houses which still use wells for their water supply and these residents are concerned about
quality and quantity impacts. There is no way of knowing if this is the recharge area for those wells, but they
could be impacted by this development. The Commission talked about this last night, but they did not put in
a condition relating to this concern, largely on the assumption there would never be any need for the
condition.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not have any questions, but has some observations. He thinks Home
Depot has responded to the comments made by the Board at its last meeting. Under the provisions of
Section 4.2 of the Ordinance, he does not believe what is before the Board today has met the provisions for
granting a waiver. He knows that critical slope waivers have been granted in many circumstances. Often,
critical slope waivers are granted because they either serve a public purpose, or they allow a reasonable
development of a property where otherwise it could not reasonably be developed. Generally, they have
been small in nature. As in the case of the Baker-Butler School, there was a public benefit to the granting
of the waiver. Looking at the site plan for Home Depot, it shows 15 percent of the site in critical slopes.
The nature of the 23 conditions are such that an attempt to mitigate intrusion into those critical slopes is
quite evident in terms of its impact. He said even though it does not show on the U.S.G.S. maps, there is a
perennial stream in the area, because he knows the three ponds in the area have never been down even
during periods of drought. He does not think this Board has every granted a critical slope waiver request for
the sole purpose of allowing the ultimate and maximum use of a property as a justification for the waiver.
This property has 17 acres, two and one-half of which are in critical slopes. There is a large portion of the
property which can be developed without encroachment on the critical slopes. He believes the County
should have recognized that perennial stream. The necessity to do all of this to protect that perennial
stream, the downstream ponds and the Chesapeake Bay is counter to the provisions of 4.2. He said there
isnt a critical slope that an engineering solution cant fix. This has been proven in many places, but the
==
provisions for critical slopes in Albemarle Countys Ordinance are to provide for the protection of sensitive
=
and critical areas, and they do exist on this site. The fact that off-site mitigation is required by the Army
Corps of Engineers indicates that on this site there are critical resources. Therefore, his opinion is that this
comes down to simply the specifics of the waiver, and not one of the use of the property. In this case, it
would maximize the use of the property. Because of that it is necessary to have many mitigations which are
contained in the conditions. He thinks protection of the critical slopes is important. The site can be
developed adequately without encroaching upon those slopes, and without destroying that stream by piping
it. That is not the nature of the majority of critical slope waivers that have been given in the past. He thinks
there is ample historic evidence that none of the waivers granted in the past have been of this scale
(Branchlands and the filling of the floodplain was a large project). He does not feel it meets the
requirements for a waiver, and he would suggest that the Board not grant the waiver on this property.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks Mr. Bowermans comments as to why the critical slopes waiver
=
should not be granted were well thought out. She said in January her reading of the Ordinance was exactly
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
the opposite of the applicants reading of the Ordinance. She agrees that this is a critical resource and
=
needs to be protected, and the Board should not allow the massive amount of mitigation attempts on the
site just for a maximum use of the property thus destroying what she considers to be a critical resource.
She also will not support granting the critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Martin said he has been a Board member for a long time. He does not remember the Board
ever taking the path it is about to take now. He said Planning staff originally recommended approval of the
critical slopes waiver with the mitigating measures proposed, saying they met the Countys standards and
=
ordinances. The Planning Commission recommended denial. When he asked about that discrepancy, he
was told the Commission had moved in an illegal manner. When the appeal came before the Board, taking
advice from people who know better about these issues than he does, it came up for a vote and it appeared
that the vote would be 3:3 which meant that what the Commission had done would stand. Because of that,
the Board went into closed session. He will not say what took place in that session, but when the Board
came out of that session, it told the applicant to address five different items. It was his full understanding
that the Board could not legally require any further movement by the applicant, but the Board wanted
further movement. He feels the applicant has moved more toward what the community and this Board
stated it wanted. Now the Board is at a point to take the vote. He cannot, with good conscience, do
anything other than support the granting of the critical slopes waiver. He has always been a man of his
word and his convictions, and when this all started, he knows what he was told about the legality of the
situation. When the Board met before, he felt there was some discrimination going on, not in terms of color
or anything like that, but just the fact that, when someone plays by the rules, they ought to be able to reap
the reward for doing do. He thinks these people have played by the rules, and he thought so then. Now he
thinks they have gone way beyond what is required by the rules and regulations. He cannot do anything but
support the critical slopes waiver. He understands what his comments mean. He has never done anything
like this since he has been on the Board, but he knows what he was told by people who know better than
he. He does not like the hocus-pocus feeling of this.
Mr. Bowerman said he has not changed his position from a month ago. He knows Mr. Martin
believes this applicant was being held to a different standard, but he does not believe that is the case.
Mr. Martin said he has not talked with any Board members about this, but he asked if it is a 3:3 tie
again, does that take the case back to the Planning Commissions vote on the issue? Mr. Davis said this is
=
an appeal of the Planning Commissions decision, and if the Board does not overturn that decision, the
=
Commissions decision stands.
=
Mr. Martin asked if what the Planning Commission did was legal or illegal. Mr. Davis said he cannot
answer that question in those specific terms. The decision of the Commission is defendable if it is not
arbitrary and capricious. There has been much discussion as to the need for the conditions, and that will be
a factual determination that will ultimately have to be decided. There are two different viewpoints as to
whether the conditions proposed were arbitrary and capricious. The denial of the waiver in its entirety,
which is the Planning Commissions decision at this time, would be based on whether that decision is
=
arbitrary and capricious. That is the decision that would have to be defended.
Mr. Dorrier said he had a comment. This is not the first proposal for this site. There was a
shopping center proposed for the site several years ago. At that time, the Commission approved that with
the critical slopes waiver, as recommended by staff. Recently, the Northside Elementary School plan came
before this Board because the Planning Commission did not approve that project due to critical slopes. It
was appealed by the School Board, and this Board overruled the Commissions decision and voted 6:0 to
=
approve the critical slopes waiver. He said it appears the Board makes exceptions for critical slope waivers
depending on the project. There appears to be a sliding scale as to what applies, and when it applies. He
has problems with that.
Mr. Dorrier said this decision affects the Board in court and could result in a legal problem. When
the Engineering Department says the critical slopes can be dealt with and a waiver which will protect the
public can be granted, he accepts that because it makes sense. In this particular instance, there are 27
conditions proposed to deal with the critical slopes waiver. It appears the County has bent over backwards
trying to deal with the critical slopes in this instance. Also, it appears that Home Depot has bent over
backwards to accept the conditions. He said the Board has come a long way from where it was a month
ago, and yet the process right now might be deadlocked. He believes the applicant, in good faith, has spent
the time and money to meet the issues emphasized by the Board. He does not believe the Board can
legally deny this plan by saying the critical slopes waiver is not sufficient from the point of public health,
safety and welfare. He believes the conditions will protect the public. The Planning staff has said the
conditions will protect the public and he believes this site, while it has problems, has been improved by this
commercial application. If this Board did not agree that this was a good commercial site, it should have
downzoned it, or done something differently than coming up with a different set of rules for this particular
site. For that reason, he will vote in favor of the waiver for the critical slopes and support the site plan
application.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks if every application were cut and dried, neither the Board or the
Planning Commission would need to participate. He thinks these are decisions which go to the leadership,
both elected and appointed, to decide, and each is unique and specific. Because this issue was not
identified in the past as the critical resource which he believes it is, is no reason to continue that forward.
Mr. Dorrier said the site across the street where Lowes is located had critical slopes. That site was
=
approved. Mr. Bowerman said that Lowes actually created the critical slopes. He said engineering can
=
deal with practically anything, but that was a different issue because they expanded the site, and created a
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
critical slope, and then made it flat. That is the reason for the retaining wall which is terraced. He does not
believe the Board should become involved in discussion of other applications.
Mr. Perkins said he agrees with what Mr. Martin stated earlier. He feels the Board left its meeting
on January 3 saying to the applicant that if they met the additional conditions, it was pretty much a done
A
deal. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman disagreed.
@
Mr. Perkins said the Board could have saved everyone a lot of time and money had they just voted
on January 3. He does not care whether Home Depot locates in the area, or whether Wendell Wood sells
the property. At some point, something will be done with the property. There have been other petitions for
use of the property. Mr. Perkins said when he left the January 3 meeting, it was his understanding that if the
Board could get some more conditions, then the waiver should be approved.
Mr. Martin said it appears the Board is at an impasse. As the issue is before the Board, it can take
a vote to not approve the critical slopes waiver, or vote to approve the critical slopes waiver and the site
plan. There are still the issues to deal with such as the 12-foot versus the five-foot trees, the roof plan, and
the slip ramp. He does see a need for the Board to spend time discussing those issues if the vote is going
to be 3:3. Just to move the Board along, Mr. Martin said he would move that the Board approve the critical
slopes waiver with conditions as proposed by the Planning Commission, but also accepting the applicant's
revisions concerning the slip ramp, the trees, and the roof plan. He does not want to be too specific,
because it is not worth the time it would need if the vote is going to be 3:3. If it is not going to be a 3:3 vote,
then the Board can revisit this.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Ms. Thomas said many people have presumed they knew how she was going to vote on this issue.
The fact is, she has agonized over it. She did not send the applicants staff back to work on this issue in
=
any lighthearted way. She thinks the decision the Board has to make is whether what follows from granting
of the waiver forwards the purposes of the Code better than what follows if the waiver is not granted. The
property is developable without the waiver which is different from times when the Board agonized over such
waivers, but had to grant them because there was no other use for the property. In this case, there is other
use of the property. She believes the neighborhood will need to remember that whatever follows from this
is what they asked for. She said what she has had to decide is whether what the Board sees before it, with
all of the conditions which have been worked out, meets the purposes of the ordinance. This creek/stream
is not mapped as an aesthetic or critical resource, but the critical slopes waiver does not require it be. It
applies to reality and not to the Comprehensive Plan. Looking at this site, the Countys Water Resources
=
Manager says it is a perennial stream. She thinks the neighbors agree with that. The goals of the
Comprehensive Plan are to protect this resource. The purposes of the waivers are to waive that protection
only when the Board is convinced that is the best thing to do for the community in the broadest sense. She
was impressed with all of the work done for the conditions. She
does not take this lightly, but she will be voting against the critical slopes waiver because she thinks the
standard before the Board is higher than what can be met by this application.
Someone from the floor asked for more discussion by the public. Ms. Thomas said the public
portion of this question has been closed. She said the applicant has passed a note to her, and she will
allow the County Attorney to look at it.
Mr. Davis said the applicants attorney said Section 4.2.5.2.a. of the Ordinance, which Ms. Thomas
=
referenced in her opening statement, specifies that when an alternative is proposed, it satisfy the
requirements to an equivalent degree. The attorney thought Ms. Thomas had said better than. He
A@A@
indicated in his remarks that Ms. Thomas paraphrased, but that standard is in front of everyone. It is
acknowledged by this Board that under Section 4A that is an equivalency finding and could be the basis for
granting the waiver if the Board felt that was satisfactory in this circumstance. The reasons stated by Mr.
Bowerman and discussed by this Board have indicated that finding by staff is not the finding by a majority of
this Board and would not be the standard that would have to be applied.
At this time, Ms. Thomas asked for a roll call. The motion failed by the recorded vote which
follows:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Ms. Thomas said since that motion failed, there is no reason to discuss the remaining portion of the
request. Mr. Davis suggested that denial of the critical slopes waiver puts the preliminary site plan which
was also appealed to this Board in a posture where it cannot meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. He said
the Code requires that denial of the site plan be made in writing to the applicant stating the specific
requirements that it does not meet. He suggested that the Board defer action on the preliminary site plan
until its meeting on February 21, 2001, so that staff can prepare the appropriate written decision for the
Boards consideration.
=
Ms. Thomas said if there were no objections, staff is requested to prepare that document. The
Board will not take a vote this afternoon on that matter.
_______________
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Agenda Item No. 14. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:15 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant
to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to Boards and
Commissions. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Closed Session.
At 1:50 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Ms.
Humphris that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members 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 session were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed session.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. CPA-2000-05. Route 29 - Hollymead (deferred from January 3, 2001).
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 1:52 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this Comprehensive Plan amendment has to do with transportation
improvements along the Route 29 corridor in the Hollymead Community from Airport Road south. The
CPA had two purposes: to respect the function that Route 29 provides in the highway system for through
traffic, to identify a local road system to better support the development of Hollymead and take some of the
local pressure off of Route 29. The recommendations address both Route 29 and parallel road
systems. He said the Board reviewed the amendment last month and asked staff to provide any additional
language necessary to reflect the current status of things.
Mr. Benish said he would give an overview of the materials the Board had received. Attachment
A to the staffs report is the language proposed for the Transportation Improvements section of the
A@=
Hollymead Community Profile (Pages 80-81 of the Comprehensive Plan). Staff made some minor
amendments to the language proposed last month. Any references in the prior version to the town center
A@
recommendations for transportation (not under consideration at this time) have been removed. They
replaced those recommendations with wording saying Parallel or adjunct roads east and west of Route 29
A
should be designed and located in a manner consistent with other land use and transportation
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
@
Mr. Benish said he spoke with Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the development interest in the town
center, yesterday. Mr. Blaine also provided his recommendations in a letter, referenced as Attachment C,
A@
for both the town center and for this amendment. Staff commented on the changes he recommended
(There are two substantive recommendations in this letter regarding transportation improvements. The first
reduced the intended bicycle lanes to one east-west corridor and one north-south corridor. Staff believes
bicycle lanes should be an element of all proposed roads, with more detailed consideration on any
particular road left to the more specific development and design phase. The second substantive recom-
mendation is that the western parallel road system connect to Ashwood Boulevard. The Planning
Commission recommended that the western parallel road system terminate at Hollymead Drive extended.)
Mr. Benish said one additional item they discussed yesterday was the interest of the property
owners in the town center having more flexibility as regards recommendations for crossovers at the
intermediate access points. That is now part of the language in Attachment A reading: Intermediate
A@A
accesses, without crossovers, from the parallel roads to Route 29 should be provided on the east and west
sides between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard. Mr. Benish said they expressed a
@
concern that in certain locations there may need to be a crossover at one of these intermediate access
points. He said staff does not recommend that crossovers be at these intermediate accesses. Staffs
=
recommendations in this report are based on an effort to try to both provide for through traffic on the Route
29 mainline and also provide a parallel street system that can satisfy the local function. If the Board feels
that more flexibility is needed for the public, staff can provide alternate language.
Mr. Martin asked if it is detrimental to have the added flexibility. Mr. Benish said that crossovers
have been closed along Route 29 over the past ten or so years, and strategic locations picked for
crossovers. At this time, staff is trying to drive a neighborhood street system which would satisfy that local
function on each side of Route 29, and provide for grade-separation that would provide for crossing
movements, and pedestrian and bicycle movements in a safe manner. To begin to introduce crossovers in
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
this area starts to impact Route 29 through traffic and undermine the overall concept.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff was to prepare these recommendations so there would be a basis for
working with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on improvements. Crossovers would be a
red flag. If crossovers were reintroduced, there would be a question as to why vehicular overpasses or
A@
underpasses were needed at the other intersections. Mr. Benish said Comprehensive Plan language is
general in nature. There are certainly exceptions in the cases of rezonings. The applicant feels that if there
is no flexibility written into the language, there is the sense that it will be a difficult uphill battle to get that
exception.
Mr. Martin said it seems the language should say: Intermediate accesses from the parallel roads
A
to Route 29 should be provided on the east and west sides between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood
Boulevard. He thinks staff is saying it wants the flyovers at these intersections, and is saying it wants these
@
facilities more than it wants crossovers. Mr. Cilimberg said the language is intended to address both.
Ms. Humphris said when staff mentioned the two substantive changes recommended in Mr.
Blaines letter, it said the second recommendation is that the western parallel road system connect to
=
Ashwood Boulevard. She said the Planning Commission absolutely did not want a parallel road extended
down that far. In the bullet reading: Intermediate accesses ... should be provided on the east and west
A
sides between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard it implies that there will be a parallel road.
@
Mr. Cilimberg said it might be clearer to say on the east between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood
A
Boulevard, and on the west between Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Boulevard. Ms. Humphris agreed
@
with that language because otherwise there is a mixed message in the other language.
Mr. Dorrier said this model argues in favor of pedestrian and bicycle use, yet Route 29 is a major
artery with very fast moving traffic. He wonders if staff feels those two concepts are compatible. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff has had to deal with these two things since the beginning of the discussion concerning
transportation improvements in that area. It is a fact that Route 29 carries traffic going north-south, so they
focused on the local street system, and tried to separate it from Route 29 so that bicyclists and pedestrians
had a way to go not only north-south on Route 29, but across Route 29.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it would be accurate to summarize by saying there will be one community on
the east side of Route 29, and another community on the west side of Route 29, they would be contiguous
among themselves, but yet be separate. Mr. Cilimberg said they will be interconnected. The way to do that
is to either go over or under Route 29.
Ms. Thomas said a couple of people had asked if they could make comments. Even though this is
not a public hearing, during break the Board members agreed they would give Mr. Steve Blaine, and Mr.
Bruce Appleyard, a few minutes to make comments.
Mr. Steve Blaine said he represents Germaine Realty. At the Boards last meeting he had said that
=
his client, along with three of the principal landowners in the town center concept are working together on a
master planning process for that area. They know the Board is not discussing that today, but they look
forward to providing guidelines which can be implemented through the master planning process. Their only
comment on the general transportation improvements under consideration today, relate to the issue of
precluding a crossover. They are not prepared to debate, nor do they think the Board should make an
affirmative recommendation that there should be crossovers without considering the overall transportation
network, and there is not a transportation plan with this language. They ask that the Board not preclude
one element of that transportation plan being a crossover between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood
Boulevard. They recognize VDOTs desire for Route 29 is not for a local connector, but for through traffic.
=
A town center that is isolated, or which has difficult access will not be successful. He said their concern can
be addressed by simply deleting the words without crossovers. He asked that the Board delete the words
A@
without crossovers. He said this would not affirmatively recommend either for or against, but leave open
A@
the possibility of that as an option to the transportation plan.
Mr. Bruce Appleyard said he is the Transportation and Land Use Planner for the Southern
Environment Law Center. He said this CPA has been the subject of countless hours of public hearings and
work sessions, and suggesting changes at this late date is unreal. He would not pursue the staffs
=
recommendations regarding crossovers, but go on to other matters which are of concern to the SELC. One
is that the Board specify that only publicly-funded improvements be guided by the CPA. He said the intent
of DISC (Development Initiatives Steering Committee) seems to be that both public and private
development be planned in a comprehensive fashion in order to facilitate the creation of an environment
that best suits the community. He urges the Board to be sure this amendment applies to both privately-
funded and publicly-funded development.
Mr. Appleyard said another concern raised by Ms. Humphris was that the Planning Commission
said the western pro-axis should terminate at the Hollymead west extension and not continue on Ashwood.
He appreciates that being mentioned as not being on the table for change. He said the CPA as currently
drafted presents the best opportunity for the County to successfully guide VDOTs transportation proposals
=
for this area in a way that is consistent with sound planning practices and the Countys vision. He urges the
=
Board to adopt this CPA in its current form, and not to adopt the substantive changes recommended.
Mr. Dorrier said the Airport/Proffit Road intersection already exists with a traffic signal in place. He
asked if that can be a way into the north end of the town center. He is suggesting that one come off of
Route 29, go along Airport Road into the town center using the already existing crossover. Mr. Cilimberg
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
said one could also enter through Timberwood Boulevard Extended to the west which is now a signalized
intersection at Route 29.
Mr. Martin said staff does not identify the overpass/underpass for east-west movement. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff has recommended that there be a grade separation. Mr. Martin asked if it is being
assumed that this is Airport Road. Mr. Benish said it is Airport Road, Timberwood Boulevard and
Hollymead Drive. Mr. Cilimberg brought the Boards attention to Bullets 7 and 8 of Attachment A. Mr.
=A@
Benish said the mid-point accesses have not been identified at this time. He noted the language
Intermediate accesses, without crossovers, from the parallel roads to Route 29 should be provided on the
A
east and west sides between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard.
@
Mr. Dorrier said because the cost of the crossovers and who pays for them is not a part of this
discussion, it is his opinion that a good part of the equation is whether it will be public or private funding.
Aside from all of the safety issues, he does not think there is enough information to deal with the question of
crossovers.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Countys best hope to get VDOT to fund any of these
=
improvements will be to get them placed into the Comprehensive Plan, and not introduce too many things
on which VDOT can disagree. She thinks their main disagreement will be through traffic flow on Route 29.
If the main focus of the Board and VDOT is the through flow, then there is a better chance of getting VDOT
to build the fly-overs. She thinks it is important to keep the CPA focused on the things the Board may get
VDOTs agreement on and not put in too many red flags.
=A@
Mr. Dorrier said if the Board is looking at there being a crossover instead of a fly-over, that is a big
consideration in terms of money, safety and other elements the Board is not even talking about today. He
does not think the Board has enough information about the crossover issue to make a decision on that
today.
Mr. Martin said, in his opinion, taking the sentence out is no different from leaving the sentence in.
If the sentence is deleted, an applicant will come at some point and ask to do it. If the sentence is left in,
the applicant will come at some point and ask to do this, and the answer will be based on the proposal at
the time. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin was saying the language in that bullet should be deleted in its
entirety. Mr. Martin said no. He thinks the point of that sentence does not change if the words "without
A@
crossovers" are removed. He thinks Mr. Cilimberg is saying it does because it is specifically intended for the
purpose of not red flagging VDOT.
A@
Ms. Humphris said she agrees with the logic that Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Benish are suggesting be
used to deal with VDOT.
Ms. Thomas said VDOT is afraid the County will clog up Route 29 with development on each
A@
side. The Board wants VDOT to participate with the County in developing neighborhood developments on
each side and have fly-overs and not clog up Route 29. There is a certain level of trust needed here, and
she would prefer leaving in the words without crossovers.
A@
Mr. Martin said there are now only three crossovers in this area, where there used to be six. Mr.
Dorrier suggested saying Intermediate accesses with consideration of fly-overs and/or crossovers or other
A
innovative traffic patterns would give an option.
@
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Benish had said he had some alternative wording. She asked for that
language. Mr. Benish said staff would recommend what Mr. Blaine has suggested. Either adopt the
language proposed by staff which specifically says without crossovers or simply delete the words without
A@A
crossovers. If the language is deleted, the sentence provides a silence as to whether crossovers are
@
anticipated or not. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be better to take out the words than to have something which
provides for the possibility.
Mr. Martin said he hopes there will be more crossovers, or fly-overs, than just those mentioned, in
particular to do with pedestrians. He said that is the important part. He does not believe the words without
A
crossovers is the important part of that sentence.
@
Mr. Cilimberg said when he first began to work for the County, there was a program that had been
approved by VDOT and the County dealing with the old Route 29 corridor. A study done by VDOT years
ago proposed to eliminate any crossover between the City limits and Greene County which was not at an
existing intersection. There was a program in the Primary Road Fund to do that. Every developer who
wanted to develop along Route 29 frontage closed a crossover as well if it was at their property. The
County got a lot of objections to closing the crossover at Maupins Store, but they were all closed. There is
=
only one crossover which has not been closed, and it is located in the Hollymead area and serves a small
restaurant. When VDOT, in the last year, showed its plans for improving Route 29, they proposed to
signalize all intersections, close all the crossovers, and have no access to Route 29 otherwise. Every other
access would be deleted, leaving just three signalized intersections to the south of Airport Road. Staff
thought that was a detriment to good local traffic flow because there would be a long frontage between
Timberwood Boulevard and Hollymead Drive that would have no access at all to Route 29. Staff thought it
would be better to serve that function on Route 29 by having no signalized intersections at all, but to have
traffic move over or move under, and provide intermediate points where people could get off of Route 29
and go to properties on either the east or the west side of 29 without having a crossover or the need for a
signal.
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Bowerman asked if the word crossovers as used here implies also the word fly-over. Mr.
A@A@
Cilimberg said it does not. Staff recommended that the crossovers be removed, because they would need
to be signalized, and that defeats the function of Route 29 to have that happen. Staff took what VDOT was
proposing and found a way to access Route 29 and serve the local function by proposing grade-separated
fly-overs getting rid of all at-grade crossovers.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is important to support having the crossovers removed because that
in turn supports VDOTs plan to have the road be a through road.
=
Ms. Thomas asked for a motion.
Ms. Humphris moved that the Board adopt the Transportation Improvements as spelled out in
Attachment A of the staffs report, with a change in the second bullet, omitting "shall be" and leaving
=
"should be designed" and, changing the language in the third bullet from the bottom of the page to read
Intermediate accesses, without crossovers, to Route 29 should be provided on the east side between
A
Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard and on the west side between Hollymead Drive and
Timberwood Drive.
@
Mr. Dorrier asked if there will be a crossover at Timberwood. Ms. Thomas said there is now a light
at that point with a crossover, and it is hoped that it will become a grade-separated crossing.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there will be a light at Airport/Proffit Roads. Ms. Thomas said yes.
A@
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Comprehensive Plan language is set out in full below.)
CPA-2000-05, Transportation Improvements - Hollymead
Recommended improvements along the Route 29 Corridor:
Road design and alignment improvements to Route 29 should be in keeping with
!
the emerging community consisting of a mix of residential neighborhoods, and
commercial and employment centers. Improvements related to upgrading
Route 29 shall be consistent with an overall network of interconnecting roads that
balance the need to serve both the local and regional transportation demands.
Parallel or adjunct roads east and west of Route 29 should be designed and
!
located in a manner consistent with other land use and transportation
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Any system of parallel roads to augment Route 29 should be constructed as an
!
urban cross-section design (curb/gutter) with sidewalks and bike lanes. This
creates a system of roads more in keeping with a neighborhood street system
and more consistent with the character of the adjacent neighborhoods.
Recommendations for road design/classification for the parallel roads are taken
!
from the Albemarle County Neighborhood Model as recommended by the
Development Area Initiatives Study Committee (DISC) Report. Road design
should be an "Avenue/Residential Blvd," or "Neighborhood Street" design on the
eastern parallel road from Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead Drive; a "Main
Street" design on the eastern parallel road from the cemetery to Proffit Road; a
"Boulevard" or "Main Street" design on the western parallel road system
transitioning to "Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or "Main Street" south to
Hollymead Drive extended.
The eastern parallel road system should extend to Polo Grounds Road (Route
!
643).
The southern end of any western parallel road system should terminate at a
!
connection with Hollymead Drive Extended.
Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Boulevard should be designed with
!
grade-separated crossings of Route 29, without ramps, to connect with the road
system on the western side of Route 29 and accommodate east-west vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle movements with the appropriate facilities.
Provide a grade-separated crossing without ramps at Airport Road to
!
accommodate east-west vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movements with the
appropriate facilities.
Based on development patterns east of Route 29, provide grade separated
!
bicycle/pedestrian overpasses/underpasses to accommodate east-west
movement.
East-west connecting roads should be curb/gutter design with sidewalks/bike
!
lanes and the design should be "Avenue/Residential Boulevard" or "Main Street"
design.
In the long term, consider establishing an east-west connection from Route 29 to
!
Earlysville Road (Route 743) as recommended in the Charlottesville Area
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Transportation Study (CATS) by extending Hollymead Drive to Earlysville Road.
This road location and design should be coordinated with the relocation of
Dickerson Road (Route 606).
Intermediate accesses, without crossovers, to Route 29 should be provided on
!
the east side between Ashwood Boulevard and Timberwood Boulevard and on
the west side between Hollymead Drive and Timberwood Drive.
Stop the northern end of the eastern parallel road at Hollymead Drive and
!
access undeveloped land north of Hollymead directly from Route 29, without a
crossover. This will avoid significant impact to existing homes in Hollymead.
Proffit Road (Route 649) should be constructed with a "Neighborhood Street"
!
design from Worth Crossing to Lanford Hills Drive, including sidewalks and bike
lanes. The section from Route 29 to Worth Crossing should be designed in a
manner necessary to accommodate transition to the ultimate improvements to
Route 29 and Airport Road. A major upgrade of Proffit Road east of Lanford
Hills to Route 20 is not recommended; however, minimal spot safety
improvements may be appropriate in certain locations.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. 2001 Redistricting, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said the Virginia Constitution requires the County to redraw its election districts in 2001
to meet all constitutional and statutory requirements for election districts based on the 2000 Census. It is
anticipated the Census data will be available in early March, 2001. In order to proceed expeditiously,
guidelines and a procedure need to be established so that staff can use that data to generate 2001
Redistricting plans for the Board's consideration and a 2001 Redistricting Ordinance for adoption. He said
the staff had forwarded to the Board members a proposed 2001 Redistricting Schedule. This schedule
provides for a February 26 public meeting to obtain input from community organizations and individuals.
That information will be presented to the Board on March 7. A work session is scheduled for April 4, with a
second work session scheduled, if necessary, on April 11, and a public hearing by the Board on May 9 on
the redistricting ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said staff identified the guidelines used by the board of supervisors in 1991 and also
identified other guidelines for consideration. Staff would like to have the Boards thoughts on these
=
guidelines before the February 26 meeting. The guidelines include: 1) Maintain six magisterial districts; 2)
Retain both urban and rural segments of the County in each district; and, 3) Minimize changes to existing
magisterial district boundaries. In addition, staff recommends that the following criteria be approved as
guidelines: 1) Population equality within a deviation of +/- five percent; 2) Geographical compactness; 3)
Geographical contiguity; 4) Preservation of communities of interest, including neighborhoods, within the
same district; 5) Avoidance of the pairing of incumbent Board or School Board members in the same
district; 6) Providing for voter convenience and effective administration of elections to the greatest extent
possible (including locating appropriate polling places and creating properly sized precincts within each
district); 7) Avoidance of splitting of census blocks to assure accuracy of the data; 8) Providing clearly
defined and observable district and precinct lines which include roads, rivers, and other permanent features
recognized on official maps; 9) Assurance that the change in districts does not have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group; and 10)
Avoidance of splitting precincts with Virginia Senate and House of Delegate district lines and United States
House of Representatives district lines (if these lines are not established prior to Board action, the lines may
have to be adjusted prior to 2002 elections).
Mr. Bowerman asked if the deviation of five percent is a Federal requirement. Mr. Davis said it is an
accepted deviation under State law guidelines as to what the population has to be unless there is some
extenuating circumstance that would require a further deviation. There are some geographical situations in
other parts of the country which allow for the deviation. Unless that circumstance exists, the County is held
tightly to that standard.
Mr. Tucker said precinct and polling place guidelines have been identified by the Registrar and the
Electoral Board. The staff resources which have been involved in the process to date have been identified.
Staff basically recommends that the Board preliminarily adopt the proposed 2001 Redistricting Schedule
and the guidelines for planning purposes in the development of the 2001 Redistricting plans. The
guidelines will be reviewed with the Board again on March 7 along with any public input received by that
time. At the March 7 Board meeting, staff will request that the Board affirm the criteria and guidelines to be
used in preparing the redistricting plan or plans for the Board's consideration at its April work sessions.
Mr. Bowerman asked for a review of the six districts and the population of each. Mr. Davis said staff
has some rough projections, but no accurate numbers. However, staff believes the boundaries of the Rio
District, the Samuel Miller District and the White Hall Districts will have to be expanded. The boundary of
the Rivanna District will dramatically shrink.
Mr. Bowerman asked for the population figures for the districts. Ms. Jackie Harris, Registrar, said
she had those figures showing both population and registered voters as of November 1, 2000. She will
send a list of those to the Board members. She said the actual census figures have not yet been received.
Mr. Davis said he believes the Board members would be better served to wait for the official census figures.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board would be better served to stay as far away from it as possible,
and just let the staff resources do what they think is best. With that in mind, he will move to preliminarily
adopt the 2001 Redistricting Schedule and the guidelines for planning purposes in the development of the
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
2001 Redistricting plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Ms. Thomas said that ten years ago she was present representing the League of Women Voters
who advocated the establishment of a seventh magisterial district. Based on the assumption that as the
population grows, it would be better for a supervisor to have a smaller population within his district. The
main points for having a seventh district were: voter places could be closer to where a citizen lived, the
citizen could have better contact with his supervisor, and it would take care of the situation of having an
even number of members on the board. She had assumed the Board needed approval for this from the
General Assembly, but was told about an hour ago that that was a wrong assumption. Mr. Davis said under
the County Executive form of government, there can be no less than three, nor more than nine supervisors.
That decision can be made by the Board itself, subject to the Voting Rights Act approval process.
Ms. Thomas asked if there would not be a fair amount of expenses connected with having a
seventh supervisor. Mr. Martin said the Board has had this discussion before. Ms. Humphris said if it ain't
A
broke, don't fix it and the supervisors have never felt it was broken.
@
Ms. Thomas said if there is a tremendous outpouring from the public, and the Board is convinced
that a seventh district is needed (which she does not think is likely), when would that decision have to be
made? Mr. Davis said from a practical standpoint, that decision would have to be made on March 7. Then
an expedited work schedule would be needed in order to meet the May deadline for adopting the
Redistricting Ordinance.
Mr. Perkins asked about the States schedule for Senate and House of Delegates districts. Mr.
=
Davis said the State is not yet setting a schedule for primaries, but they anticipate that they will either be in
August, or no later than September 11. It is hoped that this time there will be no split district lines for state
candidates. Mr. Tucker said staffs only concern at this time is getting the census data. That could delay
=
the whole schedule the Board is about to approve.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is going to be any problem with keeping both Board members and
School Board members in their same district. Ms. Harris said the map developed by the Planning
Department has indicators for both the Board and the School Board. There are some members on the
School Board who live close to the boundary of their district. There is a guideline that addresses that issue.
Mr. Martin said he and Mr. Perkins are both in the same situation.
At this point, Ms. Thomas asked for a roll call. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked when the voting machines were purchased. Ms. Harris said they went into
service in 1995 just prior to the Presidential election.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF), Report on Year 2000 Activities, Sherry
Buttrick.
Ms. Buttrick said the activities of the VOF reenforces the Rural Areas section of the Countys
=
Comprehensive Plan and they hope it is a benefit to the County. She said they accepted 30 gifts of
conservation easements in the year 2000, 4500+ acres. She said that is more acres than any other locality
in the State received in the year 2000. She said VOF protected 29,000 acres of land statewide last year.
Albemarle County now has over 27,000 acres of VOF easements. Albemarle County is second only to
Fauquier County which has 40,000 acres in these easements. (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 2:50 p.m.)
Statewide there are now 170,000 acres protected by these easements. In the year 2000, they got
easements on 1600 acres in the South Fork Rivanna watershed, 700+ acres in the Southwest Mountains
Historic District, three easements with significant frontage on the Rivanna River, one each on the Moormans
and Doyles, property that runs to the top of Buck Mountain, lands adjoining the Game & Inland Fisheries
property at Lake Albemarle, as well as the National Park and several easements which have scenic
implications along Route 250, both east and west, and a number of significant agricultural properties, a
state-of-the-art new winery, over 300 acres, and an historic farm which was one of the first apple farms in
the county.
Ms. Buttrick said when VOF takes easements they must be consistent with local land use plans,
and they also recite in every easement why the easement is taken. One of those clauses is always the
Countys Comprehensive Plan. She said Albemarle Countys Comprehensive Plan specifically recites what
==
is to be protected. Even if there is no ordinance in place, it helps VOF in taking an easement if there are
goals in the Comprehensive Plan focused on the particular resources a property may contain. The more
specific the goals are, and the more numerous, the better.
Mr. Perkins said that in the face of the ACE Program, evidently these people were not deterred
from going with VOFs voluntary program. Ms. Buttrick said there was twice as much easement activity in
=
2000 in Albemarle County and statewide than there had been in the 34 years VOF has had the program.
She said the way the ACE Program is constructed, it will compliment, not compete with VOFs program.
=
_______________
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Agenda Item No. 17. 800 MHz Radio System, Discussion of.
Mr. Tom Hanson, Director of the Emergency Operations Center, was present to make a slide
presentation. He said that in 1995, the County, City and University jointly contracted for a radio
communications study to examine Public Safety and Public Service independent radio communications
systems currently in use and develop a multi-agency radio communications plan. The study found that
there was inadequate radio coverage (dead spots throughout the area), inadequate radio channel capacity
(lack of ability to handle multiple accidents), daily interference, and equipment being used was older than its
useful life. The study also found a lack of interoperability (police, fire and EMS agencies unable to
communicate with each other during an emergency), and the systems were unreliable (no replacement
parts, no system backup).
Mr. Hanson said the consultant has recommended that the system be changed to an 800 MHz, 20
channel, trunked, simulcast, dual mode system. He said that cellular technology does not allow for
multiple unit conversation. Ultra-wide band technology is not currently available. Satellite technology is
more expensive than the 800 MHz and its practical application is too restrictive for public safety uses. Other
frequency bands and all other methods lose functionality and they are more difficult to meet public safety
radio communication standards.
Mr. Hanson said the Trunked Technology (800 MHz) is the only technology in one package that
best meets the standards of public safety communications in terms of functionality, redundancy,
interoperability and versatility. He said that today this report is for police, fire and rescue, but the system
could also be used for gas, transit and water departments. It could be extended to cover all public needs.
Ms. Thomas asked for a definition of trunked. Mr. Hanson said the system would constantly be
A@
searching for a frequency on which to operate. Under the current system, there is only one frequency
under which they operate.
Mr. Hanson said other regional benefits of the system would be improved coverage where there
are currently dead spots, additional channels to allow simultaneous communications during multiple
A@
incidents, and increased safety and convenience for emergency service workers. Participating agencies
can communicate directly with each other using a common system, the system is more reliable and
provides better operational backup, and it significantly reduces interference.
Mr. Hanson said system design objectives are to replace the current inadequate communication
systems, implement industry-wide public safety radio communications standards, consideration of local
concerns such as tower locations, tower height and costs, and to meet communication coverage
requirements. He said tower sites will be required on Fan Mountain, Bucks Elbow Mountain, Peters
Mountain, Carters Mountain, the ECC Building at 2306 Ivy Road, and the Universitys Klockner Stadium.
=
Mr. Perkins said the map showing these locations does not show coverage in the Afton Mountain
area. Mr. Wayne Campagna, Project Coordinator, said that at higher elevations, coverages would be
limited. He said the system design requirement was for 95 percent coverage 95 percent of the time with a
portable, so it is not 100 percent coverage in that context, but it is as close as can be obtained under
industry standards.
Mr. Hanson introduced Mr. Jim Morgan from RCC Consultants, the firm working on this project. He
then gave some specific information about each tower site. Special use permits are required for each of
the six sites and all of the applications have been filed and are in process.
Mr. Tucker said the Board will also be receiving a rezoning request. Klockner Stadium was not
included when the rezoning of the County was done in 1980. Much of the University land was not included
in zoning at that time. Because of that, part of the Klockner Stadium will need to be rezoned to the same
zoning as on other University property.
Ms. Thomas asked what these towers look like. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 3:10
p.m.) Mr. Hanson said they do not all look the same. The one at Klockner Stadium would just replace one
of their existing light poles, but it would be a stronger structure. The one at the ECC is just a straight pole,
110 feet. The other sites are all tower configurations. Mr. Campagna said all of the sites would have two
microwave dishes and each would be six feet in diameter. The dish at the ECC and the dish at Klockner
would be four feet in diameter. They would be mounted on either a monopole, or an existing light pole at
Klockner, or a three-legged, self-supporting tower.
Mr. Hanson said the estimated cost of this radio system is $13,565,898 which covers fixed net
equipment, radio subscriber units, radio accessories, installation, which is all subject to final design and
negotiation. There is also a five-year maintenance agreement at a cost of $2,128,701. It is proposed that
the system be financed at 5.53 percent over ten years, with the maintenance financed at 5.53 percent over
five years.
Mr. Hanson has set some deadlines for implementation of this system. There are 19 months to
finish the project (by September 15, 2002). The FCC granted a one-time extension, stating that no further
extensions would be entertained. The region risks losing or being forced to share frequencies if this
deadline is not met, so staff is asking for the Boards approval today to proceed with negotiations with
=
Motorola.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the type of antennae used to communicate with personnel in the field is a
microwave or another type of antennae. Mr. Campagna said the 800 size of the system would use a
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
different antennae which would also be mounted on each of the tower sites. It is more like a whip antenna,
about six inches in diameter and 21 feet in length. Depending on the need for each site, the location could
be higher or lower on the tower. Between 42 and 45 feet lengthwise would be taken up for the whip
antennae. Mr. Bowerman asked if the microwave dishes are there to communicate between towers. Mr.
Campagna said that is correct. The microwave creates a loop for redundancy from site to site.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the microwave dishes have to be at the top of the tower. Mr. Campagna
said it will vary from site to site, but most will be at the highest point on the tower site. At Fan Mountain, they
would not be at the top of the tower.
Mr. Bowerman said the towers will have to be very strong. Mr. Campagna said all of the towers will
be self-supporting. There will be no guyed towers in place. Mr. Bowerman said with the wind on a structure
that big, they will be very big at the base. Mr. Campagna said the three-legged tower would be larger at the
base than the monopoles. He said most of these towers are in very remote locations except at the ECC
Building and Klockner Stadium.
Ms. Thomas said the ECC is at the base of Lewis Mountain. The Board has been requiring people
with cell towers to back up to the mountain so the tower is not that noticeable. She asked if that is an option
in this situation. Mr. Campagna said it could be an option. However, in the design of the ECC Building, they
have put in place two six-inch conduits that run from the equipment room in the building out underneath the
parking lot to a western point on the ECC site so that the wiring can be wired directly from the tower into the
building. Ms. Thomas said the western side of the site will put it even closer to the highway.
Mr. Dorrier asked who reviewed these sites. Mr. Hanson said Lewis Mountain was an alternative
which was considered. They went through a process, and the Universitys Board of Visitors decided they
=
would prefer the tower being at the ECC building rather than on Lewis Mountain. The conduits at the ECC
building are not the only reason for having the tower there.
Mr. Dorrier asked if all the fire, rescue and police units in the City, the County, and the University
would use this system. Mr. Campagna said the system would be used by all public safety providers in the
geographical boundaries of the County. There would be no private users on the system. Later, the system
could be expanded to be used by public service agencies.
Ms. Thomas said Albemarles share of this cost is about that of a new elementary school, so this is
=
a major expenditure.
Mr. Dorrier asked how far into the future this system is expected to be reliable. Mr. Campagna said
a minimum of 15 years, up to 20 years. The infrastructure from a hardware standpoint will last many years.
It is a software-drive system, so it can be enhanced through software upgrades. There would need to be a
major technology change that would force them to move away from this technology.
Ms. Thomas said $2.0 million is about the total of the Countys Revolving Fund for fire/rescue
=
squads. To jump from $2.0 million to $10.0 million is a big jump. Mr. Bowerman said this system is
absolutely critical to public safety requirements of this area.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are any further questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the time schedule presented can be met. He hopes that any glitches which
occur during the actual installation phase, the turnover phase, and the training phase, are ones that can be
incorporated in the 18 months. Mr. Davis said it is a very tight schedule with a lot of complicated pieces to it.
Contract negotiations have, historically, been very hard to conclude quickly. If there needs to be a redesign
of any tower, it could create delays because of how it is interconnected, and could result in other changes
to the overall system. There are critical components in this time schedule.
Mr. Bowerman said the tower applications must be presented in a way so the Board members may
have all their questions answered. Mr. Morgan said in regard to the question on meeting the time line, this
system is similar to that in Henrico, City of Chesapeake and the City of Richmond. The complexity and size
of this system usually takes about 18 months to implement. Depending on issues the Board has mentioned
today, it could take between 18 and 24 months. The critical nature of this to the FCC and the time line is
that the system get on the air to show the County is truly committed to doing this. Otherwise, in September
or October of 2002, anybody else can apply for these frequencies. The FCC might then allow a co-
licensee to interoperate in the same geographical area. That would make things more complicated. He
thinks this system can be put into operation within the time line set out.
Mr. Tucker said staff understands the Boards concerns. Mr. Bowerman said it is a very necessary
=
thing to do. The physical aspect of it is one that is not as pleasant as ones we have been dealing with. He
knows there are going to be objections, and the Board needs to be ready with answers to those objections
the night of the meeting.
Ms. Thomas said since the Board is the applicant for these tower sites, the Board will need a list of
all the alternatives. She will want to see more about the Lewis Mountain alternative. She will take it upon
herself to go ahead and get that information now and not wait for the meeting. Mr. Tucker said staff will
discuss with the individual members any tower location in their district. Staff has already looked at
alternatives, and he thinks staff has the answers.
Mr. Hanson said staff needs to provide the Board with a list of all the alternatives reviewed. There
has been extensive review. Mr. Tucker has asked at many meetings about the Lewis Mountain alternative.
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
There are scenarios they have been looking at, and some would have required more towers. That could
have been provided today, but he will provide the Board members with background information so they will
know how much review has gone into this decision. This has been reviewed in light of all the difficulties the
Board may face in making its decision and the need to make a distinction between a commercial tower and
a public safety tower, and the critical nature of the current communication system.
Ms. Humphris said she believes the Board has a good idea of what they have been going through
from the last time they appeared before the Board. She then moved that the Board approve going forward
with the final contract negotiations based on the information provided today. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Quarterly Financial Report.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, made the presentation. She said the quarterly
financial report provides information on the County's General Fund and the Fund Balance as of December
31, 2000. This is the second of the newly formatted reports. There are three different attachments to this
report. The first, Attachment A, looks at revenues and expenditures, actuals from the prior year, the
A@
current year, and the revised figures for the current year. Attachment B shows graphically the budget, last
A@
years actuals and this years revised budget. Attachment C shows the Fund Balance.
==A@
Ms. White said in looking at Attachment A, it indicates that projections are on target. Collections
are at 43.9 percent compared to last year at 42.4 percent. There have been some decreases in revenues
since the last report, but the revenue picture is good. Real Estate tax collections stand at $1.1 million more
than was budgeted. Personal Property tax collections have gone down a little since the last report. She
said State revenue is estimated to increase by $3.856 million. This is primarily due to the reporting changes
associated with the personal property tax relief program. The important figure to look at is that for Sales
Tax revenue. In October, those revenues were estimated to be about $40,000 less than budgeted. Now,
that figure is expected to be about $250,000 less. Business licenses are down, utilities are up. The report
shows that revenues are $2.3 million over the appropriated amount. That is two percent over, whereas in
October they were 2.8 percent over. Revenues have gone down about $450,000 since the October report.
Ms. White said the important thing to understand about expenditures is that they have gone up
about $1.9 million as a result of reappropriations. She said the report shows that the Revised Revenues
less Revised Expenditures, leaves $2.276 million in unobligated revenues for the end of this current fiscal
year (June 30,2001) based on staff estimates. Those are unobligated funds which the Board can use at its
discretion in the current year for unexpected needs. Those funds can also be used for any one-time needs
which may be identified during upcoming budget work sessions on the 2001-02 County budget. Any
projected tax rate decrease will also affect that bottom line figure. It would affect the current years
=
revenues because of split billing. If the tax rate were lowered by one cent, current revenues would need to
be lowered by about $357,000.
Ms. White said Attachment B is a bar-chart-based report which tracks changes in revenue and
expenditure changes over time, and basically shows the things she has just mentioned.
Ms. White said Attachment C is the Fund Balance Report. This report shows a new audited figure
of $20.376 million for the previous fiscal year (FY 1999-00). The year started with $20.499 million. An
additional $6.946 million was appropriated for projects between July 1 and December 31, 2000. These
projects were ones not completed by July 1, 2000, projects approved during the budget process, and new
capital and operating projects approved by the Board. The fund balance stands at $12.723 million.
Subtracting a minimum fund balance of $12.5 million needed for cash liquidity purposes, that leaves
$223,000 as the current fund balance. She said the Board also has $124,000 in its Contingency Reserve.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 3:31 p.m. and returned at 3:33 p.m.)
Mr. Dorrier asked if the money on hand at this time assumes that in the future all the capital
projects will be funded as anticipated. Mr. Tucker said the items identified for this current year will be
funded. Mr. Dorrier said that sometimes there are delays in capital projects. Mr. Davis said there is no
guarantee that the capital projects will come in as budgeted, and if they come in over budget, the Board
might have to use some of the unobligated funds to cover those projects. There is no anticipated capital
project that is underfunded. Ms. White said in the Capital Budget, unused funds from the previous year are
budgeted. There have not been very many funds left from recent projects.
Mr. Dorrier said that could affect the possible one-cent tax refund which the Board considered at
one time. If less capital funds are spent in the future, it would give a greater leeway to do that. Ms. White
said the $2.0 million which was set aside does not figure into any of the figures given in this report. Mr.
Tucker said the one-cent that was also set aside for capital from the four cent tax increase is still in a
reserve.
Mr. Perkins moved that the Board accept the Second Quarter Financial Report. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. FY 2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Presentation.
Mr. Melvin Breeden said the 1999-2000 Audit has been completed and is being submitted for the
Boards review. The field work and audit testing was completed by Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the
=
County's external auditors. He said the County has, for the past five years, received from the Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA) the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. Staff is confident
this award will be received again, and should receive notification within six months.
Mr. Breeden said the year ended with a General Fund balance of $20,499,280 which is an increase
of $3,770,118 over the previous year. The School Fund had a decrease of $297,448, resulting in a Fund
Balance of $1,612,662. The summary mailed to the Board members is intended to reconcile these fund
balances to those used in the monthly reports presented to the Board. He said the Fund Balance in the
audit represents a lot of things which are not spendable dollars, such as, contingencies, reserves,
inventories, etc.
Mr. Breeden apologized for the lateness of this report. He said the Finance Department had a
difficult year. One its key employees involved with the audit was diagnosed with cancer and there was a
vacancy for several months. He said this has pointed out a problem that needs to be addressed, such as
the cross-training of employees. There will be an emphasis placed on this in the next few months. It also
brought up the question of adequate staffing, which will be addressed in the next budget request, plus some
reorganization. He said in trying to fill the vacancy, there were only four applications received, and none of
those people had the experience or qualifications needed. There is still this vacancy. At this time, the work
is being done on overtime, nights and weekends. Salary, which is also an issue, is being reviewed at this
time.
Mr. Breeden said another issue raised by the auditors is replacement of the accounting system,
which is currently in process. The Board appropriated money several months ago to start that process. It
appears at this time that the $190,000 appropriated may only be one-half of the amount needed. This will
not be a fast process, but it can possibly be completed within the next 18 months. Another issue brought up
by the auditors has to do with GASB No. 34 (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) which, starting
with the fiscal year ending in 2002, will require a different look to the financial report the Board just received.
It will require additional work and greater assistance from the audit firm. Staff will make a report to the
Board later on what will be required.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is a statewide change. Mr. Breeden said it a country-wide change. Mr.
Dorrier asked if there will be classes offered. Mr. Breeden said there have already been classes, but it is
still new at this point. One of the biggest parts of this will be dealing with depreciation of fixed assets. The
County did implement a fixed asset system several years ago, but has never dealt with depreciation of
these items, as well as recognizing that depreciation on the books. There is no way of knowing the impact
of this on the budget process.
Mr. Dorrier said he talked with a school board representative about the replacement of buses
because next year there will be a large number of replacements. He asked how that is reflected in the
budget. Is it just a line item in the budget that comes along every 10 years? Mr. Breeden said it varies from
year-to-year depending on whether just a few buses are replaced, how they are financed, and whether they
are funded from current revenues. There have been many plans used over the years. Mr. Tucker said the
Schools usually have bus replacements every year, but next year it is expected to be a larger number. Staff
has been looking at the revenue surplus anticipated at the end of this fiscal year to buy-down some of that
bus replacement need. They are capital items and the School Board will be given some help on that
expenditure because there will be revenues that can be used for that purpose.
Mr. Breeden offered to answer questions. He recognized Mr. Ed Koonce, the person who put most
of the audit work together. He said Mr. Farmer and his staff really helped with the audit this year. The audit
is late, but is not the fault of the auditors.
Mr. Bowerman asked if under this new accounting method, all capital assets will be shown on a
balance sheet. Mr. Breeden said that is his understanding. It covers all functions of the county. There will
be a lot of supporting schedules. Mr. Bowerman said it may be useful in projecting replacement of capital
items. He is hard-pressed to know the real usefulness of this new method of accounting. Mr. Breeden said
the County already has a list of items which cost in excess of $5000, so there will be nothing new there.
Some people have tried to equate depreciation to a repair and maintenance fund. There is not necessarily
any correlation to the 20-year or 50-year life of a building and repair and maintenance. Mr. Bowerman said
he sees it as just being more information which will be confusing. Mr. Breeden said it is the same as the
current numbers presented in the audit, but what staff works with on a daily basis, and what is then reported
to the Board will be even more confusing.
Ms. Thomas said she is aware that there is a shortage of people with these kinds of skills, partly
because the Planning District Commission has not been able to hire and retain a finance person. If every
locality of this size is thinking about adding a person for this job, that will further deplete the pool of
applicants. She is distressed that the Board got a letter pointing out problems with the Countys system,
=
and the error that was almost made at the time of reconciliation. Mr. Breeden said this is the same as the
cross-training issue. It is easy to do if there is enough staff, but if there is only enough staff to get the job
done, it is hard to get them experience in other areas. He said the Finance Department is one where there
are no more employees than there were five years ago.
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Jack Farmer, Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, was present. He said last year was an
exceptional year, and they have weathered the storm, but he hopes a lesson has been learned during the
time. He hopes the Board will seriously consider his Management Letter. He said the financial statements
are unqualified. There is a clean opinion on the financial statements. There were no findings or questions
of cost in relation to Federal funds. That is extremely important because internal control is a key element
which rides with Federal control and that is why the language is in the report. He wants the Board to be
aware that the issues they had to deal with require corrective action. GASB No. 34 moves from the
traditional fund concept to a full accrual basis of accounting. They will be looking at the net assets of an
entity and not the fund balance. They are retaining the old format with a fund balance concept, then there
will be a modified accrual basis on which the audit is prepared. Then there will be a new set of financial
statements in the same financial report. He has written many letters in relation to the theory which is being
implemented. He is optimistic thinking that on the day of implementation there will be a letter received
rescinding it for a period of time. He said everyone is just starting to realize the demands it will put on staff.
The financial detail required just to assemble this information was not considered in the theorem. While it is
an excellent theory, the practical side of dealing with it and putting it into a set of financial statements will
take a tremendous amount of time. They are working on a presentation for the Board to educate the Board
and understand what there is today, and what the new changes will be. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier said he appreciates Mr. Farmers help with the Audit Committee and what they were
=
trying to do. He thinks this is an excellent audit report.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board needed to take action on this report. Mr. Davis said staff has
requested that the Board accept the report.
Motion to accept the FY 2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, and approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments.
Ms. Humphris moved the following nominations:
Appoint Ms. Carolyn J. Fowler to the JAUNT Board to replace Ms. Roxanne White with said term to
run from September 30, 2000, through September 29, 2003;
Appoint Mr. Nathaniel D. Perkins to the Housing Committee to replace Mr. Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr.,
with said term to run from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2003;
Appoint Mr. Ross L. Stevens to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee with term to run from
February 7, 2001, through December 31, 2001; and,
Reappoint Mr. William B. Harvey to the Advisory Council on Aging with said term to run from June
1, 2001, through May 31, 2003.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No 21. Approval of Minutes: October 18, November 1, November 8(A), December 6
and December 14, 2000; January 10 and January 17, 2001.
No minutes had been read.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Mr. Davis said the Board has received a request from Ms. Gloria Frye and Ms. Valerie Long, who
represent Home Depot, asking that they be heard. He believes they will ask the Board to reconsider this
morning's vote on the critical slopes waiver.
Ms. Frye said they were disappointed by the vote taken this morning. They were attentive to the
Boards discussion and she is not implying that it was not well thought out, but in looking at the options
=
available to Home Depot at this point, short of any opportunity to have a motion to rehear, their only option
to have the site plan reviewed is to appeal to the Circuit Court. Home Depot asked her what they would be
required to do in order to gain approval of that waiver. She said the Board's policy does not allow a motion
to rehear unless that vote is taken the same day. She knows that Ms. Thomas pointed out how hard the
staff and everybody worked, and the conditions and changes and revisions just before a hearing is a lot for
everybody to digest. They did not have an opportunity today to hear from staff about the additional critical
slopes waiver measurement for stormwater quantity and quality. She is asking if there is an opportunity for
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
a motion to rehear that would give Home Depot the opportunity to recognize the work the staff of the
County has put into this, the possibility to rehear so they can avoid litigation and save everybody the effort
and try to get some good results from the work that has been brought forward today. If the Board would
vote to rehear, she would ask that it be done at the Boards next meeting. In that week, it would give them
=
an opportunity to work with the County Attorney on the questions they feel could be litigated about the way
the Planning Commission reviewed the request. She thanked the Board for letting her make this request
on behalf of Home Depot.
Mr. Davis said the Board's Rules of Procedures allow a motion to reconsider to be made by any
Board member. If that motion passed, it would place the question back in the position it was in before the
vote.
Mr. Tucker said the February 14 meeting is heavily scheduled. He said if the Board does choose to
reconsider, that might be taken into consideration, and the matter placed on the agenda for February 21.
Ms. Thomas said February 21 is when staff is to present the written determination concerning the site plan.
Mr. Martin said he would be glad to put a motion on the floor to reconsider, but that is what was
essentially done in January. He has gotten so many E-mails and been called so many different names, he
does not want to go through that again unless the Board does it with a purpose. Without a purpose in mind,
there is no need to take up the time. One thing he did not mention earlier is that, the Board, in doing what it
did today gave up some concessions that Home Depot had made which would have been
precedent-setting for future applications. The Board gave up a lot that had been offered.
Mr. Dorrier said he is concerned about the amount of money the County will spend in litigation. If,
in good faith, the Board could rehear the issue, delay it a week without precluding how people would vote,
he thinks that would be a step in the right direction by doing everything possible to avoid litigation.
Ms. Thomas said she agreed with Mr. Martin; she thought the Board was giving everybody a
chance to give it their best shot and it did not turn out with an equivalent situation. There is something to
A@
be said about falsely raising the hopes and fears of the neighborhood and the applicant. She thinks that is
what has been going on during the last month. She said the staff and the applicant have worked hard on
this petition.
Mr. Martin said if nothing is going to make a difference, he has always believed you should just live
with it and move on.
Mr. Bowerman said he gave a lot of consideration to this position.
Ms. Humphris said she has given it everything she has. She came to the Planning Commission
meeting last night, and sat for two and one-half hours to see if anything would come forth that would make
a difference. She feels the Board has gone as far as it can go. She does not see what could possibly
change anything.
Mr. Martin said if Ms. Thomas does not think there is anything that would be changed, he will not
make a motion.
Ms. Thomas said she believes everybody came up with their best plan as to how they could use this
property using a waiver. In her mind, that did not measure up and she would hate to put people through
something when she does not think it will measure up.
Mr. Martin said he would like to ask a question just out of curiosity. He said there was a 3:3 tie last
time, and then the Board came back with a motion to rehear. He asked why the Board did it if they were not
thinking of doing it to give people an opportunity to take their best shot. Today, no one even discussed the
critical slopes waiver in terms of what could be done to make it better. Did the Board agree with the last
minute additions by the Planning Commission? The Board did not even have that discussion. It started
rather from it doesnt matter how much you have done, the answer is no. If that was where the discussion
A=@
started from, why did the Board put itself through a month-long period of pain?
Ms. Humphris said there were a lot of different things in the conditions that were developed, and
which the Planning Commission added to. There was the possibility that somebody might have changed
his or her mind. As it turned out, nobody changed his or her mind, but the Board members had that
opportunity.
Mr. Bowerman said there could have been a change in their proposal that would have recognized
some of the critical slopes. There was also the possibility, that one out of three people, based on what they
came back with, would feel it was significant enough, but no one did.
Ms. Thomas said she was always willing to have as much discussion as anybody wanted on the
various conditions. She also sat through the Planning Commission meeting last night and heard the
conditions being discussed. She felt comfortable with the conditions, but not everyone was, so she was
willing to have that discussion.
Mr. Dorrier said the law is moving toward dispute resolution, mediation arbitration as the least costly
way of dealing with problems. He wonders if this is something the other Board members might agree with
as a way to resolve the issue because it is less costly than litigation.
Ms. Humphris said she does not believe cost is what the Board should be considering. She thinks it
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
should look at a Board decision and not someone elses decision. She said the Board must decide what is
=
best for the citizens, and she thinks it has done that.
Mr. Bowerman said he looks at it in terms of the ordinance, and the critical slopes waiver which is
why he did not get into discussion of the conditions.
Mr. Martin said he wont make a motion.
=
Ms. Thomas said the Board appreciates Home Depot coming back and recognizes the good spirit
in which it did so.
__________
Ms. Humphris asked about a letter (discussed earlier in this meeting) received by some Board
members (from EARL) regarding traffic on Earlysville Road. Mr. Tucker said he had not seen the letter
A@
and staff would need time to respond. Mr. Perkins said he had not read the letter closely, but there are a lot
of issues such as the old Cooper Plant being used now, and there is a lot of new truck traffic on the road.
The problem is that some of these truckers get lost going there and have problems turning around. There
may be a need for signage. He has received several complaints about speeding. The people in that area
want to get rid of the trucks, but there is no way to do that as long as that facility is located in that area. On
Route 743 from Route 660 down, he said a sign might be installed warning truckers that the road is not
suitable for their use.
Mr. Bowerman asked why the Board had decided there could not be something from Route 606 to
Route 743. Mr. Martin said a lot of people came in saying they needed to use that road. Mr. Bowerman
said he does not understand why they cannot go from Route 606 along Route 649 out to Route 29. The
segment being complained about is the segment between the Airport and the Rock Store. There is no
reason why there should be an 18-wheeler on that road. Ms. Humphris said it is all a matter of record, and
the Board did have reasons for its decisions. Ms. Thomas asked that staff furnish the Board members with
the minutes before the meeting the residents have set up for February 26 at Broadus Wood School.
__________
Ms. Thomas passed out two resolutions from the Planning District Commission (PDC). She said
that she and Mr. Perkins adopted both of these resolutions as the Boards representatives on the
=
Commission. It would be helpful if this Board would also adopt the resolutions.
Ms. Thomas said the first resolution is complex. H.B. 1261 sets the limits of representation of
locally elected officials on commissions and boards. If this passes, the County could have only one
representative on the PDC, and the PDC could not have a majority consisting of elected officials. The PDC
exists to represent elected bodies and has been stronger in recent years because it has more elected
officials as representatives. This bill is totally counterproductive as to what this Board wants a planning
district commission to consist of and to do.
Ms. Humphris asked the purpose of the bill. Mr. Davis said it was intended to address the issue
where some localities have created water and sewer authorities and they set on the authorities as its board.
He does not know why planning district commissions were included.
Ms. Thomas said the second resolution is asking that the $10,000 cut from the state budget for
each planning district commission be put back into the budget. She said the whole umbrella organization of
government has had its budget cut so they might in turn cut their payments to planning district commissions,
or have to pay more in order to get the same services. She asked that both of the resolutions be adopted.
Motion to adopt the following two resolutions was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr.
Perkins, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly envisioned planning district
commissions would serve the purpose, among other purposes, as a forum for
cooperative and communication for locally elected officials; and
WHEREAS, the commissions have, throughout their history, provided this unique
forum for locally elected officials, and
WHEREAS, there are no other state enabled organizations dedicated to general
purposes, not restricted to a specific topical area, and
WHEREAS, the current configuration of planning district commissions has
fostered communication, cooperation, and an increase in efficiency for localities, and is
valued by the local governments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby entreat the General Assembly to exclude planning district
commissions from the requirements of HB 1261 which limits the representation of locally
elected officials on the commissions.
_____
February 7, 2001 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Virginia approved the biennial budget for
fiscal years 2001-2002; and
WHEREAS, said budget included an increase of $10,000 for each planning
district commission in the Commonwealth, and
WHEREAS, the system of planning districts in the Commonwealth encourage
cooperation, communication, and efficient use of resources, and
WHEREAS, the planning district commissions throughout the Commonwealth
have appreciated the support of the General Assembly, and
WHEREAS, the proposed budget does not include the $10,000 previously
appropriated to planning district commissions,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby urge the General Assembly, in all its wisdom, to continue the
level of funding anticipated in the original budget.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the Thomas Jefferson Eastern Planning Initiative has a meeting tomorrow night.
This is a good chance to be in on the planning for the northern and eastern transportation system for the
community. It has been coming up with interesting computer modules and working out ways to deal with
the densely-packed population around the City. If the population disperses throughout the countryside,
there is a different set of implications, and there are two other scenarios between those two. It is an
interesting process, and is stronger by having people who know what they are talking about come to the
meeting.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she has been going to Richmond during this session of the General Assembly.
The Countys attempt to get authority for a revolving fund loan for Historic Preservation was shot down by
=
the commercial bankers. The Countys attempt to get a Scenic Overlay District was also shot down, but will
=
be remanded back to a committee. There will be a big umbrella committee which will look at growth issues
and the High Growth Coalition is interested in that for the coming year. There are still two scary bills which
have not been voted on: one has to do with how septic tank investigations are done. Another has to do with
reporting how many proffers the County has received in the last ten years. Since Albemarle does not
receive many proffers, that is not a big deal.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date 04/18/2001
Initials LAB